While I know that the evidence is overwhelming, would someone please provide me with a few links from inarguably credible sources which debunk the Young Earth myth? ***************************************************** 10-18-04, 10:57 AM newnickname talkorigins.org
Of course, it is possible that the earth is young, and only has the appearance of age, or that the behaviour of the universe has changed over time, deceiving us into thinking that it's very old. If someone really has faith that, somehow, a divine creator made the earth a few thousand years or a few minutes ago, you can't debunk that. What you can debunk is the notion that 'young earth' theories (any that have come to light so far) are reasonable science.
10-21-04, 09:22 AM XaurreauX
quote:Originally posted by newnickname: What you can debunk is the notion that 'young earth' theories (any that have come to light so far) are reasonable science.
Tsk, Tsk!!! Don't you know that "Yahway or the Highway" created the earth 6,000 years ago and put fossils in it to confuse us and test our faith?
10-21-04, 07:33 PM Professor Christian fundamentalists and orthodox Jews, who insist on Biblical literalism, should realize just how far off their views are: by nearly a factor of a million.
If you represent the scientifically accepted value of the Earth's age (4.3 billion years) by the length of a football field, then the Biblical value (6000+ years) would be about the thickness of a human hair.
Whatever else you may say of their beliefs, they are hardly subtle!
10-24-04, 02:49 AM tsaeb Here is the best debunk, straight out of the Old Testament:
"And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: . ." (Daniel 2.21).
The shorter time scheme is for prophets/prophetesses to use in connection with such references as "the time of the end" and "the last days." Yet, God warned against anyone being an abomination in the form of a discerner of times. Therefore, true prophets/prophetesses must be reporters of what God tells them concerning time. Anyway, none of this rules out the non-prophesying and also the prophesying from using common sense, good judgment, evidence, and the like.
10-24-04, 07:35 AM XaurreauX
quote:Originally posted by tsaeb: The shorter time scheme is for prophets/prophetesses to use in connection with such references as "the time of the end" and "the last days." Yet, God warned against anyone being an abomination in the form of a discerner of times. Therefore, true prophets/prophetesses must be reporters of what God tells them concerning time. Anyway, none of this rules out the non-prophesying and also the prophesying from using common sense, good judgment, evidence, and the like.
Well, thanks. That really cleared up this issue for me. Roll Eyes
10-24-04, 10:53 PM tsaeb X: We both know that lots of time when believers are not being literal, they are being vague. As a believer, at least, I believe in common sense, good judgment, evidence, and the like.
I had been missing your sense of humor, and I have one, too. Also, I admit that I find the non-religious community to be more open to what might be doctrinal truth than the religious community. So when I write my next book about time, I expect that the non-religious community, not the religious community, will take the time to sought out the book's contents.
10-27-04, 09:01 AM doñadiana The Bible is a book of covenant and as such is a unique combination of history and law. One must recognize that Genesis and science are speaking from different perspectives. Genesis is concerned about who created and why, not about how and when. Science cannot answer the former questions, and Genesis has little to say about the latter.
The Bible says that God is eternal and that He created the heavens and the earth (the universe)...ex nihilo. From there the emphasis falls on God's progressive ordering of a formless and empty world.
Some branches of science prefer to believe that the universe is eternal and that a process which they refer to as evolution is responsible for the world as we know it today.
In either case it calls for a personal commitment to an idea that is held at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. This idea or presupposition is not proved by anything else more ultimate.
quote:At the center of every world view is what might be called the "touchstone proposition" of that world view, a proposition that is held to be the fundamental truth about reality and serves as a criterion to determine which other propositions may or may not count as candidates for belief. William H. Halverson, A CONCISE INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY p.414
For the Christian, the Bible as the Word of God is the standard of truth, our "touchstone."
DD
10-27-04, 09:42 AM newnickname That's a good point, DD. But that the universe is eternal (or started with a Big Bang), and that evolution played a part in making the world the way it is, are not 'touchstone beliefs' of science. They are more like the conclusions reached so far.
