Geological pioneer was a biblical creationist

Post Reply New Topic

If he wanted to be shunned by the powerful church... Darwinism didn't exist then, which is the only real contender beyond atheism, so in his position I know what I'd probably believe in. Epicureanism isn't exactly a religious model.

Which powerful church are you referring to? Catholic, Lutheran? Epicureans had evolutionary concept far before Darwin. Lyell was not the first one to think of slow and gradual processes over eons of time.

Yes, because I have seen enough examples of dishonesty on Stein's part and incompetence on Behe's that I don't really have the patience to listen to those particular individuals anymore. But, surely those can't be who you were referring to, as neither has conducted any real research anyways. So, out with it. Where are these papers and research? Preferably peer-reviewed.

Parakeet, the point is you can argue all you like, but there is no point in bringing in "Oooh a geological pioneer was a creationist!" as an argument for creationism in a modern context, because him and us aren't working from the same page. He didn't have the knowledge and science and understanding and theories we have today, so you can't compare him with us to force your bedtime stories on the rest of the population.

Give up.

Why is this in the News and Current Events Forum?

It's about a guy who died in 1686, so it couldn't be considered current events.

It isn't news that biblicalgeology.net says there's no need to learn about the last few centuries of science.

Now if somebody on biblicalgeology.net suggested that Jesus really meant what he said in the Sermon on the Mount, that he wasn't just running his mouth killing time waiting for some bloody barbarian human sacrifice ceremony, that Jesus lived in a violent world filled with oppression, like we do today, that every Christian should deeply consider what the ideas Jesus taught mean for people living today...

That would be news.

O wow.

So is that what you think I'm claiming?

Was Steno bringing the world into the dark ages? What is the vector?

[size=0]http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2834/[/size]

Newton was a creationist only because there was no alternative?

29 July 2002

From Timothy … of the UK. In his letter, printed below, he tries to counter the point that the great founders of modern science were creationists — see Creationist Biographies. His letter is reprinted, with point-by-point responses by Dr Jonathan Sarfati, showing that there are a number of reasons why it’s legitimate for creationists to use this argument.

It does not seem to be an entirely legitimate strategy to claim scientists (such as Newton) as ‘creationists’ and therefore not ‘evolutionists’ when in many instances those cited would have been long dead before the rise of evolutionary theory. It is probably indisputable that such individuals would have believed in the literal truth of biblical creation, but there is obviously no way of knowing whether or not they would have rejected such beliefs in light of Darwinian theory.

______________________________________________

It does not seem to be an entirely legitimate strategy to claim scientists (such as Newton) as ‘creationists’ …

Oh yes it is. Common canards of evolutionary zealots are that ‘you can’t be real scientist if you are not an evolutionist’ and that ‘science is impossible without evolution’. That there were people who were by definite choice creationists (not just by reason of their social milieu) and who were the founders of significant fields of science, gives the lie to these propaganda claims.

… and therefore not ‘evolutionists’ when in many instances those cited would have been long dead before the rise of evolutionary theory.

Not so — evolutionary ideas were not invented by Darwin. Some of the ancient philosophers before Christ — such as Anaximander (d. 546), Empedocles (d. 435), Democritus (d. 370), Epicurus (d. 270) and Lucretius (d. 55) — had evolutionary ideas that life arose spontaneously and that different life forms arose from one another. The ‘great chain of being’ idea pervaded English society well before Darwin came on the scene. In fact, Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus, wrote about evolutionary notions of beginnings. See also Darwinism: it was all in the family: Erasmus Darwin’s famous grandson learned early about evolution.

There were plenty of atheists before Darwin and they had to have some naturalistic notion of beginnings (or try not to think about it, which many do today). Darwin just gave atheism greater intellectual respectability by providing what seemed to many at the time, ignorant as they were of the incredible inner workings of even the simplest bacterium, to be a coherent framework for biological naturalism (nature is all there is). Darwin was seen as countering William Paley’s watchmaker argument — that an intricately integrated watch must have an intelligent designer, so, by analogy, must living things, which are even more complex.

