Tuesday, June 5, 2007

You know what really blows my mind about Creationists/IDers?

They sneer at science one minute, try their damnedest to 'refute' scientific theories, and in the next minute bastardize science in an attempt to create 'scientific proofs' for their deity. So which is it? Does science have the power to explain the world or doesn't it? I suspect you believe that science only applies when you want it to apply, and you dismiss it when it doesn't prove what you'd like it to.

They lie, misquote and misrepresent scientific facts simply to further their own silly agendas. They willfully ignore scientific evidence all while stating that we should accept their evidence because it came from 'god' or the 'bible'. So, I'm to accept evidence for how the world was created that was written over 2000 years ago? Wasn't that around the same time that we believed the world was flat and that the sky had windows to let the rain in? Wasn't that about the time that disease was considered the work of demons or bad spirits? Wasn't that a pre-scientific time?
The fact of the matter is that at the time Genesis was written by some guy, the idea that a god made the world WAS the only plausible answer. We didn't have science, we were ignorant of the spherical nature of the world, that we orbited around the sun, of germs and genomes, of dna and dinosaurs, of geology and geography, evolution and common descent wasn't even thought of. But now, science has explained so many things that the bible was wrong about; we know the earth is round, we know that the earth revolves around the sun, we know dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years before we existed, we know why rain happens, we know disease isn't caused by demons, we know that evolution has shaped and produced the billions of animals that have existed over the millenia. Don't you realize that this opposition to evolution is just the persecution of Galileo all over again? When the idea that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around like the bible stated was postulated, the man who made the discovery was bullied and almost sentenced to death by christians - all because he had an idea that proved the bible wrong. But nowadays you accept that the world is round, and you accept that the earth revolves around the sun. You accept the theory of gravity, you believe that it works the way science says that it does - you don't scream and take offense, telling us 'gravitiers' that what's really happening is that god is pushing down in us all the time to keep us in place. It's only a matter of time until the controversy surrounding this theory dies down too - and truly, in industrialized countries, the USA is the only population that seems to have a problem. The rest of the world has already come to terms with the evidence and what science says.

I am certain that idiots like Comfort and Cameron have been TOLD time and again that evolution is not random, and that science doesn't say that the universe came from nothing. However, they're making millions of dollars off of telling people exactly what they want to hear, so any evidence will never be good enough for them. Honestly, these IDers and Creationists are SELLING you something. Go to the Way of The Master website and see how many pamphlets, books, DvDs, classes, and other merchandise they're trying to get you to purchase. Sure, they'll tell you that your god created the universe - for a price, for more of your money. Go to the Creation Museum and pay the $20 admission fee so you can see animatronic dinosaurs who apparently ate vegetation instead of animals with their razorsharp teeth. Real museums charge a fraction of the price - because they're out to educate, not make money. Ken Hamm and Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort and Todd Friel and Peter Popoff and all the rest of them are living in nicer homes than yours and driving fancy cars and living a great life all because you are paying them literally millions of dollars a year. You're paying them to argue that science isn't real, you're paying them to keep you happy and ignorant. And this doesn't just go for the 'big names' in Creationism/ID - even the small website owners are usually selling something - tshirts, a self-published book, ect. And what credentials do these men hold? Are they University Professors with PhD's who have devoted their lives to scientific research regarding these matters? While I believe that it is more important to attack the argument than the person, credentials are still and important way to judge who is trustworthy when you're not familiar with the subjects being discussed. Would you take advice from a medical doctor, or some guy who read about medicine on the internet?


But more than anything else, I despise the theist who pretends that he's an expert in the fields of biology, chemistry, astronomy, history and genetics combined. The men I spoke about above like to talk alot about what evolution and the big bang are, and why they can't possibly be real - but these guys have never done any scientific research of their own, and they have no credentials whatsoever. Think about what you're doing when you believe these men - you're saying that you would rather listen to an un-educated man because he's going to tell you what you want to hear rather than an expert who refuses to lie to you.

