The new millennium

[impblack]

It is obvious that for some time now religious people, in particular creationists, have embraced science and free thinking more and more each day. You can see it happen. There's still those who say evolution is wrong and that the universe is 6000 years old. But many of them are beginning to embrace science, trying to actually find evidence to refute evolution, and trying to explain philosophically and even scientifically how in those 6000 years and 6 days lies a "metafor" for the 14 billions years of the universe (professor schroeder comes to mind). But i'm not writting this to debate on those issues. Those of you who are familiar with those theories and don't stop seeking for knowledge will eventually get a valid opinion. I'm writting this so show how sociaty has advanced. Even if creationists are right and atheists wrong, they cannot say "we were always right, we always knew!" because it's a lie. Not long ago you didn't believe in evolution just because. Not long ago you thought about those first 6 days of creation as literal 6 days. You thought the universe wasn't that old, the earth wasn't that old. And if you hadn't listened to science you'd still believed that and so, acording to many of you now, you were (at least a little bit) wrong all along, all those 3500 years you so proudly talk about. The Bible's interpretation has changed so much that one must realise that if God's first intention was for us to interpret the Bible like we do now a days, then we" were blind for so many years. You can always say "but we had the right faith". Well, you can do so many bad things with the "right faith" and the wrong interpretation.
So, what i really wanted to coment is that, whoever is right and whatever are your beliefs, we, everyone, scientists, creationists, non creationist-christians, philosophers, muslims, etc, are starting to practice free thinking more an more. We're to see that he old ways weren't good enough and also to perfect them or change them.
And with that i leave a question for you. How do you think will religion evolve in the next 10 to 100 years? (everyone will start to be an atheist? will science support definitely the bible (or any other religious book)? will everything still be the same?)

 

[Jazer]

How do you think will religion evolve in the next 10 to 100 years? (everyone will start to be an atheist? will science support definitely the bible (or any other religious book)? will everything still be the same?)

We are very close to the 1000 year reign of Christ when man will rest from his works. When it comes to Science often we see that "the sinner He has given the task of gathering and collecting so that he may give to one who is good in God's sight". Daniel said there would be an increase in information at the end of this age. Yet there will also be a falling away from the truth. 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased

 

[Blayz]

Increase in data != increase in information.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even if creationists are right and atheists wrong, they cannot say "we were always right, we always knew!" because it's a lie.

Let me get this straight.

You think YECs should 'break the mold' and freethink themselves into believing in evolution -- just so later they can't be accused of lying, should creationism be found to be right?

 

[Greg1234]

And with that i leave a question for you. How do you think will religion evolve in the next 10 to 100 years? (everyone will start to be an atheist? will science support definitely the bible (or any other religious book)? will everything still be the same?)

We've gone from believing that the cell is simple mud, to molecular machines to the information age. We have the reliquishing of random mutations for a portion of the science in ID ( programmed mutations). There are other examples which digress from intelligent design and delve into other aspects, but the overall trend is away from materialistic constructs. What I see is advancement taking us more and more toward theological constructs. Materialism is a different matter as you would have to understand the way the mind attaches to its environs and the changes which dictate such.

 

[Nostromo]

Let me get this straight.

You think YECs should 'break the mold' and freethink themselves into believing in evolution -- just so later they can't be accused of lying, should creationism be found to be right?:

It's perfectly possible to be right for the wrong reasons.

 

[2thePoint]

It is obvious that for some time now religious people, in particular creationists, have embraced science and free thinking more and more each day.

Creationists, the vast majority at least, have always "embraced" science. Science is observation and experimentation in an effort to understand the world we live in and falsify theories. Evo, like ID, is a philosophical framework in which to postulate how the world arrived in the first place.

"Free thinking" is a term like "pro-choice": a positive spin on a negative idea. Atheists are no freer than theists, and have simply traded faith for its equal opposite: denial. Both can be called "crutches". I see "free thinking" as a euphemism for "La la la, I can't hear you God!"

