BS: Is there any merit to creationism?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 07:23 PM

Amos said back up there: "man-out-of-mud" kind of materialism, which has two great flaws. One is that as a model it fails to account for known phenomena,. The other is that it is a demoralizing worldview"

Well... as a skeptic about various NON-materialistic worldviews, I don't feel particularly "demoralized" that what is known can't account for ALL phenomena. I am kinda curious about which ones are most troubling ...but it's not a big deal.... besides, that ancient *mud* several billion years ago got quite a workout by various KNOWN physio-chemical processes. I think it's rather fascinating to be considered a product of all that.....

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 10:07 AM

If believers see the hand of a God in evolution, they are absolutely in conflict with the science, one hundred percent. The whole concept of evolution is predicated on the fact that it isn't "driven" by any goal-oriented or intelligent mechanism. Impose that on it and you've ditched the whole bloody theory. Many well-meaning people of faith have tried to reconcile their belief in a God who made us all with the science of evolution, but I'm afraid the science of evolution is simply not interested. "I believe in evolution but I also believe that God kicked it all off and runs it" is simply a massive and abject intellectual copout, religion trying to be nice to uninterested scientists.

Interesting that a man who believes in evidence-innocent mythology, and lives his life by it, can think that another bloke, who simply asks for evidence and who has stated many times that he doesn't know whether there's a God or not, needs a shrink. You may not need a shrink yourself, Joe, but you do need a surgeon to get that bullet out of your foot.

Now for some Wacko-style misrepresentation from a surprising source.

Mr. Shaw seems to be a good example. And Mr. Blandiver and Mr. Musket approach it. Science and scientists generally take a far more honest and far less doctrinaire approach, and I almost always accept the findings of science. Real Science and real scientists have no business proving or disproving the existence of God.

I wish to point out that I have said on many occasions that I am not interested in trying to prove or disprove anything. Science does not set out to prove things, and I certainly can't disprove God and I don't even want to try.

It's really difficult for me to discuss religious belief and practices with the likes of Shaw, Blandiver, and Musket, because they are only able to understand faith in fundamentalist terms.

I have said in the last few days that I care not a jot what private beliefs people entertain and that it is perfectly possible to be both a believer and a scientist. I could spend all day telling you what I think YOU don't understand but I won't and I'll thank you for reciprocating. As a not entirely irrelevant aside, I'll have you know that we militant atheists spend a lot of time thinking about what belief means to people. I wouldn't assume that people of faith have any sort of monopoly on understanding what faith means. Sometimes the view is clearer from outside.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 09:59 AM

You might as well go back to using Aristotle as your sole guide to understanding the universe.

Actually, that would be a more advanced position than that espoused by most creationists.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 09:56 AM

Not only do they want to inject their concept of god into the process...but also dictate how we are supposed to understand it.

AND they want to require their garbage to be fed to public school children under the guise of "education" - which is a particularly insidious form of child abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 09:11 AM

However, if believers see God within the evolutionary process, where's the conflict? The process is the same, whether one sees God in it or not. My perception is that there is an essence within the evolutionary process and the Laws of Nature that I see as divine, and that is the focus of my religious practice and meditation. If others see it otherwise, that's their perspective; and Joe saw that it was good.

-Joe-

Joe... the topic is about creationists... a zealous splinter of Christianity that does not "leave it at that". Not only do they want to inject their concept of god into the process... but also dictate how we are supposed to understand it. All so that it will conform to their interpretation of a book.

If you want to believe in the cosmic clockmaker, knock yourself out... but don't expect everyone to buy into it or contrive a way to convince yourself that it is any way "scientific". It is a belief.. unsubstantiated and untestable. Scientific method can not be applied to it. You might as well go back to using Aristotle as your sole guide to understanding the universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Musket
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 08:01 AM

I find it strange but increasingly so that if you really want to dismiss religion. If you have any doubt and you feel the need to justify said doubt....

Listen to the likes of Joe. Not pete, but Joe.

When the true colours come out, all that love and understanding crap is lost in the vitriolic insulting bilge water. Twisting what you said as if he lived in Hertford rather than California. If saying that spirituality, never mind religion, has no place in scientific approach and discovery makes you a fundamentalist, well give me an arts grant to explore my fund.

It is said that religion has respect by those who don't suffer from it due to the other nicer traits of the people involved. Personally, I reckon judging as you find works a treat.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Musket
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 07:42 AM

Nasty eh Joe?

You think "religion lite" is an insult then Joe? So how do we distinguish between the social worker persona you portray and those who tell us their god wants them to slay infidels? How can I call a sweet old lady religious and at the same time call those who want women to be second class citizens religious too?

You both reckon it is your faith that drives you.

Yes, deviation is unhelpful. Doesn't mean you take the word out of context knowingly in order to call people fundamentalists for refusing to speculate whether the beautiful garden has fairies at the bottom of it. You cannot be a fundamentalist unless you defend a position. I am delighted when my position alters through finding something new. I even sat as an assessor on a PhD viva panel for someone who shot one of my own findings down in flames, and was the first to shake his hand when we accepted his thesis. Doesn't sound like a fundamentalist to me? Or to anyone else unless they are in a weird position of defending the basis upon which fundamentalists in religion get their views.

