Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?

Ray Martinez wrote:
On Mar 29, 1:28 pm, "Richard Clayton" <rich.e.clay...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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.

I agree that "Science is religiously neutral" - any Deity centered
religion could claim the scientific facts of ID to be evidencing their
Deity. That's all the current ID movement says: "Organisms and nature
are the product of intelligence."

There are no "scientific facts of ID." Never was. ID is based on obfuscation and argumentation from ignorance: "We don't know how it happened, therefore it was magic." Please note that while Dembski loves to crow about the flagellum, he has never suggested any theory that might explain the origin of the flagellum better than current biology.

If ID could propose a theory, or even a mechanism, or make any testable predictions distinct from those of conventional biology, they might have something to discuss. Until then, they remain religious fundamentalists lying about their beliefs in an attempt to dodge the First Amendment.

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.

Standard atheist doctrine.

Ad hom = inability to refute.

We have the observation of design seen in nature. Did you know that
Dawkins accepts this description? Do you know how he explains it?
(natural-selection-did-it = the "thesis" of "Blind Watchmaker" 1986).

Yes, and while I disagree with his theological conclusions, his understanding of biology is rock-solid. Your only defense is to say "He's an atheist, therefore he must be wrong."

(Creationists and IDists often lie and claim there are-- but that
doesn't make their lies true.)

When we remember that you are a Darwinist and/or Atheist this belief
is then explained.

Ad hom = inability to refute.

So what are the scientific facts that support any particular religion, Ray? Come on, cite some.

Nor does any scientific theory involve
gods or other supernatural forces; never have, never will.

Prior to 1859 the majority view of science asserted God was
responsible for creating nature

... and many still do. If you're arguing that there are fewer theistic scientists today than in the 19th century, I can't really argue that. You're probably right. It doesn't follow, however, that they're all in some vast conspiracy against THE TRVTH.

Nor did the nature of science itself change: Science has always relied on methodological naturalism, and always will. Once again, please feel free to cite some counterexamples.

and before 1837 Darwin was one of
them. In 1802 Paley published probably the most famous scientific
theory of all time (not counting Darwin's): Argument from Design. This
was the context of Darwin's reply in 1859.

Lyell and Sedgwick were two of Darwin's most prominent mentors while
coming up in Victorian science. Both were Creationists, although Lyell
did convert to evolution eventually, but well after 1859. Sedgwick
remained a Creationist not fooled by Darwin's philosophy packaged as
"science."

The theory of evolution is not a philosophy; it's rock-solid science.

But once
again, feel free to shut me up by citing some counterexamples.


What example did you give, Richard? You made comments, points,
opinions and unsupported assertions but no examples.

The burden of proof is on you: You claimed that science was supernaturalistic prior to 1859. Now back up your claim. Put up or shut up.

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.


All atheists are MNers. Why is that? (Hint: could it be that MN agrees
with their worldview? Why else would they subscribe?).

ALL SCIENTISTS practice methodological naturalism while doing science. Even the religious ones. If you disagree, please feel free to cite some examples of science that do not rely on methodological naturalism.

Put up or shut up, Ray. You've been dodging this issue for several posts now. Cite some examples of supernaturalistic science, or simply admit that no such animal exists.

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?


My paper will answer that.

So, your paper will provide a method for empirically testing the supernatural? This should be fascinating indeed. But I don't believe your paper will ever be released. You've been crowing about it for two years and haven't released a single paragraph to the public. I think you've found that "My Paper" is a convenient place to hide when you're outmatched.

But for now: what process are you assuming?

I don't "assume" any theological process at the core of a star. Science explains it quite adequately. It's possible that some supernatural agency intervenes in some manner too subtle for us to measure, but as with all supernatural claims, science can't say anything either way.

Can we agree that Atheists and Christians see things differently?

The statement is too vague to agree or disagree. Atheists and Christians certainly disagree on the nature of God, just as Christians and Jews disagree on the nature of God... but science works the same for everybody.

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.

You misunderstand. Before 1874, science presupposed that God was the
Designer.

Science did no such thing. Science has *never* involved the supernatural. Cite some examples or stop making this ridiculous and dishonest claim.

After 1874 science concluded the characteristic of design
did not really exist. According to Dawkins it is an illusion produced
by natural selection. If you disagree then please cite a source -
that's all I ask, otherwise your view is subjective.

It's your claim, Ray: You back it up. Please note that quotes do not a "source" make-- sources come from peer-reviewed science literature. You claimed that science invoked the supernatural prior to 1859; put up or shut up. Come on, Ray, the whole world is holding its breath! Show us just how Newton's theistic theory of gravity differs from that evil atheist Einstein's.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." — Joss Whedon

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The thing about ID...
    ... Some personal beliefs (e.g. the existense of God) are not ... >> testable and cannot be studied by science. ... >> be drawn from evidence consisting of observations and experimentations. ... as many of the greatest scientists believed ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Something for the Fundies...
    ... doesn't mean that science is perfect--in fact, ... >> scientists who attend church. ... make you too smart for God, and yet there exist among the scientific ... and Physics would somehow shake us ignorant believers from our mindless ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism. ... Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major ... Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God. ... there are Creationist and ID scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism. ... Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major ... level scientists and research due to continued funding at the elite ... Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The thing about ID...
    ... Some personal beliefs (e.g. the existense of God) are not ... >>> testable and cannot be studied by science. ... so all evidence must be held as contaminated and invalid. ... It isn't hampered because the believing scientists deliberately ignore what ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading