Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:19 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 108 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Almost Awesome


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 924
Thanks: 42
Thanked: 541 times in 408 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
http://www.christianpost.com/news/evolu ... se-113754/



The following user would like to thank DB Roy for this post:
Chris OConnor, Robert Tulip
Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:24 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6053
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2478
Thanked: 2435 times in 1827 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
This debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham has its own wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye% ... Ham_debate

The "no intellectual purpose" crowd are pompous fools whose narrow scientific outlooks illustrate a failure to see the role of myth in formation of meaning. The YEC myth is central to Western Civilization. Deconstructing YEC undermines the entire alienated framework of mythical meaning which enabled Europe to conquer the world. For scientists to imagine that facts alone can win in this values debate is a superficial approach.

Quote:
Leaders of two humanist groups – the American Humanist Association (AHA) and the Center for Inquiry – praised Nye's decision to participate in the debate.[12] AHA director of development and communications Maggie Ardiente told the Washington Post, "I am looking at statistics and they tell me people like Ken Ham and other creationists are being very effective and that is a serious problem. We can't just ignore that. We have to challenge people like Ken Ham so I support the debate 100 percent."[12] Debbie Goddard, the Center for Inquiry's director of outreach, concurred: "If we don't let [creationists'] ideas see the light of day we can't develop the tools to address them. And we don't just need the tools of facts and evidence, but also of understanding their views and compassion for them if we want to be effective at changing their minds."[12]


_________________
http://rtulip.net


The following user would like to thank Robert Tulip for this post:
geo, Vishnu
Tue May 17, 2016 3:57 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 705 times in 605 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
Robert Tulip wrote:
This debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham has its own wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye% ... Ham_debate

The "no intellectual purpose" crowd are pompous fools whose narrow scientific outlooks illustrate a failure to see the role of myth in formation of meaning. The YEC myth is central to Western Civilization. Deconstructing YEC undermines the entire alienated framework of mythical meaning which enabled Europe to conquer the world. For scientists to imagine that facts alone can win in this values debate is a superficial approach.



Quote:
Leaders of two humanist groups – the American Humanist Association (AHA) and the Center for Inquiry – praised Nye's decision to participate in the debate.[12] AHA director of development and communications Maggie Ardiente told the Washington Post, "I am looking at statistics and they tell me people like Ken Ham and other creationists are being very effective and that is a serious problem. We can't just ignore that. We have to challenge people like Ken Ham so I support the debate 100 percent."[12] Debbie Goddard, the Center for Inquiry's director of outreach, concurred: "If we don't let [creationists'] ideas see the light of day we can't develop the tools to address them. And we don't just need the tools of facts and evidence, but also of understanding their views and compassion for them if we want to be effective at changing their minds."[12]


Hi Robert. There are a couple of issues here. The age of the earth, and whether neo-Darwinian macro-evolution is true or not. And of course there are theistic evolutionists also.

Without reopening the debate I think it's interesting that a highly qualified professor of chemistry like James M Tour can say that no one can explain to him the mechanisms for macro-evolution.

I accept that it's the prevalent majority view but sometimes I get the impression that they are claiming to know a lot more than they actually do.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... evolution/



Last edited by Flann 5 on Wed May 18, 2016 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.



The following user would like to thank Flann 5 for this post:
geo
Wed May 18, 2016 2:32 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4601
Location: NC
Thanks: 2059
Thanked: 2103 times in 1564 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
Robert Tulip wrote:
The "no intellectual purpose" crowd are pompous fools whose narrow scientific outlooks illustrate a failure to see the role of myth in formation of meaning. The YEC myth is central to Western Civilization. Deconstructing YEC undermines the entire alienated framework of mythical meaning which enabled Europe to conquer the world. For scientists to imagine that facts alone can win in this values debate is a superficial approach.


I actually agree with Zimmerman that these kinds of debates serve no intellectual purpose. The debates almost always pit creationism against evolution and neither side is ever going to see the validity of the other. The role of myth doesn't get discussed at all, though I agree that it would be a refreshing change of pace.

