Why not just let people believe what they want? Just so long as their beliefs aren't hurting you or affecting your life in any negative way.
Taking a religious belief over a scientific one doesn't make you stupid or uneducated.
Personaly I think it's just as ignorant to post a topic like this...
Why not just let people believe what they want? Just so long as their beliefs aren't hurting you or affecting your life in any negative way.
Taking a religious belief over a scientific one doesn't make you stupid or uneducated.
Personaly I think it's just as ignorant to post a topic like this...
Again, this isn't a mere difference of opinions. There IS a group that is actively working to undermine the separation of church and state in order to institute a theocracy. Forcing their religious views into secular, government schools (ever notice how the Native American views, the Hindu views, the Taoist views, etc never get included?) is the first step. This isn't some crackpot conspiracy theory--the Wedge Document is proof of this.
Secondly, "Let people believe what they want" is all well and good--but the Creationists do not do this. They are attempting to force us--the researchers and scientists who actually study the subject--to accept their views on how science should be done. You want to tell someone "live and let live", tell it to THEM.
Third, this IS impacting my life. I'm in a profession that will not exist if these crackpots succeed in their attempt to manufacture a false equivalency. Furthermore, they have accused me of fraud on multiple occasions, as well as friends and family. This isn't some disinterested argument here--for some of us, the Creationists have made it personal.
Finally, we can't do it because Creationists aren't following the rules. Science isn't a free-for-all. There is a cost of entry for every single idea that gets proposed. That cost is evidence. Creationism lacks evidential support, and CANNOT have any until the Creator is defined (you can't even speculate on what such evidence would be without defining the Creator). So allowing everyone to believe whatever they wanted would be to abandon the very principles of scientific discourse. We can't do it because it's NOT ALLOWED, and to accept such nonsense as equal to a theory as well-supported as evolution would be dishonest and fraudulent.
Frankly, I've said this all before.
As for being stupid and uneducated, you're not entirely right here. Taking a religious belief over the science makes you at minimum ignorant--they literally don't know the data. Refusing to examine the evidence because it may prove you wrong is the very definition of stupidity, so yes, it would make you stupid. It's no problem to be ignorant of things--I'm ignorant of many, we all are. But to be an honest person you must acknowledge the limits of your knowledge, and Creationists fail to do so. It's really simple as that.
Why not just let people believe what they want? Just so long as their beliefs aren't hurting you or affecting your life in any negative way.
Taking a religious belief over a scientific one doesn't make you stupid or uneducated.
Personaly I think it's just as ignorant to post a topic like this...
Taking a religious belief over a scientific one is the exact definition of uneducated.
GunsmithKitten said:
Because they then tend to pass those beliefs on and enforce those beliefs over others.
Also, by that logic, why can't we allow a student to turn in 2+2=7 in a math class? Who are YOU to tell them what they should believe those numbers really mean and add up to?
Because they then tend to pass those beliefs on and enforce those beliefs over others.
Also, by that logic, why can't we allow a student to turn in 2+2=7 in a math class? Who are YOU to tell them what they should believe those numbers really mean and add up to?
Ah, okay. That makes a LOT more sense then. The original post was confusing as he referred to "that video", and the only video present was the one I reposted.
Yeah don't worry, I was confused too. First I thought he was saying my posted video, but realised he meant his, then if that wasn't enough I thought you were referring to his video and when I read this:
"Nonsense? That video was one of the most rational, level-headed, and informative videos I've ever seen on Youtube."
I went like this:
Thankfully that wasn't what you meant. Now, excuse me while I pick my brain matter off the floor.
EDIT: Right, this gif has always concerned me so I never post it. Is it too graphic to leave without spoilers? I'd rather not get a warning for it, so I'd like an answer either way.
Religion and faith give peace, the truth seldom does. The truth is frightening especially if it destroys a lot of things you held dear. Being a religious man myself I do see the facts but don't want to accept them myself, no matter how much of these facts you throw at me; because it would mean that a lot of things I believe would fall apart.
