If all the evidence in the universe pointed towards an old Earth, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a young Earth creationist because that is what the holy scripture teaches me.
Leave a comment to auto-join group Critical Thinkers
Given our relatively recent ability to sequence the genetic code of species, we have yet another (extremely compelling) body of evidence that species of life are the result of evolution.
As long as YECs are permitted to respond to questions with the answer of "The Bible says it and I believe it" as an answer there will always be creationists attempting to muddy the waters of science. These people have no shame in their goal of furthering their perverted strain of religious belief because they have been convinced that they are the army of god. If you could have a logical conversation with a YEC there would not be creationists, but we both know that is impossible because they are not logical. They are emotional thinkers to their core and view reality as a threat to their religious beliefs.
I have often wondered if religious conservatives could be treated with the same deprogramming therapy that psychologists use on former cult members?
I agree. YECs in particular seem to be totally ensnared by their indoctrination. It is not a function of intelligence and it cannot be undone with logic or with facts. They do indeed seem to hold true to this:
'The Bible is divine and inerrant. Any contradiction I may recognize is, by definition, false. It is simply my inability to comprehend the will and the word of God.'
Get someone to yield all critical thinking and you have them for life.
I agree. YECs in particular seem to be totally ensnared by their indoctrination. It is not a function of intelligence and it cannot be undone with logic or with facts. They do indeed seem to hold true to this:Get someone to yield all critical thinking and you have them for life.
I have often said that from my perspective watching 2 believers discuss religion is akin to watching two blind people argue about the color purple looks like.
On one hand it is funny but on the other hand, it is tragic because they are in an emotional prison that their parents forced on them and they don't know how to start to get out, even when people try to give them the key to unlock the chains that bind them.
BTW, All facts refute creationism because creationism is obviously a religious belief and not anything that can be supported by science.
I have often said that from my perspective watching 2 believers discuss religion is akin to watching two blind people argue about the color purple looks like.
It appears that this is how the Christian religion has always operated since its inception.
History of scholarship in the Jewish–Christian gospel problem [ edit ]
Our sources for the Jewish–Christian gospels are the early church fathers of the late 2nd to the early 5th centuries – Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Didymus the Blind, Epiphanius and Jerome. Not all of them were aware that there were different Jewish Christian communities with varying theologies, or that some of them (or at least one) was Aramaic -speaking while others knew only Greek; as a result they frequently confused one gospel with another, and all with a supposed Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew . [11]
This confusion has created uncertainty for modern scholars. There is agreement that the fragments cannot be traced back to a Hebrew/Aramaic version or revision of Matthew's gospel, as most of them have no parallel in the canonical gospels. There are good reasons for thinking that there must have been at least two Jewish–Christian gospels, since there are two differing accounts of the baptism and good evidence that some fragments were originally in Aramaic and others in Greek. Most modern scholars have concluded that there was one Jewish–Christian gospel in Aramaic/Hebrew and at least another one in Greek. Some have argued that the total number was three (Bauer, Vielhauer and Strecker, Klijn), others that there were only two (Schlarb and Luhrmann). [2] [12]
It does not require much research to realize that the Bible (the version held divine by people like Dr. Wise) is a patchwork quilt of fragments that have been copied (introducing error) from oral to written, across several languages, across many cultures and the collective works is the result of an untold number of ancient men with pens.
Further, there are no original sources available - only copies (in reality, copies of copies of copies ...).
How an intelligent individual like Dr. Wise could hold the Bible (in its present form) to be inerrant and divine defies explanation.
There are good reasons for thinking that there must have been at least two Jewish–Christian gospels, since there are two differing accounts of the baptism and good evidence that some fragments were originally in Aramaic and others in Greek. Most modern scholars have concluded that there was one Jewish–Christian gospel in Aramaic/Hebrew and at least another one in Greek. Some have argued that the total number was three
The fundamental problem is that "Holy Book" is both misspelled and miscapitalized. It should be "holey book."
Dawkins clearly describes what goes on in an easily understandable fashion. I highly reccommend any of his books and lectures.
I thought that his attitude in The God Delusion was a bit over the top and arrogant. He would have driven many questioning believers away rather than to attract them.
I was raised strict Roman Catholic but I never believed. I tried to believe but my mind wouldn't let me because I always asked questions. I still feel Catholic guilt occasionally, despite the fact that I haven't attended mass and formally left the church in 1992.
Dawkins is definitely arrogant. It must be very frustrating though to be a science educator and have to fight the same battles against willful ignorance and Bronze-age superstitions over and over and over and over....endlessly.
