Why does evolution threaten God?

[Michael]

There is also a difference between how such people are treated in science, vs creationism. If you are found to be corrupt or unethical in science, your career is ruined. If you are found to be corrupt or unethical in creationism, you are acclaimed for defending God against evilution.

IMO that's really a gross oversimplification and not true. As a Christian, I don't condone unethical behavior in others or in myself. That isn't to say I don't engage in such behaviors sometimes. Forgiveness however is not acclamation, and unethical behavior is always unethical. I don't believe that most creationists are "unethical", even if I believe they are wrong on that topic. Your statement makes it sound like all creationists are unethical. I know that's probably not what you meant, but that is how it came across IMO and I"m not even a YEC.

 

[Michael]

Well, let's not kid ourselves. Scientists, just like any other human, can be corrupt and unethical, and many are I'm sure. HOWEVER, regardless of scientists' corruption, the undeniable fact remains that science produces measurable results. Its simply works.

Not necessarily. When did you ever see a consumer product that runs on 'dark energy" or "inflation"? I agree with you that *some* branches of science produce tangible goods, but the "big picture" types of 'where did we come from' types of theories don't typically produce much in the way of useful products that result from it's 'core components'.

Religion on the other hand also has corrupt and unethical people but they can't produce any knowledge about nature that helps us in any measurable way.

Again, I would say that's probably short sighted. The Bible is full of individuals that are portrayed as "flawed" people that God later (or previously) used for something useful or something good. You might not buy the idea mind you, but that doesn't mean it's not possible for good to come from a corrupt individual.

IMO the corruption is the basic problem. It plagues both science and religion. It's a human flaw that is expressed in virtually all areas of human endeavor, from politics to science, to religion to you name it.

 

[sandwiches]

There is also a difference between how such people are treated in science, vs creationism. If you are found to be corrupt or unethical in science, your career is ruined. If you are found to be corrupt or unethical in creationism, you are acclaimed for defending God against evilution. If you go to prison, God sent you there to save souls and spread His Word among the other prisoners. If you are caught lying, your lies will be quted as "Truth" among a myriad of Creation Ministry websites. That is why Professional Creationsts lie so much... they are encouraged to do so by their followers.

I think the key lies in the illusion of infallibility and certainty that religion must maintain. After all, why would you want to trust your eternal soul to morally corrupt and fallible humans with tentative knowledge. You see this in both religious leaders and adherents alike. Both must maintain and defend their inerrancy at all costs or cast into doubt their future in the afterlife or that of their followers.

When the perceived consequences of your actions are absolute, so must your beliefs be.

 

[Michael]

Like I said, we're only human. Scientists are, by and large, genuinely interested in science for science's sake: the LHC has no obvious practical applications. The technologies that come out of it are by-products, commercial adaptations (e.g., the Internet). Scientists compete for funding, sure, but so what? Science is objective, and personal bias comes out. Peer review uses this competitive nature to improve science: by pitting scientists against one another, scientists have both an academic and a financial incentive to refute their opponents claims. Since it's therefore in their interest to demonstrate flaws in scientific research, peer review is even stronger.

So, yea, we have to compete for funding. Does that negate the validity of science?

Emphasis mine. I wouldn't say that it negates the validity of the scientific process, but it certainly has an adverse effect at times IMO. That emotional and financial *need* to "refute" a competing theory can certainly lead to corruption of the system, and a peer review process that doesn't work correctly. You can (not necessarily always) end up with a peer review process that can be motivated by an irrational professional (emotional) opposition, as well as for financial considerations. IMO the professional/emotional attachment to 'being right' is probably the stronger corrupting influence, but it depends on the individual.

 

[mpok1519]

I believe it threatens perceptions and interpretaions of God rather than God in general. Of course God may only be defined by our interpretations and perceptions.

 

[Michael]

I think the key lies in the illusion of infallibility and certainty that religion must maintain.

You should hear astronomers defend Lambda-CDM theory sometime. Their whole argument about non baryonic matter is based directly upon their presumed *infallibility* to detect all other types of mass with very limited technologies. Science can also suffer from that same "illusion of infallibility". The 'costs' of fallibility are typically monetary.

When the perceived consequences of your actions are absolute, so must your beliefs be.

