Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism?

[Mark Quayle]

Do you also accept the fact that all of the scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution. Creationists are like a toddler that wet their pants in comparison. They cannot even come up with the most basic of testable hypotheses that support their beliefs. Which of course means that they cannot find any scientific evidence at all for their beliefs.

I said I believe evidence occurred. That doesn't mean I believe in the theory of Darwinian Evolution, or any of its variations. No, I do not accept that all the scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution.

Granted that 'we cannot show it', does not equal 'it cannot be shown', but if it cannot be shown that there was enough time from primordial soup to present for life to begin and to evolve to present day humans, then that would be one evidence showing the possibility of creation. Another evidence of the possibility of creation is the evidence of the possibility of The Creator: the fact of existence.

 

[pitabread]

If there isn't a uniform distribution of laws, all of the conclusions of science are suspect because we cannot test every instance and moment to see if they hold.

Scientific conclusions are provisional to begin with, so I don't think that is necessarily an issue.

No, while the laws themselves may vary the central assumption that they exist and are uniformly distributed remains in tact.

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you mean by "uniformly distributed". In the context of classical versus quantum mechanics, there are physical laws that may apply in the former, but not in the latter (and vise-versa).

This is where there's a divergence, as the question is how do we know that tests we come up with are reliable without excluding the possibility? If we do not accept at least some assumptions that cannot be tested the furthest we can get is "I think, therefore I am." So why should we take human accessibility as definitive? It also fails to take into consideration the claim in question, as Christianity doesn't claim that we know through our intellect but through direct personal revelation from God. So why should human philosophies take priority?

It comes down to practicality. The assumptions of an objective universe is the only way we have to test ideas scientifically. And given the results of scientific inquiry have proven fruitful, it seems to be working so far.

Let's take nuclear decay rates as an example. Those have huge implications in practical terms when it comes to things like nuclear power plants, X-ray machines and other applications involving nuclear decay. If nuclear decays weren't consistent, things like nuclear power plants would become a lot more problematic to operate.

If a supernatural being wanted to come along and suddenly change decay rates arbitrarily such as what YECs claim, there's not much we could do about that. In fact, it would rapidly become a moot point since we'd all be dead from radiation poisoning.

I could go into further examples like applications of evolutionary biology to applied biology, applications of old-Earth geology to oil&gas and mining industries, etc, etc.

 

[Fervent]

Scientific conclusions are provisional to begin with, so I don't think that is necessarily an issue.

Yes, but the problem is that the whole game is suspect unless physics is supportable and if there are pockets here and there where the laws that govern the four fundamental forces don't hold everything we know about physics goes out the window, in fact we have no reason for trusting empirical claims at all if such is the case.

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you mean by "uniformly distributed". In the context of classical versus quantum mechanics, there are physical laws that may apply in the former, but not in the latter (and vise-versa).

It's not that every law is universal, but that there is a nucleus of laws that remain in tact in all places and for all conceivable data-sets. The mythical TOE that physicists pursue because it theoretically has to exist but there is no evidence to support at present.

It comes down to practicality. The assumptions of an objective universe is the only way we have to test ideas scientifically. And given the results of scientific inquiry have proven fruitful, it seems to be working so far.

Let's take nuclear decay rates as an example. Those have huge implications in practical terms when it comes to things like nuclear power plants and other applications involving nuclear decay. If nuclear decays weren't consistent, things like nuclear power plants would become a lot more problematic to operate.

If a supernatural being wanted to come along and suddenly change decay rates arbitrarily such as what YECs claim, there's not much we could do about that. In fact, it would rapidly become a moot point since we'd all be dead from radiation poisoning.

I could go into further examples like applications of evolutionary biology to applied biology, applications of old-Earth geology to oil&gas and mining industries, etc, etc.

You didn't address Wegner's friend. And pragmatics doesn't demonstrate truth, nor is there any reason to suspect that the universe must conform to human limits. So why should I question one set of metaphysical claims while onboarding without equal skepticism another? Why is the assumption that god doesn't exist more trustworthy than the assumption He does?

