Jump to content


Photo

Question To Creationists


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
64 replies to this topic

#1 Balticon

Balticon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Bristol, UK

Posted 11 October 2011 - 10:37 AM

Hello, I have a genuine question that has been intriguing me about creationists and this seemed like the place to ask it. This is not supposed to be a trap or a loaded question, I just wondered what your views are. So here it is:

Why does virtually every higher education institute in the world teach evolutionary biology?

I know there are a small number of exceptions to this rule, but they are exclusively religious institutions. Every secular and a great number of religious universities teach evolution as the best explanation of the diversity of life on earth. Are they just mistaken? Are they deceptive? Is it a conspiracy? I really am curious as to why you think all these highly respected institutes of education (including, as far as I can see, every single institution in the top 700) would teach a theory that you seem to think has been so thoroughly debunked.

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 October 2011 - 12:42 PM

Hello, I have a genuine question that has been intriguing me about creationists and this seemed like the place to ask it. This is not supposed to be a trap or a loaded question, I just wondered what your views are. So here it is:

Why does virtually every higher education institute in the world teach evolutionary biology?

I know there are a small number of exceptions to this rule, but they are exclusively religious institutions. Every secular and a great number of religious universities teach evolution as the best explanation of the diversity of life on earth. Are they just mistaken? Are they deceptive? Is it a conspiracy? I really am curious as to why you think all these highly respected institutes of education (including, as far as I can see, every single institution in the top 700) would teach a theory that you seem to think has been so thoroughly debunked.


At one tine creation was taught as science in science education. When evolution came along creation had to be removed so that evolution could reign without challenge The reason you ask the question is a trap because you know any answer you can use the same logic and reason you already have to justify your disbelief.

So just to show you what a trap question is like, I also have one for you.

If God does not exist, and you "truly, absolutely" believe that. Then why waste your time fighting what you claim is not there? Being an atheist is an oxymoron belief. Because atheist means you are against God that you say does not exist and again points to how can you be against something you claim does not even exist?

Your efforts in this thread show that you know God exists, you just want justification for your disbelief.

And by the way, most well known top colleges started out Christian. For the secular crowd to change that, God had to be removed. I also find it ironic that the very trial that got evolution into schools using a tooth that was claimed to be a pre-human later turned out to be a pig. The same type of animal that Jesus cast a legend of demons into. And I also find it ironic that this lie and false evidence was never corrected.

Also I find it ironic that evolutionists claim evolution is not connected to religion in any way. yet:
1) It can compete with religion on many different levels. What is not religion cannot compete with religion unless it is a religion repackaged.
2) To believe it totally requires a person to convert. Conversion is not science, it's religion.
3) Darwin was not the first person to think up the evolution idea of man coming from animals. This idea can be traced back to Egyptian pagan religions who believed man came (evolved) from animals. This is why their paintings were often of half man half animal.
4) Even abiogenesis can be traced back to the Egyptian pagan religions. For the Egyptians believed that all life came from the slime (primordial soup) around the Nile river. Funny how all this matches pagan beliefs from so far back.
5) Darwin is also a known plagiarist. He took many ideas from his Father's book called Zoonomia and used them as if they were his own. Never gave his father credit for any of his works. This is also why I believe he plagiarized the Egyptian pagan beliefs into his evolution idea. He had a degree in theology so he knew what the Egyptians believed because to get such a degree you have to learn such things.
6) Evolution also has evolutionist evangelists. Groups of evolutionist who discuss on forums and blogs how to "convert" Christians to evolution and also go from forum to forum, blog to blog (evangelizing) doing just that. Going from forum to forum and blog to blog is no different from going door to door searching for who you can convert. There is nothing scientific about that.

Evolution connects to religion on so many levels.

Anymore copy and paste anti-creation questions from anti-creationist sites?

#3 OmneVivumExVivo

OmneVivumExVivo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Immunology, microbiology, biochemistry... Biology in general, really.
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Wisconsin

Posted 11 October 2011 - 12:52 PM

Why does virtually every higher education institute in the world teach evolutionary biology?

Simple:

The higher education institutes tend to be controled by those in the grip of the fatally flawed naturalistic paradigm. They mistakenly believe that belief in a creator is somehow uscientific despite the fact that science was originally founded by people who believed the laws governing nature were the statutes from the mouth of a rational God.

