I think these 'honest questions' have been addressed; time and time again.
So long as the Creationist side of the debate relies on 'faith' (a belief system by definition without a logical or provable basis) there is no possibility of a rational debate.

I don't know why the atheists declined to debate the creationists. Perhaps it would be interesting.

However I think it would be fair to expect the creationists first to show reason to think that they have understood, and can answer the arguments put forward by Dawkins in The God Delusion, other than by endlessly begging the question, which is what the creationists have offered, so far as I can tell.

For example, the existence of complex life forms, or the origin of life itself, does not justify the conclusion that life must have been created by an intelligent personable deity, let alone that the book of Genesis provides any scientific explanation of the phenomena of life.

As Dawkins notes, appeal to an intelligent designer is no explanation at all. Quite apart from the fact that there's no more evidence for "God" than there is for the magic teapot or the invisible pink unicorn, the entire theistic explanation *increases* the complexity of the phenomena requiring explanation, so it is hard to see how this could satisfy anything other than an irrational standard.

Dawkins notes that the God of the Old Testament is a nasty piece of work. Yet do you deny it? Jesus is supposed to represent a new Covenant, but no-one ever claimed that the God Jesus covenants for is a different theistic person than the God of the Old Testament. That being so, how can anyone justify worshipping such a patently immoral being?

The whole belief system motivating the objections of the creationists is so jumbled, so incoherent, so circular, and so irrelevant to the biological issues, that I would certainly forgive any biologist, in his capacity as a biology, for passing on the debate. Whether we should expect a higher standard of tolerance from atheists, in their capacity as atheists, is doubtful.

The reason the evolutionary scientist won't debate scientist who believe in creation is the exact reason that gw alarmist would not debate 'skeptics'. 'The science is settled' in the dogmatic unscientific view of the evolutionary scientist. The dogmas of evolution are no more evident than at our universities,

Congratulations on a very neat piece of sophistry, Mr Viljoen.

So beautifully written.

But even your nicely-crafted sentences and rhetorical flourishes cannot completely hide the threadbare nature of the arguments they are designed to sustain.

“...secondary education, where topics such as politics, sex-education, and religion conveniently couldn’t find space within the curriculum”

“Conveniently”, Mr Viljoen?

You don't seriously believe that high schools should venture, boots and all, into these contentious arenas?

Some do, of course. The ones that are in a position to respect the abilities of their students to reason intelligently for themselves, and not simply parrot what they may have heard at home. But quite frankly, for most it would be a pointless and frustrating exercise for all concerned.

“So the atheists and the creationists, the two philosophical straight shooters, have avoided the showdown at sunset... We have a feel for a contest: Wimbledon, footy finals, Test Match bat against ball. We’re a little suspicious about this win on a technicality”

That is, I'm afraid, a purely artificial suspicion, manufactured specifically for this occasion.

No-one expects to go to the MCG to watch Collingwood play Leyton Hewitt, or Ricky Ponting's team play Melbourne Storm.

Hence no-one is at all suspicious when Atheists choose to restrict their contests to players in the same League. No-one can win an argument between science and faith, in the same way that no-one can “win” when a team of basketballers comes up against a water polo team.

It is a nonsense argument. I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr Viljoen is smart enough to realize this, but just likes playing word-games with us.

And this old chestnut.

“For scientific pioneers such as Isaac Newton, it was integrated into their thinking. 'The most beautiful system of the sun, planet and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and domination of an intelligent and powerful Being.'”

Really, Mr Viljoen. For shame!

However spiritual Mr Newton was, he allowed none of it to infect his scientific endeavours.

As well you know.

runner
Can you honestly say that the following method is scientific: see complex phenomenon requiring explanation --> assume explanation is creation by God as described in scripture?

But isn't that what the supposed scientific method of the creationists boils down to? It is nothing but assuming what is in issue, which is circular argument, which is fallacious, which is irrational.

Come on, let's be honest: it's not science at all.

It's no more valid than for me to explain the beautiful colouring of seahorses by saying they are like that because Poseidon made them like that.

" He squarely draws battle lines in front of his adversaries such as intelligent design proponent Philip Johnson, who says, “God is our true Creator. I am not speaking of a God who is known only by faith and is invisible to reason, or who acted undetectably behind some naturalistic evolutionary process that was to all appearances mindless and purposeless. That kind of talk is about the human imagination, not the reality of God. I speak of a God who acted openly and who left his fingerprints all over the evidence."

Carl Weiland should elaborate on his assertion above before Dawkins should bother to waste his time.

The fallacy of this non-debate is the two starting positions, they are not mutually exclusive nor do they represent even a small fraction of the possibilities of what constitutes life and how life comes about.

That the creationists have yet to provide a single piece of evidence that shows that evolution cannot have occurred, means that an argument with them would be like arguing with flat earthers.

As creationism relies solely on faith, and athiests have none, the creationists' vacuous arguments will simply fall on deaf ears. Faith is no replacement for reality.

To pass peer review requires evidence, and rigorous unbiased scientific treatment of the topic. As creationists have yet to submit a paper that complies, they have yet to be published.

Only creationists take other creationists seriously, real scientists, judges etc now have no time for their medievil views.

You are kidding aren't you?

"Both are brash, as prize fighters at a weigh in. Let’s imagine their comments before stepping on the scales. Dawkins goes first. “Evolution is a fact. It’s a fact which is established as securely as essentially any other fact we have in science. Since the evidence for evolution is so absolutely and totally overwhelming, no one who looks at the evidence could possibly doubt it if they were sane and not stupid. So the only remaining possibility is that they’re ignorant. And most people who don’t agree with evolution are in fact ignorant.”

"Carl Wieland, representing Australia’s creationists, is just as plainspoken. “Non-living molecules evolving into all life forms, including man, over millions of years. We find that a frankly bizarre proposition.”

Dawkins statement makes total sense, he absolutely outweighs and beats Wieland hands down in your prizefighter metaphor.

Oh dear, Wieland's lonely little 'frankly bizarre' comment - is frankly bizarre in itself....not to mention that rejecting overwhelming evidence is obviously showing total ignorance...you are kidding by comparing these two answers aren't you? Tell me you are!

You've put forth a pretty pathetic argument, I'm not surprised that no one would agree to debate you.

Good try, but epic fail I'm afraid.

Some of the speakers themselves have been quite explicit over why they see both no need for debate, and the issues with doing so :

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/119

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/a_reply_to_carl_wieland.php

Debate happens across the internet 24/7/365. There is explicit literature and responses, indeed Dawkins has books on the topic. Debate just gives a platform for creationism to repeat it's effort to give itself the same credence that science has by repetition and not evidence.

The atheist convention is a convention of atheists on the rise, looking at current situations and the future. It's not a place that is yet another platform for the well funded creationist movement to give themselves credibility where none should be forthcoming.

These people just want to be 'in the picture' all the time, it does not matter if they are wrong or right, they just want their ignorance of science to be seen as somehow relevant in the 21st century.

Shadow Minister shows her/his ignorance

'As creationism relies solely on faith, and athiests have none, the creationists''

athiests have no faith. They have more blind faith than a 2 year old in their adult fantasies.

Dawkins explains why he won't engage Creation 'scientists' in his book, 'The Devil's Chaplain'(p256);

'These people have no hope of convincing reputable scientists by their ridiculous argments. Instead, what they seek is the oxygen of respectibility. We give them this oxygen by the mere act of ENGAGING with them at all. They don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public.'

Creation 'scientists' are no more than charlatan hacks from Vaudeville selling snakeoil and hokus pokus.

Therefore, as a general rule, it is always better to ignore the drunk looney in the street who talks to the fairies and mouths obscenities.

Runner,

The reason that real scientists won't debate with creationists is that the creationists are dishonest cherry pickers, playing to their crowd and incapable of conducting their side. They have so far had nothing to offer. Much like you. Creationism is beneath contempt. You have not yet expressed a view on the topic not disposed of in primary schoolyard conversation, hence you are not getting answers of higher level. Do try harder.

Get an education first, I would suggest you desperately need one. I have discussed these topics with ministers with higher degrees, higher degree theology students etc. I had much opportunity as in the days when I studied, all the dormitory colleges were church run and still had a large subpopulation of theological students. All held your style of literalism as an embarrasment at best, an undermining of thoughtful religion as typical, and as a downright perversion in several cases. Perhaps of interest, I have in fact heard some very good though flawed arguments for a form of remote deity, but I'm not giving you clues. You have to catch up on your own time.

Since we are keeping it down to your level:
Who created your toy god? You hold that something as complex as the universe implies a creator. Clearly you regard this as an extrauniversal rule. Therefore: let us consider who would create such a paranoid child as you claim to worship?

Rusty

For those of us who feel innately that that we can cleave closer to the truth by a process of feisty debate, the Atheist's position in declining to cross swords with Creationists at first feels like a let down. However, now I’ve heard it, their justification for this position makes sense. Legitimate medical conferences would rightfully scoff any demand made to debate homeopathists. Astronomers, similarly would laugh astrologers out of the room if they showed up at an astronomer's gathering. Creationists want desperately to play with the "big boys", not to up-end scientific sacred cows, but simply to promote the perception that their views are at least as worthy of consideration. This gives them the toe-hold (and the cash) from credulous Church audiences and on U.S School boards. Dawkins has made this point clearly, which Viljoen only alludes to but does not articulate at all well. The practitioners of Creationism, especially hacks like Wieland quoted in the article, peddle completely risible arguments (at least concerning their “Science” of Creationism) and deserve the scorn and dismissive attitude they have encountered.

I like Theodore Dalrymple’s observation that we have inverted the meaning of “discrimination” in this age. Discrimination is currently a universal pejorative. It used to imply an ability to judge wisely good things from bad. If the Creationists say they are being discriminated against, then they should realise it is because sensible debate has moved beyond them permanently. We no longer sacrifice to an angry God, and we no longer burn witches. So to, we no longer (if indeed, we ever did) believe there were vegetarian T-Rexes in the garden of Eden, and it’s entirely appropriate to laugh, loudly, at people who do.

oh dear...
Should Astronomers debate astrologers?
Should Zoologists debate the existence of unicorns?
To debate someone who holds to such silly ideas to be true, merely adds fuels to their fire. It would give them what they crave, to be taken seriously. Mainstream religions don't take creationism seriously why should scientist?
However the issues can be best answered by..
When you argue with a fool, you end up looking like one yourself, and Carl has had a lot more practice at being one then Dawkins or PZ.

As an AGW 'alarmist', I would like to thank Runner for being a sceptic.
I too, see common ground between the 2 positions; sceptic and creationist.
It must take enormous faith to believe mere humankind could never change the wonderful creation that is our planetary environment.

I think Mark Twain's advice applies here:

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

The reason these nutters are always demanding public debates is so they can drag their opponents down to their intellectual level. Exactly the same reasoning is behind the loopy Lord Monckton's desire to debate his scientific betters on AGW, and their refusal to engage.

"“Non-living molecules evolving into all life forms, including man, over millions of years. We find that a frankly bizarre proposition.”

Whereas the existence of an invisible all-powerful Sky Daddy who is everywhere, yet somehow completely undetectable, is completely obvious and lucid to all right-thinking people, correct?

This is the Argument From Personal Incredulity, and it has no evidential value whatsoever. If Carl Wieland finds currently-accepted scientific theories 'bizarre', that's his problem, not Dawkins'.

That's odd, Grim, I equate both sorts of believers, in tin gods and in AGW, and oppose them to sceptics, those who wish to suspend belief (and disbelief, really) until the evidence shows one way or the other.

Scepticism is the proper expression of the scientific method, while belief is often the grasping at straws regardless of the evidence, or lack of it. By definition, sceptics are not necessarily believers in anything, and certainly not believers in something for which there is inadequate evidence.

This is not to say that some sceptics don't WANT to be believers, just that they want more evidence, more data, on which to base their judgments. What they don't want is someone telling them what to believe but, hey, if that's your thing, go for it. Just don't call yourself a scientist.

Joe

runner.

Not only do fantasies arise from theism, not reality, 2 year olds have no faith. You forcefully instill it in their impressionable minds and continue to abuse their nature as they grow, usually by linking biblical compliance with unrelated rewards like prizes, lollies, praise - ala Pavlov's Dogs. Faith for humans is not an inherited trait. Only our genome.

Joy surrounds us - why exploit imagination and damage people for life?

Added to this in psychologically abusing our children, is the linking of individuality and freethought/creativity, curiosity, exploration of themselves and others with deviance, family breakdown, drug addiction, social rejection, crime... Your obsession with others genitalia and sexual orientation. Of course there's "the BONUS" - Jesus' Greatest Gift to MAN-kind, not "humankind" [women being second rate n all] - Hell: eternal torment.

Guy came from heaven but we're left with Hell - cause he loves us. Mmmm, kinky. Leather/mascara. Queen of the Jews?

Which a certain prophet built on 590 odd years later to terrify followers into killing others and themselves in his name. What keeps you going runner? Certainly not happiness or a love for others nor their diversity & that of life - noting your frequent attacks. No-one knows what heaven is like. Hell is described to the Nth degree. Fear my man - it's pure terror that drives you and holds you down - not hope for virgins or clouds.