You love saying god this, god that and god the other, but when impressionable people of less intelligence than you actually believe it in a way a child does, you wash your hands of them. Funny that.

Why do religious people get so touchy when reminded of the absurdity of what they like to profess? They love handing it out, but scream persecution when put against rational argument. Why is that? Why is pete wrong, me wrong and Joe right?

Classic. Someone saying I insult their superstition thinks I am the one needing a shrink.... Here in The UK, we don't pay snake oil merchants to analyse our more irrational traits. 1. Psychiatrists analyse you when you are referred, not when you want comfort and 2. My wife analyses me in a far more forensic manner than any "shrink" could.

She thinks religion is for the weak and feeble too by the way. Despite having a vicar for a brother. (Possibly because of for that matter....)

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:14 AM

The universe creating art, music, cheese butties, beer, Aston Villa, microscopes, Lego, iPads, irish bouzoukis, Cheetos, ballet, Laurel and Hardy etc etc. I mean, think about it. No cold, hard materialism there, but warm, living, creative and vibrant materialism with a profoundly spiritual and scientific basis.

Perfect!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Stu
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:10 AM

"Disappointing, Stu, coming from an ally, but I still love ya baby"

Aww…*blushes* .… ta Steve. As I see fellow scientists who do have faith yet produce some incredible work, I'm willing accept they have reconciled their faith with their science. I don't personally know these people, but some of them are world authorities and are massively capable people. So whilst I personally do not have a faith, I do have hope that there could be some common ground between science and religion, even if the methodologies and philosophies are seemingly too different to reconcile.


"Without it, we are left with the coldest "man-out-of-mud" kind of materialism"

It might seem that way, but it's not. The indifference of the universe to our fates is scary, but there is wonder there too, and a deep profundity that gives meaning to life and is the basis for a solid moral code; all discovered by science. As the Sagan quote illustrate (thanks Jack - a truly inspirational passage), spirituality is a part of being a scientist (for myself at least) and is based in objective truth and not superstition and in that sense is not the same spirituality as that experienced by a religious person. When Sagan talks about spirituality he means that we are the universe itself made conscious, contemplating itself and its own nature. This is why the scientific method is so wonderful and powerful, a constantly refined methodology for inquiry that is an unbroken process going back to the earliest scientists. As a scientist I don't need to invoke a supernatural being to comfort me in the cold, hard universe because we are inseparable from it.

The universe creating art, music, cheese butties, beer, Aston Villa, microscopes, Lego, iPads, irish bouzoukis, Cheetos, ballet, Laurel and Hardy etc etc. I mean, think about it. No cold, hard materialism there, but warm, living, creative and vibrant materialism with a profoundly spiritual and scientific basis.


"has it ever occurred to you that the cry of extremist is a subjective judgment. the further a pov is from your own stand ,the more extremist it becomes in your estimation. therefore it is meaningless talk as far as meaningful communication is concerned.

same is true of claiming the other side of the argument engages in lies and misrepresentation of the facts."

You can try to wiggle out of this all you want, but the truth is yours is an extremist point of view, retrogressive, unthinking and rather vulgar in approach. There's an interesting discussion going on in this thread with people of faith who are able to see beyond the literal and are obviously capable of giving some considerable thought to their position. With the greatest respect, you're not one of them (I might not be either, so there you go).

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 05:15 AM

So thats that then everyone basically agrees.Plus the Sun is out happy days!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 05:12 AM

Blandiver, Shaw, and Musket may well need a shrink to get them out of their funk.

This is as profoundly & personally insulting as anything else I've seen posted on Mudcat, Joe. You turn an impersonal debate into a personal questioning of the mental health of named individuals because their take on life doesn't square with your own. Whatever goes on in that demon-haunted mind of yours?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 05:07 AM

Seaham Cemetery? Huh???

Musket Says (27 Mar 14 - 04:42 AM):

If wallowing in ignorance is the greatest thing we can know, such a statement can only support not questioning scripture, as it allows the god delusion to maintain a foothold in perceived reality. The only thing I can learn from religion from a scientific angle is the need for scientific approach to be clear, unequivocal and factual. Any deviation from that opens the door for superstition to question reality, and that is a backward step.

Musket's warning against "any deviation" sounds amazingly like the rigidity of the born-again fundamentalists. Too bad he's so afraid about being a bit more open-minded and tolerant....and respectful of the thinking of others.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 05:02 AM

Let's get that in context shall we?

In its encounter with Nature, science invariably elicits a sense of reverence and awe. The very act of understanding is a celebration of joining, merging, even if on a very modest scale, with the magnificence of the Cosmos. And the cumulative worldwide build-up of knowledge over time converts science into something only a little short of a trans-national, trans-generational meta-mind.

"Spirit" comes from the Latin word "to breathe." What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word "spiritual" that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science. On occasion, I will feel free to use the word. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.

Carl Sagan - The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1996)

*

For what it's worth, I don't think Science & Spirituality are exclusive either, just that Science and religion are. Spirituality is the unique reserve of each & every one of us, as with our Sexuality. Religion seeks to exploit our Spirituality in the same way pornography exploits our Sexuality. We can be Spiritual without religion, just as we can be Sexual without pornography. In fact we are happier, sexually, spiritually, without either because we all prefer the real thing. But, as Voltaire said:

The first priest was the first rogue who met the first fool.

