Why are creationists so threatened by science?

[kenvin]

FYI, Galileo was not excommunicated.

IMHO, there really doesn't have to be a science vs religion thing. Theologians such as Karl Rahner took scientific learning into account, including evolution. Tielhard de Chardin was a scientist and had an evolutionary theology. So, every Christian is not opposed to science, and every scientist is not opposed to Christianity.

Correct. The largely U.S. protestant phenomena of YEC is what is opposed to science and proper education.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm talking about the problem of mutations and genetic degradation. Most mutations are so small ns will likely not act upon them, many mutations are preserved and not repaired by the cells, after awhil fertility and vital processes are effected this endangers the whole species. The upper limit calculated for the longevity of the human species is 1.5 million years and a lower limit of only a couple thousand years.
Mutations are evolutions end

Too often debunked creationist sites do not help your argument. Since they are wrong well over 90% of the time, very often they try to make their claims with falsehoods, I ignore any links to them.

How many of these proclaim disorder and randomness?

What? Are you trying to claim that evolution proclaims disorder and randomness? If so you don't understand evolution.

Looking at the history of different species today we see that they go practically unchanged for millions some time tens or hundreds of millions of years with all kinds of selection pressures such as changes in CO2 levels, massive climate changes, the rise and fall of different prey and predators, extinction of critical vegetation, tectonic activies seperating species and many other things. Mutations happen all the time and they happen at random. Mutations do occur in hot spots in the genome, but this fact would be an advocate for evolution. Yet! So many changes are minute.

Umm, no. The species that go unchanged are in very stable environments. I doubt if you could name a specie that has not evolved for hundreds of millions of years.

without it evolution doesn't get off the blocks. Seems like this should be the starting point, but the evolutionists argument though starts backwards and is conjecture all the way back to the beginning.

What? It does not matter how the first cell appeared. Evolution would occur even if God made the first cell directly. Abiogenesis and evolution are two different subjects. Most biologists believe that natural aboigenesis is the answer. That does not mean it has to be the answer, though I believe it too.

 

[AV1611VET]

Really???

Yes, really.

Christians thought the Earth was the center of the Universe...

If they did back then, then I don't blame them. I probably would have as well, and I would venture to say you would, too.

... until science proved otherwise;

Until science proved otherwise, I'm sure science taught it as fact.

After science proved otherwise, I'm sure there was an "incubation period," where the church would have been slower to accept these new discoveries, since the church doesn't walk lockstep with science.

... they thought the moon emitted light, the Earth was flat, and that the Earth preceded the Sun until science proved otherwise.

As I said, I'm sure science taught it at one time as well.

You seem to be making scientists look like they had the truth all the time, and I couldn't disagree more.

Remember it was only 500 years ago that Galileo was excommunicated by the Church for having the audacity to suggest that the Earth orbited the Sun rather than the other way around. Now Christians admire his work.

And I'm sure Galileo was ridiculed by his scientific peers as well.

I've discussed Galileo in the past, and I believe his excommunication (if he was excommunicated) is one of the greatest thing that could have happened to him, as he completed two of his major works while under house arrest.

No my friend; Christianity didn’t abandon any holes; they were dragged kicking and screaming away from them and replaced with science by those more interested in the truth than personal agendas.

That's a little melodramatic; and I believe, as I said above, that Christianity wasn't alone in believing those things.

If Christianity was 'dragged kicking and screaming,' so were scientists as well.

Only the blissfull ignorant would consider those holes not worth filling.

The church didn't make those holes ... scientists did.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I know not whether the reference to conjecture on ReasonableFaith.org referred to WLC's own objections or not. That's a question for further study if it reaches your interest threshold.

I'm not too worried about whether it's Craig's claim or someone else's - I'm still waiting to hear just what these conjectures are.

As a liberal arts graduate, I assert no facts here. What I know of the subject is based on secondhand sources at best, which I must weigh according their own motives of credibility.

As a physicist, allow me to assure you that no foundational problems to radiometric dating has been found. If you think you, or someone you've read, has found one, I'll be happy to point out their error - or, if they're actually right, I'll concede defeat.

I can say, however, that I find the claim to be highly questionable that methods used for dating great spans of time in the remote past involve no conjecture or working assumptions whatsoever.

Since no one makes that claim, your worries are moot. Let's review the discussion we've been having:

You: Could you provide a specific example of a scientific fact that YEC's feel threatened by?
Me: Correlated radiometric dating results.
You: From what I gather, radiometric dating methods are inconclusive.
Me: They're not. What makes you think they are? This is why I mentioned their correlation - all these techniques based on unrelated physical phenomena, correlate to the same date.
You: What I have read on the subject suggests that radiometric dating involves conjecture just as evolution does. I found conjecture mentioned in connection with radiometric dating on William Lane Craig's website.
Me: Again, can you be more specific? I can't find such an article via Google. If you're not aware of what Craig's objections are, why are you asserting them as if they're fact?
You: I can say, however, that I find the claim to be highly questionable that methods used for dating great spans of time in the remote past involve no conjecture or working assumptions whatsoever.

