Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bill · 01-19-2002, 05:37 PM

Somebody on an e-mail list I subscribe to passed around <a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html" target="_blank">THIS ARTICLE</a> which tells the story of what Dawkins describes as "an honest creationist." Here is a cogent excerpt:

Quote:

Where other boys wanted to be astronauts or firemen, the young Kurt touchingly dreamed of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard and teaching science at a major university. He achieved the first part of his goal, but became increasingly uneasy as his scientific learning conflicted with his religious faith. When he could bear the strain no longer, he clinched the matter with a Bible and a pair of scissors. He went right through from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific worldview were true. At the end of this exercise, there was so little left of his Bible that

. . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.

See what I mean about pathetic? Most revealing of all is Wise’s concluding paragraph:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

See what I mean about honest? Understandably enough, creationists who aspire to be taken seriously as scientists don’t go out of their way to admit that Scripture—a local origin myth of a tribe of Middle-Eastern camel-herders—trumps evidence.

I reccomend reading the <a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html" target="_blank">entire article</a>.

== Bill

ex-robot · 01-19-2002, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill:
Somebody on an e-mail list I subscribe to passed around <a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html" target="_blank">THIS ARTICLE</a> which tells the story of what Dawkins describes as "an honest creationist." Here is a cogent excerpt: I reccomend reading the <a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html" target="_blank">entire article</a>.

== Bill

I admit that many of his final thoughts are saddening and pathetic, but I never see any evolutionists comment on these words.

Quote:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth

If you would discuss evolution with him on a scientific level only, you would probably never get to the religious reasons for not accepting evolution. In his own mind, he obviously rejects evolution on scientific grounds as well as religious. Just some thoughts..

xr

Pantera · 01-19-2002, 07:19 PM

There was a previous thread on this article.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001310&p=" target="_blank">Sadly, an honest creationist</a>

Sephiroth · 01-19-2002, 07:27 PM

Yeesh, it's saddening that so much talent has to go to waste.

Daggah · 01-19-2002, 11:24 PM

ex-robot,

Quote:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth

When I see this I immediately think to myself that this guy has every bit of willingness in him to twist science to only support his view. There is no scientific reason to accept a young earth. Period.

Bill · 01-20-2002, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daggah:
There is no scientific reason to accept a young earth. Period.

Science itself would not take such a dogmatic stance.

Science is always asking for accepted theories to be falsified. Most scientists believe that the vast bulk of the evidence supports the "old Earth" hypothesis. But if we were to uncover an ancient rock looking like a "cornerstone for the Earth" inscribed with something that equated to "God built this planet, 4004 BCE," then science would have something to consider. We should never assert that it is impossible to falsify the "old Earth" theory.

=====

YECs can't be argued out of their position with scientific evidence precisely because their belief in their scripture tells them that, no matter what evidence is found, that evidence was still produced by God, who made things look exactly that way about 6,000 years ago. To me, the main reason for engaging these people is to attempt to isolate those people so that they don't begin to infect a larger community with their unfalsifiable viewpoint.

We need to point out the illogic of having anything at all to do with science when you've adopted an epistemological stance equivalent to that I've described above (nothing can ever falsify the literal words of scripture). The more that we can keep these people away from everything that has to do with science, the more we can drive a wedge between them and the sane part of humanity which desires to use science as the tool it actually is.

== Bill

Daggah · 01-20-2002, 10:14 AM

Well, Bill, I meant in the context of "currently." Currently there is no scientific reason to accept a young earth. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I know that science does not hold dogmatically to its theories, and I love that about science.

ps418 · 01-20-2002, 10:21 AM

I agree with Daggah -- there is no scientific evidence for YE-ism. That's not to claim a priori that such evidence could not exist, only that no such evidence is currently known.

Oolon Colluphid · 01-20-2002, 10:31 AM

Or to put it another way, it is not that 'old-earth-ism' cannot be refuted, just that, despite thousands of people looking into it for hundreds of years, like evolution, it simply never has been.

Cheers, Oolon

ex-robot · 01-20-2002, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daggah:
ex-robot,

When I see this I immediately think to myself that this guy has every bit of willingness in him to twist science to only support his view. There is no scientific reason to accept a young earth. Period.

Yes, from "your" point of view and the other posters, there is no scientific evidence. From "his" point of view, there is based on his investigations. He isn't an idiot. I would hold that above somebody in the back pew saying "yeah, preach it brother" and never investigating anything for himself. Sadenning still, yes. As sad, no in my opinion.

xr

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-19-2002, 07:19 PM	#3
Pantera Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Cambridge, England, but a Scot at heart Posts: 2,431	There was a previous thread on this article. <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001310&p=" target="_blank">Sadly, an honest creationist</a>

01-19-2002, 07:27 PM	#4
Sephiroth Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 625	Yeesh, it's saddening that so much talent has to go to waste.

01-20-2002, 10:14 AM	#7
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	Well, Bill, I meant in the context of "currently." Currently there is no scientific reason to accept a young earth. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I know that science does not hold dogmatically to its theories, and I love that about science.

01-20-2002, 10:21 AM	#8
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	I agree with Daggah -- there is no scientific evidence for YE-ism. That's not to claim a priori that such evidence could not exist, only that no such evidence is currently known.

01-20-2002, 10:31 AM	#9
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Or to put it another way, it is not that 'old-earth-ism' cannot be refuted, just that, despite thousands of people looking into it for hundreds of years, like evolution, it simply never has been. Cheers, Oolon

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.