If there is a Supreme Universal Consciousness (and who am I as one mere mortal caught between two infinities and facing a glad eternity of a joyful infinity to preclude such a possibility?) then it will be nothing like that the all-too human demiurge that has been conceived of by religion. The God I disbelieve in as an Atheist, is the God of religion that people only believe in because of their natural, however so conceited, and subsequently exploited, fear of death.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Musket
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:42 AM

Wow, did two of us say the same thing Keith?

Must be true then eh? Especially as the other person is a real person unlike you, on the basis I have met him.... (I'd rather keep it that way round too.)

You need to read yourself before jumping down my throat as your default position. Joe had a pop at Steve and said that;

"I think the greatest thing we can know, is that we don't know very much - and that it's important to respect and learn from the way others see things.

-Joe-"

If wallowing in ignorance is the greatest thing we can know, such a statement can only support not questioning scripture, as it allows the god delusion to maintain a foothold in perceived reality. The only thing I can learn from religion from a scientific angle is the need for scientific approach to be clear, unequivocal and factual. Any deviation from that opens the door for superstition to question reality, and that is a backward step.

Having a go at people purely on the basis they have weighed you up doesn't help your creaky credibility. By the way, I only glanced at the list of contributors but I can't see where Seaham Cemetery posted that line? I know you like things to be correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:32 AM

Guest quotes (27 Mar 14 - 04:15 AM): "Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality." Carl Sagan

Sounds pretty good to me. What Musket nastily calls "religion lite" (and then pretends it's not an insult) is just that - finding spirituality in the facts given us by science. Seems to me that what we should seek is whatever brings us to a positive, constructive view of life and the environment that surrounds us.

To seek to refute and destroy attempts at constructive thinking, seems to be small-minded and mean-spirited, at the very least. Sometimes I wonder whether some of our Mudcat Brethren understand the concept of constructive discussion. Messrs. Blandiver, Shaw, and Musket may well need a shrink to get them out of their funk.

-Joe Offer-

You'll find some terrific quotes from Sagan on this subject here (click).

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:15 AM

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality." Carl Sagan

Both he and his wife meditated.He was a tad obsessed with the space brothers angle for me.Didn't they record and send the vibrations of their minds and bodies into space via the voyager golden record thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:08 AM

" ... the more constructive approach would be to discuss specifics."

So, pete, let's get back to the specifics of those beetles! I'm not sure that I could penetrate the 'hand-waving' (not to mention the bad grammar) of your previous answers - so can you please clarify? Were there just two beetles (of some 'ur-species') on the Ark? Did those two beetles subsequently speciate, post-flood, into all of the (non-interbreeding) species of beetles that we see today? And if that was true of beetles, was it also true of flies and bees and ants and grasshoppers and shield bugs and ... etc., etc., etc.? Was it also true of other invertebrates, such as worms, leeches and molluscs? And don't forget about plants (why does everyone forget about the most important organisms on Earth?). Where did all of the plant species come from? Did Noah carry a couple of 'ur-plants' in pots on a windowsill of the Ark? And did those two plants then, somehow, disseminate themselves and clothe all of the continents and islands in vegetation. And, in passing, where did the timber, that the Ark was made of, come from?

Specifics, pete, specifics! What do your red-neck, fundamentalist, creationist websites have to say about those specific specifics?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 03:37 AM

Musket/Seaham,
The ever decreasing lack of knowledge of the universe means the God scenario is being ever squeezed out of relevance.

You have not listened or not understood what Joe has tried to tell you.
If someone came up with an unchallengeable explanation for everything in the cosmos, mainstream Christians would be as excited as everyone else, and give thanks for it.
God would be as relevant as always.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 02:20 AM

In which case Joe, we need another word to use.

I don't actually recognise some of your conclusions of my comments, but even if I did, you are still failing to read the thread title and are getting prickly by association.

You describe how the metaphor of god can he used as the glue to hold together a set of principles with which community groups can support people, give a shared purpose and come to an understanding.

Religion lite isn't an insult, it is a description of making good use of the legacy we have from our more superstitious ancestors. If we are playing top trumps, I fight like a dog with a leg in it's mouth to retain adequate hospital chaplaincy funding and ensure they get input to many other work streams as their perspective is invaluable. I see no ultimate threat to society by them and the peace of mind they can offer makes curative or palliative care better for those patients wishing their social care.

Don't lecture me on the good work done in the name of faith. Sponsorship is sponsorship, but just because a football team has Coca Cola written on their shirts, they still know how to kick a ball.

And yet....

Your comments concerning what we don't know sum it up for me. The ever decreasing lack of knowledge of the universe means the God scenario is being ever squeezed out of relevance. Do you consider that enlightenment or threat?

Interesting point by pete by the way. He can't understand why people can claim to be religious but not believe scripture either.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 01:39 AM

I hope people pay attention to what Amos says in the previous message. There's a lot there that's worth consideration. For many of us, we tend to value our environs more if we see a spiritual Center. And even if that Center does not exist on objective terms, isn't there value if it helps us appreciate and respect our environment and our fellow humans? [And if we don't see that spiritual Center, there's nothing wrong with that, either.]

The Snail says (26 Mar 14 - 07:33 AM):

I don't know if you have noticed, Joe, but I have been arguing against Steve's somewhat evangelistic take on evolution for quite some time. I don't think anything he says proves your point if your point is supposed to be about science or scientists, It merely proves a point about Steve.

