Why aren't the creationists being charged?

[Gordian Knot]

Rusra wrote "I was always taught that science is supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads. In my view it is a failure of nerve to back away from something that is so strongly indicated by the evidence simply because you think the conclusion has unwelcome philosophical implications."

Yes. Precisely. Scientists follow evidence. Creationism is based on no evidence whatsoever. Creationism is based on a book. Ham himself said it over and over again during his debate with Nye.

It has nothing to do with science being afraid to accept unwelcome implications. It has everything to do with the fact that creationism is based on belief instead of evidence. Again, Ham said so himself during the debate.

On the question what might cause you to change your mind:

Ham. "Well I believe in the bible, so it's about belief." (paraphrased).
Nye. "Evidence".

 

[Skwim]

As to your claim of bias, the fact is that most Christians accept the ToE, it has nothing to do with disbelief in god.

Absolutely.

source​

 

[Riverwolf]

I believe evolution is the fraud, the big lie. I am not talking about mere change. I am talking about the unproven assertion that all living creatures evolved from a simple cell.

"A" simple cell? When was that assertion made?

 

[rusra02]

What would undesigned life look like?

There is no such thing as undesigned life.

 

[rusra02]

Rusra wrote "I was always taught that science is supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads. In my view it is a failure of nerve to back away from something that is so strongly indicated by the evidence simply because you think the conclusion has unwelcome philosophical implications."

Yes. Precisely. Scientists follow evidence. Creationism is based on no evidence whatsoever. Creationism is based on a book. Ham himself said it over and over again during his debate with Nye.

It has nothing to do with science being afraid to accept unwelcome implications. It has everything to do with the fact that creationism is based on belief instead of evidence. Again, Ham said so himself during the debate.

On the question what might cause you to change your mind:

Ham. "Well I believe in the bible, so it's about belief." (paraphrased).
Nye. "Evidence".

That quote was from Michael Behe, whose research as a biochemist led him to the evidence for intelligent design. Evidence that is everywhere around us. A similar statement was made by Antony Flew, once an atheist who because of his research into science gave up atheism. Dr. Antony Flew said that he “had to go where the evidence leads.” According to Flew, this evidence includes recent scientific discoveries in the fields of cosmology and physics. Additionally, “the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (Quote from g05 12/8)

 

[rusra02]

You keep mentioning the 'failings of the ToE' and yet whenever you identify such a failing, it is just a misconception drawn from your ignorance of what the ToE actually is.

Sadly there is a perfect correlation between those who claim ToE is flawed and those who do not know what the ToE is.

As to your claim of bias, the fact is that most Christians accept the ToE, it has nothing to do with disbelief in god.

In speaking of "Christians" who accept the ToE, I am reminded of Jesus words about those who claim him as their Lord: "Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’" (Matthew 7:22,23) Professed "Christians" bear responsibility for the worst atrocities imaginable, IMO, including the Inquisition, to give an older example, and the slaughter in Rwanda, a country where at least 70 percent are Catholics and Protestants, for a more recent example.
Jesus believed the Genesis account of creation and taught others that it was historical. I find it hard to understand how those who reject Christ's teachings can call themselves his followers. But, as Jesus said, many would do so.

 

[Ouroboros]

In speaking of "Christians" who accept the ToE, I am reminded of Jesus words about those who claim him as their Lord: "Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’" (Matthew 7:22,23)

So prophets, exorcists, and miracle workers won't be recognized by Jesus.

Perhaps you should rethink then how you're supposed to commune with Jesus. Instead of all those fancy magic tricks, you should get back to the basics, a basic Jesus who's normal and natural.

Professed "Christians" bear responsibility for the worst atrocities imaginable, IMO, including the Inquisition, to give an older example, and the slaughter in Rwanda, a country where at least 70 percent are Catholics and Protestants, for a more recent example.

Atrocities like that are usually done by extremists, like literalists taking the words literally in the Bible instead of taking the "love thy neighbor" to heart. It shows that being extreme in your belief is dangerous. Having a more liberal, non-magical way of connecting with the Gospel is healthier.

Jesus believed the Genesis account of creation and taught others that it was historical. I find it hard to understand how those who reject Christ's teachings can call themselves his followers. But, as Jesus said, many would do so.

Genesis can be interpreted to fit evolution. So even if Jesus believed in Genesis, it doesn't prove that he believed in your particular fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis.