#4 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 11 October 2011 - 02:39 PM

Why does virtually every higher education institute in the world teach evolutionary biology?
...

Because that's the dominant paradigm in biology at the moment. So it's about ideological hegemony something you will find in politics, the arts, fashion, religion, academia etc. That also answers the suspicion of "conspiracies" in many cases. It's not that they consciously all decided on the same thing in secret. It's that "common sense" (from what they've learned, what they find in the literature) tells them so and they interpret the world that way then. Knowing that, appeals to popularity aren't a valid proof that something is true or false.

#5 Balticon

Balticon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Bristol, UK

Posted 11 October 2011 - 02:54 PM

Hi Ikester, sorry if you view the question as a trap, it wasn't intended to be.

I'll happily try to answer your question. :)

If God does not exist, and you "truly, absolutely" believe that. Then why waste your time fighting what you claim is not there? Being an atheist is an oxymoron belief. Because atheist means you are against God that you say does not exist and again points to how can you be against something you claim does not even exist?


I don't fight against God, as you say that would be ridiculous as I don't believe in any gods. I enjoy debating people with different view points to try and gain an understanding of those views, but I wouldn't call that fighting. Also being an atheist doesn't mean I am against God, it simply means I don't believe in any gods. There are those that are opposed to the idea of God, people like Christopher Hitchens who defines himself as an anti-theist. These people are indeed against God, whilst having no belief in him, but it is the concept, rather than the being they are opposed to.

Your efforts in this thread show that you know God exists, you just want justification for your disbelief.


That's a lot to read into a simple question. :huh: I will take you at your word and assume you are not being duplicitous, I would appreciate the same courtesy from you.

most well known top colleges started out Christian. For the secular crowd to change that, God had to be removed.


Very true, many top universities started out Christian, and indeed many of them remain so whilst still teaching evolution. Secular does not mean atheistic, a person can be both a secularist and religious. A secular institution has no need to get rid of God, it simply remains neutral in respect to the various religions. Also I'm not really sure where getting rid of God comes into this. Accepting evolution says nothing about whether or not you believe in any gods. For instance the Catholic Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury both accept evolution.

I also find it ironic that the very trial that got evolution into schools using a tooth that was claimed to be a pre-human later turned out to be a pig.


I'm not sure what this has to do with universities decision to teach evolution. The tooth in question was indeed not a hominid tooth, fortunately scientists working in the field uncovered this mis-identification.

Also I find it ironic that evolutionists claim evolution is not connected to religion in any way.



This post is already getting a little long so I won't respond to each point here individually. I can see how evolution and religion may be linked. Religions often offer explanations of our origins which some people perceive evolution to contradict. Again though, I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this point.

Anymore copy and paste anti-creation questions from anti-creationist sites?


Again I apologise if you felt my question was disingenuous, I genuinely am interested and I would still love to hear your answer.

#6 Balticon

Balticon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Bristol, UK

Posted 11 October 2011 - 03:18 PM

Hi Omne and Mark, yes I agree with you both that naturalism is indeed the dominant paradigm in science and has been for a long time now. However if evolution really was a flawed theory it should be possible to demonstrate the problems with it on scientists own terms. You do not have to give evidence for a super-natural alternative, you simply have to falsify evolution. With a theory as large as evolution this should be easy if it is indeed flawed. Indeed many have tried for as long as the theory has been around, yet none have been successful.

Do you really believe that virtually every academic working in the field of Biology is so blinkered as to ignore the flaws in the theory? If any of them were to be able to falsify the theory of evolution, or even more so the naturalist paradigm, they would be rewarded with Nobel prizes and many other accolades, they would be amongst, if not the, greatest scientists of their generation.

fatally flawed naturalistic paradigm


In what ways do you see the paradigm as being flawed?

They mistakenly believe that belief in a creator is somehow uscientific


I agree that most scientists would see God as being outside the remit of science, as science is a method for investigating the natural world. This is not the same as denying the existence of God, it simply means science makes no comment on the existence of any gods.

How would you go about examining God through scientific scrutiny?

appeals to popularity aren't a valid proof that something is true or false


I completely agree with this statement. The intention of my question was to make an appeal to authority, or to convince anyone of the veracity of the theory of evolution. I am genuinely interested in a creationist view on the dominance of evolution in biology faculties around the world.