The theists on these boards who show up, copy and paste arguments from apologetics sites and insists over and over that he knows better than the experts you do - because he read it somewhere on the internet, are merely playing into the hands of these men. The IDers/Creationists think that they're smarter than our historians, more educated than our psychology and philosophy majors, better versed in evolution that our biologists - because you've been to an apologetics website, or maybe watched some Ray Comfort videos on Youtube. Why do you think you know better than the experts? Why does it not occur to you that maybe you just don't UNDERSTAND what the theories are saying? I don't understand quantum physics, however, I don't think that this makes physics any less valid or true.The fact of the matter is that if evolution or the big bang DIDN'T conflict with the ideas of your god, you wouldn't even know the theory. There are so many scientific theories that have far less evidence and are far more controversial, but you don't bother to debate those because they say nothing about your god. Do you honestly believe that when you say something like, 'evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics', or 'we've never seen a transitional form', that you're out-smarting thousands of men and women who are card carrying PhD's? Don't you realize that if this were true that the theory would have been revised or cast out completely? Making claims like this places you in the same league as the conspiracy theorists that believe that NASA faked the moon landings, aliens landed at Roswell, or that the US government orchestrated the horrible attacks on September 11th.

Nothing makes me more furious than the armchair scholars who come here and parrot the ideas that have been fed to them,(for only $19.99 BUY NOW! and we'll throw in some Jesus Saves bumper stickers!) by men who are getting filthy rich off of these deluded believers. Creationism and ID movements are profit driven power houses, and they can afford to drop several million dollars on propaganda, scientists are just normal people who make a normal wage. Creationism/ID simply has better PR. I understand the want, the drive to believe that we were divinely created. It sounds so much more poetic and special than evolution does, but we have evidence to support one, and none to support the other. And before you go ahead and point out that I am no expert, please realize that I've never claimed to be. However, I do accept the expert testimony that has been made available to me by the men and women who have worked all of their lives to be able to explain the wonders of the natural world to us. And, as I said earlier, I understand that just because I cannot understand something that science says, doesn't mean that it's untrue - it means that I am untrained, uneducated or simply not intelligent enough to wrap my head around something so complicated. There is no shame in admitting that you don't know or understand something. But saying that you know more than the experts, and refusing to accept evidence when it is presented to you is arrogance in the extreme.

22 comments:

Atheism Sucks! sucks said...

I feel ya.

Creationists...ugh!

Brody said...

While we're on the subject, can you tell me one "IDer" (as opposed to someone espouses "creation science"; someone involved in the ID movement) who makes a living doing what you describe? All the ones I can think of - Dembski, Meyer, Behe, etc. - have academic jobs, and several people involved have lost jobs or income because of their support of ID. I don't mean to sound like I have some sort of victim complex for the movement (the political side annoys me greatly, and I am fairly open about the fact that I don't think ID is science at this point in the game), but I just don't see the "IDers" doing what you describe.

Also, the statement:
Don't you realize that this opposition to evolution is just the persecution of Galileo all over again?
is so laughable that I think I feel my sides starting to hurt. The comparison is so dissimilar that I can hardly believe you're using it. It's a nice rhetorical device ("Oh, look at those mean religionists trying to hinder science, wah wah wah!), but like many such devices, it has very little substance and even less accuracy. Science is entrenched; it maintains its own intelligentsia and does not depend on any religion for support or for approval. If anything, science holds the place now that the church held in Galileo's time (of course, you won't hear me crying persecution in most cases - comparisons to situations like this are generally historically arrogant).

By the way, you would be interested to know that Turkey, another developed country with a secular government but a large religious (Muslim) population, has a lower acceptance of evolution than the U.S. Just FYI.

Maragon said...

Brody,

Your tone as of late has been moving away from polite dissent, I'd appreciate it if you'd watch that.

1) Sure I can name one. Ray Comfort. Kirk Cameron. Todd Friel. How's three? You make it sound as if I didn't do any of my homework, and you'd be wrong.

