Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[HitchSlap]

Maybe I should have said, "the good/smart ones", because they are smart enough to understand the futility of arguing with lay people about such a thing - regardless of what the lay people believe.

Sure, but we may be the only chance you have to be exposed to reality. According to some here, it's like your 'great commission.'

 

[AV1611VET]

Nah. More like droppin' knowledge bombs on the outposts of inanity.

Ah ... the verse BEFORE that ... got it.

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

That's part of their great commission as well:

Knowledge bomb the people with science until they let go of the Bible.

 

[HitchSlap]

Ah ... the verse BEFORE that ... got it.

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

That's part of their great commission as well:

Knowledge bomb the people with science until they let go of the Bible.

It's comforting to know you consider science to be reality.

 

[Almost there]

It's comforting to know you consider science to be reality.

Science is a general label for something humans do.
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

Music and art are more valuable. Religion is a higher pursuit.

But science has its place. I mean, we have indoor pluming in our homes and bluetooth in our cars now.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's comforting to know you consider science to be reality.

I always have and always will.

But it's only a part of reality.

One drop of sand in the ocean.

In the end, God is going to give us a whole new set of laws that'll make the current set look like a comic book.

For example, lions will eat straw and be children's pets.

The ageing process will slow down noticeably.

There will be no use for the sun.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is a general label for something humans do.

We Christians had better hurry up and learn it, eh?

Before it changes and makes Einstein look like Mary Poppins.

 

[Willby]

Music and art are more valuable. Religion is a higher pursuit.

But science has its place. I mean, we have indoor pluming in our homes and bluetooth in our cars now.

I'm a great fan of Music and Art but what 'value' do you place on surviving babies?

 

[Almost there]

I'm a great fan of Music and Art but what 'value' do you place on surviving babies?

Hey, it definitely saves lives, but have you ever read Screwtape Letters?

Preserving life is something that our Savior will do just fine. I have had no health insurance since 1/1/2014 (the day Obamacare became binding). My wife and I are both 64. We take care of ourselves and trust in the great healer. He created us. He knew what he was doing. And even then, as the apostle Paul said, to live is Christ and to die is gain.

 

[tas8831]

So... Still wondering what drives professional creationists like medical doctor Elizabeth Mitchell to outright lie about things.

 

[Ophiolite]

Hey, it definitely saves lives, but have you ever read Screwtape Letters?

Of course. And the Chronicles of Narnia. And I've just started a re-read of Out of the Silent Planet, since it's been half a century or more and I can no longer recall the details. I had no inkling you enjoyed the works of Oxford scholars. Overall, I prefer the fantasy of his good friend,Tolkien.

 

[Almost there]

T

Of course. And the Chronicles of Narnia. And I've just started a re-read of Out of the Silent Planet, since it's been half a century or more and I can no longer recall the details. I had no inkling you enjoyed the works of Oxford scholars. Overall, I prefer the fantasy of his good friend,Tolkien.

One message of Screwtape Letters was that the goal of the demons was not to kill people. Rather, their goal was to ensure that they were lost when they died.

And the point of the Gospel is not to preserve the life in this earthly tent (human body) as long as possible, but to ensure that the soul within it receives eternal life.

All human bodies die. Life is a mist. Preserving that body as long as possible is not the higher goal. Even demons wanted that if the person was saved. It gave them more time to turn him away from salvation.

"For me, to live is Christ and to die is gain." - the apostle Paul

 

[tas8831]

That is incorrect. Actual research is generally exposed as erroneous, to say the least:

Dropbox - Tomkins-BLAST.pdf

The above is the opposite of being dismissed out of hand. And this happens quite a bit, though you will generally not see it in journals as that would not be considered as research itself. But it is more than being dismissed out of hand.

Dude?

 

[ViaCrucis]

And secular scientists

Scientists, not secular scientists. Scientists. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist, et al--because in real science the religiosity or lack thereof doesn't matter. An atheist scientist and a Jewish scientist use the same methods, and reach the same conclusions. Because that's how science works.