Islam preaches Creationism, preaches Hell, acknowledges Jesus as a prophet. The entire Jihad trick, needs JC's input to work. Which kinda makes him a Christians worst nightmare. Or makes my claim much like all modern Christian creeds - made up on the spot.

Theology is fancy after all.

As for debates. Dawkins has been quoted out of context, even via video editing to appear as if he is agreeing with Creationists - or admitting Evolution is fake, and ID actual "secretly known to be real" science [see "Expelled..."].

Now, if God needs to lie, deceive, mislead and cheat to win debates... you might try thinking. Just once?

Why has religion got to be brought into almost every topic.
It is only a con, the worlds greatest scam.
You would be better off putting your time into realism.
When people recite religion, subjects become distorted, and unbelievable. Stick to known facts.

You dont "debate" with ignorant, closed mind, superstitious fools you ignore them. The point of debating is to win over you opponent with your argument. Since the godbotherers have no cogent argument they cannot be debated with.
As runner has shown the godbotherers "debate" is nothing more than vilification, platitudes and avoiding the issue.

"No gods, No masters!"

There is an idea from Jurgen Habermas which I think is appropriate here: that of the 'ideal speech situation'. (otherwise known as the "perfect speech situation".) This idea supposes that everyone ought be heard in inclusive and rational debate. And that the best outcomes result from the very inclusiveness of this process. Such ideas can be helpful for those seeking to make liberal democracy meaningful - assuming real inclusion and empowerment for citizens.

re: the idea of 'Creationism': what needs to be considered, here, is what is really intended by the concept. Many Christians today reject sweeping application of 'literalism' when it comes to scripture. Often it is assumed that there is a mystery behind the scripture that needs to be sought.

Personally - I do not believe that God "created the world - literally - in seven days". But I do think this is symbolic of something hidden - even though I concede it is something I do not understand.

Perhaps one thing that is required is a degree of humility on our part when it comes to our claims to understand the world. Modern science still cannot explain free will, sentience, consciousness.

Perhaps the world is a more dangerous place than we all realise.

And perhaps in this context we would do well indeed to be fearful.

That being the case: even though I find what appears to me to be injustice in scriptures - I believe that the idea of Christ as 'shepherd' has meaning in this context.

To close, though: Dropping the furphy of literalism, and admitting that the true meaning of much scripture is hidden - is a first step in engagement between religion and science. As has been the case with all generations prior: we would be wrong to suppose we know everything. And we should not reject out of hand and without engagement - when we do not understand.

Firesnake you write

'Now, if God needs to lie, deceive, mislead and cheat to win debates... you might try thinking. Just once?'

No doubt the Heavenly hosts will be having a good laugh at the pathetic attempt by the god haters to spread their dogmas. To see the clay waving their puny fists at their Creator is one of the most pathetic things to take place on the planet. The theology of these god haters and god deniers helps ease their corrupted consciences and stone hearts. Your vile mis representation of your Creator is a good example of this.

Tristan:

"Personally - I do not believe that God "created the world - literally - in seven days". But I do think this is symbolic of something hidden - even though I concede it is something I do not understand."

But how are we supposed to even-handedly debate something that its proponents 'do not understand'? If you want to claim that God is impenetrably mysterious then that's fine: but it immediately disqualifies you from making any kind of contribution to a debate about religion. Unfortunately most believers are quite happy to make all kinds of outlandish claims, and then retreat back to the 'God is mysterious' position only when they are challenged.

"I believe that the idea of Christ as 'shepherd' has meaning in this context."

But how do you know that if 'God is mysterious'? How can you claim to know ANYTHING about your 'mysterious' God? And why are we obliged to give credit to your claims?

A figurine in the imagination. You want to be careful someone may put you in a straight jacket. People who say these things in public are taking more space than is allowed. If you want to believe in fantasies keep it to yourself. Truth is the first casualty of religion.

<" Wieland requests a public debate on the topic of which viewpoint, creation or evolution, is best represented by the empirical evidence.">

No atheistic evolutionist in his right mind would ever take on a debate of this nature (based on fossil records and true scientific discoveries) going by past debates of this sort. Rather, an atheist should challenge a theist (especially from the Judeo/Christian tradition) why would God allow so much suffering.

http://fora.tv/2007/10/11/Christopher_Hitchens_Debates_Alister_McGrath#chapter_02
Christopher Hitches, by far the best atheist apologist, takes on Alister McGrath, a famous scientist (PhD) and a theologian (PhD) from the Anglican Church . Seems to be a tie 50/50)

The hypothesis of evolution remains just that, a hypothesis. If atheist are to built their faith on this flimsy pillar, there is much future for them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxc0NpTZE18
(Alister McGrath made minced meat of Richard Dawkins in this dialogue/debate)

I think you may have been rather selective in your understanding of Habermas, Tristan Ewins.

>>an idea from Jurgen Habermas... supposes that everyone ought be heard in inclusive and rational debate. And that the best outcomes result from the very inclusiveness of this process.<<

I suspect even Habermas, with his free-and-easy approach to theories of human communication, would balk at the concept of a meaningful outcome from a debate, for example, as to which is better, cheese or steam locomotion.

It is quite possible to be over-inclusive, and miss the entire point of communicating in the process.

>>Many Christians today reject sweeping application of 'literalism' when it comes to scripture.<<

Many don't. What does that say about Christianity?

Apart, of course, from the fact that it is "inclusive", and that, in being so, masks or conceals the entire point of the scripture in the process.

The reality is, as Tristan Ewins comes very close to admitting, is that because there is no absolute truth to be found in the Scriptures themselves, it is impossible to build a consistent religious philosophy upon them.

This applies, of course, equally to the Qur'an as it does to the Bible.

By simple extension, it is clear that those people who quote from one or the other in order to "prove" a point are engaging in a particularly abstract, sterile and profoundly misleading pusuit.

Nor am I particularly convinced by this.

>>admitting that the true meaning of much scripture is hidden - is a first step in engagement between religion and science<<

I would have drawn the opposite conclusion. That such an admission would provide the most convincing justification possible for separating the two, religion and science, once and for all.

Pericles - re: your comment about literalist Chrisitians - you say: "what does that say about Christianity?"...

It doesn't say anything about Christianity 'as a whole': because there are so many currents of Christianity - many of them radically different.

Those who are literalist with regard to mysteries may be genuine in their faith. But there are parables - and there are deeper mysteries - in all manner of spiritual traditions. (not just Christianity) And just because we cannot appreciate the truths behind these immediately - that does not mean we should reject these out of hand.

Imagine living in the 14th Century: and trying to explain spectrums of light - frequencies of light and sound. Imagine trying to explain different states of consicousness and brainwave patterns. Most people of that period would dismiss those ideas out-of-hand.

Today the same principle applies: We should not dismiss simply because we have not yet the means to understand.

Man created god in his own image and aethieism is just a reactionary movement that has it foundations based on a negative. ie disbelief.

Neither of these seemingly opposing views service the needs of our common humanity.They are both reactionary and anticquated.

You only have to look into the nature and how our present science is unable to explain most things happening in our cosmos.We now have concepts of other universes,accessed via black holes in which totally new rules apply.If you study physics,time space and matter are all interdependant.Space it seems is not just a void.Gravitational forces permeates it's very structure.

These are all non ordinary realites exposing themsleves to our consciousness.Do any of us dare define our existence in simplistic notions of good,evil or pragmatic,aethistic disbelief?

There is a lot more to it than either of these belief systems can provide.I see very little difference between the religions of god or aethism.They serve the same master called our egos.

Arjay, “our present science is unable to explain most things” is dead right.

And what a blessing that is. How horrible, the contemplation that we might at some stage cease the need to keep inquiring, that at last we know it all.

Gone would be the joy of searching for yet more interesting elements of how things tick, and of the nature that surrounds us and of which we are part.

It would be a return to the days of the French revolution when a leading chemist’s head was lopped off, accompanied by the words “we have no need of men of science”. Come to think of it, with Lord Monckton’s exorcising the evil goblin of a world communist government, and denigration of scientists – we are getting a re-run of that philosophy.

Runner,

You have a go at firesnake but you need instructing in the terms usually reserved for idiots and appropriately applied to you.

*if* you believe in a god, you believe he made the earth. Since it *is* old he either (1) made it long long ago or (2) your god made it look that way (deception).

It made fossil light coming from stars which ordinary Euclidean geometry tells us are up to billions of light years away.

It made fossils in an approximate order of complexity, relative to the geological features.

It provided the genetic material with the sort of copy errors and editing hitches that are still made today and then carried forward to new generations and amenable to analysis in current generations. Just like the same sort of transcription errors used to date old texts before (and after) the printing press.

This is either (1) real or (2)an elaborate deception to instruct about important topics or (3)an elaborate hoax to trap us (two finger salute to "god" if this is the case).

Having shown you ignorant on this topic, please shut up. Forever. You have nothing to say to us that we don't know better.

You again presume to know what "god" finds funny. I say that you adhere to texts written by men (their names are even in the headers, do read your bible). What they were inspired by, we'll never know, but they could and probably did make it up (so did Hubbard, after all).

You believe that "god" made the earth. What "it" made with "it's" hands directly, proclaims that we evolved. Maybe you should learn directly from "it's" most notable works (I have held some in my hand), rather than the very flawed and questionable stuff that named men wrote in just one (poor) book among many.

Rusty

Rusty

At least you are smart enough to see design written all over the earth. Your other self delusions and fantasies about the age of the earth can be debated with every second scientist who have a different fantasy to debate. Going on your writings I don't think you have much chance of convincing to many with your petty little dogmas.

"Imagine living in the 14th Century: and trying to explain spectrums of light - frequencies of light and sound. Imagine trying to explain different states of consicousness and brainwave patterns. Most people of that period would dismiss those ideas out-of-hand."

Anyone in the fourteenth century who had gone to work with lenses and prisms the way that Newton did three hundred years later would have got a long way towards achieving our current understanding of light. Way back in ancient Greece philosophers were forming testable scientific hypotheses -- they just didn't have the technology to investigate them then. There is no shame or fault in saying "I think this might be the case, but I don't know yet."

But throwing up your hands and saying "I don't understand this, but I can't bear to admit that, so let's pretend God did it." -- this is a non-stop route to explanatory failure.

We all know that you cannot debate "belief" or "faith". These two tenets are unshakable or they cease to exist. Therefore there is no reason for Mr Weiland and Mr. Dawkins to meet. It wold be a total waste of time, certainly for an audience who may expect an outcome.

We know by default that a good creationist cannot capitulate to logic or evidence.

We know by default that a scientist is perfectly happy to change his view if evidence is replicated by his peers to prove him incorrect in his assumptions. He may feel a little jaded and annoyed at himself for missing the mark but, with good grace, will concede to a change in view.

Not so a creationist I am afraid. Such a waste of time.......

Well said Grim. 'Nuff said.

Creationists:
Why did God create our lungs from swim bladders?
(Why didn't we get the bird enhancements...much better!)
Why did God cross our breathing and eating pathways? (Thus killing many millions of babies and countless adult choking deaths)
Why did god build our feet wrong?
Why did God build the back so badly?
Why such a dodgy immune system?
Why does he kill humans with disease the same as the other animals?
(Aren't we "special"?)
Why did God build eggs/sperm to fail so darned often?
Why did God make childbirth so dangerous?
Why does 1 in 100 babies have a tail? (What's with all the other defects?!)
Why the fossils showing transition if it didn't happen? Why develop whales on land for so long then send them back to sea?
For an omnipotent designer...He *really* cocked up!

In short: Why give the complete illusion of evolution from simple forms to the last detail for those who look?
Natural explanations are for curious.
God is for the lazy, the stupid and the scared. By all means pray if it makes you feel good, but *don't* lie to children if you *do not know*. Professionals get angry when others pretend to know. Religions that oppose hard earned knowledge deserve to be scolded and humiliated. Stick to dubious ethics and leave science to those who can be bothered doing it properly.

Why no debate? This thread seems to provide the answer to that question.

There is a line somewhere in the Bible, Paul I think, in reference to the crucifiction he says, roughly, that if you do not believe in this event, then all else is dust, there is nothing left.

So, clearly Creationists, and indeed plain old creationists, do believe in the crucifiction and Dawkins and Nicholls do not.

So there really can be nothing to 'debate' between them.

Our high court of Australia found that charlatanism is the price we pay for religious beliefs and that if any religion asked to prove those beliefs all would fail.
Religion is charlatanism and all who practice it are charlatans.
All rational thinking people live in the hope that one day these charlatan religions will eventually be prosecuted and these poor religious cult members being fleeced by their respective cults, who to us all seem to have a mental illness indoctrinated into them from childhood abuse that prevents rational thought, will wake up to themselves and realize religion is the greatest fraud ever invented by mankind. All of the estimated 2500 invented Gods and religions, mostly all now discarded with just a minuscule group of the most ferocious and deceptive, now left after having slaughtered all the opponents and competitive cults over a Milena of extremely violent and merciless inter religious warfare unequaled in the Earths history!
Atheism like all truth, first it's ignored and ridiculed, then its violently opposed, then taken as an irrefutable fact! Just like the round Earth and it's orbit around the Sun, once thought of as blasphemy and punishable by death, by the same religious cults members we argue with here today, how ironic, how bloody ridiculous? The Atheist convention is just the beginning of the removal of the chains of religious dogma!

