Creationist Fanatics

Recently I posted this on an Evolution versus Creationism board, the only responses I have gotten are basically in support of my statements.

Though since the purpose was to churn up a debate, I am hoping one of you has something different to say about the subject.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since originally proposing this topic it has come to my attention that Duane Gish(Senior Vice President of ICR(Institute of Creation Research), maybe future president since Morris' death), a public face of Creationism isn't overly respected by the majority of Creationists. This puts to rest the thoughts I had that his and ICR's way of thinking represented a majority in the movement.

I say Gish is a public face, because of his appearance on Penn and Teller: Bullsh*t!(http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=c). The episode he appeared on was ironically enough the same arguement this very website is built around, Evolution versus Creationism. It is partially why I sought out a forum to debate the topic, as he did a very poor job of convincing the hosts and myself that the idea has any merit at all other than an entirely religious one.

He lost me when he claimed the Grand Canyon was cut by a single massive surge of water(great flood) rather than over time by a steady flow.

Though even if people like Gish, and ICR as a whole do not represent a majority the following excerpt from that website is still a prime example of my arguement.

" We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christâ€￾ (II Corinthians 10:4,5). " (http://www.icr.org/)

The choice of wording leads me to believe they are at war with everyone that has a different view, the use of "and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" implies that ICR has not outgrown Christianities history of forcing itself onto everyone it encounters yet the Church(as a ruling body) seems to have done just that(you still have isolated members who are not backed by the Church that pressure others, but nothing like the organized group represented in ICR).

ICR also takes every oppurtunity to jump on scientists who falsify their findings, so that they can mention the inherent fallibility of all scientists. (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=news&action=view&ID=53)

" We trust science. We trust that scientists have done their work well and honestly when we drive a car over a bridge, ride in an elevator, or undergo a surgical procedure. But we need to be realistic in our trust of scientists. Scientists are human with sin natures just as the rest of the human population. As Christians, when a scientific “breakthroughâ€￾ is reported we should either examine the evidence for ourselves, or if we are not qualified to discern the data (which in many cases only a specialist in the field would be able to do), we should wait until the data are verified and confirmed by other reputable scientists before claiming it as fact. Unfortunately, many Christians transfer their trust in science to a scientist when he gives an opinion or hypothesis about the origins of the universe, the living world, and humans as well. Many assume that since a scientist said it, “it must be trueâ€￾ even if it apparently contradicts Scripture. From the recent events depicting the problems that a few scientists have had with honesty and integrity, we should remember that they are human and just as prone to sin as the rest of us. When can we fully trust scientists? Just as soon as people stop running red lights! "

Usually when I hear that phrase it goes more like this, "they are human and just as prone to mistakes as the rest of us" though they get a B+ for effort in trying to hide it because the last I checked falsifying findings isn't a sin. Though as it says scientists are prone to mistakes like anyone else, so their findings should be checked by other reputable specialists ... why then do they ignore the fact that many specialists who are not part of their club consider Creationist "science" to be untrue and in some cases entirely speculative?

After reading a bit of ICR's website, and a few more like it there is no doubt in my mind that I would not be safe from discrimination living in an area where these people were a majority or had integrated themselves into local politics to a point where they could initiate change(such as forcing a strictly religious topic to be taught in schools).

A current example of problems which could arise from fanatical and uncompromising Creationists like ICR gaining any type of political power(putting aside just for the moment the threat from individuals who support the movement) can be seen in Salt Lake City, which has long had problems seperating Church from State.

I am not saying that these problems in SLC have not been bettered over the years, but there still remain the many stories of discrimination against business owners and even private citizens who excersized their right to freedom of religion instead of following what was in power. The infamous blacklist is probably the best known discrimination in the city, business owners and private citizens(usually those who voiced their concerns the loudest) on the list had trouble getting licenses, unbiased health inspections and fair pricing on water and power. A few people even claimed that they had been framed for drug possession, and other charges. Their claims were supported by friends and family that knew them, and the fact they had no prior criminal record of any kind.

