Why do people laugh at creationist?

[The Lady Kate]

Great question.

It has always seemed pointless to argue with people who never seem to find any reasonable arguments for the opposition.

Could this be because, when placed under scrutiny, no such arguments exist?

Kurt Wise got some generalized respect here from evolutionists regarding his abilities, but I have never heard an evolutionist ever show any appreciation for a specific creationist argument.

Scrutiny first, then appreciation... Has there been a specific creationist argument which has stood up to scrutiny?

 

[gluadys]

but I have never heard an evolutionist ever show any appreciation for a specific creationist argument.

Maybe it's because we haven't seen any that deserve appreciation yet.

What specific creationist argument did you have in mind?

 

[juvenissun]

Maybe it's because we haven't seen any that deserve appreciation yet.

What specific creationist argument did you have in mind?

There are plenty in ICR's website. I don't think many people in this forum are qualified to say anything in oppose to what they said.

This illustrates one thing: Creation scientists ARE scientists, because it would take a scientist to argue with them. Creation scientists in ICR ARE the braves who are fighting the real war.

Think: only a handful of creation scientists in ICR are fighting with thousands of atheist scientists. They are able to do this impossible job because God is on their side. God's creation IS their weapon.

 

[crawfish]

There are plenty in ICR's website. I don't think many people in this forum are qualified to say anything in oppose to what they said.

I realize I am not qualified; I'm not a scientist nor do I claim to be one. I am smart enough, however, to listen to both sides and see which one is presenting solid, tangible evidence, and which side is grasping at straws.

This illustrates one thing: Creation scientists ARE scientists, because it would take a scientist to argue with them. Creation scientists in ICR ARE the braves who are fighting the real war.

Which is funny, because the only arguments I see "creation scientists" winning are against non-scientists. They tend to get crushed when facing real scientists. Ken Wise has been called an "honest creationist" because he admits this.

No true scientist would call ID a scientific theory. No honest scientist would claim that the evidences behind creationist theory are even close to explaining things as well as evolutionary theory.

Science will not stand in the way of scientific truth. However, it may take time to prove your point. The problem is, most non-scientist creationists are far too impatient to wait to do things the wrong way, and IMO too unsure that they'll be able to sufficiently prove their point anyway. So, creationism vs. evolution is moved into the political arena rather than the scientific one. True understanding of God's creation is one of the casualties.

Think: only a handful of creation scientists in ICR are fighting with thousands of atheist and Christian scientists, and even reality itself. They are able to do this impossible job because God is on their side. God's creation IS their weapon.

I thought I'd fix up the quote for you.

The creation battle you refer to is akin to some of the U.S. D-Day forces deciding to attack Peru. The target is wrong, the effort is pointless, and the effect is to weaken our side's ability to fight.

God is on their side. But not as creationists - as Christians. God's will shall be done, though. God has a way of blowing up our expectations; surpassing them. Sometimes, we make the mistake of trying to force the issue rather than let God guide us. The truth will set us free.

 

[juvenissun]

Which is funny, because the only arguments I see "creation scientists" winning are against non-scientists. They tend to get crushed when facing real scientists. Ken Wise has been called an "honest creationist" because he admits this.

Yes, they are not winning, they may look bad on some issues (but not on all). BUT, they are never knocked out. Because no one in the universe can knock them out. Also, in this fight, the burden is heavily lean toward the creationist. If atheist is wrong, no big deal, they are wrong all the time on many things. They would even say that because they are wrong, so they are real scientists. But if creationist is wrong on ONE issue, then the whole creationism is ridiculed. That is why I said this is not a fight on science, it is a fight on faith.

Science will not stand in the way of scientific truth. However, it may take time to prove your point. The problem is, most non-scientist creationists are far too impatient to wait to do things the wrong way, and IMO too unsure that they'll be able to sufficiently prove their point anyway. So, creationism vs. evolution is moved into the political arena rather than the scientific one. True understanding of God's creation is one of the casualties.

I think I would agree with you on this (for the first time?)

 

[Calminian]

Which is funny, because the only arguments I see "creation scientists" winning are against non-scientists. They tend to get crushed when facing real scientists. Ken Wise has been called an "honest creationist" because he admits this.

That's because they try to stand and strike with them. Send em into the cage with me. Once the philosophy gets a hold of science it's submission time!

 

[crawfish]

Yes, they are not winning, they may look bad on some issues (but not on all). BUT, they are never knocked out. Because no one in the universe can knock them out. Also, in this fight, the burden is heavily lean toward the creationist. If atheist is wrong, no big deal, they are wrong all the time on many things. They would even say that because they are wrong, so they are real scientists. But if creationist is wrong on ONE issue, then the whole creationism is ridiculed. That is why I said this is not a fight on science, it is a fight on faith.

