[Lotsa stuff]
Otoh: Maybe rmu does indeed talk of the "creation scientists" from 50 to 80 years back. If so, i apologize for building a strawman with my line of argument.
Yes, I did in fact suspect raisemeup was referring to all that you spoke of - or something similar, but I addressed what he said, because there is one thing I really need people I speak with to understand:
Say what you mean, know what words you use. "Creation Science" refers to the semi-organised movement that originated about fifty years ago. If what he meant to say was "religious scientists" or something of the like, he should have said that instead of bringing up a different group that specifically uses the name "Creation Science". Its a bit nitpicky, but it also sets up for how I will continue the conversation.
*WARNING: Long post ahead!*(The above was just to Emergence)The vast majority of biologists have absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
This is simply not true. Much of biology relies on evolution to even make sense. Medicine, for example, requires an understanding of evolution in order to determine how to treat bacteria and viruses which have evolved from what they once were.
Even most evolutionary biologists do not concern themselves with the theory of evolution except to tack on just-so stories to actual scientific research that primarily involves creation theory in the first place.
Now this is just plain conspiracy-theory level BS. What is your understanding of what evolutionary biologists do? How does your understanding account for their use of fossils, genetics, and the various methods of dating (chronology, not romance). Where do you get the idea that these are "just-so" stories? Can you give an example of what you are referring to when you say "just-so" stories? Also, which "
creation theory" are you speaking of? The
Sumerian one? The
Greek one? The
Ainu?
Islamic? How about the
Mesoamerican? You will have to forgive me, but you appear to just be throwing random snippets at us in the hopes something will stick; you need to give some examples here.
You cannot “know” that evolution is “real” because it has NEVER been observed. If you have never observed evolution and you believe it is real, then what’s the big deal in believing that God is real?
Ok, there are at least two things outright wrong here. The first is your fact: Evolution has in fact been observed. Second, the premise of your question is incorrect: Observation of the event itself is not required, but the effects it makes can point towards it. The "God" theory fails to make any testable predictions for effects to find, and as we advance in technology and science, there is a trend of not needing to invoke any supernatural beings to explain the previously unknown, but I'll get to this later (if I remember - this is obviously a long post).
Back to the first one - evolution has been observed. We'll start with an example I've already brought up; medicine. More specifically, the bacteria and viruses we use said medicine to treat. Over time, these body-invaders have evolved defenses to the medice we use, and in turn, we have adjusted the medicine to get around those defenses. The HIV/AIDS virus is constantly under the pressure of natural-selection from everything we've been throwing at it. The
start of this particular virus was actually a substantially more noticeable change; it switched hosts and functions entirely off a(n un)lucky mutation at the right(wrong) time.
Another example would be insects developing immunities to pesticides after a few years of use - a short-term variant of evolution.
Now, to address the second point a tad more clearly - in regards to evolution specifically. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc. - These are all very testable claims. We go from the theory of evolution, and see what we have, and we can predict what would predate it and how these ancestors are related to one another. This can go backwards and forwards. Backwards in that we can find fossils that link multiple related species. Forwards in that, should a fossil suggest a link that was not previously thought of, we can use genetic testing to see how close or how divergent they really are.
These are the effects evolution has and leaves behind for us to find.
If I look out on the driveway at my car and refuse to believe it exists, I have made an irrational (poor) choice. It requires a purposeful choice on my part not to accept the evidence I see for its existence.
Ok, we can all see where you're going with this idea, we've heard it all before many times. But I'll play along. I agree - if you see a car, know it is called a car, and say "there is no car", we all have the right to look at you funny.
So likewise it is the case with atheists who are willfully ignorant of God’s existence. Since the evidence for God’s existence is abundant and easily apparent, all atheists know He exists deep down. This is evident from the fact that they exhibit moral behavior. In an atheist worldview, there is no absolutely no reason to be moral. According to evolutionary standards, it should be perfectly acceptable to rape your neighbor’s daughter or to commit mass murder if it furthers your ability to procreate and evolve the species. By not doing those things, you have borrowed the morality which comes from God. Therefore, you acknowledge by your behavior that God exists and you have made an irrational choice to ignore it.