2) You can think whatever you'd like about my statement, "Don't you realize that this opposition to evolution is just the persecution of Galileo all over again?" But I'll disagree with you. In the States, science is far less popular and widespread when compared to religion. The comparison( and I'm surprised you missed it) was that the ONLY OBJECTION to Galileo's theory was that it contradicted the bible. And I believe that this is the same reason people oppose evolution now, because it has negative connotations for their god.

I'm not surprised to hear about Turkey because there was a link to graph with that information a few posts ago. Although I don't know what you expect to prove by saying that the States is about as advanced in terms of scientific thinking as Turkey and Cyprus are.
Are you meaning to imply that a low acceptance of Evolution is okay or even good?

pygmus said...

"Although I don't know what you expect to prove by saying that the States is about as advanced in terms of scientific thinking as Turkey and Cyprus are.
Are you meaning to imply that a low acceptance of Evolution is okay or even good?"

Maybe he meant to refute your assertion that "truly, in industrialized countries, the USA is the *****ONLY***** population that seems to have a problem. The rest of the world has already come to terms with the evidence and what science says" (emphasis mine).

Maragon said...

Well, I wouldn't exactly call Turkey a scientific powerhouse.
The States, however, have no excuse.

BenFromCanada said...

Beauty.
I liked the ending especially. It brings to mind a quote by a youtube atheist who goes by the name of Gnophilist. "Even when scientists fail, science succeeds."

Brody said...

Meagan, I'm not sure where you're getting that idea about my attitude. It does annoy me, however, when ID and creationism are conflated, so perhaps that has something to do with it. (Plus, I think you should know better because, by and large, you've avoided the pitfalls that atheists tend to fall into when arguing with theists.)

Speaking of:
Sure I can name one. Ray Comfort. Kirk Cameron. Todd Friel. How's three? You make it sound as if I didn't do any of my homework, and you'd be wrong.
I asked:
can you tell me one "IDer" (as opposed to someone espouses "creation science"; someone involved in the ID movement) who makes a living doing what you describe?
There is probably some confusion (due to a popular meme) as to what I mean by the ID movement, so let me try to set up some sort of delineation as best I can. If you're talking about Way of the Master (which is more or less an apologetics/evangelistic organization), Answers in Genesis, or Institute for Creation Research (of course, this list is not exhaustive), you're talking about creation science, not ID. Although they make some similar claims and try to link science with theistic belief, the approach is far disparate. The institution most associated with the ID movement is the Discovery Institute, obviously.

The reason I mention this is because you seem to be propagating the same "ID=creationism" meme almost in reverse by associating explicit creationists with the ID movement. That's why I mentioned Dembski, Meyer, and Behe, and I could give you a number of other individuals to supplement that list. The people who are the "big names," so to speak, of the ID movement are in fact academics, not profiteers. In fact, Dembski lost his job at Baylor University over his ID books and now teaches (theology?) at a Christian college, and there are other examples (like Guillermo Gonzalez being denied tenure at ISU, which will likely signal his departure from that school, or Caroline Crocker further back). Again, not to set up a victim complex (because that's unnecessary), but I think you're unfairly characterizing the movement by people who largely have nothing to do with it. (By the way, I doubt Comfort or Cameron would be too thrilled with those IDists like Behe who accept common descent.)

About the Galileo comment: The reason I find the statement so distasteful and disingenuous is the fact that you explicitly made the connection between the public rejection of evolution and the persecution of Galileo ("this opposition to evolution is just the persecution of Galileo all over again," emphasis mine). You didn't imply simply that your point was that religious people were rejecting science because it did not comport with Scripture but that there was some sort of actual persecution going on by the religious directed at evolutionists. If you think that's the case, then I urge you to pull out some evidence for us to discuss, but I don't frankly think you meant that, which is why I called it what it is - an empty rhetorical device.

And the Turkey comment was, like pygmus said, so you were aware that the U.S. is not alone in public rejection of evolution among industrialized countries. There was no implicit point to be made (certainly no hidden reductio ad absurdum like you seemed to be searching for), so no need to read between the lines.

