Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] a gift?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
R

reznwerks

Guest
Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant
As the Religious Right tries to ban the teaching of evolution in Kansas, Richard Dawkins speaks up for scientific logic



"Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: “Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.†Science mines ignorance. Mystery  that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand  is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do.
Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect that creationism or “intelligent design theory†(ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.



It isn’t even safe for a scientist to express temporary doubt as a rhetorical device before going on to dispel it.

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.†You will find this sentence of Charles Darwin quoted again and again by creationists. They never quote what follows. Darwin immediately went on to confound his initial incredulity. Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called “The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment†in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom.

The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely quoted as saying that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designedâ€Â. Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to explaining how the powerful illusion of design actually comes about by natural selection. The isolated quotation strips out the implied emphasis on “appear toâ€Â, leaving exactly what a simple-mindedly pious audience  in Kansas, for instance  wants to hear.

The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors. But such Telling Lies for God (the book title of the splendidly pugnacious Australian geologist Ian Plimer) is not the most serious problem. There is a more important point to be made, and it goes right to the philosophical heart of creationism.

The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.†Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?†If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.â€Â

Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say: “Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’ll have to go to the university library and take a look.†No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.â€Â

I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.†Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore “gaps†in the fossil record.

Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous “gapsâ€Â. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a “gapâ€Â, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.

The creationists’ fondness for “gaps†in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas. "


Richard Dawkins, FRS, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford University. His latest book is The Ancestor’s Tale

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 64,00.html
 
I heartily disagree that ID is just creationism disguised. There is a form of ID (that I have argued for in other threads) that is entirely legitimate and consistent with evolution. Now to be fair to Dawkins, he may be talking about a different kind of ID than the one I am sympathetic to. In any event, I think at least the flavour of an entirely legitimate kind of ID can be discerned by going to

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... c&start=15

and reading the discussion (largely between myself, Quath, and Tobael). If you want to challenge me, please actually read this thread.

Having said this, I think that most creationism stuff I have read is pretty shameful (e.g. the continual abuse of the 2nd law of thermodynamics to claim that evolution is impossible). But, to use the kind of reasoning I suspect that Dawkins would use, just because much of creationism is junk, does not mean that there is not a legitimate brand of it to be found among all the thorns.
 
I think Dawkins' statements are completely shameful...he is a bigot. He claims to have this love for knowledge, and then rules the possibility of God out completely. He is quite arrogant and foolish. He also fails miserably at making any real and valid points...his words consist of jeers...he just thinks himself to be more clever than he is. For every "Creationist" running around doing what he is saying, there is an "evolutionist" doing the same. To lump people together, in this manner, is a sign of bigotry and foolish pride. I have no patience for people who create a priori in their field in order to eliminate people they disagree with through peer pressure, bias, and flat out bigotry.

When I was around 13 my father (an atheist) allowed me to go to a school that had Christian influences. It was more like a self-teaching school....Anyway, I took science that year, with them, and they taught every belief concerning the science of the day. They had a Christian leaning, but they taught two different forms of "Creationism" as well as Evolution. They taught about a variety of scientists and inventors. It was actually very neat. My dad, though not too happy with the school, liked the Science...in fact, he kept the books. He removed me from the school the following year, however, to a more "secular" environment.

This debate in Kansas has little to do with science, and more to do with politics. The best interest of all the students is that they have all the information. It would be simple to show different sides to these things and teach students to think, and draw conclusions for themselves.

Blessings.
 
I like Dawkins a lot. I may disagree with himfrom time to time, but they are minor disagreements usually. But he does bring up many interesting things to think about. He was voted England's number one intellectual. So no matter how you see him, he is widely recognized as smart.

One thing that sets him off with Christians and Muslims is he sees religious indoctrination at a young age as child abuse. I see that as a little extreme, but I also see that he has a point.

Basically, he says we should not pretend that children have a grasp on the cosmos and the universe enough to pick of the thousands of religions floating around. So we should not say there is a "4 year old Christian child" just like we would not say there is a "4 year old Republican child." So he thinks that parents should wait to teach their kids about religion just like they wait to teach them about necrophelia, politics and rape. He says the only reason they do not is that you can indoctrinate kids while they are young but not when they are older and can think for themselves. So parents take advantage of children strong ability to believe to force them into a religion that teaches them that they are nasty beings that deserve to be tortured for eternity. So Christianity works a lot off of bad self-esteem. It also teaches bad self esteem.

Maybe to see from his point of view, imagine a child growing up in a cult. Say in David Koresh's cult. It is sad when adults fall into his cult, but really sad when children are brought up in it because they believe in it so much more. (See how much they believe in Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy.) The only difference in a cult and a religion is the number of members.