 

[viole]

I think that the philosophical implications are unwelcome, because scientists have admitted such. Richard Lewontin, himself an evolutionist, wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door", according to Lewontin.

Well, I think this is rationally justified. After all, science has the epistemological rule of methodological naturalism. If you don't use it, you are not a scientist, no matter how right you are.

So, an eminent scientist that allows divine feet in the door is an oxymoron.

The problem is that if we let a divine foot in the door, we would probably still believe that lightnings come from Zeus.

Also, the Bible lays bare this motivation. (Romans 1:18-23,).

I hope you indulge me if I do not take the Bible as a reference. Everybody can write a book promoting something and criticizing who does not agree.

As to whether the evidence is intelligent or not, each person can decide that for themselves. Eminent scientists believe the evidence for ID compelling, as do I.

What about calling it SD? In case of design, that would be more appropriate. I am sure, with all necessary power, I would have done a better job. Starting with making the elected beings in My image not looking like hairless Orangutans.

Ciao

- viole

 

[rusra02]

Well, I think this is rationally justified. After all, science has the epistemological rule of methodological naturalism. If you don't use it, you are not a scientist, no matter how right you are.

So, an eminent scientist that allows divine feet in the door is an oxymoron.

The problem is that if we let a divine foot in the door, we would probably still believe that lightnings come from Zeus.



I hope you indulge me if I do not take the Bible as a reference. Everybody can write a book promoting something and criticizing who does not agree.



What about calling it SD? In case of design, that would be more appropriate. I am sure, with all necessary power, I would have done a better job. Starting with making the elected beings in My image not looking like hairless Orangutans.

Ciao

- viole

An arbitrary definition of what is science and what is not should not close our minds and hearts to the truth, IMO. Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” “It rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to ‘laws of nature.’” The Bible acknowledges such laws exist, but also acknowledge these laws originate from the Lawgiver, Jehovah. (Job 38:33-38) the evidence for this Creator is all around us, and to ignore it is most unscientific, I think.

 

[Riverwolf]

An arbitrary definition of what is science and what is not should not close our minds and hearts to the truth, IMO. Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” “It rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to ‘laws of nature.’” The Bible acknowledges such laws exist, but also acknowledge these laws originate from the Lawgiver, Jehovah. (Job 38:33-38) the evidence for this Creator is all around us, and to ignore it is most unscientific, I think.

If that evidence is "all around us", then it shouldn't be a problem to point it out. But it's never been demonstrated to me.

But it wouldn't automatically mean the Creator is the one spoken of in the Bible specifically. Even if we establish that it's a Creator, the next step would be establishing the nature of that Creator, and we'd have to ignore all religious texts in order to do so accurately.

 

[Bunyip]

In speaking of "Christians" who accept the ToE, I am reminded of Jesus words about those who claim him as their Lord: "Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’" (Matthew 7:22,23) Professed "Christians" bear responsibility for the worst atrocities imaginable, IMO, including the Inquisition, to give an older example, and the slaughter in Rwanda, a country where at least 70 percent are Catholics and Protestants, for a more recent example.
Jesus believed the Genesis account of creation and taught others that it was historical. I find it hard to understand how those who reject Christ's teachings can call themselves his followers. But, as Jesus said, many would do so.

Wow. You are just making things up as you go along. Do you expect people to just swallow stuff like that? Jesus never taught that the creation account was historical, nice little invention though buddy.

Evolution is a fact, a fact the majority of Christians accept.

 

[Bunyip]

That quote was from Michael Behe, whose research as a biochemist led him to the evidence for intelligent design. Evidence that is everywhere around us. A similar statement was made by Antony Flew, once an atheist who because of his research into science gave up atheism. Dr. Antony Flew said that he “had to go where the evidence leads.” According to Flew, this evidence includes recent scientific discoveries in the fields of cosmology and physics. Additionally, “the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (Quote from g05 12/8)

Yes and of course that 'new and powerful argument for design' was stillborn. It has not been made. So far Behe has not presented a single shred of evidence for design, no testable hypothesis, no examples of irreducible complexity.

 

[rusra02]

Wow. You are just making things up as you go along. Do you expect people to just swallow stuff like that? Jesus never taught that the creation account was historical, nice little invention though buddy.

Evolution is a fact, a fact the majority of Christians accept.