In fact, I see such debates as only polarizing. These conversations tend to go in circles because, as you have said, religion has social meaning and function independent of the supposed existence of a supernatural entity. But materialists typically ignore this social function of religion; they are entirely focused on the question of God's existence. The two sides only talk past one another.

Recently I came across a great discussion between some science educators, who were reacting to a recent article on The Huffington Post that essentially blames science education for Americans' unwillingness to accept evolution. (The article was eventually taken down). There are cultural differences that have to be addressed before science education can make a difference. In other words, it's complicated. Personally, I have argued that evolution by natural evolution is simply very unintuitive for some people. The most important element is in understanding such cultural and perhaps even biological differences that make us all different and recognizing that diversity in world views is not necessarily a bad thing. More important is not talking down to each other.

Here's an exchange from the blog. if you click the link at the bottom, you can go ahead and read Part 2.

Quote:
Amanda Glaze: Stephanie, I have to agree with you here on all points. On reading the piece my initial thoughts were “wow, this is a full-out onslaught on science education as a whole.” I find Spadafino’s approach to this very interesting because this approach is precisely what we all (Caitlin, Ian, Chris, Adam, you) specifically recommend against in teaching evolution to others. If you attack someone in an effort to “help” him or her all you are doing is shutting down the conversation from the word “go.” I will acknowledge that Spadafino states that he is not saying that all science teachers are bad per se, but from the title and throughout the post that message is lost and what is being said is, “science education is to blame.”

IB: I agree here with your point about not “attacking” people. I’ve always argued that the moment we are perceived as attacking someone, or something central to his or her identity like a belief system, we’ve lost. The conversation is over at that point.

Chris Lynn: Definitely. This type of hubris and finger wagging shuts down any hope of consilience. And the problem is such a subtle one that a heavy-handed approach is not only not helpful, but arguably harmful. I’m glad the Huffington Post took the post down.


http://ncse.com/blog/2016/05/america-s- ... se-0017041


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
Flann 5, Robert Tulip
Wed May 18, 2016 3:30 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5936
Thanks: 1381
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
What does it mean to actually "accept evolution" in the context of social and personal well-being?

How has accepting evolution increased happiness and social cohesion?
Can you give me some examples of a culture's experience of success when they "accepted evolution"?
How was that measured?

Thanks



Wed May 18, 2016 4:56 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4601
Location: NC
Thanks: 2059
Thanked: 2103 times in 1564 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
ant wrote:
What does it mean to actually "accept evolution" in the context of social and personal well-being?

How has accepting evolution increased happiness and social cohesion?
Can you give me some examples of a culture's experience of success when they "accepted evolution"?
How was that measured?

Thanks


I've never heard anyone claim that understanding the natural world provides the bonding experience or social function of religion. On the other hand, we all benefit from having an informed citizenry. If some religious beliefs run counter to a scientific understanding of the natural world, that's not really good for society.

I think your question attempts to compare the benefits of religion with the benefits of science. But the two areas address fundamentally different areas of human experience.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
Chris OConnor
Wed May 18, 2016 5:55 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6053
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2478
Thanked: 2435 times in 1827 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
geo wrote:
I actually agree with Zimmerman that these kinds of debates serve no intellectual purpose.
Zimmerman argued that "Unfortunately, this debate, like so many others before it, regardless of its content, will lead people to think that evolution and creationism have equal standing and that there's something significant to debate."

The trouble with this argument is that 40% of Americans already believe in YEC, and just as many believe theist nonsense that fails to see the beauty and grandeur of natural causality as the mechanism of 'creation'. So the audience for this debate should not be seen as hard core creationist lunatics but as the ignorant general public who we can pray may be open to being swayed by evidence.

