BBC Focus Magazine

[MrIsaksson]

Hi Chimera,

Thanks for the reply to my post, always good to get challenged.

That was until I started to hear about Creationists, I really worry about their view and how it seems to be gaining credibility within society.

I thought that this was a demeaning and dismissive, dare i say arrogant and almost dehumanising description of a very large amount of people, and it would be nice if we could keep these kind of sweeping statements free from logical debate.

I am sorry you feel this way. But I do worry about the creationists view of the world. As they are taking faith into the science lectures, trying to make it appear as they have scientific proof for their view.
My view is that religion has no place in science lectures.
That is not because I want to stop or take away people's right to have a faith.
I really don't have a problem with people believing in the healing powers of crystals, fairies, magic, god or whatever. Personally i think they are all being tricked but if it makes people happy..

But it is a completely a different thing for these faiths try to enter the realms of science, as science is all about that you take a theory, you put it to the test to prove it or disprove it. You refine it and so you get closer and closer to the truth. Faith is the complete opposite...
So when creationists say that they have proof that the world is no older than 6000 or 10,000 years, fossils arent real, evolution isnt happening etc....
Then to me that is really worrying, and shoudl be to anyone who believes in science, as we are taking step back to the dark ages before modern science especially when there are people lobbing to allow those views to taught in school.

My point is that why do religious people get lumped into a “creationist” group? Is it not possible for someone to have a strong religious faith and still agree with and support evolution?

I certainly don't think all Christians are creationists and really didn't think my comments lumped all religious people together as creationists.
Sorry if I made it appear that way.

...and all creationists are ignorant and brain-washed, incapable of rational thought.

I am not saying that all creationists are incapable of rational thought. Quite the contrary, I am sure there are quite a few of them who are very bright people but they arent using that intelligence to challenge their faith. So in that sense they are slightly ignorant or brain-washed. But it could just be that no one has showed the proof science that fossils are real, evolution isnt just a theory and so on

OK sorry for everyone that I ventured off topic, I will get on topic from here on

[The Beige Avenger]

Cheers for that Shadow, understandable... Although, my gut tells me topics like this will deteriorate into the usual....

[Ush]

Now that it's been touched on, I do not understand the Creationist/Religion bashing which goes on in atheist/science forums. Leave them be I say. The information is out there for them to read if they want to, leave it at that for all this bashing achieves nothing except insult.

[Doonhamer]

At least Darth Vader isn't around here any more...

[Flakkarin]

Now that it's been touched on, I do not understand the Creationist/Religion bashing which goes on in atheist/science forums. Leave them be I say. The information is out there for them to read if they want to, leave it at that for all this bashing achieves nothing except insult.

I've been weighing this up too... why can't we just let them be? I have the God Delusion in my possession, but am trying to finish another book first, but I believe Dawkins has some insights. For now though, how about this:


I agree that 'bashing' gets us nowhere, but perhaps it benefits mankind to actively try to educate, rather than leaving it up to them (when, naturally, 95% will not go off and read themselves)

I wondering if I'm wandering off topic... I guess this post is trying to point out that for me the best evidence is the things this guy talks about: that evolution is about us in everyday life - and understanding it helps saves lives, especially in the case of evolving bacteria

[The Beige Avenger]

I think that a way to 'convince' a creationist is to separate it from their faith in whatever they believe.

That way it's not, what they could see as, an attack on their God but more like challenging a typo.

[M Paul Lloyd]

At least Darth Vader isn't around here any more...

Shush man.

[The Beige Avenger]

how about...

If God created man in his image, how come we don't all look alike?

...if you're thinking what I think you might be thinking, stop thinking it. Otherwise, carry on.

[MattW]

If there is an 'Intelligent Designer', how come humans don't have one detachable arm for bedtime, one is comfy, two is just plain stupid!

[The Beige Avenger]

I'm not sure if exposing the flaws of the human body it will convince them as it is quite easy to pass off some of the flaws as a bit silly despite them being valid... ok.. a removable arm is a bit daft but...

Our knees...

Our plumbing...

Our eyes...

Even our brains which seem to be made out of 2 separate parts that fight against each other...

