Science offends our deeply held beliefs


This entry was posted in Creationism, Intelligent Design, Religion, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Science offends our deeply held beliefs

  1. Tim says:

    Creationist here. I have absolutely no problem with science. In fact, we love science in my home. Evolutionists think they have such a big love for science, but when you add God back into the picture – the awe of science blows the roof off sky high. You are the one missing out on the real awe of science.

    • tildeb says:

      Creationists have to be deeply anti-scientific to account for the vast evidence against such silly beliefs as YEC or OEC. In addition, a person has to be committed to being anti-scientific to remain a creationist in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence and evidence that should be present but is missing if the creationist fairytale were true.

      Saying otherwise is stating a falsehood.

      You do indeed have a problem with science… whenever an explanatory model that works for everyone everywhere all the time stands contrary to your creationist beliefs. You love science… right up until an explanatory model that works for everyone everywhere all the time stands contrary to your creationist beliefs. The fact that you mistakenly call scientists ‘evolutionists’ reveals the anti-scientific contempt that justifies your dismissal of inconvenient science.

      Your creationist beliefs do not produce knowledge. Ever. They do not produce explanatory models of value that work equivalently for everyone everywhere all the time. They do not produce new avenues of inquiry. They do not support applications, therapies, and technologies that work reliably and consistently and your anti-scientific beliefs in creationism delude you into believing stuff that is not supported by reality. You demonstrate with your anti-scientific beliefs that you in fact and deed hold science in contempt and saying otherwise changes nothing except reveal you to be an entrenched hypocrite relying on science and trusting it with your life on a daily basis while dismissing the identical method that produces knowledge contrary to your infantile religious beliefs in creationism.

      • Tim says:

        Don’t count yourself out of the possibility of becoming a creationist…

      • tildeb says:

        If reality provides compelling evidence and we formulate an explanatory model that produces knowledge, then sure.

        But when reality provides compelling evidence that what we see today was a natural product of yesterday caused by demonstrable chemical and physical forces on physical properties we actually know a great deal about – enough to produce stuff that works for everyone everywhere all the time – then an explanatory model of POOF!ism operating magically by a causal agency of Oogity Boogity! contrary to our explanatory model seems highly unlikely. In fact, I think you have to be seriously deluded to think it’s equivalently possible.

      • Tim says:

        As soon as you can demonstrate that all the processes you are observing today behaved exactly the same billions of years ago, then you are on to something. Until then, your theory is no better off than mine.

        You act as if your theory doesn’t rest on unprovable assumptions, but it does. You rely on uniformity of nature – yet you can’t prove that. Large-scale evolutionary changes can neither be directly observed, nor repeated/verified by others. It is ad-hoc, and unfalsifiable. It’s great philosophy, but lousy science.

        Don’t get me wrong. Natural selection is great science, and 100% compatible with biblical creation. Yes, we change from generation to generation – no one disputes that. We dispute the grandiose non-observed conclusions.

      • tildeb says:

        The cause for increased confidence doesn’t rest in the lab or in some philosophical consideration: it rests with stuff that you rely on every day. There’s your ‘proof’… in thousands of demonstrable ways you just ignore.

        Now remove the explanatory model you deem ‘unprovable assumptions’ – you know, that science you find so praiseworthy – and insert your own creationist account. The result? The recreation of the same ignorance and magical thinking that always exists in the vacuum of knowledge. That’s creationism: ignorance and magical thinking masquerading as an equivalent explanatory model… but with a single equivalent therapy, application, or technology to its name, not a single practical benefit, not a single bit of knowledge useful to us in reality. Only ignorance and magical thinking to this equivalent explanatory creationist model to which you assign the awesome power of POOF!ism to the causal agency known as OogityBoogity. That’s your ‘equivalent’ model and it’s lunacy.

      • Tim says:

        I noticed you failed to demonstrate uniformitarianism as an accurate starting assumption. Without that, none of your conclusions hold up.

        To be fair, I can’t demonstrate catastophism as a true starting assumption either. Therefore technically creation and evolution are more in the same boat of philosophy than science.

      • tildeb says:

        I don’t have to demonstrate anything: all the applications, therapies, and technologies that seem to work for everyone everywhere does that for me. The conclusion I reach is that the model of uniformatarianism continues to be justified by nature supporting it. That’s why you have it exactly backwards to insist that I failed to demonstrate uniformitarianism as an accurate starting assumption. Without that, none of your conclusions hold up. This jaw-droppingly stupid when you consider that YOU support for it every time you flick a switch, turn a nob, push a button, and expect the same thing to happen. That isn’t philosophy at work and the results are not based on any assumptions you bring to the table; the results demonstrate why uniformatarianism is an explanatory model that works. You cannot say the explanatory model of creationism possesses equivalent applicable justifications and be speaking honestly. That’s why you have to switch gears away from reality and dive into metaphysics; the only thing you have to support your creationist fairytale is obscurant and obfuscating language that ignores the very reality it is trying to describe.

      • Tim says:

        I already admit that the world works uniformly today. Of course it does, and that fits biblical creation as well. I’m just suggesting that even tho it works uniformly today, that’s not a good enough reason to assume it always has.

      • tildeb says:

        Yes it is a good enough reason… because there is zero evidence contrary to it and an absolute lack of evidence for any creationist event in every area of study of the natural world.

        Look, if a ‘first couple’ were true, there should be genetic evidence for it.

        There isn’t.

        If the world were poofed into existence, then there should be geologic uniformity.

        There isn’t.

        If the critters were created separately at the same time, there should be different DNA markers.

