What Are Creationists Afraid Of?

The New Individualist ^ | 1/2006 | Ed Hudgins

[BMCDA]

But there are limits to what can be known. And natural science (what had been called Natural Philosophy), as it has been understood since Galileo and Newton, has been limited to those things that are observable and testable.

Indeed. Angels may exist and if they do, they may even be capable of dancing on the head of a pin but how are we to know? And how do we determine their number or if they are only dancing clockwise or counterclockwise?

Ah, so many questions...

[spunkets]

"No it isn't. The lcd is the search for knowledge. Junk scientists, social scientists and the natural scientists all use different methods so your statement can not be true."

I said, "science REQUIRES the scientific method". It's that simple. Junk science is not science. Social and natural science, REQUIRE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"And all the intelligences regularly get together and agree on what to do to improve the world economy."

Ever heard of a run on the banks? Were you alive during the 2000 tech meltdown? Ever seen the price of gold rise in response to uncertainty?

"Bill buys a car, June buys a mink, Ted sells his radio...."

And they all watch CNN!

The argument is absurd.



"The placement of the economy is irrelevant. "

Not if your watching rocks in the Gobi desert waiting for them to form an economy!!!

[Jorge]

Nor will you accept such evidence, no matter how overwhelming, which is why you need to accept the fact that you are unwilling to believe in evolution, and leave the discussion.

You know nothing about me.
I was a dedicated evolutionist for years.

It was my conversion to Christianity and belief in the Bible, God's Word that opened my eyes.

I have NEVER believed evolution since.

[jec41]

I just googled *Steve Biko*. Leftwing Conspiratr1 has some 'splainin to do. :)

Leftwing Conspiratr1 is not capable of explaining anything. He does not possess either the logical deductions needed for the proof or disproof of philosophy or the knowledge of what qualifies as science or scientific theory. He is but a opinionest of little thought and ability. When such little thought and ability are not accepted he can only resort to a philosophy of hate and bigotry thereby becoming what he would portray to despise.

[b_sharp]

Saying that all humans are apes and therefore animals is not racist. Picking one particular individual out and claiming he/she is less than human as you did is racist.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Okay, so what do we make of the contentions of Sir Franks'n'beans, who is essentially asserting that atheism leads to a sort of sociopathy?

As I said, a rather curious assertion for a professed atheist to make, unless we're into True Confessions® time here.

[BMCDA]

No, I don't think they're knuckle-draggers either, but we are talking about beliefs people hold because they hold them to be true, not merely useful. The claim is being advanced, more or less, that we, the enlightened, have no need of such illusions, but that it's useful for others to continue to believe in them, despite the fact that we, the enlightened, know those beliefs to be false. I think it's not too hard to see why some might find that claim rather offensive - it's good for you to believe in this lie, as one of the unenlightened, so just go ahead and carry on there, Charlie Church. I mean, the wording may be deliberately provocative, but isn't that what we're talking about, when you get right down to it?

Well put. This is also what Jacob Sullum addressed in his column Thy Neighbor’s Faith, especially in the last few paragraphs:

So what does it mean when a Jewish politician tells Christian voters that "we" need to reaffirm "our" faith? The message, apparently, is that any faith will do, provided it keeps people out of trouble.

But anyone who values religion because it promotes morality must value morality on nonreligious grounds. Hence this argument does not tell us why we should be religious. It tells us why other people should.

[Torie]

It can absent a priori leaps of faith about values. Most atheists who don't think there is a higher power make such leaps, and are thus not sociopaths, at least not in my experience. My totally atheist dad was about the most moral man I had the pleasure of knowing. I still miss his wisdom and guidance, and glowing "spirit." He had a gift.

[jec41]

Some creationists here aren't liars. Some, like Rightwing Conspiratr1, is really so utterly out of touch with reality to believe the lies he spews about us. He really thinks that everyone here who accepts evolution is, without exception, a racist, Jew-hating atheist. It's sad and pathetic that he holds such delusions, but being so stupid and insane is his right.

However he may be proof for a missing link.

[Oztrich Boy]

The root of the word science is scire, Latin for "to know". So it was, so ever it shall be.

The root of the word liberal is liber: Latin for "free". So it was, so ever it shall be.

Liberal Republic: You know it makes sense.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Strauss, and to a certain extent, Gertrude Himmelfarb, came rather close to saying pretty much just that. I'm reminded of Lady Ashley, who, upon being told of the theory of evolution, answered "Let us hope that it is false." Upon being told that it was likely true, she responded "Let us hope that it does not become widely known." ;)

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Really? You actually want to argue that we cannot believe in something unless we've actually seen it first hand with our own eyes?"

You are the one arguing that you haven't seen something, thus it must not exist, not me.

[balrog666]

Some creationists here aren't liars. Some, like Rightwing Conspiratr1, is really so utterly out of touch with reality to believe the lies he spews about us. He really thinks that everyone here who accepts evolution is, without exception, a racist, Jew-hating atheist. It's sad and pathetic that he holds such delusions, but being so stupid and insane is his right. However he may be proof for a missing link

It's hard to believe that such a stupid person could even exist, let alone use a computer like a normal human.




But then again, we have all seen his posts.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"God's Word that opened my eyes."

It closed them, not opened them.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Scientific method is great for treating certain parts of knowledge. When it draws from these specifics a shaping principle, or invokes a shaping principle before it attempts to acquire data, what have we then? A philosophy. Or perhaps a theology.

There is no "scientific method" for choosing one theory above another. No one has laid down laws to empirically determine which shaping principle, or even which theory must, or ought be, chosen above another. The same data can easily support more than one theory. Certain folks like Judge Jones, however, take it upon themselves to let us all know "empirically" what to think.

[Torie]

I had a professor who was a student and acolyte of Strauss, Leon Cropsey. I found him so mentally challenging, that I had to work hard to get a "B" in his class, very hard. Law school by comparison, was easy downhill skiing on the bunny slope.

[b_sharp]

Proponents of evolution talk about evolution. Creationists want to make it about origins. Evolution is a very specific field of study that does not apply to abiogenesis because the ToE needs life. Abiogenesis is about non-life or pre-life.

If you want to discuss abiogenesis then we can do that. However do not conflate abiogenesis and evolution.

Evolution has much evidence behind it from many sources and many fields of study, abiogenesis as of today has little or no evidence. It has many good hypothesis and many good ideas but little else.

It is, however, far more likely than the poorly constructed arguments against it assert.

[Senator Bedfellow]

It can absent a priori leaps of faith about values.

I don't think "it can" is being advanced - I think it's rather "it must".

[Torie]

Sometimes going with the flow per inertia, and "parasiting" off the leaps of faithers (as I define it in a not necessarily religious sense), is enough, I guess, so "must" I think is indeed errant. Cheers.