#7 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 11 October 2011 - 04:24 PM

Hi Omne and Mark, yes I agree with you both that naturalism is indeed the dominant paradigm in science and has been for a long time now. However if evolution really was a flawed theory it should be possible to demonstrate the problems with it on scientists own terms.


Without being sued and having grant money forbidden for violating the state and govt. institutions rights for the separation of church and state? No.

Remember, in the Dover trial they were reduced to finding evidence that I.D. was just another forum of creationism, which disqualified it - not the evidence.


Enjoy.

#8 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 11 October 2011 - 04:34 PM

Hello, I have a genuine question that has been intriguing me about creationists and this seemed like the place to ask it. This is not supposed to be a trap or a loaded question, I just wondered what your views are. So here it is:

Why does virtually every higher education institute in the world teach evolutionary biology?

I know there are a small number of exceptions to this rule, but they are exclusively religious institutions. Every secular and a great number of religious universities teach evolution as the best explanation of the diversity of life on earth. Are they just mistaken? Are they deceptive? Is it a conspiracy? I really am curious as to why you think all these highly respected institutes of education (including, as far as I can see, every single institution in the top 700) would teach a theory that you seem to think has been so thoroughly debunked.

I understand the appeal of a majority opinion. And it's not that the ToE does not have what seems to be apparent evidence, but let's back up in history. Ikester is correct when he says creationism was the general thought in the past. But the church taught species fixity, which was wrong. Darwin actually did make some cool observations on speciation and phenotypical adaptations.


I am not a historian, but have picked enough of it in my 50 years to understand the following. At the time when Darwin came out with the "Origin of Species" there had been two movements that happened in America. The Great Awakening had happened earlier in the century, which was characterized by a powerful move of God, both by manifestation of the Spirit, and the powerful preaching of people like Johnathon Edwards, John Wesley, George Whitfield, and Charles Spurgeon. This reinforced America's Christian roots, and revived the true heart felt faith.

However there had also been the Enlightenment. This movement was a movement of higher thinking, mainly guided by the educated. Many liberal theologians were a part of this. These were "church teachers" who were very critical of scripture-- usually educated scholars who didn't know any thing about the Holy Spirit. These were greatly influenced by the atheist and agnostic philosophers who started the enlightenment.

Havard started as a theological school, but was gradually infiltrated by these higher thinking critics. So it was a departure from the faith as a movement--it was not the first time it happened, and won't be the last. When Darwin entered, these higher learning colleges (now universities) were a tender box for the fire of evolution. And the rest is history. These are the same universities that educated the leaders that would later defend evolution by "the constitution" and exclude creationistic teaching.

Also creationism was behind, in that it really had no answer for such a long time. Until the 1960's, when John Morris, a PhD hydrologist, and born again Christian wrote, "The Genesis Flood," there had been no effective voice in science to challenge the ToE. Then in the 1980's the Itelligent Design movement grew--don't really know WHO was instrumental in that except Michael Behe.

As far a majority opinion, you can look at Nazi Germany, and Japan, with emperor worship and kamikazies in WWII. There were many convinced by those lines of thinking. Were they right?

#9 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 October 2011 - 06:01 PM

I don't fight against God, as you say that would be ridiculous as I don't believe in any gods. I enjoy debating people with different view points to try and gain an understanding of those views, but I wouldn't call that fighting. Also being an atheist doesn't mean I am against God, it simply means I don't believe in any gods.


You don’t “believe” in any gods; which is basically a faith statement. In that, you have “faith” that there is no God (or gods). Which, then, when kept in the context of the spirit of the OP question, begs a further question: Why does the vast majority of the world teach that there is indeed a God (or gods)? In other words, why is such a minute minority of the world atheistic?

Again, not a trick question; and very relevant to the OP question.

#10 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 October 2011 - 08:33 PM

You don’t “believe” in any gods; which is basically a faith statement. In that, you have “faith” that there is no God (or gods). Which, then, when kept in the context of the spirit of the OP question, begs a further question: Why does the vast majority of the world teach that there is indeed a God (or gods)? In other words, why is such a minute minority of the world atheistic?

Again, not a trick question; and very relevant to the OP question.


I don't think Balticon gets it.

#11 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 11 October 2011 - 10:40 PM


However if evolution really was a flawed theory it should be possible to demonstrate the problems with it on scientists own terms
. You do not have to give evidence for a super-natural alternative, you simply have to falsify evolution. With a theory as large as evolution this should be easy if it is indeed flawed. Indeed many have tried for as long as the theory has been around, yet none have been successful.