What about the extremists in the Creationist movement? The individual zealots, every religion has them and to think a few have not latched onto Creationism is very bad judgment.

The very idea of the movement as put forth by ICR and other similar groups is to wage war against those who refuse to believe, so I ask you what is to stop them from bombing museums and other institutes of learning which don't support Creationism?

If I were to put myself in this persons shoes these buildings and the people who visit them laugh in the face of god and Creationism by merely existing and resisting the inclusion of Creationism as a serious subject which should coexist in classrooms with Evolution.

Those are the reasons I am afraid of Creationism gaining any type of real power or overwhelming following, the majority of people who believe it may coexist with those who don't ... but the fanatics that can't coexist are the ones that have my attention and influence my opinions the most.

Suffice to say, I think there's a far greater number of things to fear from Creationism than there are from Evolution. The prime one being a degradation of our culture to a more superstitious time, after all what are the wrathful events in the bible if not prettied up magic?

 

i know i should just walk away from this, but apparantly i'm just a glutten for punishment...

every time someone says "i want to debate religion vs. whatever" what they really mean is "let's go bash some christians!" granted, the ICR is completely wrong in their approach. you cannot force anyone to believe anything, that's why God gave us free will to choose. all you can do is present the Word, answer any questions that arise, and let it go.

i know that God created the world in 6 days because the Bible tells me he did. anything we find in the fossil record was put there by God. any science we have was created by God, and supports his existance. but i'm not going to waste my time trying to convince people who aren't really curious, but just want an excuse to tell me i'm an ignorant redneck.

so now i'm walking away from this thread, feel free to insult my views and beliefs, because i won't be reading it.

 

I guess i could be considered a semi-creationist: I believe there is a God because I have no idea how the universe and/or life began, seemingly spontaneously. Biologists tell us that life can't just spontaneously arrise, and yet, when one tries to look up how life started, those same biologists say "Well, it just happened, spontaneously. There was a certain mingling of inorganic compounds, and they formed an organic protien, which in turn became a single celled organism; the ancestor of everything."
What I don't agree with is the earth being made 10,000 years ago. That's improbable. There is a lot of evidence pointing to the earth itself being over four billion years old. The half-life of certain heavy elements can easily be presented as proof. I also rely heavily on evolution. If it never took place, then why are there arising new subspecies of lizards and birds? They obviously evolved from better known creatures that already exist. On the Galapagos islands, there has been found a group of iguanas that are midway between the marine iguanas and the land iguanas that live in the forests. This is not proof of evolution persay, but it is proof that these two species of iguanas can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. That means the species aren't as far apart as previously thought. As far as people go, one could easily say God made all of us. Ok, that's fine. But why do we all look different? Evolution. Genetic mutation. Race is a fallacy, created by people who wish to further stereotypes of the different people on this planet. People are white by accident, look at people who have vitiligo. White people are resultant of many generations of blotchy or generally lighter individuals interbreeding. I just lost my train of thought.

 

I think flying spaghetti monsterism expresses my views on these people best.

 

Common Sense tells me to avoid this topic, but I just cant stop myself

First off, I doubt there's some anti-scientist physics-book burning master plan conspiracy rooted in the ICR. Rather, from what I can gather, its
a group of Christians who are attempting to overthrow the US First Amendment and reinstitute religeon into government.

The first appearances of this group was that Judge somewhere in the SE trying to put a statue of the 10 commandments in front of the courthouse. He insisted that it was non-biased and only reflected on American heritage, but everyone else said it created a bias, and implied that non-christians would get shafted. Go to some of the smaller communities in Utah and you'll know why people think that religeon and government unifed can be dangerous.

Anyways, he lost the fight, but his supporters were only emboldened by his act of 'resistence'. The new front is now to reinstitute prayer into schools via the false pretense of 'teaching creationist science' in schools.
They say it would give a balanced viewpoint to evolution, while totally ignoring the fact that America is composed of people from ALL religeons,
and to give lip service to one and not all is illegal.

