Who are the British creationists?

[Guest alex]

He's vehemently against even the possibility that there's anything (except Gemmill) out there science can't explain either now or in the future.

 

He's right in the end. Well to within 95% certainty.

I think it's pretty arrogant to assume we'll ever have all the answers. I also think there's the possibility of a higher, perhaps inexplicable, force or being or whatever you want to call it. Who knows? I don't think organised religions really have any of the answers though (to this at least). I find their versions of events completely ridiculous when you look at them in any detail. I find the subject fascinating though.

 

I have an open mind on what you mention as well - my stance has always been that its the man-made bollocks used to enslave and control people that I object to.

 

However I do think its only trough science that we will discover the truth - however strange that truth is.

I do too. That's always been my problem with it. It's still enslaving people in many senses as well.

Not sure about the last bit though. I know emotions and so on (for example) can be 'explained' away as chemical reactions and so on but I'm not quite sure I buy that entirely. And it probably sounds a bit corny but if you think about the amount of time the Earth has taken to have a creature on it that is capable of reason, I find that a special and precious thing. I'm also rather torn though because that reason (of which empirical science is a part of) is also possibly contributing to the death / destruction of those who possess.

Anyway, I've gone off on one there....

[Fop 1]

He's vehemently against even the possibility that there's anything (except Gemmill) out there science can't explain either now or in the future.

 

He's right in the end. Well to within 95% certainty.

I think it's pretty arrogant to assume we'll ever have all the answers. I also think there's the possibility of a higher, perhaps inexplicable, force or being or whatever you want to call it. Who knows? I don't think organised religions really have any of the answers though (to this at least). I find their versions of events completely ridiculous when you look at them in any detail. I find the subject fascinating though.

 

I have an open mind on what you mention as well - my stance has always been that its the man-made bollocks used to enslave and control people that I object to.

 

However I do think its only trough science that we will discover the truth - however strange that truth is.

I do too. That's always been my problem with it. It's still enslaving people in many senses as well.

Not sure about the last bit though. I know emotions and so on (for example) can be 'explained' away as chemical reactions and so on but I'm not quite sure I buy that entirely. And it probably sounds a bit corny but if you think about the amount of time the Earth has taken to have a creature on it that is capable of reason, I find that a special and precious thing. I'm also rather torn though because that reason (of which empirical science is a part of) is also possibly contributing to the death / destruction of those who possess.

Anyway, I've gone off on one there....

 

 

Human evolutionary biology is fascinating. Loads of stuff can be explained from depression as a survival instinct to specific chemical changes when you first fall "in love" that help engrave those memories deeply into your brain (helping you form and retain a deep and long-lasting connection).

 

 

Plus I think we rather over-estimate ourselves and under estimate a lot of other species in the context of reason and intelligence.... and of course that in evolutionary terms being intelligent isn't necessarily either more advanced or more advantageous.

Edited September 17, 2008 by Fop

[NJS 4447]

The thing is our species is only about 150k years old which is nothing in evolutionary terms - although the last 5-6m years have seen leaps. I don't see it as that "special" when I see the burgeoning traits in other animals.

[Guest alex]

The thing is our species is only about 150k years old which is nothing in evolutionary terms - although the last 5-6m years have seen leaps. I don't see it as that "special" when I see the burgeoning traits in other animals.

To clarify what I meant about our developing reason. I think it's special because it takes so long to come about. Some reptiles might have managed it if the dinosaurs didn't become extinct. But they didn't because of whatever catastrophe did for them. Say a meteor had hit the right (or rather the wrong) part of Africa 200,000 years ago and you might be looking at another few hundred million years before reasoned thought was achieved (if ever) on Earth.

I hope that explained what I meant a bit more.

[NJS 4447]

The thing is our species is only about 150k years old which is nothing in evolutionary terms - although the last 5-6m years have seen leaps. I don't see it as that "special" when I see the burgeoning traits in other animals.

To clarify what I meant about our developing reason. I think it's special because it takes so long to come about. Some reptiles might have managed it if the dinosaurs didn't become extinct. But they didn't because of whatever catastrophe did for them. Say a meteor had hit the right (or rather the wrong) part of Africa 200,000 years ago and you might be looking at another few hundred million years before reasoned thought was achieved (if ever) on Earth.

I hope that explained what I meant a bit more.

 

 

Fair enough - I just see it as a more advanced version of what other animals have though I guess you're saying that its amazing that those animals have a lesser version as well.