The 'faith' of science is that we can observe the universe around us with reasonable reliability, that we can use reason, that the laws of nature do not change arbitrarily from moment to moment, and so on. Once those things - that we can trust our eyes and our minds, and that there is an objective reality out there - are accepted, we inevitably are led to the idea of a universe billions of years old, and a diversity of species brought about through the processes of evolution.
If you say to a scientist, 'The universe was created six thousand years ago' he or she shouldn't simply say 'Nonsense!'. He or she should ask about the evidence. If you say that there is no evidence, because it was done by a supernatural being not everyone can see who temporarily altered the regular workings of the universe... then science loses interest. The touchstone for science is the scientific method - not the (tentative) conclusions that method leads to.
An eternal universe, or a Big Bang universe, and evolution are not 'the most basic level of science's network of beliefs'; they are ideas that you arrive at using the beliefs, and they are liable to change as more evidence or new ideas come to light.
Does the Bible say that God created the universe from nothing? I thought it says that he caused light to shine on it, and created order out of chaos.
10-27-04, 10:38 AM doñadiana
quote: Does the Bible say that God created the universe from nothing? I thought it says that he caused light to shine on it, and created order out of chaos.
quote: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen. 1:1
The Hebrew word for "created" is "bârâ" and is believed to be consistant with ex nihilo (out of nothing).
quote: The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. (Gen. 1:2,3)
Genesis, chapter one, gives the bare bones of Creation for rational man to work with. The only criteria is that the framework has to include God (something many scientists fail to do) or else man is off on a rabbit chase that can only lead him to a dead-end (maybe falling prey to a snake Eek).
quote: The 'faith' of science is that we can observe the universe around us with reasonable reliability, that we can use reason, that the laws of nature do not change arbitrarily from moment to moment, and so on. Once those things - that we can trust our eyes and our minds, and that there is an objective reality out there - are accepted, we inevitably are led to the idea of a universe billions of years old, and a diversity of species brought about through the processes of evolution.
It is a Judeao/Christian viewpoint that there is an underlying rationality and orderliness of Nature. Life is predictable because God is predictable. We do not believe that the world is an illusion or that spirits inhabit trees, rocks or animals or that the "gods" are capricious and always changing the rules. In the Christian worldview, there is a reason why scientific laws, theories and operational assumptions like the "laws of nature" function with reliability. God created all the facts of the universe and only in Him can they have their true meaning.
DD
10-27-04, 07:40 PM newnickname
quote:It is a Judeao/Christian viewpoint that there is an underlying rationality and orderliness of Nature.
Which is why, I guess, the overwhelming majority of scientists who belong to the Judeo/Christian tradition accept a universe billions of years old, and the process of evolution. The overwhelming majority of scientists who aren't part of that tradition also accept those 'scientific facts'. They don't depend on your culture, just on your being up-to-date with the latest evidence and ideas.
On the other hand, it's only Christians who think that, if you don't accept their particular god, you're on a wild goose chase. Just about every other religion there is or has been says or said the same of their gods, and hold or held to their particular creation myths with at least as much sincerity and blind faith as creationists.
If we must include 'god' in the framework, how could we possibly know which god to choose? If we're to accept one particular creation myth as the truth, how would we know which one to pick? There's an infinity of choices, and the arguments for each are faith-based; it's impossible to make a rational choice.
Sorry, you're right about Genesis 1;1. I have actually read that far Smile.
But Young's Literal Translation says: In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth -- 2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, 3 and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is. Isn't that a little different?
10-28-04, 10:19 AM newnickname There’s a persuasive argument here for Genesis 1:1 to be more accurately translated as “IN A FORMER STATE GOD PERFECTED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH.”
The article also discusses 'bara':
"Much has been written regarding the word bara, translated "created."