Why not be satisfied with a World Religeon's course?

They'll lose this battle too, but it will create precedence in the legal system and help to increase their numbers. Ultimately, special interest groups will again hijack our democratic system (see Prohibition) via limited voter turnout and lobbying sympathetic officials, and the US will effectively dismantle the Bill of Rights First Amendment, ....Seperation of Church and State.

Does anyone else remember why so many people came to America?

" Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
- George Santayana

 

OK, what I don't get about the whole ten commandments in front of the courthouse thing is, why do they complain about THAT and not the swearing over a bible part? Every time a person is called in to testify, they are sworn in over a bible. It's a very odd double standard.

 

Quite right, it is a double-edged sword. Its actually been 'changed' to "...or in your own manner" after heated complaints from the anthiests,
But they dont say anything unless you gripe.

Whats even more interesting is the back of every US Dollar,
"In God we trust"

I think the athiest group waged war on that one, but lost, but dont quote me on that.

 

I'm pretty sure some atheist or anti-Christian group has waged war on just about everything that mentions God in this country.

I'm strongly in favor of teaching intelligent design along side evolution, not just because it's what I believe, but because evolution is still a theory in spite of what many would have you believe. It has not been proven, nor will it be, and should therefore be tought as a theory, not a fact. In what other field of study do schools cling so tenaciously to one theory while dismissing all others?

And at what point does saying that the universe was created by a higher power imply that the higher power was Jesus Christ? Don't try to pull that crap and say that creation science favors Christianity to the exception of all other religions.

 

Your right, Darwin's theory of evolution is just that, a theory or hypothesis. As is the collection of most idea's of mankind, whether its science, religeon, or its bastard offsping - psychology.

'Fact' is only accepted theories that nobody else has bothered to disprove yet, and the rest of the cattle haven't bothered to question.

I'm not trying to point out Christianity specifically, its just who I've heard speaking out in the news recently. But it is a conglomeration of Judeo/Christian/Catholic beliefs trying to reinstitute religeon into schools under the guise of science. Call it what you will, thats my opinion.

Dont get me wrong, I know that some higher being is responsible for us being here, but I also accept evolution as a measurable fact. Mutations and evolution is a reality amongst all things, and one could argue that God has indeed created us to adapt to changing environmental conditions. After all, what's the point of creating something in your own image that dies off when the weather changes? Plus, if it is happening, perhaps its what God intended? I cant believe that the Jewish people had all the answers 4000 years ago. Therefore, evolution would have been something entirely unknown to people at that time.

My point is, religeon should stay in the churches and in the home, not institutionalized like the Chuch of England in the UK.
We left for a reason, Christainity being one of them.

 

My post may contain the word "christian" simply because the creationist movement in America is christian backed. Many of my points apply to multiple religions so insert whatever word you like best.

Yes it should be separate but I don't see your point with the Church of England reference. The Church of England is an institution but it is a separate institution from the government. Unless you are referring to Britain centuries ago when the church was a devious political power?
America is a far more christian country than Britain (and just about any European country for that matter). I'm not just saying this from what I have read and watched but also from personal experience. I've lived in Britain all my life and spent about a year in Illinois.

I think flying spaghetti monsterism sums up the insane creationist legal battle very well. However if the creationists win then the precedent will be set and monsterism should legally be taught in schools which is amusing on one level and very scary on another. It will take decades to back track on it.

My supervisor has an amusing poster in her office.
"Teach both and let the kids decide
Creationism versus Evolution
Astrology versus Astronomy
Alchemy versus Chemistry
Magic versus Science"

I think there is a valid point there. Why do biologists have to defend themselves from creationism yet astrophysicists don't?
Has anyone been to the sun? No. Therefore it is simply a theory that the sun is the centre of the solar system. If they teach creationism then they should teach the religious version of physics in schools i.e. the sun goes around the earth.

