Why are creationists so threatened by science?

[Subduction Zone]

You asked for one and I gave one. maybe not the best example sorry. I've got a plethora of reading I'm trying to do, but I will get to your hyperlink thanks. What happened you think in 250 million years?

Here is a video that may save you some reading and explains, of course rather simply since it is a short video, "living fossils".

First nominee for the 2013 Golden Crocoduck - YouTube

 

[Lethe]

Allow me to give an example. I personally know someone that won the lottery. The statistical argument against evolution is analogous to me going to that person and saying that it is impossible for him to have won the lottery because the chances were 1 in 75 million. He will just look at me and say that it already happened, so the calculation I just did is meaningless.

My favorite are Sagan's (I think) leaves on the ground in fall. Look, a leaf! See that leaf right there? Do you know what the very odds it would fall right here at this moment?

 

[Loudmouth]

Here is a video that may save you some reading and explains, of course rather simply since it is a short video, "living fossils".

I guess every living species is also a living fossil. Just look at us. We find chordates clear back in the Cambrian, and here we are still being chordates.

 

[diychristian]

Here is a video that may save you some reading and explains, of course rather simply since it is a short video, "living fossils".

First nominee for the 2013 Golden Crocoduck - YouTube

You have posted this video before and i've watched it twice. I don't deny speciation or adaptation. I could buy it if the environments, food sources, and all other of the species' contemparies didn't go through change, but that is not what is seen. If there is enormous enviromental pressures (like an ice age or mass extiction of its food source)on the species that it has to change then one would think an enormous phenotypic change would be in order. One thing can be said for sure this kind of "evolution" found in living fossils is not evidence for macro-evolution (rise of new Family, Order, Class,Phylum, kingdom) and in fact, given some of the living fossils' long durations, it speaks against such claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have posted this video before and i've watched it twice. I don't deny speciation or adaptation.

Then you accept evolution since that is the entirety of the theory, the production of new species and adaptation. Evolution is just the repeated production of one species to the next. If you understand how someone can walk to the curb you can understand how they can walk to the next town. The same for evolution.

One thing can be said for sure this kind of "evolution" found in living fossils is not evidence for macro-evolution (rise of new Family, Order, Class,Phylum, kingdom) and in fact, given some of the living fossils' long durations, it speaks against such claims.

Evolution does not produce new Families, Orders, Classes, Phyla, or Kingdoms. Humans do. All evoution produces, and needs to produce, is new species. All taxonomic levels above species are human contrivances.

 

[RickG]

One thing can be said for sure this kind of "evolution" found in living fossils is not evidence for macro-evolution (rise of new Family, Order, Class,Phylum, kingdom) and in fact, given some of the living fossils' long durations, it speaks against such claims.

Two things diychristian:

1. I get the idea that you have the misconception that an individual gives birth to a new Family, Order, etc.. The theory of evolution does not subscribe to that. Individuals do not evolve, populations evolve.
2. All living fossils are indeed a different Species/Family from their fossil ancestry. For instance the Coelacanth has no less than 5 Families and many many more sub Families and Species.

And I'll throw in a third thing. Evolution skeptics seem to think evolution must show missing links. Aside from fossilization being extremely rare, how do you suppose all those species throughout deep time got there? Did they just poof into existence? And why does the entire fossil record mimic evolution? Explain those questions with falsifiable evidence and you have falsified evolution. Just things to think about.

 

[Joshua0]

I guess every living species is also a living fossil.

Yet there are human like foot prints that go back 50 million years that are perfect in every way. Yet there are no fossils to explain where those foot prints come from.

 

[Tomk80]

Yet there are human like foot prints that go back 50 million years that are perfect in every way. Yet there are no fossils to explain where those foot prints come from.

There are? Where?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yet there are human like foot prints that go back 50 million years that are perfect in every way.

No there aren't. No human fossils from 50 million years ago, much less any hominids.

 

[RickG]

Yet there are human like foot prints that go back 50 million years that are perfect in every way. Yet there are no fossils to explain where those foot prints come from.

No there are not. May I ask your source for that incorrect information? BTW, I hope this is not the Paluxy dinosaur track-way. To begin with 50 million years ago the dinosaurs had been gone for 15 million years. Secondly, there are no hominid tracks there at all.

 

[eclipsenow]

I wanted to start a thread specifically about this because it is a theme we keep coming back to in every other thread, so maybe we can try to discuss specifically this issue here. Why are creationists so threatened by science?