I've highlighted in red some key words and phrases. Your initial objection to radiometric dating was that it is inconclusive. When pressed, you said you read on Craig's website that they were based on conjecture.

Now, I never disputed this. Like everything else in science, there are conjectures and assumptions made in the process of radiometric dating. but you should not confuse 'conjecture' with 'wild stab in the dark' or 'unsupported guess' - these conjectures are justified by the weight of the evidence. Moreover, the fact that these techniques all work out so beautifully is itself very good evidence that the foundational conjectures are true.

So I'm not saying that they don't have conjectures or foundational assumptions.

My enduring questions are: 1) who told you this (what website or article or person made you believe that radiometric dating is untrustworthy because it involves conjecture), and 2) what inconsistencies (i.e., what made you assert that radiometric dating is inconclusive).

That carbon-14 dating, e.g., has produced varying results when correlated is axiomatic among YEC scientists.

Again, what's your source? If you believe that Carbon dating yields varying results, why do you believe that? Who told you, and what studies or research papers do they have to back up their claims?

And I don't think you mean 'axiomatic'.

Your latter two comments support my skepticism. Theists have a personal bias but atheists do not?

No. I was being facetious. Notice that I prefaced my statement with "By your logic..." - I'm saying that your own argument makes that conclusion. It's obviously a silly conclusion, and as such we know that your argument is, somewhere, false.

In other words, you said that Christians are inherently more trustworthy because their religion commands them not to lie (which is why you never see Christian murderers or adulterers). This is faulty logic, and to highlight this I showed it lead to an abusrd conclusion: atheists, lacking the personal bias that Creationists have, are also more trustworthy. But they can't both be more trustworthy than each other, so your argument for or against the inherent trustworthiness of whole demographics is incorrect.

The truth of the matter is, both theists and non-theists are as capable of lying as each other.

As a longtime Christian and longtime acquaintance of other Christians, I am not so sure that Christians are as likely as the next person to lie.

Personal experience is a very poor method to judge whole populations by. Read up on confirmation bias for an explanation as to why.

The law of God, where known, serves as a check on bad tendencies even in the broader culture, but especially on Christians. Thanks be to God that Christian influence is significant where I live.

The evidence does not support your claim. The more heavily religious a country, the lower its levels of happiness and education (source, source).

 

[Mediaeval]

Tom,
thanks for admitting there are assumptions/conjectures involved. That has been my only point on radiometric dating. Atheists and theists use assumptions and quite reasonably so. A problem arises, though, when conjecture becomes fixed dogma, as happened with the theory of evolution itself.

As for prejudice, how can anyone who denies that lying is a sin avoid a credibility problem? Seriously.

 

[TLK Valentine]

As for prejudice, how can anyone who denies that lying is a sin avoid a credibility problem? Seriously.

How do you define "sin"?

 

[diychristian]

The term is Biologist not evolutionist.

Biologist is a broader term. As there is a growing group of biologist who are disassociating themselves with the theory, I don't think it fair.

 

[kenvin]

Biologist is a broader term. As there is a growing group of biologist who are disassociating themselves with the theory, I don't think it fair.

Evolutionist is not a word. It is Biologist. Did you make the word up?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionist is not a word. It is Biologist. Did you make the word up?

Sadly I disagree. So many have used that term so it can be found on several online dictionaries:

evolutionist - definition of evolutionist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Evolutionist | Define Evolutionist at Dictionary.com

and several others.

I do agree that biologist is a better term. A fraction of a percent of biologists do not believe the theory of evolution. It is very safe to categorize them as a fringe element.

 

[kenvin]

Sadly I disagree. So many have used that term so it can be found on several online dictionaries:

evolutionist - definition of evolutionist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Evolutionist | Define Evolutionist at Dictionary.com

and several others.

I do agree that biologist is a better term. A fraction of a percent of biologists do not believe the theory of evolution. It is very safe to categorize them as a fringe element.

When will people understand dishonesty while saying you represent God is bad?

 

[46AND2]

Tom,
thanks for admitting there are assumptions/conjectures involved. That has been my only point on radiometric dating. Atheists and theists use assumptions and quite reasonably so. A problem arises, though, when conjecture becomes fixed dogma, as happened with the theory of evolution itself.

As for prejudice, how can anyone who denies that lying is a sin avoid a credibility problem? Seriously.

