Every creationist argument I've ever had

This is awesome, and right on the money. I love NonStampCollector's videos.

I've always loved the little video this guy does. The animation isn't the best, but the arguments and jokes are top notch.

No Gods, No Masters
Cameron

I like the repetition of the same idiotic misrepresentations no matter how many times it's explained.

Sad that the tornado through the junkyard comes from an actual physicist, albeit with respect to abiogenesis, not evolution. For either one, it ignores the huge difference between the mechanics of metal and organic chemistry.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

This video is not realistic in one regard: the creationist would never have given the biologist that much time, with no interruptions, to explain the failure of the Boeing-707-made-out-of-wind-in-a-junkyard analogy. Not to mention that the biologist was also allowed to give an explanation of how evolution actually works. La la land.

This is infuriatingly hilarious. Infuriating because it so accurately depicts creationists' stubborn repetition of discredited arguments. Hilarious because you have to laugh to maintain your sanity in the face of such smug ignorance.

...and Ray Comfort wonders why Richard Dawkins will not debate him. To do so would be a total wast of time.

Centaurs represents the major achilles heel of Evolution, because they are the single exception that disproves the entire Evolution Hoax. Even evolutionists accept the fact that there is not a single, bona-fide transitional centaur fossil. Therefore, the fact that centaurs existed proves that centaurs were intelligently designed by a Power Greater than man. And the only Power Greater than man, as is well known, is God Himself.

-RPTH

That video is such an accurate description of the discursive approach of creationists that it is downright spooky.

1) The 'evolution says the eye came from nowhere, tornado in a junkyard' bit.

2) The 'no transitional fossils' canard.

3) The abuse of the second law of thermodynamics.

4) The claims that 'evolutionists' have no moral code.

5) The claim that a lack of understanding of their woo makes a professional evolutionary biologist unqualified to engage in the debate.

6) The 'its only a theory' line.

7) And lets not forget the total and utter refusal to actually listen to the theory they arrogantly dismiss paired with the repitition of comprehensively debunked arguments ad nauseam.

PZ is right. That is pretty much every creationist argument summed up in one eleven minute video.

If I may make a little prediction, then I think that the countdown has already begun to when the creationists turn up and tell us that we are being militant and mean for mocking them, and that this is persecution and we wouldn't dare say it about Islam, thus providing the obligatory fatwah envy. Also, they will likely claim that our ascerbic attitude is uncalled for and merely proves how lacking in morals and social graces we godless truly are. At some point in the proceedings, we will see at least one Godwin. Poe's Law will also be verfied once more.

Now, I'll just sit back and see how many of those predictions I managed to get right. If I am correct about say, more than half, do I get a cookie?

Change the names, same algorithm => almost every anti-global warming debate I've had

LMAO. That was painful. And funny. I think next time some one tries to pin me with one of these arguments I'll just send them this vid.

Very funny and (sadly) quite accurate.

I just got a weird idea.

Has anyone created a pocket-reference to the Index to Creationist Claims? Specifically, something that would allow J. Random Nonbiologist to list a few dozen transitional species without having to memorize a list of names (and potentially get them wrong).

Of course, to fit the whole thing in a pocket format, most of the information would have to be stripped; it should be limited to the most common arguments (such as the ones in this video). I'd include the index to the full site, as well, so readers know where to find the rest of the information.

Very funny and sadly accurate but considering that creationists have no limits to their stupidity i wonder how many of them will think this video was made to support their claims about real scientists.

Great. I assume I can send the bill for my dental work directly to you. I know it's satire, but fuck it's annoying.

The only difference I see between this and real life is that, usually, I have as much (or more) knowledge of the YEC-ers beliefs than they do.

I love it when the scientists put is head in his hands. So familiar.

"La la la no evidence for evolution!"

Yeah, that's pretty much every single argument in a nutshell.

Creationist rhetoric is slowly wearing thin, exposing all its limitations, and greatly weakening its effectiveness as an educational ploy.
Due to the increasing number of high profile assaults on evolution, by this pseudo-scientific horde, legitimate science is slowly assembling a purely intellectual response, the resulting clashes between the idiocy and reason, now more readily expose the flawed creationist argument.
I see it as a momentum shift. It was hard to take creationism seriously at first, being such a banal construct, but once it was recognized it attracted such a large population and began its insidious infiltration into education.
We all project our ability for reason, and such projection is blind - most people are not that educated, and to them it's still, rock, paper, scissors... Bible.

Creationist rhetoric is slowly wearing thin, exposing all its limitations, and greatly weakening its effectiveness as an educational ploy.
Due to the increasing number of high profile assaults on evolution, by this pseudo-scientific horde, legitimate science is slowly assembling a purely intellectual response, the resulting clashes between the idiocy and reason, now more readily expose the flawed creationist argument.
I see it as a momentum shift. It was hard to take creationism seriously at first, being such a banal construct, but once it was recognized it attracted such a large population and began its insidious infiltration into education, it became dangerous.
We all project our ability for reason, and such projection is blind - most Americans are not that educated, basically ignorant, and to them it's still simply a matter of... rock, paper, scissors... Bible.

Gregory Greenwood #8 wrote:

Now, I'll just sit back and see how many of those predictions I managed to get right. If I am correct about say, more than half, do I get a cookie?

This being Pharyngula, I think you would get some bacon, instead.

My prediction, though, is that no creationists will show up on this thread, because the video is from a pro-evolution site, and thus they won't stumble here by following a link. Plus, there is no direct insult to any particular popular apologist, so fans won't feel the need to 'fight back' for him or her.

If a creationist does show up, they will likely insist that they make none of these arguments, and then trot out something weird and esoteric related to information theory, quantum mechanics, or a code subtly woven into the Book of Genesis. Or, their theory will be too vague to pinpoint with any accuracy, but it's very sophisticated. Too sophisticated to make it to this video, that's for sure.

Since it's Sunday morn and I've already had my bacon, I would want a cookie.

I can see so much resemblance in this to a lot of the arguments that I have had with creationists.

I need a physics lecture now. PZ, your AAI lecture is very appealing in the youtube playlist...

@ 9,

Change the names, same algorithm => almost every anti-global warming debate I've had

ditto for anti-vax debates

Mmmm.

Bacon cookies.

we need to get the word out that creationists have no valid argument and therefore we cannot debate them. god did it, bible says so, god wrote bible, god works in mysterious ways. circular logic doth not produce a valid argument.

Why Atheists Always Lose when Debating the Existence of God

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tKw-WWfpZo

Sorry, I didn't get that. Are there any transitional fossils?

Andyo #26 wrote:

Sorry, I didn't get that. Are there any transitional fossils?

Yes, and the scientist in the video runs through a list of them -- or tries to. Though, of course, it depends on what you mean by "transitional fossil," and what you expect to see.

Biologists tend to talk more about transitional features and forms: creationist are looking for a crocoduck.

