Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?

On Mar 28, 2:01 pm, "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 28, 9:05 am, "Richard Clayton" <rich.e.clay...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Mar 27, 10:22 pm, "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 27, 1:36 pm, Richard Clayton <pockZIGetnZIG...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
On Mar 26, 8:54 pm, "hairya...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<hairya...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am a lurker and learner here who visits various web sites to read
both creationist and scientific views of origins. One fact puzzles me
sorely, that of all the nations with nominally 100% literacy and
universal education the USA stands out as a leading, if not the
leading, one where creationism is accepted by a large proportion of
the population.
I have read the historical accounts of the origins of the
fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism.
I have understood that it is a poltical/religious movement not a
scientific one. I can see how self-serving politician will support
any group who will vote for them regardless of principle as the same
insects flourish globally.
False.
Creationism enjoys the support of 40 percent of the American
population; Fundamentalism, unfortunately is a small percentage of
that figure.
But why does the movement persist and seem so far at least to survive
almost any setback?
Two reasons:
1. Because of the evidence.
2. Because no one is stupid; we know ToE is atheist philosophy
packaged as science.
To me it goes without saying that people absorb their world view
(including religion) from their family and immediate culture during
their childhood. This applies not only to the substance (eg which
gods they worship and how) but the style and framework of thought. I
mean by the latter whether to question and analyse or to accept
unquestioningly. There are of course exceptions of those who have
taken up a way of life and mode of thought quite contrary to their
upbringing but they are a minority. Nevertheless in time such
minorities can be important.
For the pupose of discusion let us assume that the population can be
divided into two groups:
a) creationists
b) uncertain, don't know or care, mainstream religious adherents and
non-religous
Further let's assume that both groups reproduce at the same rate.
Then over time the proportion of group a) in the population depends on
the relative rates of the minorities who were brought up as a) and
defected to b), compared to those were brought up as b) and defected
to a).
Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major
force in causing defections from a) and preventing defections to it.
I would expect for this reason (perhaps naively) that over generations
group a) should dwindle away unless there was a contrary force causing
defections to it.
The weakness of general science education globally and in the USA
specifcally has been mentioned once or twice. As has the problem that
the weakness may become self reinforcing over time by lack of
qualified teachers and funding, brought on by lack of support in the
community. I also observe that so far the USA remains strong in top
level scientists and research due to continued funding at the elite
level but I wonder how long that can continue if the base is eroded.
So my questions are:
Is the base level of science education in the USA really so poor and
declining?
Since evolutionists occupy and hold the higher education power reigns
whatever deficiencies that exist are a reflection on their integrity
and pseudo-intellectualism. Most evolutionists do not even know that
Darwin's own camp invented the word "Darwinism" and that EVERY scholar
uses the term freely to describe themselves. Evolutionists here at
Talk Origins are so ill informed and unread that they assume the word
is a "creationist plot."
And the Talk Origin evolutionist believes he does not have to have a
source for his scientific views, which corroborates the underlying
fact in the paragraph above (ignorance is the fault of Darwinists who
control education).
Is weak science education responsible fully or in part for the
creationist population being maintained (maybe even growing) in the
USA?
Nonsensical evolutionary theory based on atheist presuppositions which
have no correspondence to reality is responsible for its diverse
rejection. Conversely, sensible Creationist theory supported by four
compelling lines of evidence (Bible, Science, Archaeology and History)
is responsible for its superior health.
If not fully responsible what else is?
What if anything can change the situation? SNIP...
Nothing.
The health and vigor of Creationism is ultimately caused by God.
Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God.
"The success of any theory that is based on the presuppositions of
Naturalism or Materialism is a punishment from God for denying Him
creator credit and status."
Since ToE is groundless its "health and vigor" is explained.
You still haven't explained how the theory of evolution is any more
"atheistic" than any other branch of science. ALL sciences rely on
methodological naturalism; feel free to cite a counter-example.
I agree; "science" as we know it today (since 1874) presupposes
invisible Deity to not be manifest or involved in reality.
You lie. That's not what methodological naturalism means.

Your harsh comment is actually a non-sequitur, Richard.