 

[Quartermaine]

Granted that 'we cannot show it', does not equal 'it cannot be shown', but if it cannot be shown that there was enough time from primordial soup to present for life to begin and to evolve to present day humans, then that would be one evidence showing the possibility of creation. Another evidence of the possibility of creation is the evidence of the possibility of The Creator: the fact of existence.

the evolution of human level intelligence out of animal intelligence didn't take that long at all, seven to nine million years. Animals with sufficient brain size and capacities predate dinosaurs. So plenty of time.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

BTW I don't believe all those things; i.e. I fail to believe them all as a complete set (not individually). I'm not sure just what vapour-dome would entail; and, though I do not doubt the six days could be six days, such as we experience here as marked by sunset to sunset, the six days I believe could be six millenia or six epochs; but the notion that thorns showed up only after and as a result of the fall to me is not what the Bible says. "Cursed is the ground because of you; With hard labor you shall eat from it All the days of your life." to me doesn't mean that thorns and other such things weren't around before, nor do I recall reading in the bible that predators ate grass. Lol, in fact, to claim that they did not would invoke at least a certain amount of either creation after the fall, or evolution after the fall!

Science class isn't supposed to claim either evolution or creation as fact, but to show how both theories are said to work.

I agree with the 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' thing. But the 'baby' in this case (if by 'baby' you are referring to the theory of Darwinian Evolution) is not, after all, a being, but a compilation of many members —in fact, a compilation of interpretations of combinations of much raw data. "This would suggest that", and such, comes into play here. The data should be taught, and possible interpretations of the combinations with the logic behind the interpretations. Likewise, with the notion of First Cause and creation.

The 1960's school I grew up in, as you would suppose (a missionary kid's school), taught both, but with heavy emphasis on what was assumed fact, and what was not supposed fact was ridiculed. While I'm sure you would chafe at this method, I'm not so sure you would chafe at the opposite —that evolution be taught as necessary fact and creationism be taught, but ridiculed.

 

[VirOptimus]

BTW I don't believe all those things; i.e. I fail to believe them all as a complete set (not individually). I'm not sure just what vapour-dome would entail; and, though I do not doubt the six days could be six days, such as we experience here as marked by sunset to sunset, the six days I believe could be six millenia or six epochs; but the notion that thorns showed up only after and as a result of the fall to me is not what the Bible says. "Cursed is the ground because of you; With hard labor you shall eat from it All the days of your life." to me doesn't mean that thorns and other such things weren't around before, nor do I recall reading in the bible that predators ate grass. Lol, in fact, to claim that they did not would invoke at least a certain amount of either creation after the fall, or evolution after the fall!

Science class isn't supposed to claim either evolution or creation as fact, but to show how both theories are said to work.

I agree with the 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' thing. But the 'baby' in this case (if by 'baby' you are referring to the theory of Darwinian Evolution) is not, after all, a being, but a compilation of many members —in fact, a compilation of interpretations of combinations of much raw data. "This would suggest that", and such, comes into play here. The data should be taught, and possible interpretations of the combinations with the logic behind the interpretations. Likewise, with the notion of First Cause and creation.

The 1960's school I grew up in, as you would suppose (a missionary kid's school), taught both, but with heavy emphasis on what was assumed fact, and what was not supposed fact was ridiculed. While I'm sure you would chafe at this method, I'm not so sure you would chafe at the opposite —that evolution be taught as necessary fact and creationism be taught, but ridiculed.

The ToE is science, creationism is religion.

The ToE describes how physical reality work.

Creationism dont.

 

[Ophiolite]

Science class isn't supposed to claim either evolution or creation as fact, but to show how both theories are said to work.

Nonsense. Science class is meant to present the methods and findings of science. As such it may be expected to present evolution as a fact (it is) and the theory of evolution as the best available explanation for that observed evolution. Creation is appropriately presented in classes on comparative religion, in which the Genesis version would be rightly included alongside the creation stories of the other major religions and a smattering of the smaller ones, to give a flavour to the diversity of views on the topic.

 

[Mark Quayle]

the evolution of human level intelligence out of animal intelligence didn't take that long at all, seven to nine million years. Animals with sufficient brain size and capacities predate dinosaurs. So plenty of time.

'Plenty of time', so you assert. Have studies been done present day yielding results that can be extrapolated to the millions of years, demonstrating your 'plenty of time' idea?

 

[pitabread]

Yes, but the problem is that the whole game is suspect unless physics is supportable and if there are pockets here and there where the laws that govern the four fundamental forces don't hold everything we know about physics goes out the window, in fact we have no reason for trusting empirical claims at all if such is the case.