And I'd rather believe in God, which gives me peace and lets me live a happy life without worry or fear of death, then some 'truth' that shatters everything I believe.
Religion and faith don't give peace especially - why would there be so many religious conflicts? New concepts aren't scary in and of themselves to an individual - it's the fear of rejection by a community that has collectively closed their minds. If groups of religious people weren't harassing their members who explored other religions or simply gave up on their mutual religion, people would be a lot more curious.
Truth is generally more reassuring, because then you can at least take steps to address a situation or accept it. You don't have to tranquilise yourself with religious affirmations, not that they work as well as one would like when someone's in genuine pain.
To borrow a religious quote - would you rather build an understanding of the world on a firm foundation of scientific evidence, like a house built on rock, or would you prefer one with shakier foundations of religious doctrine that promotes faith over fact, like a house built on sand?
Speaking as a non Christian I don?t get why it?s that much of issue to work evolution into the bible.
What?s one day to a god? To him one day could simply be 100000 years really the only contradicting part is the story of Adam and eve personally I hate that story but if you have to include it creating mankind can easily mean he slowly evolved apes to create humans.
Speaking as a non Christian I don?t get why it?s that much of issue to work evolution into the bible.
What?s one day to a god? To him one day could simply be 100000 years really the only contradicting part is the story of Adam and eve personally I hate that story but if you have to include it creating mankind can easily mean he slowly evolved apes to create humans.
And... that's what some Christians believe. While I don't agree with it, it's not harmful to the field of science and education, so I see no harm in it. Spirituality is not in conflict with scientific fields and can co-exist.
However, we're talking about Creationists, religious fundamentalists and flight of fancies here. These people either believe the world is as the bible says it is in quite literal terms or simply reject he premise of Evolution as it makes them feel "insignificant"... oh booh fucking hoo.
According to Creationists, The world is only 6000 years old, 4000 years ago there was a great flood, Noah actually saved 2 of every animal (creationists like to bullshit and stretch what the bible says to appeal to logic... which is hilarious to listen to) and they believe in a whole host other Biblical fiction I care not to waste my breath on.
They don't just refuse to accept evolution as a physical reality, they try to justify ignorance, or prop their baseless fairytales as being equal to the fields of Science. That isn't just offensive, it's absolutely harmful to the pursuit of knowledge if left unchecked and unopposed. It's not just about our preferences, it's about our futures well being.
I think this would be the point to bring up the Texas Board of Education and their undue influence on the contents of textbooks. This decidedly causes harm to the education of others.
Speaking as a non Christian I don?t get why it?s that much of issue to work evolution into the bible.
What?s one day to a god? To him one day could simply be 100000 years really the only contradicting part is the story of Adam and eve personally I hate that story but if you have to include it creating mankind can easily mean he slowly evolved apes to create humans.
Fun fact: the original Hebrew word "yom" (as in, for example, <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur>Yom Kippur) as used in Genesis does have the specific meaning of "day" but can also be translated as "a larger/unspecified amount of time".
I mean there's tons of other contradictions in the Bible that kind of ruin it again but the trouble with a translated source is always personal error. Such as the famous "camel through a needle's eye" where an early Greek translation of the original (or possibly a translation thereof) might have slipped and written kamilos (camel) instead of kamêlos (cable, rope).
The video was nonsense.Yet because there are some facts in it,it is swallowed whole.
You disagree with what life choice?
Satanism?Why?Based on your posts,I know you won't mind explaining.
I'm atheist-but I think there is a god-like-thing.
Stoicism/piety and all that jazz.
Nonsense? That video was one of the most rational, level-headed, and informative videos I've ever seen on Youtube.
There was virtually no word that man spoke that didn't ring true in one form or another. He may have taken a few 'examples' to a level one might consider approaching extreme, but all-in-all, he made a lot of sense.
In fact, I think it bares reposting the video for more people to see:
Also, the sentence: "I'm atheist-but I think there is a god-like-thing.", is the very definition oxymoronical. You are not an atheist if you believe there is or are a deity or deities. That makes you a theist.