And this will make you look like a POE, but I'm working here on the assumption that you're not, so on to the explanation.
First "willfully ignorant" and "all atheists know He exists deep down" is not the best way to get on our good side. We could turn this around and equally say that you really know the Muslims are right and Allah is the one true god "deep down" - doesn't get anyone cookie points and makes the speaker look like a jackass.
Second "abundant evidence" is something you seem to think is apparent, but your only example is that we "act morally", which I'll get to in a second. Abundant evidence would be useful, but you will need examples. I think you'll find that most atheists see everything as an emergent natural process - which is verified by what I mentioned earlier: "The "God" theory fails to make any testable predictions for effects to find, and as we advance in technology and science, there is a trend of not needing to invoke any supernatural beings to explain the previously unknown". In other words; where once we had Zeus throwing lightning bolts, now we have static charge that builds up to critical mass before releasing the energy in the form of lightning. The air that gets heated up so quickly causes a shockwave that we perceive as thunder.
Viola, Zeus is dead, and the gap in our knowledge is filled. After that happens a few hundred, thousand, million times and we uncover more and more of how the world works, there is little reason to suggest that at some unknown point in the future we will need the supernatural or some god to explain away something unknown. Atheists have drawn that line in the sand and our collective understanding of the world has stepped over it. To continue saying there is still something that needs a supernatural process instead of a natural one is to commit to the "god of the gaps" argument.
Third is your "atheist worldview" in which you make a few assumptions that are outright wrong. I seem to say this a lot; but don't tell us what we think. We know what we think. We're the ones who are thinking it. There are, in fact, many reasons to be moral. I should, at this point, stop to make clear that not all atheists agree on all topics. Especially when it comes to morality, but then again, neither do all theists - we all have our interpretation of how to go about morality, and even differing reasons for morality. Some are in it for themselves, some have others they care for, and others still think all life is precious.
Those three apply to both atheists and theists - and there may be other options aside from those three, but I'll use them since they provide a good foundation. Humans have
evolved to be (and since you don't like evolved, you can substitute "currently are" if you need to) social creatures. Part of our survival mechanism is social harmony. Morality is derived from this and affects what becomes "moral". Don't kill, don't rape, don't do some other action that would harm the social harmony and cohesion. Raping the neighbor's daughter would harm this social harmony - and if she's too young she wouldn't even produce any offspring; making the whole effort pointless. So why would anyone do it?
Those who are in it for themselves will want to be moral, because a healthier society leads to healthier and happier individuals. If you are part of this society, then you will benefit from it - so why would you harm the society that benefits you? A theist in it for him/herself has the further incentive of heaven, and fear of hell. An atheist, on the other hand, knows that this is the only life s/he gets - so screwing it up by turning society against them or in some way harming the society that supports them will, as a result, harm them. That's a bit of a waste for the only life you get. The same can be applied to others when you are not just in it for yourself. After all, one does not need any supernatural creatures in order to care for others.
Lastly, "By not doing those things, you have borrowed the morality which comes from God. Therefore, you acknowledge by your behavior that God exists and you have made an irrational choice to ignore it." is utter nonsense. The "morality which comes from God" has existed long before any of the Abrahamic faiths, and for the very reasons I mentioned; society colapses, so stop doing that stuff and you can benefit from society! Even if that were not the case, you would have to show it was your god that gave out this morality, as opposed to Mithra, Amaterasu, Allah, or Bob the plumber. Our behavior acknowledges that not being moral is an utterly stupid thing to do, regardless of our goals. So back to my initial point in addressing this paragraph; The only "evidence" you have provided was our morality, which has a much different foundation than you had imagined - one that happens to be slightly more solid, since we don't have to ask if we have the right god's morality.