Exactly. I was asked to provide evidence of those who take a doctrinaire view of science. Mr. Shaw seems to be a good example. And Mr. Blandiver and Mr. Musket approach it. Science and scientists generally take a far more honest and far less doctrinaire approach, and I almost always accept the findings of science. Real Science and real scientists have no business proving or disproving the existence of God. That's a spiritual matter, not a matter of science.

The fundamentalists try to provide scientific and historical and logical proofs of the existence of God. We who practice "religion lite" (Musket's term) have no reason to do that. We simply believe, and aren't particularly concerned if others don't believe.

It's really difficult for me to discuss religious belief and practices with the likes of Shaw, Blandiver, and Musket, because they are only able to understand faith in fundamentalist terms. I don't speak that language, because it is incapable of expressing my way of thinking.

Wizzy says (26 Mar 14 - 11:50 AM):

We Anglicans enjoy the both/and sort of thinking. These two apparent polar-polar opposites (intelligent design/evolution) live together quite well in a thinking brain. They both have their distinct merits.

I think that's true for most of us progressive Christians - and for thinking atheists, for that matter. We don't see things as absolutes, and therefore we cannot speak the language of the fundamentalists.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 01:26 AM

Creationism of the monotheistic and paternalistic school is a waste of brainpower. But the underlying proposition that material universes are the result of spiritual Causation of some kind, at some level, strikes me as one worth holding onto. Without it, we are left with the coldest "man-out-of-mud" kind of materialism, which has too great flaws. One is that as a model it fails to account for known phenomena,. The other is that it is a demoralizing worldview, IMNSHO.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 01:18 AM

From Musket (26 Mar 14 - 04:22 AM):

Respect is a two way street Joe. When the. "Vast majority " of religious people tell their fundamentalists to shut the fuck up, I reckon I could go along with your comments. They are either members of your club, in which case control them, or they aren't. In which case stop accepting their coins when you pass the plate round.
However, whilst ever religion lite sides with their fundamentalists by attacking others for being rational, and deriding us for pointing out how dangerous and deluded fundamentalism is, I'm afraid I don't see much respect.
Makes it kind of difficult to show respect back. Even when you put words in my mouth, it still doesn't quite hack it for me.

I'm a pacifist, Musket, and I really don't see much value in doing battle. A while back, you said that as a Christian, I have some sort of responsibility for controlling anti-gay Rev Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church. Let me remind you that I am a Christian of the Roman Catholic variety. Wikipedia tells us Westboro Baptist refers to Catholic priests as "vampires" and "Draculas" and talks of Catholic priests sucking semen out of male children's genitals like vampires suck blood from their victims. In addition, WBC called Pope Benedict XVI such epithets as "The Godfather of Pedophiles" and "Pervert Pope". In April 2008 the WBC protested Pope Benedict XVI during a papal visit in New York City. Other fundamentalists still refer to my church as the Whore of Babylon, although some have formed a strange alliance with ultra-conservative Catholics.

In other words, Westboro Baptist and I are not really on very good terms, and I don't think I'm have much luck talking sense into them. In fact, I don't think I'd have much luck talking sense into the heads of any fundamentalists, because their brains aren't wired to be able to understand any kind of thinking other than their own. That being the case, I try to be polite but to keep my distance.

The born-again churches in my area have been generally reluctant to join in any of the "faith-based" social justice activities. I think that's partly because some fundamentalists have a disdain for the poor because poverty may be an indication that the poor are not favored by God. But I think also that the fundamentalists question the morality of the "mainline" churches. Musket refers to progressive Christianity as "religion lite," which seems to indicate that fundamentalism is the only real religion. I think Musket has it wrong, and I think that's because he perceives religion as ideology. Since the early days of Christianity, the faith was called the Way, because it was a way of life, not an ideology. In my view of Christianity (and of life, for that matter), service and good will and compassion are far more important than correct ideology.

So, no, I'm not going to go tell the fundamentalists to shut the fuck up. It wouldn't do any good. I will, however, continue to invite the fundamentalists to join in our social justice activities - and some are beginning to join. And while I'm not going to attack fundamentalism, I will continue to promote tolerance and respect for the homeless, for gays, and for immigrants - those are my main areas of activity.

Did I mention that two of the people I work with are the pastors of the local Unitarian church? They're a lesbian couple, by the way. I suppose their presence might make it difficult for the fundamentalists to join us. That's too bad - the pastors are wonderful people.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 27 Mar 14 - 12:37 AM

Pete: I can make mistakes, as it seems I did about the enigma code cracker, and I like to think that if I am shown something that I definitely got wrong, that I will own up to it. but not just taking someones unsubstantiated say so..

Pete, you rarely do, though. And only on points unimportant to the general discussion, such as the Enigma code above. One reason you probably regard things as being "unsubstantiated say so" is that when you *are* provided with "chapter and verse" such as research articles that directly contradict your own assertions, you don't bother reading and trying to understand them but just look for something on a creationist website that you can bounce back with. The rest of this post is copied from my last on "cosmos" since the sentiments are identical:

I know there's no point arguing with you, Pete, as you always look only to creationist literature for your information. I've time and again here gone into the actual evidence against several of your assertions, whether it be "carbon dating" of diamonds or "soft tissues in dinosaurs" but all you do is say that the articles or papers I've pointed you at are "too difficult as I'm not a scientist" and fall back on your creationist websites to provide "answers" that you can quote without actually doing any real thinking.