Zimmerman just spouts more of the arrogant Dawkins nonsense that there is nothing significant to debate, since there is a major sociological question of why so many people are so deluded by YEC. The debate here is not the hard science of biology but the soft science of theology.
geo wrote:
The debates almost always pit creationism against evolution and neither side is ever going to see the validity of the other.
Yes, and that illustrates why the article cited on Dawkins’ website saying that only specialists in evolutionary science are qualified to present the case for science is so spectacularly delusional. Specialists in evolution are precisely not the people who should lead this debate since the debate is about sociology and theology, not hard science.

What is required is experts in theology and sociology who can be informed by evolutionary experts. But putting up some egghead in a political debate of this type will not sway the masses. For Dawkins to imagine that his training in biology qualifies him to lead public debate on the philosophy of science and religion is arrogant on his part. I really like and admire Richard Dawkins, but the questions he discusses around religion require greater familiarity with theology than he displays.
geo wrote:
The role of myth doesn't get discussed at all, though I agree that it would be a refreshing change of pace.
Yes, it would be an extremely refreshing change to shift the agenda to how YEC functions in mythic terms. But that involves areas such as Jungian psychology, and Dawkins and co look down their sneering noses at that whole area with disdain. Dawkins’ ignorant dismissal of Jung, a fellow atheist, in his book The God Delusion illustrated that the pomposity of scientism knows few bounds.
geo wrote:
In fact, I see such debates as only polarizing.
Indeed, when the scientific argument amounts to telling Joe Public that if only he could get an advanced degree from an Ivy League University then he would not be such an idiot, it is polarizing and useless. What is required is some respect for how religion functions in society, something all too absent in atheist circles.
geo wrote:
These conversations tend to go in circles because, as you have said, religion has social meaning and function independent of the supposed existence of a supernatural entity.
Yes, there is a profoundly deep allegory in the story of Jesus Christ as cosmic redeemer, in ways that are 100% compatible with a materialist physical understanding of reality. But it is almost as though the atheists think that admitting the comfort and meaning provided by Jesus would be giving ground to the opposition forces of darkness, so they want to expel all traditional belief and promote the farcical idea that we can establish social values using science alone. I prefer to retain tradition while discussing how it has meaning within a scientific framework.
geo wrote:
But materialists typically ignore this social function of religion; they are entirely focused on the question of God's existence. The two sides only talk past one another.
Too true. Now some will say you (let alone me) are letting the side down by criticizing materialists. I am a materialist, but I am really interested in the material nature of apparently spiritual phenomena, a question that evolutionists by and large are not equipped to discuss, hence the weak interest in memetics as a philosophical topic.

How ideas persist through time is a fascinating major complex problem for materialism, resolvable in principle but, like free will, very difficult to explain in a way that links to cultural perceptions. Spirit appears to be independent of matter, as the will appears to be independent of matter. This appearance of spirit is a topic for the philosophical method known as phenomenology, but that is so far out from the scientific ken that as you say, the scientists lack the tools to engage in productive conversation with people who don’t agree with them.
geo wrote:
Recently I came across a great discussion between some science educators, who were reacting to a recent article on The Huffington Post that essentially blames science education for Americans' unwillingness to accept evolution. (The article was eventually taken down). There are cultural differences that have to be addressed before science education can make a difference. In other words, it's complicated.
Yes. When Sam Harris argues that atheism is not a worldview he is being incredibly naïve. The problem is that when people have a worldview but are not fully conscious of that fact, they open themselves to perceptions of untrustworthiness.

This is the problem that the culture of science has produced, that they imagine their advocacy of evolution is solely about facts, when in fact the reception of this advocacy is seen primarily in terms of its impact on values, to which many science educators remain oblivious.
geo wrote:
Personally, I have argued that evolution by natural evolution is simply very unintuitive for some people.
Like quantum mechanics, relativity, plate tectonics, black holes and the law of supply and demand in markets. Many scientific facts are highly mysterious and counter-intuitive, even the fact that sunrise is an incorrect term.

