Why Creationism is Nonsense

[AsianDream]

You question valid sources without providing any of your own. What basis are you using to define transisitional? Your quote is pointless. The fact that Einstein did not believe in a personal God wasn't being argued and does not reflect on his belief in a universal spirit. If you are going to deny people's posts the least you could do is provide some credible sources, since it would seem you claim to know better than the sources I cited.

Additionally, evolution is present in all of us from day to day, we grow and evolve. It is the idea that humans originated from the animal kingdom and were not a creation of God that is rejected by the majority of Americans and a significant number of scientists (45% believing God has had a role in either evolution or believe in the Bible's literal explanation) according to Gallup. A majority (67%) of Scientists as I posted and cited earlier believe in God, even if they do not believe he assisted evolution.

There has been some research done on acceptance of Evolution by scientists.

Out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists - this found that only 700 gave any credence to creation-science/ID. At 0.15% this is a very small proportion see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution.

As has been discussed previously - most people (including scientists) see no conflict between accepting the fact of evolution and a belief in God.

The use of the phrase "Darwinian athiest sense" is a misnomer - Darwin was a firm believer in Christianity .

 

[hotatlboi]

It is natural that 479,300 out of 480,000 life scientists don't believe creationism is a "science". Art isn't a "science". Literature isn't a "science" either. That doesn't mean they are nonsense however.

In a scientific context, creationism is pure nonsense. There is nothing scientific about it, which is obviously why scientists reject it. It would be one thing to debate it's truth value absent any other evidence for how we got here. But when there is a HUGE amount of scientific evidence that contradicts the tenets of creationism, that is reason enough to reject it.

Believing in creationism in 2008 and rejecting all the contradictory evidence available to us from microbiology, genetics, geology et al would be like saying you believed 2 + 2 = 5 if the Bible said that. It would be choosing to ignore what you could directly observe about the world in favor of clinging to something from an ancient religious text that says otherwise. Such thinking is utterly without logic.

 

[AsianDream]

No one is saying evolution in some way isn't happening. I was simply stating Darwin's intrepretation and way was bogus.

I also have to challenge your claim that Darwin was a Christian. It is fairly well documented that he became athiest over the course of his life. Whether or not his theories were athiest I guess is debatable.

It is natural that 479,300 out of 480,000 life scientists don't believe creationism is a "science". Art isn't a "science". Literature isn't a "science" either. That doesn't mean they are nonsense however.

Which specific parts of Darwin's book do you think are Bogus?

Also Darwin's views on religion are fairly well covered in the following article - which clearly contradicts the view you seem to have somehow formed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_views_on_religion

Fortunately I'm not aware of any moves to teach Art or Literature in Science classes

 

[kallipolis]

A numinous experience simply witnesses to a paranormal incident. It would be a highly imaginative man, who would conclude that such an experience proves, one thing, or the other.

There is no contest, between science, and religious, or spiritual beliefs. For the realm of the imagination, can be understood as the portal into the unknown, and inexplicable. Yet, such is the human experience, that the imagination can transport our experiences beyond the apparent limitations, that the senses impose upon human understanding.

Try, rationalising the miracle of the dancing sun.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fatima



Miracle of the Sun

As early as July the Lady had promised a miracle for the final apparition, on October 13, so that all would believe. What transpired became known as "Miracle of the Sun". A crowd believed to be approximately 70,000 in number,[4] including newspaper reporters and photographers, gathered at the Cova da Iria. The incessant rain had finally ceased and a thin layer of clouds cloaked the silver disc of the sun such that it could be looked upon without hurting one’s eyes. Lúcia called out to the crowd to look at the sun. Sometime while Lucia was pointing towards the sun and seeing various religious figures in the sky, the sun appeared to change colors and rotate, like a fire wheel. For some, the sun appeared to fall from the sky before retreating, for others, it zig-zagged. The phenomenon was witnessed by most in the crowd as well as people many miles away.[5]

