THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CREATIONISM
Posted by anthonynorth on March 9, 2009
Click The ‘Y’ Files for more posts in this series.
There is a feeling among rationalists that the world is slowly going mad. The reason? The continuing growth of fundamentalist beliefs concerning Creationism. But what is at the root of this growing phenomenon?
Well, first of all, science cannot – ever – prove it wrong. They can rant and rave; they can show how science shows it is not the case – but at best, this can only show the working mechanisms of a process, and not the ‘whys’.
Thus, God is immune to the scientific process.
And the sooner science accepts this and stops decrying the Creationist, the sooner there may be the return of a little commonsense in the debate – on both sides.
This is not simply an opinion of mine. I think it can be backed up by sound reasoning. And not reasoning to do with science or Creationism, but the process of the very conflict involved.
I think there is a valid law for such conflicts.
I call it the ‘law of opposite effect’. It can be explained quite simply. The more one stance becomes entrenched, the more the other will dig in its heels.
Thus, the condemnation from either side will guarantee the reasons for condemnation will increase. Hence, the problem isn’t science or Creationism, but the battle between the two.
And it gets worse.
As the conflict continues, and stances become more fundamental, the point comes when both sides become fanatical. When this point arrives, all commonsense disappears.
But more than this, my law has another element: basically, the more fanatical you become, the more you will further the opposite outcome to that intended. Hence, science guarantees Creationism, and vice versa.
And the problem is also of paradigms.
Science is now grounded in a totally material world, with nothing other than what can be observed. Well, one thing can be observed above the material – the innate need in people for something above the material.
I’m talking about a form of spirituality. Now, to me, spirituality is about bonding – of man to man, mankind to nature, and nature to the universe. It is a form of holistic love, I suppose, and I assume scientists DO fall in love, despite their rationality.
Hence, in a world that does not offer intellectual ideals concerning this process, the gap will be filled by systems that do. And the ultimate expression of this is an entire universe created through love by God.
An urge towards spirituality will always exist. Whether this means there is a supernatural or not is beside the point. And as long as science decides there is no such thing, they will continue to fuel movements that say there is. And to be quite honest, in terms of the knowledge we have, they could be just as right as scientists think THEY are.
© Anthony North, March 2009
BEYOND THE BLOG 
Chris said
Hi Anthony,
I think that you are very, very right with this one. The ‘scientists and sceptics’ are actually hidden allies, they just don’t realise it.
If one looks at the infinite wonder, simplicity, and yet, connected complexity of the Universe, then, as Einstein would say (I think), you can only stand “rapt in awe”.
anthonynorth said
Hi Chris,
Yes! This is exactly the point I’m trying to make. The universe is not fully open to scientific truth, and never will be by the ideals of science itself. So fanaticism breeds fanaticism.
julia said
‘Science guarantees Creationism, and vice versa’ – very good point. In my world, the two are inextricably linked. Holding onto one at the exclusion of the other leaves too many holes, black or otherwise.
anthonynorth said
Hi Julia,
Yes, this is the sensible way to be, I think. Both sides may be different, but each provide something important.
Twilight said
Apparently there’s a third theory to consider too, AN. John Anthony West’s theory idea that both creationism AND Darwin’s theory of evolution are mistaken ideas. I’m not sure I’ve yet quite got the hang of this, but I think I like it! At least it would break your “opposite effect” if enough people got on board. 🙂
anthonynorth said
Hi Twilight,
I wouldn’t go as far as saying that natural selection is wrong, but rather, incomplete. And it is here that an idea of intelligent design could come. I looked into the possibility quite a while back here:
Even if this idea is not the whole picture also, popularity of such a thing could give both sides a reason to feel vindicated, AND come together to search deeper.
Comedy Plus said
I hadn’t really thought of this before, but you do have a valid point. They do in fact disagree with each other, but they are more alike than not. You certainly make me look at things differently. Thank you for that.
Have a terrific day Anthony. 🙂
anthonynorth said
Hi Sandee,
Thanks for that, and you’re welcome. There’s always some sense somewhere in anything – if not for the fanaticism that goes with it.
