Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[Astrid]

To some degree, yes. But to be clear, not at all like Biblical Creationist.

Something like me. But with a god.

 

[Astrid]

I don't really know what your beliefs are, but if you believe in a resurrected body, this would require you to have an open mind as a number of atheists would claim the idea as intellectual dishonesty. Just the idea of creation alone would cause such a reaction.

I'm sure you're not concerned with what anyone else thinks, but I'm just not sure why you'd think the biblical creationist is intellectually dishonest?

I think you do a disservice to yourself here
in a number of ways.
One is to feel you'd be subject to caulmny
from " a number of atheists" for your faith
in a creator. Or resurrection. I don't see any basis
for that from anyone, including you.

Intellectual honesty is a worthwhile study; if
you've not read and thought about it that's a bit
of a disservice too, don't you think so?

In science, which is mostly the topic , honesty
and objectivity are largely the same thing.

Bringing in preconceived ideas, hoping for certain
results, not giving proper attention to results that
don't seem to fit what you want or expect- any type of
bias leads to self deception. It's very easy to fall into
that trap, probably inevitable if one is not aware of the danger.

Unfortunately, for Christians dealing with facts contrary to their chosen rendition of God's word,
they claim their Interpretations are God's inviolable word, and, mistake faith in themselves for faith in God.

And thats how yecs force intellectual dishonesty
upon themselves.

Faith is a highest virtue, is it not? Hold fast the faith,
no matter what. Facts " wisdom of man" evidence, logic, math, mean nothing., Because only
their opinion, emotion, faith count- the total
opposite of objectivity.

Conclusion before evidence - the opposite of conclusion drawn from dispassionate
examinaction of data.

Now, as it happens, all relevant data re " deep time"
and evolution confrm that the theories associated are
correct. No known data is contrary. None of the
predictable evidence of flood or simultaneous creation exists.

Making up data ( paluxy man tracks, say) or misrepresenting data, refusing or acknowledge etc-
the whole panoply of yec arguments- is dishonest.

There is a yec paleontologist I like to quote, a
Dr K Wise, PhD

" ...even if all the information in the universe turns against Yec. I will still be yec, as that is what
the bible seems to indicate".

We doubt you'd feel you'd had a fair trial if the jury
treated all of the evidence of your innocence that way.

Finally- yec beliefs are NOT inherently dishonest.

Our maid here is from Philippines, where she got very
little formal education. Catholic.
Did not know the world is round, like an orange.
Thought like a typical yec, to the extent she thought about it at all. Turns out she is smart and curious though.

Nothing at all dishonest about her, just uneducated.

My observation though,is that as with Dr. Wise, it is
impossible to be an educated and intellectually honest yec.

That's my observation, I presented my thinking, that's my theory.
One exception will disprove it.

 

[Astrid]

I know you're not speaking to me, but let me make it clear that I know there are many, many intellectually honest creationists.


Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
Dr. Todd Wood, YE creationist.

Kurt Wise is another YE creationist, who while believing that the world is only a few thousand years old, and not accepting evolution, has listed dozens of transitional forms and series of forms that he admits are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." He's not hiding anything, and he's not kidding himself. He just prefers his reading of Genesis to the evidence. And that's honest, even if I regard it as mistaken.

I'm not sure you know what is meant by scientific
intrgrity..Which is the topic, not whether they cheat at poker.

Your first guy is saying essentially.
" I know the facts on smoking but I choose
R J Reynolds version of the truth."

The honesty of those men's admission is that
of a bank robber saying he likes to rob banks.

 

[The Barbarian]

Dr. Wise admits the evidence supports evolution. He prefers his faith what he thinks the Bible has to say about it. He's mistaken, but he's too honest to deny the facts.

I can respect that. Science is merely a method. An incredibly effective and productive method. But it's not a worldview,or a philosophy or a comprehensive summary of what is real.

 

[The Barbarian]

The honesty of those men's admission is that
of a bank robber saying he likes to rob banks.

Yes. It's honesty. By definition, robbing a bank is criminal, not dishonest, unless you try to hide the fact that you do it.

Dishonesty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[The Barbarian]

I think when you say "not much of a benefit", you're meaning relatively. It's not a handicap not having one, but just doesn't give much benefit.