I was not talking about your video at all.I agree with you.Btw-Extreme examples are still examples. This is the video that is nonsense:
{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaDOkMEK4uk}
Did emded it right?
An athiest has a lack of belief/faith in gods.
That does not exclude someone from making an argument as to why they could think their is a god or what the definition of one might actually be.
From an empirical standpoint, I agree that anyone who disputes evolution (barring intelligent design, which is a different area altogether), has to be pretty insane/fundamentalist/stupid/whatever ugly word you want to use. From a skeptical perspective (which is what I usually go by, in this case, that neither rational nor empirical evidence has any value), I have no idea. I can't know that humans even exist, so what's the point of arguing about whether they evolved from something or not?
"Barring Intelligent Design"? Hate to break it to you, but Intelligent Design is quite literally Creationism using different wording to hide its religious affiliation, as was famously demonstrated in Kitzmiller v. Dover. The single most damning piece of evidence (though far from the only piece) was the sloppy edit of the creationist text "Of Pandas and People", as the changes made were almost exclusively changing instances of "creationist" into "Design proponents", "God" to "an intelligent designer" and similar terms, though they did make some rather critical errors in this transition, leaving a few instances partially changed into "cdesign proponentists". It's a rather well-known trojan horse, truth be told.
Unfortunately, a LOT of people (my own parents included, not that I haven't tried to correct their terminology) seem to be under the impression that "Intelligent Design" means "God guided the process of evolution", which is actually Theistic Evolution.
The difference from traditional creationist arguments that claim that humans were merely created is that ID arguments do not necessarily claim that evolution did not occur, but that the original beginning of life was supernaturally inspired, rather than the common scientific alternative, which is: extreme coincidence (which, personally, seems likely considering the size of the universe).
Also, my wording in the first sentence, "anyone who disputes evolution (barring intelligent design, which is a different area altogether)" was flawed. By "barring intelligent design, which is a different area altogether", I meant that it did not apply to evolution, as it does not claim that it did not happen after the initial "creation" of life.
*You can't see oxygen, but you CAN verify its presence. You can't see evolution happening, but you can observe its results. You can't see gravity but you can pretty accurately and reliably predict its affects.
You can't see god and you CAN'T verify his presence either. He has no verifiable properties, nor means of measurement.
They are fundamentally different things, faith and science, as is Creationism and Evolution.
See and if I WAS a creationist (and i'm not) you left yourself wide open with that;
You can't SEE god but you can walk on the earth he created, eat the fruits of his labours etc. If the earth exists because god created it, then there is your measurement right there. You're either floating in a featureless void or god exists. So you can verify his existence by breathing the air he created, eating the animals he put there for you and walking on the ground he made.
So the evidence for both sides is equally flimsy is what you've proven there. Which is the point I was trying to make at the beginning before the evolutionists got all embarrassed and had to prove how closed-minded they could be. And you know what? Success.
I give up. "You can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think." I have failed completely in that endeavor so hat's off to you all.
"Prove that god exists."
"You are standing within his creation *gestures to the world around*"
"Prove that god created the world"
"The Bible says so."
"How does the bible saying so make it true?"
"Because God himself arbitrated it."
Rinse and repeat.
Heck, let's take that even further:
"Prove that god exists."
"You are standing within his creation *gestures to the world around*"
"Prove that god created the world"
"How else other then a intelligent design, could such complexity be created"
"By immeasurable scales and forces of time, energy and movement, how does complexity prove gods handiwork?"
...
Yeah I don't know where to take this reasoning. Eventually every argument directed at Faith boils down to God is unknowable and all powerful, therefore he did it. The only physically quantifiable source of his existence are Religious Texts and, besides the internal contradictions observable within those texts, virtually every major event that counts as "proof of god" can be disproved by scientific evidence and testing.
The Irony of your final remark is not lost on anyone debating with you I'm sure.