I'm pretty sure Andyo was joking :)

Benjamin Geiger:

Has anyone created a pocket-reference to the Index to Creationist Claims?

In fact, yes! Mark A. Isaak, the editor of that list, compiled it into a book: The Counter-Creationism Handbook. Fantastic resource.

I left this comment on YouTube: I could only watch for the first 3 minutes. Creationists really are the most bloody stupid people in human history.

MikeTheInfidel #28 wrote:

I'm pretty sure Andyo was joking :)

Oh, right. Duh. Sorry.

Andyo: NO. There are NO transitional fossils. None. No. Not any.

Andyo: NO. There are NO transitional fossils. None. No. Not any.

This is because crocoducks are so tasty none survived long enough to get turned in a fossil… other than as coprolite.

*Andy's comic side hangs head in shame and runs to practice a thousand jokes in the mirror, swearing NEVER to be Poeified again*

I've found I need to take a deep breath when I read something I consider SIWOTI, and during that breath see who posted the material. That can save needless posts.

Centaurs are not incompatible with evolution. First of all, they're an obvious transitional species between horses and humans. Second of all, early centaurs were primitive, lecherous and drunken - c.f. Centaurus nephele, et al. Later, by the time we arrive at C. chiron, they're noble creatures of higher aspect.

I posted this video in my fav/ most hated on-going creationist thread this morning, and what do you know? The humbug posted this just after...

>>>How did thousands of errant assemblages of polypeptides one day magically and intelligently arrange themselves into complex codified sequences and the encapsulated entities we now call genomes? Isn't this a blatant and huge over-skip of incremental theory dynamics? It's comparable to miners digging for ore, but instead of ore, they come across a whole fleet of well preserved and operable cars buried in the earth! Will somebody, anybody, please help me find the missing chapters of how this purported, monstrous biological dynamic called evolution got underway and became viewed as such a viable force! Organics piggy-backing crystal structures is not good enough. <<<

Mind boggling self-parody!!!

http://www.philadelphiaspeaks.com/forum/spirituality-faith/3058-creatio…

suzybrown,

What is "incremental theory dynamics"? Google doesn't recognize the phrase and neither do I.

"This is far too familiar."

Here's why: (from NonStampCollector's info for this video):
"Its also based on P.Z. Myers famous debate against Geoffrey Simmonds (early 2008) - a guy with doctoral qualifications who didnt know the scientific meaning of the word theory, and used it as a pejorative. Quite a few elements of the script came from that exchange (whales, ignorance... etc)."

Benjamin Geiger (#12) wrote: "Has anyone created a pocket-reference to the Index to Creationist Claims?"

I have "The Counter-Creationism Handbook" loaded on my Amazon Kindle, along with several websites I've converted to Kindle files. That's a start.

Dance:10
Looks:.5

Come on awesome skeptical animators (you know who you are), help this brilliant writer out.

Pareidolius #39 wrote:

Dance:10
Looks:.5
Come on awesome skeptical animators (you know who you are), help this brilliant writer out.

With tits and ass? Interesting suggestion.

Wow, I just had flashbacks to the radio thing with P.Z. and Simmonds...

...and every youtube creation vs. evolution debate.

This is so painful to watch, it all is so painfully familiar...

@#36... no clue. My suggestion would be to search AIG or IRC's latest articles. ; )

Very amusing, and nearly accurate. Except that in my experience, many scientists and atheists have a better grasp of standard Christian theology than portrayed here. (Hell, many of us have a better grasp of Biblical history than the average church goer. Try mentioning Jephthah's daughter or Lot's offering up his daughters to the men of Sodom or Deborah being a prophetess, and see the blank looks. Indeed, some of my favourite threads here are discussing the whack-a-loon things that are canon theology.)

pixelfish,

Except that in my experience, many scientists and atheists have a better grasp of standard Christian theology than portrayed here.

Artistic license — NonStampCollector used it to show the scientist accepts correction of his ignorance in the topic, as a contrast to the creationist.

Except that in my experience, many scientists and atheists have a better grasp of standard Christian theology than portrayed here.

Yeah, but the animator was obviously trying to emphasize an underlying point -- the biologist is confused about theological doctrine but accepts correction; the creationist is confused, and ignores all correction and keeps repeating fallacies and nonsense.

Now let's move on.

@John Morales: Jinx !!!

The ending kind of ruined it. To make a point, he gave the creationist way too much self-awareness.

pixelfish is quite right - I've never known a scientist to be so ignorant about religion. But I guess nonstampcollector needed a device like that to show that scientists are willing and ready to be corrected when they are wrong, and that point needed to be obvious even to creationists.

Sastra- "With tits and ass? Interesting suggestion."

Keep the best of you
Do the rest of you

Well, I got it, anyway.

loved the video...so wish I could get away with showing that during one of my biology lectures...but HS school boards in the bible belt have a way of making such a decision impossible to make....

creationists, i think, base their beliefs on the book of genesis, particularly that ubiquitous first line. correct translation destroys their case. that line actually reads 'in (a non specific) beginning strong ones cut the high things from the ground.' there is no doubt in my mind that this refers to the observation of the horizon. incorrect translation is the root cause of the misinformation and gross errors of the religions that identify with that book i.e. judaism, xtianity and islam. two other significant mistranslations are elohim->god and yahweh->lord. both wrong!! elohim->strong ones and yahweh->to be. i think the thrust of the writer/s was to capture the idea of self cognizance and its relationship to the past. i guess what i'm saying is that any arguments with the loons will always be circular because that book is not really about creation, evolution or cosmology in a modern scientific context. that book should be taken out of their hands, which can be achieved by translating it correctly, imho:-)

waits for owlmirror to speak with bated breath

"Do I have to teach you what 'theory' means in science?"

"No, I'm not interested."

Gold

Sastra @ 20;

This being Pharyngula, I think you would get some bacon, instead.

But the bacon is only tuly of value if a bible and some lesbians are also available. If this triptych is forthcoming, then yes; I would like some bacon.

Pretty please.

It's okay if you haven't throttled one yet, PZ. After seeing this video I'm ready to go out and do it for you.

#39:

Come on awesome skeptical animators (you know who you are), help this brilliant writer out.

I don't think that's necessary - and I say that as a fan of animation. The visual simplicity means that there's nothing to distract from the excellent dialogue.

correct translation destroys their case.

Oh, I doubt it. Polytheists can be/were/are also creationists. Just changing things to a pantheon/group effort doesn't really fix the underlying fallacies and fallacious arguments that are made or can be made.

That having been said, your translation is not correct.

that line actually reads 'in (a non specific) beginning strong ones cut the high things from the ground.'

No. Absolutely not.

Starting from last to first:

"Aretz" (ארץ) means "land, earth", in the sense of "dry land". I suppose that can sometimes be synonymous with "ground", but that's really not the best term to use here.

