Crazy things Creationists have said

[Evo]

I think Monique's observation was perfectly valid at the casual level it was made. Science certainly fills the same personal voids in many people's lives as religion does in others and they pursue it with the same degree of absorption. It's what gives their lives the kind of purpose and meaning we'd only otherwise expect to see in a religion. Here at PF, for instance, you'll see some people ask quetions about the nature of Einstein's genius with the same burning fervor that people ask quetions about the existence of free will in religious conversations.

I would agree, I read her remark as meaning a scientist could have the same passion and commitment to the pursuit of knowldege as a religious person would have to their beliefs.

 

[Moridin]

Individual scientists can certainly be dogmatic and choose to believe in string theory as absolute truth. However, I doubt that string theory is mainstream science and its degree of certainty (if it has one) is very low. Not only does it completely lack experimental evidence at this point, their theoretical structure is also not complete.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#misconceptions

He seems to have misrepresented the Big Bang Theory as well. The Universe did not begin with Big Bang. In fact, science does not claim to know how the Universe began. All science claims to know is that the Universe was smaller in the past and that there seems to have been a naked singularity at the very beginning. Big Bang is not about the beginning of the Universe, but about the development of it. If an individual scientist chooses to accept some of the misconceptions of the Big Bang on faith, that says nothing about how science deals with it.

Naturally, I agree that science can be like a religion for some individual scientists or people, just like a toaster or a spoon can be, but that demands a misrepresentation of science, the toaster and the spoon. Science is not intrinsically religious in its standard form.

I think that the way Evo and zoobyshoe argue does not show how science and religion are related in a meaningful way. If people who like potatoes eat them with the same passion and commitment as a scientist exploring the world with observation, logic and evidence, this does not really mean that science is a potato?

Monique, I apologize if I misinterpreted your initial remark.

 

[ank_gl]

Well, at a minimum, I'm now convinced there is no intelligent life among those who post comments on youtube videos.

- Warren

that is soooo not true

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think that the way Evo and zoobyshoe argue does not show how science and religion are related in a meaningful way.

The remark wasn't about science itself, but about the way people regard it, obviously.

 

[ank_gl]

well OP wasnt about any religion, neither about science, nor about way people regard them, it was just about 2 dumbheads

 

[jostpuur]

Is scientific community putting any effort into systematic study of how as much people as possible, could be converted from intelligent design to science?

 

[arildno]

Is scientific community putting any effort into systematic study of how as much people as possible, could be converted from intelligent design to science?

By hitting religion so hard with sarcasm and ridicule that people get ashamed from ever having believed in that nonsense.

 

[Cyrus]

Amen brother arildno. OooooooooooooooooWWWWWWWeeeeeeeeeOOOOOOOO HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Actually, to a true believer, that will only make you look arrogant, narrow minded, and evil. It may make you feel better, but it does nothing to further your cause. It will insure that they won't listen to anything that you have to say.

 

[Evo]

Is scientific community putting any effort into systematic study of how as much people as possible, could be converted from intelligent design to science?

It's not really the aim of the scientific community to actively try to convert people. Missionaries for Science?

How much effort would it take to change the thinking of someone that either chooses to ignore or is unable to grasp basic scientific concepts? People that are fooled by the pretense that Intelligent Design is science are pretty far gone already.

 

[Evo]

Actually, to a true believer, that will only make you look arrogant, narrow minded, and evil. It may make you feel better, but it does nothing to further your cause. It will insure that they won't listen to anything that you have to say.

Ivan is correct, it's like telling people that watch American Idol that the show and the performers are cr@p.

 

[mgb_phys]

I don't know who first said it but:
"Don't argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and they've had more practice"

 

[Evo]

I like "I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man".

 

[Lisa!]

Very true! Honestly I don't think that arguing with some people(not all) work at all. It just waste your time and energy and might ruin your day.
I'm teaching myself to only laugh at stupid ideas!