One final comment (so you don't think I'm just being contrary): I agree that hucksters who profit off of the religious just in general are absolutely reprehensible. Moreover, they tend to give theists a bad name in general. I remember seeing several months ago about a board game (of all things) entitled "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design" that I think was manufactured by Way of the Master (it bore at least Kirk Cameron's seal of approval), but rather than using the normal talking points of ID on the perceived weaknesses of blind evolution, it was basically a creationist apologetics tool. It made a lot of the honest seekers following the ID movement really mad, since it was basically (to keep with the board game theme) like taking 3 steps backwards. So again, you're not alone in despising this sort of behavior.

Michael said...

It's a common tactic, use science to disprove evolution and then dismiss it wen making the case for Intelligent Design/creation.

Of course, some might argue, as the above poster has, that IDers and creationists are two different groups. That may be the case, but the end result is the same.

Unless of course the IDer is arguing for the existence of 'a' God rather than 'the God' or a personal God. In essence, deism.
I have no issue with that but you very rarely see it.

If anyone is interested, I've written a post on my blog looking at the this area of science in creation and evolution. I won't link because that's possibly rude but you can find it on my blog called 'evolution is a lie'.

Brody said...

See, there's another stereotype: intelligent design is not, ex hypothesi, opposed to evolution but rather blind Darwinian evolution. It's easy to see what this study describes in work.

Of course, some might argue, as the above poster has, that IDers and creationists are two different groups. That may be the case, but the end result is the same.

If by 'two different groups' you mean 'groups that are disjunct,' then no, I haven't claimed any such thing. I'm pretty sure that most any creationist you ask "Was the universe intelligently designed?" will reply with a resounding "Yes." I was saying that it was rather unfair to take the characterization of people like Comfort and Hamm and then apply it to ID supporters simply because you like propagating the "ID=creationism" meme. It's about as unfair as saying (keep in mind that I'm from the U.S.) that there are a lot of deceptive, immoral Republicans and so characterize conservatives as being immoral and deceptive as well. Despite whether or not the "end result" (whatever that may be) is the same, there is a delineation to be made (and I even spelled it out in part).

Unless of course the IDer is arguing for the existence of 'a' God rather than 'the God' or a personal God. In essence, deism.
I have no issue with that but you very rarely see it.


Keep in mind that I'm not saying ID is science, but this misunderstanding could be easily rectified by a simple reading of almost any mainstream ID proponent. Most are clear that science will not help determine the designer except maybe to provide some characteristics (sentience, for instance). They leave the place of determining who the designer is to theology (granted, most do say that they think it's the Christian god). At any rate, your "in essence, deism" comment is a total non sequitur (deism isn't the "other" category for uncertain theists). Besides, if there are modifications in species not explainable by blind evolution (let's say the bacterial flagellum, just for kicks), then that would establish a designer (regardless of what else we knew about their identity) who does interact - or perhaps intercede - with nature, which would be very much like a personal god à la Judaism/Christianity/Islam, not a deistic god who creates the universe and then leaves it spinning like a top. It would at least be unlike deism in that the universe would be an open rather than a closed system, so what you're saying is quite off-base.

Intergalactic Hussy said...

When they say 'there is no way to prove you just have to believe...' Than at least that falls in line with their off-brand of logic. But trying to prove it? The inconsistencies are annoying!

Sacchiel said...

Hello! There's such a thing as bad theology, just as there is bad science. It was the christian Galileo who said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

BEAJ said...

Many creationists embraced ID as a way to get creation into the science class.
But ID really has no consistent hypothesis. It is very vague and it can mean that God created everything less than 10,000 years ago to God made special creations over time to God had a hand in all creation and made evolution happen the way it did with a master plan. Though no ID proponent will even say what camp they are in.

Brody said...

Though no ID proponent will even say what camp they are in.
If by "camp" you mean young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, etc., then this is simply untrue. Behe's new book is very clear about where he stands in regards to common descent, for instance, and I'm fairly positive (although I can't say for certain, since I haven't read that much of his work) that he subscribes to an old earth. Plenty of ID proponents are open about whether which "camp" they are personally in; the problem is that no organization in the ID movement has ever taken an official stand, choosing instead to keep things open so that people in different "camps" can find refuge under the "big tent" of ID (as it is commonly referred to). That is a matter of frustration for me, personally, but it's a big difference from claiming that ID proponents are not forthwith about their own personal views.