"Shamayim" (שמים) means "sky; heavens". "High things" is just confusing, and does not give an accurate sense of the term.

"Bara" (ברא) means "create". It has been suggested by one scholar [Ellen van Wolde], apparently based on similarities with Mesopotamian myths and Akkadian language texts, that in Genesis 1 and 2, "bara" means "separate" -- but this is not supported by other uses of the verb in other parts of the OT, nor by a comparison with the LXX translation. "Cut" is an even more extreme and unsupported interpretation than this. More discussion in the comments here; note especially comments by Christopher Heard -- follow the link to his post, and to additional comments/posts from there.

"Elohim" (אלהים) means "God". It can be seen as plural; "gods; spirits; noncorporeal beings", but "strong ones" simply does not correctly emphasize that the word did and does have a mystical and dualistic meaning of entities that were not physical. And given that singular verbs are used with the word "Elohim" throughout (with a few interesting exceptions that would require more analysis and exposition than is needed here), using the plural in the translation of the first verse is simply wrong.

there is no doubt in my mind that this refers to the observation of the horizon.

I don't think that the "horizon" is an impossible conceptualization of what the Genesis 1 author was thinking of, but that doesn't change the fact that your "translation" is simply wrong.

two other significant mistranslations are elohim->god and yahweh->lord. both wrong!! elohim->strong ones and yahweh->to be.

Translating "YHVH" to "lord" derives from the LXX, and from the tradition of using the circumlocution/euphemism "Adonai" for the tabooed pronunciation of YHVH. But your "to be" loses the fact that YHVH was a name, and used as such in the Bible, and your "strong ones" loses the fact that this/these specific "strong one(s)" was/were fucking well considered by the original writers to be a God/pantheon of gods.

i think the thrust of the writer/s was to capture the idea of self cognizance and its relationship to the past.

You can think whatever you like and still be wrong (on the Internet).

/SIWOTI

i guess what i'm saying is that any arguments with the loons will always be circular because that book is not really about creation, evolution or cosmology in a modern scientific context.

This, at least, I have no argument with.

This is exactly how I feel when I'm talking to a Creotard.

"But the bacon is only tuly of value if a bible and some lesbians are also available."

I have a cleverly hidden atheist bible for you, but you'll have to find yourself the lesbians.

So, how is OwlMirror not a Molly yet? Hell, his initials are already OM.

So, how is OwlMirror not a Molly yet? Hell, his initials are already OM.

He won his back July '08. He just doesn't advertise. His tentacle cluster collection is ginormous, for good reason...

Thanks, Owlmirror. Always a pleasure to read your posts.

PZ - is it true that Owlmirror does not have a Molly yet? If not, please count this as a vote.

Maslab @ 59;

I have a cleverly hidden atheist bible for you, but you'll have to find yourself the lesbians.

Well, that's two out of the three. I should also point out that, for the usage I have in mind, it would not need to be an atheist bible. The woo filled version would probably serve just as well. Maybe better, from the comedy/entertaining Xian outrage point of view.

Now, where will I find a few open-minded lesbians...

*Grumble* Damned blockquotes *Grumble*

By the way Maslab, I think your link @ 59 is broken.

I have a cleverly hidden atheist bible for you, but you'll have to find yourself the lesbians.

then:

By the way Maslab, I think your link @ 59 is broken.

It's not broken, it's just cleverly hidden...

Or maybe it's both, but here's the unhidden link (bad html on my part): http://failblog.org/2010/01/08/manual-fail/

Btw Gregory Greenwood @64: at least you know the code for them.

At the three minute mark I wanted to yell, "Yeah, I get it."

As a fan of Monty Python, SNL, Mad, the old National Lampoon, S.J. Perelman, Calvin Trillin, Robin Williams, The Daily Show, Stephen Colbert, South Park, etc. I have got to say that isn't very good. It's extremely obvious plus it's way too long. It belongs to what I call the Mallard Fillmore school of comedy: Something that's enjoyed by an extremely narrow audience because it plays, sometimes panders, straight to that audience's prejudices, not because it's actually humorous. The cartoon badly wants a few unexpected twists that heightens the absurdity while raising the ante. This one starts with a predictiable premise and then spends ten minutes driving it into the ground.

Zzzz.

Yours in honest dissent,
Hieronumus Braintree

Wait, what's all this nonsense about a bible, lesbians, and bacon?

It's interesting that the outdated Hebrew lexicon by Brown, Driver, and Briggs suggests that "Elohim" only means God in ancient Hebrew when the chief Canaanite god, El, and his pantheon (Elohim) were worshipped in Canaan BEFORE the Jews arrived. Clearly Brown, Driver, and Briggs didn't have access to later archaeological research, especially from the findings at Ugarit.

Speaking of mistranslations of the bible, Hector Avalos and others say that Genesis has been incredibly mistranslated. Hector's is below.

There is no creation ex nihilo. And Elohim is a plural that means gods. The early part of the OT has quite a few references to gods. Early Judaism was polytheistic and god even had a wife, Asherah. The ancient Jews spent almost a thousand years trying to get rid of her.

Not sure how much mistranslations matter anyway. The bible is continually being rewritten based on the politics and theology of the day. The New International Version has several key rewrites including Genesis. They are trying to hide the fact that there are two mutally contradictory creation stories within a few pages.

Don't like something in the bible, no problem. Just rewrite it. In a century or so, jesus will be a Northern European who hates Democrats and scientists.

google to RD.net:

27. Comment #422717 by Roland_F on October 9, 2009 at 8:48 am

A proper translation of Genesis 1-3 provided from Hector Avalos ("The end of biblical studies"):

When Elohim began to shape the heavens and the dry land – the dry land being formless and empty and darkness on the face of the waters and the breath of Elohim blowing over the waters – Elohim said: “ Let there be light”.

So no creation from nothing. Beside light before stars of course and all the other nonsensical statements following.

Hieronymous the Troll: Your post in on par with Flood theology in terms of ignoring the facts. SNL is the king of taking an obvious idea and running it into the ground. Witness What up with that?, a ten minute sketch based on a talk show host who gets up and does the same 2 minute song and dance before his three guests can answer his questions. I've seen entire South Park episodes based on a single stupid joke. Tom Cruise is 'in the closet.' Get it? How about fifteen minutes from now, when he's still in there, but now John Travolta's with him? I have suffered in bored shock and horror through entire season's of Monty Python's Flying Circus. The cat was confused after about thirty seconds, but they just couldn't help themselves.

Priceless. Bookmarking that baby for future ammo.

Do you think if we trot that out whenever some creotard asks why PZed or Dawkins won't debate a creationist, that the creotards would actually look at it? And if they did, would it overcome their TSTKTS long enough for them to take something positive away from it? Doubt it.

Do you think if we trot that out whenever some creotard asks why PZed or Dawkins won't debate a creationist, that the creotards would actually look at it? And if they did, would it overcome their TSTKTS long enough for them to take something positive away from it?