Chris said
Hi Anthony,
I had a look at that Evolution post but thought that I would pop back ‘here’ to be a little ‘fanatical’ hope thats o.k.?
What if evolution was intelligently ‘keyed in’ as the ‘best method’ to evolve? Perhaps it applies to the entire Universe, not just life as we know ‘it’? What with The Golden Mean so prevalent and The Fibonnaci series so relavent in so many areas, even at atomic electron level random mutation may be ‘random’ by design? Sorry to move a bit off topic.
ps All we have to do now is find an Anthony East and an Anthony South and we’ll have the four winds ‘covered’! 🙂
anthonynorth said
Hi Chris,
Oh, I do like that last comment 🙂
Personally, I’m convinced that if intelligence is there, it will be down to some kind of math formula. If you remember, I’ve already used the ‘law of large numbers’ in terms of universal construction through ever larger clusterings being more ‘ordered’ than smaller ones.
bundleocontradictions said
I suppose I’m what you’d call an agnostic. “Prove it” is my stance. If someone can prove one way or the other that there is a god & that he/she/it created all life on this planet, I’ll believe it. Some say that our existence is proof enough. I disagree. No one has proved only evolution, either, but to me it seems a heck of a lot more logical. Until proof has been found, I’m lost in the land of the faithless. Kind of an uncertain existence, but there it is. *sigh*
Twilight said
LOL – at Chris’s 4 Anthonys. We could then paraphrase an old saying “East, West, North’s best”. 🙂
AN- I’m not quite clear about A West’s theory, your idea in the Evolution piece is a simple explanation of the missing element which could bring the creation/evolution theories together.
A. West seems to be saying that very very ancient civilisations of which we know nothing now, lived in a Golden Age, and we are their descendants, their survivors, had just about wiped them out after various cataclysms, passed on garbled knowledge in various areas: language, engineering, astronomy, astrology etc etc. which would account for these things appearing rather abruptly in different parts of the planet.
The thing is though, THEY had to evolve- or else where did they come from?
Are we back to the gooseberry bush, after a very long detour. 😀
Twilight said
Sorry that’s garbled. 3rd para should read
……ancient civilisations of which we know nothing now, lived in a Golden Age, and we are their descendants. After various cataclysms the few survivors passed on garbled information of their advanced knowledge in such areas as language, mathematics, engineering etc. That could account for advances in those areas appearing rather abruptly in different parts of the planet.
anthonynorth said
Hi Bundleocontradictions,
I think this is the point – in the final analysis, nothing can be proved. That is the nature of our knowledge. I take the stand of moderation and humility in terms of knowledge, taking everything into account, and I’m convinced knowledge actually says more about us than the universe.
Hi Twilight,
Thanks for the kind words at the beginning, there 🙂
I suppose no matter how much we delay the need for explanation, we arrive at a point where we were either created or evolved, or a variation of the two. Much of West’s ideas I would agree with – to a point.
As you know, I think a lot of our ancient knowledge DID come from a lost civilisation, but this was a kind of global fisheries culture existing in rudimentary ports as a separate culture to the inland Stoneage.
The cataclysm was the rise of sea levels at the end of the last ice age, swamping their ports, and driving survivors inland, where they kickstarted the agricultural revolution. These people are remembered through myths such as Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, etc.
West does a great job, but I do disagree with him on certain points. And yes, there is still the problem of how human kind ‘became’.
Chris said
Hi Anthony,
Hi Linda,
Thanks Linda, your catchphrase finished it off very nicely! 🙂
I think that the last line of your reply to Bundleocontradictions and Linda’s last comment about the gooseberry bush go hand in hand. As you’ve stated before, approximately,”the search for knowledge may well be the search for understanding of our place in the Universe, not necessarily the Universe itself.” (I think thats fairly close.
Linda’s ‘detour’ also takes us back to the ‘circular’ rather than the ‘linear’ which ‘seems’ right.
A Gooseberry pie
Oh my oh my
Anthonys to the North of us
Anthonys to the South
Oh my oh my
How will I ever fit it all into my mouth?
Jim said
Hi Anthony, I came for your OSI poem but I had to finish reading this. Me? I believe int he big bang theory and that God was in control of the big bang.
