Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
remnant_phoenix said:
Gorrath said:
remnant_phoenix said:
Eh, I say it depends on what he wants to say on the show.

If he wants to call attention to the great statistical improbabilities of life on earth being possible and then of life spontaneously-generating from inorganic matter, and then point out that this leads some scientists to infer the concept (note: I said "concept," not "hypothesis" or "theory") that there may be some intelligent design behind the processes, then that's fine, as long as its made clear that the science stops once you make the leap to the inferential concept; it's not a hypothesis or theory because it's not testable, and therefore, not science.
I'm not aware that anyone could calculate the statistical probability of life generating on Earth, we do not have another Earth to draw any comparison. I'm also not aware of any accepted theory that suggests that it happened spontaneously or from inorganic material. I don't see why they'd let him bring any of this up since it sounds like a great big straw-man.
Years ago I saw a documentary where a group of astrophysicists calculated a conservative statistical improbability that Earth would be a habitable planet. Something like 1 in 10 to the 128th power. I don't remember what the documentary was called though.
Those sorts of statistical calculations tend to be pointless is the main problem. You could calculate the improbability of your own existence if you had enough data, but it's a futile exercise. Your average rock exists as a statistical improbability, as does the phone on my desk, as does every other object.

Think of it this way. If you blindfolded yourself and spun around before throwing a ball, you could calculate the probability of that ball travelling in any given direction. Every direction the ball might fly in is statistically improbable, and yet it's going to have to fly in some direction. So you throw the ball and check it's final flight path. Now someone comes along and tells you that the ball couldn't have been thrown in a random direction because it's simply too statistically improbable for it to have taken that exact path. No matter what path the ball took in its random flight, the person arguing with you can make the same useless statistical improbability argument.

Edit: I need to edit this because my analogy doesn't do the reality justice. There are some estimates that place the number of planets just in our galaxy in the trillions. Compare this with the ball analogy, and you're throwing the ball several trillion times, and the person is coming up to you, picking a single flight path out of those trillion tries, and claiming that that one specific flight path was too improbable to be random occurrence. At that point the improbability argument goes from being silly and useless to downright absurd.
 

KazeAizen

New member
Jul 17, 2013
1,129
0
0
Megalodon said:
KazeAizen said:
I'd never insist Creationism is a science and I'm one of the people who believe in it. I believe in Evolution too. Oh dear God I just contradicted myself. I'm a sane religious person who doesn't dismiss certain sciences but still believes in happenings like Creationism!
Apologies if I've misinterpreted here, but this reads like you do dismiss some fields of science? Which ones?
I really should've proof read that. I haven't met a field of science that I particularly dismiss. Unless the field of science that is "prove video games cause mass shootings" is a science in which case I dismiss that one. Anyway back on point. It seems that some of the more old fashion literalist Christians dismiss the notions of Evolution and such. The Sciences that essentially come in contradiction to the church in which the really overly zealous religious types dismiss. Evolution is the big one there. I remember that Pokemon caught a lot of flak for that upon its initial release. While at the same time Pope John Paul II was just like "Sweet. Its a cool game that shows a lot of creativity." More or less that was his reaction. So yeah I don't dismiss science but there are those who are of religion that seem to dismiss them.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Ninmecu said:
Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?
Not really.

A creationist scientist is simply someone that does not adhere to the theory of evolution, but either works on other branches of science or adheres to any version of creationism in regards to the origin of life. Not that weird at all, considering there are many scientists that don't agree with the Big Bang theory or Strings theory, without being considered pariahs.
 

Cerebrawl

New member
Feb 19, 2014
459
0
0
remnant_phoenix said:
MinionJoe said:
remnant_phoenix said:
...life spontaneously-generating from inorganic matter...
I'm unaware of any theory that claims life generated from inorganic matter.

The theory of abiogenesis states, "...life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds."

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

So far as we know, all life is carbon-based, and therefore, organic in nature.

There are some hypothetical type of inorganic life, such as silicon-based, but we have seen nor created any examples of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry
When I said "inorganic," I meant "non-living." That was term misuse. I apologize.

I'm not a scientist; I'm a literature and writing teacher, and it's been years since I studied chemistry. Thanks for reminding me what the scientific definition of "organic" is.

