Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

[Cerebrawl]

Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

Given evolution is not "just a theory," but rather one of the most reliably established facts in science and the foundation of modern biology, it is not exactly surprising that a science series would not present special creation as an alternative.

We ask that readers remain respectful in their comments and not attack anyone's religious views. Thank you.

I like how you ask others not to attack anyone's religious views when you ... just did that.

Furthermore, evolution still has many holes to work out of its mythos before it can be considered anything other than just a theory. Anyone who says otherwise is just as ignorant as they accuse others of being.

Also, I will not be revisiting this thread, so anyone replying to my comment trying to troll me into some petty little flame war will be disappointed. Go watch Kent Hovind instead.

Oh that whole attempt to drag science down to your level again. It's not a religion, it's science.

Oh and in scientific terms a theory is the highest order of knowledge. We've been over this a few times in this thread already but the relevant explanation is here: In depth rebuttal.

But since you said we should watch some Kent Hovind, let's do that:

Oh right that's why we don't listen to that convicted fraud, because he has no idea what he's talking about.

Actually I might as well link the whole video, for any patient viewers, it's quit a fun one:

 

[Lieju]

Which religion's version of creationism do they want to give airtime to?

I'd be interested in learning about ancient Egyptian, Greek and Norse creationism. How about those?

Hey, I totally want to talk about how the universe was created by Uranus copulating with Gaia and that's why Altas has to hold the sky up or else he'll crush everyone trying to have sec with the earth again.

It's as valid a creation theory as Genesis.

Failing that, Can I tell my theory about how the world was created from Ymir's dead body? Okay, it's not my theory but it's still bloody awesome.

I was always fond of the theory that the world began as a bunch of broken eggs a giant naked lady rolled on. (Kalevala)

I recall writing an essay on how this was supported by the geology and the fossil record (as much as Genesis myth, at any rate), I need to dig it up for occasions like this.

 

[Zac Jovanovic]

I was always fond of the theory that the world began as a bunch of broken eggs a giant naked lady rolled on. (Kalevala)

I recall writing an essay on how this was supported by the geology and the fossil record (as much as Genesis myth, at any rate), I need to dig it up for occasions like this.

I like the one that is basically one of the early Star Trek episodes, where the maniacal creator with godlike powers turns out to be a little kid having fun and gets scolded by his energy being godlike parents.

 

[sumanoskae]

You are free to believe whatever you want; you may even consider our beliefs to be facts.

But asking a scientific program, a show that stakes it's claim on dealing in facts, to regard and regurgitate your beliefs as if they were supported by logic and evidence is unreasonable, and a little bit irresponsible.

 

[wolfyrik]

Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

You bet me to that comment!! DAM YOU!!! But yes, a total oxymoron.

Edit: By definition someone who believes in the creation theory totally disregards any scientific 'facts' regarding the creation of everything, a scientist is someone who works purely on scientific fact, so yes, by definition, this is an oxymoron.

I'll play devil's advocate here (quite ironically), and say that it's possible, if difficult. If you look at the original Hebrew text, there are hundreds of ways to interpret each sentence. It's a stretch, but you can coincide the two.

Example: "The seven days of creation are measured in God-Days (read: astronomically inverse dog years)". I am told that, if you use some calculations done by rabbinic scholars way back, the time ratio of those seven "days" is actually fairly close to NASA's current estimation of the age of the universe.

I don't know how convincing that is, but I'd say it's interesting at least.

That wouldn't change the fact that the original texts still have the order mixed up. Light before stars, Earth before the plants before the sun etc. No matter how you look at it, creationism is completely wrong.

 

[wolfyrik]

But the fact remains, when we get down to pedantic brass tacks, anyone who claims to be a true Atheist is as much an idiot as a Creationist is.
Agnostic, fine.
Agnostic Theist, fine.
Agnostic Atheist, fine.

