Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why the Anti-Science Creationist Movement Is


THE MATRIX

Recommended Posts

For those of you with an open mind...http://crossexamined.org/turek-hitchens-debate.asp

I wouldn't dream of trying to convince anyone of the validity of Creationism. But this guy can...and does and is successful at it. Google him and ponder some of his questions. Or just ignore him because he doesn't believe the same as you... oh wait, that's what the people in the OP are being accused of... Dr Frank Turek

I completely disagree with [AND THEN] on the success of Dr. Turek to convince others of the validity of Creationism.

Let us ponder some of Dr. Hitchens points:

- Theists argue that scientists can't explain everything, therefore, a higher power must exist because it is the only definition that works.

- Theists have a profound certainty in their beliefs. That there is a supervising, caring, moral and intervening creator.

- Theists say: When I tell you what to do, I have god on my side.

- Since god doesn't appear directly and tell us what to do, human representatives who act in his name do it for him by interpreting gods laws.

- Why it is important to theists is because real power over me is impossible without your god.

- God will intervene in the cosmos on our behalf?

I agree with those who say that men of wealth decided to exploit the god of abraham and the peoples who believed in monotheism in order to get people to be responsible for their debts. Debt came before currency. :rolleyes:

Edited by Mactiegre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • FurthurBB

    10

  • aquatus1

    8

  • Imaginarynumber1

    8

  • None of the above

    6

I think that creatures evovle and change over time as people do. In the case of animals it may be related to changes in the climate,food supply,etc. But when I see the varities of flowers, the beautiful butterflies, a lovely view and such, I can't help thinking about God, and the wonders He has created.Some one had to design these creatures, humanity and plants.

That's why i don't belive in the Big Bang Theory.

God gave mankind science,which we use to try to understand the universe, to come up with things to help heal the sick,etc. Right here in San Antonio,Tx,they are doing trials at UTSA Health Science Center,invovling plants.They have discovered that some substance from i think the news said the cork tree, kills prostrate cancer cells.

Try MySA.com, WOAI, KSAT 12 and KENS 5.I know they ran the story on WOAI this morning while I was getting dressed for work.

Science and religion can walk hand and hand, but it's the extremeists on both sides who twist things.

See, that's the great thing about science. You don't have to believe it at all. It occurs independent of you and your belief or lack of belief.

The cosmic background radiation from the big bang has been measured and viewed many many times by many satellites. Notably by the COBE and WMAP satellites with a high degree of procession.

There is literally piles of observational evidence for the big bang. In fact, ALL of our celestial observations confirm the big bang theory.

Is it not you now that is twisting things and willfully ignoring the very evidence before you? The big bang theory is simply the explanation for the evolution of our universe based upon all of the observations and calculations that we have made. Too date, it is the theory that best fits the data.

And this is the heart of the anti-science issue that is now being faced. You can literally look up at the sky and see direct evidence of the big bang, and yet that evidence is ignored. Why? All that these people are doing is denying themselves knowledge because they believe the literal truth of a 2000 year old story book and, by proxy, denying it to others when they make laws the require fiction to be taught as science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only dangers of anti science I can think of is education... Preventing people from being properly educated... More so in school... My own daughter fears telling her teacher what she has learned at him in case her teacher gets upset enough to punish her...

I think fear and ignorance is dangerous enough ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Scientists become “anti-science”, this is the sort of misinformation they try to impose on us:

“In fact, ALL of our celestial observations confirm the big bang theory…..

Too date, it is the theory that best fits the data.”

That’s simply not true. The Big Bang Theory is not accepted by all scientists.

Too often, scientists find a theory that best suits their individual beliefs, and then attempt to railroad the rest of the scientific community into supporting those theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Scientists become “anti-science”, this is the sort of misinformation they try to impose on us:

“In fact, ALL of our celestial observations confirm the big bang theory…..

Too date, it is the theory that best fits the data.”

That’s simply not true. The Big Bang Theory is not accepted by all scientists.

Too often, scientists find a theory that best suits their individual beliefs, and then attempt to railroad the rest of the scientific community into supporting those theories.

I never said it was accepted by all, I said that it is the theory that best fits the data and was using it as an example of this anti-science/anti-intellectual movement. Nobody tries to railroad anybody. That is a common misconception. Any actual scientist will tell you that competing theories are always welcome as they challenge what we believe to be true. As if often the case with a theory like the big bang, no other theories fit the observational data, making the it the best explanation we have. No other theory has persisted as long because they don't explain the data.

There is no "misinformation" in science. That's the rally cry of the anti-science creationists. That is what is dangerous. Willfully ignoring actual science and observation because it doesn't adhere to your personal belief system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Any actual scientist will tell you that competing theories are always welcome as they challenge what we believe to be true."