I think that's why I enjoy tutoring but not teaching in general. I couldn't deal with people who don't want to learn.
Dawkins is definitely arrogant. It must be very frustrating though to be a science educator and have to fight the same battles against willful ignorance and Bronze-age superstitions over and over and over and over....endlessly.I think that's why I enjoy tutoring but not teaching in general. I couldn't deal with people who don't want to learn.
I think that Neil DeGrasse Tyson does a good job reaching out to people, even if his sarcasm and satire occasionally might be insulting to religious people.
Religious fundamentalists are a problem on college campus, both among the students who want to make every discussion a issue of religious belief and professors who seek to get hired as a way to inject religious fundamentalism into the classroom.
My former neighbor was a tenured prof at my alma mater and he told me that most profs have gotten to the point where they have put a boilerplate statement in the sylabus that they will not tolerate religious issues being injected into the discussion to divert the lecture. One of my former science profs told me that he had to eject 2 students who caused a scene in the classroom during a discussion of cell biology. They were later removed from the student body for their behavior because this apparently wasn't their first episode.
One of my former science profs told me that he had to eject 2 students who caused a scene in the classroom during a discussion of cell biology. They were later removed from the student body for their behavior because this apparently wasn't their first episode.
Wow. I went to a church-supported private college, and none of my classmates would have tried that crap.
I think Tyson is an amazing educator although I doubt he has much effect on bible-babblers.
A friend of mine teaches physics and astronomy at a college in Kentucky and has to deal with them all the time. I don't know how he can stand it but at least he keeps his sense of humor.
Wow. I went to a church-supported private college, and none of my classmates would have tried that crap.
I had classmates who were religious but nobody would have ever dared to make a scene in a secular class about religion. We knew to do the coursework and keep religion out of it or to discuss the situation in office hours afterward I remember some heated discussions in my critical theology course but that was expected.
Some of the discussions that I had with my neighbor and my former prof lead me to belive that many younger students come to college with an attitude of superiority or are flatly unprepared for life outside of mom and dad's protection. They aren't emotionally mature, they aren't academically prepared for freshman coursework and they refuse to be held accountable for their actions. Both had very strict policies on the use of cell phones in class to the point of having ice picks and hammers in their desk to deal with repeat offenders.
It's been many moons since I took cell biology, but all I remember is more chemistry and the structure of the damn cell than any thing would encourage religious discussion
The Bible is divine and inerrant. Any contradiction I may recognize is, by definition, false.
This bothers me in the sense that the author is contradicting him/herself. If God wrote the Bible or "inspired" men to write it (God told them what to write), then there shouldn't be any contradictions, should there?
The common ability to disregard that which one does not want to consider is what bothers me the most. Religions (and political machines, marketing, etc.) have exploited this feature of the human mind since their inceptions.
Given our relatively recent ability to sequence the genetic code of species, we have yet another (extremely compelling) body of evidence that species of life are the result of evolution.
But yet, creationists will declare it wrong or "pseudoscience" (as one NT member does-you know of whom I am referring) and creationism is factually true, even without one shred of evidence.
The distinguished quote for this article was from Dr. Kurt Wise:
If all the evidence in the universe pointed towards an old Earth, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a young Earth creationist because that is what the holy scripture teaches me.
Kurt Patrick Wise (born 1959) is an American young earth creationist who serves as the Director of Creation Research Center at Truett McConnell University. He has a PhD in paleontology from Harvard University . He writes in support of creationism and works for the Creation Museum.
No matter what real evidence is provided, this guy will believe the Earth is <10,000 years old because ancient men wrote stories in an errant book. His beliefs exist in spite of his intellect - in absolute defiance of his intellect and the resources and knowledge available via modern science.
It is amazing that people deny reality because they believe an ancient book is divine (because other human beings said so).
If all the evidence in the universe pointed towards an old Earth, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a young Earth creationist because that is what the holy scripture teaches me.
Yeah, that is just mind boggling.
His beliefs exist in spite of his intellect - in absolute defiance of his intellect and the resources and knowledge available via modern science.
See previous statement. But then, he's hardly the only one either, regardless of intellect.
It is amazing that people deny reality because they believe an ancient book is divine (because other human beings said so).
Never underestimate the human capacity for willful ignorance and/or delusional thinking.
Also, he had to misrepresent his beliefs during his education. How does one get a PhD in paleontology and hold that the Earth is < 10,000 years old without being dishonest?
