• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

a creationist mindset

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by chickenman, Aug 10, 2002.

  1. chickenman

    chickenman evil unamerican

    +6
    I stole this from the infidels board, but I think everyone should read it, it sums up creationist tactics fairly well I think;

     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Zadok

    Zadok The Fossil Hound

    199
    +2
    Yup, it sure does...
     
  3. tericl2

    tericl2 A Work in Progress

    741
    +6
    Christian
    Actually, I think it sums up the evolutionist's mind set.

    Those are all argument types that I have seen most evolutionists throw up on most discussion boards.
     
  4. chickenman

    chickenman evil unamerican

    +6
    well obviously its not a comprehensive list of creationist tactics, it forgot to mention the "no i'm not, you are!" argument
     
  5. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    +1,463
    Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    I haven't seen a lot of that stuff from people who accept evolution as a working theory. I have seen the whole lot of them from people who are trying to deny it.

    By contrast, people who don't accept young earth creation mostly seem to be sticking to the nice, simple, "but it's inconsistent with all the data".
     
  6. Christian Soldier

    Christian Soldier QUESTION EVOLUTION

    +50
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Constitution
    "But our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective 'scientific method,' with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology."

    Stephen Jay Gould, "In the Mind of the Beholder," Natural History, February 1994
     
  7. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    +9
    Did Stephen Jay Gould mention, in "In The Mind of the Beholder", whether science was any good at all? Did he mention whether there was a method that led to good results, or was this his announcement that he was retiring from science because the methodology was so non-robotic?
     
  8. Christian Soldier

    Christian Soldier QUESTION EVOLUTION

    +50
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Constitution
    "Did Stephen Jay Gould mention, in "In The Mind of the Beholder", whether science was any good at all? Did he mention whether there was a method that led to good results, or was this his announcement that he was retiring from science because the methodology was so non-robotic?"

    Why would Gould be spinning in his grave over something he said and meant, in an evolutionist periodical? He was merely being honest, which is unusual for an evolutionist. He simply admitted the hard fact that evolutionists who hide behind a veneer of always being "fully rational", "objective" and "logical"---are clearly engaging in "self-serving mythology".

    Kudos to the man for telling the truth. If only Jerry was so honest!
     
  9. chickenman

    chickenman evil unamerican

    +6
    ahaha, and creation scientists, who have an a priori commitment to their interpretation of the bible in all their scientific endeavours are ""fully rational", "objective" and "logical""?

    pot to kettle: you are black
     
  10. Josephus

    Josephus <b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b> Supporter

    +261
    Messianic
    chickenman, your labeling belittles your intelligence. what is rational to one is insanity to another. before you break a rule, either calm down this kind of rhetoric or find another board. thanks.
     
  11. foolsparade

    foolsparade Well-Known Member

    +24
    Atheist
    I guess we all will ignore the fact that CS is calling Jerry a liar.

    "The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents."
    -- Stephen Jay Gould, "The Verdict on Creationism," The Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 1987-88
     
  12. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    +9
    Oh, I reckon he would be spinning in his grave at having his words taken as a weapon in an attack on science. I guess what you are getting at is because (admittedly) scientists are seldom completely objective, or fully rational, and sometimes have errors of logic, then it is&nbsp;plenty scientific&nbsp;for Creationists to be completely biased, summarily dismissing any evidence for evolution, and denying 150 years of research on strictly philosophical grounds.

    You seemed to miss some other "points" Gould made in this quote:

    -He simply admitted the hard fact that&nbsp;chemicalists who hide behind a veneer of always being "fully rational", "objective" and "logical"---are clearly engaging in "self-serving mythology".

    -He simply admitted the hard fact that&nbsp;gravitationalists who hide behind a veneer of always being "fully rational", "objective" and "logical"---are clearly engaging in "self-serving mythology".&nbsp;


    -He simply admitted the hard fact that evolutionists who hide behind a veneer of always being "fully rational", "objective" and "logical"---are clearly engaging in "self-serving mythology".


    -He simply admitted the hard fact that nuclear phyicalists who hide behind a veneer of always being "fully rational", "objective" and "logical"---are clearly engaging in "self-serving mythology".&nbsp;
     
  13. Late_Cretaceous

    Late_Cretaceous &lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

    +106
    Catholic
    What a remarkable coinkydink.
    Over at http://www.creationists.org/quote003.html, where the "evolutionists quote of the month" is located, there is the exact same quote from Gould. Does this mean you never actually read the whole essay. I bet you never even actally had access to the whole essay.

    A classic case of out of context quotes.

    By another coincidence, I have been reading Gould's "Dinosaur in a Haystack" and read that very essay just the other day. Funny thing is, when you read the whole essay you get the distinct impression that Gould is not criticizing evolutionists, but rather arguing for a more human face to be put on science and scientists - who are often viewed as automotons.

    At least that is my opinion. But then again, I actually read the essay - I am not just pretending I did.
     