The point I was making re: spectrums of light, radiowaves, frequencies and the like is this - there was a time, once, when these things were invisible to us... Being invisible - most supposed these things did not exist...

In fact we an in the presence of these forces always... They permeate everything... But if their existence had not been proven - we would have never known.

That said - perhaps there are things which even now are invisible to us... Indian spiritualist are convinced of the existence of a complex 'spiritual nervous system' - 'nadis' - they call them - and much more also...

And if one concedes that - on these same principles - spiritual world(s) may exist - then my the same rationale - we need to take the idea of the existence of God seriously...

Also - just to speculate: perhaps there might even be such a thing as 'transpersonal consciousness'.

To conclude, however - while God may exist, this is not to say He exists in the sense promoted in the 'popular imagination'.

But if there were dangers in any spiritual world, also: then as I wrote earlier in this thread - the idea of Christ as shepherd begins to make sense.

'Religion is charlatanism and all who practice it are charlatans.'

Very much proven by the gw religion which has now been largely exposed. A few desperate true believers are still holding to their dogmas Not surprising since the premise of it originates from the evolution fantasy.

There is surely, somewhere, a collective noun that covers a seething mass of non sequiturs, Tristan Ewins.

If there isn't, then someone should invent it, and immediately apply it to your last post.

>>Being invisible - most supposed these things did not exist... if their existence had not been proven - we would have never known.<<

But they did exist. And they were ultimately discovered. By science.

The fact that there were people who did not know about them does not render them non-existent. Except maybe to Jean-Paul Sartre - is this an Existentialist discussion, perhaps?

>>perhaps there are things which even now are invisible to us<<

Perhaps there are. Perhaps there aren't. We won't know until we uncover them, will we.

>>if one concedes that - on these same principles - spiritual world(s) may exist<<

Hardly. How would scientists discover a spiritual world? Where would they look? What tests would they perform?

>>my the same rationale - we need to take the idea of the existence of God seriously...<<

By the same rationale, it would appear that you are suggesting that there will come a day when scientists will "discover" God.

That would be a challenge. What would happen to religion, without faith to sustain it, as God suddenly becomes just another Being.

Supreme? yeah, that would need to be a major characteristic. But a Being nevertheless.

Won't happen

>>while God may exist, this is not to say He exists in the sense promoted in the 'popular imagination'.<<

God can only "exist" for those who believe. Therefore he can take absolutely any form your imagination - popular or otherwise - cares to dream up.

>>if there were dangers in any spiritual world, also: then as I wrote earlier in this thread - the idea of Christ as shepherd begins to make sense<<

That has to be the granddaddy of all non sequiturs

If: spiritual dangers; Then: Christ as shepherd.

Mind-numbingly pointless.

As I've said many times before,the existence of god irrelevant.It is not a matter of what you believe but how you treat your fellow man.Sucking up to a god figure does not make you a better person.

If money becomes your god then in biblical terms,reap what you sew.
We cannot define the essence which drives us and this is probably a positive,but to deny a spiritual self that has so many possibilities, is an atrocity.Every human being has worth and as we degrade that status,we all become lesser beings.

Sigh, I think it should be pretty obvious why evolutionists don't bother to debate creationists these days, after decades and decades of trying to explain even basic science to them to see it fall on deaf ears, and rarely get any good arguments and absolutely ZERO evidence out of them:

It would be about the same as debating the earth is round, in a time when the evidence is pretty overwhelming the earth is round, when almost everyone believes the world is round, with a minority of people who insist it's FLAT, despite failing to provide the slightest of proof of their claims for the past few decades- it's just a waste of time.

And of course, most of the debaters are like- no- I won't mention names this time, I've picked on him enough (and never got a response to prove me wrong).

But I'll make it simple:

-What evidence is there, that animals never evolved, but were all individually created in batches by an intelligent creator.

-What makes you think it's the Christian God, and not the Hindu Gods?
How do you know that the sun, earth and riverbeds weren't carved by a race of benevolent snakes?

-Why should intelligent design be taught in schools, but not the proposal that existence is only a dream, a computer program, we're all really dead ghosts, all life on earth delivered by aliens, a spaghetti monster, among many other theories, all presented with as much scrutiny and seriousness as you expect of intelligent design?
In fact, what evidence WOULD you put forward for intelligent design?
Also, will you insist children need to study records to ensure that the loch ness monster and pixies really do exist too?

At some point, overwhelming evidence becomes too convincing to constantly entertain a tiny group of people who have for ages failed to put forward even the slightest argument.

Blue Cross points to the gulf that separates the two views which, I agree, does make dialogue difficult.

Yet Gee Suss says there is debate occurring all the time, 24/7. But he says the world’s atheists shouldn’t allow creationists any undeserved credibility by letting them appear on the same platform as themselves.

Grim,
If there is no possibility of rational debate, how could these questions have been ‘addressed time and time again’? I think you’re trying to have it both ways.

Pericles,
If education is about preparing people to be productive in adult life, then the ability to deal with complex or controversial issues needs to be included in there somewhere. I’d agree that it depends on the abilities of the students to reason intelligently. That is the goal. While I’ll admit it is not easy in this climate, at the appropriate age levels, a mature educator should be enlightening students of life’s more profound issues and giving them tools to deal with them.

I like your picture of unbalance, of Ricky Ponting’s cricketers taking on the Melbourne Storm. Of course, we want to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. We want to be fair to the goose and the gander.

Therefore the debate should not be viewed as science versus faith. It’s more the science of one view versus the science of another. Both the creation and the evolution views have their philosophical and religious implications. Dawkins at least thinks so, as per his famous line about evolution allowing him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. The implications cut both ways. From Wieland’s email correspondence, he certainly wanted to address the issue with regard to physical evidence, as per Genesis (recent creation of groups of fully-formed organisms, global flood, etc) compared with evolution (defined as non-living molecules evolving into all life forms, including man, over millions of years).

Beefyboy,
Did life arise by purely undirected process, or did it arise by some kind of intelligent guidance or design? Phrased like this, the ideas are mutually exclusive. What other options are there?

Michael Viljoen

Oh dear, Runner.

Read a little will you. Start with the word "if", since you don't understand big words.

Function is not design. get over your little patch of ignorance.

*we* design because we exist. Your fictional "god" does not due to a lack of existing.

You *do* understand that I am *telling* you, since you cannot get there yourself? Stop making christians look bad, I like them normally.

You use the word fantasy a lot, I suspect you live in one. Any time you want to join an adult conversation, you just catch on up.

Rusty.

How is it even possible to even have a debate on these issues?

One side argues on the basis of physical proof and investigation - the other relies on a lack of proof to make its case.

One side is free to adjust its case as new discoveries are made, the other is forever locked in by blind dogma.

To be fair, why not include a Scientologist to convince us all about Xenu or an aboriginal to explain The Dreamtime?

The Flintstones was a fictional cartoon - not a Documentary.

Hey Dan/Michael,
I guess we must have a radically different definition of the word 'debate'. If I were to ask you the time, or the day, I don't believe I am quite so argumentative as to necessarily turn your answers into a debate.
Provided of course, you used a watch or calendar, rather than rely on divine guidance.
Since the first accurate mathematical modelling of the mechanics of the solar system, the God Hypothesis has been demonstrated to simply be unnecessary.
I'll happily admit this is not proof that God doesn't exist, or that we have all the answers, or that we ever will have all the answers. It is conceivable -at least to me- that at some point in the distant future humankind may reach the limits of understanding, and have no choice but to invoke the god hypothesis; but I would suggest before they could irrevocably make that decision, they would logically need to be gods themselves.
Mere mortals can always hope to learn more.

The title is already a misnomer. Truth is irrelevant in a faith based belief system. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

You cannot argue evolution with creationists. Dawkins has already tried and done his fair share. The fact is people will have to come to their own conclusions either way and it is good now that atheists are writing books and being interviewed in the media, rather than just the very one-sided viewpoints which have been fostered previously.

It will always be up to individuals to make up their own minds. Dawkins getting into the debate is really a waste of his time. It is akin to bashing one's head against a brick wall when faced with rigid belief systems that do not question, do not seek 'truth' and avoid exploratory examination or scientific scrutiny.

Thanks runner.

Your joy and abounding love is manifest much as Christo-Stockholm Syndrome would suggest.

Did I mention fear? Today's lesson is "projection".

But seriously. Secularists hate nothing. Life is bursting with wonder and joy to the extent we have no need to hate. The bible teaches hate, and we are markedly busy cleaning up the fallout from this fiction.

More so. How can one hate what is not possible?

But Unicorns. Man - I do hate them. And tooth fairies, crop circle making aliens, homeopathy cures, acupuncture success stories... and much else that doesn't exist.

But god? It's a man made scam of petty annoyance, unworthy of emotional effort much less hate.

Firesnake
Yeah we see the loving hearts of secularist killing their unborn so they can continue their permissiveness lifestyles, preaching their failed pseudo science dogmas to ease their godless lifestyles and producing the most selfish generations in history. Dream on Firesnake along with Rusty in your make believe godless world. At least most are bright enough to know that the 'big bang' theory is as likely as you being the model of love you claim to be.

"Yeah we see the loving hearts of secularist killing their unborn so they can continue their permissiveness lifestyles, preaching their failed pseudo science dogmas to ease their godless lifestyles and producing the most selfish generations in history."

Blimey Runner... a bit on-the-nose isn't it? I don't see too much LURV in the CTFM crew, nor the evangelical fruitcakes Jim Wallace from the ACL mingles with.

And what about those Southern Baptists in Haiti, who have been looting-for-Jesus and stealing young children to 'save' and turn into Xtian robots?

They could be shot for looting in a disaster situation like this, and why not, eh?

Is see that the born-again-Xtain who shot the abortion doctor in America, to save-the-kiddies 'cos Jesus told me to', was found guilty in 40 minutes.

If I was a Haitian citizen, I might not take so long to find those Baptist child-looters guilty, and have them shot.

Funny thing, God's lurv... so easy to get it wrong, completely wrong, and do the most evil things in His name.

You clearly are devoted to sophistry, Mr Viljoen. And as slippery as that snake that pestered Adam and Eve, some five thousand years ago.

>>Therefore the debate should not be viewed as science versus faith. It’s more the science of one view versus the science of another.<<

Sounds plausible, at first listen.

>>Both the creation and the evolution views have their philosophical and religious implications.<<

Ye-e-e-e-e-es. But what has that to do with science?

>>From Wieland’s email correspondence, he certainly wanted to address the issue with regard to physical evidence... recent creation of groups of fully-formed organisms, global flood etc.<<

Ah, now I see your game. You want to have a religious/philosophical debate, based upon entirely different views of scientific evidence.

We are still not talking apples and apples, are we?

A debate on geological evidence should properly be conducted among geologists. Until and unless the evidence of a "young earth" is accepted by scientists, it has to be inadmissible in a debate between religion and atheism.

A "science of one" against the "science of the other" is a totally fair and reasonable proposition. But it can only work between scientists whose expertise lies in interpreting rocks and fossils and carbon dating and evolution and stuff.

Clever, Mr Viljoen.

But still merely sophistry, however well you wrap it in cleverness.

Pelican writes:

"Truth is in the eye of the beholder" and "It will always be up to individuals to make up their own minds."

Firstly, truth is not just an opinion, and whilst each of us is at liberty to 'think' 1 + 1 = 3, and even if the majority of us think 3 is the answer...you can see where this goes.

Now take something like murder (or the taking of a life) and we add another, moral, dimension to the liberty/thinking equation. And what about justice and how does love fit into all this?

I think the best way to describe the issue at hand is that a boxing match where the 2 protagonists are in separate boxing rings (faith, science) would be a bit inconclusive, and not all that entertaining.

Pericles,
You describe my writing as ‘clever’ and ‘beautiful’. I’ll take that as a compliment. I’m not sure how else I’m supposed to take it. If by sophistry you mean that I’m clever with words, well, I don’t know what other currency we’re supposed to deal with here at OLO.

Are we comparing apples with apples? Well, that’s the aim, at least from my perspective. I would hope that we can use the same measuring stick to compare and evaluate different views.

Science, as I understand it, entails applying reason to an observable and measurable body of evidence. A scientific debate should be decided by who can best logically explain the data. So let’s look at a rock. Let’s measure it and test it according to our theoretical models. Is it best explained by explanation A or explanation B?

The evidence (e.g. the rock) is the same in both cases. It is the explanation of the evidence that would be evaluated and judged. So if the best explanation is a ‘young earth’, why are you claiming that this is inadmissible? We should try to go beyond our philosophical preconceptions or counting votes. If you make only an ‘old earth’ evolutionary explanation admissible, is that not begging the question?

If, as you admit, evolution and creation have their philosophical implications, these need to be ignored, or taken into account, to the same measure. We cannot discount one on philosophical grounds and not the other. We’re aiming for a level playing field.

The difference between a creationist and evolutionist, or catastrophist and uniformitarian geologist, those who accept the young earth and those who don’t, is essentially not their level of training or expertise, but their explanation of the data. This is the very point in question.

That's just faux-naif, Mr Viljoen.