Columnist Avelino de Almeida of O Século (Portugal's most influential newspaper, which was pro-government in policy and avowedly anti-clerical),[1] reported the following "Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws - the sun 'danced' according to the typical expression of the people."[6] Eye specialist Dr. Domingos Pinto Coelho, writing for the newspaper Ordem reported "The sun, at one moment surrounded with scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple, seemed to be in an exceeding fast and whirling movement, at times appearing to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat".[7] The special reporter for the October 17, 1917 edition of the Lisbon daily, O Dia, reported the following, "...the silver sun, enveloped in the same gauzy grey light, was seen to whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds...The light turned a beautiful blue, as if it had come through the stained-glass windows of a cathedral, and spread itself over the people who knelt with outstretched hands...people wept and prayed with uncovered heads, in the presence of a miracle they had awaited. The seconds seemed like hours, so vivid were they."[8]

 

[opinterph]

… Darwin's implications on homosexuality are ugly.

What are Darwin’s implications on homosexuality?

 

[mike_n_herrin]

As a scientist, and one who works with many many scientists daily, and have for the last 13 years, i can tell you i've never once encountered a scientist who didn't think evolution was true. it is generally considered to be correct. darwin may not have gotten every detail correct, but it's a sound theory over all. the body of the scientific community accepts evolution.

 

[bankside]

darwin may not have gotten every detail correct, but it's a sound theory over all. the body of the scientific community accepts evolution.

Edison didn't perfect the lightbulb either, but that doesn't mean we've had to rely on magical glowing pixie dust in the mean time....

 

[AsianDream]

There are a vast number of sources indicating Darwin's shift to disbelief in God.
The point had nothing to do with Art or Literature being taught in Science class. That makes no sense. As far as Darwin's being agnostic or athiest or even his claim that God was a first cause, I don't know which sources to trust as truth but I wouldn't ever trust wikipedia which you cited. I do not agree with Darwin that man originated as a lower life form. I believe that man was first created in spirit as an image of God not in the image of a monkey. I also don't agree with his natural selection ideas of survival of the fittest. We as human beings bend over backwards for special needs people, we don't throw them out of the nest to die. Also Darwin's implications on homosexuality are ugly.

No Darwin himself was clearly always a a believer in God (as the sources I quoted previously show)

I would agree teaching Art or Literature in Science classes makes no sense - in the same way as teaching religious ideas of Creationism/Inteligent Design in science classes makes no sense either.

Wikipedia is hardly the ultimate souce of knowledge - but is a fair example of "peer reviewed" content and is also freely available without breaking JUB rules on breaching copyright.

It would be hard to find any rational argument to refute the view that "Creationism is Nonsense" - most of the discussions here seem to be about if this is only partial Nonsense or complete Nonsense.

I would have to say - I suport the view that Creationsim/ID is complete and utter Nonsense. Also that none of the arguments proposed to support this idea have any validity

 

[supersky]

but who the hell cares if Darwin was an atheist?

being atheists is a shame? why?

i don't think creationism is a nonsense, it just is a FAIRY TALE written 3000 years ago, there are no scientific theories able to demonstrate any of the hypothesis stated by that FAIRY TALE.

 

[AsianDream]

but who the hell cares if Darwin was an atheist?

being atheists is a shame? why?

i don't think creationism is a nonsense, it just is a FAIRY TALE written 3000 years ago, there are no scientific theories able to demonstrate any of the hypothesis stated by that FAIRY TALE.

Darwin was actually a profoundly religious man who was very troubled by the religious implications of the almost self evident truth of evolution that he had discovered - which is why he delayed publishing "Yhe Origin of Species" for so long.

I think describing something as a FAIRY TALE written 3000 years ago with no scientific evidence to back it is the same as saying it's nonsense!

 

[MarkTheAmazing]

Nice videos. Cheers!

 

[Kulindahr]

Those videos got tiresome really fast: they're full of sloppy thinking, misrepresentation, and even falsehoods, and come from a very bigoted perspective. As a set of arguments against Creationism, they're barely above the level of dishonesty employed regularly by creationists -- they just spin in a lot more facts to cover their deception.


Beyond that, though, demonstrating that Creationism is nonsense is really simple: the Christian version is based on a bastardization of an ancient form of literature, so that its proponents are either lying outright or downright ignorant about their source material. Neither of the creation accounts in Genesis were meant to be read as short stories telling actual history; rather, they're in the form of common types of chronicles, which abbreviated what some great person had done, organized it to focus on a central point, and cast it into memorable form.

