|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Church attitudes to creationism
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
A mistaken, even wacky view of the Bible is pardonable. What is less pardonable is deliberate and continued deception.
There is no doubt in my mind that organisations such as Ken Ham's ply their trade of deception for immoral reasons. Their refusal to even consider other evidence taken alongside their determination to pass off their unreasoned views as science, confirm that, deep down, they know that they are wrong.
But it has become a lucrative industry for them, which in the right circles has provided them with prestige. How difficult for someone so bound by sin to change.
What all church organisations should be saying is that YEC is a deception. But I don't suppose there's much chance of them doing anything useful like that!
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
I will look into it and see what I find....I admit for the moment that a google search comes up with not one creationist webpage adressing this specific issues.
If you do, you can post it on the relevant Dead Horses thread and then maybe we could take that discussion off there, as Scot has indicated.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
......
What all church organisations should be saying is that YEC is a deception. But I don't suppose there's much chance of them doing anything useful like that!
Some people believe YEC is an important theological point. Are you suggesting they are willfully self-deceptive and should not believe?
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
What is less pardonable is deliberate and continued deception.
There is no doubt in my mind that organisations such as Ken Ham's ply their trade of deception for immoral reasons.
Now, I think that is going too far. I do think that YEC is wrong, but Ham et al are not deliberately deceiving people. As I said early, YEC isn't something taken in isolation. It is dependant on an understanding of the Bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of God. When that is your view of Scripture then your whole faith position stands on a requirement that the Bible is beyond doubt. If all you have is Scripture then you get into the whole "if you reject one bit where do you stop?" problem. This view doesn't only require YEC but a literal Exodus with plagues, God commanding the Israelites to commit genocide, all miracles to be actual miraculous events etc.
When you get yourself into the corner that leaves you with Inerrancy or nothing to base the Christian faith on then you're going to defend that position against all opposition - including biology and geology that show beyond doubt that the YEC position is scientifically untenable.
People who accept the YEC position are quite possibly deceived (unintentionally I'd say) but they're committed to truth as they see it - it's just that they judge scientific truth in the light of what they consider to be the more important Biblical truth.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Sticking to the topic, isn't it true that The Church should have *no* attitude toward any scientific theory? When has it ever happened that a scientist put forward a theory, a theologian has said, "you better check your facts because it would conflict with sound theology" and the result has been, sure 'nuff, theology has corrected science? When has sound theology ever overturned a scientific theory?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Some people believe YEC is an important theological point. Are you suggesting they are willfully self-deceptive and should not believe?
Here are the possibilities as I see them:
- They have deceived themselves completely and are inadvertanly deceiving others.
- They have partially decieved themselves but know deep down that they are wrong but refuse to admit it.
- They are well aware that they are wrong but are making a packet out of it.
The first is unlikely, given the fact that they flatly refuse to look at the evidence in any objective way. The second is the kindest possible interpretation. The third is the most likely IMO.
Alan,
Even coming from the illogical presupposition of inerrancy a person has to be ignorant of scientific research or dishonest to hold and proclaim YEC as true. In the case of Ham et al, they can't possibly be ignorant, so they are being dishonest.
And the church should have the guts to say so.
Science itself may not be the church's province, but speaking out against those who decieve people, most certainly is. If science is not the church's province then the church should be speaking out against YEC for that very reason. Either way we should not remain silent.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
Priest: I'm not sure that I fully understood your original point. I thought that you were suggesting that man is a separate creation, whilst it seems to me that the currently available evidence strongly suggests that man shares a common ancestor with other animals, including the neanderthal and the cro-magnon. In terms of God's creativity, I have no problem with seeing these as variations on a theme.
Bonzo: if I were to apply the same standard to you that you apply to those who endorse YEC, then I might say that you wilfully and dishonestly underestimate peoples capacity to filter whatever conflicts with their presuppositions. Have you ever actually discussed this subject with any of them?
Given the prerequisite of inerrancy, it is a quite logical conclusion to come to, and to suggest that to do so is to be dishonest is verging on the offensive.
You say that self-deception is not possible if people are not being objective. So in other words, people are only self-deluded when they are making an accurate assessment of a situation. I'm afraid that does not compute. Please try again.
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Porter-Miller
Tiocfaidh Separabit
# 1459
|
Posted
What I read in a creationist magazine - could it be that famous one "Creation Ex Nihlio"? - was to me a complete bending of a literal versus something else kind of interpretation. It went as follows (I believe the article was written by Ken Ham himself).
Ken was saddened to see that Charles Darwin was given a tomb/memorial in Westminster Abbey. This saddened him so much so that it was suggested if the foundations of the church are being destroyed what can the righteous do?
There it was if you bury/memorialise evolutionists in church grounds the foundations are destroyed ----- warped logic to the extreme?
By the way I do have two of his books on my bookshelf together with "Christian Rock Music - IS IT?" by Jeff Godwin just incase you think I'm a real extremist ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posts: 1231 | From: Washington, D.C. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I agree with Bonzo that there is much wilful misrepresentation in the writings of YECs. It's similar to the way some politicians and journalists are selective with the evidence they refer to in support of their opinions.
I think it's dishonest, but not so unusual. Most of us are guilty of this sort of dishonesty at times, and often unwittingly. 'Friendly' evidence just comes to mind more easily.
The trouble with YECs is that their argument has been clearly and repeatedly lost in the public arena. Their persistence, not in the face of disagreement, but in corners away from that disagreement, is the really deceitful thing.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Even coming from the illogical presupposition of inerrancy a person has to be ignorant of scientific research or dishonest to hold and proclaim YEC as true. In the case of Ham et al, they can't possibly be ignorant, so they are being dishonest.