  14. Christian Soldier

    Christian Soldier QUESTION EVOLUTION

    +50
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Constitution
    "The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents."
    -- Stephen Jay Gould, "The Verdict on Creationism," The Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 1987-88"

    Thank you for posting the above, it helps me make several points.
    • Gould definitely wasn't honest all the time. His claim that Creationists assert that "all fossils are products of Noah's flood", is hogwash.
    • Evolutionists evoke miracles all the time. Like the miracle that over the course of billions of years, an amoeba eventually evolved into a man. But I guess it could be classified as a fairy tale!
    • Evolutionists are far more unwilling to abandon claims clearly disproven, and many of them disproven long ago. Look at Haeckel's faked embryo drawings, they are still found in some modern biology textbooks.
    • Gould's contention that Creationists improperly quote evolutionists does absolutely nothing to prove that my quote is out of context. That assertion must be tested on a case-by-case basis, and so far my quote stands. All the evos here have done is give very creative and specious interpretations of what they THINK Gould meant.
     
  15. Christian Soldier

    Christian Soldier QUESTION EVOLUTION

    +50
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Constitution
    "What a remarkable coinkydink.
    Over at http://www.creationists.org/quote003.html, where the "evolutionists quote of the month" is located, there is the exact same quote from Gould. Does this mean you never actually read the whole essay. I bet you never even actally had access to the whole essay."

    Your link is dead, so I went to the site via my browser address block. You're wrong, as is frequently the case. The "quote of the month" over there is from Richard Dawkins, not Gould:

    Proof Late_Cretaceous Is Dead Wrong

    As is the case with virtually all evolutionists, you prove yourself to be highly presumptuous. I didn't get the quote from the site you mention. It isn't the quote of the month as you falsely reported. It may have been there at another time, but you would know that better than me---since I don't frequent that site.


    "A classic case of out of context quotes."

    Your unproven opinion only.

    "By another coincidence, I have been reading Gould's "Dinosaur in a Haystack" and read that very essay just the other day. Funny thing is, when you read the whole essay you get the distinct impression that Gould is not criticizing evolutionists, but rather arguing for a more human face to be put on science and scientists - who are often viewed as automotons.

    At least that is my opinion. But then again, I actually read the essay - I am not just pretending I did."

    For someone who has allegedly read the essay, you don't sound too sure of yourself. Phrases like "you get the distinct impression" and "At least that is my opinion" do nothing to prove your specious case. If you really thought the essay proved your point, you would have quoted it at length. Your failure to do so strongly suggests that the quote I provided is in context.

    The evos on this forum have yet to prove my quote is out of context.
     
  16. Late_Cretaceous

    Late_Cretaceous &lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

    +106
    Catholic
  17. Late_Cretaceous

    Late_Cretaceous &lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

    +106
    Catholic
    The Gauntlet has been dropped.
    Here is my view of "in the mindset of the Beholder"

    Gould starts out by saying that beauty is indeed in the "eye of the beholder" - that what is condidered beautiful is not always going to be in consensus. Then he talks about how idealized science would be immunte to aesthetic judgements. He continues to say that the way people learn is based on "social preconceptions and biased thinking". In other words scientists are only human afterall. THis is where you little quote comes in, to emphasize the point that the idealized concept of science and scientists is folly, that it is as flawed as humanity. He goes on to say that "scientists who make discoveries do not follow this optimized pathway". In other words some genuine human creativity is involved in the process of scientific discovery - not just pure rational scientific method. Gould calls this this "messy and personal side of science should not be disparged" and that "scientists should proudly show this human face to show their kinship with all other modes of creative human thought".
    It is quite clear that Gould is emphasizing that science is not a cold logical process, but a creative human one. He then discusses the very real issue of biases in thinking and the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. THen he introduces a new concept which he calles adbuctive reasoning. Abducitve reasoning, it what Gould claims lead to great leaps in science. Thinking out of the box if you will.Later in the essay he talks about the Cambrain explosion and other Evolutionary topics.

    Please, give me your inturpretation of the essay. I am sure you can get a copy of the book at your local library.
     
  18. Christian Soldier

    Christian Soldier QUESTION EVOLUTION

    +50
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Constitution
    "The link works perfectly fine."

    Yes, now that you've fixed it!

    "Try it again. There was just a coma left at the end of it."

    The quote you linked to IS NOT the current "quote of the month" that's listed on the homepage. I was correct that the current month's quote is from Dawkins.

    You insinuated that I got the quote from that site. I did not. Please try to present verifiable facts, rather than your biased and baseless speculation.
     
  19. Caffeine Socialism

    Caffeine Socialism Imagine all the people.

    380
    +0
    In response to our knight in shining armor's comment on the "fairytale" of evolution:

    I suggest that you try reading The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.&nbsp;&nbsp; It explains evolution in a very easy-to-understand way, yet it maintains the complexity of evolution and natural selection.&nbsp;&nbsp; What I especially recommend you read is the section on the minute, infinitesimal mutations and changes that lead, gradually over billions of years, to more complex organisms.

    By the way, I think it was more of an archaic bacterium that gave rise to homo sapiens over the aeons.
     
  20. Christian Soldier

    Christian Soldier QUESTION EVOLUTION

    +50
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Constitution
    "In other words some genuine human creativity is involved in the process of scientific discovery - not just pure rational scientific method."

    Thank you for the very enlightening look into evolutionist methods of scientific inquiry. When "pure rational scientific method" repeatedly fails to prove their hypotheses, the evos just get "creative" and start making things up!
     
Loading...