Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[Delvo]

If you have info showing that Creationists actually created ID to try and fool people into thinking it wasn't creationism...

Better yet, you could show us what hypotheses they ever came up with, what testing procedures were used that would actually test those hypotheses, and what negation conditions they set ahead of time so the results would speak for themselves instead of allowing themselves space for a "we were right no matter what happened" squirm... all without the cdesign proponenstsists telling a single lie along the way about prior evidence or contradictory hypotheses/theories/laws.

 

[Leumas]

I think this entire discussion went off the rails. My point is that sience is being attacked by those promoting religion. People are dismissing science because it contradicts the stories that are foundational to religion. Especially by believers in the Abrahamic religions.

I live in a small town that has 10 churches as well as a Creation Museum. The museum is sadly ten times larger than the public library which is about the size of a 1 bedroom apartment.

I think science and education is more important than religion. So it annoys me seing it attacked by charlatans like the Discovery Institute .

I was once invited to a barbecue by a colleague and his in-laws were there too.

His mother-in-law was the principal of a high school... her uncle who also was at the barbecue had his own church and was pastor of it or ¿something?.

The entire family was soaked and pickled in Jesus juices... even his wife, who loved hard-drinking and smoking dope and going to Trans show clubs.

He was not so religious but not an atheist... he sort of subscribed to spirituality claptrap or something... I never really got beyond him telling me about Carl Jung's book, Man And His Symbols... which I had read many years before I met him and thought it the most astounding claptrap from a supposed protégé of Sigmund Freud.

By the way Americans love Jung and deride Freud... which tells you much about the psyche of Americans.

Anyways... the discussion came around to the mother-in-law asking for ideas on what magazine subscriptions she ought to get for the PUBLIC SCHOOL's library she was the principal of and had just gotten some funding to do so.

I suggested Scientific American or How It Works... and the looks on their faces made me feel like I had just strangled baby Jesus or something worse.

The rest of the suggestions were all for some faith claptrap magazines like Goodlife Magazine and the like.... the only suggestion that I would have accepted as not 100% Christian pickling juice was for Biblical Archaeology Review... which is still steeped in religious bias despite pretending to be archaeology for real which is of course evident by the name.

And of course that was rejected because it might occasionally actually let slip in a real archaeology article... god forbid!!!

 

[GDon]

I think this entire discussion went off the rails.

There is a "3 page" sweet spot to threads. They nearly always derail after the 3rd page.

My point is that sience is being attacked by those promoting religion. People are dismissing science because it contradicts the stories that are foundational to religion.

The statement that started this for me personally was "They'll attack evolution and science which amuses me since, they use computers, cars and cell phones."

But that is conflating "science" with "science consensus". Someone arguing against consensus in an area is EXACTLY how science advances. But just because someone argues against the consensus in a certain area doesn't mean they are "rejecting science". It's dangerous to paint things that way, since that leads to orthodoxy. "Question X? You are rejecting science!" No good will come from it.

I think science and education is more important than religion. So it annoys me seing it attacked by charlatans like the Discovery Institute .

And fair enough too.

 

[arthwollipot]

But that is conflating "science" with "science consensus". Someone arguing against consensus in an area is EXACTLY how science advances. But just because someone argues against the consensus in a certain area doesn't mean they are "rejecting science". It's dangerous to paint things that way, since that leads to orthodoxy. "Question X? You are rejecting science!" No good will come from it.

But that's not what the cdesign proponentsists have been doing. They've been saying "Your so-called 'science' is rubbish. Here's something that looks like science so you have to accept that instead."

 

[Leumas]

...

But that is conflating "science" with "science consensus". Someone arguing against consensus in an area is EXACTLY how science advances.

Again... the above statement portrays absolute and total ignorance of what science is or how science research is carried out.

But just because someone argues against the consensus in a certain area doesn't mean they are "rejecting science".

No... it means they have absolutely no idea what science is... that is all.

It's dangerous to paint things that way, since that leads to orthodoxy. "Question X? You are rejecting science!" No good will come from it.

Only the attackers of science (whom you deny exist) and the promulgators of pseudo-science "paint things that way".

[imgw=400]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_512824eb208ba1a6e6.jpg[/imgw]​

 

[GDon]

But that's not what the cdesign proponentsists have been doing. They've been saying "Your so-called 'science' is rubbish. Here's something that looks like science so you have to accept that instead."

The science about computers, cars and cell phones?

 

[arthwollipot]

The science about computers, cars and cell phones?

What the F are you talking about? The science of evolution, obviously.

 

[Leumas]

The science about computers, cars and cell phones?

Do you know what principles and discoveries of science are involved in the development of those products? I doubt it!!!


Hint: Computers... cars... and cell phones... are PRODUCTS of ENGINEERING that utilized... in some cases... COMPONENTS... that were... in some cases... developed by scientific discoveries and research.

If you know anything about the ENGINEERING involved in making those products you would know that there is very little "doing science" involved in their development.... the "doing science" was long before done by people who did not even envisage those products at the time they were "doing the science" that eventually resulted in the components that the engineers utilized in engineering those products.

 

[Leumas]

The science about computers, cars and cell phones?