That's done, and it's actually pretty easy. So what you claim isn't actually true. The progression of new species is simply not observed. The evolutionist reply to that is that it simply takes "millions of years", which actually renders it unfalsifiable meaning that it's not a scientific theory in the sense of Popper.

So I think you are posing the wrong question here. If ToE is supported by so many scientists and also has so much financial backing, why hasn't it been proven and backed up by verifiable evidence?
  • JayShel likes this

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 October 2011 - 11:37 PM

However if evolution really was a flawed theory it should be possible to demonstrate the problems with it on scientists own terms. You do not have to give evidence for a super-natural alternative, you simply have to falsify evolution. With a theory as large as evolution this should be easy if it is indeed flawed. Indeed many have tried for as long as the theory has been around, yet none have been successful.


Evolution is not falsifiable and never will be. Why? If evolution were an actual theory then all challengers would be heard and not personally attacked and reputations destroyed. What is a true proven fact does not need that kind of protection, you could just mow everyone down with the evidence including creationists.

If you want evidence of personal attacks when evolution is challenged, I can go to youtube and get videos from Thunderf00t and his friends and show you enough "unscientific hatred" used to protect evolution you could never finish watching them in your lifetime.

So why not mow everyone over with your mountains of empirical evidence, but instead use hate tactics? Because so called empirical evidence is a small ant hill at best.

Here's one for you. A record of time like the fossil record would record how life existed and would be some what accurate, right? There are 30 known living fossils of plants and animals. Yet everyone, with no exception, has the same problem. The so called fossil record does not record:
1) Their survival until present. This is because they are only found in "one" layer and no other layers.
2) A accurate record would have not only recorded their survival, but also record that they did not evolve by showing the same fossil layer after layer until present. But that's not what we find.
3) No fossil is ever duplicated to show it lived in more than 2 layers. So there is a huge gap.

Example 1: The "sea pen" is found in the lowest layer of the fossil record, and found alive as well. Yet it is not found in any layer in between proving by the fossil record that it survived. That's 10 whole layers it should be found in recording it's survival yet the evidence of this is missing. Why?

Example 2: The coelacanth fish is found 7 layers down and alive, yet no layer in between proving it survived.

Those are just 2 of 30 examples. 30 times this problem shows up proving the fossil record was not laid down by time. Now what would lay out the fossils like this that would not allow living fossils to show up in any other layer? Sorting by water. The Bible says that the starting point for the flood was the fountains of the deep breaking up. That much water coming up would also bring up so much sediments that every sea creature would be buried where they lived in the water, right? So let's test this.

1. The bottom of the sea would be buried first so bottom dwellers is what we should see in the bottom layer, And that is what we see.

2. The middle of the ocean would be next, so the next few layers should be middle ocean dwelling life. And that is what we see.

3) Then the top of the ocean gets buried in the top dwellers get buried and the last layer of aquatic life should be all top dwellers. And that is what we see.

4) Then the land animals.

But let's take it a step further. If the fossil record soley supports evolution, then the lower life should not have any complexity. But yet the trilobite has fully formed organs and complete working systems. And it is the only life in the layer with that and there is no evolution tree to it showing how it evolved this complexity. Nothing.

To sum it up:

1) We have 30 known living fossils with no record of them surviving in the fossil record.
2) We have unexplainable complexity in the lower layers.

A problem that repeats itself over and over (30 times) is empirical evidence that the fossil record is not a record of time. How is it empirical?

1) It's observable.
2) It has repetition. Time itself, and the mechanism that laid the fossil record repeated this problem and that is observable as well.
3) And it can be retested by digging up even more fossils of things that are living.

Now if this were a problem maybe 5 out of 30, it could be explained. But 30 out of thirty is an absolute conclusion that you or no other evolutionist can refute. And if you can I'd like to see that.

#13 Balticon

Balticon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Bristol, UK

Posted 12 October 2011 - 05:30 AM

Without being sued and having grant money forbidden for violating the state and govt. institutions rights for the separation of church and state? No.


I'm not American so I'm no expert on your constitution. However, I'm fairly sure there is not constiutional bar to providing evidence which falsifies evolution.

