Does belief in unsupported creation theories necessitate pseudoscience?

[TricksterWolf]

There are sheer mountains of scientific evidence in support of evolution, from a dozen separate fields. Evolution is regarded as the only sound theory for the origin of mankind, since there is no competing theory that explains the same phenomena more simply and without magical thinking. As a scientist, I don't have a problem with this at all.

Yet, I remain open-minded that our origins may be far more mysterious than this. Now, there's no evidence to suggest that I'm right, and in scientific circles (research and teaching), I would always default to evolution as the only applicable scientific theory, because it is. For me, it's really a no-brainer. Current science supports only evolution, and the existence of the scientific data doesn't conflict with my way of looking at the world.

So here's the question. Why is it so hard for people who don't believe in evolution to live with it? Is it really necessary to redefine science in order to support your faith? Isn't the whole point of faith that it is based on beliefs that require subjective "leaps" beyond what is logically provable? I find very few people who seem able to resolve their beliefs like this, and I'm curious as to why it's such an obstacle. Would you be suddenly unable to believe in God if you couldn't prove that the Earth was a few thousand years old?

Trickster

 

[OdwinOddball]

Cognitive dissonance.

When you have cherished beliefs, yet you know that they somehow just don't quite fit the real world, if you are afraid of the consequences of this, your mind can form internal barriers that prevent you from studying the subject too deeply. Instead, you channel this into anger when anyone dares disagree with you. And thus we have Creationists who keep trying to push their centuries out dated viewpoints on the rest of us.

 

[Dannager]

Cognitive dissonance.

When you have cherished beliefs, yet you know that they somehow just don't quite fit the real world, if you are afraid of the consequences of this, your mind can form internal barriers that prevent you from studying the subject too deeply. Instead, you channel this into anger when anyone dares disagree with you. And thus we have Creationists who keep trying to push their centuries out dated viewpoints on the rest of us.

Truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

So here's the question. Why is it so hard for people who don't believe in evolution to live with it?

Evolution leads to some unorthodox prejudices, IMO. For instance, someone (I don't remember who) asked about the Tasmanian Aborigines being primitive people, and despite the fact that I showed that they created an aerodynamic tool (the boomerang), it was water off a duck's back, so I just figured they didn't want to really discuss it and dropped it. I don't know why it is, but just because we know how a rainbow is formed now, that makes our ancestors "primitive".

There is no such thing, in my opinion, as a primitive, and there never was, but you can't tell evolutionists that because they have their "proof" in the form of pictures of people's bones who had rickets and advanced arthritis and whatnot, and call them Cro-Magnon Man and Lucy and whatever.

It's really very sad.

Would you be suddenly unable to believe in God if you couldn't prove that the Earth was a few thousand years old?

I can't prove it --- and I'm able to believe in God.

Personally I think it's 13.7 billion years old; and while that seems a little excessively old to me, I go with that figure mainly for the sake of argument.

 

[PKJ]

Cognitive dissonance, indeed.

I think creationnism is just a way to eliminate the inner conflict by intellectualizing it, thus adding more barriers of protection for the original belief.

It's like when people give 12 arguments for why they don't like sushi. Of course we know that what they truly mean is YUCK!!1 RAW FISH = DISGUSTING!!!11!!! The hour-long debate that ensues is just a more civilized - and quite pedantic - way to rationnalize it.

 

[Dannager]

There is no such thing, in my opinion, as a primitive, and there never was, but you can't tell evolutionists that because they have their "proof" in the form of pictures of people's bones who had rickets and advanced arthritis and whatnot, and call them Cro-Magnon Man and Lucy and whatever.

Uh-huh. So the fact that all these bones from the same species date to roughly the same time period is just a crazy coincidence, right? The arthritis probably changed the amount of radioactive isotopes present, right?

 

[TricksterWolf]

Evolution leads to some unorthodox prejudices, IMO. For instance, someone (I don't remember who) asked about the Tasmanian Aborigines being primitive people, and despite the fact that I showed that they created an aerodynamic tool (the boomerang), it was water off a duck's back, so I just figured they didn't want to really discuss it and dropped it.