 

[ank_gl]

"Don't argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and they've had more practice"

very true

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't know who first said it but:
"Don't argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and they've had more practice"

Wiki attributes it to Brad Slipiec, but I have my doubts.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stupidity

I prefer the following formulation, as arguing with an idiot seems pointless to me.

Never argue with a fool. They will only pull you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan is correct, it's like telling people that watch American Idol that the show and the performers are cr@p.

And a lot more than that! We are talking about an entire way of life that is very difficult to sustain and requires tremendous dedication. It is also a way of life that is often based on beliefs gained though personal experiences. When people believe that they see God operating in their life, anything that violates that relationship is viewed as evil and/or naive.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think it's sexy when women argue. I don't know why, but the more confidently and loudly they assert things, especially stupid ideas, the more it turns me on.

Could be that's off topic, though.

 

[Moridin]

And a lot more than that! We are talking about an entire way of life that is very difficult to sustain and requires tremendous dedication. It is also a way of life that is often based on beliefs gained though personal experiences. When people believe that they see God operating in their life, anything that violates that relationship is viewed as evil and/or naive.

'Our side' is mostly active in trying to sway the big majority of people who are in the middle (not completely scientific literate, but not creationists) towards science.

It's not really the aim of the scientific community to actively try to convert people.

It should be. Science 2.0

 

[Lisa!]

I think it's sexy when women argue. I don't know why, but the more confidently and loudly they assert things, especially stupid ideas, the more it turns me on.

Could be that's off topic, though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

'Our side' is mostly active in trying to sway the big majority of people who are in the middle (not completely scientific literate, but not creationists) towards science.

I think only people already on "your side" will respond well to arrogance and rudeness.

 

[Moridin]

I think only people already on "your side" will respond well to arrogance and rudeness.

Unless you are pro-ID / Creationist, my side is your side. The general public does not tend to response with arrogance and rudeness? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Or was it an attempt to attack prominent critics of Intelligent Design?

 

[humanino]

I would like to come back on the idea that science is a kind of religion, because I always found it fascinating how many scientists are nervous about this point. I think the reason this makes them nervous is the following. At some point in there life, they realized that religion is often a mean for people to overcome there fears, or to provide a solution to things they do not understand. Then, those scientist tend to make fun of or have contempt for the intellectual weakness of religious people. However, most of them fail to realize the religious aspect of science.

Why would Nature be understandable at all ? Scientist believe this is the case. This is faith. It is very efficient, and very real, but still. The chaotic behavior of people out there is scary. Riemann hidden under his large beard for instance, would probably have preferred the perfect eternal cold beauty of mathematical object, to the ephemeral human feelings. (IMHO )

In particular, fundamental science and the search for the unification in Nature, which is very efficient, and very real, is faith.

I was born in a religious family, I am very little religious myself anymore, but I am conviced that none of us is completely free from any kind of religious belief.

 

[jostpuur]

By hitting religion so hard with sarcasm and ridicule that people get ashamed from ever having believed in that nonsense.

It's not really the aim of the scientific community to actively try to convert people. Missionaries for Science?

As Dawkins says, Intelligent Design is not "harmless nonsense". Scientists should think more strategically.

 

[Moridin]

Science is still not a religion. In fact, it has nothing to do with religion and has no meaningful relationship.

Why would Nature be understandable at all ? Scientist believe this is the case. This is faith. It is very efficient, and very real, but still. The chaotic behavior of people out there is scary.

1. Methodological naturalism is not the same as philosophical naturalism.

Science uses methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is an a posteriori concept and means that we limit ourselves to studying natural cause and effect because it has been so successful. Agreed, individual scientists may be philosophical naturalists, but science is no such thing.

2. Fallacy of Equivocation

Word X

- Definition 1
- Definition 2

Definition 1 =/= Definition 2

Scientists 'Word X' in science, religious people 'Word X' in the supernatural. Therefore, 'Definition 1' equals 'Definition 2'.