The word means strictly "to cut out" or "to carve out," and thence from the idea of sculpture it came to mean "to put the finishing touch," "to polish," and so "to perfect." The basic idea appears to be that God's creative work is a finished product and therefore perfect. Yet it means more than this. Man's creative works are the result of some considerable effort before the article is finished, but God simply speaks and it is done. In keeping with this, we find that the verb is used only in what is termed the Qal or Simple form with respect to God's activity. But when man's creative works are under consideration, an intensive form of the Hebrew word is employed. In the things of the Spirit, there is a sense in which God's creative work is not without great effort, for the perfecting of the saints is indeed a difficult task. But in the material realm God does not experiment. His work is direct, perfect, and complete, and while the same verb is occasionally applied in Scripture to man's creative activity, it is never used in the form which occurs here. The really difficult task was man's salvation. Creation was the work of God's Fingers (Ps. 8:3), judgment the work of His Hand (Ps. 39:10), but salvation was the work of the whole Arm of God (Ps. 77:15).
It is sometimes stated that bara means to create from nothing.
But man himself was not created out of nothing. The materials for his body were already at hand (Gen. 2:7), though perhaps his spirit was created ex nihilo."
10-28-04, 10:22 PM newnickname This guy seems to be saying that not only is there no scriptural basis for creation ex nihilo but that the very idea of ‘something out of nothing’ is a logical absurdity which ties us into semantic knots.
Apparently, early Christians dreamt it up to avoid the idea of creation ex deus (or ek theos), in which the universe might be seen being of the stuff of God. (Creation ex nihilo became official doctrine as late as 1215 CE, he says.) Creation ex deus might lead to “monistic pantheism as well as detached dualism”, apparently, which seem to be Bad Things – although I can’t imagine why.
Anyway, here's a snippet...
’H.E. Ryle states in his commentary on Genesis, that "it is a mistake to suppose that the word bara necessarily means 'to create out of nothing.'"7 George Bush likewise explains in his commentary on Genesis that "it is a matter of rational inference rather than express revelation that this means 'created out of nothing.'"8
Systematic theologian, Louis Berkhof states clearly that "the expression 'to create or bring forth out of nothing' is not found in Scripture. It is derived from the Apocrypha, namely, II Maccabees 7:28."9 The apocryphal account, though possibly historical, refers to a mother who lost seven sons in one day to the butcherous genocide of Antiochus, and she says to the last son in her native language, "I beg you, child, look at the sky and the earth; see all that is in them and realize that God made them out of nothing, and that man comes into being in the same way."10 This is no biblical ground for a theological concept of creation ex nihilo; in fact, it can be interpreted as the pessimism of nihilism.
We have previously noted the tendency of man's thought to objectify "nothing" into a substantive "something," in order to conceptualize the abstraction. A.H. Strong notes in his Systematic Theology that "Creation is not 'production out of nothing,' as if 'nothing' were a substance out of which 'something' could be formed. The phrase is a philosophical one for which there is no Scriptural warrant."11 Emil Brunner likewise explains that "Creation 'out of nothing' does not mean that there once was a 'NOTHING' out of which God created the world ¬ a formlessness, a chaos, a primal darkness. This idea of creation as the shaping of formless matter, is the content of all creation myths. God is conditioned by nothing, not even a 'NOTHING' ¬ He is self-determining."12 These theological reactions against the objectification of the "nothing" in ex nihilo, are certainly warranted when one notes the apparent objectification of Das Nichtige in the writings of Karl Barth, and statements such as that of Paul Tillich when he refers to "the nihil out of which God creates."
Rather than explaining the creative process as ex nihilo, the more accurate Biblical explanation is that of creation ek theos. All things were brought into being "out of God." God created "out of Himself." Such is the clear statement of the New Testament. Writing to the Corinthians, Paul explains that "there is one God, the Father, out of (ek) Whom are all things..." (I Corinthians 8:6). Again in his epistle to the Romans, Paul states that "out of (ek) Him, and through (dia) Him, and unto (eis) Him are all things" (Romans 11:36). These are clear Biblical statements on which to base a theological understanding of creation ek theos.’
10-29-04, 01:18 AM tsaeb
quote:Originally posted by doñadiana: Genesis is concerned about who created and why, not about how and when. Science cannot answer the former questions, and Genesis has little to say about the latter.DD
Huh? Re how and when, Genesis contains the claim that God made man out of the dust of the ground.