They have a bad hermenutic for Genesis, and don't understand the ancient Hebrew art of symbolic narrative they are reading.

Seriously, why do they have to go out of their way to misinterpret and misrepresent science as a process (and I don't mean just evolution here, but mostly that)? Is it to strengthen their own beliefs? If so, how would seeking confirmation from observation lead to "more" faith? I always thought faith was something you had without evidence. Would God showing his face "increase" someone's faith? I think that if it did, the faith would not be large enough to begin with. Likewise, would confirmation of what happened in Genesis 1 "increase" their faith? If not, why does the fact that science does not confirm Genesis bother them to a point of lying about it?

Faith is not Heidegger's 'leap in the dark', something we believe with no evidence. It's simply who you trust in. If you think you've got a handle on the world, you have 'faith' in yourself. It's not a statement of belief without evidence. You practice faith when you believe America is joined to Canada at the top and Mexico at the bottom! You 'trust' the maps and space photographs you have seen, and have very good reason to! But they could have been forged. Unless you have actually walked or driven completely around the borders of America, you don't know from your own eyewitness account that America's maps are accurate.

In the same way many Christians are persuaded to take the bible seriously by the witness of history to the bible's accuracy. I'm not talking about evolution v Creation, but things like the Pool of Siloam where one of Jesus miracle's occured. For 2000 years Jews have dug around under Jerusalem and not found these public baths. Then in 2004, a year before my daughter was born, they went to extend some plumbing and dug and there it was! A great big Roman styled public baths, nearly the size of an Olympic swimming pool! The skeptics were proved wrong. The pool of Siloam was NOT a parable or play of words on 'being sent' (Jesus sent the guy into the pool to be healed, and the word Siloam means 'sent').

It's the accumulation of events like this that lead us to trust the eyewitness accounts of what happened in the New Testament, and the fact that the disciples died stating they had seen someone rise from the grave who said he was the Son of God who died for our condition. Many have died for their faith, but these guys died as eyewitnesses to the Son of God rising again. That's a bit different to dying for a belief system like Communism, or the Hale Bop comment guys. Something to think about anyway.

Regards

 

[Ken-1122]

Faith is not Heidegger's 'leap in the dark', something we believe with no evidence. It's simply who you trust in. If you think you've got a handle on the world, you have 'faith' in yourself. It's not a statement of belief without evidence. You practice faith when you believe America is joined to Canada at the top and Mexico at the bottom! You 'trust' the maps and space photographs you have seen, and have very good reason to! But they could have been forged. Unless you have actually walked or driven completely around the borders of America, you don't know from your own eyewitness account that America's maps are accurate.

I think it is a mistake to equate the belief that a map is accurate to the belief that God exists because the accuracy of a map can be proven; the existence in God cannot. To suggest that faith is simply believing I believe does a disservice to the word and IMO makes the word useless.
Even the Bible says faith is “the Substance of things hoped for, evidence of things unseen”
Unseen means “blind” if it isn’t blind it is not faith, it is proof.

In the same way many Christians are persuaded to take the bible seriously by the witness of history to the bible's accuracy. I'm not talking about evolution v Creation, but things like the Pool of Siloam where one of Jesus miracle's occured. For 2000 years Jews have dug around under Jerusalem and not found these public baths. Then in 2004, a year before my daughter was born, they went to extend some plumbing and dug and there it was! A great big Roman styled public baths, nearly the size of an Olympic swimming pool! The skeptics were proved wrong.

Just because the pool may exist doesn’t mean any miracles were preformed there; would you assume that just because the Mississippi river exist that Tom Sawyer was an actual person who did all those crazy things? I think not

Ken

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

Why are Creationists threatened by Science? Well that's sort of a general assumption, being that many people who believe in Creation work in the science realm. I am a Creationist, and I'm currenty majoring in Enviornmental Science with the emphasis on Fish and Wildlife Managment. The question to be asked also, is why are Evolutionists so threatened by Creationism? Don't tell me they aren't, otherwise they wouldn't be so passionate about disproving Creationism. It's a circular argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why are Creationists threatened by Science?

Science doesn't threaten me in the least.

In fact, I'm fond of telling science it can take a hike.

 

[Ken-1122]

Why are Creationists threatened by Science? Well that's sort of a general assumption, being that many people who believe in Creation work in the science realm. I am a Creationist, and I'm currenty majoring in Enviornmental Science with the emphasis on Fish and Wildlife Managment. The question to be asked also, is why are Evolutionists so threatened by Creationism? Don't tell me they aren't, otherwise they wouldn't be so passionate about disproving Creationism. It's a circular argument.

