• In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Don't give creationists the attention they crave

#96: May - July 2011 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave

Unread post

ant wrote:
No commonality exists between science and religion?
None whatsoever?
Don't miss the context. We're not talking about religion in such a broad sense. We're talking about creationism which is a fringe subset. A creationist starts with the premise that the Bible is literally true and that the world is thousands of years old. This is willful ignorance of evidence that is the basis of much of our scientific knowledge. Within that context, there's really no commonality between the two sides.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave

Unread post

Understood

Do you believe science and religion share some common aspects?
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17016
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3509 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave

Unread post

Mr Erickson65 wrote:I believe the Universe was created
Where is the evidence?
Mr Erickson65 wrote:I don't go around proselytising because I do not belong to any religion.
You don't have to formally attend church services to be of a certain religion. To be a Christian all you have to do is accept the Bible as the word of God and Jesus as the son of God who died on the cross for your sins. Go to church or not people that accept the Christian Bible are Christians. Christianity is a world religion. Individual Christian churches are denominations. And your sentence doesn't make sense even without the claim that you don't belong to a religion. All members of all religion don't proselytize.
Mr Erickson65 wrote:I find that Atheist are a little on the disingenuous side, they want to create the false impression that All scientists agree that Evolution is the only answer this is not true.
You're either brand new to this topic or just making stuff up.

It is unfair and inaccurate to claim that all atheists argue anything specifically about evolution. All you know about atheists is that they lack the belief in a God or gods. Nothing more. Some atheists believe life arrived on our planet because of transpermia. Some believe aliens brought life here purposely. Some think evolution is nonsense. Some are complete idiots and just wanted to join a group of some sort. All atheists don't think alike and you don't have the evidence to argue that all of them are disingenuous. This is a biased and ignorant statement.

The fact is MOST scientists (not "all") are atheists and MOST scientists accept biological evolution as the theory that best explains the geological and fossil and genetic evidence we see. So now that I have made a claim you have the right to demand evidence. Fortunately, I have it. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm Numerous studies and surveys have been done to support the idea that science education and belief in gods are inversely proportional. Yes, some scientists don't agree with the majority. I ran the numbers last year and I believe it was 700 that accept evolution for every 1 that doesn't. This means that scientists that don't accept evolution are statistical outliers or extremely rare. I'd have to search BookTalk.org for the post I made that had the source for these numbers.

So the point is you're wrong about atheists if you want to argue that ALL atheists think ALL scientists agree with evolution. You would be accurate if you said MOST atheists think MOST scientists accept evolution. There is a significant difference between these two claims. The way you said it atheists are complete idiots. The correct wording shows atheists are educated.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave

Unread post

Chris OConnor wrote:
Mr Erickson65 wrote:I believe the Universe was created
Where is the evidence?
Mr Erickson65 wrote:I don't go around proselytising because I do not belong to any religion.
You don't have to formally attend church services to be of a certain religion. To be a Christian all you have to do is accept the Bible as the word of God and Jesus as the son of God who died on the cross for your sins. Go to church or not people that accept the Christian Bible are Christians. Christianity is a world religion. Individual Christian churches are denominations. And your sentence doesn't make sense even without the claim that you don't belong to a religion. All members of all religion don't proselytize.
Mr Erickson65 wrote:I find that Atheist are a little on the disingenuous side, they want to create the false impression that All scientists agree that Evolution is the only answer this is not true.



Science puts the onus on religion to prove the existence of an intelligence that is responsible for the creation if the universe and consciousness. So be it.

However, science has yet to explain the ORIGIN of life. It (science) can only explain in fragments the processes involved in the development of life.

Score:

Religion = 0
Science = 0

You're either brand new to this topic or just making stuff up.

It is unfair and inaccurate to claim that all atheists argue anything specifically about evolution. All you know about atheists is that they lack the belief in a God or gods. Nothing more. Some atheists believe life arrived on our planet because of transpermia. Some believe aliens brought life here purposely. Some think evolution is nonsense. Some are complete idiots and just wanted to join a group of some sort. All atheists don't think alike and you don't have the evidence to argue that all of them are disingenuous. This is a biased and ignorant statement.