Also, he had to misrepresent his beliefs during his education. How does one get a PhD in paleontology and hold that the Earth is < 10,000 years old without being dishonest?
Academic integrity can be grounds for revoking a diploma.
How does one get a PhD in paleontology and hold that the Earth is < 10,000 years old without being dishonest?
I thought of approaching my comment from that angle but strictly speaking a PhD isn't a litmus test of one's beliefs but of the ability to conduct new research and exhaustively approach a topic, and a test of whether one is a BS artist (or at least a good enough one to get published).
The dishonesty comes in his motives for wanting that degree which were obviously not to conduct science but to lend credence to his YEC nuttery and to be employed by one of those fruitcake factories. That's probably why there are doctorates in theology too - to lend credence to superstitious nuttery (despite the fact that the D.Th folks I know really are well educated).
but of the ability to conduct new research and exhaustively approach a topic, and a test of whether one is a BS artist (or at least a good enough one to get published)
That is what I was getting at. He had to lie (contradict his beliefs) to get his PhD.
He had to lie (contradict his beliefs) to get his PhD.
Oddly enough that's probably a sign of a fairly high IQ, the ability to comfortably hold contradictory ideas in one's mind. I think that's why the anti-gay bakers and florists are honest about why they denied service, not because they're actually honest and ethical people but because they're too dumb to lie in order to comply with the law. It takes too much mental effort to support both "I hate gays" and "my business follows the law".
Oddly enough that's probably a sign of a fairly high IQ
And that is the main point of this article. Here we have a demonstrably high IQ (and trained in paleontology) making the following declaration:
If all the evidence in the universe pointed towards an old Earth, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a young Earth creationist because that is what the holy scripture teaches me.
Religion can overpower a high IQ and suppress critical thinking (at least where the religious beliefs are concerned).
If it could be proven that he didn't intellectually support what he claimed in his thesis that could be academic misconduct.
I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Or at least the academic test is what's in his paper or his oral defense not what's in his mind.
However it does explain why so few scientists are superstitious and why only a tiny minority are fundamentalists - as Gordy noted below it's simply not compatible with intellectual honesty.
.
As a YEC he would not have a reason to publish a scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal.
Exactly, but some do try in order to build up their scientific cred. When they get rejected they turn to vanity journals or to non peer-reviewed fake science publications which support their beliefs. That's what Regnerus, Cameron, Nicolosi, McHugh and others have done in the social science and psychiatry realms after they were rejected or discredited by the peer-review process.
.
Coincidentally I ran across this on-point article (which is worth reading in full at the link):
In this article, however, I do not focus on specific controversies, but rather on what I consider to be a largely unappreciated dimension of the problem. It seems to me that a lot of the debates surrounding the science–society–religion cultural triangle and the ensuing problems are caused by a failure on the part of scientists and science educators—and hence the media, elected officials and the public at large—to appreciate two crucial philosophical points. These are: the distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism ; and the distinction between what ‘is' and what ‘ought' to be ; that is, between matters of fact and value judgements. It is exactly this ignorance of the philosophical aspect of modern science that confuses the borders between science, religion and society, and which lies at the heart of scientists' difficulties in coping with attacks by fundamentalists of all kinds.
While I am certainly not as naive as to suggest that simply explaining these two points to colleagues and the public will suffice to instantly ‘solve' the so-called ‘culture wars', I am confident that this is a good place to start a much-needed discussion that should be pursued in search of a long-term reconciliation between science and religion. I hope that by exploring these two philosophical issues, this article will provide scientists and educators with two formidable, intellectual and educational weapons in their fight against fundamentalist claims. I should also warn the reader that the following treatment glosses over several subtleties of the philosophical debate that still occupy professional philosophers. Nonetheless, I am convinced that the main points are both clear enough and highly relevant to the debate on how to deal with fundamentalism, so as to deserve a much wider presentation than has been the case so far.
Speaking of Harvard I'm going to seed this article shortly but it has some relevance to the topic here in that only 12% of freshman identify as conservative. While there are no doubt multiple reasons for that it also bears directly on the issue of intelligence, intellectual honesty and open mindedness.
The only way some will give up their beliefs is if someone builds a time machine and takes them for a ride, and whether through indoctrination or outright stubbornness I'm doubtful that would work in all cases.
I agree it's difficult to dissuade a believer, but some people grow out of it just like most children eventually grow out of the need for an imaginary friend. Truth and fact become more important than the emotional urge which drives the irrational belief.
