Skip to main content

Home/ Atheist Thoughts/ Group items tagged creation

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Dripa B

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense: Scientific American - 0 views

www.sciam.com/article.cfm

atheism christianity creationism evolution religion science

shared by Dripa B on 19 Sep 07 - Cached
  • Dripa B on 19 Sep 07
     
    Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
Dripa B

Greetings From Idiot America - Esquire - 0 views

www.esquire.com/...ESQ0207GREETINGS

activism america christianity creationism culture education evolution idiocy opinion politics politik religion science

shared by Dripa B on 19 Sep 07 - Cached
  • Dripa B on 19 Sep 07
     
    Creationism. Intelligent Design. Faith-based this. Trust-your-gut that. There's never been a better time to espouse, profit from, and believe in utter, unadulterated crap. And the crap is rising so high, it's getting dangerous.
Bakari Chavanu

Dawkins vs. Collins: analysis of the debate. - 1 views

richarddawkins.net/,Gary-J-Whittenberger-eSkeptic

religion atheism dawkins science evolution

shared by Bakari Chavanu on 28 Sep 09 - Cached
  • In the first exchange, Dawkins and Collins apparently agreed that the proposition "God exists" is either true or false. Dawkins indicated that science is appropriate to the task of answering the question, but Collins disagreed: "From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in."
  • "God cannot be completely contained within nature," he implied that God can be partly contained within nature, which makes God open to scientific analysis.
  • By inventing a category called "supernatural" and relegating hypothetical things to it, they apparently hope to protect those things from the requirement of evidence.
  • ...21 more annotations...
  • What does this mean? Does it make any sense to say that something exists outside space and time? When we apply the word "exists" to something, don't we mean that we can observe it or its effects in space and time?
  • Have we ever observed anything outside space and time?
  • By insisting that God exists "outside of nature," Collins nearly makes his supernatural compartment so small that there isn't enough room for God.
  • He is certainly correct that the inefficiency of evolution, not to mention its "errors of design," is inconsistent with the traditional idea of God as an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being. This traditional kind of God would be more likely to operate through Creationism, but this hypothesized mode of operation is not supported by the evidence of biology, genetics, geology, and cosmology.
  • Dawkins proposed two possible explanations for the values of the physical constants we find in our universe. One is that these constants couldn't be any different from what they are; they simply are what they are.
  • Within this great mulitverse environment, there are bound to be some universes that have the physical constants at just the right values to support the development of life, and we find ourselves in one of them.
  • Although Dawkins seems to present the two best currently available alternatives to Collins' God hypothesis to explain the life-enabling values of the physical constants of our universe, he and Collins both seem to accept without any skepticism the proposition that our universe is improbable. But how can they just assume this? In my opinion, they do this through a misapplication of probability theory. In the debate they used the "gravitational constant" as an example. They correctly noted that if the gravitational constant (G) were different by one part in a hundred million million, then life, as we know it, would not be possible in our universe.
  • One must know how many items with the feature are in the population and how many items without the feature are in that same population (or alternatively, how many items altogether are in the population).
  • In fact, we do not know that any other universes exist at all! Without knowledge of other universes, Dawkins and Collins misuse probability theory to conclude that our universe is rare
  • More must be said about Collins' contention that the application of Occam's razor supports the God hypothesis over the multiverse hypothesis. It doesn't. The God hypothesis is less parsimonious than the multiverse hypothesis for two reasons: 1. it invents a totally new type of entity, a supernatural being "outside time and space," which is not necessary with the latter hypothesis, and 2. it leads to the classic problem of infinite regress. If there must be something outside our universe, i.e. God, to explain the existence of our universe, then there must be something outside of God, i.e. "Z," to explain God. Then something is needed to explain "Z," ad infinitum.
  • Alluding to St. Augustine and commenting on the book of Genesis, Collins said "It was not intended as a science textbook. It was intended as a description of who God was, who we are and what our relationship is supposed to be with God."
  • Collins responded that if one accepts God's existence, then it is not unreasonable to expect that God might occasionally intervene in the world in a miraculous way, and that if one accepts that Jesus was divine then the Resurrection is "not a great logical leap." But these are big "ifs," and although Collins tries to show that they are plausible, he offers no good evidence to show that they are probable.
  • Collins implied that this altruism is a sign of God's existence and a gift from him.
  • Dawkins responded that good and evil don't exist as independent entities but that good and bad things simply happen to people.
  • Collins' "moral law" argument is another variation on the "God of the Gaps" theme. If science doesn't yet have a complete description of a phenomenon, then there must be a super-being behind the scenes who is responsible for whatever is in the gaps.
  • Collins' idea of a "moral law" is premature and far too rigid when one considers the variability in moral rules across different geographic areas, cultures, ethnicities, and religions.
  • "Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation." Part of the difficulty here is that "faith" has several different meanings and unfortunately Collins isn't clear about which meaning he intends. "Faith" may refer to a religion or worldview, as in "My faith is Islam." It may refer to an attitude of trust or confidence, as in "I have faith in my physician."
  • In his concluding remarks Collins indicated that he is interested in many "why" questions for which he believes answers may not come from science but from the "spiritual realm." In his concluding remarks Dawkins indicated his doubt that the future discoveries of science would support any of the beliefs of the traditional religions, beliefs that he regards as parochial, but nevertheless worthy of some respect. And on that conciliatory note, the debate was concluded.
  • Who won the debate? From the perspective of style or mode of expression, perhaps Collins won. At times, Dawkins seemed to come across as a bit testy and abrasive.
  • Gary J. Whittenberger
  • Maybe the best approach in any such discussion forum is to try to flush out first exactly where the theist is positioned on the spectrum of belief by a series of clear questions. eg for Christians: - Do you accept the literal truth of the Bible (completely, or just the New Testament?) - Do you believe in Jesus's miracles, virgin birth, physical ascencion to Heaven? - Do you believe that God regularly intervenes in the natural universe eg by answering prayers, or in the design of organisms? etc
  • Bakari Chavanu on 29 Sep 09
     