I would say having a coccyx would provide a certain amount of bodily support, but like many other physical or social disadvantages, can be overcome, or compensated for.

Living tissue is always a drain on resources like food, water, etc. It's of benefit if whatever it does is greater than the resources it requires. The point is, that it's a vestigial tail which no longer serves any of the functions of a tail. As you know, "vestigial" does not necessarily mean "useless", although that can be possible, as appears to be the case with the coccyx, which seems to require more resources than any benefits it provides.

I don't really know what your beliefs are, but if you believe in a resurrected body, this would require you to have an open mind as a number of atheists would claim the idea as intellectual dishonesty. Just the idea of creation alone would cause such a reaction.

I'm sure you're not concerned with what anyone else thinks, but I'm just not sure why you'd think the biblical creationist is intellectually dishonest?

The rebuttal is simple; science is only methodologically naturalistic. So it does not rule out the supernatural or the miraculous. A scientifically knowledgeable person would freely admit that science could not support atheism. Even Richard Dawkins has made this point.

 

[Roderick Spode]

To some degree, yes. But to be clear, not at all like Biblical Creationist.

It's actually kind of relief to see some realization that the term creationist does not necessarily imply biblical creationist!

 

[Roderick Spode]

When a person denies what the Earth itSelf is showing us about itSelf in favor of the creation story of an ancient tribe of middle-eastern desert nomads...how is that any different than saying that the Earth is lying? And how is that any different than being intellectually dishonest? That's what I don't understand.

To clarify, evolution is not a repugnant term. I enjoy automobiles, and fascinated by the evolution of them. Without historical documents from the time of transition between horse carriages and motorized vehicles in the late 19th century, it would be a lot tougher to appreciate them, as we would have to rely on finding old rusty vehicles rotting away on farmlands. And we would inevitably draw false conclusions.

You're implying that your distrust in written document concerning creation as reason to imply intellectual dishonesty amongst biblical creationists. And you use the words ancient and nomads which I assume to imply unreliability. At what exact year do you draw the line at between ancient and non-ancient? At what year in history do you say "since written in year (fill in the blank), it's now not too old?" And what makes a nomadic tribe less reliable than say, writings from a king (like Solomon) or an emperor?

Unless the book of Genesis breaks the law of non-contradiction, then the creation account given in Genesis is perfectly compatible with what we observe in nature today. Like AV said, "variety is the spice of life". I marvel at the variety of animal life as much as you.

Out of curiosity, do you shun ancient Hindu documents concerning panentheism?

 

[Ophiolite]

You're implying that your distrust in written document concerning creation as reason to imply intellectual dishonesty amongst biblical creationists. And you use the words ancient and nomads which I assume to imply unreliability. At what exact year do you draw the line at between ancient and non-ancient? At what year in history do you say "since written in year (fill in the blank), it's now not too old?" And what makes a nomadic tribe less reliable than say, writings from a king (like Solomon) or an emperor?

Really? I mean, really! I had formed a much more positive view of your eloquence and integrity than would be merited by this cheap strawman rhetoric. Why is it so commonplace among certain people that so much seems to be presented as black and white, yes or no, my way or the highway. Many things (probably most things) exist on a spectrum (sometimes multi-dimensional). The reliability of texts is contingent on many factors. No text can be considered wholly reliable, perhaps no texts are wholly unreliable. I'm sure you know this, so why the fatuous strawman?

And I'd likely consider the words of a nomadic tribe more reliable than those of its leader. Marketing is not just a 20th century phenomenon.

 

[Roderick Spode]

I think you do a disservice to yourself here
in a number of ways.
One is to feel you'd be subject to caulmny
from " a number of atheists" for your faith
in a creator. Or resurrection. I don't see any basis
for that from anyone, including you.

I used the loose term "a number of..." so as not to include all atheists. There are some atheists for instance that absolutely abhor atheist activists. A better term may have been anti-theists, but I'm not really sure that would be accurate. Yes, there are atheists (that I've seen) who claim intellectual dishonesty towards anyone who believes in any form of Christianity, or any type of god including a deistic one. Have you seen the remarks made by some atheists towards Antony Flew when he changed his view on intelligent design? And he didn't even convert to any religion.