Look. Here is an analogy so you can visualise how I, and others, see this topic:
The universe is a puzzle. For ease of visualisation, let's call it a jigsaw. This jigsaw is not like other jigsaws in that we can't truly know what the final image is until the last piece is in place. What's more, the jigsaw does not get easier the further you progress, it actually gets harder.
Religion saw this puzzle first. They used the power of observation to put the simplest and most basic pieces together, giving them a really rough outline of this immense puzzle. They then, in all their excitement, guessed as to what the final image was. From this point on they started directing their solution towards this suspected finished image. Eventually their guess started to show signs of fallibility. This resulted in schisms among the problem solvers, creating a variety of alternative outcomes as to what the final image was. The problem still being that they are still guessing based off of very little.
Eventually things got so muddled and confused that they started to jam pieces in spots they didn't fit in and even threw away pieces that appeared to not fit anywhere. Long before they even finished a fraction of the puzzle, they started joining their "established" sections together and then decided to paint their vision of the finished image over the gaps. Then proceeded to frame the image and claim it was finished and that no one should touch it... or look too closely... or pretty much inquire about anything related to it other then to talk about the finished image and how amazing it is.
Of course you had multiple finished images all saying they were the "true" finished image and shit just got confusing and nasty as a result.
Then some young buck named science looked at this finished image a bit closer then religion would have wanted and saw all the flaws. The pieces that don't fit, the pieces that were missing (discarded) and the fact that a big gaping hole in the puzzle was just painted over.
Science though thatt was odd and decided to reconstruct the identifiable pieces in his own time. He was methodical, only taking small leaps of guess work to help focus his efforts, sometimes getting the run of himself and trying to solve pieces beyond his current comprehension, but always corrected himself when pieces stopped fitting. Eventually he had surpassed religion with a more complete image, though still far from being truly complete. From this point on his guesswork was more clever and calculated, basing his next actions off of observable patterns in the image. Even large gaps between chunks of finished segments were starting to show form trough these patterns. His guesswork started to become more detailed and defined, capable of predicting where the next piece would sit with frightening accuracy.
This is where science is now. The puzzle is far from complete and progress is slow... but it is certain. He acknowledges that the puzzle is not complete and that his guess work might not be accurate, so is willing to go back on segments he once though were correct if the patterns start to fall apart. But fortunately due to his methodical nature, this mistakes are few and when they do appear the damage is only minute, only requiring the reshuffling of minor pieces.
People are now interested in this Science guys attempt at the puzzle, not just because the image is coming out differently from all the past assumed outcomes, but that he willingly allows people to look at the image, question his reasoning and even help out if they want to. Science involves the admirers... he doesn't expect anything of them other then to respect the process of solving the puzzle and not to get too excited about the outcome as that can lead to misdirection.
Finally, Science also doesn't punish people for prodding at his logic, since to Science it's a win-win. Either he's right and the true image keeps taking shape over time, or he's wrong, changes his approach and the true image takes shape over time. At this point he knows enough to see what is working, the patterns all add up and fit nicely, the only pieces that he questions are the newest placed pieces, since they are still placed on hunches and assumptions based off of patterns, but he is not afraid to dismantle segments who's patterns are just falling apart.
Religion gave up on the goal of solving the puzzle, discarded the pieces that didn't fit his assumptions, jammed others into places they didn't fit and then painted the final image of what they envisioned long ago. They then framed it and put it up on the wall and said, "This is the answer to the puzzle!".
Science, young and ambitious, disagreed and started from scratch, this time without fooling himself into imagining what it would be, but rather let it organically show itself as he pieced it together. He developed processes and studied patterns all in the aim of finishing the puzzle, not achieving a desired result.
Religion started it but was too arrogant to see past his own vision. Science is now taking the helm and is determined to see the true finished puzzle. That is his only goal and he does it slowly and methodically.
You sir(and many others)have made it impossible to post without feeling redundant!That analogy is so condescending-I am ashamed to not have thought of it myself!Do you find it ironic that some people will only understand science when you explain it using a completely made-up story that has some real parts to it?
