Getting creationists to accept evolution

[barboft]

Rigel...

My point about Mengele was that you don't have to be religious to be a bastard, and you don't have to be a decent person to be a scientist. I wasn't really insinuating anything else. As for my comment about scientists being ridiculed, my point there was that scientists can be as oppressive (I know that's an exaggeration but I hope you see what I mean...perhaps I mean closed minded) as religious regimes. Please don't ask for examples as my memory isn't very good with this stuff but whenever I watch a programme about an innovative scientist, there's usually in the story a part where they get ridiculed by a load of other scientists, and then the innovator eventually convinces the rest.



Irjun...

I have no problem with your analogy. No problem whatsoever. As long as the beer and the pizza are always in the same house to give each other an occasional kick up the ass to keep each other in line, ain't nuttin wrowng with dat. Sad would be the day when either one takes over completely.

Yes, I'm having a beer.

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

My point about Mengele was that you don't have to be religious to be a bastard, and you don't have to be a decent person to be a scientist

I still don't understand the relevance -- No one is claiming all religious people are bastards, and no one is claiming all scientists are good people.

my point there was that scientists can be as oppressive (I know that's an exaggeration but I hope you see what I mean...perhaps I mean closed minded) as religious regimes

Science works with evidence. Religion has no evidence, so religion doesn't stand a chance when faced with science, regardless of whether or not is true.

there's usually in the story a part where they get ridiculed by a load of other scientists, and then the innovator eventually convinces the rest.

Sure, Newtonian physics, Einsteinian relativity, etc etc. New findings are ridiculed and challenged. It may seem harsh, but it's vital to weed out stupid ideas. This is the essence of peer review. If the findings by the scientist are valid, they will stand on their own merit and will pass through peer review, becoming accepted science.

 

[barboft]

My point about Mengele was that you don't have to be religious to be a bastard, and you don't have to be a decent person to be a scientist

I still don't understand the relevance -- No one is claiming all religious people are bastards, and no one is claiming all scientists are good people.

my point there was that scientists can be as oppressive (I know that's an exaggeration but I hope you see what I mean...perhaps I mean closed minded) as religious regimes

Science works with evidence. Religion has no evidence, so religion doesn't stand a chance when faced with science, regardless of whether or not is true.

there's usually in the story a part where they get ridiculed by a load of other scientists, and then the innovator eventually convinces the rest.

Sure, Newtonian physics, Einsteinian relativity, etc etc. New findings are ridiculed and challenged. It may seem harsh, but it's vital to weed out stupid ideas. This is the essence of peer review. If the findings by the scientist are valid, they will stand on their own merit and will pass through peer review, becoming accepted science.

I'm nitpicking, I know it's not particularly relevant. I'm just saying, that's all.

Imagine if you were a scientist, or perhaps you are a scientist. Imagine if you were brilliant, but unconventional, and also not very good under pressure and not great at explaining yourself.Imagine if you came up with some new theory or new way of looking at something. If you found yourself having to explain your new ideas to a group of your peers, and they jeered and ridiculed you and made you so nervous that you lost the plot and your idea never saw the light. The world would miss out on your innovations. Sure, the jeering and ridiculing could be seen as a test of your ideas, but taken to extremes it could be counterproductive. It also doesn't say a lot for people who are supposed to be interested in new ideas. I'm not explaining this very well, but I hope you can grasp what I'm trying to get across. Progress requires an encouraging environment, not a hostile one.

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

If you found yourself having to explain your new ideas to a group of your peers, and they jeered and ridiculed you and made you so nervous that you lost the plot and your idea never saw the light.

It's not quite an interrogation.

Taking your example, let's say I discover a planet orbiting Fomalhaut. I'll write up my paper (e.g. like this) which will be submitted for peer review. Then, other scientists read the paper, scrutinise it, and give feed-back for improvement (if I did some sloppy science for example, they'll point it out and suggest I get better evidence). If all goes well, and the paper passes peer review, it gets published.