Claiming to be a true Atheist - i.e. that you truly KNOW there is no such thing as a deity - is folly. You cannot definitively KNOW. It is utterly impossible. It's as much folly as claiming belief in Creationism, or any other idea disproved by science.
It's fine to be an Agnostic Atheist - to THINK, and FEEL very sure that there are no gods, just as long as you acknowledge that you do not actually KNOW that which is impossible to know.

I think that's an important thing to keep in mind when debating from the Atheist point of view. We're here opposing falsehoods and nonsense, not championing the "truth" of things that cannot be proven.

I challenge that on the ground of specific claims, only. We cannot claim that unspecified "gods" (as a general term), do not exist but it could be argued that we could know that a specific god, with detailed qualities does not exist.

For example, anyone who claims that their god as creator of everything is all powerful, all-knowing and good, can be told that their god doesn't exist since the those qualities are incompatible with each other. Also any chrsitan who claims that the bible is true and accurate can be told that their god, specifically, does not exist since the bible is self-contradictory and demonstrably factually incorrect. Of course you'd have to add a disclaimer that there could still be "a god", just not that one, with those specific qualities.

 

[DataSnake]

And in turn you use me, my family, two-thirds of my friends, etc. etc. as examples without knowing us. Now, I can't speak for them, but if science could create life from nothing or definitively answer any of the "we still don't know how this happened" questions that religion holds up as proof that God exists then I would reconsider my stance.

This is known as the God of the gaps [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps] approach. The problem is that just because you don't know the answer to a question, it doesn't make all other answers equally possible. For instance, no one knows the true identity of Jack the Ripper, but if I started claiming that it was me, people would quite rightly think I'd gone nuts.

In short, I'm like you, stop generalizing a group as big as "religious".

Let's look again at that quote:

If you asked someone religious what it would take to change their mind, they would almost always answer "Nothing."

As you can see, the key word is "almost". The fact that you could be persuaded by evidence does not change the fact that many religious people could not, any more than the fact that Neil deGrasse Tyson has his own TV show changes the fact that most people don't.

I've never understood why people think of science and religion as separate, opposing viewpoints. Why couldn't God have created everything to run in a logical, scientific way?

The reason they're "opposing viewpoints" isn't that they produce contradictory outcomes (necessarily), it's their approach to knowledge. Religion generally emphasizes faith, while science demands evidence. Look at the story of Doubting Thomas, for instance. The moral many religious people take away is that Thomas was wrong to doubt Jesus, and that "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." By contrast, any scientist would tell you that Thomas was acting quite sensibly.

 

[wolfyrik]

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! Yeah if you couldn't tell I'm sick to freaking death of stuff popping up like this and then I come under fire because I so happen to be a believer. Anyone who claims themselves as a Creation Scientist is ignorant. Now a "Creationist" as in someone who believes in The Creation fine. There are some of us out there who actually believe certain things in the Bible are more metaphorical than literal. Who knows? Perhaps The Big Bang and The Creation are one and the same thing? One day the Universe is just there.

That's a fallacy called "argument from ignorance" You don't know what else did it, therfor god. We don't know how the universe started, as in what was before the big bang, but there's no good reason whatsoever to claim that a god made it. There's literally no more justification for saying it was god, than saying that a giant, purple, cupcake-shitting unicorn, farted the universe into existence.

An interesting theory was shown to me one day by a Religion Professor at University of Dallas. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all have some form of second coming or coming of the savior at the end of the world. While she was explaining this she drew two parallel lines and then had them slowly intersect showing that while we may follow different beliefs and practices they are all converging on the same point in the end. Who's to say that The Big Bang and The Creation aren't similar to that? I'm mad at these threads showing up here. I'm mad because I know the majority rule of the place and then I suddenly feel alone when I'm the one guy on the opposite side of the fence trying to inject logic or at least some decency into the thread but get jumped on because I share the unpopular opinion.