It's not that they're wrong about one thing...it's that their data do not add up to a single, coherent picture. The gist of creation science is to provide an alternate theory that doesn't disagree with the bible; it is NOT to create a singular, all-compassing theory that explains everything. Some are trying, but they are a minority, and are currently facing a losing battle.

I think I would agree with you on this (for the first time?)

I am a baptized believer who has given my life to Christ. I'd like to think we agree on the most important issues.

 

[juvenissun]

It's not that they're wrong about one thing...it's that their data do not add up to a single, coherent picture. The gist of creation science is to provide an alternate theory that doesn't disagree with the bible; it is NOT to create a singular, all-compassing theory that explains everything. Some are trying, but they are a minority, and are currently facing a losing battle.




I am a baptized believer who has given my life to Christ. I'd like to think we agree on the most important issues.

OK. Brother.

 

[shernren]

There are plenty in ICR's website. I don't think many people in this forum are qualified to say anything in oppose to what they said.

Nonsense. I was re-reading Starlight and Time the other day and I realized something: the relativity I had learned in first year physics was almost enough to knock out Russell Humphrey's white hole cosmology on a few basic, but crucial, points. (Of course, it also means that most of my coursemates hate relativity now. ) A lot of creationist arguments don't stand up to basic scientific scrutiny. Neither, of course, do their philosophical arguments, most of which sound like veiled solipsism. (Yes, Calminian, I'm looking at you. )

So no - there are plenty of people in this forum alone who are qualified to oppose creationist scientific statements.

 

[busterdog]

Could this be because, when placed under scrutiny, no such arguments exist?



Scrutiny first, then appreciation... Has there been a specific creationist argument which has stood up to scrutiny?

I will take that as an indication that no reasonable or plausible creationist argument has ever been put forward from your perspective.

That's really all I need to know.

 

[busterdog]

Maybe it's because we haven't seen any that deserve appreciation yet.

What specific creationist argument did you have in mind?

Just any you can think of.

No sense going through the list.

If all we have to offer is hogwash, why is this forum even necessary or beneficial to anyone?

 

[juvenissun]

Nonsense. I was re-reading Starlight and Time the other day and I realized something: the relativity I had learned in first year physics was almost enough to knock out Russell Humphrey's white hole cosmology on a few basic, but crucial, points. (Of course, it also means that most of my coursemates hate relativity now. ) A lot of creationist arguments don't stand up to basic scientific scrutiny. Neither, of course, do their philosophical arguments, most of which sound like veiled solipsism. (Yes, Calminian, I'm looking at you. )

So no - there are plenty of people in this forum alone who are qualified to oppose creationist scientific statements.

You reminded me on one of my old puzzle:

When I was a student, I tried to participate in some casual geologic conversations held among my professors. I thrown out one of my best question related to the issue, and expected at least one of them will pick it up. They stopped the talk and looked at me for a short while, then continued on their talking as if I did not say anything.

I discovered what was the reason years later.

 

[Paul365]

There are plenty in ICR's website. I don't think many people in this forum are qualified to say anything in oppose to what they said. Creation scientists ARE scientists, because it would take a scientist to argue with them.

I have read most of their stuff and have to disagree with your opinion. I think their arguments can easily be discussed by interested laymen. It doesn't need scientists because their arguments are mostly intended to convince laymen, not scientists.

If you think you've found a good (in the sense of 'scientifically sound') argument on ICR, would you care to post it here?

Creation scientists in ICR ARE the braves who are fighting the real war.

Think: only a handful of creation scientists in ICR are fighting with thousands of atheist scientists. They are able to do this impossible job because God is on their side. God's creation IS their weapon.

I also think that they are braves because they expose themselves to the ridicule of the scientific community. On the other hand, they've chosen this job and are paid for it, so they don't need complain.

But they are certainly not fighting with "thousands of atheist scientists". I am not aware that ICR arguments are even discussed or "fought" about in the scientific community. Mostly the scientists employed by ICR publish only to themselves or to fellow creationists. They appear to live a quite peaceful life in their special niche.

I agree that their job is impossible, but that's because God is not on their side. Of course, that's only my opinion.

 

[Assyrian]

Just any you can think of.

No sense going through the list.

If all we have to offer is hogwash, why is this forum even necessary or beneficial to anyone?

Because all you have is hogwash?

If course it isn't all you have. You are children of the Living God, redeemed by Jesus Christ his son. Which is all the more reason your brothers and sisters in Christ should point out when you have been fed hogwash and you are swallowing it.

 

[shernren]

It's not that they're wrong about one thing...it's that their data do not add up to a single, coherent picture. The gist of creation science is to provide an alternate theory that doesn't disagree with the bible; it is NOT to create a singular, all-compassing theory that explains everything. Some are trying, but they are a minority, and are currently facing a losing battle.

This resonates with me.