For a start I wouldn't call inerrancy illogical. Wrong, yes. Not the way the Bible seems to refer to itself, yes. But not illogical. And hardly unique, it's not really that different to the way muslims view the Koran for example.
Are proponents of YEC ignorant of science? Well, many in the grass roots may be - especially if their only knowledge of science is from Creationist literature. And quite often if you go to bulletin boards dedicated to discussions on Evolution and Creation you will find that people do repeat mis-understandings of science that are as old as the hills.
But those who are leaders in the Creationist movement can hardly be ignorant - my experience is that whenever I've heard them talk there's always been a few knowledgable folk to tell them what science says on the subject. They aren't ignorant, they're simply not convinced that the arguments of science are stronger than their arguments from Scripture.
quote:
And the church should have the guts to say so.
The church should have the guts to be more vocal in disputing the errors of Creationism. And, perhaps more importantly, showing people that there are other valid methods of understanding Scripture other than inerrancy that still maintain the authority of the Bible and the integrity of it's teaching. But accusing people who hold different opinions of deliberately setting out to deceive hardly seems an appropriate response - it's merely going to fuel the dispute.
Remember, Creationists are just as likely to accuse us of holding an illogical view of fallible Scripture and deliberately setting out to deceive believers by peddling the lie of evolution. Throwing insults back and forth does no one any favours, and that is the one attitude to Creationism I don't think the Church can have.
Alan
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Given the prerequisite of inerrancy, it is a quite logical conclusion to come to, and to suggest that to do so is to be dishonest is verging on the offensive.
You say that self-deception is not possible if people are not being objective. So in other words, people are only self-deluded when they are making an accurate assessment of a situation. I'm afraid that does not compute. Please try again.
Very well I'll try again
'Given the prerequisite of inerrancy' and 'logical' cannot go together in the same sentence.
What makes it dishonest deception is that in the face of huge quantities of scientific evidence to the contrary, they argue, not by stating their pre-requisite and admitting that they are unprepared to examine the science, but by insisting that science supports their argument. They deliberately tell only one side of the story and they aim this deliberately distorted view at ill informed young Christians rather than the scientific arena.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Remember, Creationists are just as likely to accuse us of holding an illogical view of fallible Scripture and deliberately setting out to deceive believers by peddling the lie of evolution. Throwing insults back and forth does no one any favours, and that is the one attitude to Creationism I don't think the Church can have.
Well I don't agree, Alan. By this argument Jesus did himself no favours when he called the Pharisees 'Blind Guides!'. When it becomes obvious that people are saying something with a deliberate intention to mislead we should call a spade a spade! The Pharisees counter accused Jesus, saying he was a blasphemer. But at least Jesus declared where he stood and was associated with the truth rather than diplomacy.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
As I mentioned earlier, I grew up in a creationist church.
Alan, I think you've done a great job of explaining why people sincerely hold these views. As both of us have said, creationism is part of their understanding of the Bible, which they believe to be a manual direct from God--and that makes it part of the foundation of their lives. If you mess with any part of it, the rest may come tumbling down.
How many people really want to question the foundations of their lives? What's most important in you life? If the rest of the world questioned it, would you hold on to it or give it up?
As to objectivity, IME few people are ever really objective, including scientists. Even if they're trying to be objective, they bring assumptions to the table that they may not even realize. Once scientists hold a theory, they can be very tenacious about it! (And I mean any theory, not just evolution.)
How many mainstream scientists, if they found evidence that pointed in the direction of biblical creation, would dare admit it to themselves--let alone say anything? They'd get a better reaction if they said they talked with aliens in their backyards every night!
I'm just saying that the situation isn't as simple as purposely deceptive creationists and saintly scientists.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by golden key:
How many people really want to question the foundations of their lives?
I couldn't say how many want to, but I want to. It's what being a Christian is about.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Ok, Hatless. But now that you are a Christian...if the entire world tried to pull apart your faith AND you still felt Christianity was true, would you stick with it?
That's the position in which creationists find themselves.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I've got to take you to task here, golden key:
quote:
How many mainstream scientists, if they found evidence that pointed in the direction of biblical creation, would dare admit it to themselves--let alone say anything? They'd get a better reaction if they said they talked with aliens in their backyards every night!
I'm just saying that the situation isn't as simple as purposely deceptive creationists and saintly scientists.
I've been around and in science since I worked in my uncle's biochem labs in the 1960's. If any scientist found real and worthwhile evidence of creation they would be eager to bust the story. If scientists have a fault it is desire for fame.
Also, scientists want to be correct. To a fault; they are as perfectionist as Father Gregory was. To avoid being wrong, scientists will instantly toss precious theories the instant hard and conclusive evidence is presented. No scientist wants to be wrong for a minute. Look at relativity. "Time is dependent on speed," says Einstein. "Baloney!" cry the sceptical scientists, brainwashed by Newton. "Here is the evidence," he says. "My God (pardon the expression) you're 100% right. Newton had it right except for light speed!" The list goes on. Matter can collapse to a point and form a "black hole" from which no light can escape. One day it's poppycock and the next day it's proven.
Finally, scientists are individualistic to a fault and love to piss off their competitors; they don't worry about whether they are going to take heat unless their data has holes in it. If they have solid data, they go public, period. Even if it means something incredible like time is dependent on speed and nobody scientist or not, is going to believe them.
If the evidence is ambiguous or tentative they will be stubborn as mules before they switch theories. That is not because they are closed-minded or fearful of other's opinions. It is because they know how easy it is to be fooled by partial evidence and partial explanations.