I've always thought this was a poor argument, though. It's like saying "we came from animals so we shouldn't wear clothing". The sins and decisions of my forefathers have no bearing on my moral reasoning or decisions for behavior. Being related to other animals doesn't mean something immoral unless you want it to.

People use a lot of things to justify prejudice, though; religion is as common an excuse as evolution. Doesn't make it right.

Trickster

 

[Logic_Fault]

There is no such thing, in my opinion, as a primitive, and there never was, but you can't tell evolutionists that because they have their "proof" in the form of pictures of people's bones who had rickets and advanced arthritis and whatnot, and call them Cro-Magnon Man and Lucy and whatever.

So every single example ever found of earlier humans are just bones of someone with "rickets and advanced arthritis and whatnot"? Sure. If you say so.

 

[TricksterWolf]

So every single example ever found of earlier humans are just bones of someone with "rickets and advanced arthritis and whatnot"? Sure. If you say so.

I don't really want to debate scientific evidence here...the thread is more for discussing the means by which faith and science may be (or may not be) compromised without resorting to scientific fudging of evidence.

In other words, can people believe in something incompatable with the total picture evolution assumes and still be comfortable with the science that exists without looking for "creation science"? I'm able to, but what do other people think?

Trickster

 

[Tomk80]

Evolution leads to some unorthodox prejudices, IMO. For instance, someone (I don't remember who) asked about the Tasmanian Aborigines being primitive people, and despite the fact that I showed that they created an aerodynamic tool (the boomerang), it was water off a duck's back, so I just figured they didn't want to really discuss it and dropped it. I don't know why it is, but just because we know how a rainbow is formed now, that makes our ancestors "primitive".

Cognitive dissonance indeed. The same poster has made it exceptionally clear in following posts, that she did not mean the people, but the culture. In that the culture is not as technologically advanced as we are. The same poster also remarked that, were we to put a child of that culture in our culture, the child would have no problems gaining the knowledge we have. This is not a viewpoint limited to evolution. Indeed, it is a viewpoint which was, and is, still permeated in our society, both in christian and non-christian groups. But apparantly, this whole part of the discussion was lost on AV. Cognitive dissonance in action.

There is no such thing, in my opinion, as a primitive, and there never was, but you can't tell evolutionists that because they have their "proof" in the form of pictures of people's bones who had rickets and advanced arthritis and whatnot, and call them Cro-Magnon Man and Lucy and whatever.

It's really very sad.

Lucy is not a skeleton with rickets. More cognitive dissonance in action.

I can't prove it --- and I'm able to believe in God.

Personally I think it's 13.7 billion years old; and while that seems a little excessively old to me, I go with that figure mainly for the sake of argument.

Would you be unable to believe in God if it was shown conclusively, and I mean here really conclusively, no way around etc, that evolution happened throughout the whole 3.5 billion years that life has been in existence?

 

[AV1611VET]

Cognitive dissonance indeed. The same poster has made it exceptionally clear in following posts, that she did not mean the people, but the culture.

Wrong poster --- I'm talking about the one a couple weeks ago who wanted to know something about Tasmanian Aborigines and some other group of "primitives". I can't remember it now, but I answered, I believe, with a quote from a book by Ken Ham, showing that the Tasmanian Aborigines indeed were "ahead of their time" by inventing an aerodynamically-structured hunting tool. Of course though, since it was Ken Ham, the point was lost.

Would you be unable to believe in God if it was shown conclusively, and I mean here really conclusively, no way around etc, that evolution happened throughout the whole 3.5 billion years that life has been in existence?

That's a loaded question, since you know I believe life has only been around for 6000 years; but for the sake of "cognitive dissonance" --- I'll answer --- "no".

 

[Cirbryn]

Evolution leads to some unorthodox prejudices, IMO. For instance, someone (I don't remember who) asked about the Tasmanian Aborigines being primitive people, and despite the fact that I showed that they created an aerodynamic tool (the boomerang), it was water off a duck's back, so I just figured they didn't want to really discuss it and dropped it.