>>If by sophistry you mean that I’m clever with words, well, I don’t know what other currency we’re supposed to deal with here at OLO.<<

If, indeed.

You have a good command of the language, so you should know better.

"sophistry n. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning"

>>So if the best explanation is a ‘young earth’, why are you claiming that this is inadmissible?<<

I make no such claim. What I did say, as you well know, was that the argument for a young earth belongs with geologists, not with philosophers.

You seem to suggest that a different philosophical view will change the outcome of the scientific examination. Not at all. The rock either was, or was not, formed millions of years ago.

It is the job of the scientists to allow for all possibilities, not merely the ones that appeal to their belief systems.

Which is why the two discussions are separate. Only if it can be proven that the rocks were created five thousand years ago, will it bring into play the possibility that they were formed as described in the scriptures.

Only then the debates can start - this time with the atheists slightly on the back foot.

But not until.

DSM,

The issue of the aging of the rocks, along with many others attempt to exploit gaps in evidence or anomalies, and rather than using science and logic to find where these fit, they trumpet them as proof that the vast collection of information must be wrong.

They then almost exclusively omit to submit their findings or "evidence" for peer review. The few times they have done so the recognised bodies don't seem to reach the same conclusion.

They also have a complete blind spot for the 99.9% of information that contradicts their findings.

So I'm sorry, but I find the term "Christian scientist" an oxymoron.

Pericles,
If you’re accusing me of being ‘subtle or tricky’, all I can say is that that wasn’t my aim. In my article and posts I aimed to communicate transparency and clarity in message and style. I hope that my writing speaks for itself.

One obvious point of difference between evolutionists and young earth creationists is the age of rocks. These rocks were either formed millions of years ago or they were not formed so long ago but much more recently. You say let the geologists decide. Yes, but which geologists?

Can it be proven that certain rocks were created five thousand years ago? I am not sure of your ‘standard of proof’. Unless someone invents a time machine, the standard of proof will not be by direct observation.

You say that it is the job of the scientists to allow for all possibilities, not merely the ones that appeal to their belief systems. So ought not geologists be open to the idea that the rocks are relatively young?

Until this happens, the discussions will indeed be separate.

“Can it be proven that certain rocks were created five thousand years ago?” Dan asks, and dismisses acceptance of proof “Unless someone invents a time machine”.

Dan, I hope that truth will set you free: we have had good, reliable, time machines for half a century; So good today that we can measure time to 30 billionths of a second per year. If that’s a bit much for you to accept, then maybe it is your faith enabling messages to arrive on your mobile phone.

The same science of atomic physics, that controls our clock standards to the accuracy above, is the time machine for dating rocks; to an age beyond 3.5 billion years. That is a transparent communication. Sadly, personal transport can not be provided for your convenience.

Geologists have no trouble with rocks being young. They even admit to watching the birth of new rocks – without even blushing. Nor do they have trouble with old rocks. Like broody hens, they cluck constantly over the ages of the clutch of rocks under their wing; especially since the new you-beaut time machine became available.

But, if you don’t like this new-fangled time machine, consign you mobile phone (and sundry other such-like gadgets) to the devil.

Good to see you back, Dan.

<<You [Pericles] say let the geologists decide. Yes, but which geologists?>>

Those that conform to the scientific method.

<<Can it be proven that certain rocks were created five thousand years ago?>>

Yes, carbon dating and radiometric dating would reveal if they were that young. And as I’ve mention previously to you, there are many different dating methods that work on different clocks and different principals, and all point to the same magnitude of age. Not one method of dating supports the young Earth view.

<<Unless someone invents a time machine, the standard of proof will not be by direct observation.>>

As I’ve pointed out before, this is a very narrow and naïve understanding of what “observation” is in a scientific context. We can observe things in many ways. The most unreliable way is to observe it directly. Experiments and tests have shown that eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable method of finding out what occurred at a particular point in the past.

Like I said once before, I think those who have been convicted based heavily on eyewitness testimony, and then later released when science and technology eventually proved them to be innocent would have something to say about your assertion that eyewitness testimony is the most reliable way to determine what happened in the past.

<<You [Pericles] say that it is the job of the scientists to allow for all possibilities, not merely the ones that appeal to their belief systems. So ought not geologists be open to the idea that the rocks are relatively young?>>

Absolutely.

The problem is, that none of the evidence supports the idea, so it is abandoned in accordance with the scientific method.

One problem though, Dan, Athiesm, the acceptance of evolution and/or the view that the Earth is very old, is not a “belief system”. The only belief system here is religion, and a scientist cannot conclude that the Earth is ancient based on a belief system, if this said “belief system” does not exist in the first place.

More observation than accusation, really, Mr Viljoen.

>>If you’re accusing me of being ‘subtle or tricky’, all I can say is that that wasn’t my aim.<<

Verbal sleight-of-hand is your stock-in-trade. I've already pointed out this one:

“For scientific pioneers such as Isaac Newton, it was integrated into their thinking. 'The most beautiful system of the sun, planet and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and domination of an intelligent and powerful Being.'”

You offer this as a sly suggestion that Newton's spirituality informed his science, when in fact it merely suggests that he was a somewhat spiritual individual. It is perfectly possible, feasible and quite unexceptional for a scientist to be religious, measured on a range extending from mild to intense.

However, when examining rocks to determine their age, all scientists will leave their religious beliefs - if any - at the door, and concentrate on the observable facts before them.

>>So ought not geologists be open to the idea that the rocks are relatively young?<<

Well of course they ought. And are.

Which is why, when they determine that some rocks were formed four billion years ago, they invariably back it up with science.

>>Until this happens, the discussions will indeed be separate<<

At least we can agree on that.

Which, of course, renders any discussion between Dawkins and Wieland totally pointless, does it not.

What is religion?
Ever since the dawn of time the leaders of tribes have invented Gods and religions to manipulate and control the tribe with primal fear and superstition, greed and self interest, an estimated 2500 of them, thats what religion is. The leader always being the only one that can see or speak to the God! When the leader goes off to pillage the neighboring tribes because he claims this God has told him to spread the faith, he appoints priests as his middlemen and invents dogma to follow under pain of death, any whim that comes into their heads, they write them down and call it a Holy Book!
Then it is written!
This is just one example of this man made dogma! They tell you what to eat, wear, read even if you can have sex or not (catholic Priests and Nuns), what contraceptives you cannot use, medicines, science, who your enemies are and who to smite out, what people and books to burn. They build churches to control and continue the delusion and schools to divide from, segregate and indoctrinate the children into the various religious brand names, with the most ridiculous lies ever invented, they even use our taxes to do it in this country, illegal any where else.
But it all comes down to whether or not your prepared to resist and stand up for what is the true meaning of life, FREEDOM FROM RELIGION! Will you go silently off into the night and allow the religious cults to oppress you, that is the question for all religiously oppressed people. There is an atheist convention in Melbourne in March, get involved or stay oppressed? This country is moving closer every year to becoming a theocracy just like Iran. Have a read of Marion Maddox's book, "God under Howard the rise of the religious right in Australian politics", the coalition parties are completely controlled by the religious right, every institute, society and foundation!

If you want to see how the Christian religion and most other religions were invented go to. "Truth be known" or U TUBE, "Zeitgeist religion"!

HFR is spot on.

Check out this site to see how they squeeze tax money for their priests to go into public schools and spread their brand of belief under the guise of 'helping' the students:
http://www.australiansecularlobby.com/index.html

See this one which explains why Queensland is such a backward place still:
http://www.thefourthr.info/

"Until this happens, the discussions will indeed be separate"
Oops.
As Pericles pointed out, you appear to have answered your own question, Dan.

AJ,
Thanks for the welcome back, except that I didn’t realise that I’d gone anywhere.

You consider eye witness observation relatively unreliable. So can I ask, which was more reliable in arriving at the truth in the matter of the disappearance of Azaria Chamberlain, the eyewitness accounts of the people who were there on the night or the chemical laboratories that got involved?

Colinsett,
With time machines, I was referring to time travel, which is a concept of science fiction (have you seen the Eric Bana movie, the Time Traveller’s Wife?) I wasn’t referring to clocks, sophisticated or otherwise, that measure elapsed time.

The question I was raising was ‘standard of proof’. When do we declare that something is proven?

Dear Pericles,
Dealing with specifics is fine, but I’m getting a bit bored with the colourful adjectives (sly, sleight of hand, etc.) that seem intent on denigration rather than constructive comment, and won’t be responding to those in future.

You say that, when making scientific examinations, all scientists will leave their religious beliefs - if any - at the door. If we’re going to be fair, I think we might include non-religious beliefs also? Yet I’m not sure how that is exactly possible. Our beliefs form part of our thinking process, and are implicated into our preconceptions and theorising. My assertion is that the concept of a higher intelligence was integrated into Newton’s thinking. And not only Newton’s but many of the pioneers of what we call Western science.

Therefore, we should not feel compelled to relegate the idea of higher intelligence to a place outside of science, or ‘leave it at the door’, so to speak. Newton evidently didn’t.

So we concentrate on the observable facts before us, and allow for all possibilities. And if the evidence points to a young earth or and old earth, then so be it. This is where a debate could begin. (And by the way, from your requirement that only geologists who have expertise in interpreting rocks may be involved, neither Dawkins nor Wieland qualifies.)

Dan,

Thanks for your response, but you’ve conveniently skimmed over my point about the scientific method, which rendered the rest or your post null, void and irrelevant.

<<You consider eye witness observation relatively unreliable.>>

More so any expert on the matter. Never mind me.

<<So can I ask, which was more reliable in arriving at the truth in the matter of the disappearance of Azaria Chamberlain, the eyewitness accounts of the people who were there on the night or the chemical laboratories that got involved>>

A few points...

Firstly, you’ll find rare exceptions to most scenarios, but rare exceptions bare little weight in comparison to the overwhelming majority of cases.

Secondly, in comparison to the overwhelming evidence for evolution, the scientific evidence in the Chamberlain case was so scant it was just about non-existent.

And thirdly, there was much more to the conviction than the chemical evidence. Media bias played a major part in influencing the verdict.

But before you mention any biases with scientists, remember that the scientific method real scientists adhere to ensures that biases don’t play a part in any interpretation by requiring that scientists exhaust all attempts to contradict the data. Unlike Creation “scientists” who have statements of faith proclaiming that all evidence that contradicts the Bible must be disregarded:

“6. By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.” (http://creation.com/what-we-believe)

So your ‘Azaria Chamberlain’ example, as well as your frequently mentioned paradigm claim (which I have discredited numerous times before), are both irrelevant.

I hope this also covers the following addressed to Pericles...

<<You [Pericles] say that, when making scientific examinations, all scientists will leave their religious beliefs - if any - at the door. If we’re going to be fair, I think we might include non-religious beliefs also? Yet I’m not sure how that is exactly possible...>>

Answer?

The scientific method.

Continued...

...Continued

<<So we concentrate on the observable facts before us, and allow for all possibilities. And if the evidence points to a young earth or and old earth, then so be it. This is where a debate could begin. >>

Only there is no point in debating something that has already been settled - completely, conclusively and unequivocally. It gives the impression that the topic hasn’t yet been settled. It doesn't matter if the Creation "scientist" loses the debate, if the debate alone has helped create the sense that there still is a debate, then that's good enough for the Creation "scientist".

Creation "scientists" are so up against it evidence-wise, they've given up on winning the debate with evidence, they're now content to simply create a sense of confusion and doubt amongst the general public.

CJ Morgan’s Mark Twain quote was also spot-on if you’re looking for a reason as to why Creation “scientists” are hard-pressed finding a debating partner:

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

Anyway, could you please point to some evidence that the Earth and universe are less than 10,000 years old?

I would appreciate this, especially since you failed to address my point in an earlier thread about how we observe either an ancient Earth, or a deceitful Young Earth Creationist’s God in the contrast between the Rocky Mountains’ static height and deterioration, and the continual rising of the Himalayas.

Thank you.

Arguments about a "young Earth" can effectively comprise a moot point - as there are so many Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists etc - who reject literalism. To put up the example of belief in a 'young Earth' - is to a degree 'setting up a straw man'. And as I argued earlier - in the past we were unaware of different spectrums of light, soundwaves etc... By the same token - it stands to reason that there may be aspects of existence that most of us are unaware of.

And if there is a mystery to be understood behind creation stories - stories which are not meant to be taken literally - then what good to reject these out of hand just because we do not understand for now?

And yes: many of you would say - "Why should I believe in something I do not understand and cannot perceive?" But past experience in human history ought demonstrate that even if we do not understand - that is not a rationale for rejecting ideas out of hand. When the Greeks came up with the idea of atoms in ancient times they could not prove this hypothesis. But 20th Century science vindicated the position.

I am always bemused by fundamentalists (but never amused - too scary) who reject the science which explains evolution. Yet these same people hold no reservations against using the products that scientific thought, research and testing created. They have never shunned the science-given technology which enables them to proselytise.

There is nothing wrong with questioning scientific theory - that is what science does. However, slapping 'supernatural putty' into the areas science has yet to understand only builds a wall of ignorance.