The creotards wouldn't look at opposing information. If they did, we wouldn't have to merge the never-ending thread. lol

So how much longer till the tone trolls come in?

owlmirror #58
meanings of ancient Semitic words, i admit, can be difficult to pin down, but i am confident that a more realistic interpretation of the text in question can be achieved by a broader view of the cultural, geographical and linguistic framework of the writer/s.
referencing meanings from the Septuagint is circular and means nothing. it was translated in the second temple period, long after the meaning of the temple had been lost.
every other Hebrew word with the 'im' suffix is plural.
the word 'god' is Indo-European, possibly from a root meaning 'voice', and has no connection whatsoever to elohim.
foisting the complex notion of ex-nihilo 'creation' onto an ancient word with the simple meaning of 'cut' is outrageous to say the least.
i have no interest in scholars' interpretations as they continue to translate based upon predetermined meanings and the religious status quo, which is probably important if your income is dependent on that condition.
yahweh was not coined for this text, it is a loan word, as is most of the Hebrew vocab.
i use TDOT, which supports the meanings i have posted. just because you say i'm wrong doesn't mean i am, and just because you can input hebrew letters doesn't mean you are right either:-)
in conclusion, i will state categorically that the collection of books referred to as the 'holy bible' has nothing whatsoever to do with the popular notion of 'god'. it is all about the ossuary box in the tent. when you solve that little puzzle you'll understand:-)

@ 72:

Some creationists would probably just call us cowards, and refuse to watch the thing.

...so, at least a vast majority wouldn't. There would be a smaller amount of people who watched it that would take anything positive from it.

funny, from a "yeah, that's a typical evolution/creation debate" point of view.
Like a bridge player who always opens for 2 no trump, no matter the hand, our creationist opens with the standard bullshit. Then, realizing that he cannot win, the Creationist eschews logic and reason for the Gish Gallop. But, as no horse can maintain a gallop for more than a furlong, our valiant charger of a Creationist must then turn to his last line of defense, obtuse negation.
The Evolutionist, realizing he is dealing with someone who has intentionally stuffed their head in the sand, should now simply end the non-discussion as gracefully as possible. by telling the reality-denying creationist to stuff it.

This is great...but it owes a debt to Bob and Ray. Or maybe inane public discourse converges with art.

"The Komodo dragon, the worlds' largest living lizard..."

"I believe I read somwhere where a foreign potentate gave America some Komodo dragons..."

"Well now, if we wanted to take the youngsters to see a Komodo dragon..."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88761223

I find arguing with them a bit like listening to that guy from Mystery Men - the one who could only turn invisible if no-one was looking.

'Yes, our god created the earth and everything on it, in six days, only 6,000 years ago - but you just have to believe that he did, even though it goes against everything we know - and can demonstrate - about how the universe works.'

Delugionist is as delugionist does.

referencing meanings from the Septuagint is circular and means nothing. it was translated in the second temple period, long after the meaning of the temple had been lost.

If the meaning had been lost, how do you know what it was?

It's not enough to look at etymologies and cognates in related languages; you have to show that those words had those exact intended meanings for the writer at the time they were being written down.

every other Hebrew word with the 'im' suffix is plural.

I don't think that's relevant, even if correct (there may be a few other exceptions). Hebrew verbs agree with the actual number of the associated noun, not what you want the number to be.

Look, there may be some original lost text of Genesis 1 that used plural verbs with "elohim" everywhere, and this was edited by later monolatrists. But until someone finds that putative lost text, the text that we have is the one passed down to us by some original monolatrist scribe, and that priest clearly intended for "elohim" to be singular.

the word 'god' is Indo-European, possibly from a root meaning 'voice', and has no connection whatsoever to elohim.

So what? The original root isn't relevant to how the word became used and is used today.

foisting the complex notion of ex-nihilo 'creation' onto an ancient word with the simple meaning of 'cut' is outrageous to say the least.

You'll need to back up, with more evidence than your bare assertion, that "bara" did mean "cut" to the original writer.

i have no interest in scholars' interpretations as they continue to translate based upon predetermined meanings and the religious status quo, which is probably important if your income is dependent on that condition.

So what are you using to get your interpretations? Drugs?

yahweh was not coined for this text, it is a loan word,

Even if so, so what? It's still used as a name in the text.

as is most of the Hebrew vocab.

Citation needed.

i use TDOT,

You mean a collection of "scholars' interpretations", "based upon predetermined meanings and the religious status quo"?

I thought you had no interest in that.

which supports the meanings i have posted.

Ah, so historical etymology and Semitic cognates offered as a sometimes tentative gloss on the text means that you can read the mind of the author of Genesis 1 and do a better job than anyone else in translation?

just because you say i'm wrong doesn't mean i am

You're not wrong because I say so; you're wrong because you have done nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that you have any idea what you're talking about.

in conclusion, i will state categorically that the collection of books referred to as the 'holy bible' has nothing whatsoever to do with the popular notion of 'god'

Your megalomaniacal Dunning-Kruger syndrome is noted.

it is all about the ossuary box in the tent.

I'd ask what the big deal is about the ארון in the אהל מועד , but you would probably tell me.

mark.c.martin59@74,

I read your post, which is basically rhetoric that boils down to:
these translations are tricky, I don't agree with the scholars, and so I'm right if I say I am. ( I don't know what TDOT is, google tells me it might be the Tennessee Department of Transportation, and the acronym you refer to is not obvious to the layperson.)

Word of advice:
The readers of this blog are mainly atheistic, and sympathetic to the view that the bible doesn't say what many think it does. But you need to back up statements with evidence and detail if you want to convince anybody here of anything - even if they agree with you in principle.

Owlmirror knows his stuff. Even on this post alone, I can see that by the level of care and detail in his reply to you, and you yourself made it even more obvious by your handwaving dismissal of scholars, without providing a single piece of detail, let alone evidence, that Owlmirror's analysis had any faults at all.

Well, I should have refreshed before I posted. Ah well...

But the bacon is only t[r]uly of value if a bible and some lesbians are also available.

That is fallacious.
Bacon is just fine by itself.
Ditto lesbians (or so I'm told).

Bible, not so much.

Change the names, same algorithm => almost every anti-global warming debate I've had

ditto for anti-vax debates

Likewise for accommodationism, more or less.

Chad Orzel at Uncertain Principles has been making the same tired accommodationist argument that "science and religion are compatible" is an okay thing to say, because some scientists are religious---and refusing to acknowledge the reductio that if that's all "compatible" means, "science and astrology are compatible" is equally true.

http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/01/a_statement_of_fact_cannot_b…

And of course, rather than addressing the clear reductio squarely, and saying that yes, "science and astrology are compatible" too, he just repeats the same argument, claims that we just disagree on fundamentals and resorts to the Argument from Tone.