Well for one thing, islam and christianity both stem directly from jusdaism, so it's natural that they would incorporate some of it's beliefs. What about all the other religions, which massively outnumber these 3, which DON'T have messianic apocalypses? They're not all convergin on the same point in the end. Oh and just because someone is a professor, deosn't mean they know a thing about the universe. That's a fallacy called appeal to authority. You can be important and wrong.

Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to believe that magic created the universe, but you're in the wrong to get mad at people discussing religious extremists who try to get their demonstrably wrong, magical ideas aired on scientifc journals and you can't seriously expect people not to ridicule them for it.

 

[wolfyrik]

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.

Is that odder or otter? Either way all praise the Great Otter. Let us all give thanks and partake in the ritual consuming of sacred muffins.

Finally, a religion that makes sense, to me!

Muffins for all!

 

[wolfyrik]

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.

Just ideas? Are you stoned? We have working models, verifiable, testable facts and knowledge. We understand the laws of the universe and our models are so accurate that we are able to communicate across the entire planet, put people on the moon, take pictures of the history of the universe. If you think that these things are all guesses, I challenge you to demonstrate someone dropping a ball from roof only to have it float in the air then transform into a cupcake.

We know how weather works and it isn't on the whim of magical beings. We know how many planets are in our solar system, how the sun works, how to cure illness and what actually causes them, and no, demons are NOT one of the causes. We know how our solar system formed, the process that were in effect. Need I go on?

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.

Less Popular? This isn't a matter of "less popular" Science is built on knowledge, verifed, testable ideas, proven through weight of evidence and explained in theories. Creationism is a bunch of people who like to think that science is wrong because a two thousand year old book says magic did it.

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?

Odds? What odds? Exactly what figures are you making this calculation of probability on? Are you seriously suggesting that life on earth forming it's great diversity over millions of years - through evolution, as detailed by millions of fossils, two centuries of study, experimentation and observation of living lifeforms changing over time according to selection pressures, verifed using scientific method so thoroughly that we have more evidence to support the theory which explains it, than we have for Gravity and Germ theory - is equal probability to the claim that a magic-man suddenly spoke life into being out of nothingness, for which we have precisely zero evidence? Really?

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. It's a fallacy of equivocation and it's ludicrous.

Edit: I now realise the irony of "preaching" open mindedness.

Being 'open-minded' doesn't mean accepting every idea or explanation for everything and treating it as equal. Being open minded simply means that you're able to change your position, your ideas, your beliefs. Science is the very definition of open mindedness, because it is a self-correcting mechanism in which false ideas are removed and correct ideas are refined and changed. New ideas are evaluated by the accuracy, merrit and evidence and if they disprove other ideas, those previous ideas are re-examined.

Religion on the other hand is the definition of closed-mindedness, because it requires that people abandon other ideas, don't question and ignore alternative explanations.

You claimed that there was a lot of ignorance in this thread. You're right, there is and you're the one bringing it in. That's the "irony" here, that you complain of ignorance while demonstrating and spreading it yourself.

 

[wolfyrik]

Or, you know. All science that we see everywhere is true because God did it. Why is it so hard for these two views to coexist? God made the universe able to run on science. He made it with a firmly established set of rules for physics, biology, geology, etc, etc... Why is this so hard to understand?

Thank you! I completely agree. I'm Christian, but I have always supported a scientific approach to just about everything. I had an anthropology professor in college who I thought put it very well; he said that science is a tool, a mindset that can be used to tackle and explain things, but that it couldn't be used to explain everything. Does that mean that science or religion are wrong? No, it just means that sometimes science is the wrong tool. Now, I consider science to only seldom actually be the wrong tool. And I think that being religious doesn't give you license to throw that tool out the window, either. It's a damn useful tool!

The best interpretation of Genesis I've ever heard is simply this: it's *poetry*, not science. You have to remember that science as a tool/paradigm is, historically speaking, incredibly new. The scientific method as we understand it did not exist for most of human history. And expecting a scientifically accurate accounting of the creation of the world from a book written thousands of years ago is just ridiculous. Similarly, expecting said accounting to be inherently incorrect purely because it's not scientific is also ridiculous.

