Modern creationism makes no sense

Post Reply New Topic

The THEORY that Adam screwed us all over has no value in the world because it makes no accurate predictions. Evolution has made 100% accurate predictions. That is why I lean towards evolution. Because it's always right.

Last edited by fidelis on 20 May 2010, 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It is absolutely amazing to me that an obviously intelligent articulate aware person can take the legend of Adam and original sin as anything else but the crude fantasy of an ignorant mind. Astounding!

The Adam/Eve/Original Sin Story is a parable. It is a way of saying that our tendencies to sin (to wrong ourselves and our fellows) go back a long way and are probably inherent in our physical and psychological makeup.

The literal interpretation is nonsense, but understood as a parable, the story has something important to say and it is, in part, a true story.

ruveyn

But sin is not a wrongdoing against mankind, it is a disobedience of God. There is a large difference.

Evolutionist "dogma"? You must be joking. Do you not realize that the concept of dogma is more closely associated with the other side of the argument?



Right back at ya!

I'm not joking about that. The whole point I'm trying to make is that hardliners on BOTH sides of the argument are guilty.

If you examine the scientific community as a whole, what you find is something similar to other disciplines--they don't all agree on everything, and they aren't incorruptible.

Take tobacco smoking, for example. There was, at one time, a series of "scientific" studies that supposedly showed that the claims of tobacco smoke being dangerous to someone's health was greatly exaggerated and that, in some cases, it was actually GOOD for you. Indeed, many individuals I personally knew who excelled in college were smokers, due to the temporary enhancement properties of the stimulant nicotine.

At the same time, a number of scientific studies showed that the negative long-term health effects seemed to far outweigh any benefit one would get from smoking. So who is right? From purely a scientific perspective, the answer would have to be both and neither. Smokers would have to point to the smoking benefits while ignoring the addictive and deleterious effects if they cared to continue to justify to themselves that they should keep smoking. Those on the anti-smoking side would cite the research that shows the harmful effects on the individual, the harmful effects of second-hand consumption, and the cost to the public sector--government entitlements to treat smoking-related diseases that could have been prevented in the first place.

Are the long-term negative effects of smoking exaggerated? Probably, and this information would be relayed by those who feel strongly against smoking. Does smoking have benefits? It increases alertness, enhances mental facility, increases metabolism and helps prevent obesity, and even aids in relaxation.

So the anti-smoking people have twisted a few numbers around to say smoking should be completely wiped out.

But evidence has ALSO been brought to light (usually by these people) that tobacco companies have knowingly targeted young smokers in their advertising and have worked to make cigarettes more potent and addictive.

This is not an issue that either side has allowed the rest of the public to remain neutral about. Either you're ok with smoking, at least for other people if not yourself, or you're against it. There is scientific data either way. It only comes down to how you choose to interpret the data as to which side you're most likely to side with.

As to my personal opinion on this: I think that there might have been, at one point in the history of science since Galileo, a period of time in which scientific efforts were good, just, equitable, fair, and honest. Unbiased data-gathering always works for the good of all. At some time, probably near the end of the 19th Century, science became yet another tactic for trying to sell goods. Buy THIS product and your hair and skin will shine, you'll be smarter, lose weight, regrow lost hair due to pattern baldness, increase your virility, make you more attractive to the opposite sex, and restore your feeling of well-being. The ingredients in this product have been proven in clinical trials to be effective. OK... So some of the ingredients are known to have certain effects. But does that mean including them in, say, a topical ointment is necessarily beneficial? But it's scientifically PROVEN!

Can you see how hokey this is?

The fast food industry is another CLASSIC case of the abuse of scientific data. McDonald's, for instance, has been made a huge example of all the evils of fast food and how it has contributed to obesity and other health problems. Ever compare a McDonald's menu with what it USED to look like? When I worked at a McDonald's franchise back in the late 90's, all I ever had to be concerned with was making various configurations of burgers, fish, and chicken sandwiches. Now there is a plethora of "healthy choices" and higher-quality/better tasting food to compete with other fast food establishments.

