Creation vs. Evolution

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
adza:
Try a book called "in 6 days" to start with. Fifty scientists worldwide, with recognized earned doctorates in various specialties, give personal testimony to their belief in the Biblical view of creation as contrasted with evolution. Not the most simplistic book to read - because of all the scientific information involved.

Note: There is no copyright notice on the Free Inquiry Magazine website and there is a link to e-mail the article to a friend, so I think it is reasonable to assume that it is public domain and post it here.

Sadly, an Honest Creationist

by Richard Dawkins

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 4.

Creation “scientists” have more need than most of us to parade their degrees and qualifications, but it pays to look closely at the institutions that awarded them and the subjects in which they were taken. Those vaunted Ph.D.s tend to be in subjects such as marine engineering or gas kinetics rather than in relevant disciplines like zoology or geology. And often they are earned not at real universities, but at little-known Bible colleges deep in Bush country.

There are, however, a few shining exceptions. Kurt Wise now makes his living at Bryan College (motto “Christ Above All”) located in Dayton, Tennessee, home of the famed Scopes trial. And yet, he originally obtained an authentic degree in geophysics from the University of Chicago, followed by a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard, no less, where he studied under (the name is milked for all it is worth in creationist propaganda) Stephen Jay Gould.

Kurt Wise is a contributor to In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, a compendium edited by John F. Ashton (Ph.D., of course). I recommend this book. It is a revelation. I would not have believed such wishful thinking and self-deception possible. At least some of the authors seem to be sincere, and they don’t water down their beliefs. Much of their fire is aimed at weaker brethren who think God works through evolution, or who clutch at the feeble hope that one “day” in Genesis might mean not twenty-four hours but a hundred million years. These are hard-core “young earth creationists” who believe that the universe and all of life came into existence within one week, less than 10,000 years ago. And Wise—flying valiantly in the face of reason, evidence, and education—is among them. If there were a prize for Virtuoso Believing (it is surely only a matter of time before the Templeton Foundation awards one) Kurt Wise, B.A. (Chicago), Ph.D. (Harvard), would have to be a prime candidate.

Wise stands out among young earth creationists not only for his impeccable education, but because he displays a modicum of scientific honesty and integrity. I have seen a published letter in which he comments on alleged “human bones” in Carboniferous coal deposits. If authenticated as human, these “bones” would blow the theory of evolution out of the water (incidentally giving lie to the canard that evolution is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific: J. B. S. Haldane, asked by an overzealous Popperian what empirical finding might falsify evolution, famously growled, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!”). Most creationists would not go out of their way to debunk a promising story of human remains in the Pennsylvanian Coal Measures. Yet Wise patiently and seriously examined the specimens as a trained paleontologist, and concluded unequivocally that they were “inorganically precipitated iron siderite nodules and not fossil material at all.” Unusually among the motley denizens of the “big tent” of creationism and intelligent design, he seems to accept that God needs no help from false witness.


All the more interesting, then, to read his personal testimony in In Six Days . It is actually quite moving, in a pathetic kind of way. He begins with his childhood ambition. Where other boys wanted to be astronauts or firemen, the young Kurt touchingly dreamed of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard and teaching science at a major university. He achieved the first part of his goal, but became increasingly uneasy as his scientific learning conflicted with his religious faith. When he could bear the strain no longer, he clinched the matter with a Bible and a pair of scissors. He went right through from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific worldview were true. At the end of this exercise, there was so little left of his Bible that:
. . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.



See what I mean about pathetic? Most revealing of all is Wise’s concluding paragraph:
Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.
See what I mean about honest? Understandably enough, creationists who aspire to be taken seriously as scientists don’t go out of their way to admit that Scripture—a local origin myth of a tribe of Middle-Eastern camel-herders—trumps evidence. The great evolutionist John Maynard Smith, who once publicly wiped the floor with Duane P. Gish (up until then a highly regarded creationist debater), did it by going on the offensive right from the outset and challenging him directly: “Do you seriously mean to tell me you believe that all life was created within one week?”


Kurt Wise doesn’t need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have a mind capable of such doublethink. It reminds me of Winston Smith in struggling to believe that two plus two equals five if Big Brother said so. But that was fiction and, anyway, Winston was tortured into submission. Kurt Wise—and presumably others like him who are less candid—has suffered no such physical coercion. But, as I hinted at the end of my previous column, I do wonder whether childhood indoctrination could wreak a sufficiently powerful brainwashing effect to account for this bizarre phenomenon.

Whatever the underlying explanation, this example suggests a fascinating, if pessimistic, conclusion about human psychology. It implies that there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence. Depending upon how many Kurt Wises are out there, it could mean that we are completely wasting our time arguing the case and presenting the evidence for evolution. We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.

Can you imagine believing that and at the same time accepting a salary, month after month, to teach science? Even at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee? I’m not sure that I could live with myself. And I think I would curse my God for leading me to such a pass.

