Are there any creationist resources (sites, books) to do not misrepresent science and evolution?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You neither debated with him, either, I suppose.

No, though I've seen a couple of his debates in which he persistently misrepresented (or perhaps, more charitably, misunderstood) the science.

 

[pitabread]

You are surely entitled to your opinions.

It's not an opinion. There's a long, documented history of Gish's misrepresentation of science.

When I'm asking for creationist resources that don't misrepresent the science, I'm looking for more from the Todd Wood camp and less from the Duane Gish one.

 

[J_B_]

From a religious perspective it's not a problem. The metaphysics have been well understood for 2500 years. It's really only biblical literalists who have a difficulty with it.

Not true.

 

[Speedwell]

Not true.

So what is the difficulty?

 

[J_B_]

I find his writings to be refreshing. I think they ultimately for naught, but he does seem to approach creationism with a degree of intellectual earnestness that I find absent in a lot of creationists.

I suppose I have something to aspire to, then. Do you also aspire to such things on the flip side?

If anyone wants to overturn it they are more than welcome, but they need to come up with something of equivalent explanatory power and scientific application.

Fair enough, yet, at the same time, it's too much to ask ... unless resources could be found that are equivalent to those put into evolution. As such, it would be more realistic to start smaller, with some small niggling detail. For example, earlier I posted about Kauffman. One issue he mentions is the Eigen-Schuster error catastrophe. I'm not sure I understand it completely, but it seems to be some threshold whereby below the threshold there are too many harmful mutations, organisms die, extinction ... no evolution. Above the threshold, there are enough beneficial mutations and evolution happens. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, he seems to say that at this point, there is no known mechanism for a protocell to cross the boundary and start evolving. What if a creationist were to take that on and show it can't happen. Protocells can't cross the boundary - the Godel equivalence I mentioned.

I have no expectation that would bring evolution crashing down, but it might prompt some interesting discussion.

Or maybe you have a favorite detail that would be a better start.

 

[J_B_]

So what is the difficulty?

The answer involves theological issues not suited to this forum. The discussion would need to go elsewhere.

 

[Speedwell]

I suppose I have something to aspire to, then. Do you also aspire to such things on the flip side?



Fair enough, yet, at the same time, it's too much to ask ... unless resources could be found that are equivalent to those put into evolution. As such, it would be more realistic to start smaller, with some small niggling detail. For example, earlier I posted about Kauffman. One issue he mentions is the Eigen-Schuster error catastrophe. I'm not sure I understand it completely, but it seems to be some threshold whereby below the threshold there are too many harmful mutations, organisms die, extinction ... no evolution. Above the threshold, there are enough beneficial mutations and evolution happens. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, he seems to say that at this point, there is no known mechanism for a protocell to cross the boundary and start evolving. What if a creationist were to take that on and show it can't happen. Protocells can't cross the boundary - the Godel equivalence I mentioned.

I have no expectation that would bring evolution crashing down, but it might prompt some interesting discussion.

Or maybe you have a favorite detail that would be a better start.

Evolutionary biologists have that kind of discussion all the time. What's your dog in the fight?

 

[Speedwell]

The answer involves theological issues not suited to this forum. The discussion would need to go elsewhere.

At least you could give a hint. As a Christian I don't see any; there doesn't seem to be any ontological difficulty.

 

[J_B_]

Evolutionary biologists have that kind of discussion all the time.

I'm sure they do, but do you have an example?

What's your dog in the fight?

None really. I find the discussion interesting. If it were anything, it would be the Godel equivalency I mentioned, but I wouldn't have the faintest idea where to start.

 

[J_B_]

At least you could give a hint. As a Christian I don't see any; there doesn't seem to be any ontological difficulty.

The Fall. If you want more, start another thread elsewhere.

 

[Speedwell]

The Fall. If you want more, start another thread elsewhere.

Only a problem for biblical literalists. But never mind; I can't go elsewhere anyway as I have chosen to register as 'other religion.'

 

[J_B_]

Only a problem for biblical literalists. But never mind; I can't go elsewhere anyway as I have chosen to register as 'other religion.'

That does put a damper on it.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm sure they do, but do you have an example?

Not offhand, but I know that because of the way science is conducted that nothing would advance the career of an ambitious young PhD like discovering a serious but previously unknown fault in the theory.

 

[Speedwell]

That does put a damper on it.

It keeps me from temptation. I only get into trouble in the "Christians only" forums which are dominated by Evangelicals, who are openly hostile to Traditional Christians.

 

[J_B_]

Not offhand, but I know that because of the way science is conducted that nothing would advance the career of an ambitious young PhD like discovering a serious but previously unknown fault in the theory.

Easy to say. Hard to do. I imagine the way is also open for brilliant authors to write brilliant books and brilliant politicians to enact brilliant policies.

 

[Speedwell]

Easy to say. Hard to do. I imagine the way is also open for brilliant authors to write brilliant books and brilliant politicians to enact brilliant policies.

It may be a mindset thing. Creationists are defending a doctrine against what they see as an existential threat. Scientists are not.

 

[J_B_]

It may be a mindset thing. Creationists are defending a doctrine against what they see as an existential threat. Scientists are not.

I'd be careful with absolute statements.

 

[Speedwell]

I'd be careful with absolute statements.

Not absolute statements, just generalizations. But YECs have a lot to lose. For example, they have tied their salvation in Christ to a 6000-year-old Earth, which has been off the table as a scientific proposition for 200 years. Scientists aren't likely to be so defensive if some cosmologist proposes that the universe is 14.1 BY old rather than 13.8.

 

[pitabread]

I suppose I have something to aspire to, then. Do you also aspire to such things on the flip side?

I'm not following. What "flip side" are you talking about?

<snip>

Or maybe you have a favorite detail that would be a better start.

Honestly, I would suggest starting a new thread if there are specific things you want to discuss.

 

[pitabread]

Not absolute statements, just generalizations. But YECs have a lot to lose. For example, they have tied their salvation in Christ to a 6000-year-old Earth, which has been off the table as a scientific proposition for 200 years. Scientists aren't likely to be so defensive if some cosmologist proposes that the universe is 14.1 BY old rather than 13.8.

Along those lines I read a study awhile back which suggested that creationists have a greater need to be "right" in regards to these subjects (e.g. evolution or denial thereof). Which in turn is probably explained by the fact the stakes do seem higher for creationists with respect to their specific beliefs about the Earth and universe's history.