Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism?

[coffee4u]

My being an atheist has nothing to do with it. I used to be a Christian. Many atheists that used to be Christians became atheists due to a superior understanding of the Bible.

Understanding has nothing to do with faith. Faith is trusting God despite logic and despite appearances. The Israelite's didn't march around Jericho because they believed marching and blowing horns were an effective strategy against stone walls, they did so on faith. A far more logical attack might have been the doors to the city but God didn't want that from them, he wanted them to act in faith. This is how it has always been.

 

[coffee4u]

"Revealed truth" is demonstrably more often false than true. There are countless different sects of Christianity alone. All with their own special nuanced beliefs. The beliefs of one sect often go against the beliefs of another and one persons "revealed truth" will disagree with the "revealed truth" of another. It appears that those are only instances of people believing what they want to belief. Reality does not care about anyone's personal beliefs which is why physical observations trump supposed spiritual ones.

One should always have an open mind that one can be wrong. That is why testable hypotheses are so important. What reasonable test could refute your religious beliefs? If you cannot think of one then it would appear that you do not have reliable evidence for your beliefs.

Which is why God gave us the scriptures, so that we would not be lead astray. He even warned us that people would try and lead us astray with other teachings.
It is up to us to focus on God and his word. To not listen to things that 'tickle the ears' or by signs and wonders others might perform.

I don't need evidence. Evidence and proofs are what you yourself are looking for. Those things only satisfies the mind. If evidence were all people needed then one miracle in front of them should convince them. The Israelite's witnessed numerous miracles and they could not keep their evidence based faith long enough for Mosses to get back down the mountain.

You keep thinking that, one day you will realize that there is far more to the world than just the physical.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As I said I don't study science, I study scripture. As far as I know radioactive dating is based on carbon isotopes which are high-energy particles that are assumed to come from beyond the solar system. Again based on more assumptions, this time about things beyond the solar system.

Then I would suggest you spend some time learning the science you are misquoting as these statements are at best partially correct (and not relevant to the age of rocks or planets). Your "scripture-only" path to understanding this subject has failed.

 

[Bradskii]

the fact that sin caused death is from the New Testament, it is literal. When God says death will be vanquished at the end he means literal death will be done away with. The same way Jesus being born, died and resurrected is literal and is meant to be read as literal.

All of that could be accepted as being true. And if it turned out that God didn't make the world in six days and there wasn't a vapour dome (or whatever it was) and thorns didn't just make an appearance after Adam ate some fruit then it wouldn't change any of those truths.

It doesn't concern me that you believe these things (although I seriously object to them being taught as facts in a science class). But do you appreciate that a lot of people listen to those who believe in creationism and associate these non-scientific views with Christianity as a whole. And then throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Quartermaine]

I notice you didn't answer the questions.

i didn't leave any out

 

[Quartermaine]

If it could be shown that mutations beneficial to survival in forms that can reproduce occur at a rate sufficient to produce the completed current form in the time available to do so.

Begin with the lightning zap on the gelatinous foam, or whatever started the ball rolling.

Genetic mutation

 

[Quartermaine]

Sigh...here are just a few examples of many. I hope this satisfies your skepticism.
Francis S. Collins
Michael Reiss
Alexis Carrel
George R. Price
Allan Sandage
Sarah Salviander
Hugh Ross

Let's see:

Fraccis Collins: one of the most respected geneticists alive, has been the director of the National Institute of Health since 2009 serving under three presidential administrations...so he hasn't been "exiled by the scientific and academic community"

Michael Reiss: In November 2006, Reiss suggested that, rather than dismissing creationism as a "misconception," teachers should take the time to explain why creationism had no scientific basis. Michael Reiss: How to convert a generation," The Guardian, 28 November 2006.

Alexis Carrel: noble prize winner. Was arrested in 1944 for his role in implementing eugenics policies during Vichy France, but died before the trial.

George Price: Famous geneticist who spent the last five years of his life helping the homeless before committing suicide in 1975

Allan Sandage: Professor of astronomy at Cambridge until his death in 2010. He determined the first reasonably accurate values for the Hubble constant identifying the age of the universe to be 14 billion years old. Not "exiled by the scientific and academic community"

Sarah Salviander: professor at University of Texas and not "exiled by the scientific and academic community"

Still waiting for you to name all those scientists that were "quickly exiled by the scientific and academic community as heretics by the priests of humanistic secularism"

 

[Quartermaine]

And a smart response is "It doesn't matter". Any evidence that suggest the possibility of the existence of any God is evidence that suggests atheism is false.

the question was to be put to evolutionary biologists who may or may not be atheists

 

[VirOptimus]

I know ... and it's funny.

But ... um ... let's put it this way:

If you're one gender, then:

If you're the other, then:

How bigoted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me ask you a question, do you have an open mind that you could be wrong that a set of irrational laws govern the universe? What reasonable test could refute that belief?