I do agree with you, Lovely, that the debates in Kansas were one of politics and not so much science.

Quath
 
reznwerks said:
Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant
As the Religious Right tries to ban the teaching of evolution in Kansas

Predictible atheist hate.

Richard Dawkins speaks up for scientific logic

Dawkins, (like all Darwinists) are philosophers masquerading as science.

It [ID] simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.

True.

The IDists concede the fact that Law in America has been hijacked by atheist philosophy.

The success of atheist philosophy in removing God under Constitutional color, is of course, the crime of the century. God had to subsequently allow this as a unfortunate side effect when He reacts to individual rebellion via removing an inner faculty which makes a person hate Him.

IOW, the rejection of God by Law, Higher Education, Scientism, and Media is a penalty for deliberately flipping Him off. This perfectly explains the atheization of our society.

The IDists are wrong in their strategy to try and fool the Law and assert God has nothing to do with the scientific facts.

They should challenge the very notion that God is not a Constitutional option. Imagine that, the Constitution written by theists NOW SAYS only Darwinism is Constitutional = proof of Satan.


Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called “The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment†in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom.

Pure Darwinian lies.

All honest objective persons know the eye refutes Darwinism in its tracks.

It could not of evolved - impossible.

Asserting contrary to known facts and the fact that the status quo carries on like nothing has happened proves that Darwinsim is a penalty from God that no amount of evidence can override.

The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely quoted as saying that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designedâ€Â. Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to explaining how the powerful illusion of design actually comes about by natural selection.

Darwinists are big on invoking "observation".

They admit by observation design is apparent THEN ASSERT contrary and ASSERT it evolved anyway.

Suddenly observation is an illusion, but when it is observed to support their senseless theory it is face value.

This, once again, proves no matter what - even if you SEE it will be asserted away in defiance of all logic anyway.

Asserting design is illusory is admitting evidence does not matter, Darwinists will evade and assert contrary and protect the basic Darwinian worldview regardless of evidence.

This alarming brazen easy to spot dishonesty only supports the Biblical claim that Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him Creator status.

Creationists adore “gaps†in the fossil record.

Massive gaps that is.

At what point is falsification considered ?

Answer: Its not because Genesis is not an option = ToE is philosophy.

Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils.

There are no transitional fossils supporting macro-evolution.

Please stop preaching naturalist pie-in-the-ground.

Darwinists have no problem with massive gaps because evidence is not required for their theory - only naturalist philosophy and obscene speculation packaged as science, and driven by hatred of God and the evidence for Him.

Ray Martinez
 
Quath wrote:

One thing that sets him off with Christians and Muslims is he sees religious indoctrination at a young age as child abuse. I see that as a little extreme, but I also see that he has a point.

Basically, he says we should not pretend that children have a grasp on the cosmos and the universe enough to pick of the thousands of religions floating around. So we should not say there is a "4 year old Christian child" just like we would not say there is a "4 year old Republican child." So he thinks that parents should wait to teach their kids about religion just like they wait to teach them about necrophelia, politics and rape. He says the only reason they do not is that you can indoctrinate kids while they are young but not when they are older and can think for themselves. So parents take advantage of children strong ability to believe to force them into a religion that teaches them that they are nasty beings that deserve to be tortured for eternity. So Christianity works a lot off of bad self-esteem. It also teaches bad self esteem.

You know, the thing is, the parents should ultimately be responsible for teaching their children. They should bring them up in a two parent family, if possible, enriched with culture, tradition, and religion. I read scripture, along with many other books, to my children more than once a day. I teach them all aspects of Creationism, as well as evolution. What Dawkins is "preaching" sounds a bit like Hitler, this thought of secularly raised children. That is the main reason I home educate. It is not because of what the school does teach, but because of what they do not teach. I do not want my children attending a "secular" institution for eight hours a day that does not mention God, for the same reason that men like Dawkins wouldn't put their children in a Christian one. With his line of thinking, I mean, the next step may be to turn them over to the state full time to be raised. It's scary...like Hitler.

Children are being taught always. They pick up information from everything, and it influences them. I know, from experience with my own dad, that there is a false sense of security in things secular. Secularism is not neutral...it is the absence of God. It is Atheism. Dawkins wants children to be indoctrinated too, just with his world-view instead of their Christian parents.