 

I suppose our lucky escape was Toba 74k years ago which nearly did for us.

 

I read a very imaginitive novella a few months ago by Stephen Baxter which supposes that we have just about reached our evolutionary limits due to our intelligence - it considted of a number of short stories set in the future which showed humans coping with massive planetary change pretty much as we are while other species evolved to meet the changes without matching us.

 

It really made me wish I could travel in time to see how we end up.

 

(Though probably wiped out by the LHC or a virus if I'm being pessimistic)

[The Fish 11090]

He's vehemently against even the possibility that there's anything (except Gemmill) out there science can't explain either now or in the future.

 

He's right in the end. Well to within 95% certainty.

I think it's pretty arrogant to assume we'll ever have all the answers. I also think there's the possibility of a higher, perhaps inexplicable, force or being or whatever you want to call it. Who knows? I don't think organised religions really have any of the answers though (to this at least). I find their versions of events completely ridiculous when you look at them in any detail. I find the subject fascinating though.

 

The thing that bugs me is that religion changes with time, surely if it's right it would be static? I mean it's not like they're just making up new things to cover their backs is it? Creationism or Intelligent Design is a great example of this, it didn't exist before Darwinism did it? It didn't even explain Darwinism as that theory emerged. They didn't say "Why of course Charles, we don't disagree with some tenets of your piece, but you understand that evolution is part of God's plan though right?" They attacked him and called his work heresy.

 

But now that it is commonly agreed to be the best explanation for this big cosmic coincidence so far, they religious types have incorporated it into their belief system. While still stating atheists are the arrogant ones.

 

We worshipped the Sun, natural disasters, the moon and the stars, plants and animals, but now we understand them better we've peeled away the mystery of it all, we've peaked back stage... we're not so impressed with the magic show.

[NJS 4447]

we've peaked back stage... we're not so impressed with the magic show.

 

I'm more impressed and awewtruck about how things really are than if some bloke had snapped his fingers....

[Guest alex]

Worshipping the Sun still makes more sense than virtually anything else that's been invented (religion-wise) since. I mean in terms of recognising it as all-giving rather than sacrificing people and/or animals to try and ensure it doesn't get pissed off.

[The Fish 11090]

we've peaked back stage... we're not so impressed with the magic show.

 

I'm more impressed and awewtruck about how things really are than if some bloke had snapped his fingers....

Sorry that's, what I meant. We no longer impressed by the theatre of the thing, but we're fascinated by the pulleys and smoke and mirrors that make it all work.

 

Worshipping the Sun still makes more sense than virtually anything else that's been invented (religion-wise) since. I mean in terms of recognising it as all-giving rather than sacrificing people and/or animals to try and ensure it doesn't get pissed off.

Absolutely, wasn't it George Carlin who extolled the virtues of praising the Sun?

 

why, yes... yes it was

 

I know he makes light of the subject, but I hold comedians in a higher regard than politicians and journalists when it comes to social commentary.

[Fop 1]

The thing is our species is only about 150k years old which is nothing in evolutionary terms - although the last 5-6m years have seen leaps. I don't see it as that "special" when I see the burgeoning traits in other animals.

To clarify what I meant about our developing reason. I think it's special because it takes so long to come about. Some reptiles might have managed it if the dinosaurs didn't become extinct. But they didn't because of whatever catastrophe did for them. Say a meteor had hit the right (or rather the wrong) part of Africa 200,000 years ago and you might be looking at another few hundred million years before reasoned thought was achieved (if ever) on Earth.

I hope that explained what I meant a bit more.

 

We're overdue one of those.

 

But the thing you're missing (as most people will) is it's a bigger leap from single-celled to multicellular than it is from multicellular to us.

[Fop 1]

Fair enough - I just see it as a more advanced version of what other animals have though I guess you're saying that its amazing that those animals have a lesser version as well.

 

I suppose our lucky escape was Toba 74k years ago which nearly did for us.

 

I read a very imaginitive novella a few months ago by Stephen Baxter which supposes that we have just about reached our evolutionary limits due to our intelligence - it considted of a number of short stories set in the future which showed humans coping with massive planetary change pretty much as we are while other species evolved to meet the changes without matching us.

 

It really made me wish I could travel in time to see how we end up.

 

(Though probably wiped out by the LHC or a virus if I'm being pessimistic)

 

 

That's the thing lots of people thing as us at the "peak" of evolution, which is the same mistake that makes religion have us and our world as the centre of everything.