So you pick the words you want to hear, and then ignore the rest of his post which explains that the assumptions/conjectures in science are NOT equal to the colloquial stabs in the dark that you are making them out to be.

Typical.

 

[Tomk80]

Tom,
thanks for admitting there are assumptions/conjectures involved. That has been my only point on radiometric dating. Atheists and theists use assumptions and quite reasonably so.

I would suggest that this is an extremely dishonest interpretation of my post. You have either not read it carefully, not understood it, or you are twisting what it says.

As I said in my previous post, that assumptions are made, does not mean that the conclusion is up in the air, which is the conclusion you rather dishonestly imply (and I do use the word "dishonestly" quite deliberately, because I do not think you can reasonably come to that conclusion from my post). '

To show that the conclusion from radiometric dating is invalid, you have to actually show that the assumptions made are unreasonable, that those assumptions have not been tested, that your assumptions are more reasonable and that the correlation between methods is not there. Could you actually respond to that statement, instead of ignoring it?

A problem arises, though, when conjecture becomes fixed dogma, as happened with the theory of evolution itself.

The theory of evolution is not, and has never been dogma. It is an extremely well-supported conclusion from the data.

As for prejudice, how can anyone who denies that lying is a sin avoid a credibility problem? Seriously.

Which atheist denies that lying is wrong? That atheists do not use the word "sin", does not mean they do not hold similar concepts. Again, your statements to me do not seem to be very honest.

 

[Tomk80]

So you pick the words you want to hear, and then ignore the rest of his post which explains that the assumptions/conjectures in science are NOT equal to the colloquial stabs in the dark that you are making them out to be.

Typical.

Indeed.

And that he / she then makes statements on the honesty of atheists I find extremely ironic. And in my opinion basically in one instant negates his claim that Christians are more honest than atheists.

 

[CabVet]

If they did back then, then I don't blame them. I probably would have as well, and I would venture to say you would, too.

Yeah, but the difference between you an us is that when presented with evidence, we would look at it and accept it since it was strong. And you would probably say: "evidence can take a hike".

 

[CabVet]

The church didn't make those holes ... scientists did.

And the smear campaign continues. Please keep posts like these coming AV, they further strengthen my point that YEC are threatened by science.

 

[CabVet]

A problem arises, though, when conjecture becomes fixed dogma, as happened with the theory of evolution itself.

Evolution is not and never will be "fixed dogma".

 

[CabVet]

Biologist is a broader term. As there is a growing group of biologist who are disassociating themselves with the theory, I don't think it fair.

Unsupported claim (9th commandment anyone?). The number of biologist that accept evolution only grows.

 

[RickG]

As a liberal arts graduate, I assert no facts here.

Well then, by all means let's look at the facts. Would you not agree that facts should come from the legitimate peer review literature?

What I know of the subject is based on secondhand sources at best, which I must weigh according their own motives of credibility.

Would you mind citing some of those sources? It would be most helpful in assessing their credibility and motives. Would you not agree that credibility comes from experts in their specific fields of research? One of the things I have found helpful in assessing credibility of published research in the scientific literature is by number of other research articles that cite that article in their research. Those citations are readily available in any scientific search engine.

I can say, however, that I find the claim to be highly questionable that methods used for dating great spans of time in the remote past involve no conjecture or working assumptions whatsoever.

The key there would be "your" definition of conjecture and assumption. Frankly, I don't see that the word conjecture has any validity in scientific research. Science does not proceed through conjecture. Perhaps you could give an example of conjecture. As for assumption, everyday life is full of assumption. We assume the sun will rise everyday and that the seasons will change. The assumptions in radiometric dating are just a reliable. Perhaps you might describe some of these assumptions.

That carbon-14 dating, e.g., has produced varying results when correlated is axiomatic among YEC scientists.

Yes, 14C dating is misrepresented quite extensively among YEC's. ' The key to understanding this is by checking out their claims by sourcing the actual scientific literature and seeing if what the YEC's claim is actually true. Another is to review their credentials.

 

[I Eat Pie]

Maybe they're threatened because they want to pick their own food and herd cattle for a few more centuries before they realize that science and inovation are the right way to go.

 

[AV1611VET]

And the smear campaign continues. Please keep posts like these coming AV, they further strengthen my point that YEC are threatened by science.

If you don't believe me, then let's take geocentrism for example.

Are you telling me, CabVet, that prior to Joshua 10, not one person believed in geocentrism?

If anyone did believe in geocentrism, was it based on anything other than empirical observation (science)?

I'm sure geocentrism was being taught LONG before Joshua 9; which is the passage Internet scientists love to use as Biblical evidence of geocentrism.