The world would miss out on your innovations. Sure, the jeering and ridiculing could be seen as a test of your ideas, but taken to extremes it could be counterproductive

The thing is, my research will stand on its own merits, not on my resolve. If I write a crappy paper, then yeah it's probably going to get sent back. If I do crappy research, it'll be rejected. It's not nearly as anti-innovation as you seem to suggest it is.

It also doesn't say a lot for people who are supposed to be interested in new ideas

You know, having an open mind is good, but not so open so as to let one's brains fall out. Peer review is crucial to maintaining high standards for science.

Progress requires an encouraging environment, not a hostile one.

Papers that don't pass peer review are returned with critique and recommendations on how to improve. It's not a hostile environment in the way you seem to be describing it. It's only hostile to "crappy" research. (i.e. fossil I can't identify → aliens!)


(disclaimer: I am not the author of the paper I am using for an example)

 

[barboft]

Rigel, isn't it true that there are scientists who are, shall we say, on the fringes of the mainstream? That's not a leading question, I just wondered if you considered that to be the case. I just get the impression that among scientists, there are the majority who get too comfortable with the science of the day, and there are those who are prepared to explore even the most "crazy" things just to see if there's anything in them. That's an extreme scenario, I know, but it's just the impression I get whenever I watch a programe about science. I'm not saying that scientists should be told "there, there, we love you", I just think that it's the mavericks, the unconventional, "crazy" wild haired lot that are probably the best ones. I've never been keen on any form of ridicule, either of the person coming up with the idea or even the idea itself. I guess I'm a bit of a hippy.

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

Sure, there are fringes and crazies. One of the great aspects of science is that it doesn't particularly matter where the research comes from, because again, the research stands on its own merits, not on the person who submits it.

Van de Kamp, for years, believed that he had found a pair of planets orbiting Barnard's Star. We now know that he was mistaken but he never was convinced. Nonetheless, he made valuable contributions to science in other areas.

Stop watching TV about science... they butcher it pretty severely

Scientists are excited by new ideas and the overthrowing of the mainstream ideas. But it's a rigorous, difficult process to do.

I just think that it's the mavericks, the unconventional, "crazy" wild haired lot that are probably the best ones.

That is occasionally true, and frequently the reality is what we would have considered crazy decades before (see: quantum mechanics). Niels Bohr once said something to the effect of "We all agree your theory is crazy. The question is whether it's crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if something sounds crazy, who proposes it, or how crazy they are, what matters is what the evidence supports.

 

[barboft]

Sure, there are fringes and crazies. One of the great aspects of science is that it doesn't particularly matter where the research comes from, because again, the research stands on its own merits, not on the person who submits it.

Van de Kamp, for years, believed that he had found a pair of planets orbiting Barnard's Star. We now know that he was mistaken but he never was convinced. Nonetheless, he made valuable contributions to science in other areas.

Stop watching TV about science... they butcher it pretty severely

Scientists are excited by new ideas and the overthrowing of the mainstream ideas. But it's a rigorous, difficult process to do.

I just think that it's the mavericks, the unconventional, "crazy" wild haired lot that are probably the best ones.

That is occasionally true, and frequently the reality is what we would have considered crazy decades before (see: quantum mechanics). Niels Bohr once said something to the effect of "We all agree your theory is crazy. The question is whether it's crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if something sounds crazy, who proposes it, or how crazy they are, what matters is what the evidence supports.

Well, I'm as crazy as they come, so maybe there's hope for me. And yes maybe tv programes do exaggerate. What about Tesla? Is there anything interesting to be said about his work? Was he a repressed / oppressed genius?

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

I've only a limited knowledge of Nikola Tesla's contributions to science but as far as I know, he was useful in pushing the field of electromagnetism. As for being repressed, I don't know enough to address that.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Actually, Tesla gave us AC electricity, and many more useful ideas.