In fact I think the people who really care about this issue are those who were believers at one time but evolved in their thinking on their own, not through external dissuasion. It's not like you can point to some simple fact like "DNA" or "radioactive decay rate" and suddenly a believer loses their superstition and becomes rational.
but some people grow out of it just like most children eventually grow out of the need for an imaginary friend.
One must also be intellectually honest and open minded enough to do it too, and set emotional sensibilities and needs aside. Sadly, most are probably unable to do so.
I dunno....my own parents became more religious as they got older. Maybe it's because they were both sick (dad with lymphoma, mom with heart disease) or whatever drove them to become active church members and Bible readers. They certainly weren't like that when I was a kid
It sounds like they were religious all along and never lost it. Lots of religious folk become more fervently superstitious as they get closer to death - I've seen that in my own family and elderly friends. What I haven't seen are any atheists who become superstitious as they get older.
Also, it is easy to imagine someone in despair, fear, etc. exploring any possibility. Same basic idea as exploring 'experimental' drugs / procedures or exotic 'natural' cures.
I'm sure it happens occasionally, I've just never known of anyone who actually was an atheist to have a deathbed conversion to an organized superstition.
I've just never known of anyone who actually was an atheist to have a deathbed conversion to an organized superstition.
Me neither. But atheists come in all flavors; it is a continuum: theist → atheist. Near the midpoint are agnostic atheists who could easily vacillate between agnostic atheist and agnostic theist.
I suspect that most here have accepted the reality of evolution. For the others, it is hard to imagine what intellectual argument can be made. All I have ever seen are platitudes and truly ignorant comments / questions such as: If human beings came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?
My conclusion is that it is indeed willful ignorance - refusal to even consider something that clashes with a religious view.
I've also seen laughable attempt to defend creationism and/or refute evolution, typically relying on transparently religious sources that try to sound scientific.
I certainly understand why someone would not seek to defend creationism. Evolution is one of the most highly evidenced findings of science. There really is no question at this point (among those who have taken the time to learn) that evolution is the mechanism by which species arise. Dr. Francis Collins, for example, lead the genome project and is also a devout Christian. His view is this:
As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.
Francis S. Collins M.D. Ph.D. (born April 14 , 1950 ) is a physician-geneticist noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes, and his administration of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He is the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) and current director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
There are only a couple of NT users whom I remember trying to defend creationism trying to use christian revisionist science. At least Dr. Collins is honest in his assessment regarding science and his faith. I think such instances are far and few in between.
In the view of the Evolution it says that man evolved from the apes. In the Bible is says that God created Man in His own image.
As God created Heaven and Earth, if Man did indeed evolve from the Apes as Evolutionists attest, then God must look like an Ape. As God first created the Ape for Man to evolve from, then in essence, God created Man in His own image.
Given the Bible's version of the theory, God created Man in His own image, sans any evolution from Apes.
I am not a Christian, and am not affiliated with any organized religion, but, follow the religious teachings of my ancient Cherokee ancestors. Thus, I don't put a lot of store in the argument either way.
All I can say is, the Creator that I follow I do not believe looks like an Ape, nor ever has.
While I respect the views and beliefs of others in whatever way makes them happy and their life more meaningful, I will not be swayed by arguments in either direction.
I prefer arguments with facts and evidence to back them up, not beliefs.
So do I. That is why I take all the theories on the subject with a grain of salt. No one will really know for a fact what really occurred until we leave this world. Theories, beliefs and suppositions are simply not facts, and thus, I cannot put any credence in them. Until I leave this world I will not try to second guess what and how things happened when there was no one to witness it.
Established scientific theories have supporting empirical evidence, which demonstrates a degree of probability for them. When there is so much empirical evidence to support a theory and none to discredit it, the theory is regarded as quite certain or even factual. Therefore, belief is neither required or necessary, and it shouldn't be. Myths and superstitions require belief. Scientific theories like evolution do not.
However, even science is not 100% fool proof, as has been proven many times in the history of the world. What is thought to be written in stone today can be totally debunked tomorrow, by new discoveries and new facts. Like many other living beings here on earth man kind has learned to adapt to the changes in their environments as they migrated around the world, and that meant changes in their appearance and structure, which is only natural, and we continue to change as the world itself continues to change. What we look like now may not be what Man will look like in the future. But, what those changes are cannot be determined today, even by science.