Secondly, Creationism can make no claim to be science. Believe the Genesis accounts as literal history if you want -- they are still not scientific data. Even accept them as eye witness accounts, and you don't have scientific material; the only thing that comes close is the enumerated days, but the problem there is that there's no way to tell how much time preceded the days, and for that matter that grammar doesn't require them to be immediately consecutive, and beyond that, the word "day" can stand for a period of time during which something dominated, as for example the phrase, "in the day of Josiah the king", or "in the day of the great famine" -- or in modern type usage, "Back in the day...." So, depending on the grammar, you get nothing of scientific value, save possibly for the initial statement that "God created the heavens and the earth", which is traditionally interpreted to mean creation out of nothing -- which corresponds nicely to the Big Bang theory.

Thirdly, Creationism is useless even as a guideline for science: it can make no predictions, so it isn't testable. Even more basic, it can't even explain the evidence currently in existence -- the fossil record, the crystal deformation that gives the age of some mountains, the flip-flopping of the earth's magnetic field, and many more items have to be tossed into a bin labeled "God did it", there to gather dust. But doing that cripples science, because it throws away material that should be leading us to other things -- and as many a scientist who is a devout Christian has noted, God did it" explains nothing, because what science ought to be about is discovering how God did it.

So there's really no point in doing what the videos do, dredging up disjointed snippets and chunks of material and portraying them -- spinning them -- to make religion look silly; indeed, that's counter-productive. For all the author's claim to be appealing to the "sheep", what he's really doing is driving them away by tossing insult after insult -- and for the moderately knowledgeable ones, the sloppy thinking and misrepresentations discredit him no matter what valid points are buried in the deluge of claims and information.

 

[Kulindahr]

Just a comment on Intelligent Design:

It's my understanding that Intelligent Design did not sprout from Creationism. My first encounter with ID had nothing to do with Christianity; it had to do with scientists who had decided that there was overwhelming evidence for a Designer. Most has topped there, but I knew Buddhist and agnostic ID folks, besides some Christians. Indeed, more than one I met had been Christian, but on the weakness of the scientific evidence for identifying any particular Designer, had become a Deist; although he leaned to Genesis as the best candidate for telling about the Designer, he held that science couldn't take him any further.

That was the basic understanding among the ID people I knew: science held -- as a number of the Christian anti-Creationists mentioned in the videos assert -- overwhelming or vast amounts of evidence for a Designer, but once having reached that point, science effectively ended. A Designer of the universe isn't something/someone susceptible to scientific measurement; even if one set up recording instruments covering the globe, a record of a miracle could still be disputed, and at any rate wouldn't be repeatable. So using ID as a scientific tool was impossible -- and thus anything that follows the conclusion that there must be a Designer is not, cannot be, science.


At some point, Creationists hijacked the term as a way of trying to hide their agenda; now, it's very difficult (if not impossible) to find any real Intelligent Design material, material that doesn't pretend to be science, but which uses science to make educated guesses about the character and nature of the Designer.

 

[WillMc88]

they're full of sloppy thinking, misrepresentation, and even falsehoods

How so specifically?

 

[WillMc88]

it had to do with scientists who had decided that there was overwhelming evidence for a Designer

I've heard that there are a number of scientists who are religious, and probably some who belief in ID. But from what I've read, the overwhelming majority reject it. What evidence is there for a designer?

 

[bankside]

So, depending on the grammar, you get nothing of scientific value, save possibly for the initial statement that "God created the heavens and the earth", which is traditionally interpreted to mean creation out of nothing -- which corresponds nicely to the Big Bang theory.

It doesn't correspond nicely. The Big Bang posits an initial "singularity," which is a physical state which may have antecedents, but those antecedents are specifically disclaimed from having any effect on what followed, or even any meaning for that which followed.

Either there was no context for the big bang, divine or otherwise, or any pre-existing context was of necessity utterly irrelevant. The most it might permit is for a creator god to have effectively ceased to exist upon the coming into being of the universe - not even a watchmaker god, but indeed a former god, a non-god, an ex-god, and an un-being.