Okay, but so what? One is certainly welcome to be skeptical about anything and everything, including the nature of reality itself.

From a practical perspective, I'm not sure what that accomplishes.

It's not that every law is universal, but that there is a nucleus of laws that remain in tact in all places and for all conceivable data-sets. The mythical TOE that physicists pursue because it theoretically has to exist but there is no evidence to support at present.

Okay, but again, so what?

You didn't address Wegner's friend.

*Wigner's friend

I'm not sure what you're asking me to address here?

And pragmatics doesn't demonstrate truth, nor is there any reason to suspect that the universe must conform to human limits. So why should I question one set of metaphysical claims while onboarding without equal skepticism another? Why is the assumption that god doesn't exist more trustworthy than the assumption He does?

Nobody is saying you can't question this or that. You're welcome to believe whatever you want.

Scientific inquiry yields practical, useful information about our universe. If it turns out it's all just a facade, so be it. We'll cross that bridge if and when we get there.

 

[VirOptimus]

'Plenty of time', so you assert. Have studies been done present day yielding results that can be extrapolated to the millions of years, demonstrating your 'plenty of time' idea?

May I suggest a science 101?

 

[pitabread]

'Plenty of time', so you assert. Have studies been done present day yielding results that can be extrapolated to the millions of years, demonstrating your 'plenty of time' idea?

In terms of genetic divergence between species, there is nothing inconsistent about the divergence from humans and other primates relative to rates of genetic change we observe today.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nonsense. Science class is meant to present the methods and findings of science. As such it may be expected to present evolution as a fact (it is) and the theory of evolution as the best available explanation for that observed evolution. Creation is appropriately presented in classes on comparative religion, in which the Genesis version would be rightly included alongside the creation stories of the other major religions and a smattering of the smaller ones, to give a flavour to the diversity of views on the topic.

Maybe it wasn't you who already said this.

 

[pitabread]

Science class isn't supposed to claim either evolution or creation as fact, but to show how both theories are said to work.

"Creation" isn't a scientific theory though. It's a religious belief (or group of religious beliefs).

 

[Quartermaine]

'Plenty of time', so you assert. Have studies been done present day yielding results that can be extrapolated to the millions of years, demonstrating your 'plenty of time' idea?

the work of generations of archaeologists, anthropologists and paleontologists for starts

 

[Fervent]

Okay, but so what? One is certainly welcome to be skeptical about anything and everything, including the nature of reality itself.

From a practical perspective, I'm not sure what that accomplishes.

Just highlights that we're coming from different base assumptions, and when I am skeptical about the foundations of physicalists they routinely demand that I provide them with justification for mine. Why should I abandon my premises in favor of another?

Okay, but again, so what?

There once was a woman who insisted the Earth rested on the back of a turtle. When asked what the turtle rested on, she said another turtle. This question-answer routine repeated a few times until recognition dawned on her face and she declared "there's turtles all the way down." Now, the atheist/agnostic crowd assures me there are turtles all the way down, but as soon as the turtle can no longer be seen my questioning becomes irrational and I am accused of being a nihilist. There never seems to be any willingness to justify their own premises, simply a desire for me to give up mine.

*Wigner's friend

I'm not sure what you're asking me to address here?

Wigner's friend implies that reality is at least partially dependent on the observer, undermining the assumption that reality is in fact objective and verifiable. Not only is it hypothetically possible according to QM, but has been tested and verified to occur.

Nobody is saying you can't question this or that. You're welcome to believe whatever you want.

Scientific inquiry yields practical, useful information about our universe. If it turns out it's all just a facade, so be it. We'll cross that bridge if and when we get there.

And now I have laid the groundwork for Pascal's Wager. Which is more rational, accepting the proposition that is rewarded if true, with no penalty if false or the one that has no reward for being true, but a penalty if false?

 

[pitabread]

Just highlights that we're coming from different base assumptions, and when I am skeptical about the foundations of physicalists they routinely demand that I provide them with justification for mine. Why should I abandon my premises in favor of another?

Nobody is saying you should abandon your premises.

There once was a woman who insisted the Earth rested on the back of a turtle. When asked what the turtle rested on, she said another turtle. This question-answer routine repeated a few times until recognition dawned on her face and she declared "there's turtles all the way down." Now, the atheist/agnostic crowd assures me there are turtles all the way down, but as soon as the turtle can no longer be seen my questioning becomes irrational and I am accused of being a nihilist. There never seems to be any willingness to justify their own premises, simply a desire for me to give up mine.