There is far more to know about our world and how things came to be, including Man, than we have access to at this point in time. So I prefer to wait and get the real info direct from whatever, whoever, made it possible for Man to be here on earth. Like many other
However, even science is not 100% fool proof, as has been proven many times in the history of the world.
Science is the first to acknowledge it might be wrong. It all depends on the evidence presented.
What is thought to be written in stone today can be totally debunked tomorrow, by new discoveries and new facts.
Scientific discoveries, new information and knowledge, have only grown, especially over the last century alone. Some scientific theories (such as evolution) have only been affirmed and reinforced.
Like many other living beings here on earth man kind has learned to adapt to the changes in their environments as they migrated around the world, and that meant changes in their appearance and structure, which is only natural, and we continue to change as the world itself continues to change.
Mankind thrived because it evolved the intelligence necessary to manipulate its environment for its benefit (often at the expense of other species).
What we look like now may not be what Man will look like in the future. But, what those changes are cannot be determined today, even by science.
But we know those changes can and probably will happen. That's evolution in action. A review of the fossil record also demonstrates such changes.
There is far more to know about our world and how things came to be, including Man, than we have access to at this point in time.
Such as? We already have a good idea of how things came to be. The details may differ. But overall, the current understanding is sound.
So I prefer to wait and get the real info direct from whatever, whoever, made it possible for Man to be here on earth.
Evolution made it possible, as life developed and evolved over billions of years.
As God created Heaven and Earth, if Man did indeed evolve from the Apes as Evolutionists attest, then God must look like an Ape. As God first created the Ape for Man to evolve from, then in essence, God created Man in His own image.
I did not think you held the Bible to be truth. If the Bible is only the words of ancient men then the notion that man is the image of God is simply ancient fiction.
That is, if there is a creator we likely do not know anything about the creator. The creator, if one exists, might have created primordial life and established evolution as the mechanism for creating species. There is nothing that suggests the creator is an ape.
No, I don't. Never have. I have attended many churches of different faiths to learn how they viewed the world and those who live in it. In the end I could not find any reason to change my religious beliefs from that of my Cherokee ancestors, as I believe that their Native American religious beliefs are closer to the truth and closer to the natural order of life of all living beings here on earth.
We do not believe that Man simply dropped out of the sky, nor grew into human form from some kind of amoeba. Different Tribes have their own form of religion and beliefs, but, the majority do believe in a Supreme being. I have also researched many of the various Tribes here in America and their customs, traditions and culture. The one thing that is prominent in each Tribe is the belief in a Supreme being.
YEC is right up there with flat earthers. Speaking of which, cameras need to evolve and use a fish eye lens to prevent flat earthers from spreading their propaganda and lies.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Given our relatively recent ability to sequence the genetic code of species, we have yet another (extremely compelling) body of evidence that species of life are the result of evolution.
As long as YECs are permitted to respond to questions with the answer of "The Bible says it and I believe it" as an answer there will always be creationists attempting to muddy the waters of science. These people have no shame in their goal of furthering their perverted strain of religious belief because they have been convinced that they are the army of god. If you could have a logical conversation with a YEC there would not be creationists, but we both know that is impossible because they are not logical. They are emotional thinkers to their core and view reality as a threat to their religious beliefs.
I have often wondered if religious conservatives could be treated with the same deprogramming therapy that psychologists use on former cult members?
I agree. YECs in particular seem to be totally ensnared by their indoctrination. It is not a function of intelligence and it cannot be undone with logic or with facts. They do indeed seem to hold true to this:
'The Bible is divine and inerrant. Any contradiction I may recognize is, by definition, false. It is simply my inability to comprehend the will and the word of God.'
Get someone to yield all critical thinking and you have them for life.
I have often said that from my perspective watching 2 believers discuss religion is akin to watching two blind people argue about the color purple looks like.
On one hand it is funny but on the other hand, it is tragic because they are in an emotional prison that their parents forced on them and they don't know how to start to get out, even when people try to give them the key to unlock the chains that bind them.
BTW, All facts refute creationism because creationism is obviously a religious belief and not anything that can be supported by science.
Or outright deny it regardless of compelling evidence.
Would that be evidence for a god? Lol
in a word, delusional.
I did like his book: "The God Delusion."
It appears that this is how the Christian religion has always operated since its inception.
It does not require much research to realize that the Bible (the version held divine by people like Dr. Wise) is a patchwork quilt of fragments that have been copied (introducing error) from oral to written, across several languages, across many cultures and the collective works is the result of an untold number of ancient men with pens.
Further, there are no original sources available - only copies (in reality, copies of copies of copies ...).