The Climate Change debate has proven this wrong. Climate Change "Deniers" were regularly vilified in the scientific community. Not so much anymore, since the leaked emails showed how the data was changed to fit the theory, and how the monitoring devices were placed in areas that would guarantee the readings would record temperature increase.

Scientists in other fields who offer a different perspective to the current accepted beliefs are routinely vilified and even threatened with having their grant money cut off. It's a bullying tactic that is reprehensible and definitely "anti-science".

As a neutral observer, I see the Intelligent Design folks being vilified in this forum. The title of this thread refers to an "ANTI-SCIENCE Creationist Movement"; a Senior Moderator has twice steered the conversation back to the "Anti-Science" topic. I may not be an educated Scientist or Theologian, but I can certainly recognize propaganda when I see it.

If competing theories were "welcome", as you say, then the science of Intelligent Design would be treated with respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If competing theories were "welcome", as you say, then the science of Intelligent Design would be treated with respect.

Intelligent Design is not science, so therefore does not deserve the respect that real theories hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If competing theories were "welcome", as you say, then the science of Intelligent Design would be treated with respect.

Except that ID is not a scientific theory. It exists as a result of it's proponents attempting to pick holes in evolutionary theory (dishonestly, as often as not) and then trying to convince people that if evolution is wrong, then ID is the default alternative.

It offers no evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Any actual scientist will tell you that competing theories are always welcome as they challenge what we believe to be true."

The Climate Change debate has proven this wrong. Climate Change "Deniers" were regularly vilified in the scientific community. Not so much anymore, since the leaked emails showed how the data was changed to fit the theory, and how the monitoring devices were placed in areas that would guarantee the readings would record temperature increase.

Scientists in other fields who offer a different perspective to the current accepted beliefs are routinely vilified and even threatened with having their grant money cut off. It's a bullying tactic that is reprehensible and definitely "anti-science".

As a neutral observer, I see the Intelligent Design folks being vilified in this forum. The title of this thread refers to an "ANTI-SCIENCE Creationist Movement"; a Senior Moderator has twice steered the conversation back to the "Anti-Science" topic. I may not be an educated Scientist or Theologian, but I can certainly recognize propaganda when I see it.

If competing theories were "welcome", as you say, then the science of Intelligent Design would be treated with respect.

Want to know why ID is not welcome? Kitzmiller v. Dover

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum, Hutton. I hope you enjoy your stay, and please don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions.

Simplybill, climate change deniers are still vilified in the scientific community. That climate change exists is, and has been for quite some time, mainstream knowledge. The problem has not been with deniers; no one really ever paid them much attention. The debate has always been as to the cause of climate change, not whether climate change is actually occurring.

In regards to ID, Hutton has the right of it. The scientific community claims that ID is not valid scientifically, mainly because it does not have an actual phenomena to explain, or a theory to explain it. However, that ID is a religious argument, that it is nothing more than Creationism with a different name, was the finding of the Court, not of the scientific community.

Similarly, the Big Bang is indeed accepted as valid by all the scientists in that field. It is not universally agreed with, but it is accepted as a valid scientific theory.

To me, one of the dangers of anti-science is the almost inherent dualism that results from it. Not so much that people disagree with a particular conclusion; disagreement is a normal part of scientific discourse. Rather, that people do not just disagree, but insist on framing the equation in a binary fashion; People intentionally lock themselves into either a Yes or No, Positive or Negative, All or Nothing. It is almost impossible for someone with this mindset to admit that an idea can be valid, yet simply not agree with it. It is almost as if they feel that admitting an idea is valid is automatically an endorsement of the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum, Hutton. I hope you enjoy your stay, and please don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions.

Simplybill, climate change deniers are still vilified in the scientific community. That climate change exists is, and has been for quite some time, mainstream knowledge. The problem has not been with deniers; no one really ever paid them much attention. The debate has always been as to the cause of climate change, not whether climate change is actually occurring.

In regards to ID, Hutton has the right of it. The scientific community claims that ID is not valid scientifically, mainly because it does not have an actual phenomena to explain, or a theory to explain it. However, that ID is a religious argument, that it is nothing more than Creationism with a different name, was the finding of the Court, not of the scientific community.

Similarly, the Big Bang is indeed accepted as valid by all the scientists in that field. It is not universally agreed with, but it is accepted as a valid scientific theory.

To me, one of the dangers of anti-science is the almost inherent dualism that results from it. Not so much that people disagree with a particular conclusion; disagreement is a normal part of scientific discourse. Rather, that people do not just disagree, but insist on framing the equation in a binary fashion; People intentionally lock themselves into either a Yes or No, Positive or Negative, All or Nothing. It is almost impossible for someone with this mindset to admit that an idea can be valid, yet simply not agree with it. It is almost as if they feel that admitting an idea is valid is automatically an endorsement of the idea.