Thirdly, Creationism is useless even as a guideline for science: it can make no predictions, so it isn't testable. Even more basic, it can't even explain the evidence currently in existence -- the fossil record, the crystal deformation that gives the age of some mountains, the flip-flopping of the earth's magnetic field, and many more items have to be tossed into a bin labeled "God did it", there to gather dust.

Well here we agree on the uselessness of creationism as a statement about reality. Would it have any value as a literary device? I dunno - I don't mind poetry but I like my metaphors to at least not conflict with reality.

But doing that cripples science, because it throws away material that should be leading us to other things -- and as many a scientist who is a devout Christian has noted, God did it" explains nothing, because what science ought to be about is discovering how God did it.

That would be the most perverse corruption of the scientific legacy imaginable. Science can't have an agenda for "discovering how god did it" when it can quite properly consider the question of whether any kind of god even existed to do it. It is not too timid, and it is not too limited, to explore that question, if only we can keep science out of the clutches of those pushing a religious agenda.

So there's really no point in doing what the videos do, dredging up disjointed snippets and chunks of material and portraying them -- spinning them -- to make religion look silly; indeed, that's counter-productive. For all the author's claim to be appealing to the "sheep", what he's really doing is driving them away by tossing insult after insult -- and for the moderately knowledgeable ones, the sloppy thinking and misrepresentations discredit him no matter what valid points are buried in the deluge of claims and information.

Again, you don't take the opportunity to educate people about what supposedly constitutes this sloppy thinking and misrepresentation. Again, I suppose it is because you have no answer to thinking which isn't quite that sloppy after all.

 

[Kulindahr]

How so specifically?

I suppose I'll have to go back and listen to some of that. <gag>

I've heard that there are a number of scientists who are religious, and probably some who belief in ID. But from what I've read, the overwhelming majority reject it. What evidence is there for a designer?

One of the most commonly given has to do with information theory -- which is one of those things I understand while I'm reading, but ask me five minutes later what it said and I can't explain it. Another has to do with the apparent fine tuning of the universe to have life. There are more -- Dr. Miller says there's lots, and I wish I could hear his list.

It doesn't correspond nicely. The Big Bang posits an initial "singularity," which is a physical state which may have antecedents, but those antecedents are specifically disclaimed from having any effect on what followed, or even any meaning for that which followed.

Exactly -- you just explained why it does correspond nicely: it's a radical phase change from... something, and relative to our universe nothing existed previously. That's exactly what creation ex nihilo, the common understanding of Genesis since about 600 B.C., is saying.

Either there was no context for the big bang, divine or otherwise, or any pre-existing context was of necessity utterly irrelevant. The most it might permit is for a creator god to have effectively ceased to exist upon the coming into being of the universe - not even a watchmaker god, but indeed a former god, a non-god, an ex-god, and an un-being.

Speculative physicists these days would disagree with you; they play with conjectural possibilities of what preceded the Big Bang, and how such would give us the constants the universe now has.

As for the second, that's an example of the sloppy thinking going on. In order to make those claims, you're operating on some concept of God that you've imagined, rather than looking at what the (alleged) data of the Bible has to say. That's a really idiotic approach for a scientist, when science is about following the data -- and when this is being considered, the Bible has to be treated as the data for who/what God is.

Well here we agree on the uselessness of creationism as a statement about reality. Would it have any value as a literary device? I dunno - I don't mind poetry but I like my metaphors to at least not conflict with reality.

The existence of a Creator doesn't conflict with reality in any way, unless you impose your own definition of what it means to be a creator -- a definition designed to exclude one a priori, without any investigation. I have a brother who is a mathematician who says that many versions of a creator can be described mathematically as regards their relationship to the universe, among those being a creator who became the universe, one who sliced off the universe and left it alone, one who merely watches, one who pokes around in it from time to time, or one who continuously generates it at every point. Given that he finished the accelerated doctoral program in advanced mathematics at Berkeley in just over a year, and then tutored candidates for their orals, I tend to believe him about math.

That would be the most perverse corruption of the scientific legacy imaginable. Science can't have an agenda for "discovering how god did it" when it can quite properly consider the question of whether any kind of god even existed to do it. It is not too timid, and it is not too limited, to explore that question, if only we can keep science out of the clutches of those pushing a religious agenda.