I've pointed out on several occasions where prominent creationists (eg Gish, Snelling, Woodmorappe, Hovind etc) have been caught out using arguments that they *knew* to be wrong at the time they used them (called "lying" anywhere else) and you simply won't look at the evidence for that "because they aren't here on the site to defend themselves"!!!

I even pointed you at articles in Christian papers showing that the general claims made by RATE and other creationists re their tests on diamonds and zircons contradicted RATE's own conclusions in their actual analysis....ie saying one thing in their internal literature but letting the general public believe they've said something else (again, called "lying" by most reasonable people).

But you ignore all this. You like to portray yourself as reasonable and tolerant, but in fact you're quite clever in the way you can be snidey and slippery in the way you use or ignore arguments.

I was particularly annoyed last time I went to the Crayside session when you sang your "Mungo Man" song which is a farrago of misinformation and untruths about age determination of bones found in Australia...but I sat there and politely clapped instead of standing up at the end and explaining what a lot of bollocks it was...I really wish I had now!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 10:50 PM

Actually one meaning of invent - and the original one at that - is "to discover", so there's no problem with saying humanity invented on that, we can all agree on that. We just might be using a different sense of the word. But that's diplomacy...

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 09:03 PM

The Snail sez (26 Mar 14 - 07:33 AM): invoking Jack Blandiver as a "doctrinaire adherent of 'science'" rather boggles the imagination.

Damn. I thought I bent over backwards to make myself clear. The only "doctrinaire adherent" I have identified is Steve Shaw, although Musket comes close when he comes out of his fog. I don't always agree with Jack Blandiver, but I think he's quite reasonable.

But as for the idea of the conflict between Religion and Science, I don't buy it. If religious believers accept the findings of scientists, where's the conflict? Yeah, I suppose there's a conflict if believers see God as an outside force controlling the process of creation. However, if believers see God within the evolutionary process, where's the conflict? The process is the same, whether one sees God in it or not. My perception is that there is an essence within the evolutionary process and the Laws of Nature that I see as divine, and that is the focus of my religious practice and meditation. If others see it otherwise, that's their perspective; and Joe saw that it was good.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 08:13 PM

Bit of a double negative crept in there. I wish I couldn't not not correct it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 08:09 PM

I don't agree with Steve's assertion "[Religious faith] is absolutely in conflict with science".

Disappointing, Stu, coming from an ally, but I still love ya baby. But let's just have another lookee here. I said:

It is absolutely in conflict with science (er, not "scientific beliefs", which don't exist). That is the argument of the pusillanimous religionist who knows at the bottom of his heart that "there must be something in this science malarkey". But you can't have your cake and eat it. If you think that "God" created everything, whether in 4004 BC or billions of years ago, you are insulting the scientific process, which must be predicated on evidence alone, which is what as a God-squadder you have not got. Simple as that.

Actually, I think my argument was well made there. But let me expand a little. First, off, you can believe in God and be a damn good scientist. I've said that a dozen times. A bloke in the lab or in the field who conscientiously applies the scientific process to his work (shit - or her, sorry) can go home that evening and kneel down and pray and that is wonderful. Why not. Has anyone ever said different? Not me, for sure, and I'm a rabid atheist. I don't think that science need not be in conflict with religion.
But read what I said: religion is absolutely in conflict with science. NOT the other way round. Religion has, for millennia, set its face against science. In the most fundamental way, religion refuses to accept evidence whereas science is entirely predicated on it. Every single tenet of every religion is based on refuting evidence. Religion exists only because it sets its face entirely against science. But that is entirely religion's problem (and it's a growing problem as science advances). Science can't put itself in conflict with religion because religion deliberately puts its tenets beyond reason. The two can't communicate with each other even on the most basic level. Religion wants the conflict (I wish we could ask Darwin or Gallileo or Dawkins) but science is uninterested. Yes, Dawkins is interested, but not particularly as an evolutionary biologist, which is what he is. Dawkins' evolutionary biology can't confront religion because there is no common ground, based on reason, for a conversation to be had, but that isn't what Dawkins is really about. Religion seeks conflict with science and always has done, because science is a mortal threat to religion. But science can only concern itself with science. Which is why humanity has done quite well.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 07:38 PM

I think the greatest thing we can know, is that we don't know very much - and that it's important to respect and learn from the way others see things.

-Joe-

Why, how very profound. To follow on, because we don't know much, we have to accept that weird and wonderful evidence-innocent manifestations such as God are possible. Not only that, we have such tiny minds that there simply must be Greater Truths that we mortals just can't get our heads around. Well Joe, you see things that way, I'm right with you there, your prerogative, but fer chrissake do not ask me to "respect" it. You call me doctrinaire (your buzzword of the week, I note). I simply ask for evidence. Real evidence, not woolly shite from scripture or tradition or ceremony or witness or mass hysteria or what priests tell you. There is nothing "doctrinaire", you insulting bugger, about a chap who says he knows nothing for certain but who asks for evidence. You know, I love to respect and learn from the way others see things. But I see Catholics et al. forcing their children to see things the way they see things and refusing to let them learn. You need to address that elephant in your own room before you have a pitch at us blokes who just want everyone to have the freedom, the skills and the resources to think freely for themselves. And to be free to ask for evidence without being demonised as "doctrinaire" by scared Christians.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 06:49 PM

jack for example seems even more dogmatic than even dawkins that their is no God. seems he possesses the omniscience of the God he denies!