I'm afraid I can't speak to other conversations you may have had with atheists or agnostics.

Wigner's friend implies that reality is at least partially dependent on the observer, undermining the assumption that reality is in fact objective and verifiable. Not only is it hypothetically possible according to QM, but has been tested and verified to occur.

Oh yes, I'm well aware of the problem of subjective observations/measurements, among other similar phenomena with quantum mechanics (e.g. changing the results of the measurement by measuring it in the first place).

It doesn't really change the notion that the universe itself may be objective (or considered objective) even though are individual perceptions of it may not be.

And now I have laid the groundwork for Pascal's Wager. Which is more rational, accepting the proposition that is rewarded if true, with no penalty if false or the one that has no reward for being true, but a penalty if false?

Pascal's Wager has numerous problems. Just in the above, the premise that there is no penalty if false is a flawed assumption.

It also falsely assumes that such beliefs are a conscious choice that one can flip like a lightswitch, rather than a consequence of information one assimilates over time. I can't force myself to believe something I don't intrinsically think is true. All I can do is be honest with myself.

If there is a supernatural deity which is overseeing everything, I'm sure they'd be fine with that. If they wouldn't be, they are probably not a deity I'd want to follow anyway.

 

[Fervent]

Nobody is saying you should abandon your premises.



I'm afraid I can't speak to other conversations you may have had with atheists or agnostics.

Fair enough

NobodyOh yes, I'm well aware of the problem of subjective observations/measurements, among other similar phenomena with quantum mechanics (e.g. changing the results of the measurement by measuring it in the first place).

It doesn't really change the notion that the universe itself may be objective (or considered objective) even though are individual perceptions of it may not be.

The issue with Wigner's friend is that superposition and waveform collapse are independent objective states. It is like saying something can be a liquid and solid at the same time. If objective states are not mutually exclusive but depend on whether they are under observation, the universe is not independently verifiable as we can only state what is true for a universe that is currently under observation rather than what it is in fact. An objective state may exist, but it is not what our direct observations are recording.

NobodyPascal's Wager has numerous problems. Just in the above, the premise that there is no penalty if false is a flawed assumption.

It also falsely assumes that such beliefs are a conscious choice that one can flip like a lightswitch, rather than a consequence of information one assimilates over time. I can't force myself to believe something I don't intrinsically think is true. All I can do is be honest with myself.

If there is a supernatural deity which is overseeing everything, I'm sure they'd be fine with that. If they wouldn't be, they are probably not a deity I'd want to follow anyway.

Certainly, there are issues with it or any other argument for God. But the central question(in my view) is not whether God exists as that is something that requires us to assume in order to investigate, but whether belief in God can be rationally justified. Pascal's wager takes us towards that, at least with all else being equal excluding all beliefs that do not provide a reward. The question then is no longer "does God exist?" but "Which god should I believe in?"

I forgot to address your latter point, if we do not have the ability to choose our beliefs at least to some extent than the entire enterprise of argumentation is undermined. It also assigns disbelief a neutral value, which according to many of the views under consideration it is not as it is not held to be a passive holding out but a willful suppression.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

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?

I don't need to provide a list. All you need to do is look in all the threads in this forum and you will see mountains of scientific evidence that is immediately dismissed for little to no reason just as they are dismissed in the scientific community as blasphemy. Sidney Powell has a better chance of presenting her case against dominion than a scientist trying to present evidence for creation.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

it's clear that you can't produce evidence to back up your claim.



there is no credible evidence much less convincing evidence for intelligent design

The evidence is throughout these forums in the form of scientific evidence suggesting creationism that is immediately dismissed.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Just highlights that we're coming from different base assumptions, and when I am skeptical about the foundations of physicalists they routinely demand that I provide them with justification for mine. Why should I abandon my premises in favor of another?

And yet we all rely on the same assumptions about the consistency of physical reality in our daily lives.

We expect solid things to remain solid. Gravity to work. The function of a match when struck. Etc. Etc.

These things and so many more are dependent on our understanding of the repeatability of nature and the reliability of the natural laws, their secondary and tertiary effects.

Even one of the stages of mental development of infants, object permanence, is the learning by the child that things exist separate from the child will or thoughts.

We are *all* operational naturalists, all the time. We couldn't survive with out it.