#14 Balticon

Balticon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Bristol, UK

Posted 12 October 2011 - 05:54 AM

Hi AFJ, your argument seems to be that the acceptance of evolution is somehow tied to the rejection of God. As I mentioned above a great many religious believers from many religions, including Christianity accept evolution as being true. Futhermore evolution is not proposed as a rebuttal to any religious ideas, it is a scientifc explanation, the same as nuclear physics or atomic theory.

As far a majority opinion, you can look at Nazi Germany, and Japan, with emperor worship and kamikazies in WWII. There were many convinced by those lines of thinking. Were they right?



As you and others rightly point out, majority positions are not always correct. It may be that evolutionary theory is worng. I'm am just interested in how creationists view the current scientific consensus.

#15 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 12 October 2011 - 06:05 AM

I'm not American so I'm no expert on your constitution. However, I'm fairly sure there is not constiutional bar to providing evidence which falsifies evolution.

I don't think he's referring to the constitution itself, but to it's present interpretation and application. And there the argument of "separation of church and state" or rather "separation of state and religion"(except atheism and secular humanism of course) will be made. So any creationist arguments can cost a person it's job or sort of invites ostracism by influential peers.

We can, of course, present you with the evidence and arguments against fish to fishermen evolution here.

#16 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 12 October 2011 - 06:32 AM

1) We have 30 known living fossils with no record of them surviving in the fossil record.
2) We have unexplainable complexity in the lower layers.

A problem that repeats itself over and over (30 times) is empirical evidence that the fossil record is not a record of time. How is it empirical?

1) It's observable.
2) It has repetition. Time itself, and the mechanism that laid the fossil record repeated this problem and that is observable as well.
3) And it can be retested by digging up even more fossils of things that are living.



I'm am just interested in how creationists view the current scientific consensus.


Why is the ToE so prevalent? Mass delusion by choice. If you falsify a theory that is the only possible naturalistic explanation for how life formed on earth, then you come face to face with God. I know a lot of agnostics that hold their position because they don't even want to THINK about if God exists or who He might be, and they like to think that as long as they are a "good enough" person, they can use the excuse that they were ignorant of His laws and their condemnation under these laws. The Bible says that these people knowingly reject God. They try to fool themselves but if they cared about God at all, they would seek out who He is. They would rather be in charge of their own life, so they don't seek God. They are without excuse. They choose condemnation over grace.

The reality of the science world is that as soon as you become known as a scientist who believes in creation, you are kicked out of the club, you are shunned. You are effectually black listed from any job that would give you access to cutting edge technology and financial backing. You are therefore cut off from doing any major research on hypotheses that arise from a belief in creation. This results in a huge advantage toward research supporting evolution. It is quite telling that this advantage has only lead to more ad hoc theories to prop up the theory of evolution as we gain more scientific understanding.
God's creation gives testimony of His glory.

#17 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 October 2011 - 09:15 AM

I'm not American so I'm no expert on your constitution. However, I'm fairly sure there is not constiutional bar to providing evidence which falsifies evolution.


Michael Reiss isn't American either, but he was forced out for simply suggesting that teachers should be open minded about their students religious beliefs.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent.../professor-reiss-expelled/

Apparently, there is no place in the world (except church) for the mention of God. When their hypothesis fails, they simply change it to something else. There is no discussion of a hypothesis, teachers are attacked if they don't teach it dogmatically.

Over here a scientist named Kurt Wise was denied a Ph.D. for his YEC belief. Ironically, Steven J. Gould is the one that defended him as one his best students who shouldn't be denied accreditation for his religious views if he passed the curriculum.

Enjoy.

#18 Balticon

Balticon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Bristol, UK

Posted 13 October 2011 - 03:54 AM

you have “faith” that there is no God (or gods)


This is a not really my position. I wouldn't say 'there are no gods' as I have no idea whether any exist, in this way I am an agnostic. However I have no reason to believe in any particular god, or even a deist undefined god. Therefore I have no belief in any gods so I am an atheist. I feel it is a misrepresentation to call this a faith position as I am merely sceptical. Many examples of this have been given, such as Russell's Teapot and Carl Sagan's Dragon. I see no evidence of gods so I withhold belief in them. I hope this makes sense.


Why does the vast majority of the world teach that there is indeed a God (or gods)? In other words, why is such a minute minority of the world atheistic?


This is indeed a fair and relevant question. It's one the also needs a much longer answer than I have time to give here, but I'll give it a quick go. I think the main reasons are historical and cultural.

