"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Jan 22, 2012 Full story: Examiner.com 13,514

It is fascinating to note that atheists boast that most scientists are atheists.

Full Story

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#978 Apr 3, 2012
RandomTibetanGod wrote:
I've been out of the Creation/Evolution debate for a good decade, so I'm definitely behind the times. I decided to dive back in a little to ask a question. It seems to me that creationists/IDers have always been bringing the "battle" to the scientists, mainly by being the ones to ask questions along a "well, what about this or this?" line. But have there been any consistent efforts to return the favor? I've been in grad school for religious studies over the last ten years and would love to know how IDers respond to criticism to their claims? Such as, if intelligent design were true, how do they know it was just one designer (monotheism) and not several (polytheism)? If it was one designer, how do they know it's the Biblical God and not some other deity? Or perhaps a deistic god that has had no investment in the world past its inception? I suspect their answers won't be as empirically rigorous as the responses I've read from scientists in the face of their criticism. It just seems to me that, if creationists can (attempt) to hold evolutionary claims to such strict standards, why can't we hold them to equal standards on their own turf?
It's actually quite simple, they never understood the meaning of the word hypocrisy.
Don Kosloff

United States

#979 Apr 3, 2012
RandomTibetanGod wrote:
I've been out of the Creation/Evolution debate for a good decade, so I'm definitely behind the times. I decided to dive back in a little to ask a question. It seems to me that creationists/IDers have always been bringing the "battle" to the scientists, mainly by being the ones to ask questions along a "well, what about this or this?" line. But have there been any consistent efforts to return the favor? I've been in grad school for religious studies over the last ten years and would love to know how IDers respond to criticism to their claims? Such as, if intelligent design were true, how do they know it was just one designer (monotheism) and not several (polytheism)? If it was one designer, how do they know it's the Biblical God and not some other deity? Or perhaps a deistic god that has had no investment in the world past its inception? I suspect their answers won't be as empirically rigorous as the responses I've read from scientists in the face of their criticism. It just seems to me that, if creationists can (attempt) to hold evolutionary claims to such strict standards, why can't we hold them to equal standards on their own turf?
Where is the criticism?

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#980 Apr 4, 2012
Wannarunaway wrote:
<quoted text>
we really have no way of knowing what else God has done on Earth or any other planet. He's pretty big. We don't know if He erased anything prior to the fall of Satan, we don't know if the time of Noah was the first regret He had. We do know that the promise He made to Abraham was then replaced with a new covenant in Jesus Christ, and that God does not lie or change Himself. I'd say since God always was, He didn't just twiddle His thumbs out there in eternity. Biblical truths cannot be denied by scientist or anyone else, only chalked up to coincidence. Scientist have the same choice as anyone else. Doomed to hell are those who don't accept Christ as Savior, not those who accept the age of the earth. It's non issue.
So how could an all powerful, omniscient, omnipotent being have what you called "regrets"? Think about it - it makes zero sense. Like the rest of your ancient mythology.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#981 Apr 4, 2012
RandomTibetanGod wrote:
I've been out of the Creation/Evolution debate for a good decade, so I'm definitely behind the times. I decided to dive back in a little to ask a question. It seems to me that creationists/IDers have always been bringing the "battle" to the scientists, mainly by being the ones to ask questions along a "well, what about this or this?" line. But have there been any consistent efforts to return the favor? I've been in grad school for religious studies over the last ten years and would love to know how IDers respond to criticism to their claims?
They usually start by attempting a rational rebuttal but as one line after another of their arguments fail, they tend to fall back on the old favourites:

1. Create a strawman version of an evolution/old earth/big bang
argument and knock it down.

2. Quote-mine real research or statements by scientists and hope their following is too uninformed to notice.

etc.

Then it degrades to:

3. There is a conspiracy by atheistic elements to shut them down.
4. Evidence for their position has been "hidden".
5. Evidence for evolution/old earth/big bang etc has been fabricated.
6. "ID" academics have been persecuted.

And at the bottom of the barrel...

7. Denial of (their version) of God is "wicked pride".
8. Evolution is a cover for Nazis / Communists / One Worlders / Homosexuals etc.
9. God will burn you in HELL!

Have I left anything out?
Chimney one

United States

#982 Apr 4, 2012
It seems you forgot your Rudolph the red nosed reindeer, moniker, chimney1.
leMango

Naperville, IL

#983 Apr 4, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
They usually start by attempting a rational rebuttal but as one line after another of their arguments fail, they tend to fall back on the old favourites:
1. Create a strawman version of an evolution/old earth/big bang
argument and knock it down.
2. Quote-mine real research or statements by scientists and hope their following is too uninformed to notice.
etc.
Then it degrades to:
3. There is a conspiracy by atheistic elements to shut them down.
4. Evidence for their position has been "hidden".
5. Evidence for evolution/old earth/big bang etc has been fabricated.
6. "ID" academics have been persecuted.
And at the bottom of the barrel...
7. Denial of (their version) of God is "wicked pride".
8. Evolution is a cover for Nazis / Communists / One Worlders / Homosexuals etc.
9. God will burn you in HELL!
Have I left anything out?
Not to suggest it could get worse, but I've noticed on the forums lately that there are a good number of people flatly denying that science itself has validity. After all, why just deny the ToE when you can deny that the framework underlying its existence is correct, too?