Belief / Faith is defined as what you are willing to wager on, or where your conviction lies. Another definition is 'assume to be true, but cannot successfully motivate'. Scientists have faith in science in terms of having a conviction of it. However, they do not 'assume something to be absolute truth but cannot motivate it', which is the corner stone of basically all religions. Practically, you either have a good reason to believe the things you do or not.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_equivocation.htm
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#equivocation
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06c.htm

In particular, fundamental science and the search for the unification in Nature, which is very efficient, and very real, is faith.

Not really, since it is based on methodological naturalism and science does not claim that GUT represents absolute truth.

 

[zoobyshoe]

:!)

 

[humanino]

Agreed, individual scientists may be philosophical naturalists, but science is no such thing.

But that is actually my point. Most of them are, and that is what makes them so nervous when this issue is raised.

Science and religion are two different things, clearly. Religion had a social use in the past, which is no longer necessary, since we have well established political organization. But of course, religion had an individual use as well. To simplify, provide the inidividual with a "trash bin" for all his metaphysical issues. The scientist cannot accept the religion as such, because it is against his scientific methodology, I agree and this is very clear. But science also provides to the individual scientist with the conviction that everything, ultimately, has a logical explanation, or description. This conviction is faith. It is conforting, just as religion, for the individual.

 

[jostpuur]

Sometimes the arguments that physicists use to justify some mathematical trickery are closer to poetry than to natural science. Then claiming the poetry like reasoning to be science, makes it look quite like religion to me.

 

[Moridin]

But science also provides to the individual scientist with the conviction that everything, ultimately, has a logical explanation, or description. This conviction is faith. It is conforting, just as religion, for the individual.

Again, science is about methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism. Science provides no such thing. To get to strong philosophical naturalism from science, the individual would need to distort science beyond recognition. Such a conviction would be faith only if it is embraced categorically, not tentatively (as I think most scientists who are philosophical naturalists do).

Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection (Barbara Forrest Ph.D)

For an interesting discussion on methodological and philosophical naturalism, see the link above.

Not being poor is also comforting to people, but that does not mean that being able to live a normal life is a religion or contains religious values.

 

[Moridin]

Sometimes the arguments that physicists use to justify some mathematical trickery are closer to poetry than to natural science. Then claiming the poetry like reasoning to be science, makes it look quite like religion to me.

Again, individual scientists may be religious, but that does not in any way translates to science being a religion or even related to it.

 

[jostpuur]

Missionaries for Science?

In fact the thing that I had first in my mind was some kind of entertainment. We should have more scifi action movies, where the storyline circles around some scientific topic instead of good guys fighting against some evil guys. To make science more fashionable.

...no! Even better! There could be some religious guys as the "bad guys" in a movie!

But now when you mentioned missionaries of science, well.. why not? I can already imagine myself ringing the door bell of some mormon family...

 

[Moridin]

We need more people like Carl Sagan.

 

[Evo]

AAAARRGGHGHH, I can't take it anymore.

Moridin, people are not equating science to religion in that they think science is based on supernatural beings and made up excuses and not real, testable results.

If a couple believe science isn't real, ignore them, they're beyond hope. I think you are misunderstanding most of the posters here though.

Edit: This is not in response to Carl Sagan.

 

[Kurdt]

But now when you mentioned missionaries of science, well.. why not? I can already imagine myself ringing the door bell of some mormon family...

Hello sir! Madam!

I don't know if you've ever considered letting God leave your lives...

 

[humanino]

Not being poor is also comforting to people, but that does not mean that being able to live a normal life is a religion or contains religious values.

Physical confort is good, and one can be glad to have it. It should not prevent one from physical exercise however. Here, what I am talking about is an intellectual confort which is not good.

I know that science provides a logical answer to every question, but it does not mean I consider it truth. The all point about me doing science is that I like to find a logical answer, not that I believe it is the true answer, or even that such a thing as the true answer exists at all. Science from this point of view is fun. But also, to many scientists, it is about uncovering the veil behind which Nature hides, revealing the ultimate truth. To them, science seems to actually define truth.