The Creationist method..

[Blackhawk]

"Hmm, upon what do you base this observation?'

my reading of their writings, interaction with them. knowledge of human nature and knowledge of our society today. Know that I am not saying they are more dishonest than a baker or a bank teller. i am just asying that some are. I really do not see why this is so much of a big deal to say that some scientist are not very honest. i think it is pretty much common knowledge that people are not very honest.

"If you think that scientists should drop everything they are doing to give adequate resources to a new idea, I am sorry."

then they are dogmatically saying that it is wrong when they do not know if it is or not.

"We will not chase down every new idea that comes along. If we followed up on every crackpot theory, we'd never make any progress. Science is not a democracy."

Well now this is different. i am not saying if someone says that flying unicorns can be proven by science that a scientist should go out there and see if it is real or not. I am not saying that every scientist has to drop everything they are doing to look at any theory. What i am saying is that they should honestly look at the evidence which i am saying that all do not do. oh and I like that science is not a democracy. So if certain scientist say that evolution is true then you are saying we should believe it without looking at the evidence. Hmmm.

"For all practical purposes it is true to them. It works. Why not build on this knowledge and move on?"

i am not arguing against the ones who think evolution is true after honestly looking at the evidence.

"Do you think we should be (or are) still testing evolution? No. It is an accepted premise in most cases, but if it stops working, then something else will take it's place."

huh? so they know the truth and if they can't fit the facts to their version of the truth then they will change it? is not this exactly what the cartoon was saying that the creationists do?

"Pardon me if I remain skeptical."

okay if you want.

"Sounds like an excuse to me. If someone came up with a credible argument, plenty of evidence to back it up, and a viable alternative,
they would receive a fair hearing. The problem is that this has not been done. So, when someone is criticized, they take it personally.
You see, Darwin understood this aspect of science. He developed a theory, outlined its shortcomings and supported it with tons of evidence. Creationists should take note."

true for some but not all.

"Once again, pardon me if I remain skeptical. If your opinion of scientists is any indication, you have a decidedly anti-science prejudice. If
you had said "some" scientists only want to advance a personal agenda, I might think differently."

okay i will same some but really my srgument is against the anti-intellectualism of our day.

"Except that mainstream scientists are less honest, right?"

No.

Gosh i really did not think I would get this many negative responses. I think this does show that many skeptics are skeptical about almost everything but what they believe to be true. Scientist's ethics can't be questioned! what are you thinking about.


blackhawk

 

[No gods]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
what I am saying is that not all scientists are really searching hard for real answers. They are happier being in the status quo. So when they receive information that goes against what they have been taught and based their life upon so they rationalize it away. So they are not out for real truth they are just out to prove their own beliefs. That is what I was trying to say. i am not against science or evolution. i am just saying that I do not trust scientists like they are infallible and that i do not trust science to weed out the bad people.

Good! You shouldn't trust individual scientists like they are infallible.... They are human, they make mistakes, they can be dishonest, etc. HOWEVER, when scientist, a lot of scientists, come together behind one theory and state that it is the most likely explanation of something, I personally think you CAN trust them. Of all the scientists I know (married to one, 3 brother in-laws (one of which is a deacon in a christian church) and all the scientists my husband works with (several are hindu and other religions) I don't see any reason to not trust the consensus of scientists around the world. If one scientist is "corrupt" and wants to get his "ideas" out there for fame, he can't just do it and be trusted. He needs to test his ideas and get the results published. Just to get a paper regarding, for example, one specific type of yeast, published in a science journal, that paper must be reviewed by other scientists to see if the paper "holds water". I don't know the ratio, but I know a lot of the papers my husband has reviewed don't "hold water". Guess what? Those papers aren't published unless their results can be verified further and reviewed AGAIN.