No sarcasm. Precision of language is important to me.
The current leading work regarding abiogenesis. This is confirmed in labs to actually happen. It's all chemistry. Biology is just complex chemistry. This project is lead by nobel price winner Jack Szostak.

remnant_phoenix said:
Years ago I saw a documentary where a group of astrophysicists calculated a conservative statistical improbability that Earth would be a habitable planet. Something like 1 in 10 to the 128th power. I don't remember what the documentary was called though.
No, no you did not. Because the only ones who make those bogus probability calculations are creationists.

Here's a video that explains these probability calculations:
 

Grimh

New member
Feb 11, 2009
673
0
0
Ok let's see...

On one side you have a scientific theory backed by years of scientific studies, experimentation and observation.

On the other you have something that by it's very nature can't even be classified as a scientific hypothesis, backed by a millenia year old book which holds no validity as a scientific work, a crocoduck and a banana.

And besides we all know that all life in the universe was created by the Devourer of Souls, the one that dwarfs galaxies and predates the 24iwhyt42!#%!#&% that was before existence, just so he could have something to eat.

I mean just look at dark matter. It totally makes sense.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
remnant_phoenix said:
Gorrath said:
remnant_phoenix said:
Eh, I say it depends on what he wants to say on the show.

If he wants to call attention to the great statistical improbabilities of life on earth being possible and then of life spontaneously-generating from inorganic matter, and then point out that this leads some scientists to infer the concept (note: I said "concept," not "hypothesis" or "theory") that there may be some intelligent design behind the processes, then that's fine, as long as its made clear that the science stops once you make the leap to the inferential concept; it's not a hypothesis or theory because it's not testable, and therefore, not science.
I'm not aware that anyone could calculate the statistical probability of life generating on Earth, we do not have another Earth to draw any comparison. I'm also not aware of any accepted theory that suggests that it happened spontaneously or from inorganic material. I don't see why they'd let him bring any of this up since it sounds like a great big straw-man.
Years ago I saw a documentary where a group of astrophysicists calculated a conservative statistical improbability that Earth would be a habitable planet. Something like 1 in 10 to the 128th power. I don't remember what the documentary was called though.
The problem with those calculations is that they deny the obvious part, its a self-proving statistic: we can do those calculations, because we are here. So, even when the number is extremely low, its not zero, as is proven by our presence. Its the same as being the one person that won the lottery, therefore wining the lottery sure looks easy.
Also, conservative statistics are bollocks, since the kind of parameters defined to make the planet habitable are only limited by our imagination and our definition of life. We are carbon based life forms living in a planet with an hydrogen/oxygen based atmosphere, with temperatures oscillating between -100 ºC and +50 ºC, so we tend to believe similar configurations are required for life, but in truth, life can be a lot more varied than that...
 

SFMB

New member
May 13, 2009
218
0
0
TheSYLOH said:
Actually I would be genuinely surprised if Cosmos did not discuss intelligent design and creationism. Just as I would be surprised if they did not discuss global warming denial. People in general and children especially need someone to take the time to explain how and why these things are not science and why they can be so easily dismissed.
Cosmos would be the perfect platform to explain this.
Why would they (Cosmos) want to advertise a fairytale? Best way to deal with Creationism is to seat it in the corner with a dunce hat on and forget it there after the schoolday is over, lights off and all.
All publicity is good publicity, even the ones that laugh in your face. Better to let it die quietly.
Humanity is stupid enough now, so it doesn't need anymore moronic beliefs that could drive it deeper in the cesspool of ignorance.
 

DrOswald

New member
Apr 22, 2011
1,443
0
0
miketehmage said:
BanicRhys said:
So much ignorance in this thread.

We know as much about the universe now as we did back in the back in the bronze age (nothing). Sure, we have some pretty good ideas based on what we're able to observe and comprehend around us, but they're still just ideas.

By completely disregarding other, less popular, ideas, you're being just as closed minded as those who allow themselves to be blinded by their religious dogmas.

We know fuck all about the universe, we can perceive fuck all of the universe, we can comprehend fuck all of the universe, to think anyone is anywhere close to an actual answer on anything is the height of arrogance.
This. So much this. Really couldn't have worded it better myself. The point of science is to admit we are ignorant and to try and learn more about what is around us, and if we spend all day shooting down different ideas, as crazy as they may seem, we are no different to the people we claim to know better than.
But... that's not true. We do know things about the universe, we can perceive things about the universe, we can comprehend things about the universe, and we have answers to a lot of important questions.