So, Genesis says God made the world in six days. But what does "day" mean, in the context of the poetry? The Bible is riddled with symbolism and allegory, and there is zero reason that can't be true for Genesis, too. Is a "day" an eon? Who knows? When you realize Genesis isn't literal, just as a poem isn't literal, then you can also see that there isn't any conflict between science and religion when it comes to where life came from.

To put it another way: Let's say that your significant other gazes deeply into your eyes, and then writes down what they see there. They'll probably write down something about the beauty of your eyes, or the depths of your soul, or if they're feeling snarky, how the flecks in your eyes resemble something weird or something like that.

Now let's say your opthamologist gazes deeply into your eyes, and writes down they see there. They'll probably record some numbers and jargon about what kind of glasses you may need, as well as anything else significant to their line of work.

So, now we have two detailed records of what your eyes look like, from two very different sources operating under two very different paradigms. But here's the thing: *both records are accurate*. Neither one is superior to the other; they're just different. They're not incompatible, and the existence of one doesn't invalidate the other. They were written for different purposes and using different approaches, but they both accurately describe your eyes in the context of those approaches.

It's the same way with Genesis and evolution and all that. They're two very different approaches constructed by very different authors that both happen to describe the same thing. Expecting one to invalidate the other makes as much sense as insisting that a metaphor-laden poem written about a cat's beauty can't be correct because it's not a scientific accounting of your cat's biology.

Except that Genesis says that the Earth came before the Moon and stars and that the plants came before the sun. Poetry is all well and good but it's hardly the equivolant of science when explaining a series of real events. One is accurate, the other is just plain wrong. The best thing that can be said about genesis is that it's story. Not even a very good one.
Your idea *would* have merit if not for the fact that we're trying to understand a series of actual events, not write a short story on magic. Genesis is entirely incompatible with science, because genesis is demonstrably wrong. It's not incompatible with other stories, sure. You can read Genesis and Harry Potter side by side, but if you want to understand some events that happened in real life, neither is very much use.

As for your cat analogy, let me put it this way, who would your rather perform a life saving operation on your cat, a Vet who understands it's biology and is trained in medicine, proven to be successful through scientific method, or Beatrix Potter who wrote some marvelous books about Peter Rabbit?

You like the idea of the bible as a story, that's fine, but that' doesn't mean it should be considered equal or equivolant to science in understanding the universe.

How about next time your pet is ill, you call me and I'll perform the operation for you? I've never studied medicine of any kind but I drew a picture of a cat once. No? Then you get why we don't want creationism to have airtime on scientific journals.

 

[Lieju]

I was always fond of the theory that the world began as a bunch of broken eggs a giant naked lady rolled on. (Kalevala)

I recall writing an essay on how this was supported by the geology and the fossil record (as much as Genesis myth, at any rate), I need to dig it up for occasions like this.

I like the one that is basically one of the early Star Trek episodes, where the maniacal creator with godlike powers turns out to be a little kid having fun and gets scolded by his energy being godlike parents.

Don't be silly. That was just a tv show.

My theory was in an old book. That makes it more valid.

 

[persephone]

Except that Genesis says that the Earth came before the Moon and stars and that the plants came before the sun. Poetry is all well and good but it's hardly the equivolant of science when explaining a series of real events. One is accurate, the other is just plain wrong. The best thing that can be said about genesis is that it's story. Not even a very good one.
Your idea *would* have merit if not for the fact that we're trying to understand a series of actual events, not write a short story on magic. Genesis is entirely incompatible with science, because genesis is demonstrably wrong. It's not incompatible with other stories, sure. You can read Genesis and Harry Potter side by side, but if you want to understand some events that happened in real life, neither is very much use.