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#984 Apr 4, 2012
leMango wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to suggest it could get worse, but I've noticed on the forums lately that there are a good number of people flatly denying that science itself has validity. After all, why just deny the ToE when you can deny that the framework underlying its existence is correct, too?
The most extreme anti-evolutionists, the Young Earth Creationists, DO have to deny most science. Its not only evolution. They have to deny all the findings of geology that put the age of the Earth over a few thousand years old. They have to do the same with astronomy. Not to mention the way they distort thermodynamics etc in their silliest arguments.

The fact is, they are hitting the wall harder and harder, as more and more science makes a mockery of Literal Biblical Creationism.

The smart ones realise that Genesis can be read allegorically. Others fear that if anything in the Bible is not literal...maybe none of it is! Too horrifying for words! Kill that science!
Don Kosloff

United States

#985 Apr 4, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
They usually start by attempting a rational rebuttal but as one line after another of their arguments fail, they tend to fall back on the old favourites:
1. Create a strawman version of an evolution/old earth/big bang
argument and knock it down.
2. Quote-mine real research or statements by scientists and hope their following is too uninformed to notice.
etc.
Then it degrades to:
3. There is a conspiracy by atheistic elements to shut them down.
4. Evidence for their position has been "hidden".
5. Evidence for evolution/old earth/big bang etc has been fabricated.
6. "ID" academics have been persecuted.
And at the bottom of the barrel...
7. Denial of (their version) of God is "wicked pride".
8. Evolution is a cover for Nazis / Communists / One Worlders / Homosexuals etc.
9. God will burn you in HELL!
Have I left anything out?
Reality
Don Kosloff

United States

#986 Apr 4, 2012
RandomTibetanGod wrote:
I've been out of the Creation/Evolution debate for a good decade, so I'm definitely behind the times. I decided to dive back in a little to ask a question. It seems to me that creationists/IDers have always been bringing the "battle" to the scientists, mainly by being the ones to ask questions along a "well, what about this or this?" line. But have there been any consistent efforts to return the favor? I've been in grad school for religious studies over the last ten years and would love to know how IDers respond to criticism to their claims? Such as, if intelligent design were true, how do they know it was just one designer (monotheism) and not several (polytheism)? If it was one designer, how do they know it's the Biblical God and not some other deity? Or perhaps a deistic god that has had no investment in the world past its inception? I suspect their answers won't be as empirically rigorous as the responses I've read from scientists in the face of their criticism. It just seems to me that, if creationists can (attempt) to hold evolutionary claims to such strict standards, why can't we hold them to equal standards on their own turf?
Intelligent design appears to be true and the answer to each of your questions is: "Perhaps, but there are other possibilities."

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#987 Apr 4, 2012
Don Kosloff wrote:
<quoted text>Intelligent design appears to be true and the answer to each of your questions is: "Perhaps, but there are other possibilities."
Not any that produce testable predictions about how biology on this planet actually works.
Don Kosloff

United States

#988 Apr 4, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
Not any that produce testable predictions about how biology on this planet actually works.
That is irrelevant. The question is who designed the biology on this planet do that it works. The myth of life being created by evolution offers no such testable predictions either. A testable prediction about biology offers no insight on who created the observable mechanisms of evolution.

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#989 Apr 4, 2012
Don Kosloff wrote:
<quoted text> That is irrelevant. The question is who designed the biology on this planet do that it works. The myth of life being created by evolution offers no such testable predictions either. A testable prediction about biology offers no insight on who created the observable mechanisms of evolution.
Alright, here we go again.

First, "who"? Where are you deriving a "who"?

Second, "designed"? There's no evidence to support design. There's no description that defines design.

Third, "so that it works"... as opposed to? If life didn't work, you wouldn't be here to question that it works. That's the sharp shooter fallacy.

Fourth, "life being created by evolution". Evolution does not create life. Evolution is what happens AFTER life exists.

Fifth, evolution certainly does produce testable predictions. We've made predictions and tested them. Tiktaalik is a prime example of this working.

Sixth, a testable prediction about biology doesn't provide insight into "who created" because... NO ONE CREATED.

Lastly, your assumptions that someone created anything are based upon NO evidence of a creator AND no mechanism for creation AND no explanation for what/who created the creator.

