The creationists–that is, the modern, American creationists, who call themselves “scientific” creationists, or creation “scientists”–say this is a scientific debate, and not just a philsophical/theological argument. They claim that the scientific evidence favors their account of the history of the world and the development of life. They are wrong.
Speaking as a Christian and a (gasp)one-time creationist, what shattered the illusion for me was realising:
[li]The Bible isn’t a science book and doesn’t pretend to be.[/li][li]Almost the entire creationist argument seems to consist of [shaky]criticism of misconcieved views of evolution, it presents comparatively little in the way of it’s own evidence.[/li][li]On those rare occasions where creationism does present what appears to be a hard fact, it quickly retreats into some supernatural patch-up explanation when challenged (e.g. God suspended the metabolic process for Noah’s animals, so he wouldn’t have to feed them etc.) - this isn’t science![/li]
I had and still have [pretty much] unshakable reason to believe in God (I won’t blather on about it; if you’re interested, you can find some of the details in this thread), but all this creationist stuff comes from misguided humans, not from God; God wants me to use my [open]mind, I’m sure of this.
The surface area of the Earth is nearly two hundred million square miles. Two miles of ice (in some areas) on Antarctica isn’t going to add up to that much of an increase in sea levels. According to this site, melting all of Antarctica’s ice, which is 90% of the Earth’s ice, will raise the sea levels by 200 ft. Not enough to cover Mt Ararat, much less Everest.
Good luck convincing fundies of anything. Attempting to do so ignores the fact that they are operating from a very different paradigm as scientists. I would guess that the fundamentalist process of logic goes something like this:
I have a personal relationship with Jesus that I know in my heart of hearts to be real.
This relationship with Jesus would not be possible if Christianity were not true.
Therefore, Christianity must be true.
Of course, nothing in this line of reasoning implies that everything in the Bible must be true, or must be taken 100% literally. That is generally a matter of experience. Most fundies grow up in fundy households, or at least convert very early. As such, the only way that they can understand the Bible (and Christianity) to be “true” is in the strictest, 100% literal sense.
This is why arguing evolution from the physical evidence is pretty much useless. Their decision to reject evolution is not based upon the evidence of evolution, but on the evidence of Christianity (their relationship with Jesus), which they see as contradictory to evolution.
So, how do you argue with a fundamentalist? There is very strong evidence that education, intelligence, and exposure to other ideas are all inversely related to religious fundamentalism and dogmatism. So perhaps something totally unrelated to evolution, like James’ Varieties of Religious Experience, or a scholarly book on the Bible (Gordon’s The Bible and the Ancient Near East is very conservative and relatively unoffensive to fundamentalists) would be the greatest help, becuase such a book could change the underlying beliefs which lead to a rejection of evolution. There are even some Christian apologists (Metzger, I think) who acknowledge the mythological underpinnings of the first 11 chapters of Genesis.
There is anecdotal evidence that such personal “paradigm shifts” are indeed quite successful. I know of several people who have “deconverted” from Christianity, whose opinions on a variety of other seemingly unrelated issues–evolution, abortion rights, etc.–all change. Somehow, all of that evidence against evolution that was so convincing when the person was a fundamentalist loses its magic when s/he is no longer one.
Something like that; or sometimes the other way around:
If you acknowledge creation to be a myth, you accept that the Bible is not 100% literally true.
In this case, how can you believe any of it?
Better not ask those questions then…
Honestly, speaking as someone who has ‘been there’ - creationism is mental slavery, it could possibly even be described as idolatry - i.e. the [human-interpreted]idea is to be supported at all cost and becomes an object of necessary worship in it’s own right.
This would be much more convincing if I had actual sources and specific examples to back it up, but unfortunately my only background on the subject is a Discovery channel documentary whose title I’ve forgotten, and I didn’t have my notepad with me. Anyway, there are flood myths in many civilizations, in disparate cultures that (as far as anyone knows) had no direct contact until centuries later. Of course, the stories differ in many respects, but also have a surprising number of similarities. (Perhaps someone who was paying more attention to said documentary or the source material can give some specific examples, because I’m drawing a blank here.)