[B} and that i do not trust science to weed out the bad people. [/B]

I certainly think that spending 4 years as an undergraduate, 4-8 years in graduate school and 2-4 years as a postdoc making miniscule amounts of money tends to weed out MOST of the "bad" scientists. Overall, it's just not profitable for fame or financial gain. Don't you agree that it is a LOT EASIER to become a "creation scientist" or an evangelist and spout religious rhetoric to gain fame and fortune? Aren't you a little more afraid that religion doesn't weed out the "bad" guys than science? If not, why?

 

[elephanticity]

Gosh i really did not think I would get this many negative responses. I think this does show that many skeptics are skeptical about almost everything but what they believe to be true. Scientist's ethics can't be questioned! what are you thinking about.

I'm thinking that posting in the science community opens you up to HUGE amounts of skepticism from professional skeptics. Well illustrated by the April Fool's Day Joke, Onyate Man. Or the entire body of cryptozoology. UFO's. ESP. Astrology, biorythyms, tea readins, phrenology. If it stood up to critical thought and analysis, it wouldn't be a fringe science.

What i find interesting are the number of scientists that mention a belief in God in their personal writings. Creationists love to collect such quotes as proof that scientists don't believe in Evolution, but really it's showing that they can distinguish between personal beliefs and physical science.

 

[Blackhawk]

elephanticity,

I think that it is way more subtle than those obvious things. But I will bow out of the conversation here because it is just my opinion. oh and i never said that you can't believe in God and be an evolutionist. But oh well.

blackhawk

 

[Blackhawk]

No gods,

I think you put more faith in science and scientists than I do. Really I think that you have more faith in people than i do. But anyways I think that many are missing what I am really trying to say and how in way it is very subtle. But like I said in my last post I think it is time for me to bow out of this thread. Oh and it is easier to become an exangelist than a scientist but I think it is equally if not harder to become a good evangelist/ minister than it is to be a scientist.

later
blackhawk

 

[No gods]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
I think you put more faith in science and scientists than I do. Really I think that you have more faith in people than i do. But anyways I think that many are missing what I am really trying to say and how in way it is very subtle. But like I said in my last post I think it is time for me to bow out of this thread. Oh and it is easier to become an exangelist than a scientist but I think it is equally if not harder to become a good evangelist/ minister than it is to be a scientist.

People are all we have, Blackhawk. People have cured diseases, people have built telescopes, PEOPLE. Putting all your faith in a god, in a specific god no less, to explain these things is VERY hard for me to understand.

I wish you wouldn't leave just yet... I just got here and I'd like you to try and show me your subtle point.

What makes a good evangelist/minister? Size of flock? Size of pocket book? Believablity?

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
No gods,

I think you put more faith in science

Science doesn't require faith.

faith -
n.

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

 

[elephanticity]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
elephanticity,

I think that it is way more subtle than those obvious things. But I will bow out of the conversation here because it is just my opinion. oh and i never said that you can't believe in God and be an evolutionist. But oh well.

blackhawk

You haven't. And i appreciate that. But some, even some here on this forum, have said so, in so many words.

Yes, those are obvious examples, but they are merely large print versions of what happens every day. It's amazing when you see just how many inventions or discoveries are mistakes. Some experiment failed, but in the wreckage they found something different...and published.

 

[TheBear]

Many, many good points and counter-points in this thread!! BRAVO to all!

There's not much I can add, right now, except that I am a Christian who sees no conflict with the idea that God could have created through an evolutionary process. I hear a lot of subtle, and sometimes blatant remarks about my stance on this issue, implying that I'm not really a Christian. Those of you who have been in these discussions for a while, know who I am, and how I can justify the two. The arrogance and egos of some, is such that if you are not in lock-step with every one of their beliefs, you are not Christian. Some fall back on the inerrancy of the Bible. To that I say, if the Bible were so matter of fact, and to the literal point, why are there so many different Christian denominations and belief systems?

John

 

[elephanticity]

What makes a good evangelist/minister? Size of flock? Size of pocket book? Believablity?

I'd hope it was familiarity with the litany. I am a member of the clergy, and have memorized the ENTIRE litany of my order:

"Do only that which is...." Dang. Almost had it. Well, most of the litany, anyway.