I mean, I guess it is possible to say "what we observe we do not actually observe, all of existence is an illusion" (Welcome to Night Vale...) and I guess I cannot prove you are wrong, but I feel like it is safe to start with the assumption that the universe does exist and that we are capable of observation. Do you disagree?
 

KazeAizen

New member
Jul 17, 2013
1,129
0
0
Gorrath said:
In my case, my parents were very open and didn't try to force anything on me or my siblings. They just wanted us to have some exposure to religion to make up our own minds. I love them for that, and many other things. My grandparents, who we were left in the care of, and who I also love dearly, were much more responsible for the push towards Christian belief. The youth group we were a part of was all about squashing independent thought and learning repetitious dogma. We were schooled in the new testament but also encouraged to treat homosexuals as sinners (with no explanation as to why homosexuality was worse than the sins we were all supposedly committing all the time). It was simply a form of bigotry and prejudice backed up by Biblical decree from the old and new testament. So my story isn't particularly vile, just dubious, but I know of many others like myself who lost something in those years we were forcibly indoctrinated. I need not appeal to some Medieval example of the harm the church can do, I lived through enough of it to know. I tell you all this simply to explain why I view the church the way I do, not as an accusation that you're some brainwashed cultist or moron. You have your own experiences, and I respect that, as they are no less important than my own.

I should also note that I am an agnostic atheist, a skeptic and a religious person. I happen to adhere to a religious philosophy that has no deity and no supernatural belief. I think religion is best described as what one does, not what one believes. Belief has very little value when compared to what action results due to that belief. I find Christianity to be no more or less valid than any other religious practice of similar stripe. What I, and so many others take issue with isn't the belief, though we may find the tenants themselves questionable at best, the problem is with the actions of some based on their professed belief.

When a group of people try to co-opt a science class by injecting creationist propaganda into it, I don't just blame the people who are doing this, I look at why they think they should. Christianity teaches one to be evangelical, even at the expense of one's own life. I find this notion, in actual practice, to be incompatible with a secular society. So if you are the sort to hold to your religious views and are able to live and let live in this secular nation, I'd embrace you. But, those who religiously go about working to do what their religion commands, even if it conflicts with a free and open nation, I must take action against, and I cannot ignore the beliefs they hold that inform that action. So I must be critical not only of the people but of their religion as well. I do not attack the religion out of hatred from the wrongs it did to me, but because I don't want to see those same wrongs done to others.

But be proud of your religious belief, tell others what you think and listen in turn. Love your neighbor even if he dismisses you or thinks you a fool. Enjoy yourself and indulge in your religious practice without shame. Just make sure that whatever you decide to practice, it does not work toward subverting the secular society in which we live. So long as we stay true to secularism, we can all live peaceably by whatever creed we deem fit for us. In the case of this story, that means not pretending as if some religious belief belongs on a show about science. But you already know that, and have said as much, and for that I respect you.
I've never really been exposed to one of those brainwashing type of youth groups. The whole homosexual part I'm still grappling with. I know what I think and personally I think my parents, my mom in particular, don't exactly see eye to eye with me on that. They haven't mistreated or would mistreat any of them but they are like "Does that have to be on TV?" "We don't approve of their lifestyle." "Its a choice that we don't approve of." Which if I remember correctly its slowly being proven that it may not be a choice in some cases. Anyway they are really passive aggressive about that but that is just going way the heck off course if I keep rambling. I have a feeling that many others would accuse me of being brain washed cultist or a moron.

Religion is like all things more action than words and honestly the likes of Christianity and such aren't exactly bad doctrine to live by. I mean there is a reason there are several Bible Stories that pretty much everyone knows. They teach just good lessons in general. Which ultimately the Bible is just a guide book. A record of experiences and knowledge gathered in one place for people to read and learn from to guide their lives. The only laws written by God are the 10 Commandments. Not the Bible. Going strictly by those it says nothing about homosexuality or anything like that. Basically they boil down to: 1. Put God before anything else, 2. respect your parents, 3. The last half being various forms of don't be a dick. If they were written today instead of thousands of years ago the last 5 would be condensed into "Use common sense and don't be a douche."