The one thing that always strikes me about these discussions is how quick people are to note the limitations of religion, but are much less ready to accept the limitations of science. As several people have said more eloquently than I can, there is the realm of science and the realm of faith, and the two can coexist peacefully without each trying to do the job of or contradict the other. Why the need to “convert” these “fundies” unless they’re trying to convince you of things that you know not to be true? What would the reaction have been to this thread had the question been “I know a lot of aggies (agnostics). Some are even atheists. I need as simple, condescending a way as possible to explain to them how their entire belief system is a lie and they’re condemned to burn in hellfire for eternity.”
Am I a fundie?
I don’t think so.
I’ve always (since 78) believed in od and the bble.
I’d always believed God created the world in 6 days (without proof of course).
Its a matter of faith.
To me, it doesn’t matter, we’re here now, so how we got here is moot.
And I can’t be a fundy, I voted for Nader…
I’ve heard told that if the “days” of creation were say, 1,000 years, the plants would’ve died before the sun was created.
Or something like that.
ultrafilter, I’ve also read that there were no mountainsefore the flood; thereby making it a little easier to cover the whole earth. Sortof like they were made BY the flood (the rush of waters cracked the earth and pushed up the mountains).
I will print this for them, but I know what they’ll say.“You should avoid that Straight Dope, its a bad influence.”
Because that’s what “fighting ignorance”, the purpose of this board, is all about.
Agreed that it’s usually futile to try to rebut religious faith with an explanation of the scientific method. It’s possible to counter a religious argument with another religious argument, though. Like this:
The evidence of God’s creation is all around you, visible to you either through the naked eye, or through telescopes or microscopes, and in every geological process and museum of paleontology. This creation is a glorious one. Exploring how it works and why is to revel in this grand creation, and thereby honor God. The more we understand about it, looking at all the facts and trying to uncover the framework that connects it, the closer we become to God. To reject the things that exploring God’s creation all around us tells us, and instead embrace some stories some fellow humans wrote thousands of years ago, puts humans above God Himself. How can we do that?
Elvis, I like that. The thought of a God who, through the onetime injection of nearly boundless energy, the imposition of a few rules we are only now starting to understand, and the use of an almost unimaginable period of time, can appeal to open-minded sorts. The universe in which I live is much more magnificent than the young, small, magically inexplicable, and anthrocentric universe of creationists.
A good read on the origins of the Bible is “Testament” by John Romer. You see how it was not only written by fallible humans but has been reassembled many times, sometimes incorporating parts of the belief systems of neighboring faiths. A reason for the commonness of the Flood story is that they all borrowed it from each other. Like urban legends, universality does not equate literal truth.
You could start by checking out a little bit of geology with your pals, making sure to hand off to God often. Just a little bit of knowledge of geology will allow you to perform the most astounding demonstrations of the rather curious sense of humor that God has.
“This rockface almost looks like a river bed, except it’s skewed at 45 degrees. We can explain this process without God, but unfortunately it would take a lot longer than six thousand years. If this layer of rock actually was once a river bed, you could look for embedded shells. Of course we know that God created the earth six thousand years ago, so… oops! I’ve accidentally scraped out this shell. Heh. God sure works in mysterious ways, doesn’t he…?”
Being able to predict what you will find among the rocks may well be illuminating to your average thumper. Sooner or later, they’re going to figure out that you’re making accurate guesses, using a way of thinking that doesn’t properly bow to the teachings of the Good Book. Once luck is ruled out, Thumper is going to have to explain away your accuracy by saying that God willed it to be so. Suddenly, Thumper has to deal with the concept of a God that is playing games. Of course, Thumper is just as likely to believe that you were sent by the Devil to play tricks on him, and you’re all alone with him out in the woods…
Maybe it’s a better idea to have them test to see if they still feel a tingling sensation when they touch a television screen tuned to Full House instead of Robert Tilton.
Sure, lots of cultures have flood myths. Some cultures don’t. (Does Egypt have a Deluge myth? The floods of the Nile were very different from the floods of the Tigris and Euphrates.) Floods are one of your Basic Disasters; outside of Mesoamerica, no one has ever come up with an end of the world scenario involving everyone being eaten by jaguars, but most people through history have lived near some body of water–people gotta drink, and the crops need watering. Also note that, in some cases, we may well be talking about “cultural diffusion”–the Greek story of Deucalion is similar to our familiar tale of Noah, which in turn resembles the even earlier tale of Utnapishtim. These probably all come from the same source–the Sumerians had the story first, and it was borrowed by the Israelites, and even the Greeks, who aren’t impossibly far away from Mesopotamia.
