Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism?

[Fervent]

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.

Do we? What are you basing this on? Are you assuming that I, and other theists, do not seriously entertain the possibility of miracles?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

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"

Now let's see what the scientific community actually thinks about Collins.

When President Barack Obama announced on July 8, 2009, that he would nominate renowned geneticist Francis Collins to be the new director of the National Institutes of Health, a number of scientists and pundits publicly questioned whether the nominee’s devout religious faith should disqualify him from the position. In particular, some worried that an outspoken evangelical Christian who believes in miracles might not be the right person to fill what many consider to be the nation’s most visible job in science. Collins was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Aug. 7, 2009, but the controversy over his nomination reflects a broader debate within the scientific community between those who believe religion and science each examine legitimate but different realms of knowledge and those who see science as the only true way of understanding the universe.

Scientists and Belief

Scientists and Belief
The Strange Case of Francis Collins | Sam Harris

Can you believe the absurdity that one of the world's most powerful scientists believes in miracles? This is laughable.
One of the World’s Most Powerful Scientists Believes in Miracles


Francis Collins is one of the best examples showing that it doesn't matter how intelligent or respected you are in the realm of science. If you believe in God, much less the Christian God, you will be mocked and laughed at. If Obama had not appointed him, Collins would have likely been reduced to some nameless nobody.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do we? What are you basing this on? Are you assuming that I, and other theists, do not seriously entertain the possibility of miracles?

One definition of "miracle" is a "suspension of the natural laws", while I don't seriously entertain them, that's not what I am talking about.

I'm talking about the ordinary assumptions of repeatable, natural occurrences that we all rely on.

For example, even if you offer a prayer that you car will start each time you put the key in the ignition, you still put fuel in the tank when it is low instead of expecting that your prayer will keep your car operating without fuel.

If you think this is somehow an irrelevant, mundane, example you are wrong. It is mundane, but it is the uniformity of the physical laws that underlies the functioning of the car, its engine, and its need for fuel.

This is just one of the countless ways we depend everyday on the regularity of the natural "laws" and not supernatural intervention.

 

[Fervent]

One definition of "miracle" is a "suspension of the natural laws", while I don't seriously entertain them, that's not what I am talking about.

I'm talking about the ordinary assumptions of repeatable, natural occurrences that we all rely on.

For example, even if you offer a prayer that you car will start each time you put the key in the ignition, you still put fuel in the tank when it is low instead of expecting that your prayer will keep your car operating without fuel.

If you think this is somehow an irrelevant, mundane, example you are wrong. It is mundane, but it is the uniformity of the physical laws that underlies the functioning of the car, its engine, and its need for fuel.

This is just one of the countless ways we depend everyday on the regularity of the natural "laws" and not supernatural intervention.

You're onboarding a premise that pragmatism doesn't entail. Your reason for holding to the continued existence of those "laws" is...that they exist? As I mentioned earlier, there are turtles all the way down I am assured. My basis for expecting that there will be order and that things will proceed largely as I routinely experience is based in God, that He is supporting and sustaining the universe and that the orderliness that it appears to move by is because God is a God of order. There is no inconsistency, I just don't take the idea that there is an infinite regress of turtles and that the minute I can't see them I simply have to accept that they are there and my skepticism becomes unwarranted as worth considering.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

The ToE is science, creationism is religion.

The ToE describes how physical reality work.

Creationism dont.

much of what people call science is imaginative assumptions based on what they think is evidence. This is how "scientist" are able to reconstruct entire skeletal structures and determine its habits from a skull fragment. No different than ancient Greeks creating a cyclops from an elephant skull. Scientists tend to start with a piece of evidence and then fill the gaps with assumptions built on top of "educated guesses.

Obviously the video below is an exaggeration but it is a good example of what scientists do to fill scientific gaps.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're onboarding a premise that pragmatism doesn't entail. Your reason for holding to the continued existence of those "laws" is...that they exist? As I mentioned earlier, there are turtles all the way down I am assured. My basis for expecting that there will be order and that things will proceed largely as I routinely experience is based in God, that He is supporting and sustaining the universe and that the orderliness that it appears to move by is because God is a God of order. There is no inconsistency, I just don't take the idea that there is an infinite regress of turtles and that the minute I can't see them I simply have to accept that they are there and my skepticism becomes unwarranted as worth considering.