Being Evangelical to that extent is totally impractical. Yes I know we are supposed to do it but it is not my job. If the church was in some way shape or form my job I would. It is not but that does not stop me from every now and then trying to talk about it to someone who may be on the fence or is having a difficult time. Basically when an opportunity arrises I'll take it if I can to spread the word. Other then that I let people mind their business. Otherwise you chase more people off when you just try to jump down their throats with it.

At this point I've pretty much said "screw it" to being ashamed of anything. I work at a sports bar but all my coworkers know that I'm a walking encyclopedia or nerd knowledge, my main music growing up was Disney and Nsync, my choice of entertainment is video games, etc...Here I'm more or less blaring that I am Christian when someone makes a touchy thread on the subject and the aim seems to be to prove us as a bunch of nut jobs. To the people that claim all of the Bible is just some fake story book my best argument for them is that Jesus did exist. There are historical records saying he was actually walking around that aren't the Bible. Thats another thing for another time though I think.
 

Someone Depressing

New member
Jan 16, 2011
2,417
0
0
..Creationism science is a thing?

If Creatonism is is the belief that how everything came to be isn't how science has proved it to become the way it is now, and what it is sitll becoming, then... how can one be a person (scientist) who believes that everything can be explained with research, studies, or other methods, and that they must look at what they know to uncover those facts?

I think the concept os someone whose two central beliefs conflict completely is confusing enough.

captcha: check your work. I swear, these things just... know.
 

Catrixa

New member
May 21, 2011
209
0
0
I don't get it. Why do these guys want to be compared to science all the time, as though there are truly scientific questions about whether or not evolution or the book of Genesis happened? Like, why not compare yourself based on faith (something religion is) as opposed to factual accuracy (something religion is not)? Is their faith truly so weak as to be shaken apart by science saying some events in the bible might not be 100% fact? I'm not a religious person, but dear lord, that seems pretty sad to me. Your faith in something should not hinge on words written and retranslated over thousands of years by imperfect (see: humans) beings. That's why they call it "faith."
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
KazeAizen said:
Thanks for sharing with me, I like to learn about other people and discover why they are who they are. I could get into a deeper theological/philosophical discussion about some of the points you make here, but this thread is likely not the place to dig into all of that. I know quite a bit about the Bible and it's stories and the apologetics that surround it and would get a kick out of having a rambling discussion with you about various points, so maybe in some place more suitable we can do that.

As for homosexuals, I always think about it this way. Assuming you are a heterosexual, did at any point as a kid did you sit down, toss a coin and decide to be heterosexual? My guess is probably not. You simply were attracted to the girls you were attracted to. I'm not homosexual myself, but I don't imagine the process works any different for them. Choosing to have sex with another person is a choice, but your attraction to that person is not, and I think that's easily demonstrated. What I usually tell Christians when I talk about this subject with them is, you don't have to think it's okay for homosexuals to engage in homosexual sex, but it's not our place to tell anyone what to do with other consenting adults in their own bed.

You don't have to like it, you don't have to think it's okay, but it's really none of our business. Unfortunately, in the United States, there is a strong push to codify purely religious/theological opinion into law. So long as you aren't a part of that Christian movement, I not care one way or the other how you felt about homosexuals. Think it's a sin? Fine. Think they'll have to answer to God? Fine. Think they'll go to hell? You're prerogative. Think homosexual acts should be outlawed or that they shouldn't be given the same freedom of choice the rest of us are? Now we've got a problem. But you don't strike me as that sort, so I'm likely preaching to the choir here. It's good to have met you.
 

Plasmadamage

New member
Jul 24, 2012
125
0
0
Sofus said:
I believe that the universe exists within the belly of a giant odder and that the universe expands because the odder is eating alot of muffins.
Oh really? Then who created this odder? Or the muffins?

Also, what's an odder?
 

LastDarkness

New member
Jul 9, 2010
51
0
0
The Ultimate Problem is Religeon cant co-exist with science because science disproves religeon.
Religeon need to focus on the WHY, Science on the HOW of the ultimate questions of life.

Religeon is greedy and want to be the why and the how, all the while not even following its own tenants.
 

Westaway

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,084
0
0
Ratty said:
Newton also believed in Alchemy, do you think we should believe that to just because he did? What matters is what the men and women said and how much of it is supported by the current body of evidence. Otherwise, you're just arguing from authority. "Well these guys were really smart in certain fields so obviously you're dumb to disagree with them on anything." That's like saying someone with a Doctorate in Sports Medicine is automatically qualified to speak on geology.