My point about expecting to find historical and archaelogical evidence of a Universal Deluge is that we know of civilizations which have left traces, or even written records, that go back quite a ways. According to the chrnology of Archbishop Ussher (who gave us 4004 B.C. as the Year One), the Flood began on November 25, 2348 B.C.. On that date in history, Ancient Egypt was ruled by the 5th Dynasty. Fifth Dynasty Egyptians weren’t illiterate savages; they would presumably have noticed if they’d all been wiped off the face of the Earth–and we would notice, as well.
Granted, November 25, 2348 B.C., and Archbishop Ussher’s chronology in general, are not necessarily on the cutting-edge of creationist thought any more. But, for any date you set for a world-wide flood, you run into the inescapable problem that this should be a glaringly obvious archaelogical and historical discontinuity. The Biblical flood would have killed everybody, destroyed or damaged much of their physical works, and furthermore, members of all existing civilizations all over the world would have been killed and replaced by the direct descendants of Noah and his sons, so there should be a huge cultural gap as well–different architectural styles, different kinds of pottery, different languages, etc. None of which is to be found. (Note that this obviously applies to the most literalist account of the Biblical Deluge, and not to theories that some really large but localized flood provided the “grain of truth” behind the Sumerian, Jewish, or Greek stories.)
As has already been noted, partly it’s just a question of Fighting Ignorance. What “harm” do the Moon Landing Hoaxers do? I’d also point out that the teaching of evolutionary science and the teaching of creationism in public schools has causes major political debates in the United States, so it’s not just an academic point. Finally, there is a difference between “I know a lot of aggies (agnostics). Some are even atheists. I need as simple, condescending a way as possible to explain to them how their entire belief system is a lie and they’re condemned to burn in hellfire for eternity” or “I know a lot of Godists (theists). Some are even fundies. I need as simple, condescending a way as possible to explain to them how their entire belief system is a lie and they’re just going to rot after they die” versus “How can I debunk the claims of these Flat Earthers/Moon Landing Hoaxers/Creationists?” Debates about theism vs. atheism are philsophical debates; creationism is a debate about facts, between science and pseudoscience.
Sofa, now you’ve gotten me thinking about the cute little bunny in Bambi (Thumper).
Don’t tell me he’s a fundie?
A few threads about evolution and creationism do just fine in GQ. This isn’t one of them.
Actually, there’s a much easier refutation of this idea. When water freezes, it expands (we know that because ice floats on water). Thus, if water from the flood was locked in the ice caps, those ice caps would have a greater volume than the flood waters.
Naw, Bambi’s Thumper is far too wise:
“If you can’t say somethin’ nice, don’t say nothin’ at all.”
Thus, Bambi’s Thumper distances himself both from the people of whom we speak and my own self.
And how did the animals native to Australia get there?
Certainly you know that all the land masses were connected at least twice. When Australia became separate from the other lands, its evolution took a different course. That’s why kangaroos and their relatives are only found in Australia. Other animals, such as birds, could have found other ways of getting there. Seeds could have traveled in the wind, etc.
Yeah - nice try. Australia was last connected to the other land masses at about the same time as the aborigines arrived here. Seeing that was approx 40,000 years ago, this is not an argument that is going to prove particularly useful to fundies.
Podkayne wrote:
I hate to sound like I’m taking the Fundies’ side here, but that’s not entirely accurate.
As the site you linked to mentions, sea levels can rise not only because of polar ice melting, but also because seawater expands as it gets warmer. If the Earth got warm enough to melt the entire Antarctic polar ice cap, you can bet your last 30 pieces of silver that the oceans would be warm enough to undergo some serious thermal expansion – so much so that the expansion might contribute more to rising sea levels than the Antartic ice cap’s melting would.
Even so, a 400 or 500 foot rise in sea levels still wouldn’t come close to submerging even the shortest mountains.