Intellectual honesty is a worthwhile study; if
you've not read and thought about it that's a bit
of a disservice too, don't you think so?

In science, which is mostly the topic , honesty
and objectivity are largely the same thing.

Bringing in preconceived ideas, hoping for certain
results, not giving proper attention to results that
don't seem to fit what you want or expect- any type of
bias leads to self deception. It's very easy to fall into
that trap, probably inevitable if one is not aware of the danger.

Unfortunately, for Christians dealing with facts contrary to their chosen rendition of God's word,
they claim their Interpretations are God's inviolable word, and, mistake faith in themselves for faith in God.

And thats how yecs force intellectual dishonesty
upon themselves.

Faith is a highest virtue, is it not? Hold fast the faith,
no matter what. Facts " wisdom of man" evidence, logic, math, mean nothing., Because only
their opinion, emotion, faith count- the total
opposite of objectivity.

Conclusion before evidence - the opposite of conclusion drawn from dispassionate
examinaction of data.

Now, as it happens, all relevant data re " deep time"
and evolution confrm that the theories associated are
correct. No known data is contrary. None of the
predictable evidence of flood or simultaneous creation exists.

Making up data ( paluxy man tracks, say) or misrepresenting data, refusing or acknowledge etc-
the whole panoply of yec arguments- is dishonest.

A question I've seen asked at times, and a great one is; do you think science is the only method for finding truth?

There is a yec paleontologist I like to quote, a
Dr K Wise, PhD

" ...even if all the information in the universe turns against Yec. I will still be yec, as that is what
the bible seems to indicate".

We doubt you'd feel you'd had a fair trial if the jury
treated all of the evidence of your innocence that way.

Finally- yec beliefs are NOT inherently dishonest.

Our maid here is from Philippines, where she got very
little formal education. Catholic.
Did not know the world is round, like an orange.
Thought like a typical yec, to the extent she thought about it at all. Turns out she is smart and curious though.

Nothing at all dishonest about her, just uneducated.

My observation though,is that as with Dr. Wise, it is
impossible to be an educated and intellectually honest yec.

That's my observation, I presented my thinking, that's my theory.
One exception will disprove it.

Your maid sounds like the common example of a person was told what to think (in a Catholic church). But she may just end up jumping from one told what to think to another/newer told what to think. My advice would be that after you educate her, be weary of an immediate acceptance to what you teach her.

Hopefully she'll learn to think independently!

 

[The Barbarian]

It's actually kind of relief to see some realization that the term creationist does not necessarily imply biblical creationist!

It seems to be more common in Islam, which is a religion more compatible with creationism.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Really? I mean, really! I had formed a much more positive view of your eloquence and integrity than would be merited by this cheap strawman rhetoric. Why is it so commonplace among certain people that so much seems to be presented as black and white, yes or no, my way or the highway. Many things (probably most things) exist on a spectrum (sometimes multi-dimensional). The reliability of texts is contingent on many factors. No text can be considered wholly reliable, perhaps no texts are wholly unreliable. I'm sure you know this, so why the fatuous strawman?

And I'd likely consider the words of a nomadic tribe more reliable than those of its leader. Marketing is not just a 20th century phenomenon.

What I'm addressing is the idea that a biblical creationist is an intellectually dishonest person.

I actually do encourage independent thought. I'm not accusing anyone of not being a Christian for not thinking my way, or having a theistic evolutionary view.

My view is that the salvation of a human is a miracle. The creation of the universe, earth, and life is a miracle. And that there are miracles that occurred in the bible after creation affecting mankind. So in my opinion, God creating a man and woman as the mother and father of all humanity is compatible with everything in nature we observe today.

 

[The Barbarian]

Only the most fantastically ignorant or self deceived
would believe literaral reading of Genesis is compatible with the observable data

Biological evolution, for example, is directly observed in all sorts of populations. BTW, a literal reading (meaning "what it really means" is consistent with figurative meanings. For example, St. Augustine's The Literal Meaning of Genesis Showed that the "days" of the creation story could not possibly be literal days, or even periods of time at all.