In response to questions about the propriety of divorce on any grounds, Jesus responded:
"In reply he [Jesus] said: “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female*and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

Jesus was quoting from the Genesis account of creation. (Genesis 1:27, 2:24)

 

[rusra02]

Yes and of course that 'new and powerful argument for design' was stillborn. It has not been made. So far Behe has not presented a single shred of evidence for design, no testable hypothesis, no examples of irreducible complexity.

Who is making things up as they go along?

 

[rusra02]

So prophets, exorcists, and miracle workers won't be recognized by Jesus.

Perhaps you should rethink then how you're supposed to commune with Jesus. Instead of all those fancy magic tricks, you should get back to the basics, a basic Jesus who's normal and natural.


Atrocities like that are usually done by extremists, like literalists taking the words literally in the Bible instead of taking the "love thy neighbor" to heart. It shows that being extreme in your belief is dangerous. Having a more liberal, non-magical way of connecting with the Gospel is healthier.


Genesis can be interpreted to fit evolution. So even if Jesus believed in Genesis, it doesn't prove that he believed in your particular fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis.

The Bible does not present Jesus as 'basic, normal, and natural' as you suggest. Jesus Christ was the miracle-working Son of God. He raised dead people, healed every sort of disease, and his teachings transcend all others, IMO. They certainly have had a greater impact.
The two world wars were started in nations professing to be Christian. The claim that only extremist "Christians" fail to follow the Christ is demonstrably untrue.
As to what Jesus believed about creation, the Bible record is clear. It need only be consulted to find the truth about what Jesus believed and taught.

 

[Bunyip]

In response to questions about the propriety of divorce on any grounds, Jesus responded:
"In reply he [Jesus] said: “Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female*and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

Jesus was quoting from the Genesis account of creation. (Genesis 1:27, 2:24)

So what? Quoting from it and confirming it to be historical are two completely different things - that was the bit you made up.

 

[rusra02]

So what? Quoting from it and confirming it to be historical are two completely different things - that was the bit you made up.

IMO, Jesus use of the creation account to show how permanent the marriage bond should be, IS confirmation that he both believed the account and taught it's truth to others. Jesus confirmed concerning the Scriptures; "Your Word is truth." (John 17:17) So no, I didn't make it up, as you claim.

 

[Bunyip]

IMO, Jesus use of the creation account to show how permanent the marriage bond should be, IS confirmation that he both believed the account and taught it's truth to others. Jesus confirmed concerning the Scriptures; "Your Word is truth." (John 17:17) So no, I didn't make it up, as you claim.

So what? None of that is even close to Jesus confirming that genesis was historical.

 

[Riverwolf]

"A" simple cell? When was that assertion made?

If that evidence is "all around us", then it shouldn't be a problem to point it out. But it's never been demonstrated to me.

But it wouldn't automatically mean the Creator is the one spoken of in the Bible specifically. Even if we establish that it's a Creator, the next step would be establishing the nature of that Creator, and we'd have to ignore all religious texts in order to do so accurately.

More than a little telling that questions and arguments like these are typically completely ignored.

 

[viole]

An arbitrary definition of what is science and what is not should not close our minds and hearts to the truth, IMO.

It is not arbitrary. Whether science is complete in finding all possible truths is debatable. But the rule must be followed, otherwise you are not a scientist.

Scientist Vincent Wigglesworth of Cambridge University observed that the scientific method itself is “a religious approach.” “It rests upon an unquestioning faith that natural phenomena conform to ‘laws of nature.’”

The problem of course is that this unquestioning faith works. So, the rational justification comes from the positive feedbacks that come from not letting any god in the equations.

After all, all metaphysical explanations have been overruled by physical ones. Always. The contrary never happened. This fact should give you a thinking pause.

I mean, when do you decide that god could be part of the equation when we do not know something? Was insisting that Thor was not the source of lightnings a mistake?

Suppose we do not know anything about lightnings, earthquakes or solar eclipses. Give me one reason why we should leave the door open for metaphysical explanations.

The Bible acknowledges such laws exist, but also acknowledge these laws originate from the Lawgiver, Jehovah. (Job 38:33-38) the evidence for this Creator is all around us, and to ignore it is most unscientific, I think.

Well, the bible says a lot of things. But it is just a book. Nothing more, nothing less.

And the evidence of a creator all around us is only in your mind. And in the mind of the ancient authors of the bible.

Ciao

- viole