Creationist Error #1: One can not believe Evolution and still remain devout in their faith.

[ImmortalFlame]

most scientists thought the universe was static while the poor masses believed it began in a specific creation event, so did the priest Lemaitre- who's primeval atom was widely mocked and rejected by scientists as religious pseudoscience and 'big bang'

where the implications are academically unfashionable, science runs into headwinds

So, when a slim majority of non-scientists believe something, it is somehow statistically significant - but when an overwhelming majority of scientists believe something, it can be dismissed as "fashionable"?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I believe every scientist ever. Oh and more importantly Neil Degrass Tyson

also. Just to add....
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes Hoyle and many other atheist academics learned that the hard way!

But the original point was about the range of views from absolute evolution to absolute creationism, the two being generally minority views with a moderate majority often somewhere in the middle.

obviously consensus is not science...

'it doesn't take the opinion of 100 scientists to prove me wrong, it takes one fact' as Einstein said

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes Hoyle and many other atheist academics learned that the hard way!

But the original point was about the range of views from absolute evolution to absolute creationism, the two being generally minority views with a moderate majority often somewhere in the middle.

What exactly is "absolute evolution"?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So, when a slim majority of non-scientists believe something, it is somehow statistically significant - but when an overwhelming majority of scientists believe something, it can be dismissed as "fashionable"?

all things being even I'd go with the free thinking masses over an intellectual elite any day- but better to look at the science itself, the scientific method belongs to everybody- no theory is too sacred-

remember Newton's 'immutable' laws the entire scientific community bowed to, only the uneducated masses believed the world operated on deeper mysterious inherently unpredictable forces

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes Hoyle and many other atheist academics learned that the hard way!

But the original point was about the range of views from absolute evolution to absolute creationism, the two being generally minority views with a moderate majority often somewhere in the middle.

obviously consensus is not science...

'it doesn't take the opinion of 100 scientists to prove me wrong, it takes one fact' as Einstein said

Indeed. And the facts seem to lay only with evolution. There aren't any facts that seem to support ID. There is conjecture, misinformation and twisting of evidence but none of which are convincing. It doesn't matter if 100% of the people believe only in creationism from 6k years ago. It doesn't change the facts that we have discovered and the evidence we have uncovered.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What exactly is "absolute evolution"?

as in the 8%- without any divine intervention, purist, fundamentalist evolution if you prefer

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Indeed. And the facts seem to lay only with evolution. There aren't any facts that seem to support ID. There is conjecture, misinformation and twisting of evidence but none of which are convincing. It doesn't matter if 100% of the people believe only in creationism from 6k years ago. It doesn't change the facts that we have discovered and the evidence we have uncovered.

well apparently ID is quite convincing, not just to the masses but folk like Lemaitre and Planck, even if they did not reflect academic consensus at the time.

But I certainly agree that looking at the facts is a lot more instructive than consensus of academics or the public- must run here though, I appreciate the responses

 

[ImmortalFlame]

all things being even I'd go with the free thinking masses over an intellectual elite any day-

The problem being with your assumption that the masses are "free thinking", and that scientists are an "intellectual elite". If history shows us anything, it's that people can be easily manipulated and woefully ignorant en masse. Every great scientific, sociological and ethical advance made throughout history has come with some degree of mass disapproval, dismissal or outright hostility. You are effectively saying that you would sooner side with the people who have no proven knowledge of a subject than those who have demonstrated their understanding of it. Let me know next time you go to see a doctor and you tell him you'd rather be operated on by a group of 100 randomly selected strangers.

but better to look at the science itself, the scientific method belongs to everybody- no theory is too sacred-

In what way does the scientific method belong to everybody? What does that even mean?

remember Newton's 'immutable' laws the entire scientific community bowed to, only the uneducated masses believed the world operated on deeper mysterious inherently unpredictable forces

Which is total nonsense. Newton's laws were eventually accepted by everybody, and then overturned - with mass outcry. Scientists go where the facts lead, and the truth is that vast majority of people aren't interestred in investing the necessary time or attention to learn those facts. Do you honestly think that all of the world's collected scientists know less about science than a majority of non-scientists who happen to disagree with them?

Are you serious?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

as in the 8%- without any divine intervention, purist, fundamentalist evolution if you prefer

In what can that be considered "fundamentalist evolution"? Surely you just mean "people who accept evolution who are also atheists". Your wording implies that there is something inherently atheistic about evolution, which is nonsense.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

well apparently ID is quite convincing, not just to the masses but folk like Lemaitre and Planck, even if they did not reflect academic consensus at the time.