Vincent vanGhoh was a man who was not famous until after his death - in fact, for some time after his death.

 

[ProcInc]

The very point of peer review is to actually allow for an objective way for accepting new ideas DESPITE the status quo, not as an efficient means of rejecting ideas that don't support the status quo.

Taking the example of evolution by Natural Selection remember that Charles Lyell was one of the leading antievolutionists in the world at the time and Thomas Huxley had "ripped apart" evolution theories frequently (most famous 'Vestiges of a Natural History of Creation'). All of Darwin's most loyal supporters had a predisposition to shout down evolutionary ideas.

Meanwhile the most respected and prestigious biologist of the time had his own theory (itself a vague version of evolution) and despite his acclaim he was trumped by the evidence garnered by Darwin, who himself described himself as Owen's inferior.

As for the reminder of genius' being laughed at, I think Carl Sagan said it best:

[T]he fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

The 'repressed genius' shtick is a romantic notion (usually exploited in Hollywood productions) but history doesn't have that great a history of scientists repressing scientists. Politics- yes, religion-yes but science itself, rarely.

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

The very point of peer review is to actually allow for an objective way for accepting new ideas DESPITE the status quo, not as an efficient means of rejecting ideas that don't support the status quo.

Indeed.
What I meant by "crappy research" is just that, bad research. I suppose I should have mentioned that it doesn't matter what the real research supports. I felt I made it clear with my statements that "[the] research will stand on its own merits."

 

[ProcInc]

Indeed you made yourself perfectly clear RigelKentaurusA and my own message was not a response to you nor an implied correction/ disagreement

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Having come across this topic, I thought I might try to contribute some suggestions to further its goal.

As SpaceCDT has already pointed out, most "mainstream" religious people accept evolution without any problem to their belief in a Supreme Being. As such, we are only truly dealing with "Literalists" - those who believe that everything was created X-thousand years ago, whether X is a single-, double-, triple or even quadruple--digit figure. The "Fundies", as others call them, though I tend to distinguish between the two.

There are a number of reasons/problems why Literalists don't/won't accept evolution:

1) they can't accept evolution/science at all;
2) they can't accept evolution's applicability to Man - though they can accept it for every other form of life.
3) they don't understand the science (confusion/lack of comprehension);
4) they don't know the science (uninformed/ill-informed).

Due to the above order, they reject the science - whether specifically as it applies to evolution or generally (item 1 over-rides item 4 - so, trying to educate them with the science doesn't work).

There is also the fact that there are several categories of Literalists (at least, amongst Christians):

1) Young Earth Creationists (most likely 4004 BC)
2) Old Earth Creationists (including Gap and Progressive Creationists)

I think that one of the main errors that the scientifically-oriented make, is trying to treat these as a single group.

We need to deal with the first group - YECs.

Once we've "won them over", we'll have set a precedent for the other two groups to begin to question their own dates/beliefs ("If the YECs are wrong, then maybe we're wrong as well!") and would make that task easier.

YECs base their belief for the 4004 BC date on combining a couple of well known passages - as did the earlier writers (including Newton). You don't need science to disprove their dating - the Bible disproves it.

My approach has a lead-in - or, you can just go for the jugular:

1) The first passage is:

2 Peter 3:8

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

The important point to note here is the use of "is...as" and "as".

These are used to compare a day with a thousand years, and vice versa.

However, there are only two possible states - "IS" and "IS NOT".

Literalists take this to mean that "a day IS a thousand years" - but this is not the case.

Consider identical twins - Alice and Betty.

We can say that:

a) Alice is like Betty; Betty is like Alice.

Or, to use the Biblical terminology:

b) Alice is as Betty: Betty is as Alice.

However, in saying this, we are also saying something else:

c) Alice is not Betty: Betty is not Alice.

Ergo...

d) A day is not a thousand years, a thousand years is not a day (to God).

2) The second passage is from the Book of Genesis where it outlines the seven days of Creation (including the "rest day").