Children brought up in a religious family are not always going to be part of that religion. Children brought up in a home that is not religious, but moral, are not always going to grow up to be moral. Or, as in my case, atheists. Dawkins, if he even believes in procreation, is teaching his children his world-view just the same as a Christian father. It's absurd to think that a world-view is not being projected on to children...it is just Dawkins' opinion that a religious one is abusive...mainly because he is a bigot. Smart, maybe to some, but to others the man is a fool. I could say the same about him, and other atheists, that do not take responsibility for the souls of their children, and do not consider where that soul will spend eternity. That is abuse. Only, the government, or it's citizens will not be the ones who will sit in judgement or carry out the sentence for that crime. It will be God himself.

Of course, the miracle of regeneration can take place in anyone...even the daughter of an atheistic biomedical engineer. :) Even if Dawkins had his way, it could not be totally eliminated.

lovely wrote:
I grew up alone with my father until college, then on my own, until marriage. I became a believer at a young age. My dad and I used to walk to a corner store near our home in St. Louis. A church nearby used to help a lot of refugee children. I enjoyed playing with them. I asked my dad if I could attend their church. He took me. I was quite young at that point. By age nine, I had made a confession of faith. I was also baptized, with my dad's permission. By junior high I was studying religions, with my dad's help, as well as denominations. Calvinism is what I thought I could most align myself with, what I felt was more aligned with Scripture. I didn't actually attend a Calvinist church until I was 29 years old. Up until then I went to two different churches of other denominations. My dad never discouraged it, though he disagreed with it. I am a believer because of God's mercy only, everyone who believes is. I still admire my dad more than anyone on this planet...he is intelligent, fair-minded, and extremely logical and reasonable...also quite compassionate. We have some wonderfully intense discussions at times, but I always win! :biggrin And I think he believes the same thing. I still hope one day he gets his miracle of regeneration too.

I quoted myself here, from the NEED FOR PROOF (QUATH) thread to show you that the miracle of regeneration, that Dawkins would never even acknowledge exists, can happen at a very young age, and it can happen in a home that is atheistic. It was not my dad's dream that his daughter would grow up to be a Christian...a fundie even. I still admire and love him more than any man I know, but I could not deny God for him.

See, the thing is, teaching my children about God does not insure their salvation, and not teaching them about Him, does not insure that they will not be saved. But, as their parent, (who is a believer) it is my duty to them to teach them the Scripture, just as Dawkins believes it is his duty to not teach it. I know you do not agree with him completely, Quath, and I hope you can see the hypocrisy of this double standard that he is teaching. A wold-view is what we ALL have. There is no such thing as neutralism, secularism, or true objectivity. I really, really like Ray Martinez's signature. I think honesty is the best we can try and do.

Blessings.
 
Ray Martinez said:
reznwerks said:
Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant
As the Religious Right tries to ban the teaching of evolution in Kansas

Predictible atheist hate.

Richard Dawkins speaks up for scientific logic

Dawkins, (like all Darwinists) are philosophers masquerading as science.

[quote:54f61]It [ID] simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.

True.

The IDists concede the fact that Law in America has been hijacked by atheist philosophy.

The success of atheist philosophy in removing God under Constitutional color, is of course, the crime of the century. God had to subsequently allow this as a unfortunate side effect when He reacts to individual rebellion via removing an inner faculty which makes a person hate Him.
God if exists has allowed all that has happened and doesn't or shouldn't need man or certain men to do his bidding.

IOW, the rejection of God by Law, Higher Education, Scientism, and Media is a penalty for deliberately flipping Him off. This perfectly explains the atheization of our society.
No it's not. No society on earth condones murder robbery etc. The bible brings nothing new to the table on morals or laws and you only have to look at Hammurabis code to see that and know that these laws mirror the bible and without a God as the source.

No, it is the lack of response and lack of evidence or involvement from a God that is claimed to exist but somehow makes himself scarce when real evidence would be so very easy to confirm.

The IDists are wrong in their strategy to try and fool the Law and assert God has nothing to do with the scientific facts.

God has never been proven to exist.

They should challenge the very notion that God is not a Constitutional option. Imagine that, the Constitution written by theists NOW SAYS only Darwinism is Constitutional = proof of Satan.

What are you afraid of? Darwinism has nothing to do with Satan only your beliefs which are based on faith alone are challenged here.


Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called “The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment†in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom.

Pure Darwinian lies.
You have been told that but obviously you have not done your homework. If there are so many lies that you have been led to believe why do so many still accept the theory as fact? Do you think people like being lied to. If it were lies don't you think someone would say something other than theists? Come on think a little.

All honest objective persons know the eye refutes Darwinism in its tracks.

That is why those who study and know evolution don't and those who's whole belief system stands or falls on the premise of evolution must continually bang the drum of lies lies and more lies despite the evidence to the contrary.