Young Earth Creation "scientists" are not reaching other conclusions because they're religious, and other scientists are "secular"; it's because "Young Earth Creation scientists" aren't scientists and they aren't doing science.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Resha Caner]

Young Earth Creation "scientists" are not reaching other conclusions because they're religious, and other scientists are "secular"; it's because "Young Earth Creation scientists" aren't scientists and they aren't doing science.

I have my own quibbles with YEC approaches, but this sounds almost like a "No True Scotsman" argument.

Scientists, not secular scientists. Scientists. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist, et al--because in real science the religiosity or lack thereof doesn't matter. An atheist scientist and a Jewish scientist use the same methods, and reach the same conclusions. Because that's how science works.

Some may promote that as the ideal, but it's one that will never be achieved. Rather than a "throw the bums out" approach that appeals to some magical absolute truth that no human can ever identify, it's simply a matter of stating what methods you will accept and what you will not. Those who agree with you become your circle of scientists. You give them certificates and if you have enough political clout, only those in possession of your certificate will be allowed to practice in the noted fields.

In other words, the more robust science is the one that admits everyone is influenced by something (rather than elevating some supposed superior group that isn't influenced by anything) and attempts to sort through those assumptions, play one off the other, test them, etc. Then you let the chips fall where they may, hold people accountable for what they claim & practice, and so forth.

Having personal biases that could influence how data is interpreted is one thing. But the OP shows a creationist making claims about bones that weren't even discovered at the time. That is extremely intellectually dishonest and has nothing to do with budget limitations or data interpretation. He was making up an interpretation of data that didn't exist.

So, Sarah's approach seems the better one here.

 

[Speedwell]

I have my own quibbles with YEC approaches, but this sounds almost like a "No True Scotsman" argument.



Some may promote that as the ideal, but it's one that will never be achieved. Rather than a "throw the bums out" approach that appeals to some magical absolute truth that no human can ever identify, it's simply a matter of stating what methods you will accept and what you will not. Those who agree with you become your circle of scientists. You give them certificates and if you have enough political clout, only those in possession of your certificate will be allowed to practice in the noted fields.

In other words, the more robust science is the one that admits everyone is influenced by something (rather than elevating some supposed superior group that isn't influenced by anything) and attempts to sort through those assumptions, play one off the other, test them, etc. Then you let the chips fall where they may, hold people accountable for what they claim & practice, and so forth.



So, Sarah's approach seems the better one here.

That's all very well, but a person who takes an oath that any disccovery or conclusion which contradicts a literal reading of Genesis will be rejected isn't even trying to do science.

 

[Resha Caner]

That's all very well, but a person who takes an oath that any disccovery or conclusion which contradicts a literal reading of Genesis will be rejected isn't even trying to do science.

That's not necessarily true. I understand the type of person you're frustrated with, but don't let that lead you to the error of generalizing one person's behavior as some type of universal rejection of science.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have my own quibbles with YEC approaches, but this sounds almost like a "No True Scotsman" argument.

It's not though. The issue is one of a matter of methodology. Science follows a particular methodology, which is what makes it science; cherry-picking, manipulating, misinterpreting, and outright lying about data in order to reach the desired conclusion isn't science. That's not a No True Scotsman, that's having subscribing to a level of objectivity about what something is and isn't. Calling a potato a duck doesn't make it a duck, the word "duck" actually corresponds to something in reality, and words are supposed to mean things. The scientific method is what it is, and if one isn't using that method then they aren't doing science.

Some may promote that as the ideal, but it's one that will never be achieved. Rather than a "throw the bums out" approach that appeals to some magical absolute truth that no human can ever identify, it's simply a matter of stating what methods you will accept and what you will not. Those who agree with you become your circle of scientists. You give them certificates and if you have enough political clout, only those in possession of your certificate will be allowed to practice in the noted fields.

In other words, the more robust science is the one that admits everyone is influenced by something (rather than elevating some supposed superior group that isn't influenced by anything) and attempts to sort through those assumptions, play one off the other, test them, etc. Then you let the chips fall where they may, hold people accountable for what they claim & practice, and so forth.