I don't know why it is, but just because we know how a rainbow is formed now, that makes our ancestors "primitive".

There is no such thing, in my opinion, as a primitive, and there never was, but you can't tell evolutionists that because they have their "proof" in the form of pictures of people's bones who had rickets and advanced arthritis and whatnot, and call them Cro-Magnon Man and Lucy and whatever.

It's really very sad.

It sounds to me as if you’re equating “primitive” as the term may have been applied to a particular culture, with “primitive” as the term may have been applied (by evolutionists) to human ancestors. The two aren’t the same thing. No one’s suggesting that modern Tasmanian aborigines are biologically primitive. It also looks like you’re ascribing negative connotations to the term “primitive” (as used in either context) that probably weren’t intended by the people using it. Calling recent Tasmanian aboriginal culture primitive doesn’t mean it’s inherently inferior. It just means it resembled a type of culture that several other groups have already passed through. The invention of boomerangs doesn’t change that. Similarly, no one’s saying Australopithecus afarensus (Lucy), for instance, was poorly adapted to it’s niche in the world. A. afarensis lived over a million years, compared with our roughly 200,000 so far. Also, it would be unusual to hear someone say A. afarensis was itself “primitive”, rather than that it had this or that primitive characteristic. Again, that just means the characteristic has changed since then. The opposite of “primitive” as used in that context, is “derived”; not “superior”.

And to suggest that rickets and advanced arthritis would change the shape of the skull, or that all the skulls we’ve found that are more than about 130,000 years old just happened to have this odd skull-changing type of rickets and advanced arthritis … well I’d have to agree: it’s really very sad.

I do have a question about your rainbow comment though: Why is it that our knowledge of how a rainbow is formed doesn’t conflict with Genesis 9:13; but our knowledge of how species are formed does conflict with Genesis 1 and 2?

Personally I think it's [the earth is] 13.7 billion years old; and while that seems a little excessively old to me, I go with that figure mainly for the sake of argument.

Hmm. I would have said 4.5 billion years old. Interesting that a creationist would ascribe to an older earth than an evolutionist.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I think people who say "cognitive dissonance" are right, of course, but they may also be underestimating the duplicity of the Creationist movement.

I think a very real motive for the development of "scientific" creationism is that they felt this was a way to sneak into schools. Black treason.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, Cibryn --- nice to meet you

I do have a question about your rainbow comment though: Why is it that our knowledge of how a rainbow is formed doesn’t conflict with Genesis 9:13; but our knowledge of how species are formed does conflict with Genesis 1 and 2?

[bible]Genesis 9:13[/bible]

Because Genesis 9:13 does not state how a rainbow is formed, only that it appears in the clouds as a token that God will not destroy the earth with a flood again.

Genesis 1 and 2, however, expressly state the order of creation, and it differs with evolution in (one author's estimate) 25 areas (e.g. earth created before the sun, birds before land animals, plants before the sun, etc.).

Genesis 1 is a detailed step-by-step account of the Creation events, whereas Genesis 2 is a summarized categorization of days 5 and 6 in no particular order - (but patterned after Genesis 1:29).

Hmm. I would have said 4.5 billion years old. Interesting that a creationist would ascribe to an older earth than an evolutionist.

I believe the universe to be 13.7 billion years old, and the earth 4.5 billion.

 

[Tomk80]

Wrong poster --- I'm talking about the one a couple weeks ago who wanted to know something about Tasmanian Aborigines and some other group of "primitives". I can't remember it now, but I answered, I believe, with a quote from a book by Ken Ham, showing that the Tasmanian Aborigines indeed were "ahead of their time" by inventing an aerodynamically-structured hunting tool. Of course though, since it was Ken Ham, the point was lost.

Ahead of their time, yes. Primitive in comparison to ours, also yes. They are a primitive culture, regardless of being ahead of their own time. The point was not lost because it was Ken Ham, it was lost because it's a bad point.