 

[The Barbarian]

What I'm addressing is the idea that a biblical creationist is an intellectually dishonest person.

Which is an error. It is perfectly possible to be an intellectually honest YE creationist.

My view is that the salvation of a human is a miracle. The creation of the universe, earth, and life is a miracle. And that there are miracles that occurred in the bible after creation affecting mankind. So in my opinion, God creating a man and woman as the mother and father of all humanity is compatible with everything in nature we observe today.

That's consistent with scripture. And it's consistent with the evidence. It's just that science can't deal with miracles, neither affirming nor denying them.

It's just a method. A really, really good and productive method. But not a universal answer to all things.

 

[Astrid]

Dr. Wise admits the evidence supports evolution. He prefers his faith what he thinks the Bible has to say about it. He's mistaken, but he's too honest to deny the facts.

I can respect that. Science is merely a method. An incredibly effective and productive method. But it's not a worldview,or a philosophy or a comprehensive summary of what is real.

What is to respect in intellectual disho

Yes. It's honesty. By definition, robbing a bank is criminal, not dishonest, unless you try to hide the fact that you do it.

Dishonesty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I presented him to illustrate an example of
intellectual dishonesty.
Are you denying his intellectual dishonesty?
If so a review of terminology is in order.

 

[Roderick Spode]

The rebuttal is simple; science is only methodologically naturalistic. So it does not rule out the supernatural or the miraculous. A scientifically knowledgeable person would freely admit that science could not support atheism. Even Richard Dawkins has made this point.

Usually this statement seems to reference the idea of not ruling out a supernatural creation of the universe.

But since it wouldn't rule out the miraculous altogether, it wouldn't rule out the miraculous occurrences after creation that are presented in the Bible (the Flood/Noah's Ark, Joshua's longest day, the loaves/fish miracle, etc.). Right?

 

[Roderick Spode]

It seems to be more common in Islam, which is a religion more compatible with creationism.

I was actually thinking along the lines of that particular trial that took place in Pennsylvania a number of years ago.

 

[Astrid]

I used the loose term "a number of..." so as not to include all atheists. There are some atheists for instance that absolutely abhor atheist activists. A better term may have been anti-theists, but I'm not really sure that would be accurate. Yes, there are atheists (that I've seen) who claim intellectual dishonesty towards anyone who believes in any form of Christianity, or any type of god including a deistic one. Have you seen the remarks made by some atheists towards Antony Flew when he changed his view on intelligent design? And he didn't even convert to any religion.

A question I've seen asked at times, and a great one is; do you think science is the only method for finding truth?

Your maid sounds like the common example of a person was told what to think (in a Catholic church). But she may just end up jumping from one told what to think to another/newer told what to think. My advice would be that after you educate her, be weary of an immediate acceptance to what you teach her.

Hopefully she'll learn to think independently!

Independent thought / socratic is my approach.

You addressed nothing but trivialities in my post

 

[Astrid]

To clarify, evolution is not a repugnant term. I enjoy automobiles, and fascinated by the evolution of them. Without historical documents from the time of transition between horse carriages and motorized vehicles in the late 19th century, it would be a lot tougher to appreciate them, as we would have to rely on finding old rusty vehicles rotting away on farmlands. And we would inevitably draw false conclusions.

You're implying that your distrust in written document concerning creation as reason to imply intellectual dishonesty amongst biblical creationists. And you use the words ancient and nomads which I assume to imply unreliability. At what exact year do you draw the line at between ancient and non-ancient? At what year in history do you say "since written in year (fill in the blank), it's now not too old?" And what makes a nomadic tribe less reliable than say, writings from a king (like Solomon) or an emperor?

Unless the book of Genesis breaks the law of non-contradiction, then the creation account given in Genesis is perfectly compatible with what we observe in nature today. Like AV said, "variety is the spice of life". I marvel at the variety of animal life as much as you.

Out of curiosity, do you shun ancient Hindu documents concerning panentheism?

What in Genesis is "perfectly compatible" besodes things like " rain" ?

 

[The Barbarian]

I was actually thinking along the lines of that particular trial that took place in Pennsylvania a number of years ago.

The Dover Trial, that confirmed that ID was a disguise for creationism, and therefore not legal to teach in public schools?