10-29-04, 10:05 AM doñadiana
quote:Originally posted by tsaeb:
quote:Originally posted by doñadiana: Genesis is concerned about who created and why, not about how and when. Science cannot answer the former questions, and Genesis has little to say about the latter.DD
Huh? Re how and when, Genesis contains the claim that God made man out of the dust of the ground.
"The dust of the ground" is a very general statement and "science" likes to go into more detail. Wink
DD
10-29-04, 10:42 AM doñadiana
quote:Originally posted by newnickname: http://www.christinyou.net/pages/createti.html seems to be saying that not only is there no scriptural basis for creation _ex nihilo_ but that the very idea of ‘something out of nothing’ is a logical absurdity which ties us into semantic knots........................... Rather than explaining the creative process as ex nihilo, the more accurate Biblical explanation is that of creation ek theos. All things were brought into being "out of God." God created "out of Himself." Such is the clear statement of the New Testament. Writing to the Corinthians, Paul explains that "there is one God, the Father, out of (ek) Whom are all things..." (I Corinthians 8:6). Again in his epistle to the Romans, Paul states that "out of (ek) Him, and through (dia) Him, and unto (eis) Him are all things" (Romans 11:36). These are clear Biblical statements on which to base a theological understanding of creation ek theos.’_
There are several interpretations in Christian circles of how creation happened. 1) literal, sequential 24-hour days (young earth). 2) "day-age theory" (extended ages or epochs of time). 3) literal 24 hour days separated by extended periods of time. 4) "days" of creation as a literary framework designed to teach that God alone is the creator of an orderly universe.
There may be other interpretation and variations that are combinations of the above.
Linguistics seem to play a big role in the different conclusions that theologians come to. I have no competence in that field so I will simply declare that I believe God is and that He created the heavens and the earth and leave it to the theologians to battle out the details. I am not that interested in knowing down to the last iota how it all works out. I have my opinions but my world won't fall apart or my belief in God crumble if an interpretation different from mine turns out to be the right one. In fact I will probably never know on this side of eternity.
I found the site you refer to very interesting and it covers a lot of topics that I am interested in but I didn't have time to do more than skim over a few of the subjects. I have put it in favorites so that I can refer back to it when I have more time. The author seems to object to the term "ex nihilo" but he definitely believes that all was created by God and that God sustains everything. I think that he just likes the term "ek theos" better. It is just those nitty little details (and that includes the different translations also) that people like to get hung up on without really saying anything different. It is sort of like those questions that Michal asks in the Words and Language forum. Often there are two or more interpretations and sometimes it can even get nasty when people are sure that their interpretation is the "right" one. Only the author really knows for sure what he meant to say. Anyway, thank you for the site. Smile
DD
10-29-04, 06:15 PM newnickname
quote:"The only criteria is that the framework has to include God (something many scientists fail to do) or else man is off on a rabbit chase that can only lead him to a dead-end...
quote:There are several interpretations in Christian circles of how creation happened... ...There may be other interpretation and variations that are combinations...
So, even assuming we somehow could decide that it was the Christian god we should include in a scientific framework (But how? Why not any of the countless other gods from countless other traditions?) we would still be faced with several interpretations of the fundamentals of God and Creation, each with multiplying variations. There would be no way to decide among them - it all depends on faith; gut-feeling. If two people firmly believed contradictory interpretations, there would be no test to see which was best, and both could be perfectly committed and sincere. (I guess this might be what leads religious types to spend so much time and energy killing each other.)
How, then, would involving god in the framework avoid rabbit chases and dead ends? It seems to me it would... er, create them.
10-30-04, 11:31 AM doñadiana
quote:Originally posted by newnickname: So, even assuming we somehow could decide that it was the Christian god we should include in a scientific framework (But _how_? Why not any of the countless other gods from countless other traditions?)
Do the "other gods," which Christians don't believe even exist, claim to have created the world or demand allegiance? If not, what allegience to we owe them?
quote: we would still be faced with several interpretations of the fundamentals of God and Creation, each with multiplying variations.
