Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.

On 2009-07-15, Steven L. <sdlitvin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Frank J wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:16 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
TomS wrote:
"On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 03:33:24 -0700 (PDT), in article
<382aa76e-8cae-4060-876f-38d44dde5...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, wf3h
stated..."
this article in the NY times details the paranoid delusions of the
crazed fanatics who think there's a conspiracy to hide the fact man
never walked on the moon. the parallels with creationism are striking:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/science/space/14hoax.html?hpw
Forty years after men first touched the lifeless dirt of the Moon =97
and they did. Really. Honest. =97 polling consistently suggests that
some 6 percent of Americans believe the landings were faked and could
not have happened. The series of landings, one of the greatest gambles
of the human race, was an elaborate hoax developed to raise national
pride, many among them insist.
Ted Goertzel, a professor of sociology at Rutgers University who has
studied conspiracy theorists, said =93there=92s a similar kind of logic
behind all of these groups, I think.=94 For the most part, he explained,
=93They don=92t undertake to prove that their view is true=94 so much as to
=93find flaws in what the other side is saying.=94 And so, he said,
argument is a matter of accumulation instead of persuasion. =93They feel
if they=92ve got more facts than the other side, that proves they=92re
right.=94
Mark Fenster, a professor at the University of Florida Levin College
of Law who has written extensively on conspiracy theories, said he
sees similarities between people who argue that the Moon landings
never happened and those who insist that the 9/11 attacks were planned
by the government and that President Obama=92s birth certificate is
fake: at the core, he said, is a polarization so profound that people
end up with an unshakable belief that those in power =93simply can=92t be
trusted.=94
Adam Savage, the co-star of the television show =93MythBusters,=94 spent
an episode last year taking apart Moon hoax theories bit by bit,
entertainingly and convincingly. The theorists, he noted, never give
up. =93They=92ll say you have to keep an open mind,=94 he said, =93but they
reject every single piece of evidence that doesn=92t adhere to their
thesis.=94
--------------------------------
the parallels with creationism are remarkable. we have pagano and
'adman' shrieking about how all scientists are liars and are afraid to
tell us the 'truth' about evolution. they call for being open minded
but confuse it with gullibility.
so the nut jobs on the moon landing seem to have ALOT in common with
creationists...
interestin
"They don't undertake to prove that their view is true ..." That
sounds familiar, doesn't it?
But most of them, unlike the creationists, at least have a "theory".
The true creationists, like Henry Morris, Ken Ham, and our very own Ray
Martinez, definitely have a theory.

You mean "theory" in the colloquial sense I hope. They certainly are
not ones that explain facts and makes predictions. Although they are
falsifiable and falsified, so "obsolete theories" might qualify. And
don't forget Hugh Ross who has yet another one, different from those
of the aforementioned "scientists."


Their theory is the creation myth
of Genesis, taken literally, and explained pseudo-scientifically.

The more modern ID proponents are the ones who don't have a theory of
just what happened and when. Instead, they're just trying to establish
a place for intelligent design in the evolution of life. They don't
even say just what that place is.

And reading between the lines of DI folk, if they did, most would
concede that it's (what the designer did, when and how)
indistinguisable from evolution. Of course their prior commitment to
the big tent precludes them ever admitting that.

To me, the dividing line between ID and theistic evolution is really
unclear.

They start out from different places and then use handwaving to obscure
what they really believe--that God had a role in evolution.

Francis Collins on "BioLogos" seems to be claiming that God cleverly
manipulated evolution by capitalizing on quantum uncertainty. That is,
when nuclear and chemical reactions could have gone in several ways, God
made the quantum uncertainties result in a choice of just one way.

That position isn't THAT far off from Michael Behe's position, is it?

That's actually a pretty good question. I assume you're refering to
this, or something like it:

<q>
It is thus perfectly possible that God might influence the
creation in subtle ways that are unrecognizable to scientific
observation. In this way, modern science opens the door to
divine action without the need for law breaking miracles.
Given the impossibility of absolute prediction or explanation,
the laws of nature no longer preclude God’s action in the world.
Our perception of the world opens once again to the possibility
of divine interaction.
</q>

http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-divine-action/

I see the difference between the two positions as follows. Collins
sees a physical world that allows divine intervention consistent
with physical laws. Behe sees a physical world that requires
divine intervention beyond physical laws.

Collins's God can be smart enough that intervention is never
necessary. Behe's God cannot be that competent (specifically,
he can't be that much smarter than Behe) and due to this limitation,
could not have designed evolution in such a way as to generate
the world as we know it. Thus, patches are required from time
to time.

Collins's God need not (and in Collins's mind, does not) conflict
with evolution. Behe's God must.







.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Virginia: Chesterfield School Board takes up debate on different theories of life.
    ... broken record rant describing theories which say God created reality. ... evolution is justified by the evidence, ... "scientific creationism" was not really scientific. ... If God exists then He has to be ultimately responsible for eveything. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Noahs age?
    ... I arrived at evolution ... God does not lose his Creator status if his methods were a bit more ... moon is moving away from earth. ... is that at one time it was closer to earth than it is now. ...
    (alt.religion.christian)
  • Re: Ben Stein: Win His Career
    ... about evolution *& atheism in the first part of the post. ... of creationism which include some of the points the OP brought ... that diseases are a judgment sent by God on those who have displeased ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: In the News: Home-schoolers learn to critique evolution
    ... critiquing the evidence for evolution. ... Creationism is a religious position, ... God referred to Himself by different names, in different situations, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Views on evolution
    ... > the word of God. ... > the theory of evolution. ... sensible way to harmonise the Genesis account with science. ... What priors do creationism and evolution share? ...
    (talk.origins)