You need to have AT LEAST ONE part of your claim backed up by SOMETHING other than conjecture.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#990 Apr 4, 2012
Don Kosloff wrote:
<quoted text> That is irrelevant. The question is who designed the biology on this planet do that it works. The myth of life being created by evolution offers no such testable predictions either. A testable prediction about biology offers no insight on who created the observable mechanisms of evolution.
No, your question already presupposes that someone had to design it.

You are really talking about abiogenesis which could not occur through the same mechanism as biological evolution and no scientist claims otherwise. If its a natural process, it can work only through chemistry, and many hypotheses are being tested in this arena.

The mechanisms that explain evolution are all observable and testable, as follows:

1. Do exponentially self replicating organisms exist? Yes, observed.
2. Do they have imperfect heredity that gives rise to variation? Yes, observed.
3. Are there limits on available resources? Yes, observed.
4. Does this cause competition for resources among the self replicating organisms? Yes, observed.

There is nothing mysterious about evolution. It is a logical consequence of the observed conditions. And it has made many predictions which were then observed and none of which have been falsified - just as a good scientific theory should.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#991 Apr 4, 2012
Don Kosloff wrote:
<quoted text> That is irrelevant. The question is who designed the biology on this planet do that it works. The myth of life being created by evolution offers no such testable predictions either. A testable prediction about biology offers no insight on who created the observable mechanisms of evolution.
I see you are at about (1) in my sequence of where ID proponents always go when arguing against evolution. Lets see how long it takes you to progress along the sequence I put forward, and how low you will go.

Can you demonstrate that life had to be designed, before you start asking who designed it? I thought not.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#992 Apr 4, 2012
Don Kosloff wrote:
<quoted text> Reality
OK then, be the exception. Every other ID proponent I have come across argues somewhere on that scale. Show me I am wrong.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#993 Apr 5, 2012
Don Kosloff wrote:
<quoted text>Intelligent design appears to be true and the answer to each of your questions is: "Perhaps, but there are other possibilities."
No, ID does not even remotely appear to be true. The ONLY answer ID supplies to any question about Biology is,'goddidit'.

'Goddidit' is not answer to anything but rather an excuse not to exercise the little gray cells.
Don Kosloff

United States

#994 Apr 5, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
OK then, be the exception. Every other ID proponent I have come across argues somewhere on that scale. Show me I am wrong.
Your approach is anecdotal in the worst extreme, accepting only anecdotes that agree with your position. That is unscientific.
Don Kosloff

United States

#995 Apr 5, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright, here we go again.
First, "who"? Where are you deriving a "who"?
Second, "designed"? There's no evidence to support design. There's no description that defines design.
Third, "so that it works"... as opposed to? If life didn't work, you wouldn't be here to question that it works. That's the sharp shooter fallacy.
Fourth, "life being created by evolution". Evolution does not create life. Evolution is what happens AFTER life exists.
Fifth, evolution certainly does produce testable predictions. We've made predictions and tested them. Tiktaalik is a prime example of this working.
Sixth, a testable prediction about biology doesn't provide insight into "who created" because... NO ONE CREATED.
Lastly, your assumptions that someone created anything are based upon NO evidence of a creator AND no mechanism for creation AND no explanation for what/who created the creator.
You need to have AT LEAST ONE part of your claim backed up by SOMETHING other than conjecture.
Many features of living beings are to complex to have evolved.
Don Kosloff

United States

#996 Apr 5, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
No, your question already presupposes that someone had to design it.
You are really talking about abiogenesis which could not occur through the same mechanism as biological evolution and no scientist claims otherwise. If its a natural process, it can work only through chemistry, and many hypotheses are being tested in this arena.
The mechanisms that explain evolution are all observable and testable, as follows:
1. Do exponentially self replicating organisms exist? Yes, observed.
2. Do they have imperfect heredity that gives rise to variation? Yes, observed.
3. Are there limits on available resources? Yes, observed.
4. Does this cause competition for resources among the self replicating organisms? Yes, observed.
There is nothing mysterious about evolution. It is a logical consequence of the observed conditions. And it has made many predictions which were then observed and none of which have been falsified - just as a good scientific theory should.
Your four observed conditions are insufficient to support the claims of evolution and are consistent with ID.
Chimney one

United States

#997 Apr 5, 2012
I think I might click on that very annoying banner of advertising that follows page progression towards the bottom, about 400 times. So what does it cost them per click, a dollar per click? That is the most annoying piece of garbage I have ever experienced.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bill Maher Takes Aim at Minnesota Congressman 4 min Obama Bad 75
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 40 min Dogen 173,744
Real Estate Agents: Single-Family Homes a Hot R... (Jun '12) 48 min tnx ma 74
Free Tips On Plumber Advertising Is Now Offered... (Apr '12) 2 hr sylvia 6
Should parents limit how much screen time their... 4 hr three little pigs 23
Is Apple planning to launch a next-generation i... 7 hr Philip Cohen 1
Netflix lets you choose who you recommend movie... 8 hr asdasd 3
•••

Science / Technology People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••