 

But there's plenty of things that could wipe us out (with our without our help) that wouldn't wipe life on this planet out.

 

 

 

 

The thing that bugs me is that religion changes with time, surely if it's right it would be static? I mean it's not like they're just making up new things to cover their backs is it? Creationism or Intelligent Design is a great example of this, it didn't exist before Darwinism did it? It didn't even explain Darwinism as that theory emerged. They didn't say "Why of course Charles, we don't disagree with some tenets of your piece, but you understand that evolution is part of God's plan though right?" They attacked him and called his work heresy.

 

But now that it is commonly agreed to be the best explanation for this big cosmic coincidence so far, they religious types have incorporated it into their belief system. While still stating atheists are the arrogant ones.

 

We worshipped the Sun, natural disasters, the moon and the stars, plants and animals, but now we understand them better we've peeled away the mystery of it all, we've peaked back stage... we're not so impressed with the magic show.

 

That's the danger of the current issues (which isn't just the US Christian right, but far wider both in Christianity as well as other flavours like Islam), they know they can't beat it directly, so they don't even try to, they just undermine it and rely on general human laziness and self-delusion to get numbers on their side.

 

The truth is irrelevant in that battle.

 

Not that I think all religion is mutually exclusive with science, liberal CoE is right up there with accepting "science" as God's work, in a way that really stifles neither (except in some emotive issues such as genetic research).

[Guest alex]

The thing is our species is only about 150k years old which is nothing in evolutionary terms - although the last 5-6m years have seen leaps. I don't see it as that "special" when I see the burgeoning traits in other animals.

To clarify what I meant about our developing reason. I think it's special because it takes so long to come about. Some reptiles might have managed it if the dinosaurs didn't become extinct. But they didn't because of whatever catastrophe did for them. Say a meteor had hit the right (or rather the wrong) part of Africa 200,000 years ago and you might be looking at another few hundred million years before reasoned thought was achieved (if ever) on Earth.

I hope that explained what I meant a bit more.

 

We're overdue one of those.

 

But the thing you're missing (as most people will) is it's a bigger leap from single-celled to multicellular than it is from multicellular to us.

I appreciate that but it's not really what I was talking about at the same time.

[Guest alex]

The thing is our species is only about 150k years old which is nothing in evolutionary terms - although the last 5-6m years have seen leaps. I don't see it as that "special" when I see the burgeoning traits in other animals.

To clarify what I meant about our developing reason. I think it's special because it takes so long to come about. Some reptiles might have managed it if the dinosaurs didn't become extinct. But they didn't because of whatever catastrophe did for them. Say a meteor had hit the right (or rather the wrong) part of Africa 200,000 years ago and you might be looking at another few hundred million years before reasoned thought was achieved (if ever) on Earth.

I hope that explained what I meant a bit more.

 

 

Fair enough - I just see it as a more advanced version of what other animals have though I guess you're saying that its amazing that those animals have a lesser version as well.

 

I suppose our lucky escape was Toba 74k years ago which nearly did for us.

 

I read a very imaginitive novella a few months ago by Stephen Baxter which supposes that we have just about reached our evolutionary limits due to our intelligence - it considted of a number of short stories set in the future which showed humans coping with massive planetary change pretty much as we are while other species evolved to meet the changes without matching us.

 

It really made me wish I could travel in time to see how we end up.

 

(Though probably wiped out by the LHC or a virus if I'm being pessimistic)

I see it as quite distinct from what those other animals have. It's impossible to say though.

[Fop 1]

The thing is our species is only about 150k years old which is nothing in evolutionary terms - although the last 5-6m years have seen leaps. I don't see it as that "special" when I see the burgeoning traits in other animals.

To clarify what I meant about our developing reason. I think it's special because it takes so long to come about. Some reptiles might have managed it if the dinosaurs didn't become extinct. But they didn't because of whatever catastrophe did for them. Say a meteor had hit the right (or rather the wrong) part of Africa 200,000 years ago and you might be looking at another few hundred million years before reasoned thought was achieved (if ever) on Earth.

I hope that explained what I meant a bit more.

 

We're overdue one of those.

 

But the thing you're missing (as most people will) is it's a bigger leap from single-celled to multicellular than it is from multicellular to us.

I appreciate that but it's not really what I was talking about at the same time.

It is though. The two really, really big things are life developing at all and then multicellular. After that the rest is just meccano and lots and lots and lots of time (without some disaster resetting the clock as it's done to 95-99% of all life on the planet 2-3 times so far).