How an intelligent individual like Dr. Wise could hold the Bible (in its present form) to be inerrant and divine defies explanation.
The fundamental problem is that "Holy Book" is both misspelled and miscapitalized. It should be "holey book."
I thought that his attitude in The God Delusion was a bit over the top and arrogant. He would have driven many questioning believers away rather than to attract them.
I was raised strict Roman Catholic but I never believed. I tried to believe but my mind wouldn't let me because I always asked questions. I still feel Catholic guilt occasionally, despite the fact that I haven't attended mass and formally left the church in 1992.
Dawkins is definitely arrogant. It must be very frustrating though to be a science educator and have to fight the same battles against willful ignorance and Bronze-age superstitions over and over and over and over....endlessly.
I think that's why I enjoy tutoring but not teaching in general. I couldn't deal with people who don't want to learn.
I think that Neil DeGrasse Tyson does a good job reaching out to people, even if his sarcasm and satire occasionally might be insulting to religious people.
Religious fundamentalists are a problem on college campus, both among the students who want to make every discussion a issue of religious belief and professors who seek to get hired as a way to inject religious fundamentalism into the classroom.
My former neighbor was a tenured prof at my alma mater and he told me that most profs have gotten to the point where they have put a boilerplate statement in the sylabus that they will not tolerate religious issues being injected into the discussion to divert the lecture. One of my former science profs told me that he had to eject 2 students who caused a scene in the classroom during a discussion of cell biology. They were later removed from the student body for their behavior because this apparently wasn't their first episode.
Wow. I went to a church-supported private college, and none of my classmates would have tried that crap.
I think Tyson is an amazing educator although I doubt he has much effect on bible-babblers.
A friend of mine teaches physics and astronomy at a college in Kentucky and has to deal with them all the time. I don't know how he can stand it but at least he keeps his sense of humor.
Tyson tries his best to avoid religious discussions. He wants to talk science.
Trouble is, his teaching never gets past the religious filter on the people who really should pay attention.
I guess a good sense of humor is a must when dealing with die-hard theists.
I had classmates who were religious but nobody would have ever dared to make a scene in a secular class about religion. We knew to do the coursework and keep religion out of it or to discuss the situation in office hours afterward I remember some heated discussions in my critical theology course but that was expected.
Some of the discussions that I had with my neighbor and my former prof lead me to belive that many younger students come to college with an attitude of superiority or are flatly unprepared for life outside of mom and dad's protection. They aren't emotionally mature, they aren't academically prepared for freshman coursework and they refuse to be held accountable for their actions. Both had very strict policies on the use of cell phones in class to the point of having ice picks and hammers in their desk to deal with repeat offenders.
It's been many moons since I took cell biology, but all I remember is more chemistry and the structure of the damn cell than any thing would encourage religious discussion
This bothers me in the sense that the author is contradicting him/herself. If God wrote the Bible or "inspired" men to write it (God told them what to write), then there shouldn't be any contradictions, should there?
The common ability to disregard that which one does not want to consider is what bothers me the most. Religions (and political machines, marketing, etc.) have exploited this feature of the human mind since their inceptions.
But yet, creationists will declare it wrong or "pseudoscience" (as one NT member does-you know of whom I am referring) and creationism is factually true, even without one shred of evidence.
The distinguished quote for this article was from Dr. Kurt Wise:
Kurt Wise received his PhD from Harvard:
No matter what real evidence is provided, this guy will believe the Earth is <10,000 years old because ancient men wrote stories in an errant book. His beliefs exist in spite of his intellect - in absolute defiance of his intellect and the resources and knowledge available via modern science.
It is amazing that people deny reality because they believe an ancient book is divine (because other human beings said so).
Yeah, that is just mind boggling.
See previous statement. But then, he's hardly the only one either, regardless of intellect.
Never underestimate the human capacity for willful ignorance and/or delusional thinking.
Exactly. That is the mystery.
That must be somewhat embarrassing for Harvard, a bit like an astrophysicist being a flat-earther.
Also, he had to misrepresent his beliefs during his education. How does one get a PhD in paleontology and hold that the Earth is < 10,000 years old without being dishonest?
Academic integrity can be grounds for revoking a diploma.
Not holding my breath.
I thought of approaching my comment from that angle but strictly speaking a PhD isn't a litmus test of one's beliefs but of the ability to conduct new research and exhaustively approach a topic, and a test of whether one is a BS artist (or at least a good enough one to get published).
