Why are creationists so threatened by science?

[RickG]

Science doesn't threaten me in the least.

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

If science has to take a hike for you, then you are definitely threatened by it. I can't imagine what it must be like having to lie to myself all the time.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

'When reality contradicts my beliefs, reality is wrong.'

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

'When reality contradicts my beliefs, reality is wrong.'

And when someone becomes so filled with hubris that they claim to be able to defy and DENY reality, they have reached the point of total narcissism where they believe that THEY ARE GOD.

So when someone who claims to believe in the God of the Bible but then REFUSES to believe the reality of what is FOUND in the creation (i.e., the universe), they have become a deity in their own mind.

I think BOTH theists and non-theists can agree with this assessment.

After all, when someone has come to believe that they can "veto" reality, they have reached the point of mental illness. (Indeed, some of those disturbed individuals confuse their "alternate reality" with "faith"---but the Bible definition of faith does not harmonize with what is often described on these threads.)

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

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

I say ex nihilo -- what say you?

The idea the moon was created out of nothing, is in fact incorrect. Here is a link to better help you out. It's kind of old, but helps steer you in the right direction. Assalamu'alaikum

Where did the Moon come from? - physicsworld.com

 

[AV1611VET]

The idea the moon was created out of nothing, is in fact incorrect. Here is a link to better help you out. It's kind of old, but helps steer you in the right direction. Assalamu'alaikum

Where did the Moon come from? - physicsworld.com

I'm not interested in a link.

I'm asking you how we got our moon.

If you were to ask me, I could give you how, when, where, who, how long it took, and who the eyewitness were -- naming some of them by name.

After all, you did say this:

Science to me is a way of expanding my knowledge as God intended,

... and then I get your 'expanded knowledge as God intended' in the form of a link to physicsworld?

 

[diychristian]

The idea the moon was created out of nothing, is in fact incorrect. Here is a link to better help you out. It's kind of old, but helps steer you in the right direction. Assalamu'alaikum

Where did the Moon come from? - physicsworld.com

For something that is touted as fact this article you linked to doesn't seem so sure. I see phrases like, "Astronomers believe", "geologist believe", "This theory also leads Münker’s team to believe...". While some evidence is mentioned it seems like at the end of the day its a leap of faith.

 

[diychristian]

'When reality contradicts my beliefs, reality is wrong.'

I'm guessing this was said in jest, but I'm curious what if reality pointed you to God-What would you do with that reality?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I'm guessing this was said in jest, but I'm curious what if reality pointed you to God-What would you do with that reality?

I would have no choice but to accept it, but the actual implications of that reality would depend on which god it is.

 

[diychristian]

I would have no choice but to accept it, but the actual implications of that reality would depend on which god it is.

So the God of Christianity. What are the implications?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm not interested in a link.

I'm asking you how we got our moon.

If you were to ask me, I could give you how, when, where, who, how long it took, and who the eyewitness were -- naming some of them by name.

And your vain repetition of the Hebrew myth would be useful... how, exactly?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So the God of Christianity. What are the implications?

I for one, would believe in the God of Christianity. What would be the implications of that?

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

You have listed plenty of reasons for believing in God, but everything you’ve listed are reasons based upon faith; not proof. We have absolutely proof that the land directly below the US borders is Mexico.

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.

I was making the point that the only thing these historical finds prove is that many of the places mentioned in the bible do indeed exist! It does not prove any miracles were preformed there, or that any of the stuff mentioned in the bible actually happened.

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.

I don't think anybody is actually threatened by ancient beliefs systems; we just don’t believe them.

Ken

 

[eclipsenow]

You have listed plenty of reasons for believing in God, but everything you’ve listed are reasons based upon faith; not proof. We have absolutely proof that the land directly below the US borders is Mexico.

But have you got first hand evidence of it, or do you only believe it because of many 'sources'? When I explain to atheists that I believe in God because His Son died for me and rose again, and most of the eyewitnesses of that were tortured to death for stating what they saw, I encounter jeering and scepticism and hear that they would only believe it if they saw it themselves. The historical documents we refer to as 'the bible' are ruled out of court. Only personal experience of the evidence themselves would be ruled in.

Yet these same people believe tens of thousands of things they don't have first hand evidence of. They have good reasons to 'believe' what they 'believe', but what do they really know of it? Indeed, while I appreciate the wonders of modern science and readily believe the very same things as credible reports, at least I'm aware of the fact that I'm believing something, and not taking some stance as if I discovered it or saw it or proved it myself.

 

[Joshua0]

And when someone becomes so filled with hubris that they claim to be able to defy and DENY reality, they have reached the point of total narcissism where they believe that THEY ARE GOD.

The problem is when science tries to play God, they end up with little more then a Frankenstein type of monster. The real crime is not to make the monster, the real crime is to try to avoid responsibility for having created the monster. This is where evolution comes it. It is an attempt to try to avoid dealing with the issue that man is in a fallen condition. Creationism says let us repent and get it right. Evolution says let us continue in our fallen estate.

pbministries.org/Newsletter/1999/Aug/newton_08.htm]Man in His Fallen Estate John Newton (1725 - 1807)

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is when science tries to play God, they end up with little more then a Frankenstein type of monster. The real crime is not to make the monster, the real crime is to try to avoid responsibility for having created the monster. This is where evolution comes it. It is an attempt to try to avoid dealing with the issue that man is in a fallen condition. Creationism says let us repent and get it right. Evolution says let us continue in our fallen estate.

pbministries.org/Newsletter/1999/Aug/newton_08.htm]Man in His Fallen Estate John Newton (1725 - 1807)

Evolution is a theory that allows biologists to make sense of the facts found in biology. Evolution is a very practical theory that works exceedingly well. The vast, vast majority of work in the field of evolution has nothing to do with humans, btw.