It never ends.

I've just been on You Tube for a couple of hours and heard the Myers/Simmonds 'debate' for the first time and can understand that a few of you got a sense of deja vu when you saw this.
I cannot believe he thought reading an article out of a science magazine made him better qualified than an eminent biologist.(I know i shouldn't be but creationist stupidity never ceases to amaze me)
I don't understand how these people cannot see how ridiculous they sound and why they are mocked so much.Maybe some qualified scientist could do some research into the correlation between brain size and thickness of skin.

Great video...it wonderfully illustrates the following:

"It is wearying business, arguing with creationists. Basically it is a game of Whack-A-Mole. They make and argument, you whack it down. They make a second argument, you whack it down. They make a third, you whack it down. So they make the first argument again."
--------------------------------- John Derbyshire

You can Lead a horse to water,
but you can't make it drink;
you can lead a creationist to facts,
but you can't make him think.
----------------------------- Burma-Shave

I don't know what TDOT is,

Probably Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament.

But saying that the words he used are in the dictionary (assuming they even are, I haven't checked) is like a creationist using the fact that "theory" exists in the dictionary in the sense of "wild idea" as an argument against the theory of evolution and in favor of creation -- as the creationist in the video does, to tweak things back on topic.

============

As an addendum to my above rebuttal @#80, I should add that usage of forms of the verb "bara" (like "boreh" -- present tense -- in Isaiah 45:7, as I noted in the comments of that thread that he refused to look at) occur in other parts of the OT, are clearly earlier than the second temple period, and very obviously do not mean "cut" in those locations.

A better example than Isaiah 45:7 is Genesis 5:1 (זה ספר תולדת אדם ביום ברא אלהים אדם) -- the author obviously does not intend that God "cut" man!

Loads more here:

  http://alternate-readings.blogspot.com/2009/10/genesis-one-does-bara-me…

(which checks the translations against the Greek LXX -- but the context of the actual verses makes clear what the intent of the Hebrew is)

The bible, lesbians and bacon nonsense!?

*clutches pearls*

No, staples, just like the grog and swill.

Keep the Lesbians and the Bacon, lose the bible.

/pearl-clutch.

Thanks, Owlmirror, for suggesting a reasonable TDOT. Tennessee Department of Transportation didn't really fit the context.

I think that mark.etc, was hoping to astound us with his deep insights, but he seems to be responding with the same unwillingness to learn as the creationist in the clip.

yeah the thing was a bit obvious, but very familiar to every pharyngulite...:-)

Debating.....is futile !

Off topic, it was about 110 degrees Fahrenheit in Melbourne today.

Just to balance the weather you are experiencing.

Hyeronimus #67

As a fan of Monty Python, SNL, Mad, the old National Lampoon, S.J. Perelman, Calvin Trillin, Robin Williams, The Daily Show, Stephen Colbert, South Park, etc. I have got to say that isn't very good.

Python fans don't name drop! Just like D. Adams' fans, they just go about ex-parrots and how nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, and infinite improbability drives, and 42's; and expect that someone somewhere another geek will get it.

Off topic, it was still is about 110 degrees Fahrenheit in Melbourne today.

Fixed that right up for you !

;)

Thanks, Rorschach. My brain is fried. Or baked. Or something.

It was painful to watch the evolutionist's ignorance about Me.

Just checked and Melbourne is down to a restful 101° F at 9:25 pm (38.3° C).

We are on the other hand, are well on the way to the forecast 1" (25 mm) rain overnight and can expect the same again for tomorrow. Who do I complain to about the excessive leaking in the celestial sphere that we are getting around here? Shoddy design work to be sure.

Outlook for the foreseeable future is grey during the day, darker grey at night.

God @ 96

It was painful to watch the evolutionist's ignorance about Me.

Well look mate, while you're here, let's have a talk about this whole eyeball thing, shall we?
you and I both know it's no good. Look, any engineer worth his salt is going to drop the silly protoplasm thing and go right to an array of photoreceptors embedded in a silicon substrate!
Come on, old boy, admit it, you were completely steamed when you came up with an eye having a blind spot right at the front centre , weren't you!?
I could puke a better eye design than that!
And what's all this bollocks about having only one pancreas, and an irreplaceable one at that?
Are you mad ? What kind of stable design is that ?
Couldn't you have at least tried for modular design ? Your Sonny! To make it worse, all the replaceable units are inside the damn ribcage where it's almost impossible to get at!
Intelligent Designer my ass!

Andyo,

Python fans don't name drop! Just like D. Adams' fans, ...

... their minds are too finely tuned!

Well, it's 11 pm, and down to 36.3 C (97.3F) in Melbourne. Just so you know, this is on the warm side for one of the colder (southern) cities in Australia, but every now and again in summer we get these scorchers.

Chad Orzel at Uncertain Principles has been making the same tired accommodationist argument that "science and religion are compatible" is an okay thing to say, because some scientists are religious---and refusing to acknowledge the reductio that if that's all "compatible" means, "science and astrology are compatible" is equally true.

Before everyone starts reflexively bashing "accommodationism", I think it's important to differentiate between the various different positions which are labelled "accommodationist". I think the term is too often used around here to attack arguments without really thinking about them. "Science and religion are compatible" is an ambiguous and complex statement. It can have several different meanings, some of which are true and others of which are false.

It's obvious, and relatively uncontroversial, to state that religion is not a scientific enterprise. It doesn't use the scientific method: it doesn't test its truth-claims against the empirical evidence. Instead, it relies on its own forms of epistemology - "faith" and "revelation" - which are not scientific. In general, intelligent religious believers accept that their faith is not, in and of itself, scientific. (Even centuries ago, Aquinas accepted that the existence of God was not self-evident, and could not be demonstrated from evidence in the natural world.) Rather, they tend to make equivocal, vague remarks like "religion and science deal with different types of truth".

But saying “religion is not science” is not the same as saying “all religion is incompatible with science”. What do we mean by “compatible” here? Certainly, some religious beliefs – creationism, in all its forms, being the pre-eminent example – directly contradict scientific fact, and are therefore incompatible with science. But most forms of religious belief don’t do this. Rather, they use a “God of the gaps” approach; they fit religious doctrine into areas which science has not yet explained. Where new scientific evidence is unearthed that appears to disprove any aspect of their beliefs, they simply redefine their beliefs so as to be compatible with the science. Any piece of scripture or doctrine which conflicts with the evidence is reinterpreted as some sort of metaphor or spiritual allegory.

As you know, I am an atheist, and I don’t believe that religion deals with a “different type of truth”; I’ve never seen anything to suggest that religion makes any valuable truth-claims at all. But moderate religionists, while they certainly hold beliefs that are unscientific (in that they aren’t tested against the empirical evidence), choose to confine those beliefs to areas where they don’t conflict with established scientific knowledge. As I said, there is a difference between the statements “X is not science” and “X is incompatible with science”.

