Comments on: Creationism in 3-D

By: Stan Toler

Stan Toler — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:21:30 +0000

Whatever religion one espouses, it is specific to that one individual. Yes, there are probably others who claim to believe in that same religion, but there will always be specific differences in the details of exactly what they believe, even within the same church. This is clearly evident in the fact that there are so many different religions in the world, that there are two different schools of Christianity, the Protestants and the Catholics, and there are so many different denominations of Protestantism. People who believed strongly enough in their specific views of what the Bible was saying simply started their own version of Christianity based on that difference. Who is to say who is right?

By: ineke

ineke — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 01:59:42 +0000

Is it not time to remember the “wedge Strategy” the leaked document of the Discovery institute? Because this is not really about science, but about politics,and an attack on modern life, and the Arts .Its about infiltrating the media,and changing opinion,chipping away at the evolution theory,step by step,read their plan,which of course , they are now downplaying.

By: Peter Cross

Peter Cross — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:49:28 +0000

I’m looking for actual arguments to knock the creationists over not just opinion.

This article takes a very patronising tone and starts with the conviction that you are right and they are wrong.

I share this conviction; I was a born again fundamentalist Christain and now am a committed atheist but when my enemy claims that Polystrate fossils exist that extend between rock strata and that rock strata similar to the Grand Canyon was created in months after Mt Helena than I NEED science to refute these claims not just the repetition of essentially the argument that ‘rocks are hard so growing rocks must take a long time’.

Why? some rocks take a little time to form (don’t they?), what exactly is it that is different about the others?

If we don’t have an answer yet then we do we have the honesty to admit it? It seems that if there are legitimate questions then sometimes we don’t have the courage to ask the questions. I wish I knew enough to know whether the are legitimate (creationist) questions.

I left one religion because I could no longer take it’s tenants on trust I don’t want to find that I just replaced my old religion with another!

By: edwin thomas

edwin thomas — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:11:27 +0000

The science education situation looks to me like a side show for the attempt to make the US into a fundamentalist, Protestant Christian nation. Creationists seem to be one political victory from converting science class to their purpose. The science education establishment is in fits about how to resist. What to do?

Some suggestions.

First, realize we are wasting our time arguing science. The other side can’t be persuaded, because they don’t care. The audience, the neutrals are that 50% of Americans who don’t believe a word of evolution, but are willing to allow it to be taught alone in science class. We are in danger of losing them. Talking science to them doesn’t help.

They call themselves christians. Which gives creationists a leg-up. But, they also believe in sepatating church and state. Which is our fingerhold.

Second, realize that the other side’s verbal judo beats us most of the time. We’re all serious, and dedicated, and professional. Then they throw in some bafflegab and we tie ourselves in knots trying to answer it. What to do?

Well, first remember the audience. Its that 50% who are neutral that we are after. DO NOT ARGUE SCIENCE with creationists in public. Point out errors, but don’t argue science. Have easily understood published information on hand, to hand out (out in the lobby), if necessary. Don’t argue science.

Second, try a little judo ourselves. When challenged between two scientific theories, for instance? In one sentence, describe both theories, and tell which one is now standard. Then, stop talking science. (If you can’t do that, stay home.) The judo? Mention how that situation is similar to two opposing views on some biblical analysis, and ask the creationist expert which one he/she prefers. Get them talking BIBLE! (Watch “Inherit the Wind”, again.)

Third, always leave the audience thinking about why we want the state separate from all religion, and how creationism in science class defeats that.

Its way more complicated than that, but its a start.

By: Daphne Elliott

Daphne Elliott — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:15:44 +0000

Just to read such ideas pro, con or otherwise is a privilege. I live in an assisted-living situation where the most serious disease is BOREDOM. The residents have long forgotten how to think, let alone converse. What a joy to read cogent conversation. Thanks!

By: ex-pastor

ex-pastor — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:10:21 +0000

I came close to walking away from my faith years ago, but Hugh Ross sounded like the voice of reason. I latched onto his old earth, old universe theory, complete with pre-human soul-less upright bipeds…
Then I worked for a church who embraced the young-earth Ken Ham type creationism, who actually held the opinion among many of the staff that Hugh Ross is a demonic influence in the Cristian community.
I won’t even talk about Kent Hovind…I have walked away from all of it, have a real job, and am “out of the cave” for about 2 years now.
It is only through the calm, rational presentation of “the other side” evidence by guys like Paulos, Shermer, Dawkins, etc. that I was able to get past vilifying the opposition, listen to their story, and make a rational decision.
In an environment where so many are expected to live by blind faith, there are just as many who want to see (and will give credibility to) something tangible instead–presented by calm, rational, patient people. Guys like Michael Shermer (who never started pounding on the table during the Kentucky museum interview, even though several occasions might have triggered such behavior).

By: Unfiltered

Unfiltered — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:24:04 +0000

For those proposing or endorsing war on the creationists by way of iTunes crowdsourcing, I caution you to consider whether mob rule for the cause of reason is better than mob rule for any other cause, and also whether you really think you can win?

They took American Idol, and they can probably take you too.

By: epicurus

epicurus — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:13:48 +0000

@baloney
There are an infinite number of possible imaginary beings (or gods if you’re religious) you can believe by faith. If you can’t even detect them, disproving their existence is unnecessary since there’s no reason to postulate their existence in the first place (except by faith). The real challenge is to prove even just one god’s existence. Of course you can always say it’s impossible to prove and take a ‘leap of faith.’ Voltaire said “if god did not exist, man would be obliged to invent him” and “doubt is not a pleasant state but certainty is a ridiculous one.” The will to believe is easy. The will to doubt is harder.

By: Asteroid Miner

Asteroid Miner — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:33:20 +0000

That’s why every high school student should be required to take 4 years of physics, 4 years of chemistry, 4 years of biology, 4 years of geology and 8 years of math.
If you want to know about the creation of the universe, get your post-doctoral degree in physics. Study the Creation Theorem from Quantum Mechanics, the same science that makes desktop computers, lasers, digital cameras, etc. possible.
Clearly, ONLY science can save us from our impending extinction due to global warming. That is the dire message: Give up religion for science or go extinct.
The first encountered kill mechanism is an old familiar one: famine. Climate change moves the rain. Agriculture has already failed in Australia.

By: Dan Lynch

Dan Lynch — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:21:16 +0000

Michael,

If your god is better than mine and you are better than me as a consequence, then there is nothing I can say that would be of the slightest interest to you.

Reasonable people are so unrealistic!