        There aren’t.

        The age of biodiversity should be same.

        It isn’t.

        If the world suffered a cataclysmic flood, there should be global sedimentary evidence.

        There isn’t.

        If critters populated the earth from a central point, there should be uniform spread.

        There isn’t.

        If biology were created as separate species , we shouldn’t have the same ancient simian virus damage to our DNA.

        We do.

        If the age were the same, continental bedrock should contain have the same radiometric age.

        It doesn’t.

        And the list goes on and on and on. You just make up stories to account for this bit and then change the story to account for that bit not realizing that you require the SAME explanation to account for both. Poof!ism fails at every turn and must be either ignored or waved away. In place of an explanatory model that works, you have nothing but just so stories that continue to fail at every turn. That you don’t care enough about reality to find out from it what our past most likely is, you substitute an infantile story with religious piety as its defense. This reveals the depth and scope of your intellectual duplicity and lack of integrity.

        Simply put, I am willing to change my mind should reality offer up compelling and comprehensive evidence that indicates my understanding is insufficient. In contrast you will never, ever, stop believing in your fairytale no matter what evidence reality provides and regardless of reality’s inability to support your religious claims. You fit the very definition of a closed mind and that is as anti-science as you can possibly get.

      • Tim says:

        You are ignoring all the catastrophism that would have come with the events of Genesis. Three major events (a 6-day rapid creation of the entire universe, the curse following sin, and the worldwide flood) ALL three would have jumbled up the evidence from the past. All three events would have an effect on uniformity yet we wouldn’t see that effect unless we first considered catastrophism.

        When you use the events of Genesis as your starting point (hypothesis), then the evidence starts falling into place. The same as if you use uniforitarianism – then it does the same thing. We are way more in the same boat then you are letting on. I could answer all of those points, and they’ve all been answered for decades, but you only ever interpret evidence through uniforitarianism. Until you can put that aside for a conversation, a talk about evidence is pointless.

      • Tim says:

        Also, if you think evolution has all this evidence and creation has “zero evidence”, you are grossly mistaken. Creation and evolution have exactly the SAME evidence. We have the same rocks, the same trees, the same fossils, the same DNA. We interpret them differently, that’s all. This isnt a debate over who has more evidence, it is over whose interpretation is correct. And for that you have to rely on faith. That is why this is still being discussed today. It will never go away, because you can never actually prove either view.

      • tildeb says:

        We interpret them differently, that’s all.


        There is no ‘interpretation’ of how your DNA contains damage from an invasive but ancient simian virus. There is no ‘interpretation’ that your DNA matches half of your mother and half of your father’s. And the list goes on.

        Look, arguing with a creationist is crazy, I know, but surely somewhere in that brain of yours is the recognition that stuff works. Surely there’s some portion of your brain that understands that these things work not because you ‘interpret’ it to work but that it does so by utilizing explanatory models that are DEMONSTRATED to work… seemingly for everyone everywhere all the time. Surely there’s some recess in your intellect that recognizes a fundamental difference between applied ideas that work versus empty claims that don’t. One cannot magically make these two comparable and equivalent. But that’s exactly what you’re trying to do. And it reveals why: to maintain religious beliefs that are not supported by reality. You honestly believe POOF! is a legitimate alternative explanation to centuries of work to demonstrate by applications, therapies, and technologies causal effect by known mechanisms. You think your belief in POOF! is equivalent. It’s not. It’s bone jarringly crazy.

      • Tim says:

        In your worldview if an ancient simian virus caused damage to our DNA, natural selection should not have selected for that damage and weeded it out in the next generation. But damage in our DNA is better interpreted through genetic entropy – which is line with a creationist worldview.

        And need I go into how getting half our DNA from our father and half from our mother is also very in line with a creation worldview? Of course it is.

        Have I once said “poof” as the answer to any of your challenges? Your straw man is crumbling, my friend.

      • tildeb says:

        In your worldview if an ancient simian virus caused damage to our DNA, natural selection should not have selected for that damage and weeded it out in the next generation.

        This demonstrates you don’t understand what natural selection is nor how it works. And if you don;t understand this basic element, then you cannot understand why evolution is true.

        The DNA evidence has nothing whatsoever to do with my ‘worldview’ and everything to do with why damaged DNA is compelling evidence for common ancestry with other great apes whose DNA contains the identical damage. Your job with creationism is to offer an alternative explanation for how that damaged bit of DNA ended up in different species (by the mechanism behind creationism that I accurately call POOF!ism, for that is exactly what you think explains how these different species came to be). If man was created in your god’s image, then why does your god either possess this damaged DNA or wished it included in ours?

        Genetic entropy is a take off on misunderstanding the second law of thermodynamics – as if entropy should occur to genomes over time. But our genes are not encased in a closed system but one subject to many different factors within an open system (horizontal transfer more than adequately accounts for the entropy). If genetic entropy were true, we should see wide scale degradation but we don’t because detrimental mutations do not build up and survive into succeeding generations. Because the ancient simian virus is in junk DNA, it doesn’t seem to have any ongoing influence. But I suspect you don’t care about understanding why genetic entropy is a non issue in evolutionary biology; you select it only because it is the only one that might seem to support your creationists beliefs. And we both know you are intellectually incapable of honestly questioning those beliefs regardless of any amount of contrary evidence from reality. You don’t care about reality; you care only about maintaining and defending and trying to spread your a priori creationist beliefs.

  2. Linuxgal says:

    Reblogged this on Terminal Cruise and commented:
    Allahu Oinkbar

What you think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s