The fact is MOST scientists (not "all") are atheists and MOST scientists accept biological evolution as the theory that best explains the geological and fossil and genetic evidence we see. So now that I have made a claim you have the right to demand evidence. Fortunately, I have it. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm Numerous studies and surveys have been done to support the idea that science education and belief in gods are inversely proportional. Yes, some scientists don't agree with the majority. I ran the numbers last year and I believe it was 700 that accept evolution for every 1 that doesn't. This means that scientists that don't accept evolution are statistical outliers or extremely rare. I'd have to search BookTalk.org for the post I made that had the source for these numbers.
So the point is you're wrong about atheists if you want to argue that ALL atheists think ALL scientists agree with evolution. You would be accurate if you said MOST atheists think MOST scientists accept evolution. There is a significant difference between these two claims. The way you said it atheists are complete idiots. The correct wording shows atheists are educated.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave

Unread post

The absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave

Unread post

ant wrote:The absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.
Ant, I'm guessing you believe in God and you feel threatened by science which is why you seem to want to take science down a peg. But from my perspective, science makes no claims about the existence of God or any other supernatural phenomenon. Science is just a method for exploring our world. Our scientific inquiries are necessarily limited to the physical world. If you believe in something that has no basis in science, no supporting evidence, and especially something that is supernatural, than that is a matter of faith. It really is as simple as that.

This belief of yours may go farther than simple belief in God, however, and maybe that's why you see a conflict with science. Perhaps you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible that says the earth is 6,000 years old. But the vast preponderance of evidence shows that the earth is billions of years old. Is that the nature of your dispute with science?
Last edited by geo on Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
15
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave

Unread post

Science puts the onus on religion to prove the existence of an intelligence that is responsible for the creation if the universe and consciousness. So be it.

However, science has yet to explain the ORIGIN of life. It (science) can only explain in fragments the processes involved in the development of life.

Score:

Religion = 0
Science = 0

Scientists are hot on the trail of the origins of life. It's the study of abiogenesis and you can find a lot of information on it if you give it a go.

I found some excellent videos which go step-by-step on the likely origin of life a while back. I'll see if i can locate them for you.

We have also described, in detail, exactly how animals evolve over time to bring about the dazzling diversity of animal life with methods that are open to the public, repeatable, measureable, traceable, and which provides critical information which cross connects many fields of study.

Check out this thread for further discussion.

http://www.booktalk.org/yes-evolution-t8939.html
However, science has yet to explain the ORIGIN of life.
Religion has yet to explain the origin of anything.

The methods of science are also responsible for literally everything that we can prove we actually know. Engineering, agriculture, medicine, architecture, fabrication, textiles, art, automation, publication, electronics, trans-continental rail and road systems, the assembly line, trans-oceanic telecommunications infrastructure, boats, wheel barrows, hand-axes, satelites, automotives, the calendar, trips to the moon, telecommunications, vaccines, irrigation, sanitation, flight... all of these are only made possible through the use of the scientific method.

Meanwhile the contribution of religion to our understanding of the world? Instances where they can demonstrate that they actually know anything at all about the claims they make? Got any?

Not only have the assertions of religion about our supposed supernatural destinations always and invariably been beyond their ability to certify, a great bit of religious assertions about the things we CAN test have proven to be incredibly wrong-headed and flat out incorrect.

So, a revised scoreboard would more accurately look something like this.

Science = Everything that seperates us from dirt-scratching subsistence gatherers and rat hunters.

Religion = Hot air.

Check here for more discussion:

http://www.booktalk.org/reason-and-wishes-t10899.html

Welcome to the boards, Ant.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave

Unread post

Ant, I'm guessing you believe in God and you feel threatened by science which is why you seem to want to take science down a peg.


I can not say that I believe in a personal God - one who sits in judgment of humans, punishes/rewards, concerns him/herself over situations that are created by man. As for your claim that I wish to take science down a notch, you're actually wrong. I have a great deal of respect for science and its inquisitive nature. Hence, the great majority of my readings are scientific in nature.

There seems to be an arrogant animosity exhibited by people who support science in a dogmatic way, while turning their nose up at people who subscribe to doctrines of faith. This disturbs me. There are limits to language and logic which will (I'm guessing) always prevent us from having a complete understanding of the material world. To presume otherwise is arrogant presumption.


Science is just a method for exploring our world.
I agree.

This belief of yours may go farther than simple belief in God, however, and maybe that's why you see a conflict with science.


I actually believe both science and religion can be reconciled.
Perhaps you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible that says the earth is 6,000 years old. But the vast preponderance of evidence shows that the earth is billions of years old. Is that the nature of your dispute with science?

:lol:

I have no dispute with the practice of science. My dispute is with people that transform science into dogma. They are no better than those lost in religious dogma.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave

Unread post

ant wrote: I have no dispute with the practice of science. My dispute is with people that transform science into dogma. They are no better than those lost in religious dogma.
Very good. We get a few religious trolls here and sometimes you have to feel them out to see where they're coming from. You say science and religion should be reconciled. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by people who transform science into dogma. There are those who are anti-religion, of course.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Don't give creationists the attention they crave

Unread post

You say science and religion should be reconciled.
Not to quibble with words, but I said I believe science and religion CAN be reconciled, not SHOULD be. :)
Post Reply

Return to “A Devil's Chaplain - by Richard Dawkins”