Creationist: Science Begins with the Bible, Not the Facts

Thant is definitely not how the scientific method works today (300 years ago maybe, but the age of first collecting facts and then drawing conclusions is long gone). Today science starts by setting up a hypotheses – something that needs a lot of knowledge and creativity! – and then thinking out and doing experiments to collect facts to try to disprove the hypothesis. The more experiments it survives, the stronger the hypothesis.  Evolution has passed them all with flying colours. Gravitation is more iffy.

The scientific box should read: “Here is the hypothesis. What facts can we find to disprove it?”

 That’s still not quite it. Science never started by collecting facts. From the beginning, and still, science is about collecting observations. From observations come hypotheses, from hypotheses come theories, and from experiments come either additional support for those theories, or arguments against them (if not outright disproof).

There’s a big difference between “my information is not wrong” and “my information cannot be wrong”.  That’s the difference between science and religion.  And in my growing opinion, the inability for people to accept that they can be wrong is the greatest threat facing humanity.

A hypothesis can’t just be based on made up shit either. It’s usually based upon facts, but not fully explained or necessarily understood

While we at Answers in Genesis acknowledge that one’s view on the origin of man is not a salvation issue, we do say that it is an authority issue.

How remarkably candid, and they don’t even realize how revealing that statement is. Yes, it is exactly that, an authority issue. But not the authority of “God’s word,” it’s about the authority of those like Ham who profit from their claim to be authorities on “God’s word.”

This is exactly the same conflict as was between Galileo and the Catholic Church. Galileo, in his brilliance and his naivete thought that reason should persuade. That is a very good sentiment, but he just did not understand that he was up against powerful men who insisted that authority must dominate, regardless of what reason says.

My prof showed this to us in my first university evolution course. Actually played a small part in turning me over to the dark side.

One of the most telling statements that is in itself a microcosm of this trend toward ignorance and “uneducation” surrounds the recent events in Dover, PA – well, a few years ago, but still recent history. When the Dover, PA school board tried to cram creationsim down the throats of children, and eventually it got shot down, Pastor Ray Mummert delivered this line, “We’ve been attacked … by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture”

If that is not telling on so many levels, than nothing is.

While we at Answers in Genesis acknowledge that one’s view on the
origin of man is not a salvation issue, we do say that it is an
authority issue. Believing in theistic evolution as a Christian means
you reject the authority of God’s Word, because the creation account in
Genesis teaches a literal six-day creation (Genesis 1).

So isn’t it then, by definition, a “salvation” issue? If they “reject the authority of God’s Word” – don’t the angels weep for them?

You know what else rejects the authority of god’s word in Genesis 1?  Genesis 2.  It literally takes all of two chapters to reject a literal interpretation of the bible.  I enjoy watching the mental gymnastics literalists go through to get around this.

You’re right. Ignorance comes in two forms, passive, where someone simply does not know accurate information, and active, where someone is working hard to keep accurate information from getting into their heads, and even going out to attack the sources of accurate information. 

The U.S. is in the throes of a wave of eduphobia, perpetrated by the religious right. Many political candidates flaunt their ignorance and lack of education as a plus, a virtue that assures their constituents that they’re backward bumpkins too, so they can be trusted. A well educated candidate has to apologize for his or her knowledge, reassuring people that they’re not “elitists,” whatever the hell that is.  It’s all upside down and backwards.

When Americans get tired of seeing the U.S. steadily becoming a huge third world country that has fallen behind the rest of the world, when Americans get embarrassed at seeing Americans sneaking into foreign countries looking for menial jobs, maybe education and knowledge will become a virtue again.

I’m afraid it’s going to have to get that bad before it gets better.

Somehow right became left, black became white, and wrong became right. The average slob in the street has sold out their own interests for sound bites and religious quips. 

Education used to be the most important thing a parent could do for their child. Now, it seems that keeping the ignorant ensconced in video games, new shiny iPhones (and yes, I have one so I should not be a hypocrite, but I also have a library in my home) and 167 channels of TV and away from real education and learning.

There is even a major candidate who has come out and said that education leads to critical thinking which erodes faith, and he said it like that was a BAD thing!

I am very frightened for the future of this country. So much so, I am considering becoming a permanent Ex-Pat. Things are not going to improve in the US. Example – Santorum/Bachmann/Palin et al have now created an environment where religiousity defines and dictates political success. The pandora’s box has been opened, or better put, the genie is out of the bottle and it is not going to go back in. Really, from this point forward, things are going to continue to get worse.

I have posted this before, but a great point is:

n 1960 conservati­ves were worried that the Catholic Democratic candidate would get his directives from the Pope; JFK had to reassure America that his religion is secondary to his oath of office. 