But I also know, from basic data, that one's daily energy needs can easily be met with simple sources of carbohydrates and protein, much of which can be packed into a QP with cheese. I grew up seeing TV adverts with the slogan "Beef: it's what's for dinner" and "Milk: It does a body good." All of that followed up with "scientific" evidence of the obvious benefits of beef and dairy products. And don't forget orange juice for Vitamin C!! ! So in reality, do we as consumers really benefit from beef/dairy and citrus products? Of course. But the industries that produce those products--cattle breeders and orange growers--stand to reap a PROFIT, which to them is more important than the health and nourishment properties of what they're selling. They don't care if the house is burning down as long as no one notices. But as soon as they do, you better believe the advertising strategies will start to change.

Reliance on meat and dairy marginalized how well growers could do in the produce market. What do you do if there isn't a demand for your product? CREATE a demand. Now we start to see scientific evidence of the benefits of lettuce, the lycopene in tomatoes (never mind all the added sugar in ketchup), the beta-carotene in carrots--on and on and on so that the American public will put down their McSandwich and rush to the grocery store and become overnight vegetarians.

You might say that the greed motive is consumerism and has nothing to do with the world of science. But it's the scientists who are supplying all the data and promoting it!

Even worse, think about this: Who do you think is PAYING these scientists for their efforts? The corporations and other industry leaders! Scientists in this day and age will dig up whatever data they are paid to dig up to support the ideas of the people paying them for the evidence. When that happens, you'll invariably have some rogue group who understands the "truth" and will independently produce findings that refute the previous data. There will be a big public outcry, the big guys will be forced to adjust, and then some activist somewhere will get a burr under his saddle to challenge something else.

I've heard a lot of homosexuals say that their orientation isn't a choice--they're born with it and scientists are going to find the gene for it any day now. That seems to ignore the fact that among them are so many bi-sexuals. Not only that, but there are also those every day who choose not to act upon their behavioral predispositions, and there exists hard, scientific evidence that demonstrates therapeutic approaches to "reversing" (for lack of a better term, sorry) homosexual tendencies. Christians have much to gain, for example, if there is demonstrable proof that they can rid themselves of unwanted feelings.

So which one is right? Scientists working on behalf of gay activist groups that eventually find the "gay gene"? Or the Christians who, even if the "gay gene" is found, can show that it can be effectively be overcome if one chooses to overcome it? With the present argument, it seems the gay community has much to lose if, indeed, it is revealed that homosexuality CAN always be a choice--that is, in spite of one's predisposition, that there is a way out.

Christianity/Atheism, Communism/National Socialism, Creationism/Evolution (and other origin theories), among other represent ideologies that are in opposition. Even the Nazis used the name of science to promote the German people as a superior, master race. Interestingly, the American space program is an offshoot of WWII German weapons development (using the V2 as a model). Unlike the rest of the consumer world, motivated by profit, ideologies tend to have a deeper, more profound effect on their proponents. And no amount of "scientific" propaganda is going to make something work that doesn't: Nazi Germany was short lived, and also consider the Soviet Union which dissolved in spite of its long-running stamina. Even China has had to undergo some painful reconsideration of its system to allow some capitalist elements and produce something that will work long term. People do CRAZY things to protect their ideals.

NOW--all that to come back to THIS point: Christians have much to gain if creation can effectively, once-and-for-all, smoking-gun, be PROVEN. There does exist evidence (age of earth vs. age of life, amount of sediment on ocean floor, moon drift, rate of cooling vs. magnetic fields, and so on) that seems to call other anti-Creation evidence, whether it is evolution, origin of life, or Big Bang theories, into question. Atheists, on the other hand, have much to gain if ONLY evolution and associated origin of life/universe are correct. They can point to adaptive variation, limited speciation, and some really nice museum exhibits as evidence. But again, they are only pointing to evidence that supports their view; likewise Christians are only pointing to evidence that supports the Christian view (assuming that to be creationist for the sake of argument). It doesn't matter how much either side works to refute the ideas of the other. If the age of consumerism has taught us anything, it is that science is corruptible for anyone's purpose.