Is God immune to the scientific process? I think not, he is in charge of it.
..
Chris said
Hi Twilight,
(Hope you don’t mind Anthony)
I had been reading an article elsewhere penned by a Linda and I have misadvertently substituted her name for yours.
You have my gravest apologies x 4. 😦
anthonynorth said
Hi Chris,
You’re becoming quite a poet 🙂
Hi Jim,
Not sure that the Big Bang is the only theory on offer, but that’s another story. And the simple thing is, science stops just at the point Big Bang manifests. Hence, before that – the time of the cause – science can say nothing, as there was no universe to comment on.
God could well know best 😉
Smokes said
I think the word “creationism” in this blog post could well be replaced with the word “religion”, and the premise would be the same.
anthonynorth said
Hi Smokes,
Yes, possibly, with some religions, but i wanted to concentrate particularly on the ‘intellectual’ debate now ongoing.
WhatThe.. said
Science is science. Period. Religion, philosophy, metaphysics or whatever you want to call it… is not science. Trying to mix the two, or carry the two as one discipline is mere fantasy. Occasionally, science can confirm or disprove a morsel of some other discilpline but, hey that is its nature.
anthonynorth said
Hi WhatThe,
Who’s saying science and religion should mix? I think you miss the point. I’m talking about toleration, with science doing what science does and religion doing what religion does – but simply accepting each other’s right to be, and maybe talking now and again.
Attrus said
Hello Anthony,
I worked with an unpublished physicist once who he told me he thought there was too much going on “out there” for it to just be random. I agree. WhatThe stated ” Science is science…religion is not science”, and yet, I believe the two are not mutually exclusive. Science cannot disprove the existence of a Divine Creator any more than religion can disprove science. All the things science has discovered are indeed accurate and, God created man and everything around him, including his ability to evolve and learn the sciences. This is also accurate since to accept that everything simply sprang into existence from nothingness is illogical and unscientific. If science can prove that existence can come from non-existence, then we’ll have something to argue about. In the mean-time, I believe it is impossible for religion to be in contradiction with science. Science consists of proven facts. If religion disagrees with those proven facts then that religion is false and its adherents merely ignorant and superstitious. As to science…it has never dis-proven the existence of Divinity or God…that has simply been the goal of a few scientists.
anthonynorth said
Hi Attrus,
I agree, they are different, but not mutually exclusive. One deals with ‘how’, the other with ‘why’. I often think it is only Ego stopping them finding common ground.
I’m not talking here of merging, or anything like that – simply tolerance and sharing ideas.
Chris said
Hi Anthony,
I know what Einstein thought abou fantasy,
“The gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.”, isn’t that fantastical! 😉
anthonynorth said
Hi Chris,
Definitely! It is often fantasy that guides a person in his path, and causes the inspiration he’ll have …
… okay, AND providing for quite a few mishaps along the way 🙂
Chris said
Hi Anthony,
Mishaps, I know about those as well, but adversity helps you to grow, if you let it. 😉
anthonynorth said
Hi Chris,
Another of my old sayings:
Wise people begin as fools 😉
Mind Ecdysiast said
This IS an interesting post. Looking at your article I can’t help but think about what brought it forth. Creationism, as stated by whom? We need to remember who the people that starts this all are. In our times, the bible has been re-written numerous times for the Christians, and who knows about other religions.
The funny thing about science is that creationism and it share the same foundation even when they don’t want to admit it. What I mean here is that it took philosophers to create both and maintain both. They eventually separated their paths, but remember the Magi, and temple priests. They used both science and theology to do their things.
Where do we come from? Time will tell, but I seriously doubt it is a completely Scientific answer, and it definitely is not a completely creationist answer. One thing I know for sure, a scientist is not willing to kill someone for their belief, whereas the same cannot be said for the creationist.
anthonynorth said
Hi Mind Ecdysiast,
I’m not sure your final point is as clear cut as you imply, but thanks for the comment. I’m in agreement with much of it.
Attrus said
Hello Again Anthony. As a preface, I would like to let you know that I found your site from a link on Unexplained Mysteries.com. The link was to this post and, of course, I was intrigued by the title. I must say that I am enjoying what I’ve found here. Your writing is very concise and clear and, I appreciate that.