Dawkins began to address this problem of the psychology of intuition in The Magic of Reality by saying he views the beauty of nature with awe and reverence, terms which are warm buttons for some atheists.

What Darwin called 'a certain grandeur' in the evolutionary framework has to link to the deep neural needs for worship, belonging, meaning and purpose before it can become intuitive for mass culture. That means the cultural debate about creation has to occur on the dread terrain of metaphysics, not simply within the paradigm of physics.
geo wrote:
The most important element is in understanding such cultural and perhaps even biological differences that make us all different and recognizing that diversity in world views is not necessarily a bad thing. More important is not talking down to each other.
A theme that I have previously raised in terms of the social traction of YEC is that for Saint Paul, YEC provides the entire framework of Christian meaning, since he believed that Christ came to repair Adam’s sin. If there is no Adam, there is no need for Christ, in that traditional literal understanding of Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

I do not think that theology has properly grappled with this problem of how to see the meaning of Christ’s work within a scientific evolutionary context. So it remains the case for atheists that accepting evolution means denying Christ, and that is a bridge too far for communities who see Christ as the foundation of patriarchal order and social values.

As I have said before, YEC is the outer rampart of the castle of faith, whose citadel is the saving grace of Christ. If that citadel can be explained in scientific terms, especially with the shocking recognition that part of the fallen nature of man involved the fact that Jesus was invented and was not historical, there might be a better debate about the seemingly intractable false beliefs held by creationists.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


The following user would like to thank Robert Tulip for this post:
geo
Wed May 18, 2016 6:12 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 705 times in 605 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
We all know that there are many issues related to this whole topic.There are worldview perspectives like philosophical naturalism and Theism.

So Richard Dawkins would say the theory provides a naturalistic explanation for life. He admits he has no idea how first life came into being.

Then there is the conflict about the actual science. While many Christians accept the theory others reject it and not just on religious grounds but scientific grounds.

Michael Denton who rejects Neo-Darwinism does so on scientific not religious grounds,for example. He raises many real objections that in my opinion are not answered by the theory.

He has some sort of structuralist laws based theory that would probably actually fit well with Robert's ideas.But Denton knows he doesn't have an adequate discovered naturalistic mechanism any more than Neo-Darwinism does.

We're talking about macro-evolution. Micro is uncontroversial.

Now we are told that it's all sewn up and there should be no controversy on the science, but there you go, some people don't think so.

James Tour has problems with the chemistry side of things and is skeptical because of that. You could say,well that's because he's a Christian.

Francis Collins is a Christian and a scientist and he accepts it,so it's not that simple. It is pointless re-running the debate on the science here,but I think real skeptics should give a hearing to skeptics like Denton, and evaluate their arguments.



Last edited by Flann 5 on Wed May 18, 2016 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed May 18, 2016 6:47 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Addict

BookTalk.org Moderator
Book Discussion Leader
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2272
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 101
Thanked: 900 times in 698 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
Mr. Tulip wrote:
Dawkins’ ignorant dismissal of Jung, a fellow atheist, in his book The God Delusion illustrated that the pomposity of scientism knows few bounds.

If Jung was an atheist, he certainly was a very unusual one. When asked if he believed in God, Jung answered "Belief is OK for some people, but I know God exists." Also if you look at the drawings in his Red Book, Jung depicts Philemon (below) and other mystical Spirit Guides that he encountered. That's a strange version of atheism - I don't see how it qualifies as such.

Image



The following user would like to thank LanDroid for this post:
Chris OConnor, Robert Tulip
Wed May 18, 2016 7:21 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6053
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2478
Thanked: 2435 times in 1827 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
LanDroid wrote:
Mr. Tulip wrote:
Dawkins’ ignorant dismissal of Jung, a fellow atheist, in his book The God Delusion illustrated that the pomposity of scientism knows few bounds.