What it ultimately comes down to is what you do with the evidence. You only have your own mind to make up. If you don't want to believe in God or miraculous creation, then you can opt for believing in evidence that points in the other direction. If you DO want to believe in God, you can either refute evidence against God, affirm evidence IN favor of God, or you can just throw your hands up in the air and say "It's all too confusing, but I choose to have faith in the Creator, anyway."

The scientific correctness of the current theory of evolution (evolution by genetic variation and natural selection of the organism so formed from the genes) has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence or non-existence of God, god, or the gods. Not a thing. Evolution (change in the structure of living things over time) is a fact. Evidentiary support for the current theory is not only good, it is positively overwhelming. This is the case whether or not God, god or the gods exist.

In scientific matters, God, god or the gods is irrelevent.

ruveyn

I have to disagree with your massively long post on science being misused as really proving anything. Do scientists work for money? Sure. Are there issues with the evidence where one can reasonably disagree? Sure. Does this mean that evolution can be reasonably distrusted? Well.... unlike prior examples, there is no disagreement on evolution. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community thinks that evolution happened and wants to put into textbooks for publicly educated students and college students, and have believed this should be done for many many decades.

That being said, I don't think people consider "gay conversion" as having been proven. Instead, it seems overwhelmingly rejected and even studies that claim to have done it are believed to be failures.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... rs-johnson

You've totally misunderstood, plus I have never said anything about believing in something without seeing it. Let me rephrase, what I meant by something being forbidden by a theory, I meant that there must be things that are possible and things that are impossible according to the theory. This has absolutely nothing to do with whatever actions were taken by the first humans or what God said to Adam. To give an example, lets hypothetically consider mermaids as genetic intermediary type creatures, between humans and fish. According to evolution and our current understanding of common descent, land animals speciated from fish and other sea creatures millions of years before the first human appeared. Therefore, mermaids could never of existed because there is no direct common ancestor between humans and fish. This is what I mean by something that's "forbidden" by a theory. The existence of mermaids are forbidden by evolution and our current understanding of common descent, albeit the common descent of humans and apes in particular, not because it was commanded or because it is right or wrong. It is forbidden merely because it's impossible. The fact that common descent seems to corroborate everything we see without us ever finding anything to contradict it, even though it is possible in principle to find contradictions, is what makes it such a powerful explanation. On the other hand, the theory that God designed it and poor designs are due to original sin does not make it impossible for any conceivable creature to exist. If that's the case it is simply not possible to explain anything beyond saying "it was just part of God's plan", "because God made it that way" or "imperfection is due to original sin". Are you satisfied with that explanation? I'm not.

AngelRho, do you simply not see that the fact that science isn't perfect has nothing to do with the fact that the evidence for evolution is so utterly overwhelming that the only reason it isn't accepted by every last scientist is that a great deal of religious dogma is still in play in the west?

Do you not see how utterly delusional you seem?

Science is often misused by those who have an agenda. Creationism versus Evolution is one of those battleground topics, and as far as evidence goes, it works both ways.

SOCE is hardly the point, and to suggest that it NEVER works is biased in favor of homosexuality. This isn't really the place to discuss gay issues, I only brought that up as one example. The prevailing attitude seems to be that gays are in need of protection. Whether I agree is not the point, but such a prevalent attitude could possibly be attributed to disproportionate representation of gay interests in media. I'm just guessing on that, of course, but I do personally find it peculiar that the internet is more littered with websites, some factually based and some not, that will say just about anything to promote or excuse the homosexual lifestyle. Please don't take that as a bigoted statement, it's just an observation.

I checked out the website you listed. Actually, I had this in mind:

http://mensstudies.metapress.com/content/12u7381583313360/

My whole point is the argument works both ways. People will "find" whatever is in their best interests to find. Every now and then you have some honest reports being made. The people conducting this study seem to have attempted to be as objective and empirical as possible. My hypothesis on this is that those who want to believe that homosexuality can't be changed will casually dismiss it.

