Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
I almost didn't post this about seventeen times. But whatever.
So the moral of this story is that because RichardT is still a creationist, we're doing something wrong? Forgive me if I don't instantly acknowledge proof-by-anecdote coupled with your questionable historical revisionism.
It is often assumed that kid-glove treatment is obviously the best way to change any opinion, but no one has ever provided data in support. Psychology is complex; there is no rule that niceness leads inevitably to acceptance. In fact, one might regularly come upon situations where niceness is counterproductive.
I wrote what I wrote out of frustration, and that's probably a poor reason most of the time. But I spend hours a day with dozens of teenagers, and I stand by my assessment if not the delivery. I don't remember exactly what he wrote that precipitated my comment, but I do recall it was particularly haughty and galling.
In any case, I am not sure I understand why Richard needs your sympathy. He is certainly not ill-equipped for this debate; he's smart, articulate, and willing to do research. His problem is that, for whatever reason, he places dogma and tradition above empiricism on whatever philosophical hierarchy he's working from. What, then, can dispassionately reproducing evidence accomplish? Talkorigins is about as dispassionate as it gets and is thoroughly cited, to boot. He knows how to get there and has probably read a fair share of the articles therein. What are we accomplishing by regurgitating what's already written? We'll do it anyway, of course, because that's what we do. And, despite your doom-saying, I suspect the majority of posts in here are still of the fact-delivering variety. If Richard wants the facts then he can come by them easily. If he wants to reinforce his antiquated worldview then he will find a way to do just that regardless of most of what we say.
__________________
"Ray, if someone asks you if you're a god you say yes!" ~ Winston Zeddemore
So has the tone changed around here? Yes... it has. We don't have any honest creationists to deal with anymore. Just deceit and lies. After awhile you get tired of spending time researching posts only to have them dismissed with Hovind cut and pastes or irrelevant Bible verses. If some honest creationists have gotten caught up in the wave of revulsion... perhaps they should take it up with their ilk. I surely don't see any religious organizations trying to stop these fools. Maybe you do catch more flies with honey... I'm just sick and tired of wasting honey on insects.
I don't really see it as trying to convince people by being nice. This is primarily a scientific question and in science there's no place for kindness or malice in the discussion, just empiricism. Not attacking an opponent should not be mistaken for being nice.
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
If you look at the way these claims have actually been addressed at this forum, though, it’s not in the way you’re describing. The response to someone bringing up Newton having been a creationist is almost always something along the lines of “Before Darwin most people were creationists, because there wasn’t anything better to believe.” I can look for an example of this, if you need one.
Must have been my mistake in misinterpreting your statement. Were you saying that's an inadequate response? Perhaps so, but the conclusion is sound either way, so that's something. I also don't understand how it was inconsistent with the false dichotomy response. I'm probably just not seeing your point well enough to get the gist.
__________________ On "illegal" immigration: "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free..." -The Statue of Liberty
On the alleged connection between Hitler and Atheism:
"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." -Hitler, Mein Kampf, Volume II, Chapter X
Danth's Law: "If you have to insist that you've won an internet argument, you've probably lost badly."
If I had joined this forum in its current state when I was still a creationist, however, seeing the theory of evolution supported by arguments such as these would have convinced me that it relies on these sorts of fallacies for support.
You are not a creationist anymore? But your profile states that your origin of life view is: "God created all of time at once , so evolution obeys His will without Him having to intervene." What does this mean anyway?
I’m not sure it’s worthwhile for me to continue participating here now that we’re accomplishing the opposite.
I don't really see it as trying to convince people by being nice. This is primarily a scientific question and in science there's no place for kindness or malice in the discussion, just empiricism. Not attacking an opponent should not be mistaken for being nice.
I agree. Also, an important corollary: tearing down an opponent's argument should not be confused with malice.
You don't think that Dawkins has a point? That scientists wall off the area of their minds that deal with religion from the part that deals with science? How can a good Catholic scientist believe in a man that was born of a virgin, multiplied fish and wine and rose from the dead without questioning? Then go off to do particle physics or some such... instead of doing an experiment why not just say "goddidit" and be done with it?
I'll tell you why... because he or she has walled off the part of their minds that plays church on Sundays from the part that is a scientist the rest of the week. Otherwise they couldn't be both.
Sorry, Phred, but I must say, you're dead wrong.