 

[Blackhawk]

elephanticity,

"You haven't. And i appreciate that. But some, even some here on this forum, have said so, in so many words."

I think some have said this in no uncertain terms. And some of them have posted in this forum. I do not agree with them though.

"I'd hope it was familiarity with the litany. I am a member of the clergy, and have memorized the ENTIRE litany of my order"

I think that is part of it but I think it requires more. I think that a good minister has to be close to God and be a nexample for all. He has to also has to be very wise and honest and holy and etc. i think that a good minister has to do so many things well that hed or she needs God to do it through them instead of them trying to do it themselves.

blackhawk

 

[Blackhawk]

Neo,

Science doesn't require faith.

faith -
n.

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"

How do you know that you can trust yourself to be logical or judge this material evidence? How do you know you can even gather material evidence? And I could go on. But I think you get my point.

blackhawk

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by Blackhawk

How do you know that you can trust yourself to be logical or judge this material evidence? How do you know you can even gather material evidence? And I could go on. But I think you get my point.

That would be faith in the self, not science.

 

[Blackhawk]

"People are all we have, Blackhawk. People have cured diseases, people have built telescopes, PEOPLE. Putting all your faith in a god, in a specific god no less, to explain these things is VERY hard for me to understand."

Well this is another question. But I think that we should trust science to a point. I am not saying that but I am saying that I am more skeptical of science today then in some periods of time. Not all periods. In some days it was very shaky because people really were not doing science the way it should be at all. But there were other times that science was more interested in finding truth. I could be wrong here but that is how I see it.

I guess I just treat scientists as humans and I see that although science is good that it does not wed out all the people who are at least just comp[lacent and are willing to stay in their comfortable beliefs and stay in the staus quo. Yeah sure you might become more famous if you can prove evolution is not true but that takes much work and It also takes much guts. To go against what many scientists think as almost fact is something that not all people are willing to really look at. Also many know what they were taught but do not really think much beyond what they are taught. One can easily get through school and regurgitate what the profs. want you to regurgitate but not really think yourself. I do not think that many want to think for themselves today.

Now I am making a statement of the human race. Nto jsut scientists but i think that it holds to scientists also. that is what I am saying and I am saying that science does not make it so that this just does not happen at all.

blackhawk

 

[Blackhawk]

Neo,

"That would be faith in the self, not science."

okay then how do you judge anything in science if you can't believe in yourself enough to judge that you can think and at least gather material evidence and make some sort of judgement about it.

Do you put your faith in others? In yourself and others? If not then who do you think can gather material evidence and make a somewhat good judgement on the evidence presented? Do you trust your senses?

blackhawk

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
Neo,

"That would be faith in the self, not science."

okay then how do you judge anything in science if you can't believe in yourself enough to judge that you can think and at least gather material evidence and make some sort of judgement about it.

Do you put your faith in others? In yourself and others? If not then who do you think can gather material evidence and make a somewhat good judgement on the evidence presented?

blackhawk

I don't need to have faith in myself or others, I have reasonable expectations. Faith isn't reasonable at all.

Do you trust your senses?

Do you know what an axiom is?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Neo

I don't need to have faith in myself or others, I have reasonable expectations. Faith isn't reasonable at all.

You have faith that your expectations are reasonable, certainly.

Do you know what an axiom is?

Yup.

(Disclaimer: I was raised by mathematicians. Do not taunt Happy Fun Geek.)

 

[Blackhawk]

Neo,

"I don't need to have faith in myself or others, I have reasonable expectations. Faith isn't reasonable at all."

i think we went round and round about this before but I think faith can be reasonable.

axiom-A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

Blackhawk

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by seebs


You have faith that your expectations are reasonable, certainly.

I do not need faith because my expectations are based on reason and logic. Faith is without reason and logic.

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
Neo,

"I don't need to have faith in myself or others, I have reasonable expectations. Faith isn't reasonable at all."

i think we went round and round about this before but I think faith can be reasonable.

By definition, faith is not reasonable.

Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

Logical - Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner