The Creationist Museum

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1339970326' post='2445583']
There are creationist who claim that there used to be a canopy of water in low Earth orbit or some croutons.
[/quote]

But what happened to it?

[Hubertus]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1339994512' post='2445700']
But what happened to it?
[/quote] The Flood.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1339970326' post='2445583']
There are creationist who claim that there used to be a canopy of water in low Earth orbit or some croutons.
[/quote]
Is that literal croutons or are you speaking allegorically?

Edited June 18, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[Laudate_Dominum]

I can't afford to play the creationism whac-a-mole game today but I will respond a bit briefly.

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1339984477' post='2445655']
I did not say that neo-darwinism addresses materialism, but that it is a product of the latter. A theory founded on the laws of nature excluding any intervention by a Divine hand. There is nothing supernatural about our existence, it is the mere product of variation, selection, and reproduction over millions upon millions of years. [/quote]
Natural science does not explore the supernatural (i.e., pragmatic methodological naturalism). You insist on conflating science and atheism; this is a mistake. The neo-Darwinian paradigm is one part of our toolkit for interrogating nature and building an understanding of how nature operates, but it does not comprise an all-encompassing worldview (even people like Rosenberg and Dennett admit plenty of views/beliefs that are not reducible to neo-Darwinism).

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1339984477' post='2445655']That is at least what they'll have us believe but as I mentioned I am not convinced by it. I can't believe that someone can take a look at the complex processes of our body and not marvel about them. How could such processes evolve? The question of design has always been levelled against atheists, and till this day there is no satisfactory response.
Micro evolution is not something we disagree with, it is observable but try explaining the human cardiovascular system. Tell me how the AV node and the SA nodes properly coordinated themselves to conduct cardiac signals within 0.19 seconds. How chambers and valves with walls of muscle that do not tire despite constant exercsion managed to locate themselves in the right spot.[/quote]
The old argument from incredulity. Here's an analogy: Without an understanding of developmental biology one might suppose that the idea of a few cells developing into a complete and vastly complex human being was ridiculous. The human body can be built up molecule by molecule through natural processes? I can't imagine how, therefore, it can't possibly be so.

Okay, it's a somewhat poor analogy (although in principle I think one could say that anything that can develop can have evolved), but the point is that yes, there is something incredible about biological evolution; however, I would say that the evidence is overwhelming and there is really no good reason to doubt the core of evolutionary theory, but I will grant that it takes some education to understand the science, it's not self-evident. And sure, there are plenty of historical minutia that are not understood, and there are legitimate debates about the processes of evolution, and specific interpretations of the forensic record of evolution; but this does not represent a challenge to core of evolutionary theory-- namely the interrelatedness of life via common ancestry and descent with modification. (Indeed, rather than challenging the fact of evolution these discussions are completed based upon it.)

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1339984477' post='2445655']Natural selection only exludes underiable variations (to an extent) it does not guide evolution in any way. We're looking at a few basic components of the cardiovascular system, and yet the idea of natural explanation for it is absurd. Simpler to believe the human being as a whole system came into being by a Divine Act.[/quote]
Okay, taking evolution from a populations/gene pools pov and a biology 101 modern synthesis slogan such as "change in allele frequency over time as a function of differential survival and reproduction," then in what sense is evolution non-random and in some sense productive? I'd say it's partly a kind of optimization heuristic. We might say it's the algorithm behind the branching and diversification of populations - in a nutshell. Okay, big deal?

I don't agree with you about the heart. This is an example of an "argument from the gaps," which is the [i]modus operandi[/i] of creationism. You're saying, "current biology does not completely explain such-and-such, therefore, it's a miracle;" this is a mind-boggling [i]non sequitur[/i].
But I'll play along for a second: I've not researched heart evolution or anything, but I'm quite sure that there are simpler heart designs and precedents among extant taxa for the multi-chambered vertebrate heart, and that these precedents accord with phylogenetics, et cetera. The claim that the heart can't possibly have evolved strikes me as rather weak wishful thinking. And this is really the major problem I have with creationism: Intellectually honest people do not pre-decide what the answer to a scientific question is and then pontificate about it with no requirement for evidence. There is a mountain of evidence leading us to suppose that the vertebrate heart evolved along with the rest of the body, and there is some insight into the specific historical way in which this occurred (probably much more than I am aware, not being an expert). Simply deciding in advance that it was a miracle, end of discussion, is the opposite of science, it's oppressive dogmatism. Why not actually explore the question using the best available evidence and methodologies? If the creationist attitude were our basis for understanding reality the following research would not exist [spoiler]
[url="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060930094021.htm"]Hearts Or Tails? Genetics Of Multi-Chambered Heart Evolution[/url]
[url="http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/20/19/2728.full"]FGF signaling delineates the cardiac progenitor field in the simple chordate, Ciona intestinalis[/url]
[url="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133629.htm"]First Genetic Link Between Reptile And Human Heart Evolution Found[/url][/spoiler] and we would literally have no understanding of the heart and its evolution and development. We'd be content to say "God did it!" to everything and leave it at that. What a disgrace that would be, and what an insult to God. Scientific inquiry is one of the most noble pursuits that humanity can undertake. Please don't reduce it to a petty culture war. (And if there is something truly inexplicable and miraculous about the heart it is precisely the process of systematic observation, experimentation, and scientific discourse that will uncover this, not baseless wishful thinking. If you think this is a legitimate question then by all means, support scientific thinking if you'd like a legitimate answer.)

"It is a tragedy that some the most vocal Christians lead others to believe that Christianity and rationality are incompatible."

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1339984477' post='2445655']I don't have a problem with some mutations appearing random, the issue is with random mutations being part of the explanation for the complexity we see today.[/quote]
So, you have no problem with random mutations but you've simply decided that they can't be part of the explanation for the diversification of life? I would encourage you to get a good evolutionary biology textbook and take a break from the creationist propaganda.

edit: typo

Edited June 18, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1339998510' post='2445707']
Is that literal croutons or are you speaking allegorically?
[/quote]
Completely literal. This is part of why I prefer to define creationism in its most general sense; because not all creationists are so far off in the deep end. The water floating in the sky thing is held by some YEC (young-Earth creationism) adherents. I've never heard of it outside of YEC, and even there, I think (or rather hope) that it's a minority view.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1339984477' post='2445655']
I don't have a problem with some mutations appearing random, the issue is with random mutations being part of the explanation for the complexity we see today.[/quote]
P.S. I think you've dodged my question. It's odd that you have no problem with random mutations so long as they are excluded from the dynamics of allelic frequency in populations. That's how I'm reading you and it makes no sense. What's so special about the contingency of mutations?

[color=#282828]"Of course some mutations are random, but so what? ... Randomness is a basic part of existence. If you believe in providence and accept that in the muddle and chaos of our daily lives, and in the course of history itself, a divine plan mysteriously unfolds, then why not in the evolutionary history of life, the geological history of the planet, and the cosmic history of the universe? Why are random genetic mutations perceived as such a threat to a theistic worldview but countless other random events are not?"[/color]

Many things diversify and increase in complexity according to natural processes that we can model and understand. Do the gaps or uncertainties in our understanding of stellar evolution necessitate, or in any way justify, appealing to the supernatural and foregoing further scientific investigation? As far as I know, nobody claims that without miraculous intervention hydrogen can't possibly fuse to become higher elements and give rise to all the complex chemistry that then emerges. But this is actually different than the above question: What makes random occurrences in biology so special? How is the [i]chance[/i] involved in a random genetic mutation logically different from the [i]chance[/i] mating of two fruit flies among a vast population? Chaos permeates life, and indeed the universe on all levels; but I think that this fact is compatible with the belief that mysteriously, God's providence is present in all things - even the very chance meeting of my wife on phatmass and the staggering biological cr.ap shoot that led to the conception of our son.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum

[Hubertus]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1339991089' post='2445680']
In my younger days for a brief time, I was a fundamentalist/creationist/dumbass. Embarrassing few years that was. Whoops. I understand how people can believe this. Their (fallacious) understanding of the function of Scripture is fundamental (or tantamount, that's a fancy word, hope I'm using it right!) to their believe in God. If the Bible (or their understanding of it) is undermined, the very existence of God is thrown into a panicked doubt. Unwilling to relent their belief in God (for which there are many solid reasons, non-ridiculous reasons) they cling to the Bible to the point where it defies common sense.[/quote]
I've flirted with creationism in the past as well. It was more of a speculative exercise for me than an entrenched worldview. I'm embarrassed by the foolishness of thinking that I could critically engage a complex field of science from my armchair with little more than a high school understanding of it. I'd facepalm if I had to listen to myself back then.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1339991089' post='2445680']
I'm mad that I couldn't find the clip from King of the Hill Halloween episode with the "hallelujah house"

would have been totally relevant. Coulda got a few props. It would have been a great day.



In my younger days for a brief time, I was a fundamentalist/creationist/dumbass. Embarrassing few years that was. Whoops. I understand how people can believe this. Their (fallacious) understanding of the function of Scripture is fundamental (or tantamount, that's a fancy word, hope I'm using it right!) to their believe in God. If the Bible (or their understanding of it) is undermined, the very existence of God is thrown into a panicked doubt. Unwilling to relent their belief in God (for which there are many solid reasons, non-ridiculous reasons) they cling to the Bible to the point where it defies common sense.



yup
[/quote]Exactly! My Southern Baptist grandmother was worried I'd lose my faith by studying archaeology, as she saw an absolute chasm between science and the Bible instead of seeing that faith and reason arent at odds. Of course, to her perhaps I did lose my faith, since I became Catholic.

[Socrates]

Given all the many stupid and destructive ideas in the world, I think all the outrage over "Creationism" is a bit misplaced. I'm not personally a literal six-day Creationist, and I believe it bad science, but I do know plenty of intelligent, educated, and orthodox persons (inlcuding my pastor) whom I greatly respect, who are. I don't agree with them, but I don't believe Creationism to be some unforgivable sin, deserving of utter contempt, mockery, and calls for property destruction - which will certainly do nothing to convince a Creationist otherwise. Personally, I think it's better to err on the side of over-literalism when reading Scripture, than the opposite widespread modernist error, which reduces all Scripture to mere fictional fables and metaphor to illustrate the great cosmic principle that It's Nice to be Nice.

In fact, I find the idea that the creation of the universe and all the life on this planet is simply the result of nothing but pure dumb luck and meaningless random physical processes with no intelligence or design to be much stupider than "Creationism" - not to mention far more pervasive and destructive in its impact.

In a list of things in this world to get worked up in outrage over, a "Creationist Museum" has to come somewhere close to the very bottom.

But if the museum in question were, say, a "Marxist Museum" instead, the responses on here would no doubt be considerably more nuanced and "open-minded."

[Laudate_Dominum]

If I didn't care about Christianity I wouldn't much care about fundamentalism and creationism. In light of modern science it simply goes against faith & reason and makes Christianity look arrogant and idiotic. I'm disturbed by intelligent Christians who are antiscience. There is a lot of that where I live and it has probably been the single biggest challenge to my faith. I feel a duty to stand up for science and the compatibility of Christianity and honest scientific inquiry.

[Laudate_Dominum]

A[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1340052576' post='2445987']
But if the museum in question were, say, a "Marxist Museum" instead, the responses on here would no doubt be considerably more nuanced and "open-minded."[/quote]
What the hell is that supposed to mean?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1340027651' post='2445775']
I'd facepalm if I had to listen to myself back then.
[/quote]
I think that is a natural process of our own spiritual evolution. The getting of wisdom as a target in life is a sign of an intelligent human and IMO you certainly qualify for that. The people who stick stubbornly to old ideas are the ones who are not displaying a mind. There was a time when I argued for the existence of inexplicable 'gaps'.
You've answered my question brilliantly! In past discussions with atheists the saga of the 'God of the gaps' usually comes up. As an analogy, primitive man ventures into a cave and thinks all this artistic beauty can't just be natural. God had to have come down here and taken limestone and moulded the 'decorations' as they are still so aptly described. And then coloured them with some ochre. But then along comes a scientist and explains the chemistry of water dissolving calcium carbonate and the gravitational and micro organisms resulting in the decorations and water pools. The atheist goes aha, there! just proved no need for a God. But wait, I think was it Hawking who postulated that we would need an almost infinite number of universes to per chance the physical, chemical and biological mechanisms for this existence as we know it. The obvious real solution to me was there are no gaps, God made the rules and let natural processes take the natural paths that they do. God created the chemical and physical rules that bring about the creation of caves and then let them do their own thing. Some are perfect and brilliant others are ugly and a fail. That doesn't mean God isn't clever enough to produce perfect caves every time. It just means that there is purpose in imperfect nature just as there is imperfections in humans leading to sin. It's the imperfections that are the driving force toward perfection. But then like Mort when I saw doco's like on the biology of a giraffe, I started to doubt some of the theory and think God must have had lots of direct intervention. The giraffe has a honeycombed skull to make it light yet strong so it can batter rival males. More extraordinarily it has valves at points along the neck jugular vein that controls the blood flow so that when it puts its head down to drink the blood doesn't rush down and explode its brain. But then we also see some of what evolutionists describe as dumb evolution. There's an animal whose neck elongated over time, but the nerve from the brain to the voice box goes down to the body then loops back on itself up the neck to the voice box instead of taking the direct shortcut. The whale still has the stump of a leg from when it was a land animal. Humans have a useless appendix. The cabbage moth caterpillars disguises itself well on my broccoli leaves, but then gives its position away by its fresh poo. Like the cave, God created a process and did a lets see what happens only giving things a nudge here and there for an ultimate purpose such as the creation of humans, another brilliant but imperfect process but imperfect for a purpose.
BTW the question about the croutons was a lol.



[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1340028145' post='2445776']
Of course, to her perhaps I did lose my faith, since I became Catholic.
[/quote]
Don't worry, being a Christian AND being a Catholic is quite compatible.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[Archaeology cat]

They aren't compatible to old school Southern Baptists, Mark. At least not the ones I knew/know, though I'm fully aware that Baptists are far from being monolithic.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1340053589' post='2445996']
If I didn't care about Christianity I wouldn't much care about fundamentalism and creationism. In light of modern science it simply goes against faith & reason and makes Christianity look arrogant and idiotic. I'm disturbed by intelligent Christians who are antiscience. There is a lot of that where I live and it has probably been the single biggest challenge to my faith. I feel a duty to stand up for science and the compatibility of Christianity and honest scientific inquiry.
[/quote]Oh, I so understand that, LD! That's not so much the case where I am now, but like I said, I definitely grew up surrounded by that mindset (thankfully not from my parents)