I happen to be a Catholic scientist. (And graduating with a bachelor's in Chem Eng in the spring if all goes well, YES!!!)) and I am most definitely not two people, or have parts my mind walled off all the time.
How can I do it? Easy. I remember that God doesn't do everything all the time. Not EVERYTHING is a supernatural occurrence. The natural happens. Sometimes the supernatural happens, but when it does it can be found out if you know how to look.
God made the natural world for a reason, and gave us the ability to figure it out as a reason. It doesn't mean He never intervenes, nor does it mean He can't intervene, nor does it mean He always intervenes. How did the Jews get from place to place? They walked. Or rode. God didn't teleport them. How did Jesus preach? By words, not telepathy. Et cetera.
I don't need to attribute everything to "Goddidit" to get anything done. As a matter of fact, it tends to work quite well without it. But that's because science is figuring out the natural, how stuff works when God isn't poking it with a finger, or the FSM isn't using His Noodly Appendage, or the Great Spirit Who Messes With Protons isn't manipulating it, or whatever. But just because I know how to reason and work without assuming God doesn't mean I can't accept Him.
How can I do it? Easily. I remember that there isn't any contradiction. Then I go do it. There isn't any reason to attribute natural everyday occurrences, or even weird, cool, rare, and exciting lab occurrences to God acting supernaturally all the time. Just because ethanol and water won't be separated past ~95% by normal boiling doesn't mean God is holding them together.
Not everyone's mind works likes Dawkin's mind does, and from what I can gather from you guys he doesn't seem to get that.
Metherion
Aggie, i you'd like, I'll pull this off to a new thread so as not to derail this one.
__________________ Oh, for the love of Pete!
PETE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!!!!
And, because I won't write anything I'm not willing to attach my name to...
Washington, I already explained the problems with some of these arguments in response to Lucretius, so I’ll just address the rest of what you’ve said:
Originally Posted by Washington
Not a strawman at all. I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind by a, " much more basic definition," but if it's simply "common ancestry," common ancestry is nothing more than the result of the mechanism: "change in allele frequency as a result of mutations and natural selection." One is the means and the other is the product, both of which are valid concepts that can be spoken of either individually or together. It's like talking about a pitched ball---swing---hit, and its result: a base run.
You’re assuming here that if someone accepts allele change as a result of mutations and natural selection, then they will always accept common ancestry also. If this were true, then it would make sense to assume that if someone rejects the second they must reject the first also, but there are a lot of people who accept the first while rejecting the second. I know it doesn’t make a lot of sense to accept one without the other, but creationist arguments aren’t always consistent, and it’s still a strawman if you misrepresent them.
Originally Posted by Washington
What bothers me is people who resort to hyperbole to make their point. The unqualified: "Supporters of evolution are," "Whenever supporters of evolution," and "supporters of evolution also expect." Even the qualified "Most atheists," and "supporters of evolution claim here dozens of times" stretches one's credulity.
I’m able to put together a list of people who act this way and people who don’t, but I didn’t think I should post the names of people in the first group because that could be considered flaming. I can say who the people are who don’t have this problem, though, because with only a couple of exceptions they all fit into one of two groups. One is people such as Troodon, who joined this forum and were active here before it began going downhill, and the other is people who are active at science-related forums that don’t specifically involve creationism and evolution. Members of the second group tend to be interested in educating others about science for its own sake, and their behavior at this forum reflects that. But both of these groups combined are outnumbered by the people I described in my OP by around two and a half to one.
Originally Posted by TeddyKGB
I almost didn't post this about seventeen times. But whatever.
So the moral of this story is that because RichardT is still a creationist, we're doing something wrong? Forgive me if I don't instantly acknowledge proof-by-anecdote coupled with your questionable historical revisionism.
It is often assumed that kid-glove treatment is obviously the best way to change any opinion, but no one has ever provided data in support. Psychology is complex; there is no rule that niceness leads inevitably to acceptance. In fact, one might regularly come upon situations where niceness is counterproductive.
I wrote what I wrote out of frustration, and that's probably a poor reason most of the time. But I spend hours a day with dozens of teenagers, and I stand by my assessment if not the delivery. I don't remember exactly what he wrote that precipitated my comment, but I do recall it was particularly haughty and galling.