I will grant that individual scientists do not have 100% objectivity. That's why there are millions of them to check each other. They have a point of view which rejects the supernatural, but the competition and desire for being correct prevents mass delusion, subconscious conspiracies, or mutual brainwashing.
Your quote indicates that you've spent more time reading what non-scientists say about scientists than being in the company of natural scientists doing their research. There is a Nobel prize in it for any scientist to prove that the Bible is right after all.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Your quote indicates that you've spent more time reading what non-scientists say about scientists than being in the company of natural scientists doing their research.
Quite true. I haven't had the good fortune to be in their company! FWIW, I have listened to many interviews and watched many quality (IMHO) science shows. From what I've heard from many scientists, in their own words, they often strongly resist new ideas. And they want to believe they're Right.
Which makes them like just about every other human on the planet.
I don't mean *any* disrespect to scientists. I just think that they're subject to the same weaknesses as the rest of us, and that needs to be taken into consideration.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
On this we agree: scientists strongly resist new ideas. It's actually worse than that. Scientists automatically assume that any new theory is 100% wrong. That is part of the scientific method. There were very bitter opponents to evolution from inside the scientific community for decades, notably Louis Aggasiz. He fought evolution to his dying breath. But his arguments failed and the "resistent to change scientists" eventually were forced to accept the new theory as the best explanation for the origin of life despite their original incredulity, often based on their religious upbringing.
quote:
One of the great scientists of his day, and one of the "founding fathers" of the modern American scientific tradition, Louis Agassiz remains something of a historical enigma. A great systematist and paleontologist, a renowned teacher and tireless promoter of science in America, he was also a lifelong opponent of Darwin's theory of evolution. Yet even his most critical attacks on evolution have provided evolutionary biologists with insights.
The quote comes from this site.
"God created Man from the dust of the earth and blew into this nostrils the breath of life" is not something new that scientists resist. It is something that scientists used to literally believe and were forced to reject due to the evidence.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kevin Iga
Shipmate
# 4396
|
Posted
Though I have never been to the UK or Australia, so I can't make comparisons, it is my impression that young-earth creationism is a predominantly US phenomenon. I certainly knew many young-earth creationists growing up, and I know a few now.
Let me clarify. There is a spectrum of belief, and the belief you described characterizes the extreme. Here's the continuum, roughly:
1. God created the world in six 24-hour periods, rested on the 7th. We are here roughly 6000 years later.
2. The "roughly 6000 years" can be as much as 10,000 years.
3. The days can be somewhat longer, like 1000 years (the most popular alternative), but certainly not millions of years. Perhaps the 6th day is 7000 years and we are still in it.
4. The days are indeterminate in length. Perhaps billions of years--who knows?
5. The events in Genesis 1 happened an indeterminate amount of time in the past. The timing can be as science says, but the methods are not.
6. God could have used evolution and stellar formation and so on to some extent, but the specific days correspond to supernatural interventions. So the first fish were supernaturally created, then could evolve to other kinds; then later beasts of the field were created supernaturally, etc.
7. Genesis 1 can in some sense be viewed as inerrantly correct, and evolution is fine. Literal Adam and Eve, etc., numerous explanations on how pieces of evolution story fit with Genesis 1-4.
8. Beyond that, the rest, which I collapse into one point because it is not the focus of this thread. Metaphorical understanding of Genesis to anti-creationists to understanding Adam and Eve as prototypical/archetypical, etc. Lots of different views here.
I know lots of people in the first 5 categories. I'm not sure I know anyone in the 1st category. Personally, I sympathize with some of category 7 but am mostly in category 8.
I had a friend growing up who was Jehovah's Witnesses and he was certain about young earth creationism: category 2 or 3. Since we were both young (though precocious) I'd imagine he was just saying what he was taught in church.
Young Earth Creationism is an American phenomenon. It has its roots in the late 19th century urban revivals, and reaction to modernism. This modernism manifested itself with ideas from Freud, Nietzche, Marx, Darwin, and modern Biblical criticism in Wellhausen, etc., and in social changes like industrialization, urbanization, and concentration of wealth. But most of all, it was minimizing the traditional views of the Bible in favor of scientific and modern ideas. Some felt the academics in charge of the Church were leading everyone astray into modernism and then (it was assumed) secularism.
America was culturally close to, but physically far from the source of the new ideas: Europe. Furthermore, there were many more different independent congregations and those that were part of a larger denomination were still staunchly independent of them. These congregations were primarily driven by the less-educated local population, who were concerned with bringing people to Christ more than squaring doctrine with science or current philosophical trends. They were supported by para-church organizations that had many of the same kinds of people, and who went from church to church, and were thus able to spread trends quickly. So the US was the perfect setting for the backlash against modernism and liberalism. This gave rise to fundamentalism in the early decades of the 20th century. In the 1920s, fundamentalism became more and more focused on evolution in particular.
This was also the time when many non-religious scientists were also criticizing evolution, and supporters of evolution were coming up with answers to this criticism. By 1930 or so, the scientific community had satisfied itself about evolution and felt its critiques were answered.
But given the timing with the rise of fundamentalism, evolution seemed like an easy target for creationists at the time. (Some of the old pre-1930 arguments against evolution are still circulated in creationist circles as if no one answered them). It was also a time when Darwinian evolution was linked with Eugenics and social Darwinism, which made it a particularly important target.
The Scopes "Monkey" trial in 1925 (where a teacher was prosecuted for teaching evolution) was the first in a series of embarassments for the fundamentalists, after which fundamentalism declined in popularity, though evolution was still not popular.