And the vestigial components of previous models present in humans... and gills in the womb... and the fact that a human embryo in early stages of development looks pretty much just like every other mammal.

now... if God was actually talking about the cephalopods or insects i could maybe believe they were designed... and in a way they were, by "nature" which some people might call God and in those cases it is not the creationist belief but a philosophy and way to describe from whence things camest which sounds perfectly acceptable in my book... depending on your/their definition of the nebulous concept that is "nature".

[Shadowwolf]

Even our brains which seem to be made out of 2 separate parts that fight against each other...

Ahhh yes, of which the alien hand syndrome is a quite extreme but nonetheless fascinating and downright scary example. Makes you wonder just what is going on in there

I think that a way to 'convince' a creationist is to separate it from their faith in whatever they believe.

Alas that is almost certainly impossible, to convince a creationist of evolution is by its very nature a challenge to the faith they use as an explanation of the world, hence the problem.

[Colm]

It's quite easy to argue defensively with a creationist, as in if they are trying to convince you, you can pull out all sorts of arguments to back up your denial that what they say happened.

One argument I hear often in favour of religion and opposed to science in general is, "People [or scientists!] once believed the Earth was flat" or some other commonly false belief from the days of yore. This is to imply that if they were wrong about the Earth being flat, they could aslo be wrong about evolution. I've also heard this used in favour of astrology or "the paranormal". The intent is to get us to "open our minds" to the possibility that we are wrong. The proper response is of course, "Yes and people also once believed that God created the Earth 6 days, 6000 years ago."

Quite often people asking you to open your mind to the possibility are even more closed-minded themselves but to the possibility that there is no God or ghosts or paranormal or that astrology is a load of rubbish. I have considered the possibility that God exists, even that he created the Earth, and came to the conclusion that he almost definitely did not. But I'm willing to bet that many creationists who would use this argument haven't opened their minds the possibility that there is no God.

To an open-minded creationist, or one who is willing to listen to reason, it's quite possible that they simply don't understand the theory of evolution. It's quite difficult to understand how beings would tend towards being more advanced, and how they could go from being primordial ooze to human beings, until you grasp the idea of natural selection, and grasp the sheer huge number of generations during which it can happen, and the different phases it went through. Perhaps you could get them to explain the theory of evolution as they understand it to you, to see if they have it right.

Or that they don't understand the meaning of the word "theory". The very fact it's called "The Theory of Evolution" puts people off. They think theory means "made up possible explanation", more like a hypothesis. Scientists admit evolution is a theory. Their equivalent authorities in the creationist camp do not admit this about creation. They speak with conviction and sound definite. So it sounds to someone who doesn't fully understand the meaning of the word "theory" that scientists aren't too sure about evolution but creationists are absolutely positive about creation.

They need to understand that a scientific theory - especially evolution - has undergone rigourous testing to the point that most reasonable people would agree it's definitely true. It was discovered in a search to find out what actually happened. It's not the same as holding a belief or having faith. Whereas religious authorities aren't in a continuous struggle to find out what actually happened using logic and all available sources of information.

[Liam Sheppard]

both parties are dismissive of the others based on their fundamentals.. 1 being faith one being science..

both a fundamental floor in the others eyes... by this reasoning we can safely ascertain that both parties are unrelentingly arrogantly confident in their own point of view with no flexibility...

we should all be ashamed

[Shadowwolf]

I completely disagree Mr Liam.

both parties are dismissive of the others based on their fundamentals.. 1 being faith one being science..

To be dismissive suggests that a party rejects the other based upon a presupposed position, they don't agree with us therefore they are wrong and what they say should be dismissed out of hand. Scientists and those who find the science based explanation the most supported and plausible based upon the evidence will as an inherent quality, reject all explanations which do not have evidence or plausibility. Explanations which do not match the evidence or lack research will also not find favour. The other party in this case dismisses based on their desire to believe in one particular version of an unsubstantiated story, if anything conflicts with this story then it must be wrong, they don't weigh evidence, don't reason, they compare and if it does not fit their presupposed position it must be wrong. One reaches a conclusion by weighing the evidence to hand and as a by-product necessarily rejects explanations without sufficient or any support, the other dismisses that which contradicts how they would like it to be. Science cannot operate any other way, it can only go where the data and evidence directs it which cares not for what some people might like to imagine it should be. The other party could be objective, they could approach the evidence without the pre-conceived notion of literal genesis as an incontrovertible fact; they could just choose to believe what they want and not try and impinge on science, education or proclaim it to the world in general.

by this reasoning we can safely ascertain that both parties are unrelentingly arrogantly confident in their own point of view with no flexibility...

we should all be ashamed

Arrogant, ashamed?