In 2012, Republican­s and conservati­ves wish to let Catholic Bishops decide what is acceptable when it comes to employer based health insurance. We seem to be going backwards.Also, a list of questions (I fail to remember where this came from but it is a great list of questions) that MUST be asked of any religious candidate:1. Is it fair to question presidential candidates about details of their faith?

2. Is it fair to question candidates about controversial remarks made by their pastors, mentors, close associates or thinkers whose books they recommend?

3. (a) Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or “Judeo-Christian nation?” (b) What does that mean in practice?

4. If you encounter a conflict between your faith and the Constitution and laws of the United States, how would you resolve it? Has that happened, in your experience?

5. (a) Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench? (b) What about an atheist?

6. Are Mormons Christians, in your view? Should the fact that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons influence how we think of them as candidates?

7. What do you think of the evangelical Christian movement known as Dominionism and the idea that Christians, and only Christians, should hold dominion over the secular institutions of the earth?

8. (a) What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution? (b) Do you believe it should be taught in public schools?

9. Do you believe it is proper for teachers to lead students in prayer in public schools?

Equating religious doctrines with scientific theories is a good illustration of ignorance of the scientific process.

“If we approach Scripture from the standpoint that it teaches absolute truth…”

Let’s start here. We can’t let them advance beyond unjustified premises like this.The creationist relies on a scattershot-style approach to arguments. They want everyone to blink while they make the premise above, so they can proceed to overwhelm us with the ensuing bullshit.

If we want to show people what it means to practice academic rigor, sound theory, and safe inference, the easiest place in this debate to start is with the premise above.

For those of us unfamiliar with it, can you be more specific?

No wonder the rest of the world laughs at us.

I’d be interesting in your mulling.  I’m working on a blog post on the issue.  Maybe part of that 100% is mathematics?  I am comfortable saying that 1 + 1 = 2 can’t be wrong.  That is, they do have laws in science, as distinguished from ‘only a theory’s.

 The Catholic Church does not accept evolution.  Theistic evolution is another way of saying intelligent design. Sure, old earth creationism may be better than young earth creationism but neither is scientific.

All i hear is a lot of sheep Baaaahing,talk about blind followers,if its written by a person with Dr. before their name then its truth if it supports your stance and you asume its absolute and been tested. I give blood 4 times a year,why because sceientists carnt even make blood,the basis of our life form,yet they tell me how the earth was created.Stop being so arrogant and ignorant yourselves.If you really are freethinkers and seekers of truth educate yourselves. http://WWW.halos.com,WWW.OrionFdn.org,WWW.creation.com

Vanishingly Rare eh,not long ago i read in the paper about professor Antony Flew, titled”I Was Wrong,the worlds most notorious atheist called it quits”.Interesting artical indeed,says sceince and the study of DNA made him change his mind, hes written a book about it called”There is aGod”.Its like the pope becoming an atheist. Or the uni lecturer,Josh McDowell,he set out to disprove christianity,ended up “seeing the light”,wrote the book”,Evidence that demands a verdict”.Another artical in the paper titled ,Honest Atheist,subtitled,”As an atheist, i truly belive Africa needs God”,written by UK conservative MP Matthew Parris,he wrote in part,”it confounds my ideological beliefs,stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarresed my belife that there is no God”,when discussing christians working in Africa. So from my perspective it is quite a common occurence

“evolution is real but God has a hand in the process” I am convinced of that.”
Science provides a way of understanding nature, but we can know nothing with absolute certainty. No true scientist would suggest otherwise. All we ever have is evidence- sometimes LOTS of evidence- to support a theory ”
Hence, in my point of view, assuming that there is only one GOD, the best religion is that one where we can better understand nature… (I am muslim)

i like your attitude, but i have to ask: upon what evidence do you base your conclusions that there is, for one thing, and only, for another, “one god?”

there isn’t really a lot of evidence for the (muslim) god, or for that matter, any of the thousands and thousands of others that various books and cults have claimed are real. all “real scientists” can agree on that. 

however, enumeration is an action that is the same for all of us, all the time. if there is one chicken in my barn, and i buy another one and put it there, then there are two chickens. that isn’t something an axiom can change. 

Try google or getting out more

Rich Wilson FTW! I’m totally stealing that.  I’ve said a lot less in a lot more words. 

(sorry if this ends up a dup, Patheos decided to moderate my comment, perhaps because I included a link to verse)

The reason you can give blood, and it’s useful, is because science has figured out which blood can be given to whom without killing them.  You know, blood types.