But I certainly agree that looking at the facts is a lot more instructive than consensus of academics or the public- must run here though, I appreciate the responses

This is simply false. There is a whole brain washing concept where ID is very good at dressing itself up as being correct and does a really god job of convincing people who don't actually know the material that it has merit. However generally it falls flat with the academics and with most people that are educated and unbiased.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

[ID] falls flat with the academics and with most people that are educated.

we agree entirely on this, Lemaitre's primeval atom fell flat with 'educated academics', it was mocked and rejected as ' religious pseudoscience', 'big bang'. - nothing was more abhorrent to the academic elite than an origin for the universe which was consistent with the Bible. educated academics were not too pleased with another skeptic of atheism- Max Planck upending classical physics either.

uneducated masses fed millions farming in Russia, educated academics took over under Stalin and starved those same millions to death.

This is called scientism, blind faith in anything sporting the label of institutionalized science, nothing could be further from the method we all know and love.

I grew up believing in state mandated evolution, atheism and socialism as taught in the classroom and enforced in society

I later became skeptical observing life, the universe and people first hand with my own eyes. Which would you say was brain washing and which was free thinking?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In what can that be considered "fundamentalist evolution"? Surely you just mean "people who accept evolution who are also atheists". Your wording implies that there is something inherently atheistic about evolution, which is nonsense.

the small minority who believe that all life blundered into existence for no particular reason... are atheists are they not?

 

[Bunyip]

the small minority who believe that all life blundered into existence for no particular reason... are atheists are they not?

No. Atheism has no position on the origins of life.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No. Atheism has no position on the origins of life.

Hi Bunyip, what time is it over there? and don't you have a position on the origins of life?

 

[Bunyip]

Hi Bunyip, what time is it over there? and don't you have a position on the origins of life?

It is about lunch time my friend. And yes, my position on the origins of life is one shared by a great many people - we do not yet know how life began.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is about lunch time my friend. And yes, my position on the origins of life is one shared by a great many people - we do not yet know how life began.

where's your money if you had to bet, ID or unintended naturalistic process?

it's about bedtime so I'll catch you later..

 

[Bunyip]

where's your money if you had to bet, ID or unintended naturalistic process?

Well those are not the only options, so your question is malformed.
ID by the way was a fraud perpetuated by the Discovery Institute, so the probability of ID is effectively nil. I think that natural processes are far, far more likely than mythical sky wizards magicking life into existence from nothing but fairy dust.

 

[Bunyip]

Guy Threepwood

By the way, so far whenever a scientific explanation has been established for any phenomenon it has been a natural explanation. So 100% of all the things we have so far explained scientifically have been found to be natural, and of course a perfect 100% failure rate of any explanation ever in the entire history of human knowledge being found to have a magical, or supernatural explanation.

So the supernatural explanation has yet to be supported by a single example.

 

[viole]

Why is this a lie?

Because, simply, it is not true.

Almost every religion has a creation story; but these stories are not consistent with the evidence. The most adamant opposer to ToE seem to be theists of many denominations; yet in these theistic scriptures, there are no commands that one must accept their prospective creation stories in order to remain devout in that spiritual tradition. There remains a high percentage of theists who accept ToE, based on the evidence, yet find it no threat to their faith or spiritual belief.

I met a microbiologist at a former place of work and we sat down and had a decent discussion. When Evolution was brought into the discussion, he simply stated, "I accept science for what it is. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in God."

Any apologist who would insist that you must believe the creation story of their particular religion as a prerequisite for being devout to that religion (or receiving your eternal reward) are lying to you and manipulating you.

That you can be a theist and accept evolution is obviously true, since there are plenty of evolutionary theists. And I mean the real thing: evolution by natural selection including fishes in our genealogy. If they did not accept that, which is the estabilished scientific view, they would not count as "evolutionists".

So, I would not count the ones who believe that God tweaks with our DNA or tunes the trajectory of huge asteroids of mass destruction or plate tectonics, vulcanoes, planetary clima changes, etc. , because they are just another brand of creationists trying to look cool, progressive and scientific correct.

However, contrarily to the vast majority of atheists, I have sympathy for the view of the fundies in this area. I really do not see how anyone can accept an omnibenevolent and omnipotent being that uses an eminently amoral mechanism like evolution to achieve His ends, without experiencing devastating cognitive dissonances. Adam and Eve do seem indeed more intellectually coherent under the assumption of the Christian God.

Ciao

- viole

 

[atpollard]

Any apologist who would insist that you must believe the creation story of their particular religion as a prerequisite for being devout to that religion (or receiving your eternal reward) are lying to you and manipulating you.

Have you ever actually encountered someone who said this?
I have had decades of conversations about salvation, justification, sanctification (generally, what does God want?) and I don't think Creation/Evolution has ever come up in one of those discussions.
It usually comes up as just talking and someone asking ... "So what do you think about ...?"

As a Calvinist, you don't get much more hard core Fundamentalist than me, but if pressed for an answer I would say "Hell no, what you think about evolution doesn't enter into your walk with God."
(and for the record, neither does your political affiliation ... says the Ultra Conservative Right Wing Republican )