As for your cat analogy, let me put it this way, who would your rather perform a life saving operation on your cat, a Vet who understands it's biology and is trained in medicine, proven to be successful through scientific method, or Beatrix Potter who wrote some marvelous books about Peter Rabbit?

You like the idea of the bible as a story, that's fine, but that' doesn't mean it should be considered equal or equivolant to science in understanding the universe.

How about next time your pet is ill, you call me and I'll perform the operation for you? I've never studied medicine of any kind but I drew a picture of a cat once. No? Then you get why we don't want creationism to have airtime on scientific journals.

I agree that poetry is not equivalent to science when explaining a series of real events; that was the entire point I'm trying to make. If someone wrote a poem about how your eyes were wells that led to a beautiful realm, that poem would be demonstrably wrong. But it would still reflect what the writer saw in your eyes.

I also agree that I would only want a professional to try to save my cat. And that poetry and metaphor are the wrong tools for trying to understand where the earth came from in a scientific sense. (They're useful for other things, but not for that!)

You'll note that I never said creationism should have airtime on scientific journals, either. I think creationism is bunk and that it should NOT have airtime on scientific journals. I was only expressing my opinion that science and religion don't conflict when it comes to the creation of the universe, because religion's info is poetry, not science, and you can have the two side by side (just for different purposes).

In other words, I think you're correct: Poetry is hardly the equivalent of science when explaining a series of real events. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have its place, either.

 

[Zac Jovanovic]

Don't be silly. That was just a tv show.

My theory was in an old book. That makes it more valid.

I don't know, it's a pretty old TV show...

 

[AdagioBoognish]

Wouldn't creationists have more luck if they looked for airtime on The History Channel? I bet there's a time slot between Monster Quest and Life Without People that would be a perfect fit.

 

[V8 Ninja]

Technically evolution is a theory, just like creationism.

Oh HELL NO. That statement is wronger than wrong

[Epic Snip]

Yeah, yeah, I know that there's a difference between scientific theory and common theory. I also agree that creationism is a host of garbage. I don't need literal paragraphs stating why my semantics are bad. If it makes you feel any better, I'll edit my original comment stating that there's a difference and that I'm a horrible person.

 

[V8 Ninja]

Technically evolution is a theory, just like creationism.

Hold your horses there partner, first we need to look up what the word Theory actually means. Most people seems to think that Theory means hypothesis. This is incorrect. Theory means "current best possible explanation". In science, a Theory starts as a hypothesis which you then try to prove and disprove by various means such as empirical study, observation etc.
Only when the hypothesis can't be disproved, does it get labelled a Theory.
From a scientific standpoint, Creationism, or intelligent design is barely even a hypothesis, i.e. an "idea based on observation".

Ref:
The word Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
The word Hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
Scientific Method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Edit: I suppose my little post is the TLDR version of Cerebrawls more in-depth rebuttal above.

For those who can't be bothered to read all that above.

Spoiler

Yeah, as you noted Cerebrawls already chewed me out on that [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.845564-Creationist-Scientist-Wants-Airtime-on-Cosmos-for-Creationist-Views?page=8#20841546]. I'll try to do better in the future, although I will stand by the original message (that being that evolution is more a scientific theory than a scientific law).

 

[Cerebrawl]

Technically evolution is a theory, just like creationism.

Oh HELL NO. That statement is wronger than wrong

[Epic Snip]

Yeah, yeah, I know that there's a difference between scientific theory and common theory. I also agree that creationism is a host of garbage. I don't need literal paragraphs stating why my semantics are bad. If it makes you feel any better, I'll edit my original comment stating that there's a difference and that I'm a horrible person.

Your original statement is "a theory just like", which is patently false. In fact it's an equivocation fallacy, where you abuse ambiguity of language to equate two different things, to imply that they are on equal footing when they are not.

But it's good that you at least agree that it's a pile of garbage, and not on equal footing with acual science.

Oh and:

I'll try to do better in the future, although I will stand by the original message (that being that evolution is more a scientific theory than a scientific law).

Here we go again:
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!