What of?

Like I said above, science goes where the data and evidence takes it and this cold, hard system cares not one jot for certain peoples feelings, sensibilities or what beliefs they may have entertained that now find themselves in conflict with objective reality. That is not arrogance, it is just how it is and nor should their be flexibility. Why? Because a certain group is unable to deal with new knowledge they must be tiptoed about, handled with extreme sensitivity lest they become upset? Just where would science be if it was flexible to the feelings of various groups personal faith based belief systems?

Scientific research has given us the theory of evolution, this has been published, the research has been published and ongoing research is published. The science is taught so that we may understand our scientific origins and continue to do so, some may have more interest and pursue further avenues of scientific research to broaden our knowledge and further our capabilities. This is how it should be, however in developing the science it will unavoidably expose certain beliefs as incompatible with evidence based reality; if the science is right then the others like literal Biblical Genesis cannot. This upsets some folks, they don't like their faith to be challenged even in this ancillary manner, they don't want to just ignore it and believe what they want, they wish to fight it, drag it down, explain it away, make their faith safe. So they challenge scientists and education, scientists did not go to creationists the creationists came to them. In their attempt to challenge the danger to their faith they are frequently uneducated on the basic principles, willfully determined to not grasp basic principles or misunderstand the plainly put and invent covers for the faith version of the story to make it appear as though it is science. They attempt to have the faith thought alongside the science as though they were an equally valid method of explaining the world, as though it's just a matter of personal choice and they fight science via the courtroom where they hope legal argument might trump objective reality. The scientists and those who support this objective view are unsurprisingly infuriated by the tactics and willful obtuseness that is often thrown their way. What other response can their be to the likes of Comfort's banana video, his own prefaced version of Darwin's groundbreaking book and Hovind's Creation Museum? To suggest that these deliberately made challenges to evolution are just another point of view is to encourage more of what is nothing but stupidity and that it may have some validity. These individuals are also the voices of the creationist side, it is not as if they are a crazy fringe of creationism, they are the ones the rest look up to, their big names.

The only arrogance on display is that a certain group thinks that their particular take on their faith should be protected from any opposition which upsets their fragile beliefs. Had they not stuck their hands up then no one would have bothered to rebut them anymore than the science had already inescapably done. In general there is nothing for any proponent of evolution to be ashamed of, there is the science plain and simple — well complex really but you get my drift — and yes science should be robustly defended from belief systems that stemmed from a less knowledgeable past.

[Nails]

both parties are dismissive of the others based on their fundamentals.. 1 being faith one being science..

both a fundamental floor in the others eyes... by this reasoning we can safely ascertain that both parties are unrelentingly arrogantly confident in their own point of view with no flexibility...

we should all be ashamed

[b]Fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅ism[/b
]–noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalist

You will note that there are not many scientists who will live or die by the infalibility of any theory, and hense I assert that the term 'atheist fundamentalist' is incorrect and merely a slur.

It is becoming a common theme from the American religious fundies though, to use the descriptions that they don't like and are often used to describe them as labels for their 'opposition'.

Fundy is a common one, as is regarding evolution as a 'worldview' or a 'religion'. But It is quite perculiar to hear someone say that they don't have enough faith to be an atheist...

But to give your point a real answer, science should have no need to answer religion, but religion decides to poke its nose into the lives of everyone.

[The Beige Avenger]

<become Rambo>
To win an argument with a Creationist.......

......


...you must become a Creationist.
</Rambo>

[Nails]

<become Rambo>
To win an argument with a Creationist.......

......


...you must become a Creationist.
</Rambo>

Like Michael Behe, the biochemistry professor who advocates ID?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behe

[M Paul Lloyd]

Smile polity................................ and walk away.

[The Beige Avenger]

biology is making discoveries every second it seems... in a few years, the arguments for a creator will become less and less as we find more and more explanations as to the hows and whys.

How to win an argument with a creationist?

With pure, unadulterated scientific rigour.

Might take a few years, but, like any movement with momentum (in this case a latter-day renaissance) it will happen... just be patient.

[Liam Sheppard]

yes MPL that was what I was going to say...

walk away.... win win