Well, I agree, but then from the perspective of science, if your actions directly related to your funding, there's also a very strong motive to avoid being labeled a heretic that can be measured in real dollars right here, right now.

 

[sandwiches]

Not necessarily. When did you ever see a consumer product that runs on 'dark energy" or "inflation"? I agree with you that *some* branches of science produce tangible goods, but the "big picture" types of 'where did we come from' types of theories don't typically produce much in the way of useful products that result from it's 'core components'.

You misunderstood me. We don't see any consumer products running on tectonic plates, either, and, in fact, the idea was believed to be nonsense until a few decades ago. Consumer or practical products are not what make science useful.

Again, I would say that's probably short sighted. The Bible is full of individuals that are portrayed as "flawed" people that God later (or previously) used for something useful or something good. You might not buy the idea mind you, but that doesn't mean it's not possible for good to come from a corrupt individual.

I believe good can come from corrupt individuals and my argument was never that it can't. What I am saying is that through religion we can't acquire objectively verifiable knowledge about nature is all.

IMO the corruption is the basic problem. It plagues both science and religion. It's a human flaw that is expressed in virtually all areas of human endeavor, from politics to science, to religion to you name it.

I agree.

 

[Michael]

I believe it threatens perceptions and interpretaions of God rather than God in general. Of course God may only be defined by our interpretations and perceptions.

At some point it would probably be useful to differentiate between "religion" and God. A fundamental "Baptist" might find evolutionary theory to be a threat to their belief system, whereas a Catholic Priest might not. It's our subjective interpretations that can become threatened by science, but God cannot be threatened by scientific knowledge.

 

[Michael]

I believe good can come from corrupt individuals and my argument was never that it can't. What I am saying is that through religion we can't acquire objectively verifiable knowledge about nature is all.

I think I need to chew on that statement for awhile.

We can in fact find a "religious/spiritual" "consensus" about nature through such a process, just as we might find a consensus through a corrupted scientific process. Either type of consensus (scientific/spiritual) can be prone to error of course, but in that way they both seem exactly the same to me. How can you know that inflation exist in nature and God does not? There seems to be no obvious empirical way to distinguish one type of metaphysical entity from another.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Evidence on "evolution" is like reading from the book of Satan. It simply exists to lead people astray from God's path to glory. Scientists are nothing more than Satan's clergy.

*blink*

You say this... using the Internet?

 

[sandwiches]

You should hear astronomers defend Lambda-CDM theory sometime. Their whole argument about non baryonic matter is based directly upon their presumed *infallibility* to detect all other types of mass with very limited technologies. Science can also suffer from that same "illusion of infallibility". The 'costs' of fallibility are typically monetary.

Well, I agree, but then from the perspective of science, if your actions directly related to your funding, there's also a very strong motive to avoid being labeled a heretic that can be measured in real dollars right here, right now.

I understand you have a desire and need to equate science with religion and use terms such as 'heretics' to make your point but it's intellectually dishonest and merely detracts from your actual point.

If your point is that scientists will sometimes refuse to admit they're wrong because of fear of losing funding, then say so, and I agree with you. However, this fear of fallibility you mention in science does not extend to the people who benefit from it NOR those scientists who have discovered things on their time, unlike in religion where its adherents must defend their beliefs and preach infallibility (e.g. AV, Doveaman, Skywriting, etc) or fear suffering their consequences as there's always a dire consequence for denying the Truth.

 

[sandwiches]

I think I need to chew on that statement for awhile.

We can in fact find a "religious/spiritual" "consensus" about nature through such a process, just as we might find a consensus through a corrupted scientific process. Either type of consensus (scientific/spiritual) can be prone to error of course, but in that way they both seem exactly the same to me. How can you know that inflation exist in nature and God does not? There seems to be no obvious empirical way to distinguish one type of metaphysical entity from another.

How can you claim consensus about a god whose name, form, gender, age, wishes, beliefs, desires, or even number of them remains in question. Even people within the same religious sect can't agree as there's nothing objectively verifiable to agree on.

Oh, and I don't know that inflation is true nor does any scientist I've ever talked to or read about. However, I'm sure there are some out there who probably claim to know it is true. I think they'd be unreasonable with the current amount of evidence, although it does seem LIKELY inflation is true.