YECs take their date for Creation from "Bishop" Ussher - actually, he was a Archbishop (an even higher authority!) - from his published chronology: 4004 BC.

The obvious question to ask is:

Q. When did the purported first day of Creation end (if this "one day is a thousand years" holds true)?

A. 3004 BC

So, we have a list (where "EoD" stands for "End of Day"):

EoD Year
1 3004 BC
2 2004 BC
3 1004 BC
4 4 BC
5 AD 997
6 AD 1997
7 AD 2997

Q. When did Ussher publish his chronology?

A. AD 1650

Which is impossible.

Gen 1:31

And God saw every thing that he had made , and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

"He had made" and "Ended".

Past tense.

The sixth day had already ended when Ussher published his chronology.

If that isn't enough...

Gen 2:2

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made ; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

"Ended" and "rested".

Past tense.

The seventh day also had already ended when Ussher published his chronology. (Which means that Seventh Day Adventists, and their ilk, are wasting their time!)

I trust that the above might prove a reasonable approach in combating YECs.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[ProcInc]

@ James.

If there are young Earth Creationists who believe that the "seventh day" of Genesis 1 has not yet occurred then this is news to me.

I am likely wrong but I am interpreting what you wrote to mean that the 6000 year old Earth calculated by Archbishop Ussher is based off the following reasoning

a. 2 Peter 3:8 is literally interpreted to mean 1 "God day"=1000 "human years"
b. This is still the sixth day of Genesis (i.e. the seventh day, God's day off is yet to come)
c. 6 Genesis days is 6x1000 human years
d. Therefore the Earth is ~6000 years old


This is very different to Ussher's actual calculation in which the geneological links in the bible indicate Adam was created in 4004 BC (presumably dying in 3101BC) which indicate's the Earth's age seeing as Adam was created literally six 24 hour days after God "Created the Heavens and Earth"

Again, I feel I must have grossly misinterpreted your message but I wanted to double-check.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

@ James.

If there are young Earth Creationists who believe that the "seventh day" of Genesis 1 has not yet occurred then this is news to me.

I am likely wrong but I am interpreting what you wrote to mean that the 6000 year old Earth calculated by Archbishop Ussher is based off the following reasoning

a. 2 Peter 3:8 is literally interpreted to mean 1 "God day"=1000 "human years"
b. This is still the sixth day of Genesis (i.e. the seventh day, God's day off is yet to come)
c. 6 Genesis days is 6x1000 human years
d. Therefore the Earth is ~6000 years old


This is very different to Ussher's actual calculation in which the geneological links in the bible indicate Adam was created in 4004 BC (presumably dying in 3101BC) which indicate's the Earth's age seeing as Adam was created literally six 24 hour days after God "Created the Heavens and Earth"

Again, I feel I must have grossly misinterpreted your message but I wanted to double-check.

ProcINC, firstly, thanks for replying to a new post in a oldish topic!

To take the above four points:

a. True - the "Literalists" read it as such;
b. False - this is now the seventh day. The sixth ended in 1997, which is when some of the fundamentalism died down but has come back again in a anti-science/anti-evolution/anti-atheism form;
c. True - as a. above;
d. True - that's basically from where they get the "'~6000 years".

Ussher, and others, were enchanted by the idea that it matched two Biblical time periods:

1) 4004 BC is almost exactly 3000 years before the founding of the Temple of Solomon;
2) The founding of the Temple of Solomon is almost exactly 1000 years before the birth of Jesus.

Hence, it had to be right.

Ussher actually made a error - in counting the years in the Bible (Masoretic text) he missed out 4 years, which was pointed out by a Spanish priest (if i remember correctly). His original date was 4000 BC. Note the awfully nice round number!

As has been pointed out by numerous scholars, it's not possible to be certain how much time is encompassed by the Bible: before Nebuchadnezzar, it's all guesswork.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I suppose we are looking at two different issues here.