The single initial presupposition of the Christian worldview is that God is the ultimate source of all truth. Among other things, the atheist worldview presupposes God does not exist and that all things have come about only by materialistic means. Since logic (among many other things) is not materialistic, it has no rational explanation in the atheist worldview but it is easily explained in a Christian worldview since we have been made in God’s likeness.
Once again you're assuming something you cannot know - and are wrong because of it. You will find most atheists did not start with a presupposition that no god existed. Either that particular topic was left to the evidence, and a constant lack of said evidence made the atheist say "I highly doubt a god exists" or, alternatively, they started with the presupposition that god
did exist, but became convinced that nothing religion claimed made sense in light of reality and deconverted.
The age of the earth has EVERYTHING to do with evolution. The age of the earth was purposely set to billions of years in order to support evolution. If the earth is 6000 years old (or even “just” millions of years old), then evolution becomes untenable.
This is another bit that makes you sound a bit too much like a conspiracy theorist. The
age of the earthWiki calculation uses physics concepts that don't care what biologists think. The early concepts of how old the Earth is failed to compensate for things like radioactive decay or convection, and made implicit assumptions about what the earth was in its initial state. This still granted us a 20 million - 400 million year time frame despite missing many key components that would make all the necessary processes take much longer. What's worse, is you would only be able to get a minimum age - which will not be accurate for an older earth because Earth would have undergone differentiation into the core, mantle, and crust via a long history of plate tectonics, weathering, etc. which was shifting, destroying, and regurgitating pieces of the planet.
If creation theory is valid scientifically speaking and you reject it for unscientific reasons, can we not then call you out as being unscientific?
If? Yes. But that if has not been fulfilled. Show us some evidence for your claim of "creation" and we'll be happy to examine it.
The following are some of the more well known creation scientists, many of which believed in a literal 6 day creation. I can provide a link to many more if you are interested
What they believed does not matter as much as the evidence and proofs they provided. None of them provided anything pointing to a god, God, or gods. Therefore... so what? Again, I welcome you to point out anything they may have shown that indicated otherwise.
My claims are supported by evidence and reason already. That is obviously why I accept them. I am not asking you for arguments to challenge my beliefs. My curiosity is whether you have any coherent and logical argument to support your opposing beliefs (which would obviously be a challenge to mine). So far, I’ve not seen any.
Our position is simple; all things have natural explanations - so we have no reason to go to the supernatural. Gods, being of the supernatural, and having no reason to be invoked to explain anything, are discarded. We do the same to all the various gods equally. Until there is some evidence (which you have yet to provide) or reason (your own having yet to be explained) to believe a god, God, or gods exist, we take the NULL hypothesis. We simply assume it does not exist until we have a credible reason to think otherwise. If you can provide us with a credible reason to believe, we will be happy to examine it.
Now for the one post in which you actually addressed me!
Belial,
That's my name! Please don't wear it out, it's already a few millennia old.
I think I answered the couple of inquiries regarding creation scientists who laid the foundations of much of the science we enjoy today with my last post by listing the creation scientists.
No, no you didn't, but I can see why you think you did. I need to stress something I addressed to Emergence at the beginning of this post. "Creation Science" refers to a specific movement outside the scientific community that endorses specific claims while disregarding others. The group has only existed since the 1960s, well after people like Francis Bacon or Sir Isaac Newton lived. They were scientists, and they were religious, but they were not "Creation Scientists". Some of the people you listed, in fact, would be at odds with the current "Creation Scientists", so it does not help your case to conflate them.
If these things had been taught in school, perhaps you would have already known them.
I did, in fact, recognize many of the names - most of them for being not scientists, but philosophers and mathematicians. Not that there was a particularly big difference between them during the period in which they lived, but it did let certain less-than-scientific ideas into the science of that age. Also, as I mentioned earlier, their actual beliefs did not affect the results they have provided us with. There are many ancient Chinese and Islamic scholars who had very different belief sets, yet were enormously successful - discovering a number of similar ideas decades or even centuries before.
For example, Carolus Linnaeus laid the foundations for modern taxonomy. Why? Because he was attempting to determine the original KINDS of life that God had created.
And Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse because he no longer had the rights to his first cartoon character - doesn't really matter
why he did it, but he did it - and it brought a major iconic character to children everywhere! Similarly, it does not matter
why Linnaeus made his classifications; what matters is that he lay one of the key foundations for understanding evolutionary relationships between the species.
It is preposterous to claim that creation science is attempting to “invalidate” or “attack” the science we enjoy today. This is the very point of my post. Operational science is operational science. It is done by people who believe in evolution and those who believe in creation.
And it is also the point of mine; because these were not "Creation Scientists", and because "Creation Science"
does attack the science we use today. These people who happened to be both scientists and religious contributed many things in their fields. The stuff we use today does not rely on what the individuals believed, but what results they got.
It is the philosophical or metaphysical INTEPRETATION of the evidence where the disagreement lies, NOT in the science itself.
What we need isn't the philosophical or metaphysical interpretation, but the scientific one. How do you prove a philosophical interpretation? How do you prove a metaphysical one? A scientific interpretation can be proven by following the logic to make a prediction based on the evidence's interpretation and seeing if it holds up - but what do you do for the other two?
There is nothing in biology that couldn’t be done while accepting creation theory and rejecting evolution. In fact, evolution has been detrimental to science. For example, we may have had many medical breakthroughs that have been overlooked because evolutionists considered organs to be “vestigial” or DNA to be “junk” for which we have now found play critical functions.
Had evolution been rejected; much of the modern medical science we use today would be confused at best. I already described how evolution has forced us to keep developing our medicine to keep up with the evolving bacteria and viruses. Vestigial organs? We don't need an appendix to survive. Have you ever seen those "sideways eyelids" that some animals have? The
Nictitating membraneWiki? Humans have one as well - but it doesn't do anything except get irritated on occasion. We have unusable muscles in our ears (well, some people can use them, but what purpose does it serve when our ears are on the side of our heads instead of the top?). Plus a number of muscles in our limbs that don't actually have anything to do with moving the arm/leg... or anything else really.
As for "Junk DNA", yes, a function was found for some of it. There are still "genetic fossils" aka "psuedogenes" aka "Junk DNA" that doesn't do anything but sit there absorbing mutations from generation to generation (essentially, the only function of psuedogenes is to slow down harmful mutations and stabilize the offspring - which relates to evolution).
By the way, I accept your explanation for why people participate in this forum. For me personally, however, I enjoy defending the truth against opposing arguments a little more than celebrating with people who agree with me. It sharpens my understanding by hearing both sides of the argument.
Granted, and I would never presume to speak for everyone (as I said elsewhere "You can't even speak for everyone and say "Cookies are awesome"!"), but it would be good if you didn't jump to conclusions about our reasoning or thought process. You claim you want to understand us better; that is accomplished not by telling us what we think, as you have done a number of times already, but asking.
No offense, but I’ve yet to see an atheist that even knows what scientific creation theory is.
I've yet to meet two creationists who define it the same, so I'm not surprised other atheists may give a definition you don't agree with. The most common form that I've seen is a retelling of genesis with attempts to support it using a form of the scientific method. Personally, I have not seen someone succeed in using the scientific method to these ends without committing a whole host of logical fallacies, so you should be able to understand my reservation on the subject. However, I would welcome you to give a definition of "Scientific Creation theory" as you understand it so we can at least be sure we're on the same page.
Yet, they’ll [claim] creationists do not know what evolution is even though we’ve all been indoctrinated with it in school. To some degree I don’t blame them. If it wasn’t for the bigotry of atheists who do not allow alternative scientific theories to be taught in our schools, many more people would understand both sides of the story.
For being indoctrinated in it, they certainly fail to show it when most of their understandings of evolution result in questions like:
"If we're descended from monkey, why are there still monkeys?"
or "Where are the transitional forms - why don't we have Crocoduck fossils?"
Then there are the people who give descriptions of evolution that are only true in the world of Pokemon. Ugh.