So, Sarah's approach seems the better one here.

If the same methodology is used and different conclusions are reached, then we should examine why that is so. But when we discover that the methodology was faulty, that the data was cherry-picked, or manipulated, or being misinterpreted, then we can conclude that the methodology was, in fact, faulty, and the findings excised. Not all conclusions are equal. Good science means following the method faithfully and allowing the data to determine the conclusion; insisting on a predetermined conclusion and mishandling data to reach that conclusion is not science.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PsychoSarah]

So, Sarah's approach seems the better one here.

My approach to the OP was a bit case specific. After all, it doesn't matter what person does it, making up an interpretation of data that doesn't actually exist is unscientific and intellectually dishonest. That's not the only way to be dishonest, though. For example, it is possible to make data fit a desired conclusion by excluding portions of the data rather than adding more.

What these tactics have in common are that they are intentional, and they distort results or flat out make them up. A person usually isn't driven to do it simply because of biases in interpretation; they do it because they are extremely biased in favor of a particular result. They want that result to be thought of as accurate regardless as to whether or not the evidence supports it. They must, in some way, stand to benefit from that result.

This is why I don't view the "scientists" of AIG and others like them as to be trustworthy or even upholders of the scientific process. AIG ain't going to pay them for any results that don't go against evolution. In such circumstances, I expect the bias to sway the interpretation as well as the numbers, whereas outside of such incentives, at worst the bias would sway the interpretation mildly and the numbers would remain unaltered.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So... Still wondering what drives professional creationists like medical doctor Elizabeth Mitchell to outright lie about things.

$$$, what else? Honest people that want to investigate the world, even with the bias of the desire to find evidence of deities, etc., won't outright fabricate results. After all, if your desire is to learn and spread that knowledge, knowingly making stuff up is completely counter to that desire.

 

[ViaCrucis]

$$$, what else? Honest people that want to investigate the world, even with the bias of the desire to find evidence of deities, etc., won't outright fabricate results. After all, if your desire is to learn and spread that knowledge, knowingly making stuff up is completely counter to that desire.

Money may play a role in some cases, but I suspect it's far more primal than that. It's about self-preservation, even existential. There's an onion-like layering going on of theology, philosophy, values, and paradigm going on; for a person it can feel a bit like a Jenga tower, where all the pieces need to fit just right and if one piece is removed the entire tower is made unstable. And that's a tower that represents one's own self identity. For many it is a matter of one's own salvation that is at stake. Notice how often Creationists treat a literal interpretation of Genesis as something so foundational that to take that away means the entire Christian doctrine of redemption, the story of Jesus itself, is irreparably lost if it is taken away. Not all Christians are like that obviously, but for some that is precisely the sort of existential crisis that they are facing--if just one cherished idea is falsified, then the entirety is falsified (in their own mind).

I often end up addressing theology and biblical hermeneutics on this board with fellow Christians who are Creationists, and that's not because I've forgotten that this is a science board and not a theology board; it's because the heart of the issue isn't really about science at all, the heart of the issue really is theological. In my own life experience my transition from being a YEC (I was raised with Young Earth Creationism, that was my own world view, and it was essential to my own self-identity as a Christian up and into my early 20's) to not being a YEC had very little to do with science. I grew up watching a lot of scientific programming, reading books, and so I had a fairly basic grasp of evolution in concept--but that didn't matter because of the hard-wired theological, existential, issues involved. What provided me with the transition (which was hardly immediate, it was something that happened slowly over a couple years) was a changing in theology. It was a fundamental paradigmatic shift, from seeing my own salvation as about me better getting all my t's crossed and i's dotted OR ELSE, to seeing my salvation through the graciousness of Jesus who freely gives Himself to the world in love. This may not mean a whole lot to someone who isn't religious, but from a religious perspective this can be a radical change in how one's entire religious outlook is turned on its head.

The take away from this, is that for many this really is a deep, primal, existential issue. Again, money may play a role for some, but I suspect that money plays less a role than one might think--it's about self preservation.

-CryptoLutheran