I agree with your appraisal re: EGO. Wouldn’t it be nice if folks could simply step back for a moment and reflect on the compliments one discipline has for the other…or is that too much to expect? I don’t want to get on the bash-organized-religion band-wagon, however, organized religion, more often than not, does want to contradict science. I do not adhere to any religion. In fact, I refuse to. I am a spiritual man and I believe deeply in my Creator. I place great value in that as well as the continual development of my spirituality. I know many others like me. Not one of us has a problem with scientific theory. On the contrary, we realize that without science, we would not be able to plug in our computers and you and I would not be communicating in this fashion right now. Peace, and thank you for deciding to write.
anthonynorth said
Hi Attrus,
Many thanks for the kind words. I see a separation between religion and spirituality. Religion, to me, is a social codification, whereas spirituality is an inner knowing, so I understand your words very well.
And I’m beginning to see a similar separation in science. There is science at the experimental level, and there is a growing degree of consensus, and it is, I think, this religion/consensus – both very much a process of Ego – that is the problem.
The two disciplines have so much to offer each other without threatening anything other than the consensus and social control involved.
Attrus said
Hello Anthony. You are welcome. Yes…social control. Relinquishing that control would create a certain unease for either side of this issue. It is a shame when scientists and religionists become politicians for their causes. It leads to bombast and rhetoric…dogma and doctrine, which is never proven beneficial. It is a shame that more than a few even become political in their thinking…adopting that ages-old political philosophy: “It is not enough that I succeed, you must fail.” How can anyone be that self-absorbed? Can they truly not see how intellectually vacuous they appear when they stoop to politics? How can they not see this? I find this way of thinking astonishing and incomprehensible. It really does boggle me.
anthonynorth said
Hi Attrus,
Sadly, politics always impinges upon everything. The day we realise how to stop this, it will be a different world.
T. said
The scientific method doesn’t prove anything. Science is mainly based on induction, which means that it relies on numerous observations of the world and then form an argument to explain these observations about the world. Virtually all science is basically, and mainly based on induction.
Scientists in the past, for example, thought that there were only white swans in the world because all the swans they have observed were white (i.e. swan A is white, Swan B is white, Swan C is white, etc, thus it is probably true that all Swans are white. This is an inductive argument. Of course, when they discovered black swans in Australia, they realised that they were wrong.
Notice that I said ‘probably’ in the last paragraph, meaning that science doesn’t claim to have proven the theory about the white swans.In fact, one of the principles of the scientific method is that ‘no theory can ever be proven’. Theories can only be falsified but never proven. We cannot prove a theory because we can never be sure that we have made all the observations in the world, hence the swan analogy. Indeed, it could be the next day that a new theory is found that strongly challenges another well-established scientific theory.
Darwin’s theory of evolution explains so much more than creationism can about the structure and and origin of humans and animals. In fact, TOE has a great deal more evidence (based on tens of thousands of scientific observations)to support it than creationism. Creationism proposes that the universe is created by a being with great power (e.g. God) and that all explanation of origin should end with God. Yet there is not a single formal or remotely plausible evidence to suggest that creationism is probably true. So, the theory of evolution is probably more true than the theory of creationism. Given this, why propose a god when all the observations suggest that there isn’t a creator? Why propose a design argument when 1)it has no evidence to support it, and 2)since it isn’t supported by evidence, it is equally probable than any alternative theory than TOE. If we are to find any theory of origin more plausible, it is TOE because it is more probable than creationism.
Even if there is a god, how do we explain where God come from? If there God is created by another God, who created this other God, and so on ad infinitum. Also, how did God create the universe out of nothing? All of our creations are made with pre-existing materials. If God made our universe out of something, then this something should have some explanation for its origin, and here we are stuck again with the problem of regressing into infinity.
It is once quoted that “creationism loses every battle but the last”. So it does, and this is why creationism is a weak argument for the origin of the universe.
anthonynorth said
Hi T,
Yes, I favour evolution myself, but only as a partial answer. To say there is no proof of God, or intelligent design, is an assumption and not science. But the assumption disallows the question to be truly pondered.