 

[Split Rock]

IMO that's really a gross oversimplification and not true. As a Christian, I don't condone unethical behavior in others or in myself. That isn't to say I don't engage in such behaviors sometimes. Forgiveness however is not acclamation, and unethical behavior is always unethical. I don't believe that most creationists are "unethical", even if I believe they are wrong on that topic. Your statement makes it sound like all creationists are unethical. I know that's probably not what you meant, but that is how it came across IMO and I"m not even a YEC.

Most Professioanl Creationists are indeed unethical. There are exceptions, like Dr. Kurt Wise, but they are far and few between. There are many more like Hovinds, Gish and Morris. The reason there are so many unethical Professional Creationists is because they get away with lying and spreading misinformation. Most of their followers do not care if they are being lied to as long as what they are being told sounds good to them. Again, there are exceptions, but most do not care if their sources lie to them. This is one of the most surprising things I have found out since becoming involved in the "debate."

 

[Vatis]

Evidence on "evolution" is like reading from the book of Satan. It simply exists to lead people astray from God's path to glory. Scientists are nothing more than Satan's clergy.

Like your computer? Throw it out, satans work.
Like your clothes? Satans work.
Car? Satans work.
House? Satans work.
You cut yourself? Awww too bad that disinfectants are also Satans work.
Well, that's it for you I guess.

 

[Gracchus]

Like your computer? Throw it out, satans work.
Like your clothes? Satans work.
Car? Satans work.
House? Satans work?
You cut yourself? Awww too bad that disinfectants are also Satans work.
Well, that's it for you I guess.

Religious folks are never going to be found guilty of moral or intellectual consistency. The basis of religion is absurdity. It is the necessary virtue.

 

[Vatis]

Religious folks are never going to be found guilty of moral or intellectual consistency. The basis of religion is absurdity. It is the necessary virtue.

Absurdity is one thing but calling scientists evil and the devils advocats is just downright repulsive, so grossely offensive I can't even find the right words to describe it.
Scientists should be worshipped as modern day Jesuses because they actually do something for the wellfare of the human race, quite contrary to what nearly all Christians do.

 

[Gracchus]

Absurdity is one thing but calling scientists evil and the devils advocats is just downright repulsive, so grossely offensive I can't even find the right words to describe it.

Some folks call it "righteousness".

Scientists should be worshipped as modern day Jesuses because they actually do something for the wellfare of the human race, quite contrary to what nearly all Christians do.

Nonsense, scientists should not be worshipped, but they should be listened to. (If more people listened to Jesus and fewer worshipped him, the world would be a better place.)

 

[The Lady Kate]

Now, now, folks, let's not get testy... clearly twostep here wasn't expecting a rational discussion and didn't come prepared for one, so let's just start over.

Twostep... you've made some pretty strong claims about evolutionary theory being Satanic... would you like to explain what you mean?

 

[Gracchus]

Evidence on "evolution" is like reading from the book of Satan. It simply exists to lead people astray from God's path to glory. Scientists are nothing more than Satan's clergy.

Like your computer? Throw it out, satans work.
Like your clothes? Satans work.
Car? Satans work.
House? Satans work.
You cut yourself? Awww too bad that disinfectants are also Satans work.
Well, that's it for you I guess.

I don't see what any of these things have to do with the bullpucky that is called "evolution". Do you claim my clothes, house, and car evolved from a flatworm, platypus, and elephant?

What's this to do with evolution? Is it then, your claim oh wise science-worshiper (and witch too, I see!), that the Internet evolved from a lesser creature such as a stink beetle? Because the only thing that stinks here is your logic

You, TwoSteppinDino, turned the discussion from evolution, by accusing scientists of being "Satan's clergy". What stinks more than bad logic is malicious slander.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What's this to do with evolution?

Nothing whatsoever. It's to do with your claim that, "Scientists are nothing more than Satan's clergy". Quite a staggering claim, given that you yourself are using technology built and maintained by scientists.

Is it then, your claim oh wise science-worshiper (and witch too, I see!), that the Internet evolved from a lesser creature such as a stink beetle?

Obviously not. You claim that scientists are nothing more than Satan's clergy, yet it's scientists who give you all modern knowledge, medicine, and technology - including the Internet.

And, look closer: I'm an atheist, not a witch. I hung up my pointy hat a long time ago.

Because the only thing that stinks here is your logic

Quite.