I am uncertain here by your claim:

Does your god make the laws of physics function in your view of things, or did it just set them up long ago?

 

[Fervent]

I am uncertain here by your claim:

Does your god make the laws of physics function in your view of things, or did it just set them up long ago?

Makes them function, it's the common claim among Christians. God is not merely a Creator but His existence is fundamental to it continuing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Makes them function, it's the common claim among Christians. God is not merely a Creator but His existence is fundamental to it continuing.

As an ex-christian I am not familiar with that notion operationally. On to the next question:

Does this mean I can make your god comply with my will? Everything I do that is dependent on the laws of physics is done by your god. Every thing I throw, every electric switch I activate, every lever I press, frankly everything I do, since it is all based on the laws of physics.

 

[Fervent]

As an ex-christian I am not familiar with that notion operationally. On to the next question:

Does this mean I can make your god comply with my will? Everything I do that is dependent on the laws of physics is done by your god. Every thing I throw, every electric switch I activate, every lever I press, frankly everything I do, since it is all based on the laws of physics.

Have you never heard the phrase "God superintends the universe." As to your question, there is an open question of origin of intent. Did your intention to do what you did come from your will, did the intention come from the physical interactions in your brain, or did it possibly originate with God Himself simply using you as the implement by which to accomplish what He originally intended? But then, this opens a whole can of worms of speculation that I doubt either of us wants to seriously contend with.

 

[Ophiolite]

Maybe it wasn't you who already said this.

I've doubtless said what I said in the post you responded to in different words, with different emphases, several time. It is a consequence of creationists presenting the same flawed and oft refuted arguments, time and time again. I think if you reflected more on what you were reading and what you were posting you would avoid falling into the same trap.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Have you never heard the phrase "God superintends the universe." As to your question, there is an open question of origin of intent. Did your intention to do what you did come from your will, did the intention come from the physical interactions in your brain, or did it possibly originate with God Himself simply using you as the implement by which to accomplish what He originally intended? But then, this opens a whole can of worms of speculation that I doubt either of us wants to seriously contend with.

Frankly, no, I've only recently become familiar with such a notion.

I think there is a reason that "sophisticated" theology avoids this notion as it effectively makes the god into the puppet rather than the puppetmaster. Subjecting it to the whims of the beings, required to make physical responses occur by actions it cannot stop. (Or at least chooses not to stop.) This makes the god operating the laws of physics at least partially culpable for every "evil" action a being takes, as it presumably has moral standards and could intervene, or it is powerless to do anything to intervene.

The rest of you argument that you think I don't want to face seems to be some sort of argument about free will. That would be off topic in this thread, on this board, and I am not particularly interested in such pointless discussions.

 

[Fervent]

Frankly, no, I've only recently become familiar with such a notion.

I think there is a reason that "sophisticated" theology avoids this notion as it effectively makes the god into the puppet rather than the puppetmaster. Subjecting it to the whims of the beings, required to make physical responses occur by actions it cannot stop. (Or at least chooses not to stop.) This makes the god operating the laws of physics at least partially culpable for every "evil" action a being takes, as it presumably has moral standards and could intervene, or it is powerless to do anything to intervene.

The rest of you argument that you think I don't want to face seems to be some sort of argument about free will. That would be off topic in this thread, on this board, and I am not particularly interested in such pointless discussions.

Considering I'm in a seminary program I think I'm in a better position to understand what "sophisticated" theology entails than someone not trained in it. You seem to have skipped over the central implication of my question to you, which is one of the explanatory gaps of physicalism(and its by no means a minor one) in the question of "how do our intentions become our actions?" If all is physical, or irrational laws govern the whole universe then our intentions are vapors and we are simply passengers in a body observing but not having any impact on what we are observing. I have a strong reason to believe in free will, in fact I see no way to reasonably doubt it. Yet that is exactly what physicalist theories require I do.

 

[Frank Robert]

Do we? What are you basing this on? Are you assuming that I, and other theists, do not seriously entertain the possibility of miracles?

Believing in miracles becomes a problem when you think you can predict them. If you get sick would you count on a miracle to cure you or do you go to a doctor?

 

[Sidon]

You're making claims about scientific findings that are gross strawman. T
And FWIW, did you know that homophobia is associated with latent homosexual arousal/tendencies? So you can act the homophobe if you want, but it just comes across that you might be a closeted homosexual yourself.