Creationism is simply a blight on society, willing ignorance that attempts to force itself on the masses. The Dover trial had it spot on, we see creationism rearing its deluded head time and time again trying to get some form of parity with science. It needs to be gone, destroyed, good riddance etc and I wouldn't have too many quarms about promoting "moderate" Christianity in order to get rid of it.

However, I also see theism in general as a real problem because it has the power to prevent people from thinking. My standard issue for this is abortion. The abortion debate is a moral one with no clear answer. Should abortion be permitted up to 20 weeks, 24 weeks, banned altogether etc etc? I can make a case for all those, and equally I can offer valid critique of each. The thing is, my critique of them will be my opinion, grounded in my knowledge of developmental biology but also in the work of philosophy and so on and so forth. In short, it will be my opinion.

The religious amongst us are not necessarily free to exercise their own opinion. They have morals dictated to them from a book of myths, and those morals may be in conflict with their instincts, their personal moral compass. For this reason I deem it appropriate to rid the world of religion (or any woo) if it all possible.

Disagree with me all you want, but do it because YOU disagree with me, not because some 2000 year old book tells you to disagree with me.

In short, 2 issues. Bullshit vs Science, then bullshit vs rational thought. Not necessarily the same issue.

I agree with your position on Creationism, Squawk - at least, the Literalist/Fundamentalist variety (God did it in a period of time which is less than the current cosmological theory accepts). The mainstream version - God caused the Big Bang - I would not be concerned about: it's just a difference of opinion about what caused the Big Bang: God or a quantum fluctuation or some other cause.

Which is why I'm proposing concentrating on YEC, rather than Creationism, in general, as it spans too great a range of dates for Creation.

Abortion is a difficult issue - for many reasons. (I could write quite a piece on it - as I'm sure could many others here.)

I'm with Bill Clinton - "Safe, legal - and rare".

A interesting point to note about this issue in relation to stem-cell research, is that Leviticus 17:11 says that "the life of the flesh is in the blood".

Given that a fertilized egg has no blood supply of its own - from what I know, it doesn't start producing its own blood until around day 18 - can it be "alive"?

If not, there can't be any Christian objection to harvesting them for stem-cell research.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

If there are young Earth Creationists who believe that the "seventh day" of Genesis 1 has not yet occurred then this is news to me.

Perhaps we're still in the middle of the seventh day, because this particular magic man is clearly still resting (or simply not there...)

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I wanted to add something else to the original reply, which could be said to a YEC.

Thomas Paine said, in The Age Of Reason:

The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man.

The Cosmos is the only Direct Word of which we know - everything else is indirect, since it comes to us through Man.

Those who place scripture above the Cosmos are being led astray and are in danger of leading others astray.

It's ironic that scientists, who're studying the Direct Word (the cosmos) are pilloried by those who cleave to a misinterpretation of the Indirect Word.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[lrkun]

Greetings,

I wanted to add something else to the original reply, which could be said to a YEC.

Thomas Paine said, in The Age Of Reason:

The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man.

The Cosmos is the only Direct Word of which we know - everything else is indirect, since it comes to us through Man.

Those who place scripture above the Cosmos are being led astray and are in danger of leading others astray.

It's ironic that scientists, who're studying the Direct Word (the cosmos) are pilloried by those who cleave to a misinterpretation of the Indirect Word.

Kindest regards,

James

What is your basis to suggest that the cosmos is the true word of god? I'm curious because I am unfamiliar with this idea. I've yet to experience god says so.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

This is a argument to direct at a YEC.

If an atheist or mainstream Christian wishes to "put the question" to a YEC, that's how to do it - the YEC then has to choose between the Cosmos (which is indisputably - to Christians - the Direct Word of God) and the Bible (which is arguably the Indirect Word, as it comes to Christians through Man).

As I said earlier, if God exists, then the Cosmos is the Direct Word of God.

Kindest regards,

James