The second point why Ken Ham's comment are beside the point is that it has no bearing on evolution anyway. Tasmanian Aborigines are fully homo sapiens.

That's a loaded question, since you know I believe life has only been around for 6000 years; but for the sake of "cognitive dissonance" --- I'll answer --- "no".

But it was the main gist of the OP.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ahead of their time, yes. Primitive in comparison to ours, also yes. They are a primitive culture, regardless of being ahead of their own time. The point was not lost because it was Ken Ham, it was lost because it's a bad point.

Is India primitive?

Tasmanian Aborigines are fully homo sapiens.

No kidding --- thanks for clearing that up! See, this is what I mean.

[shakes head in disgust]

 

[Edx]

No kidding --- thanks for clearing that up! See, this is what I mean.

[shakes head in disgust]

Why are you "disgusted"?

 

[Tomk80]

Is India primitive?

India as a whole? No. Certain populations of India (for example many of the populations in rural India)? Yes. India does not contain a homogenous culture. Certain subpopulations of India (especially in the cities) are very advanced. Some or not.

No kidding --- thanks for clearing that up! See, this is what I mean.

[shakes head in disgust]

Explain yourself, what is so disgusting about saying that Tasmanian aborigines are fully homo sapiens?

 

[Edx]

Explain yourself, what is so disgusting about saying that Tasmanian aborigines are fully homo sapiens?

My guess is that being called a homo sapien offends AV, as does being called an ape, presumably.

 

[Cirbryn]

Hi, Cibryn --- nice to meet you

Howdy.

I do have a question about your rainbow comment though: Why is it that our knowledge of how a rainbow is formed doesn’t conflict with Genesis 9:13; but our knowledge of how species are formed does conflict with Genesis 1 and 2?

Because Genesis 9:13 does not state how a rainbow is formed, only that it appears in the clouds as a token that God will not destroy the earth with a flood again.

Genesis 1 and 2, however, expressly state the order of creation, and it differs with evolution in (one author's estimate) 25 areas (e.g. earth created before the sun, birds before land animals, plants before the sun, etc.).

Genesis 1 is a detailed step-by-step account of the Creation events, whereas Genesis 2 is a summarized categorization of days 5 and 6 in no particular order - (but patterned after Genesis 1:29).

OK, so the actual conflict doesn’t regard how species were formed, but merely the order of creation of things in general. Right? There’s nothing in there to say God didn’t form species using evolution. It’s just that, if evolution is true, it’s difficult to see how He could have done so in the order specified.

But God (supposedly) stands outside of time; like an author stands outside of the flow of time in his book. So God could have used evolution to create species in any order He pleased.

I’m a Tolkien fan, so I’ll give you an example from the Lord of the Rings: Within the timeflow of the book, first (A) the Ring was cut from Sauron’s hand by Isildur, then (B) a few years later Isildur was ambushed by orcs and the Ring was lost, then (C) hundreds of years later it was found again by Deagol the hobbit, who lost it to Smeagol, who took it into the caves of the Misty Mountains. Then (D) hundreds of years after that Bilbo Baggins put out his hand blindly in the dark and closed it on the Ring. That’s the order that scientists and historians within Middle Earth would insist the evidence points to, and that’s the order Tolkien established specifically because it makes sense within the internal flow of time. Yet the actual order in which Tolkien created those events was (as far as I know) more along the lines of D, A, C, B (depending on what level of completion you want to call “created”).

So in the actual order, Bilbo putting his hand on the Ring came before the Ring was ever cut from Sauron’s hand. Impossible within the timeflow of the book, but true none-the-less, because Tolkien stood outside of that timeflow. In the same way, God could have created plants using evolution before He created the Sun.

And that brings us (surprisingly enough) to the OP. Given that nothing in the Bible says God didn’t create using evolution, why not accept both the order of creation specified in the Bible, and the method of creation specified by the evidence God left in the world? In short, as TricksterWolf suggested, why not stop attacking science to make it reflect your personal beliefs, and instead simply believe there is more to our origins than science can show?