So in your reckoning using smartphones is tantamount to accepting science... but to use the smartphone while driving a car to tweet and facebook and youtube and podcast and blog attacks and denials of evolution is just challenging the "scientific consensus" which is how "doing science" is done and thus they are just being even more scientific???

 

[zooterkin]

I know that Creationists are using ID to try to push Creationism into schools. Did they admit that they created ID for that purpose? Given that ID requires an old earth, I'd love to understand this. Any links to Creationists admitting that they created ID would be much appreciated!

Darat already linked to that.

All the files from the Dover trial are all accessible here on the forum: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/index.php?pageid=dover

 

[Pixel42]

But just because someone argues against the consensus in a certain area doesn't mean they are "rejecting science". It's dangerous to paint things that way, since that leads to orthodoxy. "Question X? You are rejecting science!" No good will come from it.

No good will come from defending creationists' dishonest attempts to convince the general public that their religious beliefs are scientifically valid by smuggling tangentially relevant articles into the scientific literature as just "arguing against the consensus".

 

[Darat]

Indeed.

Many years ago, while I was in a very boring job, I actually did read all of the transcripts of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, which were at the time published on the website of the NCSE. Yes, all of them, not just the decision. When I met Eugenie Scott at TamOz in 2010, she said that I might be the only person other than those directly involved who did.

Many of us here did read them - we may not be a typical slice of internet culture.

 

[arthwollipot]

Many of us here did read them - we may not be a typical slice of internet culture.

All of them? The depositions, and every day of the trial? It's rather a lot of material.

 

[Nessie]

What form will we take in the afterlife? We know we exist now, because of electricity moving around our brains. Without that, what?

 

[GDon]

I know that Creationists are using ID to try to push Creationism into schools. Did they admit that they created ID for that purpose? Given that ID requires an old earth, I'd love to understand this. Any links to Creationists admitting that they created ID would be much appreciated!

Darat already linked to that.

I know that Creationists were using ID as a Trojan Horse, but what I'm interested in is the idea that ID was created by Creationists as a Trojan Horse. As far I know, Behe came up with the idea, but his ID requires an old earth and evolution. So support for ID requires support for many of the elements used in evolution.

So I would be fascinated if Creationists were the originators of a theory that supports an old earth and (limited) support for evolution. Looks like there are a lot of transcripts in that link. If anyone can narrow them down, I'd appreciate that.

 

[GDon]

No good will come from defending creationists' dishonest attempts to convince the general public that their religious beliefs are scientifically valid by smuggling tangentially relevant articles into the scientific literature as just "arguing against the consensus".

I definitely agree.

 

[Pixel42]

I know that Creationists were using ID as a Trojan Horse, but what I'm interested in is the idea that ID was created by Creationists as a Trojan Horse. As far I know, Behe came up with the idea, but his ID requires an old earth and evolution. So support for ID requires support for many of the elements used in evolution.

So I would be fascinated if Creationists were the originators of a theory that supports an old earth and (limited) support for evolution. Looks like there are a lot of transcripts in that link. If anyone can narrow them down, I'd appreciate that.

The most important single document is the wedge document, which you have been pointed to several times.

Here's the wiki article on the wedge strategy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

 

[Darat]

I know that Creationists were using ID as a Trojan Horse, but what I'm interested in is the idea that ID was created by Creationists as a Trojan Horse. As far I know, Behe came up with the idea, but his ID requires an old earth and evolution. So support for ID requires support for many of the elements used in evolution.



So I would be fascinated if Creationists were the originators of a theory that supports an old earth and (limited) support for evolution. Looks like there are a lot of transcripts in that link. If anyone can narrow them down, I'd appreciate that.

It is covered in the court documents, as well as the extract that was quoted earlier. Also look up the "wedge document" and the discovery institute.

Behe always knew ID was creationism since that is what it always was.

 

[GDon]

It is covered in the court documents, as well as the extract that was quoted earlier. Also look up the "wedge document" and the discovery institute.

Behe always knew ID was creationism since that is what it always was.

I know that Creationists were certainly using ID as a Trojan Horse. That much is not in doubt. What I'd like to understand is whether Behe was in on it, as you say. According to Behe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism – natural selection working on variation – might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life.

If those are the words of a Creationist, that would be an amazing own-goal. The old earth of ID and "micro evolution" (which Creationists already agrees is a process, so extend that over time and you get -- evolution!) is already a useful argument against Creationists. So anything in those documents that would support that view, that Behe was a young-earth Creationist who didn't believe in the idea of common descent, would be very interesting.

 

[Darat]

I know that Creationists were certainly using ID as a Trojan Horse. That much is not in doubt. What I'd like to understand is whether Behe was in on it, as you say. According to Behe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe



If those are the words of a Creationist, that would be an amazing own-goal. The old earth of ID and "micro evolution" (which Creationists already agrees is a process, so extend that over time and you get -- evolution!) is already a useful argument against Creationists. So anything in those documents that would support that view, that Behe was a young-earth Creationist who didn't believe in the idea of common descent, would be very interesting.

You've been given the links required to show that he always knew it was creationism.