In the wake of the social upheaval of the 1960s, there was another conservative backlash, with fundamentalists leading the charge but also joined with a broader evangelical audience. When prayer in school was banned, there was a sense among evangelicals that we needed to reclaim the schools for God. This brought back up the topic of creationism in the classroom. But with a twist.
You see, the rulings that banned prayer in the schools were based on the principle of separation of church and state. If creation and evolution were both viewed as scientific theories, both on the same footing, then they could argue that schools ought to teach both. And viewing both as religious in basic assumption gives you the power to say that teaching only evolution is tantamount to the state taking sides in religion, in this case, against Christianity.
So in the 1970s was born Creation Science. The goal was two-fold: to develop creationism as a scientific theory (and build scientific evidence for it) and to expose the religious or at least metaphysical underpinnings of Darwinian evolution.
So the roots of anti-evolutionary creationism, and in the case you cite, young-earth creationism, are specifically US, based on our historical situation.
Kevin
--------------------
Presbyterian /prez.bi.ti'.ri.en/ n. One who believes the governing authorities of the church should be called "presbyters".
Posts: 521 | From: Pepperdine University | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Kevin--
I grew up with ideas 1-3, and a smattering of 4. I'm familiar with the rest, and a few more.
[tangent]
RC novelist Dorothy Sayers played with an interesting idea in an essay (and she was *not* trying to say it was true, just playing with it). When she wrote novels, the characters had built-in prior experiences that didn't take place in the chronology of the story. E.g., Lord Peter Wimsey, one of her characters, was an adult in the stories--but he'd had a childhood.
Anyway, DS posited God might have done something similar--i.e., created the world with built-in prior experiences of dinosaurs, etc.
[/tangent]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
To avoid being wrong, scientists will instantly toss precious theories the instant hard and conclusive evidence is presented. No scientist wants to be wrong for a minute.
<snip>
If the evidence is ambiguous or tentative they will be stubborn as mules before they switch theories.
Thomas Kuhn described this tendancy as a paradigm - a set of theories, models and assumptions into which it is expected that all data will fit. Scientists do, generally, work in paradigms (there will always be a few outside the fold) which they will resist substantially changing. However, eventually as more and more data that doesn't fit the paradigm is accumulated the system fails to hold together and a new paradigm that better describes and explains the data is adopted - a paradigm shift. The adoption of Quantum Physics and Relativity could be described in these terms. Scientists don't propose entirely different theories without good cause - they're much more likely to tinker with existing theories for as long as possible. I see no evidence of Evolution being replaced at all - though there is still a lot of minor tinkering going on.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Iga:
Let me clarify. There is a spectrum of belief, and the belief you described characterizes the extreme. Here's the continuum, roughly:
You missed out one position (should be between 2 and 3 I'd say), namely that in Genesis 1 the earth became formless and void so there was a gap of indeterminate length between the formation of the earth and the 7 days during which the geological column complete with dinosaurs was laid down.
quote:
This gave rise to fundamentalism in the early decades of the 20th century. In the 1920s, fundamentalism became more and more focused on evolution in particular.
Interestingly none of the authors of the Fundamentals were YECs (category 1 or 2), they had a range of "Old Earth Creationist" opinions on the subject - day=age (category 4-6), gap theory (what I just added to your list) and even theistic evolution (would be an option within category 8). Though they all considered the creation of humanity as a special event.
quote:
The Scopes "Monkey" trial in 1925 (where a teacher was prosecuted for teaching evolution) was the first in a series of embarassments for the fundamentalists, after which fundamentalism declined in popularity, though evolution was still not popular.
To be precise, the Scopes trial was about the teaching of the evolution of humans rather than evolution per se - the prosecuters of the case were closely aligned with the authors of the Fundamentals on this. Evolution of animals wasn't important, what was important was that humans are different and have a uniquely divine origin.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Collins
Shipmate
# 41
|
Posted
I don't think "dishonesty" is too strong a word for the Answers in Genesis people myself. There is an abundance of material on their pages which has been refuted many times, where they very selectively quote people (without links or references to enable the quotes to be seen in context) and so forth.
A particular example which springs to mind as the subject interests me is Supernovae and the "remnants" - i.e. the rubble and debris after a star has exploded. This is said to go through various stages many thousands of years (about 5 minutes on the astronomical timescale!) apart.
Of course having any "third stage" or later remnants is a bit inconvienient for a YEC so Sarfati says in this page in AiG the following as a final statement in large bold print (having said it numerous other times as well) quote:
There are actually no third stage SNRs observed in our galaxy!
Yet this is not true - see in particular the extremely comprehensive analysis here.
I don't see how Sarfati can be unaware of this yet that page has stuck there unchanged for years as have numerous other pages of misinformation. There are various examples of where Christians have written with criticism of parts of those pages and have had extremely ungracious replies. (I even wrote myself and got an ad hominem reply by Sarfati posted on their pages. They even changed their colour coding of question and reply, which I had criticised as being confusing, for my benefit).
Obviously I'm not saying that all YECs are dishonest and offensive but there is abundant evidence to my mind that people such as AiG are.
--------------------
John Collins
Posts: 179 | From: Welwyn Garden City, Herts | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
A particular example which springs to mind as the subject interests me is Supernovae and the "remnants" - i.e. the rubble and debris after a star has exploded. This is said to go through various stages many thousands of years (about 5 minutes on the astronomical timescale!) apart.
You know this is part of what gets me.
To support YEC you not only have to ditch modern biology and geology and parts of physics but also you need to ditch modern astronomy.