This is my complaint about the evolution/creationism controversy. Science has stopped asking the questions, which is an error. You may find this link to an old essay of mine interesting:
Linda G said
Hi Anthony,
Here’s an interesting relevant link http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains–god-spot-1641022.html
Don’t know what the studies really may show- as neural science exploration is still in its infancy.
But it does relate to so many of your essays on religion & science.
anthonynorth said
Hi Linda,
That was interesting. There was a similar study a couple of years back where it was argued we are hard-wired to need to believe in a higher force.
It is good to see Persinger featuring more closely with mainstream science. As I recall, he was on the fringe for a while because of his work on EM bombardment of the brain causing mystical experiences, supernatural visions, etc.
Maybe changing his helmet’s name did it. It used to be the ‘heaven and hell chamber’ 🙂
Troy Huston said
“They can rant and rave; they can show how science shows it is not the case – but at best, this can only show the working mechanisms of a process..”
First of all, those ranting and raving are the creationists. Check out Kent Hovind and the Discovery Institute. These blinkered folk see only their own imaginings and then don’t bother testing those febrile ideas using scientific means.
That science “only shows the working mechanisms of a process” is much better than showing nothing but ignorance of the real world. Which is what creationists do when they open their mouths.
Science has already proved biblical creationism wrong. Only someone ignorant of the scientific discoveries uncovered since the 19th century could believe the opposite.
anthonynorth said
Hi Troy,
Have you been back to the thread you first commented on?
You said: ‘Science has already proved biblical creationism wrong.’ Such words show a total misunderstanding of science, which cannot, ever, prove anything. They can offer theories, which stand or fall upon the next data or theory.
T. said
Hi Anthony,
Yes, I agree. It is an assumption to claim that there is no proof for intelligent design. Many scientists probably agree that there is ‘currently’ no proof of intelligent design; but it is an assumption to claim that there will never be any proof of an intelligent design. You are absolutely right.
Many scientists probably believe that there isn’t a creator so they stop conducting studies to find proof of one. Not only that, many scientists doesn’t know how to go about conducting an experiment or a study to find proof of God. God is, given all the current resources available to science, unobservable and immeasurable. If God cannot be observed or measured, then science can never test the hypothesis that God exists; thus science can never find proof of God.
Only when there is some way that God is in some way measurable or observable, directly or indirectly, then many scientists would be very excited to test the intelligent design. If God is measurable and observable, and scientists still do not challenge their skepticisms and study if there is a creator, then they are not being good scientists.
Troy Huston said
“Science has already proved biblical creationism wrong.’ Such words show a total misunderstanding of science, which cannot, ever, prove anything. They can offer theories, which stand or fall upon the next data or theory.”
You seem to want to try to force some supernatural into the universe despite a mass of data showing otherwise. Your comment “cannot, ever, prove anything” is just plain wrong. I would advise you to go and read a few peer reviewed scientific papers. There is plenty of proof in these, of the type only a wild eyed romantic would deny.
As a hypothesis biblical creationism has been utterly refuted. To deny such a thing is to ignorantly deny the billions of metric tonnage of pure tastey scientific evidence.
anthonynorth said
Hi T,
You highlight the problem well. My answer is to bring back the spirit of philosophy as a middleground between science and religion. Hence, it would be neither based on measurable data, nor belief, but reasoned speculation.
By doing so, the imagination is used, and just maybe a hint of a path could arise.
Hi Troy,
I ask again: have you been back to the thread you first commented on, where you showed a total lack of manners AND scientific credibility.
Your assessment of science is wrong. Your assumption that I’m trying to force the supernatural into the universe is wrong. If you bothered to read more of my work you would discover I have no time for the ‘supernatural’.
I’m about reasoned speculation and debate. That last word is the key. Look it up in the dictionary.
Troy Huston said
” there is ‘currently’ no proof of intelligent design; but it is an assumption to claim that there will never be any proof of an intelligent design.”
There is currently no proof of santa clause being real, but it is an assumption…you get the picture? Every pathetic attempt to bolster ID has been demolished by scientists that knew a hell of a lot more about their subjects than the IDers that screamed “Intelligent design!” without doing any proper research.