Since Genesis is just the "bare bones" that we are working from, why shouldn't be have different view points also? After all you just said that science can have different viewpoints and can change them when new information comes in.
quote: There would be no way to decide among them - it all depends on faith; gut-feeling. If two people firmly believed contradictory interpretations, there would be no test to see which was best, and both could be perfectly committed and sincere.
I have seen the same thing in the National Geographic and scientist can get quite riled up if their own personal interpretation of the facts is questioned. It is just human nature.
quote: (I guess this might be what leads religious types to spend so much time and energy killing each other.)
No more than others and probably less.
quote: How, then, would involving god in the framework avoid rabbit chases and dead ends? It seems to me it would... er, _create_ them.
I guess it all depends on one's worldview. Big Grin
DD
10-30-04, 06:59 PM newnickname
quote:
...scientists can get quite riled up if their own personal interpretation of the facts is questioned...
Of course, this is true. However, there is a way, in science, to see who is right. You can examine the evidence. We know that Einstein's theories explain what we see more accurately than Newton's. There are observations which Newton's framework cannot explain. It doesn't matter how riled anyone gets. Similarly, we know that Darwin's theory explained things better than Lamarck's. There didn't have to be any war about it.
Individuals may sulk, but scientific theories are - by definition - falsifiable, so it's possible to put together so much evidence that holding out for a pet theory which the world itself contradicts becomes obviously silly.
You can't do that in religion. Did God create the universe out of nothing, or from His own 'stuff'? Are we bits of God or seperate from Him? Nobody knows, and the same arguments have gone unresolved for centuries, and will continue unresolved until The End Of The World.
quote:
Do the "other gods," which Christians don't believe even exist, claim to have created the world or demand allegiance? If not, what allegience to we owe them?
How easily Christians can dismiss every other faith! How are scientists to include god in their explanatory framework, then?
'God - obviously the Christian God because Christians don't believe in any others - arranged things so that the earth was created 4 billion years ago, or so that it looks that way anyway.'
It would be kind of an odd thing for a scientist who was a Hindu or a Buddhist to think, wouldn't it?
If they must 'include God', shouldn't scientists rather say 'Some divine power or phenomena which may or may not conform to any of the world's religions which exist (or have existed or will exist) arranged things so that the earth was created 4 billion years ago, or so that it looks that way anyway.' What would be the point?
I'm pretty sure that most astronomers have a real sense of awe and wonder at the nature of the universe. It's their professional 'duty' to investigate it, and describe it to the rest of us as best they can. It's wonderful world; we can appreciate that for ourselves - scientists don't need to build homilies (and certainly not petty and exclusive ones) into their work to make it meaningful.
11-02-04, 09:59 AM doñadiana
quote: How easily Christians can dismiss every other faith! How are scientists to include god in their explanatory framework, then?
It would appear that science itself has already dismissed every other god and faith and only considers the God of the Bible and biblical creationism a matter that needs to be dealt with. If you don't believe me, just check on the internet to see how many sites you can find where science bothers to refute hindu, buddist, or any other creation story.
DD
11-02-04 10:18 AM newnickname DD, I think the Internet is overwhelmingly American - especially if we're talking only about English language sites. Creationism - the campaign to have a crassly literal interpretation of Genesis taught in science class - is a US phenomenum, with relatively little impact elsewhere.
Therefore, you will find a lot of sites on the Internet dealing with Creationism. That doesn't reflect 'science itself'; it reflects the kind of stuff that turns up on the Internet.
Most Buddhists, Hindus and followers of other religions, like most Christians, accept that the mainstream scientific account is the best scientific one we have so far, and that their various religious writings and traditions deal with the subject metaphorically and spiritually, in a way that doesn't lend itself to being taught in multi-cultural science classes which are supposed to deal with science, and not fringe interpretations of any one religious text.