My friend,a satanist,tells me to just ignore uneducated people and take advantage of them.
Thanks for the recognition. I was afraid that analogy would fade away unnoticed /vanity
To be honest, my goal isn't to look down on their viewpoints, but considering how fundamentalist Faith based viewpoints stem from indoctrination and pressure from childhood (I recommend watching this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eam-z1bwrk) means you are trying to target logic and reasoning's that stemmed from those early impressionable days. The only way to approach these topics is to drastically simplify it (which has a catch, since simplifying the complex leads to logical gaps, which causes a retort to turn around and become fuel to the fire).
Also to embed you type youtube=*insert the garbled code after watch?v=* within the square bracket parenthesis
So for example, the video I linked would be youtube=8Eam-z1bwrk then close the whole thing within the "[]" parenthesis. So you get this:
Finally... I wouldn't agree with your friends opinion, nor his life choice (or at least, how he identifies himself).
The video was nonsense.Yet because there are some facts in it,it is swallowed whole.
You disagree with what life choice?
Satanism?Why?Based on your posts,I know you won't mind explaining.
I'm atheist-but I think there is a god-like-thing.
Stoicism/piety and all that jazz.
Well I see your point about that video. Aside from the shameless extra credits rip off, the guy is just going full blown soap box, regurgitating shit he heard haphazardly. But rather then taking his ramblings with a pinch of salt a lot of the comments are claiming "life changing experiences". I tried watching a few minutes but felt seething anger rise as I started hearing about conspiracies, supernatural entities and fucking lost civilisations. It reminds me of that "Zeitgeist" series of films. Interesting facts framing total bullshit topped off with idealism and pure fantasy. Wonderful nonsense, but nonsense none the less.
I denounced my faith years ago as it did it not satisfy my curiosity. I was Catholic, in a Catholic community, in a Catholic state. The Arrogance and sheer rejection of scrutiny offended me, especially after all the crap involving paedophile priests and all the lives they ruined in their wake.
I didn't convert to another faith because I hate the concept of blind faith. I have seen and currently still see the impact of indoctrination (the only way to make someone believe in something intangible and unknowable in this day and age of information is to either subvert their thoughts or subjugate them with fear... Catholicism and many World religions do this). It stunts intellectual development and retards our development as a species.
Currently the means to which people have tried to make me believe in a God or Gods is to tell me we don't know how the universe works. I say we know quite a bit and still have not seen proof of an intelligent or benevolent power. But besides that, the rationale of people arguing this point is that the absence of knowledge proves god (since god is unknowable) or that the fact we exist in such a complex universe proves god (Intelligent Design). These are unsubstantial fillers to blank spots in science, not solid evidence as to the existence of a God.
Now again, I don't know your friend, but claiming to be Satanic can only mean a few things.
1, He is young and immature, feeling this counter culture to mass religion is cooler and edgy (not saying he is, but it is possible... there were a lot of "Satanists" around my age in school).
2, He really believes that Satan is a deity and follows the principles set forward by texts and worships him in some way or form. (The principles are not inherently evil, despite what Christians would claim).
or
3, he does not believe satan is real, but subscribes to the philosophies and practices of Satanism. In essence he is agnostic, or atheistic, and follows this organisation for the sense of community.
Ultimately there seems to be a rebellious aspect to Satanism. Either it's to shocking and edgy, or to directly oppose the oppressive teachings of other faiths, or it's a symbolic rejection of mass religion and only half heartedly pursued.
None of these are particularly encouraging reasons for me. The first one is obviously childish and immature. The 2nd is no better then following a mass faith which I already reject, and finally the last one is counter intuitive... Atheists and Agnostics can't distinguish themselves as such within an established faith based system.
It also doesn't help that Satan is only a bogeyman conjured up to make people follow the principles of a faith more closely, for fear of eternal reprisals. In that sense, even God seems like a better alternative. Satan is fiction within fiction...