No, my harsh comment is quite relevant: You claimed that "'science' as
we know it today presupposed invisible Deity to not be manifest or
involved in reality."

The comment about methodological naturalism is relevant because
science does not claim that God (or any supernatural force) does not
exist; it simply admits that one cannot describe or test forces and
events that are by definition impossible to quantify or examine.

The comment about you being a liar is relevant because you've been
corrected on this many, many times.

Here is what you responded to (again):

"I agree; 'science' as we know it today (since 1874) presupposes
invisible Deity to not be manifest or involved in reality."

That is not a lie, Richard - it is a fact.

No, it remains a lie. There are many scientists who feel strongly that
God created the universe, and that their research provides a glimpse
at His hand and workings. But that's a philosophical belief; the
science itself-- the equations that describe the motion of the
planets, the bonding of two atoms, or the fusion of hydrogen at the
Sun's core-- involve no supernatural forces or magic.

Of course, it's possible that the Archangel Uriel personally
supervises every single hydrogen nucleus in Sol's heart; but how could
we tell? How could we determine whether it might not instead be Re? Or
Amaterasu?

Here's a hint: We can't. The supernatural is simply beyond the ability
of science to examine. That doesn't mean the supernatural doesn't
exist, of course, but until somebody figures out how to reliably and
reproducibly quantify and investigate the supernatural, science is
completely blind to it. And it always has been.

God has no place in "Science" since 1874.

First it was 1859, now it's 1874. Did you forget your earlier date?

And God has NEVER had a place in "science." That's simply not how
science works. No scientific hypothesis has ever ended with "it must
be magic" or "God did it." But feel free to cite a counterexample.

Methodoloical Naturalism excludes God (the
reason why does not harm the fact of exclusion). ANY philosophy or
methodology that is based on Naturalism or Materialism presupposes God
as not having any involvement in reality and does not allow
interpretations or conclusions that support the supernatural.

Yet ALL science hinges on methodological naturalism, and still there
are scientists who believe in God. (Or in Allah. Or in Brahma.) Your
assertions are counterfactual.

Again,
when Dana Tweedy answers this message he will undoubtedly supply the
reason why which does not harm the fact: God is excluded = pro-atheism
supposition.

Now, what "lie" are you talking about?

As I pointed out above, your lie that "'science' as we know it today
(since 1874) presupposes invisible Deity to not be manifest or
involved in reality." Science can't examine God, but that doesn't mean
God doesn't exist. A deaf man can't hear a Mozart symphony, but that
doesn't mean music doesn't exist either.

The only thing science can say about God is "we don't know." Some
claim God doesn't exist, while others claim He does, but either way
those are philosophical claims, not scientific ones. Unless and until
somebody builds a device that can measure the Divine, we don't know.

But this is the part that really bothers you, isn't it? You want
science to have proved God, to have pinned Him down with needles and
drained Him into test tubes; somehow you feel it won't be real or
meaningful unless it claims the auspices of science. Why can't you
just let your faith be faith?

Any methodology or philosophy which has the word "natural" or
"material" in it means God is dismissed a priori, again the reason why
is irrelevant to the fact, and I might add a lie. It is impossible to
be neutral about God since the claim exists in a exclusionary context.
Therefore, it does matter *what you may say* about being neutral or
untestable (only atheists believe God is untestable)

Okay, I'll bite. Describe a scientific experiment that could test for
the existence of a god. Extra credit points if that experiment can
accurately determine whether the god in question is named YHWH, Jesus,
Allah, Sivar, or something else.

if God is
excluded by presupposition. The exclusion, for any reason,
disqualifies a claim of neutrality for obvious reasons. Show me any
source which defines "exclusion" and "neutrality" as synonyms?

But once again, science doesn't "exclude" God-- it just can't poke,
prod, or examine Him.

The
only lie being told is by persons who think anyone is naieve enough to
believe that their pro-atheist God excluding bias is really neutrality
"because they said so." Negative, when God is excluded for *any*
reason this is a clear bias and no amount of attempted damage control

.... but science doesn't exclude God...

"means neutrality" can erase the bias as being seen as atheism. It is
also a insult to ones intelligence that atheists are using Naturalism-
based methodologies and philosophies (which all of them do) "but are
neutral towards God." Atheists are not neutral towards God, Richard.
They abide by MN and Naturalism and Materialism and Ontological
Naturalism BECAUSE of the common denominator of anti-theist
presupposition.

I'm an atheist, but I'm in no way an "anti-theist." I don't know
whether God exists, personally, and generally I don't fret over what
people think about it, or by what name they call Him.

After the fact "but it means neutrality" does not
mean
that if God is excluded NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY. By making these silly
excuses you are showing what brazen liars secularists are.

No, Ray, by making these silly accusations you are showing what a
brazen liar *you* are. Should biology books give a free pass to your
particular creation mythology? Should astronomy texts don't talk about
the magic invisible angels that push the planets around the Sun? In
order to reconcile the conspicuous absence of any evidence that favors
*your* particular beliefs, you're forced to claim that all scientists,
everywhere, are in a vast conspiracy against you, and have been for
150 years.

When God
is not eligible as an explanation = exclusion = bias = atheist
friendly and any definition of the exclusion that asserts neutrality
or anything else is a self-evident lie.

When has science EVER used God, or *the* gods or *a* god as an
explanation? Cite examples, please. How do you make testable
predictions based on something omnipotent and inscrutable?

Atheists abide by MN because
its presuppositions agree with their worldview.

*ALL* scientists abide by methodological naturalism, because that's
the only way to do science. (If you disagree with me, feel free to
provide an example of how you could test, measure, and quantify the
supernatural.) And apparently the only way you can reconcile this in
your head is to insist that all scientists are atheists in a massive
conspiracy.

Asserting the
presupposition is neutral is refuted by what atheism means. Atheists
are not neutral about the supernatural and all atheists are MNers.

To the extent that they do science, all scientists are "MNers."

I have
never disputed this fact. Again, Darwinian suppositions rule "science"
today; and these persons (making up any discipline in "science") are
evolutionists.
So even astronomers, physicists, and chemists are "evolutionists"?

Are you saying these persons do not accept ToE? Of course they do!

Most scientists do accept the theory of evolution-- most educated
people in general accept evolution as the best scientific explanation
of biodiversity, and scientists as a whole tend to be well-educated
people. But the theory of evolution is irrelevant to astronomy,
physics, and chemistry. Why would a physicist particularly have to
worry about evolution when researching quark confinement?

What possible motivation would they all have for utilizing
methodological naturalism if it isn't a useful and fruitful way to
investigate the world? Why would they engage in conspiracy that
deliberately limits avenues of inquiry when the scientific world
rewards innovation and discovery? Why hasn't some daring laboratory
unveiled shocking new theories that suggest cherubs guide beta decay?
Or that black holes are the maws through which Amemait the Devourer
consumes the souls of those judged unfit in the afterlife?

Discovering a whole new *way* to do science would go beyond Nobel
prize material, Ray; the discoverer's name would surpass Einstein as a
synonym for scientific genius.

So instead, you assert they're all in a vast and shadowy conspiracy.

Egyptologists are evolutionists (except a small handful). What are you
talking about? Most Federal Judges are evolutionists - what are you
talking about, Richard. Forty percent of the population is
evolutionist, again, what are you talking about, Richard?

You
usually claim that evolutionists are atheists; does that mean that all
all modern theories of astronomy, physics, and chemistry are atheist?

Of course. Their discipline abides by MN (like ToE) or some other
variation; God is not an option for explanation. What don't you
understand?

"God is not an option for explanation" because science can't examine
or quantify the supernatural. (See above.) Of course, if you can
suggest a way to empirically test the supernatural, have at it. Prove
me wrong.

I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, actually. Creationists
usually use "evolution" to describe any bit of science that makes them
uncomfortable-- even if it has absolutely nothing to do with biology.
Prior to 1859, theist suppositions ruled science. Fifteen years later
the Darwinian paradigm conquerered or deconverted science. Except for
a handful, every biologist was a converted evolutionist. This base
converted all the other disciplines.
Liar. Science is no more "atheistic" now than it was in 1858.