The difference is important in practical as well as theoretical terms. Promoting science is far, far more important to the future of the world than promoting atheism. I honestly don’t care whether or not other people choose to believe in a god; if it keeps them happy, and they don’t force me to adhere to their beliefs, then there’s no reason why it should concern me in the slightest. But I do care whether they hold anti-science beliefs, such as creationism or “faith healing”, which actively spread misinformation and directly contradict established scientific evidence, therefore undermining scientific progress. I would therefore argue that atheists and agnostics should have a strong interest in encouraging conservative/fundamentalist believers to become moderate or liberal believers. While both kinds of religion may be irrational, the latter is much less harmful to the interests of humanity.

Apologies for the lengthy digression.

Walton, yeah, but at the end of the day, if science accommodates religion, it ceases to be science, whilst if religion accommodates science, it remains religion.

Think about it.

Just one question, why does the Creationist in the video keep calling Phil Plait "Dr Finch"?

:-D

Owlmirror wrote:

Look, there may be some original lost text of Genesis 1 that used plural verbs with "elohim" everywhere, and this was edited by later monolatrists. But until someone finds that putative lost text, the text that we have is the one passed down to us by some original monolatrist scribe, and that priest clearly intended for "elohim" to be singular.

Ooooh, now that would be absolute golden if it could be dug up..!

Walton,

Please note that in what I wrote I was only criticizing a particular incredibly boneheaded accommodationist argument---that the existence of scientists who are religious justifies the flat, unqualified statement that "science and religion are compatible."

That is the argument that Genie Scott and Nisbet and Mooney and Kirshenbaum have been making for years on end, and it is bullshit.

They clearly want to say, for propaganda purposes, that "science and religion are compatible," full stop, as though that meant something more than "some scientists are religious." If all they mean was the latter, they would just say the latter, and leave it at that.

They even use that argument to counter claims by New Atheists who are clearly not talking about compatibility in that sense. They're doing a bait-and-switch "fallacy of four terms" and it is evidently quite intentionally dishonest.

That is why Chad will not come out and say flatly that "science and astrology are compatible," when his reasoning about religion applies equally well to astrology. (And AGW denialism, and Deepak Chopra's quantum woo, and pretty much any damn fool thing.)

Chad, like the more prominent accommodationists, is clearly using this red herring to avoid the real subject---when is it okay to lie to people about the compatibility of science and religion, and when is that a strategically good thing to do?

He says that "science and religion are compatible" is a statement of fact, and "a statement of fact cannot be unconscionable." (The latter was the title of his post.)

You evidently understand that the statement is at best ambiguous. Chad pretends not to---or rather, he acknowledges that some of us do interpret it differently, but still says that it's a fact, and that since it's a fact, it's just fine to say it.

Oops, I left something out. I should have said...

Chad, like the more prominent accommodationists, is clearly using this red herring to avoid the real subjects---(1) how compatible are science and religion, really, (2) when is it okay to lie to people about the compatibility of science and religion, and (3) when is that a strategically good thing to do?

(I left out #1, which is key.)

The "accommodationists" know that the real argument is about epistemic compatibility---the "New Atheists" are not claiming, and have never claimed, that religious people can't be scientists. We've said the opposite all along.

(Chad hasn't done the worst version of that---making it sound like New Atheists are too dumb and blinded by ideology to notice that some of their scientific colleagues are religious, but still manage to do some science.)

I need a quick summary of the theory of evolution. I'm not a biologist or a scientist of any matter, but I imagine if I have to defend my reasoning, I'll have to state what the theory of evolution is. I can't put it to words precisely, but I understand the gist of it (gene changes, generations, natural selection)

Kevin, Wikipedia is quite a good place to start...

@... Hairychris? (108):

Ahh, I didn't know that page existed, I look up 'Evolution' on Wiki, and it's the big, super-technical article I can't even wrap my head around.

Also - that picture is hilarious. Giant dog and little tiny dog XD

John Morales,

Walton, yeah, but at the end of the day, if science accommodates religion, it ceases to be science, whilst if religion accommodates science, it remains religion.

That's not clear to me. All the religion that I understand to be religion involves at least a little conflict with science.

For example, I just read "The Case for God" (an inaccurate title if ever there was one) by Karen Armstrong, and it appears to me that even her ultraliberal theology conflicts with modern neuroscience.

Like a lot of religion that claims to be "compatible with science" she's got some presuppositions in there that appear to be false. In particular, she thinks that when some mystics do the mystical thing, they get in touch with an ineffable truth about the ultimate nature of reality. They don't come back with any specific verbalizable ideas that obviously contradict specific scientific knowledge, but the whole framework presupposes that by meditation and introspection and whatnot, philosophical mystics can bypass normal perception and reasoning, to fairly reliably intuit ultimate truth.

Everything I know about cognition and neuroscience says that's wrong. Mystical states are brain states, and brains are machines with limited ability to introspect about their own natures. They certainly can't introspect down past the neural level, further down past chemistry and physics, to some ultimate reality that physicists don't know about.

Most varieties of religion have that basic problem, even the ones that seem to have no orthodoxy and no explicit commitment to any particular supernatural beliefs. They tacitly assume that minds are constructed in such a way that they can intuit very deep truths in a way that is not scientifically plausible.

The ones that dont---e.g. very austere versions of Buddhism as practiced by certain people who see it as a mind-control discipline and nothing else---are not clearly religious. (At least, not to me.)

OwlMirror #80

Look, there may be some original lost text of Genesis 1 that used plural verbs with "elohim" everywhere, and this was edited by later monolatrists. But until someone finds that putative lost text, the text that we have is the one passed down to us by some original monolatrist scribe, and that priest clearly intended for "elohim" to be singular.

Sobs uncontrollably. Will you PLEASE stop giving Dan Brown ideas for his next book?

re the video ~ I watched it with a friend and at the "monkey" bit he said "If Xtianity evolved from Judaism, how come there are still Jews?"

And WTF is it with Pharyngulites and bacon? You're driving us veggies into the arms of Islam and Judaism! Oh, hang on. "For God so loved the smell of burning flesh..."

Mark my word: someday, we will find a miraculously assembled Boeing 747 in the path of a tornado through a junkyard. And on that day, we will all come together and worship the Lord our God, for we will know, verily, that all science is false.

Benjamin Geiger (#12) wrote: "Has anyone created a pocket-reference to the Index to Creationist Claims?"

I have "The Counter-Creationism Handbook" loaded on my Amazon Kindle. With the Kindle's search capabilities, it's an awesome reference tool. And I've converted several websites to Kindle documents - the hotlinks link to the referenced websites. That's a start.

How come Safari 1.3.2 has suddenly learned how to display Hebrew letters!?! It used to show blank space instead!

Oh, I doubt it. Polytheists can be/were/are also creationists. Just changing things to a pantheon/group effort doesn't really fix the underlying fallacies and fallacious arguments that are made or can be made.