 

[Joshua0]

Evolution is a theory that allows biologists to make sense of the facts found in biology.

Yes, we are dealing with a very small part of the theory. The part that has to do with animals eating animals. So you have at least 4 billion years of evolution that has nothing to do with the fallen condition of man. It is only the last 250 million years that we are concerned with. God intended Creation to be herbivorous not carnivorous.

 

[Ken-1122]

But have you got first hand evidence of it, or do you only believe it because of many 'sources'?

If I told you I have a dog at home named “Brian” would you believe me? Supposed I told you my dog Brian stood upright like a human, spoke perfect English, had a college degree and was in the process of writing a book! Now would you believe me? Extraordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of evidence. To claim the land below the US borders is called “Mexico” is not an extraordinary claim; to claim someone regularly preformed miracles and acts that defy the laws of nature….. now THAT is an extraordinary claim.

When I explain to atheists that I believe in God because His Son died for me and rose again, and most of the eyewitnesses of that were tortured to death for stating what they saw, I encounter jeering and scepticism and hear that they would only believe it if they saw it themselves.

The People’s temple of Jonestown, The Branch Divisions, Heaven’s Gate, and a host of other cults come to mind when speaking of people willing to die for their beliefs. Religious martyrs are a dime a dozen; that’s probably why nobody takes them seriously anymore; it’s been done already and will be done over and over and over again.

As far as you believing Jesus died for your sins, I don’t think anybody doubts that; it’s just that raising from the dead; defying the laws of nature claim that we have a problem with; especially when you consider how it was claimed to have been done. IMO makes no sense at all

Ken

 

[AV1611VET]

The Branch Divisions,

It's Branch Davidians.

 

[RickG]

The problem is when science tries to play God, they end up with little more then a Frankenstein type of monster. The real crime is not to make the monster, the real crime is to try to avoid responsibility for having created the monster. This is where evolution comes it. It is an attempt to try to avoid dealing with the issue that man is in a fallen condition. Creationism says let us repent and get it right. Evolution says let us continue in our fallen estate.

pbministries.org/Newsletter/1999/Aug/newton_08.htm]Man in His Fallen Estate John Newton (1725 - 1807)

Are you posting in the CF science forums to discuss science or preach. If preach, please do so in one of the general apologists forums.

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

The problem is when science tries to play God, they end up with little more then a Frankenstein type of monster. The real crime is not to make the monster, the real crime is to try to avoid responsibility for having created the monster. This is where evolution comes it. It is an attempt to try to avoid dealing with the issue that man is in a fallen condition. Creationism says let us repent and get it right. Evolution says let us continue in our fallen estate.

pbministries.org/Newsletter/1999/Aug/newton_08.htm]Man in His Fallen Estate John Newton (1725 - 1807)

I confess that I couldn't make sense out of some aspects of the paragraph nor how it relates to the John Newton citation. But in terms of the OP itself, I guess you are saying that creationists are afraid of science because they don't understand what science does---and so they imagine (as did science-illiterates of the past) that science is building some sort of terrible monster. They even think that evolution (a theory about how organisms change over time) relates somehow to spiritual issues and will lead people to commit terrible crimes.

Yes, ignorance and fear usually go hand in hand. And so many science-illiterates confuse the methodological naturalism of science with philosophical naturalism. So they convince themselves that evolution=atheism, despite the fact that so many scientists who affirm evolution are also Bible believing Christians!

So there is probably a lot of truth in what Joshua is saying, even if he doesn't know why. People do fear what they don't understand. And that irrational fear creates bigger and bigger monsters! Indeed, anti-Semitism as well as attacks on Christians down through the centuries often came about after fearsome stories got circulated and they grew more exaggerated over time. Jewish rituals produced stories of Gentile children being chopped up and consumed as matzos. Christian communion was transformed into "They drink human blood from shared goblets and they eat the actual flesh of Christ! What monsters!"

Think about it. How many creationists think the Big Bang Theory is part of the Theory of Evolution? How many will argue that the ToE includes abiogenesis and "playing God"? And one regularly sees forum posts about Hitler being inspired by Darwin---despite the fact that the Nazis banned and burned Darwins book and ALL books about evolution! (The fact that the theory of evolution directly contradicts Hitler's ideologies doesn't matter to them. Facts take second place to fighting the imagined monsters! Joshua just proved it!)

So even though Joshua was preaching a sermon that was disengaged from the thread discussion, in its own way it deals with the OP head-on! He illustrates perfectly the creationist formula:

1) Take a total disregard for what the Theory of Evolution states.

2) Push aside what the Bible actually states and replace it with lots of cherished TRADITIONS.

3) Building a straw man version of the Theory of Evolution and turn it into a monster.

4) Imagine all sorts of crimes fostered by the ToE and if history doesn't cooperate (e.g. Hitler and Stalin, who both opposed Darwin's Theory), pretend that it does.

5) Shun all efforts of people to educate the creationist concerning both the scientific evidence AND the evidence from the Bible that informs the topic.

6) Keep screaming "The sky is falling! And ToE is causing it!" and the donors will throw money at the "creation science" industry and the con men who run it. [Mr. and Mrs. Kent Hovind are in federal prison but not all of their rogues gallery of shysters have joined them yet.]

7) Label any Christian who disagrees with young earth creationist interpretations of the Bible as "compromisers".

8) Rinse and repeat.

Any questions?