The dishonesty comes in his motives for wanting that degree which were obviously not to conduct science but to lend credence to his YEC nuttery and to be employed by one of those fruitcake factories. That's probably why there are doctorates in theology too - to lend credence to superstitious nuttery (despite the fact that the D.Th folks I know really are well educated).
That is what I was getting at. He had to lie (contradict his beliefs) to get his PhD.
Does he publish in any credible peer-reviewed journal? Most of these quacks don't and thus don't risk accusations of academic fraud.
If it could be proven that he didn't intellectually support what he claimed in his thesis that could be academic misconduct.
As a YEC he would not have a reason to publish a scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal.
Oddly enough that's probably a sign of a fairly high IQ, the ability to comfortably hold contradictory ideas in one's mind. I think that's why the anti-gay bakers and florists are honest about why they denied service, not because they're actually honest and ethical people but because they're too dumb to lie in order to comply with the law. It takes too much mental effort to support both "I hate gays" and "my business follows the law".
And that is the main point of this article. Here we have a demonstrably high IQ (and trained in paleontology) making the following declaration:
Religion can overpower a high IQ and suppress critical thinking (at least where the religious beliefs are concerned).
I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Or at least the academic test is what's in his paper or his oral defense not what's in his mind.
However it does explain why so few scientists are superstitious and why only a tiny minority are fundamentalists - as Gordy noted below it's simply not compatible with intellectual honesty.
.
Exactly, but some do try in order to build up their scientific cred. When they get rejected they turn to vanity journals or to non peer-reviewed fake science publications which support their beliefs. That's what Regnerus, Cameron, Nicolosi, McHugh and others have done in the social science and psychiatry realms after they were rejected or discredited by the peer-review process.
.
Coincidentally I ran across this on-point article (which is worth reading in full at the link):
Such as take a job with Ken Ham (which is what he did).
Speaking of Harvard I'm going to seed this article shortly but it has some relevance to the topic here in that only 12% of freshman identify as conservative. While there are no doubt multiple reasons for that it also bears directly on the issue of intelligence, intellectual honesty and open mindedness.
The only way some will give up their beliefs is if someone builds a time machine and takes them for a ride, and whether through indoctrination or outright stubbornness I'm doubtful that would work in all cases.
I agree it's difficult to dissuade a believer, but some people grow out of it just like most children eventually grow out of the need for an imaginary friend. Truth and fact become more important than the emotional urge which drives the irrational belief.
In fact I think the people who really care about this issue are those who were believers at one time but evolved in their thinking on their own, not through external dissuasion. It's not like you can point to some simple fact like "DNA" or "radioactive decay rate" and suddenly a believer loses their superstition and becomes rational.
One must also be intellectually honest and open minded enough to do it too, and set emotional sensibilities and needs aside. Sadly, most are probably unable to do so.
I dunno....my own parents became more religious as they got older. Maybe it's because they were both sick (dad with lymphoma, mom with heart disease) or whatever drove them to become active church members and Bible readers. They certainly weren't like that when I was a kid
It sounds like they were religious all along and never lost it. Lots of religious folk become more fervently superstitious as they get closer to death - I've seen that in my own family and elderly friends. What I haven't seen are any atheists who become superstitious as they get older.
Also, it is easy to imagine someone in despair, fear, etc. exploring any possibility. Same basic idea as exploring 'experimental' drugs / procedures or exotic 'natural' cures.
I'm sure it happens occasionally, I've just never known of anyone who actually was an atheist to have a deathbed conversion to an organized superstition.
Me neither. But atheists come in all flavors; it is a continuum: theist → atheist. Near the midpoint are agnostic atheists who could easily vacillate between agnostic atheist and agnostic theist.
I wonder if there are any takers to defend creationism and refute evolution? I've noticed proponents of creationism tend to run away when challenged.
They haven't managed to do so, even on their own articles. I can't see it happening on someone else's.
I've noticed. I'm not sure which is worse: their intellectual cowardice or willful ignorance.
Not likely.
I suspect that most here have accepted the reality of evolution. For the others, it is hard to imagine what intellectual argument can be made. All I have ever seen are platitudes and truly ignorant comments / questions such as: If human beings came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?
My conclusion is that it is indeed willful ignorance - refusal to even consider something that clashes with a religious view.
I've also seen laughable attempt to defend creationism and/or refute evolution, typically relying on transparently religious sources that try to sound scientific.
I remember discussions with Jehavoh's Witnesses who tried that stuff. JWAH, for example.