You can see it happen. There's still those who say evolution is wrong and that the universe is 6000 years old. But many of them are beginning to embrace science, trying to actually find evidence to refute evolution,

Evolution is easily refuted with real science alone. The only problem is the monopoly evo has acquired by means of the courts, because they so fear exposure to the full range of scientific facts. There have even been debates in the US over whether these embarrassing facts should be allowed in science classrooms where impressionable students might "leave the faith" of Darwin. If evo is truly science, let it face the full brunt of criticism and give up its monopoly. What is it afraid of anyway?

and trying to explain philosophically and even scientifically how in those 6000 years and 6 days lies a "metafor" for the 14 billions years of the universe (professor schroeder comes to mind).

Compromisers are the ones who try to force-fit one philosophy into another. The rest of us don't have this issue.

But i'm not writting this to debate on those issues.

Good, because as Eugenie Scott once said, you'd probably lose. And I'm tired of it too, so I just point people to data they've never been allowed to see in school and to arguments they've never considered before. But the ridiculous claims presumed in your opening narrative just begged to be challenged.

How do you think will religion evolve in the next 10 to 100 years? (everyone will start to be an atheist? will science support definitely the bible (or any other religious book)? will everything still be the same?)

I think Darwinism will fade away as more is learned about the complexity of life at even the "simplest" levels, rendering the notion of abiogenesis on the level of magic and finally admitting that fruit flies never turn into houseflies, sea horses never turn into quarter horses, and e-coli never turn into e-bola. Free knowledge will be the death of Darwinism. But I wonder what atheists will turn to then? Will they lose their anti-faith in God?

 

[roach]

And with that i leave a question for you. How do you think will religion evolve in the next 10 to 100 years? (everyone will start to be an atheist? will science support definitely the bible (or any other religious book)? will everything still be the same?)

Living in a modern day theocracy where politics, law, science, etc., are tethered to dogmatic religious beliefs and witnessing the wholesale abandonment of rationality on issues ranging from stem cells and marriage to torture and war, it seems doubtful religion will evolve significantly in the next 100 years. You do make a good point about the ability of scientific knowledge to raise the level of consciousness and understanding in such a way as to cast doubt upon unfounded beliefs.

It is the very nature of close-mindedness to disallow one's own beliefs from becoming the object of scrutiny. Conversely, casting reasonable doubt upon beliefs is the very nature of science.

While religion and science are diametrically opposed to each other in how they function in forming beliefs (faith vs reason), this is not to say a single person cannot possess both types of beliefs (i.e. Francis Collins, Isaac Newton, Keppler, etc). This fact alone makes it difficult to reason that the religious community would significantly alter it's current worldview on the basis of new scientific knowledge. Honestly, it would almost take a miracle....

 

[Nostromo]

"Free thinking" is a term like "pro-choice": a positive spin on a negative idea. Atheists are no freer than theists, and have simply traded faith for its equal opposite: denial. Both can be called "crutches". I see "free thinking" as a euphemism for "La la la, I can't hear you God!"

I find it a little depressing that you think this way, and I can assure you it isn't true.

 

[2thePoint]

I find it a little depressing that you think this way, and I can assure you it isn't true.

And I can assure you that this "free thinker" term is intended to paint all theists as "not free" and certainly "not thinkers". The OP makes it quite clear that to be a theist/creationist is to be ignorant and in need of "freeing". It is every bit as demeaning as when some theists tell others that they need to be "enlightened".

 

[impblack]

Let me get this straight.

You think YECs should 'break the mold' and freethink themselves into believing in evolution -- just so later they can't be accused of lying, should creationism be found to be right?

No.

 

[selfinflikted]

The OP makes it quite clear that to be a theist/creationist is to be ignorant and in need of "freeing".

To a degree, this is true I think. For instance, we know the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. Creationists are the ones making wild, contrary claims. To claim the earth is anything other than 4.5 billion years old is the textbook definition of ignorance.

 

[2thePoint]

To a degree, this is true I think. For instance, we know the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. Creationists are the ones making wild, contrary claims. To claim the earth is anything other than 4.5 billion years old is the textbook definition of ignorance.