 

It's just it's hard for us to think of it in that way.

[Guest alex]

The thing is our species is only about 150k years old which is nothing in evolutionary terms - although the last 5-6m years have seen leaps. I don't see it as that "special" when I see the burgeoning traits in other animals.

To clarify what I meant about our developing reason. I think it's special because it takes so long to come about. Some reptiles might have managed it if the dinosaurs didn't become extinct. But they didn't because of whatever catastrophe did for them. Say a meteor had hit the right (or rather the wrong) part of Africa 200,000 years ago and you might be looking at another few hundred million years before reasoned thought was achieved (if ever) on Earth.

I hope that explained what I meant a bit more.

 

We're overdue one of those.

 

But the thing you're missing (as most people will) is it's a bigger leap from single-celled to multicellular than it is from multicellular to us.

I appreciate that but it's not really what I was talking about at the same time.

It is though. The two really, really big things are life developing at all and then multicellular. After that the rest is just meccano and lots and lots and lots of time (without some disaster resetting the clock as it's done to 95-99% of all life on the planet 2-3 times so far).

 

It's just it's hard for us to think of it in that way.

I think we're talking about slightly different things here though. I'm not saying the development of reason is the single most important thing in regards to life on Earth. The two things you mention are more significant in that regard. What I'm talking about is that this is unique on Earth and possibly even unique in the Universe (maybe it has even occurred before and destroyed itself and will do so again). That's something we can only guess at (although if we hadn't developed this capacity for reasoned thought we wouldn't be able to do that). Because this probably takes a long-time to develop along with 'luck', i.e. having the right conditions and so on, that is what makes it a special thing. Not necessarily more special than what you're talking about but it determines what sets us apart from other species on Earth.

[TheInspiration 1]

Each to his own and all that, but firstly teenagers aren't going to know better, and secondly why so angry? It's like militant atheists seem so threatened by creationist beliefs - I'd have thought if you were so sure it's nonsense you'd just laugh it off no?

 

Firstly you underestimate teenagers - theres nothing stopping someone by the age of 13 or 14 having read up and researched for themselves anything of interest - of course that may mean a rejection of parental dogma but natural rebellion should provide impetus.

 

The reason I care about the teaching of nonsense is a regard for the truth. I don't see any difference between teaching Young Earth Creationism and holocaust denial. If people want to fit personal beliefs around the truth then fair enough but flat out denial is wrong imo.

 

On your other point that religion and evolution aren't exclusive, you're right up to a point but that gives rise to more questions. Christianity is fundamentally based on the concept of a soul and the "fall" of man when sin started. In that light I'd ask when the first homonid was ensouled by the Christian God - was it Homo Erectus? did the dead ends who dies out like the Neanderthals have souls? If God decided to kick off the soul thing in the middle east as per the bible did humans before that all go to heaven as they were without sin? or did they all go to hell as they were soulless?

 

The bible "makes sense" if the account in Genesis is true, the fact that we know its bollocks raises a lot of questions which I'm afraid theologians can't answer as they have no evidence to back up any conclusions.

Nothing stops most 13/14 year-olds reading it but chances are they won't seeing as they won't start learning about natural selection until GCSE level.

 

I don't think it was me who made the point about religion and evolution not being exclusive, however I do think it's fair for schools to teach creationism/intelligent design (in fact I'm not bothered whether or not they do tbh) not as an alternative to evolution, but as possible explanations for why we are here as opposed to how, as they questions they try to answer aren't quite the same.

 

As for the soul business, there would be humans around before Jesus existed if one takes a YEC view, so while I haven't a clue what happened to them I think it's believed they were judged on how they acted as a person. Though back to your point I'll be honest and admit (while I'm not a theologian) I can't provide evidence either to back up any conclusions.

[NJS 4447]

I don't think it was me who made the point about religion and evolution not being exclusive, however I do think it's fair for schools to teach creationism/intelligent design (in fact I'm not bothered whether or not they do tbh) not as an alternative to evolution, but as possible explanations for why we are here as opposed to how, as they questions they try to answer aren't quite the same.

 

In RE/Philosophy yes - in science no.

[Fop 1]

The thing is our species is only about 150k years old which is nothing in evolutionary terms - although the last 5-6m years have seen leaps. I don't see it as that "special" when I see the burgeoning traits in other animals.