Does Carl Weiland refrain from using computers, telephones, cars, airplanes, trains, microwave ovens? Does he eschew medicine, surgery or nursing aid when unwell? Much of modern medicine would not be as effective without an understanding of evolution which lead to gene technology. The next time he bites into an apple will he think of the agriculture behind that juicy, crunchy bite? The observable evolution that is farming?

To be sure, Dawkins is wise by rejecting arguing with a fool.

Severin,
From what I’ve heard, Carl Wieland’s formal qualifications are in medicine and surgery.

I’d like to know what your scientific qualifications are, sufficient to give you the right to speak so disparagingly about this person.

Do you claim to understand gene technology better than him?

I call it as I see it, Mr Viljoen.

>>Dealing with specifics is fine, but I’m getting a bit bored with the colourful adjectives (sly, sleight of hand, etc.) that seem intent on denigration rather than constructive comment<<

In this context they are themselves constructive comment.

You argue with insinuation, rather than fact. By refraining from being specific, you avoid the direct response "that's nonsense". Instead you rely on the reader to draw the inferences themselves, and who in doing so, take a level of responsibility for the statement.

By saying, as you did,...

“For scientific pioneers such as Isaac Newton, it was integrated into their thinking. 'The most beautiful system of the sun, planet and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and domination of an intelligent and powerful Being.'”

...you are able to dodge any charge of allocating religious roots to Newton's work, even though that is clearly your intended implication.

An honest approach would be to state "Christianity informed Newton's discoveries", which can easily be rebutted. Your method is devious, and well deserves the description "tricky".

Which is the same manner in which you approach the atheism vs. creationist debate. Your insinuation that atheism must have something to hide...

"Wieland requests a public debate on the topic of which viewpoint, creation or evolution, is best represented by the empirical evidence. Nicholls is quick to dismiss the request"

...stops short of a direct accusation, since that is easily rejected. This is at the heart of my accusation that you are indulging in sophistry, under cover of some superficially plausible lead-in observations on "truth being the first casualty of war"

Which truth is that, Mr Viljoen?

You intention is to conflate geology with religious beliefs, in an attempt to place the two on an equal "scientific" footing.

" the two positions, being philosophically poles apart, will also remain rooms apart during Melbourne’s leafy autumn. Why must this be?"

Not merely "philosophically" poles apart. They are completely separate lines of reasoning.

As you well know. So I might add specious to the list, just to round it out nicely.

Dan S. M.

You do understand what a rhetorical question is don't you?

Of course Wieland does not eschew the fruits of science, anymore than your good self, as you are here, writing on this blog.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Wieland applies deliberate ignorance to support his fundamental religious beliefs. Many Christians, with the exclusion of your good self and Wieland can accept the best of what their religion has to offer without remaining mired in a literal interpretation of the bible.

My background, BTW, is in Environmental Science and given Wieland's predilection to wilfully ignore the massive body of evidence of evolution produced in the past and to date, I posit that I do understand gene technology better than he.

Dan,

<<From what I’ve heard, Carl Wieland’s formal qualifications are in medicine and surgery.>>

You are dangerously approaching the ‘Argument from Authority’ fallacy here.

<<I’d like to know what your [Severin’s] scientific qualifications are, sufficient to give you the right to speak so disparagingly about this person.>>

It doesn’t matter whether or not others have the knowledge of genes that Wieland has, here's why...

“6. By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.” (http://creation.com/what-we-believe)

The above renders any of Wieland’s knowledge irrelevant.

I’m a bit surprised you would insinuate that an intelligent, articulate and well respected regular to OLO such as Pericles would actually have to resort to denigration. Pericles is simply making the same observations I have always made.

From what I’ve seen, the only ones who have no choice but to resort to denigration are Creationists. This is made evident in their ad hominems designed to smear Darwin’s name by falsely claiming that he advocated eugenics as was done in the documentary, Expelled (omitted lines - again - between the ’>><<’)...

”With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated;

>>and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health.<<

We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick;

>>we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox.<<

Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.

Continued...

...Continued

>>It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself,<<

hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

[End quote]

Or the attempt by those at creation.com to make it appear as though Darwin had no compassion by modifying the same quote slightly differently...

”The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil ... We must, therefore, bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.”

[End quote]

Anyway, I’m still waiting for a reply to the question in my last post. What is the evidence for a young Earth? If you think that Creationism deserves a level playing field with evolution, then surely there’s a truck load of evidence that you could mention... Or can we agree that Creationism doesn’t deserve a level playing field?

On another note, if world views play such an important role in determining how we interpret facts, then what is the Creation “scientist’s” interpretation of the contrast between the Rockies and the Himalayas that gives most impression that the Earth is very old?

Or can we finally agree that your paradigm argument is bunkum?

Thanks again.

A J Phillips, and others, perhaps you could find an answer from the Qld Education Minister, Mr. Geoff Wilson, and his Qld Studies Authority, both of whom allow, indeed encourage, the teaching of ID and Creationism in science in Qld state schools.

This is a hangover from National Party guru, Mr. Lin Powell, Ed Qld minister from about 1985, who actually required this to be taught.

The requirement has gone, but the Church heavy QSA refuses to declare ID and Creationism as bunkum, and allows individual teachers to make up their own mind about what to teach, so long as the basic QSA requirement is met.

The state calls itself 'the smart state' mind you.

I do encourage everyone reading this to write to the QSA and the EQ minister to see what they have to say.

This is particularly important when the idea of a 'national curriculum' is considered.

Will ID and Creationism be a part of it, along with the current EQ curriculum on Bible Lessons, taught by the class room teacher, for Y1-Y7, as Abbott has been demanding for all schools?

Gillard has refused to rule this out, so the Qld disease may well move to infect the rest of Australia if Ed Qld and the QSA is not challenged by others from within, and without, the state and Gillard caves in to this anti-Enlightenment sentiment that pock-marks our education system like a rabid mental pox.

Blue Cross,

That’s absolutely shocking. I live in Queensland, and when my children are old enough, I will be giving them full permission to leave the classroom and come home if their science teacher starts to mention Creationism as if it were a valid theory.

I will also remind them that just because something (i.e. religion) might make you feel good, it doesn’t mean it’s true. I believe that if many of today’s religious people were taught this at a young age, we wouldn’t have the amount of religious people we have today.

Dan,

Speaking of the quotes I mentioned in my last post, why is it that they change on slightly on http://creation.com/ everytime I mention them on OLO?

You’ve made some comments over the years that have hinted towards the idea that you may be good friends with the “scientists” (sic) at creation.com.

Are you telling them that they should modify the deliberately misleading quotes that I get from there like some sort of informant?

For example, the misleading quote I took from creation.com that tried to imply that Darwin had no compassion (which I previously had simply copied and pasted from the last post that I mentioned it (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#151832)) has recently changed to include the complete paragraph that was butchered in that documentary that you thought was a “Hoot”, you know... the one that takes the serious tragedy of the Nazi Holocaust and uses it in a cheap and sickening attempt to make it sound like evolution was to blame for it all (as if that had any bearing on the truth of the matter).

Also, the misleading ‘Darwin Vs Compassion’ quote at creation.com has lost some of its impact now that I’ve forced it to include more of the quote (http://creation.com/darwin-versus-compassion), but it still includes the ellipses and the line that has been worded completely differently to how Darwin worded it - so it’s still dishonest.

Continued...

...Continued

Oh and then there’s the Richard Lewontin quote that we mentioned a year or so ago (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7353#119074).

Remember?

I noticed that only days after mentioning it, the slimy creatures at creation.com added the following paragraph (which I had previously noted was missing (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#120922)) that helped to put what Lewontin was saying into context, and hence weakening the impact of the misleading quote (http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote).

I guess those at Creation Ministries were hoping that the readers of creation.com were so pre-conditioned to believe what they read on that site that they ignored the last paragraph of that quote. Not to mention the paragraphs before and after that quote that help to put it all into context.

You know Dan; I gave you the benefit of the doubt at first (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7353#118941); thinking you were just some innocent victim of these Creation ”scientists”, then I started to clue on to the fact that you were not only brainwashed by them, but you had become one of them... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#121938

So much so now that you’re informing creationist websites of the deceit that I’ve spotted and getting them to alter the deceit rather than remove it entirely.

For Shame!

But I guess if the trash at creation.com were to truly remove their deceit entirely, then the domain name “creation.com” would be freed up for someone else to use.

Anyway, I know you're a busy man, so I'll await patiently for your response to my earlier questions, and I apologise if I've jumped the gun here.

AJ Phillips... good luck with your children in a Qld state school. I think you will find that from the enrolment form in 'prep' to the end of Y12 you will be fighting off evangelical fruitcake pricipals, teachers, P&C members while your children will be mixing it with the children of parents who abandon them to Scrioture Union camps every holiday while they go off to work.

The underhand practice you outline in the rest of your post is precisely what Ed Qld does when they receive a complaint.

They have removed the ability to find any up to date paper documents on policy and simply adjust the web based one whenever they are caught out doing the wrong thing.

So easy to adjust the web 'blog' policy to reflect the new position, making the complaint invalid.

We have pdfs of the policy changes in one area, prior to our complaint and then after, when the rules were changed to allow the previously 'not on'.

The minister is a raving Christo, the DG boasts of her faith on her EQ web page... the curriculum writers are these people plus the churches.... the QTU remains totally silent and has a member supporting it all on the ministers religious 'advisory' committee, REAC, even while they are supposed to be supporting 'secular public schools'.

They do not at all, any more than the AEU does.

The only way to make Qld a 'smart state' is to prevent these fundie Xtians from running the system, have Bligh legislate to make state schools 'secular'-which she absolutely refuses to do- and have parents demand that even the policy EQ has now is adhered to.

I'd be happy if Gillard took the control of EQ away from Qld as part of her (non existent) Education Revolution and gave it even to NSW to run.

It's all here:http://www.thefourthr.info/

And here:http://www.australiansecularlobby.com/index.html

AJ,
You have jumped the gun a bit.

I have met some of the contributors to creation.com. However, my main relationship with them is, like you, that I read the website. I’ve always found it accurate, informative and enlightening. (Thanks for bringing it to people’s attention.)

Am I informing creation.com? No, I’ve barely had any communication with them. They don’t need my input. Many of the regular contributors to creation.com have PhDs in fields relevant to evolution, and their knowledge of current science goes well beyond mine.

If you see anything there in need of correction, they would welcome you writing to them. As any good scientist, they know of the need to make updates and amendments.

Quotes can be revealing. It is important that they are accurate. It is also good to consider their context. So I commend you for having researched those quotes. (And as for sons, they usually follow their fathers. So if your son is like you, and was ever confronted by something that challenged his usual precepts, I’d imagine he’d research it properly rather than run out of the room. After research, even if you still don’t agree with something, at least then you’d know why. I’d definitely encourage my son to follow that practice.)

Thanks for again highlighting what was written by Richard Lewontin. It was an amazing admission of philosophical bias.

I think you’ve misunderstood the significance of the passages from Darwin’s ‘Descent of Man’. People highlighted it, not because it makes Darwin seem without compassion, but to show how closely Darwin’s ideas lend themselves to social Darwinism and its consequent abuses.

Thanks for your opinion on the movie ‘Expelled’. I still think the film was a hoot. It was well researched, and cleverly communicated some of the important issues going on here. It had a great reaction.

As for your other questions about the Himalayas, etc., if you really want some information and interaction of opinion, then you might be in agreement with me that the big boys should debate it when they all come to Melbourne in March.

You have to admit, though, all those sudden additions and alterations to the creation.com web site are remarkably coincidental, are they not, Mr Viljoen?

>>I have met some of the contributors to creation.com... Am I informing creation.com? No, I’ve barely had any communication with them<<

So, you have met the folks involved, and have been in communication with them. When you next have a chat with them, you might point out the remarkably flimsy evidence that characterises their website.

"It should thus not be surprising, although it is for many people, that most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. The list of creationist scientists is impressive<<

I only briefly researched a couple - using only creationist input - but found their "evidence" lacked substance.

The closest Boyle gets to creationism is that he was a "a Bible-believing Christian".

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i1/chemistry.asp

Similarly, Meadows reporting on Faraday stated "He doesn’t mention it explicitly, but this favorable view of science could only have been derived from a commitment to the Biblical doctrine of creation"

"Could only have been?" Surely, that is mere speculation?

It even led to the question "why are references to God, the Bible, Jesus Christ, creation, or any other Biblical theme so rare in Faraday’s scientific writings?". Instead of simply pointing out that religion and science are entirely separate issues, they blamed his reticence on Faraday's personal sect, the Sandemanians..."To what extent was Faraday influenced by his closed-door, uninvolved church?"

Charles Babbage, too, turns out to be an Intelligent Designer, rather than a creationist.

"Babbage strongly supported the pre-Darwinian belief in Natural Theology, the proposition... that design in nature demands a Designer"

http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_3.htm

What he clearly didn't believe in was Creationism.

"To Babbage, the existence of fossils and geological strata provided a clear, unmistakeable record of vast ages of time that was so obvious, one would have to make leave of his senses to deny it."

Creationists seem to rely upon sleight-of-hand (there, it's that "colourful adjective" again) to make any kind of case for their beliefs.

An atheist/creationist debate wouldn't even be entertaining. Merely embarrassing.