Historically there were no good explanations for most natural phenomena, so people had to posit super-natural ones. As there were no alternatives to these explanations they were almost universally accepted, leading to a belief in the super-natural and gods. These beliefs are passed on through the generations and hence still have a hold in the world today.

I also believe that religion meets some very central needs of humans to feel part of a collective, and to give meaning to their lives. I think ritual and social interaction are important parts of our existence and religions provide these for many people.

I think there are also some good psychological reasons for people to believe in gods. I watched an interesting lecture about this, which I think is on Youtube. I can't find the link from here at work but if you're interested I'll post it later when I get home. Amongst other things it talks about our over developed sense of agency, we see meaning and purpose in things even where there may be none.

Finally I do believe that people have transcendental experiences which they ascribe to various gods. Whether they are really communing with deities, I don't know.

This is an interesting question and one I'm more than happy to discuss with you. :)

#19 Balticon

Balticon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Bristol, UK

Posted 13 October 2011 - 04:08 AM

any creationist arguments can cost a person it's job or sort of invites ostracism by influential peers.


This is not really how science works. I think you are correct that they may be ostracised socially by their peers, but this is just the nature of human interaction. Good evidence cannot be ostracised though, it would demand a response. A good example of this is the recent faster than light neutrinos. They completely go against the Einsteinian paradigm, (the ToE of physics if you like) but scientists did not shun or reject these findings. They are of course being treated with scepticism because this is how science works. However if validated then the science will have to change. The same would be true if anybody were able to provide good evidence to falsify evolution.

#20 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 13 October 2011 - 05:25 AM

Hi AFJ, your argument seems to be that the acceptance of evolution is somehow tied to the rejection of God. As I mentioned above a great many religious believers from many religions, including Christianity accept evolution as being true. Futhermore evolution is not proposed as a rebuttal to any religious ideas, it is a scientifc explanation, the same as nuclear physics or atomic theory.

I would not qualify what I said as an arguement. It is the background history of the war between conservative and liberal theology in America. It is directly related to your question in the OP, "Why do most of the universities teach evolution as genuine science?" I was simply relating the readiness of acedemia for the ToE. When it came in, it was a perfect fit. And why would acedemia be motivated to release comething it was so ready for? Hence, the spread of the ToE, via first education, and then by the media, and leaders, which it educated.

Liberal theology caters to a naturalisitic worldview. It's resistant to the supernatural narrative found in scripure. Yet it retains the outward adornings of religion. For instance, you say "a great many religious believers from many religions, including Christianity accept evolution as being true..." My question is, how do you define Christianity? Wouldn't it be necessary to go to the Biblical text for that definition? The Bible has a simple definition for those who were called Christians--they are believers, and disciples of Christ. That is they accept that Jesus is the Son of God, and that, his word is true and trumps the word of man.

Again, for instance, Jesus said there was a destructive cataclysm, and Noah. It is a fact that limestone, which can only (without controversy) be formed underwater, covers 10 % of the continental crust. Forgive my sarcasm, but what a coincidental fact! It is a fact that any fossil guide shows that a vast vast majority of the fossil record (on continental crust) are marine fossils. What a coincidental fact! And limestone laggerstaten, which have yeilded a treasure trove of fossils, have shown by their by the multitude of soft tissue ichofossil preservation, that the formations were not deposited slowly. These are just a few of the the things that fly in the face of falsely a systemized geological timescale.

The GT is supposed to be based on the fossil record. However, this system simply fits facts of ambiguous interetation, by using default uniformintarianism, mixed with an acknowledgement of the obvious data of catastrophe. It is impossible to falsify this system, because each time a fossil is found in seeming anomolous setting, the GT simply interprets itself, and adjusts the timerange in which the species existed. Anyone outside the line of thinking of the GT, who would point out that there is a discrepancy (i.e. a certain fossil is out of order), is quickly referred to the "fact" of "time of first appearance" and the time range of existance. How can one ever even attempt to falsify this kind of circular sphere of "reality"??

There are many hard facts that challenge this sphere. Facts like 1) layered horizontally laid (in time), sedimentary deposits have been shown physically possible in moving current en vitro, 2)that there is little sign of topographical erosion between most formations exhibiting strata, and 3) there are non metamorphic folds in cetain formations, which show only one thing--they were laid together whild still wet.

You can't believe Jesus and man. Not when what man says is contradictory to the words of Jesus.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users