Richard Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

E-mail this article to a friend
 
I just read an essay contained in "In 6 Days"; the book is a collection of essays by 50 scientists. The essay I read was authored by Jeremy L. Walter, terminal degree in mechanical engineering from Penn State. I now have a headache. The author presents the old saws of geological stratification as caused by the Flood, not millenia, the refutation of natural selection based upon violation of the second law of thermodynamics, and the impossibility of knowing the past because it cannot be observed. Did I mention my head hurts? Adza states the book is "Not the most simplistic book to read - because of all the scientific information involved." If this essay is an example of the others contained in the collection it will be a simplistic read indeed. I will not bother refuting this essay here as the points have been addressed elsewhere in this thread. I have contacted 50 scientists, including myself who possess the terminal degree and we have agreed that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the earth. We have 51 scientists in agreement, therefore we win. Should anyone doubt our scientific results please see www.vengaza.org, and the attached scientifically accurate chart about the relationship between global warming and pirates
 
Darn it! Thal beat me to it, with a better essay. Curses!
 
adurso:
Darn it! Thal beat me to it, with a better essay. Curses!
When it comes to separating the tasty from the bantha po-do you just can't beat Dawkins.
 
Hank49:
If there was no hydrogen, it WAS created....from nothing, the ultimate "creation" since all other elements stemmed from this. But what about the helium?


Since you don't want to do the simple research, a summary.

The ratio of hydrogen and helium in the early universe is explained (or controlled if you want to think of it that way) by the cooling rate of the early universe. These nuclei begin forming 3-4 minutes after the Big Bang. The ratio of H to He in the universe (back-calculated to account for that which has already been burned in stars) tells us what the cooling rate is. This happened as these nuclei (actually the protons and neutrons) 'condensed' out of the super-heated quark soup that comprised the universe at that time. This cooling rate ties in with the rate of early universe inflation. In principle this is similar to the 'Charles Law' form of the Gas Laws we divers know so well.

The electrons were captured later, forming atoms. This happened when the universe got cool enough for the electrons to actually stay with the nucleus (about 10000 Kelvin) which happened about 300,000 years after the Big Bang.

But all of the H and He came from the Big Bang, it did not predate the event.
 
stebzy:
Are you telling me that these laws of physics, all the magnetic fields that hold all the planets in place etc etc just happend by chance?

Magnetic fields hold the planets in place???

Dude, you really need to check your 'facts' before posting. Really.
 
Thalassamania:
Just look around.
At what? That isn't a very convincing reply.

The disagreements among scientists (in the area of evolution) are on fine points not on, did evolution occur. On that point there is complete agreement
Which goes to prove that you have only been exposed to limit scientific studies - and have not seen a bigger picutre. At least creationists have had some understanding of both sides. (Evolution seems to be standard curriculum at all public schools now)

Do you simply discredit any scientist that believes evolution is false as not being a scientist? Or are you making up statements and statistics to try and prove your faith?

I respect decisions (regardless of which way someone decides to believe) even though I don't have to agree with it - but only when the person has been dilligent in their research.

You do not know what you are talking about.
Really? You get this evidence from where? Limited resources that back up what you have already decided on what to believe?

Again - you demonstrate the perfect example of someone making conclusions on what they believe, and then create statments and find evidence to support that initial conclusion.

When all the evidence, often independently collected and analyzed, yields that same conclusion, except for a mythology that is written in a book which is of debatable origin, I’d go with the evidence. There much evidence to support evolution and the multi-billion year age of the earth, there is only myth and made up evidence to contradict either of these concepts.
A perfect example of someone who is willing to have blinders put on, so they can only focus on what they want to believe.

When all the evidence? You have certainly decided to limit yourself to what you call evidence. Over 200 scientific ways to research dating, and evolutionists can only use 2 of them. One - proven to be false all the time, and the other one limits to 50,000 years.

A book of mythology with debatable origin. Again - you're simply showing me that you are going from what you've heard, and have not done your homework my friend. Have you actually done a study of the historical statements in the bible, and compared them to archological findings, and other historical documents and found them false?

Or have you simply made a decision on what you believe is real, and then just make shallow remarks to discredit anything that disagrees with your ideals?

I must admit - it is true that there are creationists that believe what they believe solely because of their faith in the bible and don't worry about science, but that should not give you the idea that all do - as it would be false to come to this conclusion, just as it would be false to come to the conclusion that all evolutionists believe what they believe simply because they have faith in what they see on TV and have not done serious studies.

There are many reasons and they are different for each individual, the more anal retentive just find what they perceive as stupidity to be disgusting, while others have a real fear of falling back into superstition. For me it’s a commitment to truth and human progress.
How does convincing someone to believe in evolution benefit human progress? Accoridng to your theory, when we die - we're gone? What difference does it make what we believe in while we're alive?

Cheers
 
adurso:
I have contacted 50 scientists, including myself who possess the terminal degree and we have agreed that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the earth. We have 51 scientists in agreement, therefore we win. Should anyone doubt our scientific results please see www.vengaza.org, and the attached scientifically accurate chart about the relationship between global warming and pirates

And once again, we see plain stupidity being used to try and refute creation, and endorse evolution. Sure - you may have 51 scientists in agreement, but let's see the book, with the scientific findings that support your belief!

This book isn't a 2 page book listing names and a short description of what they believe. It goes into deep study on the findings they have, and why they come to their conclusion.

These 50 scientists come from different fields, and come to the same conclusion by vastly different areas of study - which are (at the least) plausable, if not compelling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom