Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?

On Mar 28, 7:04 pm, "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 28, 2:07 pm, "Richard Clayton" <rich.e.clay...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

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.

Yes, there are Creationist and ID scientists.

And there are Buddhist and Muslim scientists. As well as Christian
scientists who are not creationists, though I'm sure you'd be quick to
insist they aren't really Christian. Science is religiously neutral,
and is open to people of any religion, or no religion.

But that's a philosophical belief;

Supported by the scientific facts which they (= the scientists we are
talking about) produce. Therefore, their philosophy is corroborated as
correct by science (in this instance).


There are no scientific facts that support any specific religion.
(Creationists and IDists often lie and claim there are-- but that
doesn't make their lies true.) Nor does any scientific theory involve
gods or other supernatural forces; never have, never will. But once
again, feel free to shut me up by citing some counterexamples.

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.

But that is not the claim. The claim is that a Creator created the
things you mention. MN says no, a Creator did not.

Methodological naturalism says no such thing. But do feel free to cite
any science text that claims otherwise.

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?

Your straw man was answered above. I shall ignore it and skip down.

It's not a straw man, and you didn't answer it. How could we determine
whether a god was invisibly guiding a process? How could we determine
*which* god?

SNIP....The supernatural is simply beyond the ability
of science to examine.

Correction: Darwinian and MN "science" does not have the ability.
Science has always proven the existence of the Genesis Creator.

When? Where? Show me some examples of pre-1874 science using gods in
their theories.

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.

I agree: Darwinian and MN science is "completely blind to it."

And since all science relies on methodological naturalism, and always
has, you should agree that all science is completely blind to the
supernatural.

God has no place in "Science" since 1874.

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

I said that those 15 years was how long it took for Darwinism to
convert science to Naturalism presuppositions or some other synonymous
comment.

.... except science has always relied on methodological naturalism...

Engage your brain, PLEASE or I am out of here - you got that?

Oh no, you're going to viciously run away at me again! I quake with
fear.

I am tired of carrying you (like in our debate).

What, the debate that you ran away from? Where you cheerfully admitted
that you had no idea what I was talking about? The one where you
didn't answer a single point from my opening posts in your dozens of
responses? THAT debate?

If I were you, I'd be glad that some Mysterious Post Deleter is
removing your posts from the thread, because I'd be quite embarrassed
to have my name attached to anything like that.

What happened in 1859, Richard?

Fifteen years later science bought Darwin's lies hook, line and
sinker. Creationism ceased to exist in biology. Theist presuppositions
were replaced with atheist presuppositions during the span of time.
Since then the presuppositions have been misrepresented (like you have
argued) in order to justify them before a naieve and trusting
Christian world.

You do realize that Biblical literalism was abandoned long before
Darwin's time, right? And that Darwin was not the first to note the
morphological similarities between humans and other apes? Darwin
didn't discover evolution any more than Newton discovered gravity; he
was simply the first to accurately describe it with a theory and grasp
how it happens.

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.

You are ignorant. Before circa 1859 "theist suppositions set the stage
for scientific investigation" (Gruber 1974).

First of all, if you're going to argue from quotes, could you at least
provide a proper cite? A Google search on "theist suppositions set the
stage" provided zero hits. Of themselves, quotes don't prove anything;
Gruber could be speaking in an area outside his expertise or just
plain wrong; and it's always possible that you're taking the quote out
of context to suggest the author is saying something other than the
original meaning.

But why not just show me some examples of pre-1859 science that
includes magic or deities? You could shut me up for good by showing
where Newton stuffed a god into gravity.

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.

Any Christian scientist who abides by MN is not a real Christian. He
may think he is, he may go to Church, he may take Communion, he may
pray and use Christian terminology and he may even tithe to his
Church. But MN is God's enemy therefore this scientist is deceived. No
real Christian would subject himself to atheist MN. The Christian you
speak of is a Judas traitor and cares more about what the world thinks
of him rather than God.

That's funny; I always thought deciding who is and is not "really" a
Christian was God's job, not yours. (Maybe you think he's not doing it
well enough.) But what makes your opinion on the matter authoritative?
If an evolutionary biologist has a strong personal relationship with
Jesus, why do YOU have the right to declare that it's phony?

But ultimately this points out how hopeless your case is: The only way
you can keep your beliefs from imploding under the weight of the
evidence is to claim that everybody who disagrees with you is an
atheist, involved in a vast conspiracy to conceal the truth from the
world. Every chemist, every astronomer, every biologist, every
geologist... they're all in on it! And every Christian (or Muslim or
Hindu) who says he has no problem reconciling his religion with
science? Obviously an atheist plant! A Manchurian Candidate foisted on
an unsuspecting world!

Don't you think it's possible that your opinions on biology might
simply be *wrong*? That maybe the experts don't base their opinions on
philosophical grudges, but on the observable evidence?

Dr. Scott has already proven that MN and its "success" is a penalty
from God for denying Him credit and status as Creator.

Doctor Scott proved nothing of the sort. Saying don't make it so, not
by a long shot.

When God is
ruled out ***(for whatever reason)*** it means that God has already
ruled you out - that's why you agree to rule Him out.

You got that?

I don't agree, actually. But your religious beliefs are your own, and
you're welcome to them. I personally don't believe that God would
reject *anybody*, but I'm not Lenny Flank's pizza boy, so my religious
opinions carry no particular weight.

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?

Faith is based on facts. Faith which has no factual foundation is
foolishness.

Your opinion of faith is not Biblical. See Hebrews 11 for details.

Oh, wait, you think that the Bible contains deliberate heresy and the
Sermon on the Mount doesn't apply to you. One wonders why you trust
anything it says at all...

I noticed you snipped the rest without marking it. No answers, huh?

.

Loading