From about the time I was 12 I was fascinated by astronomy and soon knew that light from very distant objects such as quasars had to travel billions of light years to reach us and that the development of stars and galaxies happened over huge timescales.
When I encountered Creationism I automatically pegged creationists as loonies and Christianity as whacko because I associated it with the sort of people who espoused creationism - it has a huge negative evangelical effect.
Churches need to take a strong line against it for this sort of reason - for every person it can attract, it drives many away. When I was at university I was very interested in religion but for a long time completely dismissed Christianity because I associated it with stuff like creationism.
I can't tell you how angry it makes me to see people push this sort of thing as integral to Christianity.
Perhaps the situation is different in America where it has a kind of 'critical mass' in some areas, so you'd be more likely to find intelligent people who believe it because they've been brought up to believe it, but over here in GB I think it's not generally accepted anywhere (unless it has a few strongholds in the Western Isles).
It depresses me lots to see people trying to teach it in schools in Britain. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You missed out one position (should be between 2 and 3 I'd say), namely that in Genesis 1 the earth became formless and void so there was a gap of indeterminate length between the formation of the earth and the 7 days during which the geological column complete with dinosaurs was laid down.
That was probably the majority opinion amongst the minority of evangelicals (IYSWIM) opposed to the usual scientific views back in the 1970s & 80s when I last came across many such people in real life.
It has at least the benefit of allowing us to believe the evidence of our eyes. As do the various "old earth" ideas of successive creations that were the main opposition to evolutionary ideas in the 19th century.
The idea that the earth is old has been around for a long time - probably as long as people have thought about it - but became generally accepted in the very early 19th century - before Darwin & the general acceptance of evolution. So the Gap theories and successive creation theories became popular back then. Goes along with the Scofield Reference Bible & dispensationalism.
I think you are a little too generous to some of the YEC people. I don't know anything about Ken Ham or the AiG other than what I saw on their website the other day. But it is, it seems to me from that brief view, close to lying.
Not - using the British tabloid press as a metaphor for lying - blatant Daily Mail type lying, but Sun type lying.
For the benefit of those lucky enough to never have read the British tabloids, the Daily Mail has sometimes been caught out with direct lying. Usually a day or two before a general election. For example they might print that such-and-such a Labour politician had been bribed - and the day after the election retract the story without evidence (I've seen that twice). The Sun will find (and often pay) someone else to say that the politician took bribes, and print the story as "so-and-so says such-and-such took the bribe". Subtle, eh?
Anyway, the AiG site has all sorts of things along the lines of: "We talked to a prominent Hebrew scholar who said that it was impossible that the first chapter of Genesis could mean anything other than normal 24 hour days".
No doubt they did. Most people have probably always taken them to mean that, and if they believed the Bible to be true therefore . But as the people putting the website up know perfectly well, at least a large minority of biblical scholars - going way back to the time of Christ - thought that Genesis 1 supported an old earth.
Nowadays we see that the minority view looks right, because the earth indeed looks old (despite the stupid anecdotes aboput Australian opal miners & carpenters going on about stalactites that AiG bring up - aside thought - maybe these guys often seem to come from Texas or the US midwest or Australia because of the relatively simple geology of those places - I'd like to see them explain the relatively complex landscape of the British Isles, where my home town sits on top of a heap of chalk a kilometre thick and you can drive in an afternoon across the geological column from the Recent back to the Precambrian (minus a big chunk of Jurassic) - heck, a fit person could do it in a day on a bicycle) So we know which of the old scholars interpreted the Bible correctly. It is like the Biblical test for whether a prophet is from God or not.
Sticking to discussing the churches attitude to YEC, rather than the truth or falsity of YEC, what makes me angry is the theological implications of the thing. They make the world a sort of VR, a working model of a world rather than a real world. This is I think unchristian, it brings the Church into disrepute, is dishonouring to God, and tends to diminish the truth of the Incarnation.
I suspect, though I don't know, that they will tend to doubt the reality of the incarnation. Either by Arianising; or by hyper-spiritualising, making the physical world into an illusion or at any rate something of unimportance. I woudln;t be surprised if Turn your eyes upon Jesus is one of their favourite songs.
Another supposition. Heresies tend to creep into the Church through the back door as a reaction to other religions & philosophies. For example, famously, in rejecting Gnosticism & Manicheism, the late Roman Fathers (usually & unfairly summed up as "Augustine" - he was neither the only one nor the worst one) imported a lot of it into Christianity, where it still hangs around in dark corners and bites us every now & again.
I wonder if some of the novelties of 20th century US fundamentalism are either imports from, or reactions to, the Mormons? Does anyone know if the Mormons are officially YECs, or if YEC is common amongst them?
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by golden key:
RC novelist Dorothy Sayers played with an interesting idea in an essay (and she was *not* trying to say it was true, just playing with it). When she wrote novels, the characters had built-in prior experiences that didn't take place in the chronology of the story. E.g., Lord Peter Wimsey, one of her characters, was an adult in the stories--but he'd had a childhood.
Anyway, DS posited God might have done something similar--i.e., created the world with built-in prior experiences of dinosaurs, etc.
And there was I thinking Sayers was an Anglican. Not that I know. Maybe I'm getting her confused with Rose Macaulay or someone.
Anyway, that idea is older than her. Best known from Philip Gosse's "Omphalos" in the 1850s - which is a much better argument than it is usually held out to be. It is - and was - almost universally mocked, but he talks a lot of sense. Undisprovable of course.
If they were honest the YECs would admit that that is in fact what they do believe. But, maybe because Gosse was so laughed out of court, they skirt round it.