What are you talking about? God has no place in Science since 1874,
and today Science is presuppositionally atheistic.

As I've already explained above, God *never* had a place in science.
That doesn't make science "atheistic," just unable to examine the
divine.

Your behavior doesn't surprise me, of course; you label anything and
everyone "atheistic" that doesn't support *your* particular religious
claims.

Where is God in
physics or chemistry? These persons are evolutionists too, again, what
are you talking about?

Where was God *ever* in physics or chemistry? Cite some pre-1859 (or
pre-1874, if you prefer) examples.

I am baffled. "Science" today uses atheist suppositions; prior to 1874
theist suppositions ruled Science.

Examples?

Please note that a scientist who believes in God is not an example of
"theist suppositions ruling science." Show me where God was a
necessary and vital part of chemistry, or astronomy, or any other
scientific discipline, prior to 1874. Or 1859.

Funny how Wilkins is not around to
confirm when he is needed only because I am a Creationist. Richard,
nothing I have said is disputed by atheist scholars - I learned it
from them, except my argument exposing the obvious illogic of claiming
neutrality about God in the context of stringent exclusion.

I'd like to see some cites to thest "atheist scholars." I'd wager
they're either woo-woos like Milton, or you're misrepresenting what
they said.

Darwinism is a schism. The schismatics worship their own intellect
while stealing the credit for creation from God. Your view has no
correspondence to reality except in this context.
Once again you speak lies. Newton proposed the mechanics of gravity
long before 1859;

You have made an obvious mistake. You admit the uncontested (Newton
preceded Darwinism).

Oh no! I admitted that Newton lived centuries before Darwin! ZOMG O
NOES! The Evil Atheist Conspiracy will have my head!

Well, now that the Big Secret's out, we might as well talk openly.

My comment started with and only was talking
about Darwinism and onward.

Yes, so how is the theory of gravity pre-Darwin more God-friendly than
the theory of gravity post-Darwin? Note that general relativity
brought with it substantial revisions to both the equations we use to
describe gravity and our understanding of *how* it works. Please
provide details on the theism hidden in the old system, and the
atheism manifest in the new one.

please explain how gravity as described by general
relativity is any more "atheist" than Newton's gravitational
mechanics. Or maybe you can describe why Dalton's conceptualization of
atoms was more theistic than modern atomic theory.

Any facts that post-1859 "science" retains does not change the fact
that post 1859 "science" uses MN or Naturalism for its assumptions.
Newton's theist worldview produced facts that did not change except
God was not the creator of gravity after 1874 or whenever physics
actually changed presuppositions.

You didn't answer the question; you simply repeated that modern
science is atheist.

I repeat: Please explain how gravity as described by general
relativity is any more "atheist" than Newton's gravitational
mechanics. Or maybe you can describe why Dalton's conceptualization of
atoms was more theistic than modern atomic theory.

Any objective view of atomic energy data must conclude that a Creator
is behind the scene baffling scientists with the behavior of invisible
particles. But these scientists believe "Nature" apart from any Deity
is responsible. What don't you undertstand, Richard?

No "objective" view claims any such thing. Science can (and often
does) say "we don't know," or "we don't understand," but that doesn't
mean magic was involved-- or your particular favorite deity. That's
what's known as the "God of the Gaps" approach, and it forces you to
worship a deity that becomes progressively tinier and more
insignificant as science fills in more gaps.

Incidentally, science doesn't ascribe creative power to "nature." The
universe is just here, as far as we can tell; we're figuring out the
why and the how, but it's a mistake to reify it as a creative force.

All we are talking about is a change in supposition and how scientific
facts are interpreted. Before 1874, God was credited as Creator, after
and since natural processes are credited as creator.

Many scientists today *still* credit God as creator, though some have
other names for Him, and some don't hold with a patriarchal,
monotheistic deity. But Newton didn't invoke God for gravity in his
equations, and scientists still don't today.

Again, what don't you undertstand, Richard?

Why must you lie, Ray? Are you so fond of your persecution complex
that you must insist the whole scientific world conspires to hide the
truth? Is your faith so frail that you grow upset that science fails
to uncover fairies making the flowers grow or seraphim guiding the
weather?

.