Correct but so is everything if you break it down to its basic level.
Science presents a theory and then offers a lot of evidence to back it up.
Religion presents FACT and offers nothing to back it up.
So the choice is yours to look through the evidence and form an opinion or simply to believe what you are told simply because they tell you it is fact. As long as creationism is introduced as "a book that some people hold important says this" then fine. It's a waste of time, in my opinion, but it's not as dangerous as telling little kiddies that "this is FACT, if you believe anything else then you will burn kiddies, burn!"
You may think that's a bit melodramatic but I went to a primary school where we were told that non-christians burn in hell despite the fact there were 7 year old muslims in the class.

But back to theories: Scientists are unable to prove that matter is not made from the ancient elements of fire, earth, wind and water. They can present a lot of evidence which disproves this but if you are stubborn enough you can still say that atoms are only a theory (although the average person will think you are stupid).
Can anyone prove that perpetual motion is impossible? Nope. Is it stupid to believe in perpetual motion in the face of all evidence? Yup.

In all fields of study.
If you have one theory with a lot of evidence behind it and another theory with very little evidence behind it then "schools cling so tenaciously to one theory while dismissing all others" because all others are not supported.
e.g. phrenology versus synaptic circuits
coloured light being "made" by prisms versus coloured light being present in white light
perpetual motion versus conservation of energy
etc
The only thing different about creationism compared to perpetual motion is that the bible mentions creation so people can present the bible as "evidence".

 

Now that's one hell of a long post.

 

Hey Wolfsbane, your new avatar is cool

---

The biggest flaw of creationism is the paradox of Noah:

- if there is no evolution, new species can't emerge from the exisiting ones
- today there are about 1 550 000 species
- two specimen from each species is 3 100 000. Noah had a really big ark! ( + food + water + environment controllers + distance between hostile animals)

An ark of this size made of wood would simply sink (IF there is a sea of the appropiate size).


Edit:

Why it can't be believed that randomness combined with evolution will result in more and more advanced systems / lifeforms? Hehh, the A.I.s of many games are trained with random data...

 

Take into your consideration that God helped his vessel. There's no logic needed in the bible.

 

Look! A whole box of spam! No, wait, that's just Wolfsbane. My bad.

 

Yes, that's another paradox in the bible: free will vs. deus ex machina

 

Don't say "free will". That's something he invented for us, so that he wouldn't have to do everything for us all the time. Say "logic", instead. That would be much better.

 

Hehh.. A god with limitless resources is TIRED? :lol:

Why God always interferes with people if he invented free will? Doesn't free will includes independence, too?

Explaining something with "It's magic" is much easier than admitting that the answer is unknown or too difficult? The bible (and almost all religious people) does this.

What is more probable: evolution (with its numerous evidence), or creationism, which has no evidence at all and basically says "It's magic" ?

 

I never said that I believed in Noahs ark, and I don't. I don't believe in much of what's said in the bible, but heck, it's a good story even if it isn't true.
But I do believe in God, though. Something like the universe just couldn't've popped out of nowhere. It's too perfect.

 

Define nowhere. Then I will tell you how the universe was made :wink:

And no, it's not perfect. E.g. think about space travel: if it were a perfect universe (designed entirely for us), we were already travelling between stars, colonizing them. And it is highly unlikely that we will found a wormhole or anything like that. Is this the perfect world, the best world? "all is for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds" - no, no way!

I think this universe is only one of multiple universes. Some are like ours, with equal physics, some with different physics, some with so fucked up physics that they are destroyed already, etc. With infinite number of universes, you will always find another which is "better" in some sense.
(Just think about it: we thought that the Earth is the center of everything. Then we thought the sun is in the center of everything. Then the Milky Way. Then why would our universe be the only one?)

Nothing is perfect, even me .

(The only creationism theory I can accept that we are a part of a "universe simulator" project, made by scientists (or programmers ), not a highly irresponsible god who interferes with his own experiment)
(Except it is a computer game :lol: )

Edit: Yeah, our universe is "good" in the sense that it is capable of creating life. But it is always true to the observer of any universe, otherwise he wouldn't exist to observe.