Goaded on by the questionable use of science in the larger culture, fundamentalists and their evangelical successors dropped the nineteenth-century conviction that the best theology should understand and incorporate the best science. But even as that hereditary conviction was set aside, fundamentalists and their evangelical successors maintained the nineteenth-century convictions that it was important to harmonize the Bible and science (if only an untainted form of science could be found) and that Baconian method still afforded the best way of pursuing any subject. The effect of these developments has been well stated by Edward Davis, a contemporary historian of science, at the end of a truly depressing article. The article concerns a story that has been widely circulated among evangelicals since the end of the nineteenth century that a British seaman lived for several days in the belly of a whale. The story has been passed on by many evangelical leaders, including some of the founders of creation science. As Davis's exhaustive research through an ocean of pseudo-Baconian "fact" ultimately showed, the story was a fiction. Davis's conclusion about the motives of two of the communicators of this fable aptly summarizes what was at stake for evangelicals when they gave up the nineteenth-century belief that it was important to make a positive adjustment to an era's best science:

Rimmer and G o o k wanted more than anything else to give people reasons to believe, to strengthen their faith in the gospel by strengthening their faith in the literal words of the Bible, to debunk the claims of atheistic scientists and apostate theologians. What better way to do this than to use scientific evidence itself as a weapon against the scoffers? ... I want to emphasize that there was nothing unique about Rimmer's anxiety. The tendency to muster pseudo-scientific "facts" to defend the reliability of scripture against biblical critics was absolutely characteristic of much evangelical and fundamentalist literature of the period. This represents a significant change from the general state of affairs in the 19th century, when a number of highly respected Christian scholars had produced a substantial body of literature harmonizing solid, respectable science with the faith of the lay believer ... These works had the positive purpose of forging a creative synthesis between the best theology and the best science of their day; they were not intended merely to defend a particular view of the Bible or to "prove" the bible against skeptics. However, there is no comparable body of literature from the first half of the present century.
​

- Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind

 

[gluadys]

Just any you can think of.

No sense going through the list.

If all we have to offer is hogwash, why is this forum even necessary or beneficial to anyone?

An addict may desire heroin, but it is nevertheless beneficial to break the addiction.

If you are addicted to hogwash, we do you a favour to identify it as hogwash.

Not to mention putting warning labels on it for the benefit of others.

 

[busterdog]

An addict may desire heroin, but it is nevertheless beneficial to break the addiction.

If you are addicted to hogwash, we do you a favour to identify it as hogwash.

Not to mention putting warning labels on it for the benefit of others.

Well, if you are all right and we are all wrong, that is something we can use in reasoning out what is happening here.

Some presume that there is discussion and exchange happening here.

My point is, without even arguing that anything creationists have to say is of any merit, are we kidding ourselves about any "exchange" of ideas here?

 

[shernren]

Well, if you are all right and we are all wrong, that is something we can use in reasoning out what is happening here.

Some presume that there is discussion and exchange happening here.

My point is, without even arguing that anything creationists have to say is of any merit, are we kidding ourselves about any "exchange" of ideas here?

Disagreeing with someone is not the same as not listening to someone. For example, I disagree strenuously with the people pushing electric cosmos theories. That is why I have read up about them to the point that I know more about their philosophy than you who agree with them.

We think you are erroneous precisely because we have spent time listening to what you say. Or do you think we would bother to object so strenuously to your beliefs if we didn't actually care what you believed?

 

[gluadys]

Well, if you are all right and we are all wrong, that is something we can use in reasoning out what is happening here.

Some presume that there is discussion and exchange happening here.

My point is, without even arguing that anything creationists have to say is of any merit, are we kidding ourselves about any "exchange" of ideas here?

Not really. The fact is that creationist scientific arguments have been listened to, considered seriously and rejected on the basis of contradictory evidence and/or inability to explain observations.

Now if you are coming into the conversation late, and missed that, it may seem as if you are getting a deaf ear. But a few questions will get you pointed to where the refutations were made and on what grounds.

But the principal remaining arguments are theological, not scientific. Since theology does not have the objective referents of science, that's a more ongoing discussion.

 

[busterdog]

Disagreeing with someone is not the same as not listening to someone. For example, I disagree strenuously with the people pushing electric cosmos theories. That is why I have read up about them to the point that I know more about their philosophy than you who agree with them.

We think you are erroneous precisely because we have spent time listening to what you say. Or do you think we would bother to object so strenuously to your beliefs if we didn't actually care what you believed?

The purpose of the comment was limited: what expectations should we have here?

If you are 100% right, you should do exactly as you have done. I will concede the point. And let me just confine that to 100% right relative to the YECs here, or even 95% right, which is virtually 100% right.

A separate argument is whether it makes any sense to presume that any position is 100% right.

Yet another argument is that is someone presumes to be 100% right, they must be at risk for missing something they need to know. Philosophically, one can argue as much.

Here, there is a range of issues. Its not just 15 billion versus 6,000 years.