If Jung was an atheist, he certainly was a very unusual one. When asked if he believed in God, Jung answered "Belief is OK for some people, but I know God exists." Also if you look at the drawings in his Red Book, Jung depicts Philemon (below) https://jungcollectedworks.files.wordpr ... k-0111.jpg and other mystical Spirit Guides that he encountered. That's a strange version of atheism - I don't see how it qualifies as such.

Hi Landroid, thanks. You have misquoted Jung. It looks like you are referring to Jung’s most famous televised quote after he was asked if he believed in God. His reply included the famous words “I don’t need to believe, I know” (Jung 1959a, p. 428). See https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/201 ... ge-of-god/ which links to the interview and to Jung’s clarification, where he rejects the suggestion that “my view of a god is the universal, metaphysical Being of the confessions or ‘philosophies’.”

This rejection places Jung in the atheist camp, although of course atheism has so many associations that such a statement is highly complex.

http://steve.myers.co/jungs-regret-over ... ve-i-know/ says “his reply caused some furore at the time and, in the decades since, it has been quoted by many – such as Richard Dawkins who cites it as an example of blind faith (Dawkins 2006, p. 51). Jung immediately regretted his answer – because of its controversial, puzzling, or ambiguous nature (Jung 1959b). To understand why, we need to take a look at the context of the interview, and the background of Jung’s attitude towards God.”

You have paraphrased Jung’s statement and added the point about the existence of God, which was not in Jung’s actual statement and significantly narrows and changes its meaning. Precision on such a point is valuable, given that Jung’s top philosophical influences included Kant, known as “the all destroyer” for his critique of proofs of the existence of God, Schopenhauer, among the most renowned atheists of all time, and Freud, likewise a renowned and even notorious atheist.

Jung’s atheism is of the mystical pantheist Gnostic variety, which respects discussion of divinity but, like in the dual aspect theory of Spinoza, sees divinity as purely natural, as manifest in the order of the universe. So, as to the assumption that existence is a necessary attribute of God, together with being personal, intentional, an entity, etc, it appears that Jung’s theory of God was none of these, but was an allegorical psychological symbol.

His position as the genius and founder of modern depth psychology meant that for Jung, divinity was an inward symbolic journey into the unifying archetypes of existence, focused on psychological goals of the individuation of the personality in conscience. Jung was primarily a scientist and doctor, despite some of his pseudoscientific mystical writings, and his Gnostic views on God were compatible with the basic atheist view that God does not exist.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


The following user would like to thank Robert Tulip for this post:
Chris OConnor
Wed May 18, 2016 10:57 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 705 times in 605 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
Robert Tulip wrote:
geo wrote:
I actually agree with Zimmerman that these kinds of debates serve no intellectual purpose.


Zimmerman argued that "Unfortunately, this debate, like so many others before it, regardless of its content, will lead people to think that evolution and creationism have equal standing and that there's something significant to debate."

The trouble with this argument is that 40% of Americans already believe in YEC, and just as many believe theist nonsense that fails to see the beauty and grandeur of natural causality as the mechanism of 'creation'. So the audience for this debate should not be seen as hard core creationist lunatics but as the ignorant general public who we can pray may be open to being swayed by evidence.


I think Robert that you make a good argument here for debate rather than shunning as leprous lunatics. You do use this sort of language yourself though. I obviously disagree with your "theist nonsense" assertion.

A universe from nothing? Now that is nonsense.

Robert Tulip wrote:
Zimmerman just spouts more of the arrogant Dawkins nonsense that there is nothing significant to debate, since there is a major sociological question of why so many people are so deluded by YEC. The debate here is not the hard science of biology but the soft science of theology.


But it's precisely the hard science of biology and chemistry that James Tour is asking for. Don't just say evolution dunnit. Explain the biochemical mechanisms and how it dunnit or even could have dunnit. Extrapolation from micro-evolution is not good enough.

Robert Tulip wrote:
geo wrote:
Personally, I have argued that evolution by natural evolution is simply very unintuitive for some people.


Like quantum mechanics, relativity, plate tectonics, black holes and the law of supply and demand in markets. Many scientific facts are highly mysterious and counter-intuitive, even the fact that sunrise is an incorrect term.