Riker said...

brody -

This is my first time viewing and commenting at this blog, so I have no exposure to what you may have said here previously. Despite that, and even though you're careful to remain ambiguous about your personal beliefs, I am 100% certain you are a theist.I only need to base that on your defense of ID.

You're calling 'foul' on the ID=creationism angle, but the fact is we atheists are simply not pulling punches.

There's a difference between something being disrespected and something not having earned respect.

While you admit that you doubt ID is scientific, that is not sufficient to distance it from creationism. The two go hand-in-hand together.

Intelligent Design was, ahem, designed in the late '80s to hold open the classroom door after creationism failed to be allowed in. Whether you believe it is science or not, the proponents of ID explicitly claim that it is.

This is why "ID=creationism" is not disrespectful; it is simply a metered response to an underhanded tactic that had attempted, yet failed, to gain respect in the scientific community.

ID deserves no respect because it does not contribute to the body of scientific knowledge; it only strives to loosen the rigors of scientific scrutiny enough for creationism not to sound like lunacy.

Ryan Green said...

Ugh! My psych professor and I were talking about this exact thing the other day. Nice site btw!

thechristiancynic said...

I only check this blog periodically out of curiosity, but I feel obliged to respond to riker.

Yes, you would be correct that I am a theist, but my "defense" of ID (if one can really call it that) is entirely incidental to my personal beliefs. (By the way, I have a firm suspicion from the way you broached the issue that you're an atheist or agnostic. Not that it matters, of course.) I don't even claim that ID is worthy of "respect" in the sense that it deserves equal treatment with modern evolutionary theory, and I don't even know where I might have suggested that idea in these comments or elsewhere, although you seem to be implying that my qualm with the "ID=creationism" meme is one of respect. What I do propose is that all individuals that enter public debate about these sorts of issues come into it with a clear head rather than relying on stereotypes - and the ones espoused in this entry are particularly bad, even for stereotypes! I mean, citing Ray Comfort as the paradigm of ID is quite a grievous error (and betrays how deep the meme runs, in my opinion). If you want to deal in stereotypes, then I suppose that's your prerogative, but it pretty much rules out any possible of you being the rational person and taking the moral high ground against those "crazy fundies." Then again, I probably shouldn't be looking for a civil discourse when you say that "atheists are simply not pulling punches." If that's your attitude, then I'm happy to bow out. I'm looking for insight, not a fight.

ReginaldSkeptic said...

Brody:
It does annoy me, however, when ID and creationism are conflated


Hey Brody, have you never heard of "cdesign proponentist"? They're the "missing link" between cretins and IDiots.

Anonymous said...

Hey, could you tell me where in the Bible it says that the universe revolves around the earth? I just want to check it out for myself. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

You said this, "But now, science has explained so many things that the bible was wrong about; we know the earth is round, we know that the earth revolves around the sun." Can you please tell me where in the Bible it says this. I would honestly like to read it for myself.

Maragon said...

Flat earth:

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Fixed in place at the center of the universe:

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)"

"The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world [The deceiving translators should've said "earth", not "world"] is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 93:1)"

"Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world [Again, the deceiving translators should've said "earth", not "world"] is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 96:10)"

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. (From the NIV Bible, Ecclesiastes 1:5)"

Brittany said...

Hi,

"I suspect you believe that science only applies when you want it to apply, and you dismiss it when it doesn't prove what you'd like it to."

Yet, you seem to be doing the same thing with Christianity. You dismiss it without really looking into it.

In Christian Love,
Brittany

Maragon said...

Hi there Brittany,

Do you have any proof to back your claim that I have never "looked into" Christianity? Or is it simply easier for you to believe that someone couldn't objectively assess your religion and dismiss it as false after being exposed to all the evidence?