Well, Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Boyle, Mendel, and lots of others would disagree with you. I like Einstein's way of putting it best, that science is the effort to think God's thoughts after Him.

BTW, did you forget to put a negative or two in there? As it stands, your statement is asserting that science can find whether there is a God/god.

Again, you don't take the opportunity to educate people about what supposedly constitutes this sloppy thinking and misrepresentation. Again, I suppose it is because you have no answer to thinking which isn't quite that sloppy after all.

Well, you've given an example of sloppy thinking. The video abounds in them, and I didn't include any because the topic is about the silliness of Creationism, not about what's wrong with the videos.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've heard that there are a number of scientists who are religious, and probably some who belief in ID. But from what I've read, the overwhelming majority reject it. What evidence is there for a designer?

I got to thinking about this after my first response, and wanted to add something.

I don't know of any scientists who accept Intelligent Design as science. As I pointed out, ID (in the version before the Creationists hijacked it) is believed to be a conclusion that can be reached by science, but which is not itself science. An example comes to mind of tire marks on a curved road: one can conclude that the car's vector was such that the tires' traction was insufficient, so it slid and left marks -- but one cannot then conclude what its speed was, what kind of car it was, or who was driving. In other words, science can get you to a certain point, but not beyond it.

 

[Kulindahr]

I went back to revisit them, and part way into the second one it suddenly announced "this video is no longer available".

The first video isn't bad; it starts getting a little bit snide with the bits about magic, but the difference between that and the creation in the Bible isn't something a layman would understand much more than most people understand evolution, so... no big deal.

But in the second one he starts operating on a priori assumptions, which is always a bad idea; it's about the same as the folks who didn't believe Pasteur about disease, because they assumed from the start that there couldn't be such things as creatures they couldn't see with the unaided eye. So he ends up talking about all holy books as just "myths written about God, by men", and "men wrote all the scriptures pretending to speak for God". Any time you depend on a priori assumptions rather than being open to the material being studied you've disqualified your results from the start; it's no different here, and it also results in totally misrepresenting religion and showing that he has a closed mind from the start.
On that topic he further asserts that "if there were really just one true God it should be the singular composite of every religion's gods", which shows ignorance of his subject matter; the various claims to be revelation have such contradictions among them that the only way to get a composite God out of them all would be to have a deity suffering from multiple personality disorder -- not the glowing figure he goes on to portray. This is just very crappy thinking, reducing a complex subject to, well, a slogan, a sound bite -- just what the Creationists do, as he claims reasonably accurately in the first video. He pursues this line of thinking with the claim that "if such a God ever wrote a book, there would only be one such document, dominant everywhere, with no predecessors or alternatives" -- which again is an imposition of his own preconceived notions and definitions on the subject matter, rather than addressing the subject matter and finding out what it has to say. That's a very unscientific approach, again delivering false and misleading information. Then he claims that "the only logical probability is that [the holy books] all are [deceived], at least to some degree". That's never the sole logical possibility, nor is it a valid conclusion even from the distorted information he presented.

That's where the video cut out; I've tried, and can't get it to play again. But as I remember watching more, the other videos kept on in this same light, basically assuming that if God exists, He must have certain attributes and work in certain ways, without any reason given for saying so, and operating on the assumption that all religion is meaningless. That's a real disappointment after the excellent quality of most of the first video -- and in fact he shifts from tackling Creationism to attacking religion, which is a departure from his stated purpose.

Sloppy, biased.

 

[WillMc88]

I don't know of any scientists who accept Intelligent Design as science. As I pointed out, ID (in the version before the Creationists hijacked it) is believed to be a conclusion that can be reached by science, but which is not itself science. An example comes to mind of tire marks on a curved road: one can conclude that the car's vector was such that the tires' traction was insufficient, so it slid and left marks -- but one cannot then conclude what its speed was, what kind of car it was, or who was driving. In other words, science can get you to a certain point, but not beyond it.

I understand what you're trying to say, but that's not a very good analogy for Creationism (or ID if you prefer). The reason we could recognize the cause of the tire tracks is because we know what a tire is, and we know that it can cause such tracks.

I'm assuming you're meaning to equate that with seeing something natural and knowing there must a creator, yet not knowing how this creator created this natural thing. The analogy already presumes that a creator exists, so it doesn't really work.