Let's look for God. Where does he exist? He only exists in religious fiction as a character of that fiction. He is nowhere else. That is not dogma, it is fact. How do we know it's fiction? People made it up - its value lies not in objective reality, but in the richness of folklore, storytelling and mythology. If it tells anything about ourselves at all it tells we're fond of a good yarn, and, more worryingly, gullible to the nth degree, especially at the point of the sword or having our brains bolloxed up by this crap as kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 06:02 PM

the more constructive approach would be to discuss specifics.

Pete, you don't HAVE any specifics that could be discussed.

All you have is blind faith in a fairytale that has been clearly and objectively demonstrated time and time again to be absolute nonsense.

And your views are those of a small and increasingly deluded minority.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 05:05 PM

has it ever occurred to you that the cry of extremist is a subjective judgment. the further a pov is from your own stand ,the more extremist it becomes in your estimation. therefore it is meaningless talk as far as meaningful communication is concerned.
what is it good for?....well, it gets the amen of all the other believers....maybe you can intimidate the dissenters....
same is true of claiming the other side of the argument engages in lies and misrepresentation of the facts.
what is it good for?.....see above!
the more constructive approach would be to discuss specifics.
I can make mistakes, as it seems I did about the enigma code cracker, and I like to think that if I am shown something that I definitely got wrong, that I will own up to it. but not just taking someones unsubstantiated say so.

I do have some agreement with jack blandiver [and dawkins ] in his estimation that Christians are supposed to believe the bible!
but maybe that's just my extremist pov !......smile.

seems to me that many of the posts betray just as much fundamentalism as mine. jack for example seems even more dogmatic than even dawkins that their is no God. seems he possesses the omniscience of the God he denies!

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Stu
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 03:44 PM

We Anglicans enjoy the both/and sort of thinking.

I was raised as an Anglican, and perhaps this sort of thinking is why it seemed so vacuous (than and the fact the sermons were so DULL, and although I love singing hymns and carols the free church had much better sing-alongs; I only wish I got to sing in a gospel church, as I love that music).


just not their proclivity to fucking people over in the name of religion or any other position of unsubstantiated absolutism.

That is a broad church.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 03:43 PM

" ... (intelligent design/evolution) live together quite well in a thinking brain."

I can accept that...IF I remind myself that rationalization is one way a brain often thinks. We humans can use our complex language to make concepts 'fit' to suit our preconceptions. This is often called equivocation. Sometimes people *agree* on a term when none (or very few) of them have carefully defined exactly what they mean. (and obviously, careful definition can be an impediment to agreement: witness "folk".)
I would argue (Hi, Susan *grin*) that intelligent design & evolution don't get along very well without some genteel equivocation. IF one assumes that 'evolution' was one aspect of intelligent design... well...ummm... ok, but the big assumption is that there is any need to make them compatible. One is constantly being observed & explored... the other is merely a subjective opinion.



re: "The rule of 48".... the accepted 'facts' of science need to be checked now & then: just to look at what might have been overlooked or mis-measured.

http://www.livescience.com/32921-whats-normal-body-temperature.html

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: sciencegeek
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 03:18 PM

Sorry, Joe... but I have to disagree with you here.

"One other thing - I think it is disrespectful and dismissive to say that humankind "invented" God. That oversimplifies and dismisses a process that was far more complex and profound. Better to say that that some humans "came to believe in" a God/gods. There's no reason to be insulting, even if you do not share that belief."

If you go onto a thread such as this, you must expect to find a wide spectrum of attitudes and positions. And some of them will not make you feel very happy... just think for a second how infuriating it is for a scientifically inclined individual to be confronted with the total BS presented by the creationist side... where they distort facts and do their best to ignore scientific method.

I have plenty of friends who are people of faith... I do not agree with their faith... actually faiths because they are of various persuasions... but I do not bring up the subject either. And change it as quickly as I can if it does come up.   

But on a thread like this, a person should be free to bring up their viewpoint... and defend it if challenged. If you find this particular one disrespectful and dismissive, that may be more of a reflection on you than the other poster.

Why are you dismissive and disrespectful of their position? Can you not understand or at least accept that not everyone has a need for spiritual answers (for want of a better term that escapes me now). I reached similar conclusions myself years ago and see no reason to alter them.   It would actually be hypocritical to deny them.

When a kid is taught for 8 years in school that they are doomed to hell if they deny the tenents of the Catholic faith, you can be pretty sure that they have thought long and hard on the whole issue before they reach the conclusion that they just can not accept or live with those beliefs... much less determine that they do not even believe in a diety.

I do not share your faith and doubt that I ever will, anymore than I think you could share my beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 02:06 PM

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/805/did-a-state-legislature-once-pass-a-law-saying-pi-equals-3

IMO, it's worth a read (or refresher for those who've encountered it before).

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 01:29 PM

" ... (intelligent design/evolution) live together quite well in a thinking brain."