I think what is un-intuitive is the idea that these beautiful highly coordinated living things are not purposefully designed.
Intelligent thinking humans struggle to even comprehend this great complexity. And yet we are to believe that mindless inanimate matter combined with chance produced this and us.

Thus R.D. speaks of "giving the appearance of having being designed for a purpose."

Robert Tulip wrote:
What Darwin called 'a certain grandeur' in the evolutionary framework has to link to the deep neural needs for worship, belonging, meaning and purpose before it can become intuitive for mass culture. That means the cultural debate about creation has to occur on the dread terrain of metaphysics, not simply within the paradigm of physics.


I agree that these are realities embedded in human nature.I fail to see though why a mindless purposeless process of inanimate matter which we are told is primarily about survival and the passing on of genes should produce anything of the sort.
Being solitary works just fine for the survival of leopards while lions are social. Do lions need belonging while leopards don't?
Not for survival and gene replication apparently.

Robert Tulip wrote:
As I have said before, YEC is the outer rampart of the castle of faith, whose citadel is the saving grace of Christ. If that citadel can be explained in scientific terms, especially with the shocking recognition that part of the fallen nature of man involved the fact that Jesus was invented and was not historical, there might be a better debate about the seemingly intractable false beliefs held by creationists.


We've covered this ground in the thread on Carrier's book and I disagree with you Robert for the reasons I've given there.



Last edited by Flann 5 on Thu May 19, 2016 4:39 am, edited 1 time in total.



The following user would like to thank Flann 5 for this post:
geo
Thu May 19, 2016 4:18 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4601
Location: NC
Thanks: 2059
Thanked: 2103 times in 1564 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
Flann 5 wrote:
I think what is un-intuitive is the idea that these beautiful highly coordinated living things are not purposefully designed.
Intelligent thinking humans struggle to even comprehend this great complexity. And yet we are to believe that mindless inanimate matter combined with chance produced this and us.


Sorry, I can't resist. Here's an example of a beautiful highly coordinated living thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXqIb4Tp3XA

Or, as William Blake said: Did he who made the Lamb make thee?


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
Chris OConnor, Flann 5
Thu May 19, 2016 7:05 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6053
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2478
Thanked: 2435 times in 1827 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
Flann 5 wrote:
I think Robert that you make a good argument here for debate rather than shunning as leprous lunatics. You do use this sort of language yourself though. I obviously disagree with your "theist nonsense" assertion.
The real constructive debates about creationism should be between evolutionary scientists and Christian theologians who endorse evolution, or between such theologians and creationists. Scientists and creationists are too far apart in worldview for dialogue. If theologians who respect the social function of religion can build a model of Christianity that is consistent with science, it may even be possible to develop a way that ‘washed in the blood of the lamb’ type language can be deconstructed and reverse engineered into something sensible rather than its current status of irrational emotional comfort.
Flann 5 wrote:
A universe from nothing? Now that is nonsense.
Science has vastly more information on cosmology than theology does. Looking to theology for answers in ways that do not engage with astrophysics is useless.
Flann 5 wrote:
Explain the biochemical mechanisms. Extrapolation from micro-evolution is not good enough.
I am not going to engage with your nonsense here Flann. I was particularly impressed by Richard Alley’s point that I recently drew to your attention in our conversation on Bill Nye and climate change. It is like he had a big sign on his desk saying “It’s causality, stupid.” None of these ID red herrings engage with causality.
Flann 5 wrote:
I think what is un-intuitive is the idea that these beautiful highly coordinated living things are not purposefully designed.
In assessing what is true, we do not rely on our naïve intuition, but test and analyse the data to attempt to falsify hypotheses. This testing leads to conclusions which clash in very weird ways with our intuition, for example in quantum entanglement. A great scientist Dr JBS Haldane described the universe as ‘queerer than we can suppose.’ For logical people, we respect the repeatable findings of science which indicate that these strange findings are true. We do not say, I can’t understand it so it is wrong. That is how creationists think. That is why creationists are generally viewed as cretinous.
Flann 5 wrote:
Intelligent thinking humans struggle to even comprehend this great complexity. And yet we are to believe that mindless inanimate matter combined with chance produced this and us.
Scientist are humble before the complexity of nature and the vast unknown, and do not claim to comprehend it. The real impious arrogance comes from theists who maintain that they can discern attributes of a personal entity who allegedly designed natural processes, even though these beliefs are far better explained as the product of ancient politics than as being true. As Einstein said, “I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge.”