Even the most brilliant ancient thinkers did not have access to the data and data collecting techniques we have now. No matter what names you can pull out of a hat the simple fact is that creationism does not follow the scientific method, therefore it is not science.
All you're doing with this post is propagating the stereotypes about "atheists" (in reality the neo-atheist movement). If you actually take the time to analyse what I posted you would have discerned that the only thing I said was that being religious and a scientist are not mutually exclusive, and proved my point with evidence. Not only have most great minds leading up until the modern era religious, I know more people in research positions that are religious than irreligious. These are two facts, the second one obviously being anecdotal and impossible for you to verify, but none the less a fact. I'm not religious. I wasn't not arguing "from authority" because I was not in an argument or debate, but clarifying a fact. Just because someone has a different opinion than you does not mean that they have the opposite opinion.
Gorrath said:
I wasn't aware that "creationist science" was a field, thank you for clarifying. Though they just probably just stick to the term "theology" if they want to be taken seriously.
immortalfrieza said:
That's because practically everybody on the planet was religious at the time, as well as being raised under it's doctrine. You could be imprisoned, exiled, or even executed for being otherwise back then, so there wasn't really any room for any "notable thinkers" that weren't religious. This is the same reason why the claims that religion and science do go together because religious people came up with the very foundations of science to begin with is completely groundless. If there had been real room for atheist scientists back then, then the scientific method would have not only been created far sooner but science as a whole would have advanced SIGNIFICANTLY more readily than it actually ended up.
Again, many of these claims are completely false. First off, the scientific method was created by theistic philosophers in ancient Greece. Secondly, the Christians and Muslims the two curators of literacy and culture after the fall of Rome. Saying that religion held humanity back and squashed any attempt at "science" is false. I will not argue the merits of religion, but the fact remains that for the majority of the time leading up until the enlightenment people were not being "thrown in jail" for being "atheist". The idea that irreligious scientists are better than religious scientists again is laughable.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
BanicRhys said:
Unless the defininition of ignorance has shifted to the complete opposite of what it used to be, I don't see how my post was in any way ironic given that I was advocating the acceptance of alternative ideas.
You said, and I quote:
We know as much about the universe now as we did back in the back in the bronze age (nothing). Sure, we have some pretty good ideas based on what we're able to observe and comprehend around us, but they're still just ideas.

We know fuck all about the universe, we can perceive fuck all of the universe, we can comprehend fuck all of the universe, to think anyone is anywhere close to an actual answer on anything is the height of arrogance. Odds are, creationism is just as likely to be correct as evolution and the big bang theory, so why not give it its fair share of coverage?
Besides being completely wrong, you're also dismissing (or are unaware of) hundreds of years of research and progress in science and knowledge in favor of an idea from a book written thousands of years ago, by goat herders who didn't even know what the world actually was.

And you have the gall to call the rest of us "ignorant"?

By completely disregarding other, less popular, ideas, you're being just as closed minded as those who allow themselves to be blinded by their religious dogmas.
So now it's close-minded to expect some evidence to support a claim? Because that's where this is coming from. A lack of evidence supporting the hypothesis of "Creationism".

If expecting someone to prove to me; with quantifiable, demonstrable evidence; that what they assert is true makes me close-minded.....then I will happily say that I'm the most close-minded person in the world.

Besides, why should the Christian idea of creationism be the only alternative hypothesis presented in Cosmos? Why not the other hypothesis's of creation from the thousands of other religions? How do we decide which nutty unproven hypothesis's are presented and which are ignored? Where do we draw the line in presenting real, proven theories along side untested; and indeed often untestable; hypothesis's?

You can be as insulting and indignant towards me and others like me as much as you want, but it won't change the fact that skepticism is the true "default position". As such, until a creationist can provide some proof of their claim, I have no obligation to accept their ideas nor give them equal merit as that given to proven ideas like evolution.
 

Joey Bolzenius

Regular Member
Sep 9, 2011
49
0
11
Isn't Creationism more theology than science? People can believe whatever they want, but how do you scientifically explain God?
 

rasputin0009

New member
Feb 12, 2013
560
0
0
I honestly wouldn't mind watching an episode on "science-y" creationist theories. I'm an atheist, but I find creationist thinking very interesting. How does a creationist scientist use science to explain creationism? I'm assuming that one would be faithful to science to an extent and fit that into the Bible's explanation somewhere.