Oh yea, I remember JWAH. Shepboy was another.
I certainly understand why someone would not seek to defend creationism. Evolution is one of the most highly evidenced findings of science. There really is no question at this point (among those who have taken the time to learn) that evolution is the mechanism by which species arise. Dr. Francis Collins, for example, lead the genome project and is also a devout Christian. His view is this:
There are only a couple of NT users whom I remember trying to defend creationism trying to use christian revisionist science. At least Dr. Collins is honest in his assessment regarding science and his faith. I think such instances are far and few in between.
This is only my opinion on this.
In the view of the Evolution it says that man evolved from the apes. In the Bible is says that God created Man in His own image.
As God created Heaven and Earth, if Man did indeed evolve from the Apes as Evolutionists attest, then God must look like an Ape. As God first created the Ape for Man to evolve from, then in essence, God created Man in His own image.
Given the Bible's version of the theory, God created Man in His own image, sans any evolution from Apes.
I am not a Christian, and am not affiliated with any organized religion, but, follow the religious teachings of my ancient Cherokee ancestors. Thus, I don't put a lot of store in the argument either way.
All I can say is, the Creator that I follow I do not believe looks like an Ape, nor ever has.
While I respect the views and beliefs of others in whatever way makes them happy and their life more meaningful, I will not be swayed by arguments in either direction.
That is incorrect. Evolution says man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. But man did not evolve from apes.
Evolution alone discredits any biblical claim or notion that god created man in his image.
I prefer arguments with facts and evidence to back them up, not beliefs.
So do I. That is why I take all the theories on the subject with a grain of salt. No one will really know for a fact what really occurred until we leave this world. Theories, beliefs and suppositions are simply not facts, and thus, I cannot put any credence in them. Until I leave this world I will not try to second guess what and how things happened when there was no one to witness it.
Established scientific theories have supporting empirical evidence, which demonstrates a degree of probability for them. When there is so much empirical evidence to support a theory and none to discredit it, the theory is regarded as quite certain or even factual. Therefore, belief is neither required or necessary, and it shouldn't be. Myths and superstitions require belief. Scientific theories like evolution do not.
However, even science is not 100% fool proof, as has been proven many times in the history of the world. What is thought to be written in stone today can be totally debunked tomorrow, by new discoveries and new facts. Like many other living beings here on earth man kind has learned to adapt to the changes in their environments as they migrated around the world, and that meant changes in their appearance and structure, which is only natural, and we continue to change as the world itself continues to change. What we look like now may not be what Man will look like in the future. But, what those changes are cannot be determined today, even by science.
There is far more to know about our world and how things came to be, including Man, than we have access to at this point in time. So I prefer to wait and get the real info direct from whatever, whoever, made it possible for Man to be here on earth. Like many other
Science is the first to acknowledge it might be wrong. It all depends on the evidence presented.
Scientific discoveries, new information and knowledge, have only grown, especially over the last century alone. Some scientific theories (such as evolution) have only been affirmed and reinforced.
Mankind thrived because it evolved the intelligence necessary to manipulate its environment for its benefit (often at the expense of other species).
But we know those changes can and probably will happen. That's evolution in action. A review of the fossil record also demonstrates such changes.
Such as? We already have a good idea of how things came to be. The details may differ. But overall, the current understanding is sound.
Evolution made it possible, as life developed and evolved over billions of years.
I did not think you held the Bible to be truth. If the Bible is only the words of ancient men then the notion that man is the image of God is simply ancient fiction.
That is, if there is a creator we likely do not know anything about the creator. The creator, if one exists, might have created primordial life and established evolution as the mechanism for creating species. There is nothing that suggests the creator is an ape.
No, I don't. Never have. I have attended many churches of different faiths to learn how they viewed the world and those who live in it. In the end I could not find any reason to change my religious beliefs from that of my Cherokee ancestors, as I believe that their Native American religious beliefs are closer to the truth and closer to the natural order of life of all living beings here on earth.
We do not believe that Man simply dropped out of the sky, nor grew into human form from some kind of amoeba. Different Tribes have their own form of religion and beliefs, but, the majority do believe in a Supreme being. I have also researched many of the various Tribes here in America and their customs, traditions and culture. The one thing that is prominent in each Tribe is the belief in a Supreme being.
Just my thoughts from my own experience.
YEC is right up there with flat earthers. Speaking of which, cameras need to evolve and use a fish eye lens to prevent flat earthers from spreading their propaganda and lies.
I wrote an article some time ago comparing the two.