How?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 12:14 PM

and that seems like an awfully arrogant attitude to your fellow humans

I respect my fellow humans, just not their proclivity to fucking people over in the name of religion or any other position of unsubstantiated absolutism.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Musket
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 12:11 PM

We Anglicans this, we Anglicans that...

Can anybody speak for anything other than themselves?

I castigate Joe and wysiwyg thunders in and makes my point....

I prefer my coffee black with one sugar but that doesn't mean I can't accept the need for capitalism to help fund social programmes.   My thoughts on board level assurance and governance don't prevent me from enjoying Bach.

Religion and science too. I support Sheffield Wednesday but accept probability as a key plank (Planck?) of quantum mechanics....

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 12:02 PM

(intelligent design/evolution) live together quite well in a thinking brain

Actually, they do not and cannot in a thinking brain.

They may co-exist in a believing brain, but thinking and logic and science have nowt to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 11:50 AM

We Anglicans enjoy the both/and sort of thinking. These two apparent polar polar opposites (intelligent design/evolution) live together quite well in a thinking brain. They both have their distinct merits.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Stu
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 11:34 AM

"Science isn't really about truth"

Without getting onto semantics, I think scientists are interested in truth, but objective truth. I realise this statement could spark an extended philosophical discussion itself, but I'm not convinced all truth is subjective.


" as if their personal salvation is jeopardised by even a hint of "heresy"

This is the fundamental (forgive the pun) difference between those with a more balanced religious worldview and extremist elements such as the creationists. Their worldview is shaped by an extreme form of confirmation bias, and in their mind to find fault with the teachings of the web gurus is to deny their faith. It's a shallow and frankly rather immature way of seeing the world, perhaps borne of some innate personal insecurity. Who knows?


"To paraphrase Carl Sagan, science is a light shining in the darkness of a demon-haunted world."

This. My problem is every religious person must think everyone that doesn't subscribe to their form of dogma is wrong (to not believe this would imply doubt in their own faith), and that seems like an awfully arrogant attitude to your fellow humans.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 10:58 AM

Personally I have no respect for any Christian who DOESN'T take the Bible literally. The science behind Evolution & the Big Bang is born of Secular Enlightenment. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, science is a light shining in the darkness of a demon-haunted world. It leads us away from divided contradictory realms of religion and superstition and unites us all to a common end in a common context of a Godless universe where even God as a pantheistic metaphor is woefully inadequate.

Then, along comes Christianity and says 'Ahah! Yes indeed - but God created the Big Bang! And God created Evolution too!'

Gah! What bollocks & how utterly disrespectful to the secular humanist cause that banished God to the demon haunted darkness from whence he sprung once we got wise to Cosmic order & the origins of life on earth and, as a consequence, realised that the Bible was 100% horse chocolate born of ignorance, and ruthlessly promoted over the centuries in order to perpetuate ignorance.

If there is any faith at all in the idiotic inhumane premises of The Bible (and its many idiotic inhumane religious manifestations over the past 3,000 years) then integral to that faith is its idiotic assumptions about God and his Creation. Christians should get over themselves and embrace Godless reality, or else reject reality altogether and embrace their 6,000 YO universe, complete with Floods, Virgin Births and all the other crazy gubbins revealed in The Bible as The Word o' God. They can't have it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: sciencegeek
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 09:03 AM

thank you, Stu for a thoughtful, balanced and nicely presented post.

that said, it has been my experience with more than a few "born again" Christians and other fundamentalists that it is a central obsession that their lives revolve around. I honestly can not understand how anyone can read and reread a single book with such fervor... as if their personal salvation is jepardized by even a hint of "heresy". I venture to guess that it is more a psychological and emotional issue than an intellectual one.   

I recently drove past a church with a sign out front... All are welcome...

but then I read in the newspapers about defrocked ministers whose "crime" was to marry a gay couple or support birth control and I have to wonder how ALL is defined by some.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Musket
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 08:58 AM

I like some of what you just put Stu, but one thing you said doesn't sit quite so comfortably;

You spoke of Dawkins converting people. I don't go along with a science versus religion debate, and I doubt Prof Dawkins does either. It is the separation rather than the polarising that he puts forward. I doubt he or anybody else would have an issue if something in the bible turned out to be on the button. It is the use and abuse of religion as a tool that rankles him in his humanist talk.

Science isn't really about truth, whereas religion is. Religion uses the subjective word "truth" whilst science would be more comfortable with the objective word "fact."

You find facts whilst truth is a measure of your perception.

Hence those of a superstitious mind conveniently confuse the two.

If Steve is wrong in his assertion that religion is absolutely in conflict with science, it would only be due to narrow confines of the word science, ie physics, chemistry and biology. Whereas religion has shaped social sciences since the first human communicated with the second.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Stu
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 08:39 AM

The problem with creationism is it an extremist position. It's followers are Biblical literalists and seem unable or unwilling to engage with Biblical texts in any meaningful way. The logical conclusion to a literalist approach to religion of any kind is it will end up supporting violence and the oppression of women, gays and whomever else their particular key texts spoke against. In truth, there's little difference in intent to forcing Christian creationism to be taught in schools or there Taliban stopping girls from going to school; both are expressions of the literalist mindset.