But if there were militant Hindus in the US insisting that science teach about a divine re-creation of the universe in billion-year cycles, and if they had a little success in persuading some politically-motivated or ignorant schoolboards to include this in US schools' science curricula as science, I'm sure you'd see many sites break out all over the Internet refuting the idea that that particular story makes good science.
There aren't many sites refuting the creation stories of other religons as science, because other religions are not pushing their traditions as science. Just about the only counterpart the Creationists had or have - in insisting on the teaching of their own sect's interpretation of spiritual poetry as scientific fact in school - were the Taliban, and perhaps some other fundamentalist Islamic 'creationists'. That speaks volumes, doesn't it?
11-02-04, 10:45 AM doñadiana Isn't that what I just said? Only Christianity is a threat and there is a reason for it. The others don't have enough substance to be worth fighting for.
DD
11-02-04, 10:54 AM newnickname I'm not sure.
Are you saying that only (fundamentalist) Christianity (in the US) has this campaign to include (one interpretation of) religious scripture in science classes, as if it were scientific?
Or are you saying that only (?that particular Creationist version of) Christianity has "enough substance to be worth fighting for"?
The first I'd agree with, the second sounds dismissive of other faiths, which is what I just said. (I worry about those arguments where it turns out both people were in agreement all along Smile)
11-03-04, 11:58 AM babthrower DD says:
"Isn't that what I just said? Only Christianity is a threat and there is a reason for it. The others don't have enough substance to be worth fighting for."
I think this statement proves the point.
Because fundamentalist Christianity is so strident, arrogant, so just-plain-loud and in-your-face,
and above all so
WELL-FUNDED,
F.C.'s take this situation and uses it to try to prove that they are
RIGHT.
It's like saying that MacDonald's hamburgers really are a form of health food because -- just ask anyone -- food is healthy, right? And the Golden Arches are recognized as a symbol of nourishment ALL OVER THE WORLD! MacDonald's are a company of SUBSTANCE! Hey, a Fortune 500 company is to be taken seriously!
11-03-04, 09:04 PM doñadiana What I mean to say is that scientists will come up with arguments against Christian creationism because there is something to argue with, but would they even bother to try to disprove the following? I think they would just write it off as too ridiculous to be bothered with and I don't think it is being arrogant to say so.
11-03-04, 10:17 PM newnickname What I meant to say was that there are web-pages and campaigns against Creationism, because Creationism in the US attempts to have (one particular interpretation of) a creation myth taught as a scientific theory in science classes.
We shouldn't have to 'bother to try to prove' that a solid dome for the sky, seperating waters above and below, a worldwide flood, that ark and so on are (in the literal, scientific world) ridiculous, but - evidently - we do.
If there were signicant numbers of Hindu creationists pushing their myth as science, you'd find people taking time out to 'bother to try to prove' it odd in a scientific context, too.
With respect, I think it is arrogant to describe the creation story of another tradition as "too ridiculous to be bothered with".
All creation myths (maybe) have some kind of deeper spiritual truth, which you probably have to look hard for. They are poetry. If you employ a literal, concrete mode of thinking, all poetry is ridiculous. If you look at it another way, it might be profound and inspiring. If you pretend that any such 'religious poetry' is the same as prosaic scientific description of the world around us or the processes we can infer from scientific observation, it's ridiculous.
Nobody much points out how ridiculous Hindu myth would be in science class, because nobody much puts it there. Lots of people point out how ridiculous fundamentalist Christian interpretations of myth are in science class, because some people do put them there.
Polite people, coming across stories from other traditions (in their proper context; not dressed up in the cheap tuxedo of Intelligent Design Theory or whatever) shouldn't feel any need to call them 'ridiculous'.
Scientists don't (or shouldn't) argue with traditional Christian accounts of creation. They should object to them being falsely labelled 'scientific', and that (I think) is what happens. Nobody should flatly dismiss the creation accounts of any tradition as 'ridiculous' but that (I think) is what you just did.