Well, lets see.
First you claim, for the 3rd time;....that im building straw-men, tho you have yet to try to offer any evidence to support your innuendo.

And, Im not a "closeted homosexual.. "
Im not the one found on a Christian forum, defending the perversion, while sounding "upset"..
So, you might want to check your mirror, regarding "latent homosexual tendencies", as i perceive that one of those would sound exactly like you sound on a "christian forum".
See it?
Its crystal clear.
Take a good long look.

And regarding 'homophobia".
I dont have that, i have homoNausea.
All real Christians do.

 

[Fervent]

Believing in miracles becomes a problem when you think you can predict them. If you get sick would you count on a miracle to cure you or do you go to a doctor?

There's a famous allegory in Christian circles about a drowning man. He prays to God "save me, save me." and a small row boat comes along and offers him rescue. He declines saying "God will save me." Then comes a cruise ship, but again he replies "God will save me." Then comes a coast guard helicopter, but again he declines. Finally, he drowns. Seeing God, he asks "God, why didn't you save me?" to which God replies "I sent a row boat, a cruise ship, and a helicopter. What more did you want?" Do you glean my point?

 

[Frank Robert]

There's a famous allegory in Christian circles about a drowning man. He prays to God "save me, save me." and a small row boat comes along and offers him rescue. He declines saying "God will save me." Then comes a cruise ship, but again he replies "God will save me." Then comes a coast guard helicopter, but again he declines. Finally, he drowns. Seeing God, he asks "God, why didn't you save me?" to which God replies "I sent a row boat, a cruise ship, and a helicopter. What more did you want?" Do you glean my point?

In the same vein God could very well be informing you your illness is progressing and get help before it is too late.

 

[Fervent]

In the same vein God could very well be informing you your illness is progressing and get help before it is too late.

I don't think you realize just how prescient your words are.

 

[Sidon]

You are incorrect, science has never postulated a "gay gene" Genes code for the production of proteins in the cell ...period. Human orientation is so innately complex that there is no way a single gene could possible be responsible for it. There is no black gene but we understand that being African American is an inborn and immutable trait.

You like to hear yourself talk.
I understand.
So, talk about this you will now read below.... to yourself.., as i really dont enjoy conversing with a closed mind that exists only to rant opinion.
When you get older, this might change.
Im sure you can understand... my point.

Just remember one thing.....Gays are not "born this way".
Believe it.
=
-
'"""""""The existence of a "gay gene" emerged from a 1993 report published in the journal Science by then-NIH researcher Dean Hamer, PhD. That study linked DNA markers on the X chromosome to male sexual orientation.
Since then, questions arose regarding the validity of those results. Other researchers are attempting to replicate and verify Hamer's findings. Hamer is also senior author of the current study, which appears in the March issue of Human Genetics.

---------------------

New Genetic Regions Associated With Male Sexual Orientation Found


""- The genes a man gets from his mother and father may play an important role in determining whether he is gay or not, according to a new study likely to reignite the "gay gene" debate.

Researchers say it's the first time the entire human genetic makeup has been scanned in search of possible genetic determinants of male sexual orientation. The results suggest that several genetic regions may influence homosexuality.

"It builds on previous studies that have consistently found evidence of genetic influence on sexual orientation, but our study is the first to look at exactly where those genes are located," says researcher Brian Mustanski, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago.""""""

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh? I'm open to hear you provide evidence without requiring me to accept the assumption a priori and proceed from there.

It appears that you do not understand what assumptions are.

No "assumptions" of the sort that you seem to think exist are needed. The simple fact is that science works. If you can find anything that comes even close to the scientific method when it comes to performance then you might have a point. But sadly you contradict yourself just by communicating here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

You may not believe that all of the scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution, but you are of course wrong. You may not understand the claim. I am not saying that there cannot be evidence against the theory of evolution. It may be found some day. No one has found any yet. Your belief does not affect that.

Plus there is no scientific evidence for creationism. And that of course is the fault of creationists. Why believe something that not only has not supporting scientific evidence, but is contradicted by existing scientific evidence.

It appears from the last half of your post that you do not understand what either reliable evidence is and that you definitely do not understand what scientific evidence is. Existence is not scientific evidence for a creator.