Multiple Designers Theory

In this thread and in many others, commentors draw parallels between evolution-denialism and AGW-denialism. I really think it behooves those in the scientific community to crack down on this. Admittedly, the two forms of denialism have many similarities; specifically, they contest a broad scientific consensus on largely ideological rather than evidential grounds.

However, I think any level-headed person on this board can agree that the *possibility* of the main claims of AGW being show wrong based on future evidence, though vanishingly small, is many orders of magnitude larger than the *possibility* of the main claims of the TOE. To illustrate: it is far more plausible that a new global-cooling mechanism may be discovered - or an existing mechanism be found to have a much more substantial effect than originally projected - than it is that a pre-cambrian rabbit would turn up on a fossil dig). Yet, if they are consistently lumped together (not just in the popular media but also by the scientific community at-large), then I'm loathe to think of boost that would be experienced by evolution-deniers given any drastic revisions or outright retractions in the claims made about AGW by climate scientists.

Consider, the following exchange, in light of the unlikely but feasible over-turning of AGW:

P1: "10,000 professional scientists name 'Steve' agree that Darwinian evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of species on the planet"
P2: "Yeah - how many professional scientists thought that AGW was real?"

At about 7 minutes and 17 seconds my brain fried an I could not watch anymore. This is a good example of Poe's law. If this had been all audio (or in written form) and not a cartoon, I would have had problems recognizing this as satire...

jennyxyzzy @ 103:

Just one question, why does the Creationist in the video keep calling Phil Plait "Dr Finch"?

I think that's a reference to Darwin's finches.

Oh, yea. It made my day. The sad thing about it is that type of conversation is very very real :( If you are ignorant, then nobody ever will convince you - only yourself. Until they all start to think critically, you'd better not even start to explain science - just explain critical thinking. IMHO

re: #114

One must also concede that, on the spectrum of rightness/wrongness that we can place scientific theories (ie, from GOATS ON FIRE to mostly correct),
multiple designer theory has to be less wrong than single omnipotent omnibenevolent omniscient designer theory. It is more consistent with available evidence.

For example:
Evolutionary arms races - competing, hostile designers

Vestigial organs - designer turnover, with the new designer wanting to go in a different direction, leaving the old designer's pet projects unmaintained

Extinction events - some designers retiring, or being otherwise eliminated, along with all their designs

Suboptimal design - different designers have varying levels of competency (or, if you wish, design by committee)

Whereas single omni-X designer theory can only say "erm, um, well, the lord works in mysterious ways"

Walton (#101)

Instead, it relies on its own forms of epistemology - "faith" and "revelation" - which are not scientific. ... But moderate religionists, while they certainly hold beliefs that are unscientific..., choose to confine those beliefs to areas where they don’t conflict with established scientific knowledge. ... Promoting science is far, far more important to the future of the world than promoting atheism.

Except, as you know, science is more than just knowledge; it's also a method. While it's perhaps a lesser offense to draw lines around a few areas that are rarely put into direct opposition with science, it's still a failure to understand science to insist that certain areas of existence are immune to the scientific method but can still supply us with factual knowledge. This isn't specifically a problem with religion, either, so atheism isn't the solution. But it's silly to say that it doesn't impact the promotion of science to leave people their moderate beliefs about religion (or ghosts, or crystal healing, or whatever) based on "different ways of knowing."

What is interesting to me is that is is an example of how people think. Cognitive psychology has show how people can become more certain in their erroneous beliefs when confronted with evidence to the contrary.

It is interesting and human. What we don't need is a biologist debating the creationist, but a psychologist.

#114:

Multiple Designers Theory

Have you seen what happens when something is designed by committee? Oh wait... you may be onto something!

DLC:

Keep the Lesbians and the Bacon, lose the bible.

As a vegetarian i'm not fond of bacon either, i'd rather read the bible...
Can't i have a pot-bellied pig instead? Allthough i'm sure there will be lesbians who do not like being in a sentence as; lesbians, pot-bellied pigs and asorted books.

Amphiox:

One must also concede that, multiple designer theory has to be [...] It is more consistent with available evidence.

For example:

Darn, now see what you have done, you've converted me! *weeeeeeh*

I agree that SNL does sometimes drive ideas into the ground. Got me there. But this cartoon is still obvious and grueling in its unimaginative execution.

As for Monty Python fans not name-dropping in order to show their appreciation of comedy; who made up that rule?

So what are you using to get your interpretations? Drugs?

Could he have rocks in his hat, perhaps?

Let me just say, yes I am a Christian and here goes my clearly out weighted defense. I appreciate the hating and making fun of stupidity just as much as the next guy, and that's what I view this as. The creationist in this video is clearly an idiot and any real Christian with a brain would agree. However, not all Christians are like this and in my personal experience a true believer in Christ does not act like such an obnoxious jerk, that would be going against what we believe: "Do not be wise in your own opinion"

I thought this was funny in the way that someone trying to debate the JFK conspiracy theory is not seeing the bigger picture. In light of that, this is not Christianity by FAR, and for people to view Christians as being this way, even worse, for Christians to act this way is actually a detriment to our beliefs.

To sum it up, I would be angry at this guy just as much as any atheist or agnostic or whatever, but this is NOT an accurate view of a true Christian, just as saying that an atheist is immoral just because they are atheist, it's a fallacy.

fuzzyoldlobster,

this is NOT an accurate view of a true Christian

Then enlighten us as to what a more accurate True Christian™ view would be.

@115 you're referring to Project Steve. I think there's 1128 Steves on it as opposed to 10000. I'll have to get in on it if I can ever actually phinish a Ph.D.

I love the bit at 4:24 when I think Dr. Finch is about to call on Kent to present his evidence for what he's peddling. They can show me about as much evidence as I can show them about Vishnu, Thor, Zeus, or Morrigan. By the by, I wonder if Bill O'Reilly or Bill Donohue have ever heard of the last deity on that list. They should, considering their Irish heritage (which they proclaim on numerous occasions).

fuzzyoldlobster (#126)

The creationist in this video is clearly an idiot and any real Christian with a brain would agree.

Hi, and welcome to Name That Fallacy. Can you think what the one you've just used is called? (Hint: Think kilts.)

In light of that, this is not Christianity by FAR, and for people to view Christians as being this way, even worse, for Christians to act this way is actually a detriment to our beliefs.

Righto. So all you have to do is provide the world with an objective measure of "true" Christianity which we can all use to decide who gets to call himself Christian and who doesn't. Until you can do that, the evolution-denying Christians, along with all the other people you don't like who call themselves Christians, have just as much right to that label as you do. As far as most of us here are concerned, it's nice that you're not an evolution denialist, but it's faith itself that's a detriment to humanity.

But hey, stick around and learn some stuff. Just don't push your beliefs on anyone, even nicely, or you'll get your head ripped off.

