creationist logic

[thickskin]

Since my best contact with the world here in costa rica is inet, and as it’s investigating the evolution of primate communication systems that brought me here, I logically got into a heated online debate re evolution this morning. Now, since this topic has a pretty well documented developmental progression, the talking points of which we all know and don’t care to hear again, I have a more specific question, one I’ve found interesting for awhile now, that I’d like feedback on. What’s the deal with the creationist idolatry of the handful of scientists who actually back creationism/ID/anti-evolution? To, in the same breath, write off the whole enterprise as conspiratorial against religion (and often ‘librul’) and then heap praises on a creationist just bc s/he has legit scientific credentials, seems pathetically tissue-thin. Now, before you say, ‘par for the course’ or something similar, growing up in a state where this was a perennial hot button, I’ve heard a lot of thoughtful creationist arguments. Which is exactly why this love/hate scientist discrepancy coming from so many creationists interests me. Thoughts?

[shally]

Since my best contact with the world here in costa rica is inet, and as it’s investigating the evolution of primate communication systems that brought me here, I logically got into a heated online debate re evolution this morning. Now, since this topic has a pretty well documented developmental progression, the talking points of which we all know and don’t care to hear again, I have a more specific question, one I’ve found interesting for awhile now, that I’d like feedback on. What’s the deal with the creationist idolatry of the handful of scientists who actually back creationism/ID/anti-evolution? To, in the same breath, write off the whole enterprise as conspiratorial against religion (and often ‘librul’) and then heap praises on a creationist just bc s/he has legit scientific credentials, seems pathetically tissue-thin. Now, before you say, ‘par for the course’ or something similar, growing up in a state where this was a perennial hot button, I’ve heard a lot of thoughtful creationist arguments. Which is exactly why this love/hate scientist discrepancy coming from so many creationists interests me. Thoughts?

i have read and re read your question several times and i still cannot get what it is that you are asking.. perhaps i personally have not evolved far enough..LOL...
honestly, i may be dense, but i do not see what it is you are asking...

[thickskin]

i have read and re read your question several times and i still cannot get what it is that you are asking.. perhaps i personally have not evolved far enough..LOL...
honestly, i may be dense, but i do not see what it is you are asking...

sorry about that. i was wondering about two things. 1--why the eagerness to jump on the bandwagon of any 'real scientist' who backs ID or creationism if it's really a matter of faith? 2--why downplay science as indoctrination from a group of anti-religion academics, and then get on board once a scientist 'comes around' to your way of thinking?

[shally]

sorry about that. i was wondering about two things. 1--why the eagerness to jump on the bandwagon of any 'real scientist' who backs ID or creationism if it's really a matter of faith? 2--why downplay science as indoctrination from a group of anti-religion academics, and then get on board once a scientist 'comes around' to your way of thinking?

i think it is a question of agenda trumping everything... including logic and scientific thought process

[Booser]

i agree with shally - i stand on the other side of this argument and have the same complaints (albeit reversed) of the scientific community.

honestly i dont know why science and faith are so mutually exclusive. people on either side of the argument are largely unwilling to compromise - it is an "either-or" subject... i would like to see more appreciation for the synergy that can exist between science and faith.

[BurgundyNGold]

i agree with shally - i stand on the other side of this argument and have the same complaints (albeit reversed) of the scientific community.

honestly i dont know why science and faith are so mutually exclusive. people on either side of the argument are largely unwilling to compromise - it is an "either-or" subject... i would like to see more appreciation for the synergy that can exist between science and faith.
I will agree with this wholeheartedly. I don't see why evolution can't be an operational reality that can be attributed to God. I don't think it's mutually exclusive. What I think is mutually exclusive is science and the idea that the bible is a literal document. Since the bible is pretty much the end all, be all as the "evidence" of God and his teachings for some, anything that is contradictory to the bible is by extension contradictory to God.

[shally]

I will agree with this wholeheartedly. I don't see why evolution can't be an operational reality that can be attributed to God. I don't think it's mutually exclusive. What I think is mutually exclusive is science and the idea that the bible is a literal document. Since the bible is pretty much the end all, be all as the "evidence" of God and his teachings for some, anything that is contradictory to the bible is by extension contradictory to God.

many biblical scholars accept the concept that the bible is the work of more than 1 individual (but divinely inspired) there should be room for discussion as to it's meaning and purpose.. i.e. literal versus allegorical

[akhhorus]

many biblical scholars accept the concept that the bible is the work of more than 1 individual (but divinely inspired) there should be room for discussion as to it's meaning and purpose.. i.e. literal versus allegorical

What interesting is that all my evangelical friends say the same thing out of the public hearing, that they all believe that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally and its a series of analogies. Even the "J" guy. And this isn't some single church or single style of church, but across the board.

[shally]

What interesting is that all my evangelical friends say the same thing out of the public hearing, that they all believe that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally and its a series of analogies. Even the "J" guy. And this isn't some single church or single style of church, but across the board.

i do not have a clue how we get past the public/private positions..

[akhhorus]

i do not have a clue how we get past the public/private positions..

Straight from their and several of their minister's mouths: Throw out the exploiters and political ralliers. In short, get their religion(or the use of their religion) out of politics. Too much money around the evangelicals and too many RR sharks trying to feed.