To clarify what I meant about our developing reason. I think it's special because it takes so long to come about. Some reptiles might have managed it if the dinosaurs didn't become extinct. But they didn't because of whatever catastrophe did for them. Say a meteor had hit the right (or rather the wrong) part of Africa 200,000 years ago and you might be looking at another few hundred million years before reasoned thought was achieved (if ever) on Earth.

I hope that explained what I meant a bit more.

 

We're overdue one of those.

 

But the thing you're missing (as most people will) is it's a bigger leap from single-celled to multicellular than it is from multicellular to us.

I appreciate that but it's not really what I was talking about at the same time.

It is though. The two really, really big things are life developing at all and then multicellular. After that the rest is just meccano and lots and lots and lots of time (without some disaster resetting the clock as it's done to 95-99% of all life on the planet 2-3 times so far).

 

It's just it's hard for us to think of it in that way.

I think we're talking about slightly different things here though. I'm not saying the development of reason is the single most important thing in regards to life on Earth. The two things you mention are more significant in that regard. What I'm talking about is that this is unique on Earth and possibly even unique in the Universe (maybe it has even occurred before and destroyed itself and will do so again). That's something we can only guess at (although if we hadn't developed this capacity for reasoned thought we wouldn't be able to do that). Because this probably takes a long-time to develop along with 'luck', i.e. having the right conditions and so on, that is what makes it a special thing. Not necessarily more special than what you're talking about but it determines what sets us apart from other species on Earth.

 

Aye, but that's what I mentioned before, loads of species are closer to us than we often realise (they don't drive around in cars, but they are so close to it evolutionarily it is almost the same thing, or they are restricted in other ways i.e. dolphins and water which buggers their tool development at very low level no matter their capacity for it), the difference between them and us is very small. Almost non-existent compare to us and basic multicellular organisms.

 

But that is what I mean the surprise isn't us.

It's life>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>multicellular>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>everything else>us

[Guest alex]

That's what I meant about it requiring luck to though. It requires the circumstances to be right too.

I don't disagree with what you put above though.

Nice discussing it with you anyway

[Guest alex]

I don't think it was me who made the point about religion and evolution not being exclusive, however I do think it's fair for schools to teach creationism/intelligent design (in fact I'm not bothered whether or not they do tbh) not as an alternative to evolution, but as possible explanations for why we are here as opposed to how, as they questions they try to answer aren't quite the same.

 

In RE/Philosophy yes - in science no.

Don't know about anyone else but all the RE teachers in my schools seemed to be rather straight-laced confirmed Christians.

[NJS 4447]

I don't think it was me who made the point about religion and evolution not being exclusive, however I do think it's fair for schools to teach creationism/intelligent design (in fact I'm not bothered whether or not they do tbh) not as an alternative to evolution, but as possible explanations for why we are here as opposed to how, as they questions they try to answer aren't quite the same.

 

In RE/Philosophy yes - in science no.

Don't know about anyone else but all the RE teachers in my schools seemed to be rather straight-laced confirmed Christians.

 

 

You should have tried a catholic school in the second half of the 70s - we're right, everyone else burns in hell, that's all you need to know.

[NJS 4447]

That's what I meant about it requiring luck to though. It requires the circumstances to be right too.

I don't disagree with what you put above though.

Nice discussing it with you anyway

 

 

The "luck" is fair enough when mentioning lack of extinction events but the beauty of natural selection is that it pretty much smothers luck over time.

[Guest alex]

That's what I meant about it requiring luck to though. It requires the circumstances to be right too.

I don't disagree with what you put above though.

Nice discussing it with you anyway

 

 

The "luck" is fair enough when mentioning lack of extinction events but the beauty of natural selection is that it pretty much smothers luck over time.

You still need a receptive planet, hence the 'luck'.

[snakehips 0]

Sarah Palin would get it.

[Guest alex]

I don't think it was me who made the point about religion and evolution not being exclusive, however I do think it's fair for schools to teach creationism/intelligent design (in fact I'm not bothered whether or not they do tbh) not as an alternative to evolution, but as possible explanations for why we are here as opposed to how, as they questions they try to answer aren't quite the same.

 

In RE/Philosophy yes - in science no.

Don't know about anyone else but all the RE teachers in my schools seemed to be rather straight-laced confirmed Christians.

 

 

You should have tried a catholic school in the second half of the 70s - we're right, everyone else burns in hell, that's all you need to know.

It's funny how teaching that often achieved the exact opposite of what it was meant to. Works in some cases too of course.