And, if true, the Omphalos makes no difference whatsoever to the way we should do or teach science. All science, all knowledge of any kind, has the sort of implied rider: "I might be making this up" or "I might be the only being in the Universe and dreaming it all" or "I might be a simulation in some computer model and apparent reality is just the programming" or "I might be a character in someone else's dream".
Just like we used to talk about over coffee when we were in the sixth form.
But if true it makes no difference to how we do or teach science. If God Almighty has faked the world, he's probably done it pretty well, and it behooves us to live in the world we see, not the one we imagine might have been had God done it differently. And in studying such a world we are studying the mind of God - which Christians who are scientists makes the practice of science a kind of worship.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
Thanks for all your contributions to this thread.
Appears it's still pretty small in the UK, although the refers to Vardy trying to have it taught in schools is pretty worrying. As an evangelical I am embarrased to be equated with views such as this which have no serious scientific or theological basis.
I wonder who funds Answers in Genesis and their ilk. They have very impressive websites and publications (the presentation I mean NOT the content). Does anyone know?
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Collins
Shipmate
# 41
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian S:
I wonder who funds Answers in Genesis and their ilk. They have very impressive websites and publications (the presentation I mean NOT the content). Does anyone know?
I believe they are connected with "Gospelcom" which has Mr DeVos of Scamway fame on its board.
If you poke around sites about Scamway like this you should find the refs.
--------------------
John Collins
Posts: 179 | From: Welwyn Garden City, Herts | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stubble
Apprentice
# 4240
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Sticking to discussing the churches attitude to YEC, rather than the truth or falsity of YEC, what makes me angry is the theological implications of the thing. They make the world a sort of VR, a working model of a world rather than a real world. This is I think unchristian, it brings the Church into disrepute, is dishonouring to God, and tends to diminish the truth of the Incarnation.
I suspect, though I don't know, that they will tend to doubt the reality of the incarnation. Either by Arianising; or by hyper-spiritualising, making the physical world into an illusion or at any rate something of unimportance. I woudln;t be surprised if Turn your eyes upon Jesus is one of their favourite songs.
As I said before the church I attend is creationist and have in the past hosted AiG events. However I don't see how your other points follow. They also preach that we live in a real physical but sin-cursed world, that Christ was fully man and fully God, died, was resurrected, ascended and will return bodily to claim his kingdom. I don't see any contradiction in these positions indeed they approach all Scripture from what I would see as a consistent hermeneutic position, that the Scripture is true unless something in the text or elsewhere in Scripture says otherwise. I'm not sure I end up agreeing with them on every interpretation of what it all means and the application for our life, but it is a valid position to start from, surely.
My personal take on this is similar to the Sayers / (other guy whose name I can't remember) approach but is based more on my experience of working in a engineering environment.
This issue also ties in with different church's perception of why God created (by your method of choice) the earth and us in the first place. But that is probably a separate thread.
And though some people like it, I'm not a big fan of that particular song.
Posts: 16 | From: Scotland | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
'Given the prerequisite of inerrancy' and 'logical' cannot go together in the same sentence.
This is nonsense. Any a priori condition however illogical may be used as the basis of a logical argument. The very fact that a condition is a prerequisite immediately renders it unnecessary to apply logic to its evaluation.
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Big Steve
Ship's Navigator
# 3274
|
Posted
I come from a conservative church background in a conservative country - House churches, evangelical summer camps, "field services", etc, etc.
As someone who's 1/ read "Creation Ex-nihilo", 2/ been to a Ken Ham lecture, 3/ sent a Creation Science book to a former school science teacher, 4/ brought "Creation Ex-nihilo" books to my Christian Union in college and who 5/ now doesn't give a rats about origins other than believing that God was involved, I feel I am qualified to speak on the subject!
1/ Creation Ex-Nihilo pretends to be a scientific magazine, but it's only way of convincing readers of creation is by reducing science to the level of Children's cartoons. I remember a drawing of a Neanderthal man with a big bowler hat on, with the caption something like "Neanderthal men were normal humans. If this man were to pass you on the street he would look like any other man"
2/ Ken Ham is one of the most arrogant speakers I've ever had to listen to.
3/ For about 2 years I believed 7-day creation was one of the most important parts of Christianity. Am I stupid? No. Am I educated? Yes. Am I a scientist. No.
4/ Creation Science and Christian cults have a lot in common. They both take sections of the bible, declare them "the most important thing to believe first" and as a result completely miss the essence of what Christianity means. With creationists like Mr. Ham, the line is "If you don't believe in 7-day creation, you don't believe the bible and therefore your faith is a LIE, therefore you are a LIAR and you are DECEIVED".
5/ I gave up my strong belief in 7-day creation because all the Creation Science I read was rubbish and all the Creation Scientists I met were at least half mad.
--------------------
http://www.youtube.com/stephenhillmusic
Posts: 1269 | From: Dublin. | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Big Steve
Ship's Navigator
# 3274
|
Posted
P.S. Alan C - you have a very good understanding of the 7-day creation supporters which displays good understanding and rational thinking. Much more palatible than Bonzo's rash generalisations.
--------------------
http://www.youtube.com/stephenhillmusic
Posts: 1269 | From: Dublin. | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by golden key:
Ok, Hatless. But now that you are a Christian...if the entire world tried to pull apart your faith AND you still felt Christianity was true, would you stick with it?
That's the position in which creationists find themselves.
The entire world is trying to pull my faith apart! At least, the world is a strong challenge to my faith, and many people have good arguments against my faith (not least other Christians).