See also A Brief History of Design.

It is probably indisputable that such individuals would have believed in the literal truth of biblical creation, but there is obviously no way of knowing whether or not they would have rejected such beliefs in light of Darwinian theory.

Exactly, so we can only cite what they actually believed, and leave it up to the evolutionists to assert that they would have changed their minds had they known about Darwin. Counterfactuals are easily countered:

* Their science was motivated by their belief that the Universe was created by a God of order — see Creationist contributions to science.
* Many leading scientists who knew of Darwin’s ideas rejected Darwin, including Maxwell, Kelvin, Herschel, whereas much of his support came from compromising clergy such as Newman and Kingsley — see Holy War?.

* Addendum, June 2006: Timothy contacted us to thank Dr Sarfati for the response to his letter and to say that he no longer agreed with the sentiments of his original letter. He was happy for his original letter and response to remain, without identifying him, as a teaching point for others who might need correcting.

Um, yes. That is exactly what you're claiming. Unless you have remarkably poor communication skills, even by Aspie standards.

Look, I don't care what Kelvin thought about evolution. He was a physicist, not a biologist. He wasn't even that great of a physicist anyways. I can find you some funny quotes of Kelvin's if you want reason to distrust his expert authority.

Newton was wrong about several matters of physics, and hardly touched biology, so again, not too impressive. Even in math, he wasn't all that great. We use Leibniz's notation instead of Newton's today. Plus, Newton was deist and his scientific views just on classical mechanics were viewed as undermining church doctrine.

Paley's watch has been refuted enough times, and really, even ignoring the fact that it is an argument from ignorance, is still a very weak strawman.

OK, there were evolutionists before Darwin. Their ideas weren't as widely accepted because they failed to provide good explanations. Darwin started down the path of offering coherent explanations (he obviously is not the be-all-end-all of evolutionary thought) and so his ideas grew to be more respected.

I don't really understand the purpose of your arguments here; what, if some highly respected 16th-century French economist from the physiocrat school endorses a particular view, it must be correct, and the modern neoclassical interpretations are in error?

Shouldn't this be in the Politics, Philosophy, and Religion Section?
Creating a flame war about Politics and/or Religion is an action that's frowned upon in any forum worth itself. :\
Can this please be either closed or at least relocated?

Communication is a two-way street involving both the ears and the mouth.

Yes, but your arrogant and condescending attitude make many people unwilling to listen to what you have to say. And you are rather ignoring your own advice here anyways.

That applies to you too.

What do Steno's views matter? You seem to be forgetting that in science, the person who makes a discovery/advances some field of knowledge is generally irrelevant. What matters is just the facts. Steno, Kelvin, and others may have believed one thing. That doesn't really matter to scientists. You can't use that as an argument.

Fair enough. But where's this research you were promising earlier? All mention of it seemed to strangely disappear when I tried to take you up on your offer to post it.

In 1675 Steno was ordained a Catholic priest and only 2 years later he became a Bishop. He led the counter reformation. "Stensen grew up in isolation in his childhood, because of an unknown disease" and "Sophia of Hanover had made fun of Steno's piousness". He wrote sixteen theological works. Also, to give you an idea of what people thought of Atheism back then:

In 1677, the "Act for the Punishing of Atheism and Blasphemy" in Britain stated:

"The Crying Sins of Atheism and Blasphemy...

...for any person being the age of 16 years or more, not being visibly and apparently distracted and out of his wits by sickness or natural infirmity or not being a natural fool void of common sense shall after this act by word or writing deny that there is a God...

... there shall be judgment of death pass upon him and execution shall follow without pardon or reprieve." (a clerk added polytheism in the margin)

If I professed Atheistic beliefs back then, I could have been sentenced to death by Steno (or by another like him).