In any case, I am not sure I understand why Richard needs your sympathy. He is certainly not ill-equipped for this debate; he's smart, articulate, and willing to do research. His problem is that, for whatever reason, he places dogma and tradition above empiricism on whatever philosophical hierarchy he's working from. What, then, can dispassionately reproducing evidence accomplish? Talkorigins is about as dispassionate as it gets and is thoroughly cited, to boot. He knows how to get there and has probably read a fair share of the articles therein. What are we accomplishing by regurgitating what's already written? We'll do it anyway, of course, because that's what we do. And, despite your doom-saying, I suspect the majority of posts in here are still of the fact-delivering variety. If Richard wants the facts then he can come by them easily. If he wants to reinforce his antiquated worldview then he will find a way to do just that regardless of most of what we say.
The way people treat Richard has been discussed before at this forum, and I have a thread about it here. (The discussion about how Richard is treated starts around the end of the first page.) Specifically, this thread deals with an attempt that Richard made early this year to determine whether what he’d been taught as a creationist was false, which ended with him getting treated the way he currently is and losing interest in what he was trying to learn about as a result. I’ve been discussing this with him in private for several months, so I’m able to see fairly directly how it affects him.
Originally Posted by sbvera13
Must have been my mistake in misinterpreting your statement. Were you saying that's an inadequate response? Perhaps so, but the conclusion is sound either way, so that's something. I also don't understand how it was inconsistent with the false dichotomy response. I'm probably just not seeing your point well enough to get the gist.
The point is that if you’re going to say that the reason why people such as Newton were creationists is because the theory of evolution didn’t exist yet, you’re implicitly invoking the same false dichotomy that most people here agree is a faulty argument. If attacking evolution does nothing to support creationism, because there are so many possible alternatives to evolution apart from creationism, then it should also be significant that Newton chose creationism among all the other possible ideas that he could have believed before the theory of evolution existed. But no, whenever a famous scientist from the past is being discussed, the argument used here is that them having been a creationist doesn’t mean anything because there was nothing other than creationism for them to believe before Darwin’s time.
As far as the conclusion being right, if you just mean that creationism is unsupported, I’m not arguing with that. What I’m saying is that we intend to convince anyone else of this, we should not be using arguments that have such obvious flaws in them.
Originally Posted by MemeBuster
You are not a creationist anymore? But your profile states that your origin of life view is: "God created all of time at once , so evolution obeys His will without Him having to intervene." What does this mean anyway?
It means I’m a theistic evolutionist. The reason I don’t use the term “theistic evolution” for myself is because it’s generally only Christians who use that term for themselves at this forum, and I already have too many people here mistake me for a Christian despite the clearly visible “Deist” icon in my profile.
I haven’t been a creationist since 1996. I’ve been registered here since January of 2004, and a a year and a half ago I created the Occam’s Razor comic series in order to make fun of some of the creationist arguments I see at this board. Had you really never noticed before now that I’m not a creationist?
Originally Posted by metherion
Aggie, i you'd like, I'll pull this off to a new thread so as not to derail this one.
It would be kind of hypocritical for me to have a problem with you discussing it here, since I’ve just pulled one of Nitron’s threads down a sidetrack pretty recently. Besides, seeing Phred’s argument here is a fairly good example of the argument I’m talking about that I’ve seen Dawkins use, which I don’t think is consistent with the claim that evolution and Christianity can be reconciled, even though both arguments are often used by the same people.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Location: Some Americans call it 'the old country' the UK.
Posts: 1,686
Blessings: 44,687
Reps: 71,280,996,117 (power: 71,281,000)
Originally Posted by metherion
Sorry, Phred, but I must say, you're dead wrong.
I happen to be a Catholic scientist. (And graduating with a bachelor's in Chem Eng in the spring if all goes well, YES!!!)) and I am most definitely not two people, or have parts my mind walled off all the time.
How can I do it? Easy. I remember that God doesn't do everything all the time. Not EVERYTHING is a supernatural occurrence. The natural happens. Sometimes the supernatural happens, but when it does it can be found out if you know how to look.
God made the natural world for a reason, and gave us the ability to figure it out as a reason. It doesn't mean He never intervenes, nor does it mean He can't intervene, nor does it mean He always intervenes. How did the Jews get from place to place? They walked. Or rode. God didn't teleport them. How did Jesus preach? By words, not telepathy. Et cetera.
