Top Ten Creationist Arguments

[Telstra]

interesting:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8&feature=channel[/ame]

 

[gaypiper]

Excellent! BTW, not all people who are religious follow creationism or believe anything other than evolution. In fact, I would hazard a guess that most informed Christians reject lunacy like "Intelligent Design."

 

[AsianDream]

interesting:

Interesting - but also probably true!

 

[Telstra]

Unfortunately, most of the Christians I've encountered in my life have demonstrated this phrase to be a contradiction-in-terms.

I say most because I'm not so naive as to paint all believers as idiots. I've known many incredibly smart believers. I just wish there were a lot more.

I have know many smart believers too.
But still believe in fairy tales ...

 

[AsianDream]

Unfortunately, most of the Christians I've encountered in my life have demonstrated this phrase to be a contradiction-in-terms.

I say most because I'm not so naive as to paint all believers as idiots. I've known many incredibly smart believers. I just wish there were a lot more.

Why many religious people argue for "Intelligent Design" is that the alternative does not logically support the idea of a benevolent God.

Natural selection (The "survival of the fittest") - does necessarily mean a very hard and unpleasant time for the "less fit"

At least "Intelligent Design" believers are smart enough to recognise the inherent contradiction between the concept of a “Good God" and the reality of evolution as a brutal process totally indifferent to the suffering of those that are "evolving".

No amount of intellectual gymnastics can reconcile the idea of a “nice” all powerful God with the way in which evolution actually works.

 

[Kulindahr]

I almost bailed at around number five because of the deluge of fallacious reasoning.

BTW, "Intelligent Design" means different things to different people; when I encountered it, back before the Genesis 1 creation literalists hijacked it, it didn't even necessarily mean one was a Christian; we has ID Buddhists, for example. Basically it meant someone who looked at all the scientific evidence and concluded there was a Creator.

 

[Telstra]

i love this music video:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5YhE3a5dqw[/ame]

 

[poolerboy]

i love this music video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5YhE3a5dqw

The best video for explaining evolution, in my opinion, has been this one:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8[/ame]

 

[Fire]

A lot of those arguments were tangential, and not particularly well-refuted for a video with such high production values.

That said, Intelligent Design no matter how you spin it is a form of creationism and thus not science. Nothing in Biology suggests a creator except to those who already believe in one, or are motivated to believe in one, and for them everything is proof of their God's existence, even--no, especially the things which seem to contradict it.

Indeed, scientific discoveries have repeatedly undermined traditional ideas about divinity, sending educated Christians scurrying to move the goalposts in order to maintain some wisp of intellectual integrity. Oh, of course they'll say that this is the real sort of God we should have been worshiping all along! The support is all right there in the Bible!

 

[poolerboy]

A lot of those arguments were tangential, and not particularly well-refuted for a video with such high production values.

What do you mean?

 

[Telstra]

The best video for explaining evolution, in my opinion, has been this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

yep, nice video.
Should be shown to students in every school.

 

[Kulindahr]

That said, Intelligent Design no matter how you spin it is a form of creationism and thus not science.

Not true, unless you're using a very broad meaning of "creationism". The latter normally means the notion that God spent six days talking and when He was done, there it all was, e.g. the foolish view that Genesis 1 was meant to be literal. The former, however, requires no belief in any holy book whatsoever -- or didn't, until the creationists hijacked the word.

Nothing in Biology suggests a creator except to those who already believe in one, or are motivated to believe in one, and for them everything is proof of their God's existence, even--no, especially the things which seem to contradict it.

Not true. When I was associated with Intelligent Design, there were former atheist biologists who had become Buddhist, Christians, Deists, people who decided that the cosmos was designed because of what they found in front of them.

Indeed, scientific discoveries have repeatedly undermined traditional ideas about divinity, sending educated Christians scurrying to move the goalposts in order to maintain some wisp of intellectual integrity. Oh, of course they'll say that this is the real sort of God we should have been worshiping all along! The support is all right there in the Bible!

I can't think of a single instance in history when "scientific discoveries ... undermined traditional ideas about divinity", at least if you're talking about theological ideas.

But I can think of numerous instances in which educated Christians pursued scientific investigation because of their faith, and in fact that was a major driving force behind the rise of science -- a thing which took place only where there was a belief in an orderly God who could be counted on not to change the rules from time to time.

 

[Kulindahr]

yep, nice video.
Should be shown to students in every school.

I second that motion.

It should also be shown to every Campus Crusade for Christ and other college groups where people want to thump on the theory -- there's nothing more annoying than people attacking things they don't understand.

 

[Fire]

WARNING: WALL OF TEXT

Not true, unless you're using a very broad meaning of "creationism".

You believe that a supernatural being had a hand in creating the Universe. A creator. Yes, I'm well aware of what "Creationism" usually means, and I'm telling you your belief is not so different from the six-day, six-thousand year old Dinosaur-Riding Jesus Creationism as you like to pretend, no matter how subtle or complex you claim it to be. At the core your belief is also based on faith.

Not true. When I was associated with Intelligent Design, there were former atheist biologists who had become Buddhist, Christians, Deists, people who decided that the cosmos was designed because of what they found in front of them.