Intelligent design was always creationism with a thin veneer of science coated onto it. This was to try to get around legislature that banned the teaching of religion in science classes.
“Only when there is some way that God is in some way measurable or observable, directly or indirectly, then many scientists would be very excited to test the intelligent design. If God is measurable and observable, and scientists still do not challenge their skepticisms and study if there is a creator, then they are not being good scientists.”
The magic sky fairy still eludes scientists attempt to find Him. As does the Easter bunny ,Santa Claus and Cthulhu.
Religion in some scientists warps their perspective until they begin to spout gibberish. tale a look at Frank Tipler for instance or Phillip Skell.
I put it to you T, that God is an assumption. One that lacks evidence and relies more on faith than reality.
Troy Huston said
Anthony, you need some refreshing science to blow away the pseudoscientific woo that pervades your blog. Please check this guy out. I look forward to seeing you tell him what science is!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
anthonynorth said
Hi Troy,
This isn’t T, but me, just so you don’t get confused again. If T wishes to comment he will do so.
I want to ask you a question. Do you come here simply to repeat the same old points over and over again, or do you want to debate?
Troy Huston said
“Your assessment of science is wrong. Your assumption that I’m trying to force the supernatural into the universe is wrong. If you bothered to read more of my work you would discover I have no time for the ’supernatural’.
I’m about reasoned speculation and debate. That last word is the key. Look it up in the dictionary.”
Typical. “Your assessment of science is wrong”. well that is fiendishly clever. You’ve certainly wiped the floor with my arguments there. Not.
“Reasoned debate” is fine with me. Most of what I’ve seen is antiscience ramblings that appeaer to try to support astrology or ID. Both of which have zero evidence in their favour, while dissing the scientific method.
You could do with more reason. Please check out the link I provided in my last post.
Troy Huston said
“I want to ask you a question. Do you come here simply to repeat the same old points over and over again, or do you want to debate?”
If you want to keep up dissing science while trying to show that discredited ideas like astrology work then I’ll keep repeating that you are ignorant of science. It is a point that needs making.
If you want reasoned debate, not just you and some fawning crony affirming everything you say ( “You are absolutely right”), then please come to Pharyngula. Talk to some folks that will debate the woo out of you.
See you there!:)
anthonynorth said
Hi Troy,
So, you’re not here to debate, then. Actually, I suspected that much 😉
But I would like to thank you once more for going some way to validating my point. This is the second thread you’ve been so accommodating. But tell me: are you bored yet?
Linda G said
Hi Anthony,
Philosophy gave birth to science. It developed & provided the mindset to allow scientific inquiry.
Einstein’s hero was Newton- yet Einstein also had the inquiring spirit that allowed him to see beyond the accepted theories of his time, & over time allowed physics to leap ahead to its current understanding of our universe. And Einstein’s theories supplanted Newton’s- a proper evolution in scientific understanding.
I think this is all you have spoken of so many times. The absolute need to maintain the open & inquiring mindset. And the discipline of philosophy, in its purest sense, is that which allows science to progress.
Just another crony opinion. 😉
anthonynorth said
Hi Linda,
Thanks for that. And that is, in a nutshell, all I’m trying to do – keep those minds open.
Chris said
Hi Anthony,
If I’m not mistaken, your repeatable experiment has again provided valid evidence of ‘black-hole’ thinking, have you reached a conclusion yet?
I’ve checked my litmus paper but am puzzled by the result, I am reminded of Pleione in the Pleiades, acidity and basicity both seem to be present in equal amounts.
Any thoughts?
anthonynorth said
Hi Chris,
Well, to paraphrase the song:
Consensus to the left of me, consensus to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you 🙂
Troy Huston said
Hi Troy,
“So, you’re not here to debate, then. Actually, I suspected that much
But I would like to thank you once more for going some way to validating my point. This is the second thread you’ve been so accommodating. But tell me: are you bored yet?”
Are you going to continue evading my points with crap like “science can’t prove anything?”
Biblical literalists have been proven wrong, have they not? Or are you going to say that scientific evidence means diddly squat to you?
God isn’t immune to the scientific process. If certain people state that God talks to them, then that is something that neuroscientists can do research on. Anyone who claims that God did this or that automatically opens up the way for scientific scrutiny.
Try to blather your way out of that one then, Anthony.
anthonynorth said
Hi Troy,
Listen very carefully. The only fact of scientific theory, approaching any form of repeatability, is that science cannot prove anything. They can offer probability – usually high probability – but not a definite.
This is not my opinion, but the opinion of the majority of scientists since the dawn of known science.
Sorry about that, but get over it.
Chris said
Hi Anthony,
I didn’t realize that Stealers Wheel had two versions of that song. Would please send me a copy. Thank you in anticipation. 😉
Sorry about being a little acerbic before, it was approx 3am and pre-coffee down here.
What I find so disappointing is that, whilst people may disagree with your speculative musings, there is absolutely no reason to adopt demeaning tactics during debate, it is actually self-demeaning.
What compounds the inconsideration is when a group of completely unknown, open-minded and intelligent readers are brought willy-nilly into the debate with a hint of mindless automaton-like ‘following’.
I’m with Linda G on this one, just another ‘C.O.’.
anthonynorth said
Hi Chris,
Yes, inconsideration is always a problem, but we persevere. I’m not in this for an easy ride.
Must get a mosquito net 😉
Shaun said
I don’t know if this has been mentioned, but here it goes:
Most scientists don’t really care if people believe in Creationism, what they care about is that Creationism is increasingly being seen as being backed up by scientific evidence, which it is not.
Science is not doing anything wrong, it’s just disproving such lies. Creationism could just as well be true, but knowledge gathered through the scientific method doesn’t support it. When saying ‘Creationism’ I’m excluding the belief that Evolution and the Big Bang where started by a supernatural intelligent being/force.
anthonynorth said
Hi Shaun,
I’d disagree with you when you say the scientific method doesn’t support creationism. The most you can say in terms of science is that our knowledge of the universe, at this time, is inconsistent with it.
Shaun said
Hi Anthony,
I don’t see any difference between that and what I said.
anthonynorth said
Hi Shaun,
By using the words ‘scientific method’ you are saying the actual process of science doesn’t support creationism. You cannot say that knowledge will not come in the future USING scientific method. The difference is subtle but all important.
It’s like saying the ‘rules of nature’ disallow this or that. There are no such known rules – only rules of man PLACED on nature in order to attempt understanding.
Shaun said
The scientific method is the method through which scientific knowledge is gathered, or corrected.
I’m sorry if you understood otherwise, but all I said, or meant to say, is that the knowledge we have gathered using the scientific method doesn’t support the idea of Creationism. I’m not denying that in the future some form of Creationism will come to be scientifically evidenced, but currently it seems improbable.
anthonynorth said
Hi Shaun,
‘knowledge gathered through the scientific method’
Yes, it can be taken two ways. We got there in the end.
Pete T said
Heya,
Interesting article…
I am a firm believer in Creationism, but only because I have studied both sides and, for me, Creationism makes the most sense (if you take the Bible as whole, some Creationists pick and chose) however, I am also a person who loves scientific evidence (amongst other things) which go completely against my belief, makes me think hard, and analyse stuff very closely.
I love being challenged, and I love challenging others, not in a militant way, but I love seeing people think about what they are saying, I love debate, but I love open mindedness, and there needs to be a discussion, always open between all sides, not simply dismissing something because it doesnt fit in with what you think has happened, people interpret data in different ways.
It’s good to be challenged, it’s good to discuss, but I hate Creationists who simply dismiss scientific fact!
anthonynorth said
Hi Pete,
That seems to me to be a healthy attitude to have.
Aina Aravaindakshan said
“I’d disagree with you when you say the scientific method doesn’t support creationism. The most you can say in terms of science is that our knowledge of the universe, at this time, is inconsistent with it.”
Yes Anthony. Leave the door open for mythology. We wouldn’t want those poor religious individuals to be without their crutch would we?
anthonynorth said
Hi Aina,
There is room in this world for all kinds – but rarely room in people’s minds.