I don't need to attribute everything to "Goddidit" to get anything done. As a matter of fact, it tends to work quite well without it. But that's because science is figuring out the natural, how stuff works when God isn't poking it with a finger, or the FSM isn't using His Noodly Appendage, or the Great Spirit Who Messes With Protons isn't manipulating it, or whatever. But just because I know how to reason and work without assuming God doesn't mean I can't accept Him.
How can I do it? Easily. I remember that there isn't any contradiction. Then I go do it. There isn't any reason to attribute natural everyday occurrences, or even weird, cool, rare, and exciting lab occurrences to God acting supernaturally all the time. Just because ethanol and water won't be separated past ~95% by normal boiling doesn't mean God is holding them together.
Not everyone's mind works likes Dawkin's mind does, and from what I can gather from you guys he doesn't seem to get that.
Metherion
Are you sure you are not just separating what you were taught as a child from what you have learnt in college?
It would be interesting to know which one gave way to which in the event of a conflict.
My problem in understanding religion comes from the fact that I was not subject to any religion when growing up,
consequently I do not understand why people never question their religion,
it does not take Freud to realise your religion came from your parents,
and had your parents believed some other religion, so would you,
imagine if they had been Scientologists, you would be a L. Ron Hubbard follower now,
and Catholicism would not even figure in your life.
I haven’t been a creationist since 1996. I’ve been registered here since January of 2004, and a a year and a half ago I created the Occam’s Razor comic series in order to make fun of some of the creationist arguments I see at this board. Had you really never noticed before now that I’m not a creationist?
Don't you think you're being a little hypocritical creating this thread after creating a comic book that has the sole purpose of ridiculing creationists?
__________________ When I die, they will put my body in a box and dispose of it in the cold ground.
And in all the million ages to come, I will never breathe or laugh or twitch again.
So won't you run and play with me here among the
teeming mass of humanity?
The universe has spared us this moment.
Are you sure you are not just separating what you were taught as a child from what you have learnt in college?
It would be interesting to know which one gave way to which in the event of a conflict.
My problem in understanding religion comes from the fact that I was not subject to any religion when growing up,
consequently I do not understand why people never question their religion,
it does not take Freud to realise your religion came from your parents,
and had your parents believed some other religion, so would you,
imagine if they had been Scientologists, you would be a L. Ron Hubbard follower now,
and Catholicism would not even figure in your life.
It's a tough call. I grew up very fundamentalist...but I got better. I'm still a Christian, although now a liberal one. In light of your earlier statement, the fact that I no longer am either a fundamentalist or creationist may indicate that I wasn't very well indoctrinated to begin with, or perhaps I just did a better job than some other Christians in observing the world around me and educating myself. But more on that topic would be better suited for your other thread.
Additionally, to respond to Phred's interesting post, I am a scientist (Ph.D. chemistry) and I do wonder about miracles in the Bible. It can be hard to believe them in this day and age where miracles seem rare (unless you're a romantic sort who believes simple things like love and friendship are miraculous) and the main people God seems to talk to are (to paraphrase Lily Tomlin) schizophrenics. But even if the Bible's miracles are so much fairytales, there are still some nuggets of wisdom present in the book (along with violence and genocide, but that's another topic).
I may even have seen a miracle once, but I'm far from sure: About a decade ago, my 34-year-old cousin had a massive heart attack at work, and when we rushed to the hospital the doctors told us he wouldn't live the night. But after surgery he made a full recovery and suffers no ill effects today. Still, that could be more a case of a probabilistic long shot coming through, and no more miraculous than winning the lottery. I compare that to a friend of mine who eight years ago was a passenger in a car that was struck by a drunk driver. My friend was also expected to die from his grievous injuries, but survived, although God didn't come through like he did for my cousin -- my friend will be in a wheelchair for the rest of his days. Again, God or simple probability? I gotta admit, I lean towards probability in both cases.
As I've moved from fundamentalist to liberal Christian, one day I may similarly move from Christianity to atheism. For now I'll stick with Christianity, trying to follow the worthwhile parts and criticizing the backwards parts, while continuously trying to examine my beliefs. And believing in my ecumenical way that the kind of life lived is ultimately more important than one's personal religion or philosophy.
__________________ "God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy."
-- Billy Currington
Last edited by TheManeki; 31st December 2007 at 09:25 AM.
Linear Mode