Hey thanks for the welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Any actual scientist will tell you that competing theories are always welcome as they challenge what we believe to be true."

The Climate Change debate has proven this wrong. Climate Change "Deniers" were regularly vilified in the scientific community. Not so much anymore, since the leaked emails showed how the data was changed to fit the theory, and how the monitoring devices were placed in areas that would guarantee the readings would record temperature increase.

Scientists in other fields who offer a different perspective to the current accepted beliefs are routinely vilified and even threatened with having their grant money cut off. It's a bullying tactic that is reprehensible and definitely "anti-science".

As a neutral observer, I see the Intelligent Design folks being vilified in this forum. The title of this thread refers to an "ANTI-SCIENCE Creationist Movement"; a Senior Moderator has twice steered the conversation back to the "Anti-Science" topic. I may not be an educated Scientist or Theologian, but I can certainly recognize propaganda when I see it.

If competing theories were "welcome", as you say, then the science of Intelligent Design would be treated with respect.

I am a scientist. I study biological, organismal and ecological evolution. Intelligent design is not treated with respect by anyone that I work with because it is not science. Above all else, scientific theories have to be falsifiable.

Intelligent design is akin to saying that a giant unicorn created the universe. You can make anything up and claim it is "science", but it is not. The anti-science group in the US wants people to think that ID is science, however, when it is not. It will never, and should never, be considered science, because it is not. It doesn't even meet the criteria of a theory, so why should it ever be taken seriously?

Not to mention that not one facet of ID has EVER been proven true. Not one. Ever.

This is what this anti-science movement does. It just spreads lie after lie and people eat it up. I fear for our children and the ignorant society they will grow up in.

Edit: I would like to be more articulate and make a couple more points, but I was out celebrating tonight and had a little (a lot) to drink.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only dangers of anti science I can think of is education... Preventing people from being properly educated... More so in school... My own daughter fears telling her teacher what she has learned at him in case her teacher gets upset enough to punish her...

I think fear and ignorance is dangerous enough ....

If you stop properly educating people eventually no one will remember how things work. That is dangerous too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Scientists become “anti-science”, this is the sort of misinformation they try to impose on us:

“In fact, ALL of our celestial observations confirm the big bang theory…..

Too date, it is the theory that best fits the data.”

That’s simply not true. The Big Bang Theory is not accepted by all scientists.

Too often, scientists find a theory that best suits their individual beliefs, and then attempt to railroad the rest of the scientific community into supporting those theories.

It is actually true that all of our celestial observations fit perfectly with the predictions made by the big bang theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Any actual scientist will tell you that competing theories are always welcome as they challenge what we believe to be true."

The Climate Change debate has proven this wrong. Climate Change "Deniers" were regularly vilified in the scientific community. Not so much anymore, since the leaked emails showed how the data was changed to fit the theory, and how the monitoring devices were placed in areas that would guarantee the readings would record temperature increase.

Scientists in other fields who offer a different perspective to the current accepted beliefs are routinely vilified and even threatened with having their grant money cut off. It's a bullying tactic that is reprehensible and definitely "anti-science".

As a neutral observer, I see the Intelligent Design folks being vilified in this forum. The title of this thread refers to an "ANTI-SCIENCE Creationist Movement"; a Senior Moderator has twice steered the conversation back to the "Anti-Science" topic. I may not be an educated Scientist or Theologian, but I can certainly recognize propaganda when I see it.

If competing theories were "welcome", as you say, then the science of Intelligent Design would be treated with respect.

No one has ever bullied me and a lot of people who have won a Nobel prize in science were the ones offering alternative views. The difference between them and someone like the ID people is they were not trying to disprove something based on their own personal idealism. They found evidence that ran counter to the accepted idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you stop properly educating people eventually no one will remember how things work. That is dangerous too.

Well that is basically what I was saying... I felt sorry for my kid who was learning about the big bang. and felt she couldn't tell her teacher in case she was punished.. ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a scientist. I study biological, organismal and ecological evolution. Intelligent design is not treated with respect by anyone that I work with because it is not science. Above all else, scientific theories have to be falsifiable.

Intelligent design is akin to saying that a giant unicorn created the universe. You can make anything up and claim it is "science", but it is not. The anti-science group in the US wants people to think that ID is science, however, when it is not. It will never, and should never, be considered science, because it is not. It doesn't even meet the criteria of a theory, so why should it ever be taken seriously?

Not to mention that not one facet of ID has EVER been proven true. Not one. Ever.

This is what this anti-science movement does. It just spreads lie after lie and people eat it up. I fear for our children and the ignorant society they will grow up in.