It's no different as with refuting evolution. There are plenty of facts that seem to lean in favor of creationism. It only makes sense that if evolutionists ignore those claims, creationists can reject the opposite view.

Ok, but my point, the point that there is no reasonable disagreement within the scientific community on evolution is still quite correct. Your snipped quote missed most of my equivocation, which was valuable on this issue. Scientists work for money. There is reasonable disagreement. Neither applies to the issue of evolution though, at all.


AngelRho, creation isn't legitimate science. At all. It has been rejected within the scientific community for years. It has been rejected by the courts. It is not science, period. I don't know what you want me to say beyond that, because this is a factual claim that nobody accepts it as science.

As for "plenty of facts"? Umm.... generally no. You have to recognize that creationism is where we started, and nobody really believes that it explains things any bit better. There is no geological evidence for a global flood. There are too many issues with Noah's ark for the story to be taken seriously. Nobody has discovered a "Garden of Eden". Evolution explains the facts so well, that even creationists use some ideas inspired by evolution. http://skepticblog.org/2009/12/08/young ... darwinism/ There is no scientific debate at this point on the matter though, but rather creationists are considered nutjobs, even by other Christians. So, trying to pretend there is a real debate, when there really isn't a scientific debate seems pointless. I shouldn't have to inform you that creationism has been considered junk science for quite some time.


The problem is that your point is irrelevant. Your argument is at best, an argument that the scientific community is hopelessly blinded by ideology. At worst your statement is a non sequitur, and I tend to hold to the latter. I don't think that the scientific community is more blinded by ideology than a bunch of fundamentalists who have had creationism pushed into their brains at birth, if anything, the latter would be more likely to be blinded.

Could it be true that your study is definitive? I don't know, it is just another study, and the real measure is not a particular study but rather a number of studies and theories. Do I think that homosexuality can be "cured"? Um... depends on what you mean by "cured". I think homosexuals could decide not to have homosexual sex, however, I doubt that a full "cure" is reasonable just as a full cure for what is considered normal amounts of lust is reasonable either. I don't think that many of our dispositions have on and off switches, so I am untrusting of the idea of "curing" most psychological things. More in just getting people to a point where they function reasonably well in society.

No it doesn't.

You're obviously just a religious nut.

I don't look at that study as "proof" of a homosexual "cure." Personal views on the issue aside, the point of contention is whether it's a choice or not. If it's NOT a choice, then they deserve legitimacy in society and special treatment or accommodation. If it IS a choice, then it's up to society at large whether it is a choice worthy of acceptance (notice I didn't use the word "tolerance" here).

It's a whole other issue. I remember a good friend of mine in college was struggling over this, and he'd had a fairly strict diet of Catholic upbringing. It was an extraordinary crisis of conscience for him, and he asked my opinion on the subject. At the time he felt there was something wrong with him, and his "coming out" seemed to me more about erasing that idea from his head.

The thing is that there are those who do have homosexual feelings or urges (or whatever) that, for whatever reason (they love their wives/families, religious teachings, and so on) do not WANT to give in to them. I'm willing to bet that more men out there than will admit to it have experienced that at some point. What they all seem to do is suppress those feelings and avoid challenging situations.

Think of it another way: Someone offends you, and I mean REALLY offends you so much so you want to rearrange their face. Maybe even kill them. Ever know someone who just get so mad they scream "I want to KILL..."? But then, how many times do people who merely say they want to kill someone actually go out and do it? There is SOMETHING, call it conscience, call it morality, that prevents us from actually going through with murderous rage.

But let's say that those feelings don't end there. Let's say you have a good, decent, honest person who is plagued by murderous urges--perhaps a hard-working, business-owning, well-respected, active and popular member of the community who secretly takes his rage out on his family at home. The wife and kids love him and understand that there is something no one can explain that makes him act like that. It may even be a genetic predisposition. Regardless, it's not something he wants, because he loves his family, too, and the rage is progressively getting worse. So he removes himself from the situation and gets professional counseling to find more appropriate ways to handle his feelings.