The reason we don’t treat leprosy with hyssop, cedar, red yarn, and a pair of doves (one of which is killed) is that science has given us alternatives.

The reason antibiotics aren’t mentioned in the bible is that they were discovered later.  By science.  Well, ok, discovered by accident by a scientist and later refined and expanded and understood by science.

Science doesn’t know everything.  That’s why it keeps going.  Religion may have ‘all the answers’ but science has the annoying habit of disproving religion’s ‘answers’.

I think your logic isn’t. If you want to compare humans to the Universe, and mothers and fathers to creators, you have to accept that neither mothers nor fathers by themselves are creators: it takes two. So by your logic, the Universe shouldn’t have one creator, but two parents.

I look at modern science, and recognize the possibility that humans might learn how to create a universe (there have been a few good science fiction stories with that theme). Perhaps ours was similarly created in a lab one notch in the universal hierarchy above us. If so, the “creator” might just be a team of ordinary hyperuniverse researchers.

Somewhere in this debate 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjKJ92b9Y04 Sam Harris mentions someone else’s hypothesis that we are living in a computer simulation.  The argument goes that we can envision digitizing the human mind.  It’s just a big bunch of neurons.  Now, assuming it can be done, it’s logical that there will be more simulated people than real people, living in many simulated universes.  So, the likelihood is that we actually simulated not real.  We may in fact be simulations within simulations ad infinitum.

The fact that ‘man’ was created in God’s image, and woman after that, I think is striking evidence that the story was written by men.

 What mental gymnastics? In most cases, they simply refuse to see Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as two different, conflicting stories. Heck, it even had to be pointed out to me (at which point it became glaringly obvious) — and I was never a fundie. But if I had been a funditard, I’m sure I could rally my best defenses in order to remain blind and ignorant.

 And now I have this mental picture of an ape in a white robe with the holy sun aura behind his head…

Out of curiosity, when were you taught by Catholics?  Because I was raised Catholic too, and my first introduction to source criticism came in a Catholic high school.  In twenty-three years of hanging around the RCC, I never once came across the concept that history or science must be wrong if it conflicts with the bible – I was always told we had to figure out how to interpret the passage.  Could be a geographical thing too, as I was raised in a more liberal area of the country.

 You’re trying to prove a negative with a negative. “Science can’t explain X, so clearly the only explain is Y” is not a valid argument. Allow me to demonstrate:

What? You can’t flap your arms and fly? Then clearly the Spaghetti Monster is the only deity!

When you think of all the science happening in the ancient world during the centuries when the Bible was written-  from mechanics to cosmology to architecture- it’s stunning that the residents of the Holy Land managed to miss out on almost all of it.

 “only one mother, one father”
Is your god a biological entity?  Why would a supreme being be governed by the rules of the creatures he supposedly created?

“The differences between the various Books were only invented by men.”   I suggest you read about the religions of Asian cultures (which have their own books,)  American Indians, and Africans.  The differences are vast, with no mythological consensus on there being a single creator.  

 I would separate a modern deist from an Age of Enlightenment deist like Jefferson. Deism is essentially a philosophy that stems from ignorance. 250 years ago, there was no apparent natural explanation for the Universe as we see it, for the variation (or existence) of species, and other fundamental observations. So many rational men adopted a largely godless viewpoint, simply leaving “Nature” or “the Creator” as an explanation for first causes. I think any of these men would be atheists in today’s world (a point I make in this essay. A modern deist is deliberately ignoring (or fails to understand) some current knowledge, and is therefore guilty of a degree of intellectual dishonesty (or laziness) that wasn’t present in the Rationalist deists.

Wishful thinking Mr.C

Not according to his own book .In it he states”christianity is the one religion that most deserves to be honoured and respected”

Try  looking up the links given,all written by sceintists,why would you say i think sceince knows nothing,i love sceince and my sceince teacher of a wife. i just look  into it myself and not just belive the rubbish you so gullably do. Now get behind the flock

Read Genesis,there clearly was two

 Although your steering awful close to the “no true atheist” line, I have to agree with you when it comes to Josh McDowell. Anytime I meet someone who claims they used to be an atheist, after talking for a while it becomes clear that what they meant was: I used to not think about religion at all. While technically that would be an atheist, it’s not the same thing as someone who studied all the various religions and philosophies and came to a well-thought out conclusion that they don’t hold a belief in any god or gods.

Why thankyou Piet,im glad i bring you some joy ,i guess if your looking for delusional minds youve come to the right web site.For more fun and laughter,check out the evolution sites,ha talk about what passes for sceince its embarassing no matter how you spell it

 very true…just like the repulicans….they dont care about anything but themselves.