Pericles,
I’m glad that you too have discovered the creation.com website. It’s becoming a popular destination for OLO readers.

I’ve had the pleasure to meet some of the contributors to the creation.com website when they have come to Melbourne to do public presentations. But no, I am not their source of information. As I said previously, they don’t need my input. Their numbers include some highly qualified research scientists.

And as I said, it is good if they often edit and update their website. It shows they're on the ball. They’re open to input and correction.

My only correspondence I remember having with them was once writing a query to the editor of their print magazine (not the website), and once I submitted a short article. With the query, they clarified their position without changing anything. And with the article, they didn’t print it, saying it wasn’t what they were wanting at the time.

While we’re talking about them, they will be holding a public presentation here in Melbourne on the same weekend as the Atheist Global Convention. One of the presenters will be Dr Jonathan Sarfati, the author of ‘Refuting Evolution’, possibly the world’s best selling creationist book. I believe in March he will be releasing his next book, ‘The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on evolution’.

So I’m guessing the offer to debate still stands.

You raise the issue of whether creationists can justify their claim that the founders of most modern scientific disciplines were creationists.

By your own admission, Boyle (chemistry) was a Bible believing Christian. Creation is detailed on page 1 of the Bible.

Similarly, Faraday (electromagnetism) was a strong believer and church elder. I doubt Faraday was ever persuaded by Darwin’s writings (ball’s in your court).

To be sure, Babbage (early computing pioneer) was not a biblical creationist, but still a creationist in a broad sense (intelligent design).

This list could get very long, very quickly.

The point here is that Christian faith is no barrier to good science; at least it wasn’t to the founders of most scientific disciplines.

Maybe, Dan, what it shows is that otherwise intelligent and rational people suspend their analytical thought processes when it comes to 'religion', and the backbone of 'religion' takes over...'faith'?

Once 'faith' kicks in, there is no room for questioning. The D9 blade pushes reason aside, and the tracks grind it in the dirt.

But in these people, I suspect they simply kept their science brain and the 'faith' brain apart from each other, preventing the 'faith' side from intruding at all in what they were doing.

After all, why would there be a need to question anything if it is all laid out already?

There is no need to seek anything at all in the world of science, if you have 'faith'.

So, perhaps their 'faith' was never quite as strong as some here would like to believe?

"Discovered", Mr Viljoen?

>>I’m glad that you too have discovered the creation.com website. It’s becoming a popular destination for OLO readers.<<

It is a popular destination for creationists, so by definition becomes part of one's research.

In exactly the same way, surely, that http://www.darwiniana.org/ is a highly active bookmark on your own browser?

That would be right, wouldn't it?

By the way, I am genuinely sure it was coincidence. There's no need to defend yourself so earnestly...

>>no, I am not their source of information... they don’t need my input... My only correspondence I remember having with them was once writing a query to the editor... and once I submitted a short article.<<

It's OK, I believe you. Relax. Any further protestations will, however, be taken as a sign of a guilty conscience.

Now, don't try to be cute.

>>Boyle (chemistry) was a Bible believing Christian. Creation is detailed on page 1 of the Bible.<<

You would have us believe that all "Bible-believing Christians" are creationists? That's pretty much of an insult to the millions of Christians who are not Creationists, but "believe" the Bible.

Of which it would appear there are quite a few

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3445

If Boyle had been described as a "Bible literalist", I'd be entirely disposed to accept that he was a creationist.

And this is just silly.

>>I doubt Faraday was ever persuaded by Darwin’s writings (ball’s in your court).<<

You can doubt all you wish, but that will not make it so. There is no evidence that Faraday even read Origin of the Species. It wasn't published until after his retirement, and there is no record of his opinion. If he even had one.

>>To be sure, Babbage (early computing pioneer) was not a biblical creationist, but still a creationist in a broad sense (intelligent design).<<

Oh, great. So someone who states categorically that he agrees with fossil records showing the earth's age, can still be a creationist?

>>This list could get very long, very quickly.<<

Given the laxity of your definitions, you would probably also be able to stretch it to include Dawkins.

Pericles,
I don’t know why you would expect me to feel guilty.

I’m guilty of some kind of association? If that’s your accusation, that I associate myself with those of creation.com, then I happily plead guilty.

If your argument is otherwise, could you make it clear, because it’s really lacking substance.

Similarly, many of the founders of modern scientific disciplines were happy to associate themselves with the Bible. As we have already discussed, for people like Boyle, Faraday, Newton, (maybe not so clear with Babbage), their faith was not a side issue, or compartmentalised into the back of their brain, as Blue Cross suggests. They were quite earnest about it.

I agree definitions are important. I’m happy to work some out with you. But many times on these pages, I have had it suggested that intelligent design is just a form of creationism. They usually say ID is ‘creationism in a cheap tuxedo’. If you want to believe they are totally different beasts, then I think you’ll find yourself out of step with people like AJPhilips.

I understand that many Christians today don’t accept an historical Genesis. Yet this was the standard interpretation given by all scholars, including Jesus, the New Testament writers, virtually everyone up until the times of Lyell and Darwin, current Hebrew linguists, and any ten year old kid who ever read it.

Blue Cross asks, “Why would there be a need to question anything if it is all laid out already?” An interesting question. I might ask why should scientists expect to discover an order in the universe if they did not first presuppose that it had had order imposed onto it by an orderly creator?

Well, at least this is how many of the founders of modern science thought about it. For example, the inventor of the theory of planetary orbits, Johannes Kepler, considered himself ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’.

As I said, this list of these scientific pioneers could get long, very quickly. A proper understanding of God and theology does not inhibit research, rather (historically) it has inspired it.

Michael Viljoen

Of course you don't Mr Viljoen.

>>Pericles, I don’t know why you would expect me to feel guilty<<

And there's little point in my explaining to you, either.

>>for people like Boyle, Faraday, Newton, (maybe not so clear with Babbage), their faith was not a side issue<<

No did I suggest for a moment that it was a "side issue". I am well aware that religion was a dominant force in society for many centuries. As recently as my parents' generation, churchgoing was an automatic Sunday occurrence. That does not make either parent a creationist. Nor a believer in Intelligent Design.

>>If you want to believe they [creationism and ID] are totally different beasts, then I think you’ll find yourself out of step with people like AJPhilips.<<

I do believe they are separate beliefs. And being "out of step" doesn't concern me.

The creationist believes specifically in a "young" earth whose age can be measured using biblical timelines (i.e., "follow the begats").

ID proponents are happy to accept any convenient, or expedient, timeline, but reject evolution, i.e. insist that we were all "designed" the way we are.

But you knew that, didn't you? You are simply arguing for argument's sake.

>>I agree definitions are important.<<

So perhaps you would be good enough to provide your own definitions, of creationsim and ID. I've shown you mine, now you show me yours.

You suggest that I am "out of step" with AJ Phillips, perhaps you would also provide a short list of people you believe are "in step" with your own views?

>>many Christians today don’t accept an historical Genesis. Yet this was the standard interpretation given by all scholars, including Jesus, the New Testament writers, virtually everyone up until the times of Lyell and Darwin, current Hebrew linguists, and any ten year old kid who ever read it.<<

You're safe on the last one. I doubt there are many ten-year-old kids outside creationist households who have actually read the Bible.

But do feel free to expand on the "current Hebrew linguists" who believe the Bible to be literally true.

Who they?

Pericles

Hang on.... "You would have us believe that all "Bible-believing Christians" are creationists? That's pretty much of an insult to the millions of Christians who are not Creationists, but "believe" the Bible."

But isn't that what 'being a Christian' means?

There is no room to pick and choose from the Bible, this is true, this is a metaphor, this is not true, surely?

If one is a Christian, it goes without saying that the Bible is The Truth, and it is as infallible as the Pope is on birth control and not sacking priests who 'lose their way' with children (all the time-especially in the USA and Eire/6 Counties).

To suggest it is possible to be a Christian and not believe the Bible.... somehow... that just does not compute.

I suppose Spong has tried to do that, but he ends up sounding like a decent humanist with a side bet on heaven.

It's all, or nothing, at least as far as calling oneself a 'Christian' goes.

I am sure there are other titles to be used that allow for some not-quite-sure-but-I-think-there-might-be-something-there type of vague thinking that will allow for some form of god, but clearly not 'God'.

Of course, after a while, if the Bible is not to be believed in its entirety, one has to wonder just what is being believed in, and why, by people who call themselves 'Christian' yet do not allow themselves to embrace all of it with absolute 'faith'.

I'd be inclined to think they are either kidding themselves, or are just cultural Christians who have no real connection to the belief system at all but are unable to be honest with themselves and stand upright ready to be counted as... well, 'something else'

Okay then, Dan. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. But I find it too difficult to believe it was just a coincidence, so I’ll assume that someone from creation.com is a regular reader of OLO and read my posts.

Moving on... reverse psychology doesn’t work on adults...

<<Thanks for bringing [creation.com] to people’s attention.>>

The only attention brought to it by me reveals the inaccuracies and deliberate misinformation.

<<So if your son is like you, and was ever confronted by something that challenged his usual precepts, I’d imagine he’d research it properly rather than run out of the room.>>

There is enough misleading information out there from the noisy Creationist minority for anyone to hear the other side of the story.

“There are no transitional fossils”;
“Evolution is like is like claiming that a hurricane in a junk yard could form a 747”;
“The chances of life forming by itself are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1”;
“Mutations are never seen to add information to the genome”;
“The Grand Canyon could have been carved out by the Flood”;
“The depth of fossils found in strata is consistent with the creature’s ability to escape the rising waters of the Flood”.

All of which are demonstrably false.

Teaching religious belief as though it were on equal footing with legitimate science is wrong on so many levels.

<<Thanks for again highlighting what was written by Richard Lewontin. It was an amazing admission of philosophical bias.>>

The word “admission” is used here to make it appear as though there is something to hide, when in fact most, if not all scientists would agree with Lewontin.

If science showed that the universe and life appeared abruptly 6,000 years ago, then so be it. But the divine could never enter the realm of science as science deals with the natural, not the supernatural.

And again, reverse psychology won’t work.

Continued...

...Continued

<<People highlighted [the passages from Darwin’s ‘Descent of Man’], not because it makes Darwin seem without compassion, but to show how closely Darwin’s ideas lend themselves to social Darwinism and its consequent abuses.>>

So what does that have to do with the science then? And if that’s the case, then why re-word the quotes and take them out-of-context?

C’mon Dan, you know as well as I do that it’s designed to make people feel sick from the very thought of evolution.

Creationists are so lacking in the evidence department, they’re forced to play on the emotions of others instead of dealing with the facts.

As was done in Expelled...

<<Thanks for your opinion on the movie ‘Expelled’.>>

Facts, Dan, not opinions. Although my opinion of Expelled still shows quite clearly so, you’re welcome.

<<[Expelled] was well researched...>>

So well research, in fact, that it:

-Attacked evolution without even bothering to define it;
-Confused abiogenesis with evolution;
-Claimed that abiogenesis meant believing that a complex cell just sprang into existence;
-Twisted the facts about the dismissals in an attempt to create martyrs where martyrdom did not exist.

<<...and cleverly communicated some of the important issues going on here.>>

Stein couldn’t even get a simple quote right. Or did you mean “clever” - as in sneaky and devious?

<<As for your other questions about the Himalayas, etc...>>

Please don’t dodge and weave. It’s most unhelpful.

Can you give any evidence for a young Earth? You should have plenty of references at creation.com

Then we can see just how it “accurate, informative and enlightening” creation.com really is.

Thanks.

P.S. For what it’s worth, I agree with the differences Pericles has pointed out between Creationism and ID, although I would add: “happy to accept any deity” as well.

The problem I have with ID, is that it was pre-dominantly an attempt to sneak religious belief through the backdoor and into science classes - bypassing the separation of church and state - by taking out references to any specific God.

Although I’m not sure what the significance in Pericles being out-of-step with me is.

Pericles,
It’s true that ten-year-olds today don’t read very much. Apart from compulsory school reading, my ten-year-old mostly only reads the TV guide and instructions for computer games. But that’s another story.

You ask for my definitions of those words. I pretty much agree with a lot of what you’ve said in your definitions. And I’m sorry for saying you and AJ would be out of step when apparently you are not. You are both saying that ID is different from creationism.

A word like ‘creationist’, as you say, can be used very generally. If it means someone who thinks God created the world, then it would include virtually all Christians (as well as many other people), as all Christians hold some kind of doctrine of creation. Many mix evolution in there somewhere or somehow.

I define a Biblical creationist as someone who accepts Genesis as history, with a relatively young earth, global flood, and all humans descending from Adam and Eve, etc.

This is what you read about in the OT and NT.

As I understand, any Hebrew scholar at any mainstream university will tell you that this is what the language of Genesis is attempting to communicate, even if they don’t believe it themselves. Any ten-year-old will also probably interpret it accurately, but might or might not believe it.

Intelligent design is more divorced from the Bible and finds its origins in natural theology. One good definition for modern ID is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence. The SETI project (supported by Carl Sagan) might well fit under this category.