[shally]

Straight from their and several of their minister's mouths: Throw out the exploiters and political ralliers. In short, get their religion(or the use of their religion) out of politics. Too much money around the evangelicals and too many RR sharks trying to feed.

i think that money, religion and politics have been so thoroughly braided there is little hope of separating them any time soon

[akhhorus]

i think that money, religion and politics have been so thoroughly braided there is little hope of separating them any time soon

A major scandal, the destruction of the RR exploiters in a national election or a shakespearian overreaching would do that rather quickly. The US, throughout its history, has had these cycles of religious fervor. And they're almost as certainly followed up by an equal secular reaction/fervor that undoes a lot of what the religious groups saw to accomplish and undoes a lot of the connections between politics and religion.

[shally]

A major scandal, the destruction of the RR exploiters in a national election or a shakespearian overreaching would do that rather quickly. The US, throughout its history, has had these cycles of religious fervor. And they're almost as certainly followed up by an equal secular reaction/fervor that undoes a lot of what the religious groups saw to accomplish and undoes a lot of the connections between politics and religion.

could happen.. the difference is that now there are major media capabilities by the RR.. they have their own broadcasting capabilities and are not dependent upon anyone.. it would not be easy to separate them from their flock

[akhhorus]

could happen.. the difference is that now there are major media capabilities by the RR.. they have their own broadcasting capabilities and are not dependent upon anyone.. it would not be easy to separate them from their flock

They had the same apparatus in the 80s, maybe more effective since they didn't have the 24 hour news cycle watching them like a hawk. And they imploded with the scandals that exploded. The flock can be easily turned off and will retreat back to their insular communities.

[shally]

They had the same apparatus in the 80s, maybe more effective since they didn't have the 24 hour news cycle watching them like a hawk. And they imploded with the scandals that exploded. The flock can be easily turned off and will retreat back to their insular communities.

possible.. but i think that more people identify themselves with these religious groups than ever. the charismatic group as a whole is the fastest growing segment of organized religion and they are politically adept, highly organized and aggressive. scandals or not, i think they are going to be a force to be reckoned with for a long time to come.
when people, rightly or wrongly (not for me to say) believe they are doing God's work, they are not easily dissuaded.. plus, politicans inthe red states are very fearfull of crossing them because of the potentially devastating effect or their displeasure. the impact is not so easily felt in deeply blue states, but it is having an impct elsewhere.
also, as the number of immigrants rises, these people tend to be more religious as a group than the population as a whole. i think they will continue to find converts in large numbers there as well

[akhhorus]

possible.. but i think that more people identify themselves with these religious groups than ever. the charismatic group as a whole is the fastest growing segment of organized religion and they are politically adept, highly organized and aggressive. scandals or not, i think they are going to be a force to be reckoned with for a long time to come.
when people, rightly or wrongly (not for me to say) believe they are doing God's work, they are not easily dissuaded.. plus, politicans inthe red states are very fearfull of crossing them because of the potentially devastating effect or their displeasure. the impact is not so easily felt in deeply blue states, but it is having an impct elsewhere.
also, as the number of immigrants rises, these people tend to be more religious as a group than the population as a whole. i think they will continue to find converts in large numbers there as well

Thats all well and good, but this has happened before(I can think of 4 times in US history and I'm sure there's more), and it always swings back the other way when the religious elements overreach or get caught up in scandals. What you see as unique or extraordinary, is actually cyclical.

[Spence]

I will agree with this wholeheartedly. I don't see why evolution can't be an operational reality that can be attributed to God. I don't think it's mutually exclusive. What I think is mutually exclusive is science and the idea that the bible is a literal document.That's it. I'm a church-going Christian and a believer in evolution. God and evolution are not incompatible. What is incompatible is science and a Biblical fundamentalism. If you really believe that the universe was created in six days then you cannot be a person that is serious about real science. The Bible is full of metaphors. Reading any text as complex as the Bible literally will lead to preposterous conclusions.

[shally]

That's it. I'm a church-going Christian and a believer in evolution. God and evolution are not incompatible. What is incompatible is science and a Biblical fundamentalism. If you really believe that the universe was created in six days then you cannot be a person that is serious about real science. The Bible is full of metaphors. Reading any text as complex as the Bible literally will lead to preposterous conclusions.

i think it comes down to the position of the individual church and leadership on how much interpretation versus literal acceptance is brooked.. what i mean is that if the elders or minister demands literal acceptance of each word then there is no room for scientific thought. it is what it says (subject to the translation that it is provided of course) and you either stay or go depending upon what you believe

but my point was that fundamentalism is growing and i do not accept akh's tenet that this is cyclical and will be followed by a reduction in numbers inthe future as a result of either an event or simple atrophy.. the numbers will continue to grow along with their political clout.. to me that is scary, not because i fear Christian doctrine, but because i fear where the literal interpretation of that doctrine coupled with political activism will take this nation. in many cases (but not all) it is associated with intolerance of opposing ideas (as can be found onthe liberal secular side as well) and is one of the root causes of the extremem polarization of the political process that is going on now. it is bad for the nation as a whole IMHO