If I take my faith seriously I must engage with these challenges. I must consider the difficult arguments as thoroughly and fairly as possible. They might be right. I must consider the unpalatable truths about human nature and the suffering of others. That means, because it is faith and not certain truth, that I must live with many unanswered questions. My faith is on probation. Sometimes I think my faith has what it takes to come through it all, sometimes I doubt it. That's faith, isn't it? It has an open character.
Coleridge said something like: He who begins by loving Christianity more than the truth, proceeds by loving his sect more than Christianity, and ends by loving himself best of all.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Here are the possibilities as I see them:
- They have deceived themselves completely and are inadvertanly deceiving others.
- They have partially decieved themselves but know deep down that they are wrong but refuse to admit it.
- They are well aware that they are wrong but are making a packet out of it.
The first is unlikely, given the fact that they flatly refuse to look at the evidence in any objective way. The second is the kindest possible interpretation. The third is the most likely IMO.
Apply your three approaches to Christianity too; many have done it before. In fact, if you think somebody else's beliefs are false, you can apply these approaches to almost anything.
Bonzo, you ever actually sit down to a meal with the laity who sincerly believe this? They believe, sincerly. Are they wrong? Probably.
But these people's beliefs are sincere. Your calling their belief self-deception is not a proof that these people are self-deceiving themselves.
Heck, Bonzo, much of this world think we, being Christians, are self-deceiving. Because, as Hebrews says, faith is the evidence of things not seen.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
I think the mindset of many YE creationists can be summed up in Orwell's idea of "doublethink" in 1984:
quote:
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt.
Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc [English Socialism], since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing them and to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. Ultimately it is by means of doublethink that the Party has been able - and may, for all we know, continue to be able for thousands of years - to arrest the course of history.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Day
Ship's revolutionary
# 3630
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OgtheDim:
Apply your three approaches to Christianity too; many have done it before. In fact, if you think somebody else's beliefs are false, you can apply these approaches to almost anything.
Bonzo, you ever actually sit down to a meal with the laity who sincerly believe this? They believe, sincerly. Are they wrong? Probably.
But these people's beliefs are sincere. Your calling their belief self-deception is not a proof that these people are self-deceiving themselves.
Heck, Bonzo, much of this world think we, being Christians, are self-deceiving. Because, as Hebrews says, faith is the evidence of things not seen.
The problem is not what people believe, as we are all going to have different opinions on different aspects of our faith, but when people say you can't be a proper christian unless you take the bible literally / believe in a Young Earth and creationism. The creationists that I have met / know seem to be more judgemental of my christianity then others, which leads to stereotypical views about literallists.
I think it is also easier as a liberal christian to respect others views as christian, as you are coming from a different angle. As I said, there is no problem with people believing in a Young Earth, even with all the scientific evidence, the problem comes when some people claim to believe otherwise is wrong.
--------------------
My allotment blog
Posts: 6473 | From: My Sofa | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Can I point out one YEC'er I know was ushering on the weekend wearing sandals and his usual goofy grin? He's a nice guy; gives a darn about the world etc. Wrong on the dinosaurs? Yeah, but a nice guy and, as per usual, not the stereotypes hinted at on this thread.
All comes back to a particular thing God keeps pointing out to me: It's too easy for me to be judgemental until I get to know those I am being judgemental about. ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OgtheDim:
Can I point out one YEC'er I know was ushering on the weekend wearing sandals and his usual goofy grin? He's a nice guy; gives a darn about the world etc. Wrong on the dinosaurs? Yeah, but a nice guy and, as per usual, not the stereotypes hinted at on this thread.
Fair enough. I'd say that there is a vast difference, though, between Christians who believe YEC because they don't know any better and don't have the knowledge to call bullsh*t on AiG and the like, and the creationist pseudoscientists who engage in twisting of the facts.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Fair enough. I'd say that there is a vast difference, though, between Christians who believe YEC because they don't know any better and don't have the knowledge to call bullsh*t on AiG and the like, and the creationist pseudoscientists who engage in twisting of the facts.
I agree wholeheartedly with this.
How far do people have to go before we call them deceivers. What about the BNP (extreme right wing British National Party) who claim they are not racist and who post lies and half truths through peoples doors. We (mainly) seem happy to say that they are deceivers yet they believe passionately that they are right. Now I'm not saying AIG is in that league yet. But what they are doing uses the same methodology which is deception.
Whether or not their deception is deliberate or not (and my assesment is that most likely it is). The Church should be more active in speaking out against it.
Do a little exercise. Count up the number of times you have heard creationism claimed from the pulpit or in a speech or at a concert or Spring Harvest or whatever. Now count up the times you've heard it denounced in the same sort of places.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
'Given the prerequisite of inerrancy' and 'logical' cannot go together in the same sentence.
Reply by Ham n Eggs
This is nonsense. Any a priori condition however illogical may be used as the basis of a logical argument. The very fact that a condition is a prerequisite immediately renders it unnecessary to apply logic to its evaluation.
You are technically correct. But you are well aware that the a priori position is completely bobbins and you know that's what I'm trying to say. Whether or not you can pursue a logical argument from such a position, there's very little reasonable point in doing so. Let's leave the semantics and get on with the discussion.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
You are technically correct. But you are well aware that the a priori position is completely bobbins and you know that's what I'm trying to say. Whether or not you can pursue a logical argument from such a position, there's very little reasonable point in doing so. Let's leave the semantics and get on with the discussion.
This is precisely the approach that many atheists of the Richard Dawkins school would take towards Christianity.
Why should it be wrong for them, and right for you?
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
I do have to say that there seems to be substantial inconsistency on the part of those who actually formulate creationist ideas.