11-03-04, 10:54 PM babthrower I'm reminded of a comment I heard on the radio once. The speaker was discussing an upcoming series which would explore the world's great religions. He said, "Well, the Hindus worship fire, so we needn't spend much time discussing their philosophy." It occurred to me that Catholics could just as easily be described as those who 'worship' bread and wine, since during the mass these items are believed to be transmuted into the actual body and blood of Jesus, and when these materials are raised on high by the priest, those who attend the mass observe the most reverential silence: they are in the presence of the deity.
So that if Hindus believe that the universe exists as a great cycle of being, returning each time to chaos; and if some Christians believe that the world was created out of a creator spirit's own eternal substance, then it seems to me that each is trying to express the sense of awe that one feels when considering beginnings.
The person who is not religiously inclined may express the same feeling by saying, "What amazes me is that anything exists. Why should it?"
Similarly in science one may speculate that the universe began with a big bang; or that it is eternal; or that it cycles. Theories may be expressed representing each of these speculations. We will call the theory 'true' if it leads to useful predictions. We will discard it if it does not conform to data.
As long as religion is called religion, and science is called science, and that no one tries to present religion as science and teach a religious view in the schools, who could object to these different views?
But the methods of science and religion are vastly different. It is by the method that we distinguish them. The most important difference is this: the 'truths' of religion can never be falsified; the devotee will continue to believe the 'truth' of his religion in the face of all contradictory evidence.
But contradictory unexplained evidence is the death knell of a scientific theory: the 'truths' of science are not sacred. To have a long-held theory finally discredited by evidence is the cause of great excitement in the world of science, and bears fruit in terms of a more rigorous analysis, and a more fruitful theory. Oh, there may well be bitter conflict as the significance of the troublesome data is explored; and some scientists can be very dogmatic about their pet theories. But such disputes seldom last more than a century, and usually much less.
The gibe about religious wars is based on the fact that since religious theories are metaphysical, they cannot be proved or disproved by reference to data, so the only way to 'resolve' them is to violently suppress any stubborn opposition. This has been the story of religion since earliest times.
But a scientist who would maintain, today, that disease is caused by an imbalance of the four humors, would be completely discredited and labelled a crackpot. That is because germ theory, the knowledge of genetic defects, and so forth, have made a return to the concept of the humors impossible.
So that is why we so seldom hear of the terrible scientific wars that made life hell for large numbers of humans from the 17th century to the present. They didn't happen. The scientific method resolves such differences, in time, without resorting to killing people.
11-05-04, 10:26 AM doñadiana
quote: All creation myths (maybe) have some kind of deeper spiritual truth, which you probably have to look hard for. They are poetry. If you employ a literal, concrete mode of thinking, all poetry is ridiculous. If you look at it another way, it might be profound and inspiring. If you pretend that any such 'religious poetry' is the same as prosaic scientific description of the world around us or the processes we can infer from scientific observation, it's ridiculous.
I think that I pretty much agree with that statement. What I am not in agreement with is science writing God out of the equation altogether in their theories. It didn't used to be that way. It is basically a 20th century phenonoma.
DD
11-05-04, 10:54 AM doñadiana
quote: Scientists don't (or shouldn't) argue with traditional Christian accounts of creation. They should object to them being falsely labelled 'scientific', and that (I think) is what happens. Nobody should flatly dismiss the creation accounts of any tradition as 'ridiculous' but that (I think) is what you just did.
You know just as well as I do that there is a lot of antagonism between atheistic scientists and theistic scientists. Atheistic scientists generally will not accept anything that starts with or includes the idea of God.....no matter how scientific it is otherwise. They will not even accept the idea of a theistic scientist.
If I gave the idea that I was ridiculing the Hindu mythology that the universe was created out of milk and butter, well, maybe I was just a little bit although I think that the person who wrote the article was really the one doing the ridiculing. However, I am always amazed at the common thread of "creation" that goes through many religions. It points to a common origin which has been corrupted into many different versions over the millenniums.
I personally believe that the Bible is the Word of God and the true version. That doesn't necessarily mean that I think that Christians and Jews always come up with a correct interpretation of what the Bible says. Now I am back to what I said at the beginning. The Bible gives us a "bare bones" account and expects us to fill in the details so that mankind can have dominion over the earth. Knowledge is never just for the sake of knowledge. It is a tool for dominion.