Personally I cannot understand this passive-aggressive approach to religion. It eschews nuance and contemplation for the worst kind of blind faith; to illustrate this note our resident creationist always gets his information from a limited range of sources, and expresses no opinion of his own that contradicts these sources, despite the fact they inaccurate, misrepresentative or even outright lies. All we get is a constant, negative repetition of these tired old ideas.

Although I'm not religious in the sense that we are guided by the hand of a supernatural deity, I don't agree with Steve's assertion "[Religious faith] is absolutely in conflict with science". Many palaeontologists (as with other scientists) are religious and I'm guessing that their faith is a tad more considered and sophisticated than that of the extremists. Many of these scientists conduct and publish research that gives the creationists the howling fantods, but which they somehow reconcile (or do they?) with their faith. If they are scientists, I suspect the internal debate is ongoing as (and I'm not singling scientists out here as being special in this regard) they have very active internal dialogues on the go as research never really stops.

Of course, any group of people is a microcosm of our wider society and scientists have their own extremists, although these tend to be sidelined as the peer review process means these people are prevented from publishing (as are sloppy or plagiaristic scientists), although they are increasingly finding a voice on the internet. Although Dawkins doesn't fall into this category, I do find his approach a tad too confrontational and can't help think it alienates more people than it converts.

You have to wonder how these extremists end up with so much money and power. How come creationists and climate change deniers are able to operate to the point where they effect policy creation? There's no doubt many of these people seem pretty aggressive and rather boorish in nature.

I worry about the polarisation of science and religion as it is driven by extremists. Dialogue is the only way forward, even if we don't agree on many things.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 08:03 AM

invoking Jack Blandiver as a "doctrinaire adherent of 'science'" rather boggles the imagination.

It's this sort of puerile sneering that is the worst of Mudcat, but par for the course with a certain mindset who dwell in realms of a more autistic absolutism. I'm arguing here for as OBJECTIVE & INCLUSIVE a world view as is humanly possible; meanwhile, The Sycophantic Mollusc can only smear everything with his petty little slime trails. Get a life, eh? - oh shell-bound one. This belongs to us all.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 07:56 AM

Oops! Yeah, I only noticed that once I'd posted it. A genuine typo. Some editing powers might be nice...

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 07:34 AM

building of the The Large Hadron Collider (c. 2008 BCE).

.,,.

Eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 07:33 AM

Joe Offer
I was responding to this rather doctrinaire post from Steve Shaw (22 Mar 14 - 10:09 PM), which proves my point:

I don't know if you have noticed, Joe, but I have been arguing against Steve's somewhat evangelistic take on evolution for quite some time. I don't think anything he says proves your point if your point is supposed to be about science or scientists, It merely proves a point about Steve.

Unfortunately, I was told to "Give it a rest" by Stilly River Stage the other day. Since she was brandishing her power to close threads and delete posts at the time I thought it best to obey.

Likewise, invoking Jack Blandiver as a "doctrinaire adherent of 'science'" rather boggles the imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Is there any merit to creationism?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Mar 14 - 06:35 AM

I think it is disrespectful and dismissive to say that humankind "invented" God. That oversimplifies and dismisses a process that was far more complex and profound.

I disagree. Without Humanity there is no God - we made it up and it only exists in the context of human religious culture. Nowhere else. It is not in the sea, or the stars, or the mountains or the valleys. If it is there, then we put it there. It is in no way insulting to say this, it's simply the way it is. The invention of God - or the Anthropomorphism of Malevolent & Benevolent Nature if you like - was a natural step in our sudden need to understand Nature into which we suddenly became self-aware, so we gave the elements a human face. Thus we made God very much in our image, and gave him all our very worst attributes in the process, until we saw Nature as a metaphor of God the Creator - and made ourselves its master, to exploit it with impunity until we stand on the very brink of global ecological catastrophe.

Earlier polytheistic pantheons of Greek & Norse myth function very much as metaphorical soap-operas on the human condition. Abrahamic Monotheism takes it a stage further, giving the whole thing a decidedly misanthropic & psychotic twist - everything from The Fall to The Passion is about as disrespectful to the human condition as you can get, hence the inherent inhumanity of those faiths.   

All I ask is that they respect the people who seek meaning through a variety of belief systems and their thinking and beliefs. I think this is a reasonable request - to respect people and their beliefs, even though you may not agree with them.

I respect people period. I don't respect their beliefs. Like the old woman I was talking to in Oxfam in Liverpool a few weeks back about the nature of spiritualism suddenly said she felt insulted when I said it was culturally interesting but ultimately self-serving bullshit. She took offence on behalf of her religion. That much, I said, was her choice - she was taking offence where none was meant. Same with the Christian ladies who come knocking on my door from time to time intent on saving my soul - them I respect enough to tell them just how noxious they are being by spreading their rancid & hateful message in the name of love.

In any case, the Physical Un-mythologised Material Universe will long POST date (sorry MtheGM!) our brief tenure of this planet. When we're gone, God will be gone too. There is no eternal deity to mourn our passing. To say there is, is the ultimate disrespect to 50,000 years of human inquiry which we might measure between the astonishing inventions of Göbekli Tepe (c. 10,000 BCE) and the building of the The Large Hadron Collider (c. 2008 BCE). The real wonders - the true divinity if you like - is only just beginning to be revealed. Or (a far better strapline) the human adventure is just beginning...