The most glaring error is that very few of them actually believe that the earth is flat and immovable. This is despite very many specific references to this fact in the Bible. In fact, belief that the Earth is round is wellknown to be a Pagan invention, and such apostacy among people who claim to be among the elect is to be deplored.
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
This is precisely the approach that many atheists of the Richard Dawkins school would take towards Christianity.
Why should it be wrong for them, and right for you?
Christians who wish to argue their faith using science and logic, and will not question their assumptions, when they are easily capable of doing so, also behave dishonestly. Atheists take the moral highground if they point this out.
Are you trying to tell me that you think the YEC 'a priori' assumption has credibility, or are you trying to say that any 'a priori' assumption must be respected as reasonable?
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
Neither. I am attempting to point out to you that the Christian a priori postion of the existance of God is rejected by the more militant atheist for precisely the same reasons that you object to inerrency - that they are both ludicrously illogical.
Such a judgement depends more I suspect on philosophy rather than science, and ISTM that both you and they are employing the wrong tool in this regard.
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
I don't have an a priori position on the existence of God. My argument on that subject would be that one can never know either way, but that given the impossibility of reason to deduce God's existence it is both reasonable and perhaps scientific to explore using whatever tools are available. So I hope without proof or too much concrete evidence that God exists and I try to have a relationship with her (if she exists). The relationship itself and the fact that it works for me is reason enough to keep at it. I beleive this to be an honest approach.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
There are two different kinds of a priori assumptions: the kind that you believe no matter the evidence, and the kind that you are willing to stop believing if evidence and argument show the assumption faulty.
There was nothing wrong with scientists from a few centuries ago to assume YEC. Based on the info available, YEC fit decently well with what was known at the time. As new evidence was uncovered, YEC assumptions became less and less tenable, and so it was ditched by the vast majority of the scientific community.
There is a lesson here: wrong initial assumptions do not necessarily lead to wrong results in the long run so long as we are willing to put our assumptions to the test, and ditch them when they cease to fit reality.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
There is a discrepancy between the run-of-the-mill YEC one might meet in church, and the one one meets on the web.
As a rule, the one one meets on the web is the one who's adamant about it. He sees any deviation from Biblical literalism as apostasy, and believes he has a mission to warn the heretics.
It's probably true that most aren't like this. Just the ones you meet on the web on creation/evolution debating boards. So this probably jaundices the view of folk like me and Tom, who do pop in on debates on sites that are in more - erm - rigidly conservative areas of Christianity.
Besides that, as I posted on evcforum (http://www.evcforum.net):
quote:
Well, I divide creationists into three types.
(a) Originators. Folks like ICR and AiG, lone mavericks like Kent Hovind. These guys come up with the creationist arguments, and invent new ones as old ones are shown to be complete bollocks and enter the PRATT list. Many (but not all!) of these are competent scientists, but driven by ideology rather than by the scientific principle.
(b) Propogators. These are the churches, organisations and individuals who take the stuff that group (a) generates and disseminate it. So here you have the majority of creationist web sites, for example. These are a bit behind group (a), and they know that group (c) (below) will swallow whatever bullshit they are fed, working on the "what I want to believe" principle.
(c) Rank and File. The Man in the Pew. The reader of "Dinosaurs, Jesus and More". He probably has enough science to understand a creationist argument, but not enough to see why it's horsefeathers. His delusion by groups (a) and (b) is aided by two things: firstly, he has an innate trust in the teachers in his church, and secondly, he wants to believe there is scientific support for his faith-based worldview. The first of these is actually quite significant, because it is what stops the creationist from actually checking what he has been told. It is why we get individuals on here who spout a load of regurgitated gobshite from AiG or Hovind. These creationists don't read the counter arguments, and certainly don't follow any links to further information. They don't need to - they know the 'truth' already.
I would add that I would question the honesty sometimes of groups (a) and (b) (for reasons outlined in an earlier post and link). Of group (c) I have no question of the sincerity. Indeed, pointing out the inaccuracies and misrepresentations of groups (a) and (b) forms a considerable part of the creation/evolution debates I am involved in.
It should be minded that I was thinking of the "active" creationist one meets on the web when I wrote section (c), and it is totally based on my experience and I stand by it. As I explained in my first paragraphs above, I know that many YECs are not like this, just the ones one meets in internet debates.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
Priest: I'm not sure that I fully understood your original point. I thought that you were suggesting that man is a separate creation, whilst it seems to me that the currently available evidence strongly suggests that man shares a common ancestor with other animals, including the neanderthal and the cro-magnon. In terms of God's creativity, I have no problem with seeing these as variations on a theme.
Having not as yet found an acceptable answer in either conventional creationism or in conventional evolution, I sit somewhere between on the basis that evolution could easily be a display of God's "baking cake" of the world and humanity, going through the changes in the oven of time until it becomes the finished product.
This is a hypothesis that sits adequately with me and will do so until evidence to contrary is presented to me.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
firstly, he has an innate trust in the teachers in his church,
This is actually the bit I find really scary about these creationist schools. Many of these teachers will be dedicated people who have chosen to dedicate themselves to working with kids from deprived areas to improve their education. That will give them immense authority and influence over a lot of the children - who will then be fed complete crap about science and the natural world - by people they have learned to trust for their dedication and knowledge in other areas.
It reminds me of the old saying about a spoonful of shit in the honey spoiling the lot.
This is another reason why non-Creationist Christians and churches need to be much more vocal on this issue. It is no longer just a problem to be associated with certain states in America. It is here and it is being assisted by the policies of our own government.
There needs to be more thought about government funded faith schools and what they can teach, but perhaps this whole issue needs a separate thread.
Louise
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