Finally your friends "opinion" on how to deal with ignorants is no better then mass faith. Mass faith prospers off of the ignorance of the many... and your friend encourages that. Being an Atheist who prefers knowledge over blind belief I think it would be more prudent to support those who have been starved of knowledge and filled with fantasy, and give them intellectual nourishment to abolish the fiction.
But I'm not arrogant either. I won't force people to change as that just creates tension and conflict. The beauty if science is that all knowledge is recorded and easily traced, so anyone who suddenly finds themselves questioning their faith, may find fulfilment in knowledge. I also don't think personal faith conflicts with Scientific pursuits, only mass organised religion seems to be actively (even deliberately) resisting scientific progress. The more secular our societies become, separating faith from politics and education, the more everyone can get along. Meanwhile the more these factors mingle together the more conflicts of interest pop up.
Oh, and I think you would be classified as Agnostic. Agnostics believe that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena. Essentially, there COULD be a god, or there might not be, we simply don't know.
Only complete rejection of the concept of god and equivalent beliefs are Atheistic.
Vigormortis said:
FriedRicer said:
The video was nonsense.Yet because there are some facts in it,it is swallowed whole.
You disagree with what life choice?
Satanism?Why?Based on your posts,I know you won't mind explaining.
I'm atheist-but I think there is a god-like-thing.
Stoicism/piety and all that jazz.
Nonsense? That video was one of the most rational, level-headed, and informative videos I've ever seen on Youtube.
There was virtually no word that man spoke that didn't ring true in one form or another. He may have taken a few 'examples' to a level one might consider approaching extreme, but all-in-all, he made a lot of sense.
In fact, I think it bares reposting the video for more people to see:
Also, the sentence: "I'm atheist-but I think there is a god-like-thing.", is the very definition oxymoronical. You are not an atheist if you believe there is or are a deity or deities. That makes you a theist.
I agree with you almost entirely and have had the same origins in faith. However I don't think there are things/truths that cannot be known through logic and critical thinking(like Leibniz and the atom).I don't believe that there is a god,but I think there might be a source of all activity that is independent of all causes and effects.That is to say,things do not go on forever backwards. I do not claim and old man,snake or anything to be the source-just that there is a source.No belief.
As for my friend,I got him the books on Satanism because he was interested from a philosophical point of view.He has since become a far better person than he was before.I read the books I bought him and found only logic that I could agree or disagree with(however cynical). It wasn't rebellion for the sake of it. Where you confusing it with deistic-Satanism?
Also Satan is a bogeyman symbol because he was reinvented as such.My friend uses it to talk about our inhibitions that we try to partition from ourselves and demonize.Just curious,have you read other religious texts to extract their arguments?
Just a quick shout-out to all the fans who took my took my previous (and fairly neutral) comment out of context and filled my inbox with angry quotes that pretty much proved my initial point. Dumb, faux intelligent comments like that always make me proud to be agnostic.
So a thank you to the good subscribers of Cracked.com! What? The Escapist..? Really!?
Why? I have nothing to do with my less tolerant fellow "atheists" at all anymore than you have anything to do with being an agnostic. Dont you develop a superiority complex on me Thats sliiiiiightly ironic no? "Im so glad im not all superior like those atheists, that makes me PROUD and feel SUPERIOR!" which is a thought that makes me chuckle.
I liked your post. Its important not to hate creationism "Just cus". In fact its stupid to hate it at all. The best thing about science is that your emotions dont play a role at all. How i feel about any theory is meaningless. Its important to remind people that the difference between evolution and creationism in the minds of those who believe them is that evolution should have NO emotional attatchment to you. At all. Its a tool. A LOVELY tool, ill give you that, but its just a tool to examine and explore reality. If it was proved wrong empirically tomorrow we wouldnt shed a tear. While creationism is based a LOT on emotion and holds emotional value to those who believe in it. We need to stay objective. That makes good science.
Dude, I'm a biology student as well but you have to let it go. The people don't want any information or explanation because they are completely embedded in their delusional view of one dog fully evolving from a fish and hoping for another fish to evolve into a compatible female dog to keep the new species alive.