How true that is. You can tell them that the theory of evolution (or any other science contradicted by the Bible) does not say this or that, but it will not matter. They will just repeat their flawed arguments over and over again. It's so frustrating.

It's not an accurate view of Christianity? It's certainly an accurate view of some Christians' beliefs. And it's from the Bible, too.

*sigh* so true...

any real Christian with a brain - fuzzyoldlobster

Should you find a specimen of this remarkable species, please don't shoot it and put the head on your wall - they're almost extinct.

It's depressingly close to reality. Unfortunately.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww&feature=player_embedded

But, big up to NSC, I love his vids.

Bald Ape (#115):

In this thread and in many others, commentors draw parallels between evolution-denialism and AGW-denialism. I really think it behooves those in the scientific community to crack down on this. Admittedly, the two forms of denialism have many similarities; specifically, they contest a broad scientific consensus on largely ideological rather than evidential grounds.

The similarity between deniers in any camp is that their objections are based on the way they would like things to be; the strategies employed are therefore very much the same. It doesn't actually matter how probable a given theory is - the denialists are always the ones who are raising objections that have already been dealt with, ad homs against the theory's proponents etc. Even if a given theory turns out to be incorrect, it won't because the denialists are right.

fuzzyoldlobster (#126):

Let me just say, yes I am a Christian and here goes my clearly out weighted defense. I appreciate the hating and making fun of stupidity just as much as the next guy, and that's what I view this as. The creationist in this video is clearly an idiot and any real Christian with a brain would agree. However, not all Christians are like this and in my personal experience a true believer in Christ does not act like such an obnoxious jerk, that would be going against what we believe: "Do not be wise in your own opinion"

Well, this is what creationists do, you see. The video isn't even a parody; I wish I was joking. And I've not encountered a creationist yet who isn't essentially like this - I suspect because people who let information in simply can't be creationists for any length of time. So if you're a Christian but not a creationist, then great. The video isn't about you.

Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree Author Profile Page | January 11, 2010 5:39 PM
I agree that SNL does sometimes drive ideas into the ground. Got me there. But this cartoon is still obvious and grueling in its unimaginative execution.

You seem to have missed the fact that the tediousness was a necessary part of the message. Make it stop being tedious and an important aspect (perhaps the most important aspect) of the message is missing. The important aspect of the message is that creationists DO in fact go on like this constantly revisiting already debunked points, right in the very same debates even.

You seem to be operating under the misconception that humor was the main point of this clip. It's not meant to be laugh-a-minute funny. It's meant to sadly highlight the dishonesty being employed.

To be fair, the creationist in this video is an idiot by just about anyone's standards. (not so say he doesn't perfectly represent many real people, but that those people are idiots and would be idiots regardless of what viewpoint they happened to sign on to)

Where I am baffled is on the question of why creationists/"inteligent designists" who are not idiots hold so firmly to voicing a position that they must know is inconsistant both within it's own cannon of scripture, and without when faced with real world evidence and the morality they experience daily. ie. They do not stone their children to death for disobeying, though the book of Leviticus clearly states that such is the approriate action.

What is the phsychological hold that superstitions such as the various world religions has that trumps the rational mind in so many cases, and with such tragic consequences? Why are humans so vulnerable to accepting a story that is comforting over one that is justified by evidence?

fuzzyoldlobster #126 wrote:

To sum it up, I would be angry at this guy just as much as any atheist or agnostic or whatever, but this is NOT an accurate view of a true Christian, just as saying that an atheist is immoral just because they are atheist, it's a fallacy.

The video isn't an attempt to portray what "Christians" are like: it highlights some of the absurd tactics of creationists. There are creationists in other religions, and there are Christians who defend the theory of evolution.

flostran #137 wrote:

Why are humans so vulnerable to accepting a story that is comforting over one that is justified by evidence?

In part, because we are used to thinking very small, and rely on our intuitions -- and this helps us find rationalizations for ideas which, from the larger standpoint, are absurd.

Where I am baffled is on the question of why creationists/"inteligent designists" who are not idiots hold so firmly to voicing a position that they must know is inconsistant both within it's own cannon of scripture, and without when faced with real world evidence and the morality they experience daily.

Creationism is religious apologetics in the service of authoritarian politics. Science generally is too open-ended a process to be allowed to trump revealed truths, however absurd and irrelevant. Evolution specifically is associated on the right with liberalism and moral and cultural relativism. Any doctrine that is perceived as a foil to this corrosion of ancient certainties is preferred, and evidence can go hang. They accept it because, in their authoritarian circles, to do otherwise is political and religious apostasy, a rebellion against God, their ultimate authority.

Sastra is right about how such thought-ways arose in the first place. But their persistence among educated moderns has little to do with the reasonability of the ideas themselves and much to do with the cultural tendencies their adherents believe they forestall or negate.

flostran (#137)

What is the phsychological hold that superstitions such as the various world religions has that trumps the rational mind in so many cases, and with such tragic consequences? Why are humans so vulnerable to accepting a story that is comforting over one that is justified by evidence?

For some people, objective reality simply doesn't exist, and neither does objective truth. For some, it really is a culture war and nothing else. It is notable to see that creationists are far more inclined to try to portray us as being just like them - Evolution as a religion, atheist fundamentalism etc. - while we typically strenuously point out the differences. And it's telling that they do that, because it demonstrates that they believe that it is a question of sides, teams, whatever, rather than a situation in which one side is objectively correct and the other is objectively incorrect.

Even the more reachable creationism-sympathetic types that we've had around here recently have asked why it's so important an issue; even people who aren't actively hostile to the ToE or science or whetever still sort of think that it's simply a question of "the scientists" wanting to be right, like it's a ball to be taken home or a prize to be won, and miss the point that there's actually meaning and utility involved in being right.

Now, I think that there's a whole bunch of contributing factors that make people like this, but one of the main ones is a religious upbringing and the consequent overemphasis on the idea that "truth comes from authority" (as CJO mentions above).

perfectlysafe #140 wrote:

Now, I think that there's a whole bunch of contributing factors that make people like this, but one of the main ones is a religious upbringing and the consequent overemphasis on the idea that "truth comes from authority" (as CJO mentions above).

Ironically, the belief that "truth comes from authority" is accompanied in modern religion by the idea that truth is something you ought to be able to figure out "for yourself," without expertise. Allow your god-given instincts to guide you. God made nothing too hard for the pure, open heart to discover. Thus, the idea that science is a situation where similar teams are competing for a prize, and your task is to choose the one you trust the most.

Which will be, the group which has also been guided by their god-given instincts. It's the litmus test for honesty.

DLC @ 98:

As a participant of this blog, you are not entitled to any kind of answer from Me.

DLC @ 98:
As a participant of this blog, you are not entitled to any kind of answer from Me.

Very droll, God, very droll.