It could not of evolved - impossible.

It is not impossible we are here.

Asserting contrary to known facts and the fact that the status quo carries on like nothing has happened proves that Darwinsim is a penalty from God that no amount of evidence can override.

It is the known facts that allow Darwinism and its ideas to flourish.

The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely quoted as saying that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designedâ€Â. Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to explaining how the powerful illusion of design actually comes about by natural selection.

Darwinists are big on invoking "observation".

Creationists are big on invoking "belief". What carries more weight?

They admit by observation design is apparent THEN ASSERT contrary and ASSERT it evolved anyway.

ID'ers don't have any evidence so they use the "God of the gaps" theory which means if no evidence exists and they don't have an answer then by default God must have done it.

Suddenly observation is an illusion, but when it is observed to support their senseless theory it is face value.

If observation and testing are an illusion is belief any better.

This, once again, proves no matter what - even if you SEE it will be asserted away in defiance of all logic anyway.

Asserting design is illusory is admitting evidence does not matter, Darwinists will evade and assert contrary and protect the basic Darwinian worldview regardless of evidence.

This alarming brazen easy to spot dishonesty only supports the Biblical claim that Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him Creator status.

Creationists adore “gaps†in the fossil record.

Massive gaps that is.

Massive gaps as you put it are simply answers waiting to be found. Not knowing everything right now is not evidence of God and never finding an answer is not evidence of God.

At what point is falsification considered ?

All the time and I have pointed out time and time again it is fellow scientists that are always challenging the status quo for fame and recognition but ultimatelu the truth comes out and then they move on. There is nothing wrong with this.

Answer: Its not because Genesis is not an option = ToE is philosophy.

Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils.


Please stop preaching naturalist pie-in-the-ground.

Darwinists have no problem with massive gaps because evidence is not required for their theory - only naturalist philosophy and obscene speculation packaged as science, and driven by hatred of God and the evidence for Him.

ID'ers have no problem accepting God because for whatever they don't know or understand they use God as the answer. This is a lazy and dishonest way to intellectual uderstanding.

Ray Martinez[/quote:54f61]
 
You have been told that but obviously you have not done your homework. If there are so many lies that you have been led to believe why do so many still accept the theory as fact? Do you think people like being lied to. If it were lies don't you think someone would say something other than theists?

"I have been told" = Preaching.

What atheist/Darwinist doesn't agree with you ?

Objective persons know ToE has been refuted and pure hatred of Genesis won't allow the refutation to be known by your idiot friends in the Media.

It would help your "telling" to include some evidence, but since you are an atheist you are brainwashed into thinking philosophy is evidence as your post proves.

You have deliberately evaded and confused very reply of mine.

This confirms all of my observations about your rhetoric.

Asserting man evolved from an ape shows how hateful and senseless the Darwinist is.

I am disappointed that you have chosen to evade and deliberately alter everything I wrote.

This is indicative of Darwinian integrity - the utter lack of it.

I am comforted you could not compete.

That is why those who study and know evolution don't and those who's whole belief system stands or falls on the premise of evolution must continually bang the drum of lies lies and more lies despite the evidence to the contrary.

Packaging naturalist needs as "evidence" can "prove" anything as is what Darwinists have done with the eye.


It is not impossible we are here.

There we have the total "evidence" of ToE.

We are here = evolution-must-of-did-it = naturalist philosophy and its assumptions presented as "evidence".

Genesis proves why we are here.

Your atheism asserts contrary - very predictible.

It is the known facts that allow Darwinism and its ideas to flourish.

What else could an atheist say ?

ID'ers don't have any evidence so they use the "God of the gaps" theory which means if no evidence exists and they don't have an answer then by default God must have done it.

An atheist asserting no evidence for God - are you eligible to assert anything else ?

Massive gaps as you put it are simply answers waiting to be found. Not knowing everything right now is not evidence of God and never finding an answer is not evidence of God.

Your version of "Evolution-of-the-gaps" - you trapped yourself here - I advise that you wake up.

IOW, God is not an option yet Darwinsits CLAIM to be neutral.

Invoking phantom evidence = irrational since it is Darwinists who claim only evidence determines what they believe.

The quote above is blatant atheist ideology presented under the guise of science.


ID'ers have no problem accepting God because for whatever they don't know or understand they use God as the answer. This is a lazy and dishonest way to intellectual uderstanding.

What else could an atheist say ?

Ray Martinez
 
A creationist I know and admire once told me:

"A Christian's faith should be a net, not a sharp stick."

I don't know why his advice popped into my mind right now but...
 
Back
Top