Blue Cross seems to understand the issues better than most with his ‘all or nothing’ type attitude. Despite how most Christians apply it, that is the way the Bible presents itself. As CS Lewis once said (not a word for word quote) in the context of a man crucified and then rising from the dead, ‘Christianity is either marvellously true or hopelessly wrong. What it will never be is a little bit true.’

Now the term creationist is sometimes used as shorthand for Biblical creationist, as I’ve defined it above. This use of shorthand happens in various places. It happens in magazines, it happens in newspapers, it happens here, and it happens on the creation.com website.

I don’t think creation.com could be accused of conflating their definitions or equivocation, as they clearly set out their position in various places on their website.

What the Bible appears to be saying is how is was understood, by ordinary people and by nearly all scholars up until around the nineteenth Century.

To what extent those of faith renounced their acceptance of an historical Genesis, especially in the nineteenth and early twentieth Centuries before the modern creationist movement began to grow, may be an interesting investigation. Mendel may be a good case in point. But overall, the claim that most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation is easily defensible.

Here's a perfect example of why Dawkins is not silly enough to be edited to look ignorant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHaSZtf5I1k

More lies from desperate Creationists. Dawkins is explaining Panspermia:

http://leiwenwu.tripod.com/panspermia.htm

Then goes on to say, such an intelligence - that can seed life - may be seen by primitive humans - like Christians - as magical or a deity.

He also stresses, that any such intelligence, being of flying fart with flip flops must indeed only arise via Evolution.

Man - I love how God employs cheats and liars to impart His Dread Sovereign Message.

I read your last couple of posts very carefully, Mr Viljoen. Sadly, I couldn't find much of a connection between what you are now saying, and the key points of our previous discussions. I'd hate to conclude that you were simply indulging in verbal flummery, but that is becoming a distinct possibility.

>>I define a Biblical creationist as someone who accepts Genesis as history, with a relatively young earth, global flood, and all humans descending from Adam and Eve, etc.<<

Yep. Me too.

Which is why I have to disagree completely with your statement:

>>But overall, the claim that most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation is easily defensible.<<

Far from it.

All the examples you have presented are, to a greater or lesser extent, of professed Christians. That is, folk who professed a belief in a Christian God, and in religious ritual, and prayer, and attending church (some of them).

What it does not demonstrate is that any of these folk was, as you yourself describe here, a "Biblical creationist".

As you are very well aware, it is entirely possible to a) be religious, b) align your beliefs with Christianity, c) go to church regularly and d) indulge in prayer, without the additional intellectual baggage of believing in a young earth.

This is also puzzling.

You assert that "current Hebrew linguists... accept an historical Genesis"

You justify this with:

>>As I understand, any Hebrew scholar at any mainstream university will tell you that this is what the language of Genesis is attempting to communicate, even if they don’t believe it themselves<<

This is straight from the "answersingenesis" school of thought, that posits: because the language construction indicates a "factual" narrative, it must be describing "facts".

However, there are many "Hebrew linguists" who avoid such simplistic assumptions, and illustrate the sheer complexity of the task of drawing a specific, unique meaning from such an ancient set of texts.

I can recommend to you "The text of Genesis 1-11: textual studies and critical edition" By Ronald S. Hendel, as an illustration of the folly of over-simplification.

Though not remembering everything written of in this topic, I've read every one of the posts. Here, as elsewhere, I've encountered a situation that needs some explanation.

A response from both sides would be welcome.

[a] Religious faith is constantly pandering to science for morsels of scientific confirmation while vilifying it for providing so much that is in conflict with religious faith. Reciprocity has never been a feature of this one-sided "relationship".

[b] Religious faith pleads for a level playing field [mentioned several times in this topic] in the ongoing argument, indicating that it is at the lower end of the field. It seems to me that the faithful, so certain of their rectitude, should be magnanimously offering to level the field for the beleaguered team uneducated in faith.

In both issues the deficiencies of faith in the real world are being tacitly acknowledged by the faithful. By parasitising science and belittling that which is not susceptible of contrivance, by striving for science's imprimatur, they unequivocally acknowledge religious faith's inferiority

Grim writes,
<I don't know why the atheists declined to debate the creationists.>

In fact you do know why.

Creationists are constantly seeking forums to parasitise some of science's standing in society. By atheists/scientists engaging with them, an implied legitimacy is conferred on creationism that is unearned and totally unwarranted.

Their behaviour and attitude toward their host in fact devalues faith.

Pericles,
I still owe you an explanation after our last postings.

“… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.”
James Barr, Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984.

I am not claiming Barr believes Genesis, but he understood what the Hebrew so clearly taught. Judging by this, I am guessing Hendel would be included in this.

In previous centuries, this was the standard model accepted among Christians for interpreting history.

You ask me to further justify the claim that most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation.

We’ve discussed Boyle (chemistry), Faraday (physics), and Babbage, since you brought those names up first. It was me who suggested Newton (physics). But there’s a pretty impressive list yet to get through.

Chemistry: Dalton, Ramsay
Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow
Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland
Astronomy: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Maunder
Mathematics: Pascal, Leibnitz

As far as I understand, these mentioned here believed in a creator God and an historical Genesis.

One could add Maxwell (physics) who openly challenged Darwin, as did Kelvin (physics), and Herschel (astronomy).

As I alluded to above, some in the 19th and 20th Centuries varied from the standard Biblical view of the earth’s age but without accepting evolution, such as Kelvin, Herschel, Agassiz (biology), and Cuvier (geology).

The list is long but could get a lot longer if space permits.

I think that pretty much covers where our interpretations diverge, Mr Viljoen.

>>I am not claiming Barr believes Genesis, but he understood what the Hebrew so clearly taught.<<

What Barr is saying is that the writers quite specifically wanted their message to be understood at its face value: 6x24 hour days to create everything, the Flood actually was a Flood and all those begats are "a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story"

Fair enough.

Still doesn't turn it into fact, though.

I suspect that, in a couple of thousand years, scholars will be poring over snippets from our present and making the same judgments as to whether Oliver Stone's movies were documentary, metaphor or allegory. Philologists and linguists will no doubt have great fun finding reasons to support their view.

>>Judging by this, I am guessing Hendel would be included in this.<<

Bad guess.

Hendel himself points out in "The text of Genesis 1-11" that in one version of Genesis (the "G" text"), Methuselah survived the flood by fourteen years.

While it is perfectly acceptable that different versions should record different activities - that is after all the nature of ancient documents - it is equally unacceptable to pick one version, and label all others "false", simply because the one you choose fits your presuppositions.

>>You ask me to further justify the claim that most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation.<<

No, I've given up on that one.

You present no references to back your claims, so I can only assume that you want me to do your homework for you. And since you haven't acknowledged that you were wrong with the last lot, there's hardly an incentive for me to do so, is there?

DSM,

Maxwell and Kelvin grew up at the time of Darwin and opposed him on religious grounds.

"James' (Maxwell) early education was given by his mother, a dedicated Christian, and included studying the Bible. James exceptional memory became apparent at this time when he memorized all of Psalm 119"

Today we know better.

Pericles,
I never claimed that the clear interpretation that James Barr (a distinguished Hebrew scholar) gave to Genesis 1-11 meant that James Barr’s interpreting it as such makes it a fact. I admitted that even Barr himself doesn’t believe it to be fact. What I was saying is that the Hebrew text is quite clear, and its meaning is plain to all concerned.

From what we are both saying, it seems that Hendel also is in agreement with Barr over the three points that Barr detailed.

The overall point that I was making, apparently without contradiction from anyone, is that those passages from Genesis are clear enough in their intended meaning.

It is true that in today’s pluralistic society, many Christians of various shades and leanings believe many weird and wonderful things. This is their freedom. But I suggest that the passages of Genesis are not only clear, but the plain historical interpretation (that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, etc.) represents the standard world view of nearly all Christians up until around the 19th Century.

It was in this type of climate (the one that Shadow Minister has just described) that these greats of history made their breakthrough discoveries.

Along with Maxwell, all of those so far mentioned were men of science and of faith.

None believed in Darwinian evolution (as far as I’m aware. Sorry for my lack of detail, but who these men were, and what these men did, is on the public record. Considering how many have spoken against my position so far in this discussion, I am sure someone will be able to reference and detail the points of Darwinism that these men adhered to, if in fact they did at all.)

Excuse me, Extropian1, the quote you attribute to me was penned by Peter Hume. My post was the one above my signature, not the one below it. Cheers, grim.

Dan,
It’s interesting how you often wait until we need to switch the “Show discussions for articles published” option to “One quarter back” so that your response can’t be seen to be added with the default “One month back” option.

Anyway, it’s good that you still felt you owed Pericles and explanation nevertheless. Maybe now you answer my request for evidence of a young Earth?

Then there’s the big claim that evolution needed a patch and a paint job after Mendel on the other thread along with your claim that evolution makes no sense.

On yet another thread, you made the claim that millions of dollars of tax payers’ money goes to trying to iron out problems with evolution; implying that there’s a desperate attempt by the government to prop up a rickety theory riddled with problems. On this thread, I have also asked that you explain how Creation “scientists” interpret empirical evidence to mean that there is a designer without resorting to the ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy or the ‘Argument from Incredulity’ fallacy.

Could you please either back these claims, or retract them?

Thank you.

Funny, I'd noticed that too, AJ Philips.

>>Dan, It’s interesting how you often wait until we need to switch the “Show discussions for articles published” option to “One quarter back”<<

Bound to be coincidence though.

>>Anyway, it’s good that you still felt you owed Pericles and explanation<<

I didn't really get one though, did I?

Just more waffle. And a further ambit claim on what he guesses that other people might have thought. All very pointless.

Seriously, Mr Viljoen, now that your posts are all-but-invisible, you can stop pretending that there is a teeming crowd of Creationists, all responsible for massive leaps in scientific awareness, thanks to their spirituality.

I had promised myself that I wouldn't do your homework for you, but I couldn't resist one last peep.

So I chose the first name on your last list: Dalton.

>>None believed in Darwinian evolution as far as I’m aware<<

That's the first laugh: Dalton died in 1844, some fifteen years before the publication of "Origin of the Species".

He was also a Quaker by birth, and lived for more than twentyfive years with a vicar, "his friend the Rev. W. Johns" as Wikipedia describes him. While that certainly places him in the category "religious", it says nothing about his belief in a young earth.

Your entire argument appears to be based on the premise that "if they read the Bible, they must have taken it at its literal face value".

Given that these folk seem to be highly intelligent individuals, I strongly doubt that. Especially given the total absence of evidence of such beliefs in their work.

Thanks guys. Your second guessing of my timing and movements unveils strange levels of suspicion or mistrust. Are you always this paranoid?

One reason for OLO’s existence is to promote discussion so as to lead to greater common understanding. I’ve tried to be as open as possible. (The only quarterback I’ve heard of is Payton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts.)

AJ,
You ask me for detail on many things. Yet it brings up the same question of mine that you still haven’t answered. If you really want some information and interaction of opinion, then are you in agreement that the experienced campaigners (those who know more about it than you and I) from both the atheist and the creationist camps should debate it when they all come to Melbourne next week? (This is the question in point relating to the original article.)

Pericles,
I knew I could motivate you to do some homework if I tried, however minimal.

First, you look around the http://www.creation.com website and found this statement, “most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation” and you wanted to challenge it.

We discussed the definition of a creationist [God as creator, Genesis is historical]. I offered just a sample of the names of the many pioneer scientists who followed Scriptural teaching. An historical Genesis was the standard view of the church over most of church history. This was the general atmosphere in which science grew in the West.

Then you looked around and found that Dalton died earlier than Darwin’s publications. Hardly much of a revelation. In that, he’s not even unique for the people on that list. Quite a few the others died centuries before. That’s all pretty much household knowledge.

Part of this creationist assertion’s bite is the advances that these scientists made before the rise in popularity of Darwin’s ideas, which helps show the level to which Darwin’s contribution is not particularly crucial.

Yet the concepts of different life forms arising from one another or life arising spontaneously have floated around since the Greek philosophers. Even Charles Darwin inherited some ideas about evolution from the writings of his grandfather Erasmus Darwin.

I’ve already put out the challenge for anyone who wants to do some more homework. Who amongst that list of great pioneers of science accepted Darwinian ideas (not limited only to Charles Darwin’s publications)? And remember, even if we found some exceptions to prove the rule, the original statement in question only began with the word ‘most’, so the odd exception would probably only help to confirm the accuracy of the statement.

Michael Viljoen

Dan,

I realise the dodging and weaving may be a good mechanism for denying to yourself the fact that you have nothing to back your beliefs or claims, but it does nothing for your credibility, I’m afraid.

<<Thanks guys. Your second guessing of my timing and movements unveils strange levels of suspicion or mistrust?>>

‘Educated guessing’ would be a more accurate term. Your tricks are becoming so well known here on OLO that I certainly wouldn’t call the levels of suspicion and mistrust “Strange”. “Justified” or “understandable” would be a much better way of putting it.

<<One reason for OLO’s existence is to promote discussion so as to lead to greater common understanding.>>

Absolutely.

This’s why the trickery, the misrepresenting of what others say and the repeating of discredited claims that you so often engage in, is frowned upon.

To your credit though, it does “lead to greater common understanding” in that it helps to reveal to the world what Creationism is all about.