Before I get started, why is it that religious people love to trot out token converts like it's proof of their faith? In a very real way, I suppose it must seem like it is. Someone agreeing with you is validation; it makes you feel like you're right. I would urge you not to let that feeling fool you though, as these conversions happen in every ideology and testify to no truth but the vulnerability of the human mind to contagious, irrational belief.

O.K. I usually won't even address argument from anecdote, but let's play this game. How do you explain all of the scientists who apparently lose their faith? Considering the rate of religiosity of the U.S. population as a whole, there is a highly disproportionate number of non-believing scientists, even assuming that the sciences are hugely more appealing to non-believers which I don't think is an entirely safe assumption to make. It would seem that the typical outcome of scientific education and inquiry--and we find this across the globe--is actually to doubt of the idea of a creator god.

So if there really is some inherent evidence for a creator in say, Biology or Cosmology, why do we see such a strong trend in the opposite direction among people who study the world for a living?

Not that I think you would, but just in case you're tempted to cry, "Science is dogmatic!/Pressure to abandon religion from peers and professors!" I would add this: As I'm sure you know, science teaches us to question, scientists are almost by definition curious, and the scientific community awards it's highest honors to people who prove the current paradigm wrong. Finding evidence to support a non-denominational "creator" would be perhaps the most important discovery in the history of both the scientific endeavor and the human experience generally. The scientist or scientists who did would be heroes to many hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Scientists should be flocking to the evidence for design like fat women to a smorgasbord.

Why then do the vast majority of scientists find ID arguments uncompelling, even ones for a non-interventionist God-of-the-Universe? Why is it that among those who give credence to ID arguments, nearly all of them seem to be motivated by religious reasons (e.g. the fellows at the Discovery Institute, though theirs is an admittedly unsophisticated brand of ID)? If there really is sufficient cause in Nature to conclude that the Universe was created, why at least aren't these Intelligent Design converts you mentioned shouting it from the mountaintops, testing hypotheses, submitting their data to peer-review, engaging the scientific establishment in debate?

Could it be instead that the evidence is not at all sufficient to draw such a conclusion and they have at the very least seriously overstated their case? That they cannot in fact even create testable hypotheses because their propositions are ultimately based on subjective perception, fallacious argument and/or prior religious conviction?


...



Although parsimony is not a rule in the strictest sense, it is a useful heuristic. Essentially, what you are asking us to believe is that you and these other people who see a God in science, unlike the many billions of other religious people whose faith in Dino Jesus and Allah and Vishnu is erroneous, unlike the vast majority of scientists who should by all accounts be compelled by this evidence for a creator if it is really there, are right about the nature of the Universe. Are not being motivated to see proof where there is none. Are not subject to the brain's very powerful, very subtle built-in cognitive biases. Are not being influenced by your upbringing, your culture or your conversion experience.

This is about as unparsimonious as you can get, Kulindahr.


Let me tell you what I think is going on. I think that when intelligent people are raised in a faith or come to one later in life, they work very, very hard to justify it to themselves, often to the point of obsession. You don't see this type behavior in the unintelligent and the uneducated for the most part, and I think there's a reason for that: faith rankles intellect.

In some part of them, I think intelligent people sense that it is unreasonable to believe these things, and this internal contradiction creates discomfort, which they can't simply ignore. So they rationalize. They justify. They read the apologetics, study scripture, and find some superficially reasonable explanation to quell dissonance when it arises. If need be, they move goalposts. They do engage in debate of course, but typically as an exercise to reinforce their belief. All in all, the theological nitpicking and rhetorical acrobatics are a sufficient distraction that they never have to truly address the real question, which is whether there is evidence to support the god hypothesis.

...


There is robust evidence for a practically unlimited human capacity for irrationality and self-deception, for confirmation bias and the perseverance of belief the face of out-right invalidation.

Is the evidence equally robust for your faith? In the realm of science, evidence compels belief. Why then are so few scientists theists, or even deists? Surely there is bias, but science has built-in mechanisms to place limits on it. Even so, most scientists would seem to agree that there is insufficient evidence in the Natural world to postulate any sort of creator god, even a deistic one, nevermind the problem of infinite regress.

I have no doubt that you will be completely unconvinced. Having read a number of your posts in the past, and having seen the claims you've made and what you're willing to accept as evidence for your beliefs, I don't think there is anything anyone could say which would cause you to waver. Indeed, psychological research has shown that being confronted by opposing beliefs usually makes people more convinced they are right, and for that reason I don't know that I'll continue this discussion. I don't want to be one of your enablers.

Frankly, I'm rather embarrassed that I went to all this effort, but I pity you, ensnared so thoroughly in a belief, at least in part by your own intellect.

 

[Kulindahr]

You believe that a supernatural being had a hand in creating the Universe. A creator. Yes, I'm well aware of what "Creationism" usually means, and I'm telling you your belief is not so different from the six-day, six-thousand year old Dinosaur-Riding Jesus Creationism as you like to pretend, no matter how subtle or complex you claim it to be. At the core your belief is also based on faith.