It may be possible, but there is no indication of that. And if someone believed that the burden of proof would be upon that person. Why would you believe that? Remember, that since others think that they have personal revelation from God that is different from yours such claims are worthless. There is no rational reason to believe them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Understanding has nothing to do with faith. Faith is trusting God despite logic and despite appearances. The Israelite's didn't march around Jericho because they believed marching and blowing horns were an effective strategy against stone walls, they did so on faith. A far more logical attack might have been the doors to the city but God didn't want that from them, he wanted them to act in faith. This is how it has always been.

No, faith is just believing without proper evidence. Faith is never a pathway to the truth. Do you want to knw why? People have all sorts of different beliefs that are based upon faith. And the Israelites may have never marched around Jericho. That may be one of the false stories of the Bible.

Tell me, how do you test the Bible? How do you determine if it is true or not? Faith is not a proper pathway. You need more than that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which is why God gave us the scriptures, so that we would not be lead astray. He even warned us that people would try and lead us astray with other teachings.
It is up to us to focus on God and his word. To not listen to things that 'tickle the ears' or by signs and wonders others might perform.

I don't need evidence. Evidence and proofs are what you yourself are looking for. Those things only satisfies the mind. If evidence were all people needed then one miracle in front of them should convince them. The Israelite's witnessed numerous miracles and they could not keep their evidence based faith long enough for Mosses to get back down the mountain.

You keep thinking that, one day you will realize that there is far more to the world than just the physical.

Other religions have similar nonsense. How do you tell if one belief is true? Simply claiming that you are right and others is wrong is not good enough. If evolution is false it would fail on its own merit. And again you are merely relying on stories in the Bible. When people look into the stories that you keep talking about they are found not to be true.

 

[Sidon]

The smart and honest ones will respond: "Which God?"

The Father of Jesus, is the "One".

 

[Sidon]

that is not what science is saying on this subject at all.

Actually "science" has been trying to prove their theory of a "gay gene" for long then you have been breathing.
Recently, they rebranded the theory with a brand new title.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Still waiting for you to name all those scientists that were "quickly exiled by the scientific and academic community as heretics by the priests of humanistic secularism"

It is clear that the purpose of your request is to pick them apart and use it as ammunition so don't expect anything else from me. So I have a homework assignment for you. Give me a list of scientists who advocates creationism and intelligent design who presented credible and convincing evidence for intelligent design.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is clear that the purpose of your request is to pick them apart and use it as ammunition so don't expect anything else from me. So I have a homework assignment for you. Give me a list of scientists who advocates creationism and intelligent design who presented credible and convincing evidence for intelligent design.

Tsk tsk, making a ridiculous claim and then running away from it.

There are a very small percentage of scientists that advocate creationism. Unfortunately for them none of them can "do science" when they do so. They have to abandon the scientific method when the advocate for that nonsense.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Unfortunately for them none of them can "do science" when they do so. They have to abandon the scientific method when the advocate for that nonsense.

Thank you for proving my point. "Dismiss the heretics and pay no mind to them. They are lost fools who will never compare to our scientific greatness." The Priests of Secular Humanism aka... you.

 

[Bradskii]

It is clear that the purpose of your request is to pick them apart and use it as ammunition so don't expect anything else from me. So I have a homework assignment for you. Give me a list of scientists who advocates creationism and intelligent design who presented credible and convincing evidence for intelligent design.

I thought the request was because the previous list you gave was shown to be fallacious. So we're still waiting for you to produce that which you said you were going to produce.

And I guess that you know that creationism (the subject of the op) and ID are entirely different. So can we stick to creationism?

 

[pitabread]

Actually "science" has been trying to prove their theory of a "gay gene" for long then you have been breathing.
Recently, they rebranded the theory with a brand new title.

Once again, this just reads like a complete strawman.

Though I suspect you are not getting your information on the subject from any scientific sources.

 

[Ophiolite]

How are we defining "religion?" Does any theistic claim constitute a religious claim?

You are an American. How is it defined within the Constitution, either explicitly, or implicitly?

They are taught to be irrational, as in not the product of a mind. I certainly don't believe that the supposed "laws" by which physicality is governed are irrational, but to teach otherwise would be called an inappropriate endorsement of religious belief.

That is the most bizarre definition of irrational I have ever encountered. One of the basic philosophical observations about science is that it is remarkable that the Universe is so constituted that it is subject to examination in a systematic way, a way that reveals underlying, consistent principles within the operation of the Universe. i.e. the Universe is rational. It is recognised to be rational by science and were it not rational, science would not be an effective tool in ferreting out its secrets.

Is a church a government run facility? You want science-only spaces, that's fine.

Once again you don't seem to understand or accept the concept of separation of Church and State.

ut why should we give exclusive access to a particular religious claim(and here I am using religious claim as a matter of "what governs the universe?" rather than defining it in terms of deities.)

Science makes no religious claims. Many scientists are also practicing Christians. It is true that some scientists may make religious, or rather anti-religious claims. I oppose them as much as I oppose the misguided interpretation you place on the situation.