Edit: I would like to be more articulate and make a couple more points, but I was out celebrating tonight and had a little (a lot) to drink.

simple counter statement to creationism "I am God" because every argument they use to prove you wrong destroys their "footing" and every argument to prove themselves right cements your "footing".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

simple counter statement to creationism "I am God" because every argument they use to prove you wrong destroys their "footing" and every argument to prove themselves right cements your "footing".

It's called 'the truth' for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that is basically what I was saying... I felt sorry for my kid who was learning about the big bang. and felt she couldn't tell her teacher in case she was punished.. ...

That is outrageous. None should ever fear knowledge. We've already eaten the fruit, right? devil.gif

Ever single celestial observation we have ever made does nothing but add to the mountain of evidence we have that confirms the big bang theory.

I would love to see some evidence of another hypothesis.... oh, what? There is none? Hmmm.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is annoying to see someone try to minimize the problem this way. It has nothing to do with Jesus or religious beliefs. It has to do with willful ignorance and trying to take us back to the dark ages. You can be religious, be a christian, and still understand evolution.

Absolutely. The majority of Christians worldwide do accept Evolution as the fact that it is. So do many Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims etc.

The problem in the states is the vocal and well financed minority of Christian fundamentalists and their militant subversion of Americas core principals and achievements.

They've actually managed to make politicians of both parties afraid to come out and say that they accept proven scientific fact for fear of a hate campaign by these religious extremists.

It's the same tactic that certain government funded Israeli 'groups' used to try and taint critisism of Israeli policy by equating it with anti-semitism.

In this case we see these literal-creationists trying to make it appear that they somehow speak for all Christians and that anyone who calls their frankly crackpot theories bunk (literal creationism, young earth etc) is some kind of anti-theist on a crusade to destroy the church/relgion in general.

What a crock of doo-doo!

Political 'acceptance' of creationism in the USA in one form or another is completely out of proportion to actual belief in it amongst said politicians. That said, fear of a radical fundamentalist Christian backlash against politicians who publicly denounce it is as real as evolution and the many scientific disciplins that underpin it.

What should really scare the American people is what will happen if this trend goes unchecked for another decade or two.

The USA has been one of the leading lights of scientific research and development in the world for many decades. US scientists helped develop many of the scientific disciplins that gave hunanity it's proven understanding of evolution etc.

Imagine for a moment what a decade of fear of science will do the USA's position as a global centre of scientific excellence?

Combine that with this subversive campaign against atheism and see how certain sections of the fundamentalist extremist christain right want to paint atheists like communists were portrayed in the 50s and it's not rocket science (or evolutionary biology) to realise that this could cause great harm to America.

Many of americas greatest minds have been confirmed atheists!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that is basically what I was saying... I felt sorry for my kid who was learning about the big bang. and felt she couldn't tell her teacher in case she was punished.. ...

That is terrifying.

Just like teachers who are worried that if they teach the truth they'll face a protest at the school gates or lose their job when the complaints start rolling in.

It was bad enough when these extremists were poisoning their childrens minds with 'home schooling' of the fundamentalist brainwashing variety, but now they want to take that into schools and ruin an entire nations future. It's a scary time and I seriously doubt that any US politician will have the guts to take these crazies on.

These people may dress like respectable citizens, but they are as radical in their fundamentalism as the Taliban are to mainstream Islam. Have no doubt that this is a slippery slope and should they get their way mass book burnings of scientific texts will be just the start.

Creationists have a fixed view/perspective on these areas of science. Ask a creationist the following question:

"What proof would you need to accept that evolution/natural selection and the accepted scientific model of the universe and this planets age is true?"

In my experience if they actually do come up with an answer, it's evidence that you can provide that they were ignorant of and they simply then refuse to accept it.

But in my experience that majority try and be evasive and when you actually push to the point of a reply they admit that there is nothing that would change their belief in creationism etc.

How can you debate with that?

It's a slippery slope, denying evolution is actually denying much of science.

Evolutionary Biology, Genetics, paleontology, Geology are just a few.

Imagine an America where these sciences become somehow 'taboo' and there is no need to continue any research in those fields, because all the answers are already known and were written down by religious fundamentalists in 2000 year old book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nietzsche summed creationism up very well in one sentence.

"Faith, not wanting to know what is true"

CREATIONISM_sign.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is terrifying.

Just like teachers who are worried that if they teach the truth they'll face a protest at the school gates or lose their job when the complaints start rolling in.

It was bad enough when these extremists were poisoning their childrens minds with 'home schooling' of the fundamentalist brainwashing variety, but now they want to take that into schools and ruin an entire nations future. It's a scary time and I seriously doubt that any US politician will have the guts to take these crazies on.

I don't think you noticed that Beckys_Mom is from Ireland. She also sends Becky to a Christian school.

Public schools in the US don't teach creationism in lieu of evolution. Even the Christian schools, that I am aware of, teach evolution. There is a very vocal minority that keep insisting on teaching creationism, but they are constantly being shot down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.