Ah, the fallacy of reductionism.

This is like saying that there's no real difference between modern chemistry and alchemy, since both are based on elements.

Before I get started, why is it that religious people love to trot out token converts like it's proof of their faith?

I clipped the rest because it had nothing to do with the quote of my post you appended it to.

You claimed that nothing in science "suggests a creator except to those who already believe in one", and I refuted it. Switching to a different topic is a nice but pointless dodge.

 

[bankside]

I can't think of a single instance in history when "scientific discoveries ... undermined traditional ideas about divinity", at least if you're talking about theological ideas.

That is a slightly disingenuous "finding" you state there, Kulindahr. You've made it very plain in other threads that you hold reason and faith to be different realms. In your view, there can be no scientific discovery that would undermine faith, presumably for the same reason that there could be no shade of blue that would undermine a musical scale. Yet here you intimate that the "history" of scientific discovery is somehow revealing. As slippery as Popoff, I say.

But I can think of numerous instances in which educated Christians pursued scientific investigation because of their faith, and in fact that was a major driving force behind the rise of science -- a thing which took place only where there was a belief in an orderly God who could be counted on not to change the rules from time to time.

Yes, because a good christian is better at wielding a petrie dish.

 

[Kulindahr]

That is a slightly disingenuous "finding" you state there, Kulindahr. You've made it very plain in other threads that you hold reason and faith to be different realms. In your view, there can be no scientific discovery that would undermine faith, presumably for the same reason that there could be no shade of blue that would undermine a musical scale. Yet here you intimate that the "history" of scientific discovery is somehow revealing. As slippery as Popoff, I say.

Other people have tried really hard to say that reason and faith are two different realms. In reality, it's rather difficult to have faith without reason. But you're right that no scientific discovery could undermine faith -- faith is trust in a person, so this is like saying that a scientific discovery could undermine a guy's trust in his BF.

What did I say about the history of scientific discovery being "revealing"? I was stating that the piece to which I replied was wrong.

Yes, because a good christian is better at wielding a petrie dish.

Into third-grade level taunts today?

 

[AsianDream]

I can't think of a single instance in history when "scientific discoveries ... undermined traditional ideas about divinity", at least if you're talking about theological ideas.

I don't mean to be a pedant - but what about the resistance of organised religion to the ideas of Copernicus, Galiilao, Darwin and almost every other scientific discovery ever made?

"Creationist Arguments" is an Oxymoron - there are no logical Creationist Arguments - just assertions of unfounded ideas.

The more interesting thing being that the passion with which people hold ideas is almost exactly inversely proportional to the likelihood that these are true - so the more strongly people beleive something - the less likely it is to be true.

So a very good test to determine if an idea is false - is to look at how much "Faith" people have in this idea - the more "Faith" and commitment they have - the more likely it is that they are wrong.

 

[Zingerific]

I guess my problem is with the framing of the whole question: the very idea of proving God's existence. Perhaps I'm being too much of a Kantian here, but it seems to me that if you *prove* something, then it's not something you *believe* anymore; it's something you *know*.

That is to say that faith, properly understood, can only apply to things that are unknowable -- if it is knowable, it is the proper province of reason (or science, or whatever you want to call it). So if something is unknowable by definition, then reason doesn't have anything to say about it one way or another.

So *proving* God's existence seems to be something of a fool's errand. If you prove God exists, then you don't really believe in God anymore -- and if you have faith in God, you are already acknowledging that God's existence is beyond the province of proof.

It would seem that the typical outcome of scientific education and inquiry--and we find this across the globe--is actually to doubt of the idea of a creator god.

Sure, but I don't see how doubt and faith are in any way in conflict.

No amount of intellectual gymnastics can reconcile the idea of a “nice” all powerful God with the way in which evolution actually works.

Actually, it doesn't take that much in the way of intellectual gymnastics at all. You're really just restating the old "problem of evil." There are four propositions: 1) God is all knowing. 2) God is all powerful. 3) God is all good. 4) There is evil in the world. One of these four must be rejected. The traditional answer (as far as I know first articulated by Augustine) is to reject the fourth proposition -- there is in actuality no evil in the world. What appears to us, in our limited capacity, as evil is in fact good in God's grand scheme. Hence the old saying "God works in mysterious ways."

I'm not necessarily defending Augustine's argument here; all I'm saying is that the workings of natural selection in no way poses a unique dilemma in the terms you state.

 

[Zingerific]

I don't mean to be a pedant - but what about the resistance of organised religion to the ideas of Copernicus, Galiilao, Darwin and almost every other scientific discovery ever made?

I think you've answered your own question by qualifying "religious" with "organized."

In order for your argument to work, I think you have to show that religion is inherently hostile to science. In the examples above, I'd argue that religion's hostility was not because of religion per se, but because the scientific ideas were hostile to the norms of society (which, of course, organized religion had a great stake in).

And as far as Copernicus and Galileo go, the hostility of the Church was not monolithic -- it took twelve years for the Pope to get around to putting Galileo on house arrest, and that was only after he started writing on theology. He was poaching on the Pope's territory, after all