DD
11-05-04, 04:39 PM babthrower Originally posted by doñadiana:
"What I am not in agreement with is science writing God out of the equation altogether in their theories. It didn't used to be that way. It is basically a 20th century phenonoma . "
Scientists don't deny that god created everything (or anything) because it is not in their purview. It falls within the range of theology.
What they do is ignore god. They explain the beginning by a highly speculative theory: 'the big bang' or some such. They do this by doing what Darwin did: looking at nature rather than looking at the ancient books. The theory is based on new insights into the behavior of particles. But the theory cannot be 'proved', but only 'supported' as long as it is useful and productive.
For example, when you have a MRI scan, it works because of modern insight into the behavior of particles. So the theories which have been introduced to explain this behavior are considered 'true' because they're useful. The output of the MRI scan will show with remarkable precision the conditions, in pseudo-3D, of tissues internal to the body. The output is then used to make or confirm a diagnosis, and sometimes to guide the surgeon's knife. If MRI technology was not useful it would quickly be abandoned. Are the theories adequate? No. But they're useful.
This is basically a 20th century phenomenon.
In previous centuries, no doubt people would have prayed to god for healing a lot more than they do now. It was really their only recourse. Then, if they recovered, all praise went to god. If they didn't, well, it was god's will. Because god's a** was covered no matter what happened, (typical of metaphysical beliefs: they cannot be disproved) god retained a reputation as the great healer. This works whether god does or does not exist. The medical profession, itself fairly unscientific, was of little help.
But science provided medicine with very good tools and the 'method' with which to assess new insights and procedures. Robust theories, such as germ theory, gave more reliable results, both as to predicting the outcome of an illness, and in devising strategies to correct the dis-ease or malfunction. People turned more confidently to medicine than in the past, to the point where in case of illness the first resort is the physician. Many theists pray in addition to consulting a physician and accepting his/her recommendations. Few theists rely solely on prayer any more. Those that do are a dying breed.
Does that mean that science has 'written god out of' the art and science of physic? Not at all. The physician does not forbid prayer, or try to exclude it. Each art - medicine and theology - has its role to play. The physician practices medicine. The priest practices the invocation of divine intervention.
But if certain theists started to insist that the schools of medicine teach that prayer (to the Judeo-Christian god alone) is a scientific way to treat injury or disease; if they started to insist that equal time be allocated to teaching these trainee physicians in medical school to memorize the various prayers to drive out the devils which cause disease; and if they insisted that these lessons be characterized as 'modern, scientific medicine,' then I think they would face strong objections from the scientists and physicians -- and from plenty of lay people such as myself as well.
11-06-04, 07:41 AM doñadiana Bab & NNN: When I made my first reply to Young Earth Myth, it was because I thought that some of the comments were comparing apples and oranges. I had no intention of getting this involved in this thread or in a discussion about the virtues of evolution which I am sure is of value in certain situations. Neither do I want to find myself backed into a corner defending ideas that I may not even agree with myself. For this reason I am not going to make any more comments on this subject because it is going off in a direction that has nothing to do with my original reply.
DD
11-06-04, 12:06 PM babthrower DD, you seem to feel you are being attacked. That's understandable, because I did take quotations from your posts and respond strongly to them. I just want you to know that this is not personal. There is only one thing that bothers me about the Young Earth theory and its proponents: they are not scientific, yet they demand a place in the curriculum of science. That is a threat to the teaching of science. It is as if astrologers demanded chairs in the Astronomy department of a great university, and equal representation of their theories and views in the lecture rooms.
That they are not scientific does not in itself bother me.
11-06-04, 09:13 PM doñadiana Bab: I don't feel that I am being attacked. I am just more comfortable discussing religion than atheism or evolution. I was just trying to clarify a particular viewpoint, not give a rebuttal to anyone elses.
DD
11-06-04, 09:36 PM babthrower DD Glad to hear it. Thanks for clearing it up.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