    Excellent article and good for discussion. Would like to read others in this group think.
ben wells

Why do people laugh at creationists? - 0 views

www.youtube.com/watch

creationism evolution id intelligentdesign stein

shared by ben wells on 17 Apr 08 - Cached
  • ben wells on 17 Apr 08
     
    This is a biting critique of Ben Stein and his movie called Expelled in which he decries the mistreatment of creationists and attempts to debunk evolution. The youtuber doing the critique articulates the rhetorical tactic of colluding free speech and the scientific method- the idea that anybody's OPINION is somehow just as valid and important as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY because we're all entitled to free speech. (Those who think that should go look up what it takes for a hypothesis to become a theory.) That's not how it works and anyone who's even slightly serious about figuring out fundamental truths about our existence should reject that notion outright. Only the trained professionals, please. I can certainly say whatever I want about anything- but I shouldn't be listened to as any serious beacon of knowledge if I can't back up my claims with evidence. (And "because the Bible says so" or "there must be an intelligent designer because it's just so complex and I don't understand it" is not evidence.)\n\nI still don't get why we need to have all this stuff figured out in order find fulfillment and to live our lives happily. We greatly underrate ourselves. The video is also really fascinating because it reminds us just how amazing and fascinating our world is - he lists off many discoveries of the past 150 years - amazing stuff. All Ben Stein accomplishes is making himself resemble a life-size douche (a South Park episode comes to mind).
Kylyssa Shay

What Evolution Isn't - 0 views

www.squidoo.com/What-Evolution-Isn-t

evolution creation what evolution isn't evolution myths

shared by Kylyssa Shay on 23 Mar 09 - Cached
  • Kylyssa Shay on 23 Mar 09
     
    Some people in America have a lot of erroneous ideas about what Evolution is. They think it's a religion, an ideology, a moral judgment, or an evil plot to turn them away from God.Well, evolution is none of those things and through this lens I hope to show what evolution isn't and explore why so many conservative Christians have such hatred for that particular scientific theory.
Skeptical Debunker

Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution - Yahoo! News - 0 views

news.yahoo.com/...us_rel_home_school_evolution

home schoolling Christian evolution propoganda

shared by Skeptical Debunker on 07 Mar 10 - Cached
  • Christian-based materials dominate a growing home-school education market that encompasses more than 1.5 million students in the U.S. And for most home-school parents, a Bible-based version of the Earth's creation is exactly what they want. Federal statistics from 2007 show 83 percent of home-schooling parents want to give their children "religious or moral instruction." "The majority of home-schoolers self-identify as evangelical Christians," said Ian Slatter, a spokesman for the Home School Legal Defense Association. "Most home-schoolers will definitely have a sort of creationist component to their home-school program." Those who don't, however, often feel isolated and frustrated from trying to find a textbook that fits their beliefs. Two of the best-selling biology textbooks stack the deck against evolution, said some science educators who reviewed sections of the books at the request of The Associated Press. "I feel fairly strongly about this. These books are promulgating lies to kids," said Jerry Coyne, an ecology and evolution professor at the University of Chicago. The textbook publishers defend their books as well-rounded lessons on evolution and its shortcomings. One of the books doesn't attempt to mask disdain for Darwin and evolutionary science. "Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many points in this book puzzling," says the introduction to "Biology: Third Edition" from Bob Jones University Press. "This book was not written for them." The textbook delivers a religious ultimatum to young readers and parents, warning in its "History of Life" chapter that a "Christian worldview ... is the only correct view of reality; anyone who rejects it will not only fail to reach heaven but also fail to see the world as it truly is."
  • Skeptical Debunker on 07 Mar 10
     
    Home-school mom Susan Mule wishes she hadn't taken a friend's advice and tried a textbook from a popular Christian publisher for her 10-year-old's biology lessons. Mule's precocious daughter Elizabeth excels at science and has been studying tarantulas since she was 5. But she watched Elizabeth's excitement turn to confusion when they reached the evolution section of the book from Apologia Educational Ministries, which disputed Charles Darwin's theory. "I thought she was going to have a coronary," Mule said of her daughter, who is now 16 and taking college courses in Houston. "She's like, 'This is not true!'"
  • Skeptical Debunker on 07 Mar 10
     
    Home Fooling.
julia goolia

Explaining evolution to a Creationist - comic - 13 views

www.b12partners.net/...doonesbury_ID_060702.gif

evolution creationism comics images science funny

shared by julia goolia on 08 Oct 09 - No Cached
  • julia goolia on 08 Oct 09
     
    funny!
1 - 13 of 13
Showing 20▼ items per page