I think Evolutionists (scientists) would be threatened by creationism because there are those who are trying to get creationism taught in schools as science.

Ken

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

Why are Creationists threatened by Science? Well that's sort of a general assumption, being that many people who believe in Creation work in the science realm. I am a Creationist, and I'm currenty majoring in Enviornmental Science with the emphasis on Fish and Wildlife Managment. The question to be asked also, is why are Evolutionists so threatened by Creationism? Don't tell me they aren't, otherwise they wouldn't be so passionate about disproving Creationism. It's a circular argument.

I thought the reasons were obvious, but I'll review just a few:

1) The U.S. has lost its strong scoring in science education which it formerly enjoyed. And if a huge percentage of the population in this country leans anti-science and suspicious of science because they are afraid of the theory of evolution being "atheistic", they don't want to spend as much money on science education and government sponsored science research.

2) A vote who is ignorant of evolutionary biology is less able to make sound decisions about the environment and science-related legislation in general (e.g. environmental protections.)

3) When something like 47% of Americans deny the theory of evolution, that ignores threatens us in many spheres ---including the fact that science teachers admit that they are reluctant to cover topics like evolution and geology because BILLIONS OF YEARS makes parents angry. So it interferes with science education in general.

4) So many fields of science DEPEND upon an understanding of evolution and a very old earth /universe.


As an Evangelical Christian, I'm very concerned for another reason science-ignorant Christians say and do stupid things---and that tends to get blamed on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible in general! (That is, non-Christians have less respect for the Bible when the people associated with the Bible say ridiculous things about science topics, such as evolution. We saw that in the last presidential races/primaries.)

Ignorance should ALSO be feared. (Remember Charles Dickens "A Christmas Carol". Weren't the two orphaned children that the angel told Scrooge to fear named "ignorance and want"? Didn't he say, "They are ignorance and want---but fear ignorance more!")

 

[eclipsenow]

Science doesn't threaten me in the least.

In fact, I'm fond of telling science it can take a hike.

There you go again, showing just how threatened you really are.

 

[eclipsenow]

I think it is a mistake to equate the belief that a map is accurate to the belief that God exists because the accuracy of a map can be proven; the existence in God cannot. To suggest that faith is simply believing I believe does a disservice to the word and IMO makes the word useless.
Even the Bible says faith is “the Substance of things hoped for, evidence of things unseen”
Unseen means “blind” if it isn’t blind it is not faith, it is proof.

Hi Ken,
yes the bible says that, but it also says we can know God because Jesus has shown us God, that when He walked the earth he was God walking among us. We can know Jesus through the testimony of the Apostles, the eyewitness evidence.

Luke was a doctor who wrote:
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

It's not scientific certainty to be sure. It's not a repeatable, demonstrable phenomenon in a lab. Rather, we need to use historical and even legal criteria of thought to describe what is 'most likely'. If someone argues that science is the ONLY acceptable criteria of thought then prove that to me empirically? Empirical evidence relies on a whole set of philosophical presuppositions to assert itself as a rational discourse. So we have this thing called 'knowledge' but it has different branches: empirical evidence, legal evidence, historical evidence, and philosophical discourse.

Just because the pool may exist doesn’t mean any miracles were preformed there; would you assume that just because the Mississippi river exist that Tom Sawyer was an actual person who did all those crazy things? I think not

Good point: but I was drawing on it as an example of the sort of historical finds that back up the historical credibility of the bible as a reliable source document. Secular historians are not threatened by ancient belief systems as they investigate historical documents, they just take them into account, whether we are talking about a Roman's view of the invincibility of Rome, or whatever.

But when you add one's metaphysical presuppositions, empirical data, and historical / legal frameworks of thinking there can be some powerful worldview implications.

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

In fact, I'm fond of telling science it can take a hike.

Science to me, is finding about more of what Allah SWT has created. Science to me is a way of expanding my knowledge as God intended, and not a way of driving me away from Allah SWT. When you view science in those terms, than eventually you will realize that science isn't the problem here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science to me, is finding about more of what Allah SWT has created. Science to me is a way of expanding my knowledge as God intended, and not a way of driving me away from Allah SWT. When you view science in those terms, than eventually you will realize that science isn't the problem here.

How did we get our moon? ex nihilo or [pick one of six different scientific answers]?

I say ex nihilo -- what say you?