That's a very real scenario that plays out all the time. When the issues aren't addressed properly, you hear about it in the news: Family of 5 shot dead in an apparent murder-suicide. Or the housewife suffering from depression and social isolation who drowns her kids in the bathtub. You can make the same case--"I was born this way"--to add legitimacy to acting out on those kinds of feelings, but I'm afraid the law and the rest of society might have something to say about that.

We can resist our violent urges, so why not our sexual ones? If someone really doesn't WANT to be a homosexual, regardless of whether predisposition towards certain behaviors can be eliminated or not, they don't HAVE to act on those feelings. It appears that sexual desires (in general, not just homosexuality) are more difficult to avoid than something as profound as murder, maybe even encouraged. But it remains that, if the feelings are unwanted, then there should be a way out. SOCE seems to be the best option for those who wish to change their orientation and feel powerless to do that on their own.

Something else to consider is that decisions based on scientific evidence is fickle depending on the evidence that is available. The Ptolemaic theory that the Earth was the center of the universe was perfectly legit based on what was known at the time. Galileo got in trouble for two main reasons: First, the way in which he went about "proving" a heliocentric universe was wrong (tides being the main problem, limited telescope data at the time not enough to make a compelling argument). Second, his approach to convincing religious leaders (partly due to his personality) intruded into the area of religion, forcing the RC church to reconsider its position. The decision, in my opinion, was one of the few things the Inquisition got right because the Church held out until more evidence or proof could reasonably show that Copernican ideas were more than a hypothesis. In fact, interpreting data has led to the discovery that certain ideas posed by the original hypothesizers--e.g. that orbits are perfectly circular--were incorrect. That, I think is the essence of integrity in scientific study.

The problem of evolution and religiously contested issues such as the nature of homosexuality (genetic predisposition versus choice specifically) is their intrusion upon religion. Ruveyn stated that they have nothing to do with each other. As much as I respect ruveyn's opinions and his insight, the problem is that many aspects of evolution DO intrude upon religious aspects. Whether or not ruveyn agrees with it, it remains that many Christians and others hold certain things to be true as a matter of faith, and that often includes a literal interpretation of the Genesis 1. Christian explanations have been de facto the ONLY ones for a long time, and those who are unwilling to believe in a spiritual Creator (or any god, for that matter) are naturally drawn to explanations that leave God out entirely. The shift in thinking is such that evolution is now the ONLY solution studied and accepted by the rest of the world, completely ignoring its inconveniences: That evolution, for example, (conveniently) does not touch origin of life theories, nor can the kinds of changes it purports to produce be observed (i.e. it takes too long, there are no living witnesses to give testimony to millions/billions of years of change). If, for the sake of argument, evolution could be proved false, very little else would change in the world of science.

Go back to Galileo and astronomy. It has since been demonstrated that the sun, indeed, is the center of our solar system and the orbital behavior of the earth is not unlike that of the other planets. Did anything really change? No. The sun still appears to rise and set as does the moon. The stars still come out at night. Those things which we know that were discovered on the assumption of evolution, likewise, would not change if evolution was discovered beyond a doubt to be false. Evolution helps explain some things, but certain problems (factually based) have been ignored by evolution. My personal opinion is that those issues have been left alone due to inconvenience. Nobody LIKES being wrong. It wouldn't be worth getting worked up over except for the intrusion of faith into one and the intrusion ant-Biblical thought into the other. There remains, then, which side an individual chooses to believe.

Yes it does.

You're obviously just an evolutionist nut.

You deny objective reality, objective fact and objective truth. You think facts are just another kind of opinion. You are wrong. Stand in the middle of a road with an 18 wheeler bearing down on you and tell yourself that it is mere opinion and illusion that you are in danger. The you will find out you are dead wrong.

ruveyn