Also, boo for religion thread in offtopic!
EDIT: Just making clear I changed my opinion on that statement
Redingold said:
Most arguments I hear against evolution indicate a lack of understanding. These people don't reject evolution - they don't even know what evolution really is. They reject some nonsense twisted version of it where monkeys spontaneously turn into people or whatever.
I'm pretty sure that if you could actually pull this off that the exact opposite would happen due to the number of ethics concerns and frankenpeople hysteria as we have seen in both genetically modified food and attempts to genetically engineer pigs so that their organs would be compatible with humans for organ transplantation.
Speaking as a non Christian I don?t get why it?s that much of issue to work evolution into the bible.
What?s one day to a god? To him one day could simply be 100000 years really the only contradicting part is the story of Adam and eve personally I hate that story but if you have to include it creating mankind can easily mean he slowly evolved apes to create humans.
There's actually an old joke which incorporates this very subject. It goes like this:
A man was wandering in the woods pondering all the questions of life, the universe, and his own personal problems. The man could not find any answers so he sought help from God.
"God!? God?! Are you there God?!", he shouted.
God responded, "What is it my son?"
"I have a few questions, mind if I ask?"
"Go right ahead, my son - ask anything," God said.
"God, what is a million years to you?"
God said, "a million years to me is only a second."
"Hmmm", he wondered. Then he asked again, "God, what is a million dollars worth to you?"
God said, "A million dollars to me is only worth a penny."
The man lifted his eyebrows and proceeded to ask a final question. "God can I have a penny?"
And God cheerfully said, "Sure!!.....in a second."
The gist behind the joke is used by Day-Age creationists to maintain a fairly literal view of Genesis while trying to reconcile it with discoveries about the age of the earth, which Young Earth Creationists are fiercely opposed to (maintaining that the world is roughly 6000 years old, based on the chronology described in the Bible). That said though, theologians tend to take disparage a literalist approach to the issue.
theemporer said:
Asita said:
"Barring Intelligent Design"? Hate to break it to you, but Intelligent Design is quite literally Creationism using different wording to hide its religious affiliation, as was famously demonstrated in Kitzmiller v. Dover. The single most damning piece of evidence (though far from the only piece) was the sloppy edit of the creationist text "Of Pandas and People", as the changes made were almost exclusively changing instances of "creationist" into "Design proponents", "God" to "an intelligent designer" and similar terms, though they did make some rather critical errors in this transition, leaving a few instances partially changed into "cdesign proponentists". It's a rather well-known trojan horse, truth be told.
Unfortunately, a LOT of people (my own parents included, not that I haven't tried to correct their terminology) seem to be under the impression that "Intelligent Design" means "God guided the process of evolution", which is actually Theistic Evolution.
The difference from traditional creationist arguments that claim that humans were merely created is that ID arguments do not necessarily claim that evolution did not occur, but that the original beginning of life was supernaturally inspired, rather than the common scientific alternative, which is: extreme coincidence (which, personally, seems likely considering the size of the universe).
Also, my wording in the first sentence, "anyone who disputes evolution (barring intelligent design, which is a different area altogether)" was flawed. By "barring intelligent design, which is a different area altogether", I meant that it did not apply to evolution, as it does not claim that it did not happen after the initial "creation" of life.
Incorrect. That's the confusion between Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design that I referred to. A core tenet of the latter is the idea of "Irreducible Complexity", which in no uncertain terms states that life's complexity could not have evolved - based on the premise that 'lesser forms' would be unable to function - and from this they claim that life must have been deliberately engineered in that form. Quite literally, Intelligent Design's tenets require a rejection of evolutionary theory. What you refer to is in fact a variant of Theistic Evolution rather than Intelligent Design.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Thats sliiiiiightly ironic no? "Im so glad im not all superior like those atheists, that makes me PROUD and feel SUPERIOR!" which is a thought that makes me chuckle.