<<I’ve tried to be as open as possible.>>

By arguing with insinuation so that others are forced to share some responsibility for your statements?

Not to mention the continuous dodging and weaving.

<<You ask me for detail on many things.>>

And if you need the time to respond over several days, then just say the word and I’ll give you the time to respond.

<<Yet it brings up the same question of mine that you still haven’t answered.>>

I thought I’d made it fairly clear that I don’t think they should debate. I apologise if I haven’t though.

But I don’t think you’re all that interested in my response. More that you’re trying to give the impression that I dodge and weave too, in an attempt to divert attention from your own dodging and weaving.

<<If you really want some information and interaction of opinion, then are you in agreement that the experienced campaigners (those who know more about it than you and I) from both the atheist and the creationist camps should debate it when they all come to Melbourne next week?>>

Continued...

...Continued

I don’t think any credible scientist should debate people who are on par with Flat Earthers and alleged alien abductees. All Creationists want to do is get up onto a podium and rattle off some fancy terminology that would be above the heads of most onlookers to give the false impression that there is a debate to be had.

One other point too. That the Creation “scientists” know more than me is irrelevant. Need I remind you of the ‘Statement of Faith’?

<<An historical Genesis was the standard view of the church over most of church history. This was the general atmosphere in which science grew in the West.>>

Yes, “of the Church”. A “General atmosphere” is certainly not the same as an “historical Genesis” having a direct affect on science now, is it?

How did this “general atmosphere” of an “historical Genesis” affect science?

<<Yet the concepts of different life forms arising from one another or life arising spontaneously have floated around since the Greek philosophers.>>

I liked how you threw the bit in about Greek philosophers. You are, again, trying to subtly equate evolution with philosophy and social sciences. Yet we’ve established quite firmly that evolution is not a social science.

<<Even Charles Darwin inherited some ideas about evolution from the writings of his grandfather Erasmus Darwin.>>

I also liked how you’ve tried to make it appear as though you’re revealing a ‘skeleton in the closet’ by pointing out these facts. Hardly much of a revelation. That’s all pretty much household knowledge.

Yes, the idea of evolution was around before Darwin. What Darwin did, was discover that Natural Selection was the driving force behind evolution. Before Darwin, people theorised that life changed because... it just did.

So it was largely discarded as this was about as scientific as thinking that one could demonstrate design by using fallacies such as the God of the Gaps fallacy and the Argument from incredulity.

Continued...

...Continued

But why do you keep rattling on about Darwin? Darwin is pretty much irrelevant in today’s world now that we know so much more about evolution. With the way you carry on though, one could be forgiven for thinking that university biology students read the Origin of Species as a part of their curriculum.

<<I’ve already put out the challenge for anyone who wants to do some more homework. Who amongst that list of great pioneers of science accepted Darwinian ideas (not limited only to Charles Darwin’s publications)?>>

Well, considering my point above about evolution largely being discarded due to the unscientific idea of species just changing for no apparent reason, I do believe your challenge is irrelevant. In fact, consider your challenge defeated.

There’s that other point too that I’ve made more times than I could possibly count now:

The founders of modern science only ever relied on natural methodology and found natural explanations for things previously believed to be miraculous, and they only ever succeeded when they didn't allow their religious convictions to inhibit their inquiry.

If you’re having difficulty understanding why this renders your point about the founders of modern science irrelevant, then please, don’t be afraid to ask me to clarify. Just tell what part of this it is that you don’t understand and I’ll be more than happy to explain it. After all, one reason for OLO’s existence is to promote discussion so as to lead to greater common understanding.

On a final note, I’m still waiting for your answers on the following...

How and why did evolution need a patching and paintjob?
What is the evidence for a young Earth?
How are millions of tax dollars spent on propping up evolution?
How does one prove Creationism without resorting to god of the gaps & argument from incredulity?
Why does evolution make no sense?
And the new that has now been added to the list: How did the “general atmosphere” of an “historical Genesis” effect science?

Thanks in advance for your explanations and/or retractions.

AJ,
You parrot what I say about discussion promoting understanding between people. However, your rudeness displays your lack of intent for any real discussion.

This is not just my opinion, for you know how you were chastised by several others last year for your personal hostility and lack of common courtesy.

It is clear that you hold creationists in contempt. You insult them with slurs such as ‘flat earthers’, etc. You malign them and now openly state that you are not interested in them sharing debate with other scientists.

It is clear that you are closed to what creationists have to say. Therefore, it’s apparent that I’d be wasting my time answering your challenges.

You accuse me of ‘trickery’ simply because I posted a comment a few days later than you expected.

Your rudeness knows no bounds.

Do not bother demanding or expecting any response from me in future threads. I shan’t be bothered.

Richard Dawkins, author of “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution”, is currently visiting Australia to speak at the Global Atheist Convention. He has previously stated he has no interest in debating creationists.

But for anyone interested, an opposing view to that of the atheists will be presented in Melbourne on the same day as Dawkins’ lectures.

Sunday 14 March at Life Ministry Centre, Old Melbourne Road, Chirnside Park.

Dr Jonathan Sarfati, author of “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution” will be giving a lecture at 4.45 pm “Evolution: no first cell, and not enough time. Belief in a cell that made itself underpins evolution/atheism, but it’s blind faith. And the ‘millions of years’ evaporate under scientific scrutiny, too.”

This will be preceded by lectures at 2.00 pm by Dr Don Batten and 3.20 pm by Dr Carl Wieland, with Question and Answer panel time (all three speakers) at 6.00 pm.

It looks very much as though you made your point, quite perfectly, AJ Philips, in drawing this final capitulation from our friend.

>>Your rudeness knows no bounds. Do not bother demanding or expecting any response from me in future threads. I shan’t be bothered.<<

You have to admit, though, he doesn't go down without a last hurrah.

>>You malign them and now openly state that you are not interested in them sharing debate with other scientists.<<

"Other scientists" indeed.

Labelling it "science" is the young-earthist's mantra, designed to present the concepts as equally valid, merely requiring discussion. Deliberately ignoring the absence of any supportable science in the creationist's stance.

That's not to say they don't employ pseudo-scientific words and phrases. But that's only to impress the gullible.

>>It is clear that you are closed to what creationists have to say. Therefore, it’s apparent that I’d be wasting my time answering your challenges.<<

An interesting stance, given that he has carefully ignored every one of your questions to date. One suspects that the answers, if he cared to offer them, would indeed be a "waste of time".

This is interesting though.

>>Dr Jonathan Sarfati, author of “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution” will be giving a lecture<<

Full of his usual nonsense, one suspects.

I particularly like Dr. Kevin Henke's forensic dissection of Sarfati's attempt to recruit science to his cause.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/sarfati%27s_RE_reviewed_henke.htm

I suspect that the discussions will by themselves be adequate evidence that a "debate" between the two groups would be nothing more than free PR for their odd beliefs.

John Stear observed a while back that the young-earth creationist's tactics are to assume that if they...

"...tell a lie often enough and it becomes truth. Unfortunately this is often a successful ploy as most grassroots creationists parrot these lies as if they were really scientifically sound"

And as Dr Henke makes clear, definitively refuting the pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo that they employ involves the use of terminology with which 99% of the audience would be entirely unfamiliar.

So, until next time, Mr Viljoen, ave atque vale.

I'm sorry Dan, but your claim that AJ was rude in this particular debate smacks a little of desperation.
You might recall I was one of the participants who objected to AJ resorting to personal abuse on that earlier thread. While I can understand his impatience, "playing the man, rather than the ball" is not only ill mannered, but arguably a sign of weakness in rational debate.
I think AJ has quite admirably kept his cool, and addressed the argument, and I guess the style of argument, without actually abusing the arguer.
It seems the shoe is now on the other foot.
But hey, that's just my opinion. Cheers, grim.

So, Dan/Michael,

You wish to suggest that Kelvin's opposition to Darwin's science was both devout and well-founded. I don't dispute his devotion to his branch of biblical literalism. He did however invest a lot of effort into a false argument against evolution. His motivation in doing so was not accuracy in estimating the sun's age (he got *more* wrong* in revisions). His motivation was purely a bitter and unchristian opposition to anything that challenged his religious complacency, or perhaps more correctly, the complacency of his religion.

We know he was capable of give-and-take in the advances of his own field. Using his position to attempt to steamroller debate on evolution, and ignoring new information that would force revision of his "scientific" objection, reflects poorly in contrast with his genuine achievements. Let us not forget that the pre-eminent physicist of the time would be among the first to become aware of the new physics of nuclear processes, yet he waited years to be told of it's impact on his theory of solar age by Darwin's son.

That christians such as youself (and in a lesser way runner) are willing to accept and disseminate the less-than-honest-best efforts of some scientists to deny evolution speaks much as to the underlying motivations and diligence of biblical literalists. Other christians are able to conduct themselves with much more christ-like dignity by avoiding literalism.

I suggest *you* have a lot of homework to do, and so do any creationist buddies you have who compiled that list.

*I'm* not giving you clues to vet the rest of that list, I'd prefer your buddies to wind up looking as silly as you, and just as unexpectedly due to their lack of genuine scholarship. Suffice to say that exceptions most certainly do "prove" the rule. You certainly have the skills to check the etymology of such a phrase.

I think Dawkins and others are quite right to not debate creationist franchise hacks until such lift their game substantially.

Rusty

I’ve been stewing for days over what I should say in response, but after giving it some thought, I don’t think anything else really needs to be said other than thank you Pericles and Grim.

Rusty,
I’m aware of the origin of the phrase (or its 'etymology'). I think I used it appropriately.

And so did I, Dan. I *knew* you would go for the red herring.

*Your* lists *are* exceptions, in the light of what we know now.

After excluding those heavily indoctrinated, we find several fair-minded individuals like Mendel, or Darwin himself, who are prepared to look at nature squarely and not spin circles trying to find excuses for scripture.

The majority of the scientists listed would not have an objection to evolution given the evidence we now have available, just as very few today object. Many would have prospered more readily in a world where the church had less of a grip on society, regardless of their own "divine" motivation. Newton could not advance to an academic sinecure just for not believing unconditionally in "the trinity", what a travesty. Mendel wasn't regarded as a good teacher by the bishop, and relegated to a rural monastery. Kepler was not well treated, despite his clearly being gripped by vision completely lacking in the church hierarchy.

*given* that the basic mechanisms can be demonstrated at the molecular level in convenient organisms, as a matter of workaday matter-of-fact. Given that the details of at least some speciation events are fairly well established, and mechanisms are known that contribute to others, I find your list pointless.

That some scientists were *creationist* (not necessarily the current "type", then or now) in the past is no criticism of an established theory today. If asked *today*, the fair would be with it (possibly delighted) and the beyond-sense objectors would be few. Even Kelvin was silent when his "solar age" objection was disposed of.

The ad for a creationist circus flagged your true intent, hinted at by the previous sullen position that distinguished scientists don't debate people like Wieland. Plimer established long ago the usual tactics of his crowd and the criticism stands today.

If Wieland was such a fine doctor, why is he not working as one in the time he otherwise devotes to the circus? The doctors I know would not waste their time on such.

Hope you are catching up on homework,

Rusty

Rusty,
I don’t know what you mean by ‘people like Wieland’. Perhaps you mean people with a solid understanding of science who are not intimidated by the weight of majority opinion.

You compare Wieland to Plimer. One thing the two have in common is their openness to debate an issue. I know of one time Prof. Plimer publically debated creationists in the past.

You can help support whatever stereotype you like about Wieland and his position or say that he’s involved in a ‘circus’. Alternatively, you could listen to what he has to say. Last week (7/3/10) he was interviewed by ABC presenter John Safran on the 3JJJ Sunday Night Safran program.

You can download the program here http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/safran/

Wieland’s interview comes about three quarters of the way through the eighty minute program.

Safran also recently interviewed anti-creationist PZ Meyers, and will soon be presenting his interview with Richard Dawkins. We’ll see if Safran puts any points raised by Wieland to Dawkins when he airs that interview.

Dan again prefers to indulge in distractions.

You know exactly what I mean. For the benefit of others though, who might mistake your shill for the genuine coin....

People like Wieland whose "solid understanding of science" moves them to not practise their *highly in demand* and *intrinsically humanitarian* profession, preferring instead to be a PR flack for a creationist magazine-marketing operation. Pepople whose aforementioned understanding has not actually led them to active roles in actual science. Wieland's "understanding" stopped dead at the end of undergrad and has not advanced.

Plimer very clearly exposed the common tactics of Wieland and "his sort". Their credibility was dust long before, but 1994 was clearly the last time any could expect a genuinely distinguished scientist to regard them worth time. Wieland has a lot of deliberate misinformaton and tacit support of others in his organisaton to retract before any progress can be made.

Safran is doing well out of showing up the whole circus and letting the blanks and ellipses contrast religious people of true personal integrity vs the circus performers. Many creationists probably don't get it.

Catch up, Dan. Real scientists are doing real work in the field of evolutionary biology and just writing stuff for creationists cannot stop that, nor be shaken by little circuses from Sarfati and friends. To make a difference, they would have to do real work, in real labs, and get it published. It is *much* easier to do what Wieland, Sarfati, Snelling, Gish, Ham et al do. Easier but not admirable.

Rusty