We know no such thing. How many times has that number changed? How many more times will it change? But no matter what, faith in the theory of long ages must remain, even if there may be evidence to the contrary-- or no real evidence to support it at all. The instruments used to gauge these ages have to be calibrated, which means the general scale has to be presumed before the tests can be done.

No one disputes that ID is "contrary", that's rather obvious, and a two-way street. But when it comes to "wild", nothing beats "frogs to princes" without any intelligence directing nature toward a goal.

However, I'm not here to get into yet another mudslinging contest, but simply to make it known that ID has no less rationality or more faith than anti-theism/evolutionism. What you call ignorance is simply disagreement on the grounds that interpretations must not be confused with facts. We all observe the same data, but draw different conclusions about how things came into being in the first place, and how long ago it happened. Anti-ID cannot possibly account for the origin of matter and was not around to observe it. In short, the theory concocted to explain existence without God has failed at the most fundamental level.

 

[Jazer]

To a degree, this is true I think. For instance, we know the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. Creationists are the ones making wild, contrary claims. To claim the earth is anything other than 4.5 billion years old is the textbook definition of ignorance.

Except that word is an insult: "Ignorance is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge)[1]. The word "ignorant" is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware and is often used as an insult."

If anyone lacks knowledge it is knowledge of the Bible. People may go to school all week, then spend one hour to study and learn the Bible.

 

[selfinflikted]

I didn't intend to use "ignorant" as an insult, in fact, I qualified my usage by saying "textbook definition", which as you've pointed out is "a state of being uninformed."

 

[2thePoint]

I didn't intend to use "ignorant" as an insult, in fact, I qualified my usage by saying "textbook definition", which as you've pointed out is "a state of being uninformed."

Let me assure you that we all have been force to be "informed" about evolution. And yes, creationists even pass those classes. We tell them what they want to hear so we get our degrees. We know what they want us to believe and why they want us to believe it. We know their tortured logic and filtered facts. We are bombarded with it in movies, TV, magazines, documentaries, all day every day. I hardly think we're ignorant by any definition.

But again, I have no intention of going another pointless round. I only wanted to expose the ad hominem and other fallacies so pervasive on the question of origins and ages.

 

[selfinflikted]

We know no such thing.

Technically, you're right. I don't think anyone can know something with 100% certainty. However, I should say all the evidence suggests that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

No one disputes that ID is "contrary", that's rather obvious, and a two-way street. But when it comes to "wild", nothing beats "frogs to princes" without any intelligence directing nature toward a goal.

Depends on your point of view. It would be more wild to me to assume a magical creator, who didn't require a creator itself incidently, who just "poofed" everything into existence with a spoken word.

However, I'm not here to get into yet another mudslinging contest,

It won't be unless you make it one.

but simply to make it known that ID has no less rationality or more faith than anti-theism/evolutionism.

That is the claim I see so often, however wrong it is.

What you call ignorance is simply disagreement on the grounds that interpretations must not be confused with facts.

Interpretations can be flawed, of course. But there must be data from which conclusions can be drawn, first. Creationism and a 6,000 year old earth have no such data.

We all observe the same data, but draw different conclusions about how things came into being in the first place, and how long ago it happened.

I disagree. We have facts, and then we have the Bible. Facts and myths are not synonymous.

Anti-ID cannot possibly account for the origin of matter

Why not?

and was not around to observe it.

And neither were proponents of ID.

In short, the theory concocted to explain existence without God has failed at the most fundamental level.

Please show how. In fact, all the theories to date do just fine without magic.

 

[2thePoint]

It won't be unless you make it one...Please show how.

I just wanted to highlight the irony of these statements. Thanks for that.

 

[selfinflikted]

I must've missed it.

 

[Jazer]

all the evidence suggests that the earth is 4.5 billion years old

Same difference as 6000 years because the universe is between 12 & 14 years old. You pick 4.5 & they pick 6000. Neither one of them adds up to the age of the universe.