The extremely long time over which life has evolved provides a clear causal framework for the slow emergence of complex life.
Flann 5 wrote:
Thus R.D. speaks of "giving the appearance of having being designed for a purpose."
Yes of course, eyes look like they have been designed to see, so that is why creationists think that. But when people studied it carefully they found this appearance is an illusion. Evolution is so abundantly elegant and parsimonious in its causal predictions and explanations that any suggestion of a designer is as useless as wings on a pig. Pigs don’t have wings, and life does not have a designing God. Here is a site about prediction in evolution http://answersinscience.org/evo_science.html
Flann 5 wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:
neural needs for worship, belonging, meaning and purpose

I fail to see though why a mindless purposeless process of inanimate matter which we are told is primarily about survival and the passing on of genes should produce anything of the sort.
Evolution is pure mathematics. When a mutation can occur it does occur, at a regular random rate. Only the adaptive mutations endure. Humans have a neural need for religious activity, indicating that these social functions are adaptive, so there was selective pressure over the course of our evolution to advantage these traits.
Flann 5 wrote:
Being solitary works just fine for the survival of leopards while lions are social. Do lions need belonging while leopards don't? Not for survival and gene replication apparently.
Evolution works on remorseless mechanistic algorithms. What works prospers. The different niches of lions and leopards apply different selective pressures, as briefly discussed at http://www.outtoafrica.nl/animals/englion.html It is basic causality. When scientists look for causes of such questions they can generally find them. But not being able to say exactly why a bird of paradise has its specific plumage is not evidence for an interventionist designing supernatural entity. That would be a very clunky explanation, serving nothing more than the emotional demands of conventional Christianity.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


The following user would like to thank Robert Tulip for this post:
Chris OConnor, Flann 5
Thu May 19, 2016 7:30 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 705 times in 605 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
geo wrote:
Flann 5 wrote:
I think what is un-intuitive is the idea that these beautiful highly coordinated living things are not purposefully designed.
Intelligent thinking humans struggle to even comprehend this great complexity. And yet we are to believe that mindless inanimate matter combined with chance produced this and us.




Sorry, I can't resist. Here's an example of a beautiful highly coordinated living thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXqIb4Tp3XA



Why is it called a Bobbit worm Geo? Surely not!

The biblical creation account explains why nature is fallen and out of kilter. Humans who have moral intelligence often do worse.

Why shouldn't I skewer some passerby and eat him for lunch if it helps my survival? In fact why don't we do it if survival and passing on of genes is primary?

R.D. says it's because we can rebel against our genes. John Lennox asks what material part of Richard Dawkins can do this?

So why does this mindless process create this moral awareness in humans? Empathy? Some animals show empathy too.

For the evolutionist it's just the way things are so the problem is deriving morality from such a process.



Thu May 19, 2016 7:56 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Owner
Diamond Contributor 3

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 16345
Location: Florida
Thanks: 3601
Thanked: 1382 times in 1082 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
:goodpost:

Thanks, Robert.



Thu May 19, 2016 7:58 am
Profile Email WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 108 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Announcements 

• What fiction book should we read next?
Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:58 am

• Promote Your FICTION Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your NON-FICTION Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Community Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Book Discussion Leaders

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
Banned Books
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
Promote your FICTION book
Promote your NON-FICTION book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2021. All rights reserved.

Display Pagerank