I greatly enjoyed the post The Atheism Delusion: The Destructive Power of Materialist Indoctrination, because this scientist’s experience with being awakened from the “evolution is fact” dream was very similar to mine.
I was an atheist, brainwashed by the establishment, into my 40s…..I was once debating evolution with a friend, and I was spouting all the platitudes I had been taught. He said, “Look, rather than debating me, why don’t you read a book, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton?” I assumed that it would be some nonsensical religious hogwash, but I was in for a big surprise.
I devoured the book in a couple of days, and when I was finished I slapped myself on the forehead and thought, “I’ve been conned all my life!” My atheism was quickly unraveling.
This is what the hysterical anti-ID folks fear: Once the evidence of modern science is evaluated without the blinders of a passionately materialistic worldview, design screams at us from every corner.
Actually, as I said, my experience mirrors the poster's – having previously thought evolution to be a proven fact, when I actually viewed the *evidence* (something they don't really focus on in undergrad), I found it surprisingly wanting.
Look, there are decent arguments from both sides, but what is alarming is the absolutists on both sides claiming that their position has been proved. The fact is, when it comes to origins and interpretation of the palaentological and geological evidence, there is lots of speculation masquerading as fact, and plenty of room for error. And I think that macro-evolution is highly speculative and unproven, and in many cases, contradicted by the evidence.
But don't tell an evolutionary believer that.
Actually, as I said, my experience mirrors the poster’s
I realize that. I was using satire to illustrate how ludicrous the claim of reading Denton’s book, literally slapping your forehead and declaring, “I’ve been conned all my life!” (about evolution) is. Will you also claim the fact that the article appears on Dembski’s ID site has no bearing on bias? Most telling of all were the words “spouting all the platitudes I had been taught.” Are you serious? This guy was obviously a creationist to begin with and only people who desperately want to believe in ID can’t see that plain truth.
I bet that I could physically chuck a hominid fossil and nail him between the eyes with it and he would deny it’s existence. He would say, “Stop hurling platitudes at me!” He, being a creationist, is like a weird sort of superhero who is totally immune to the bullets of reason. Reason and facts just bounce off his armor of faith and shield of delusion like nothing. It’s quite amazing.
there are decent arguments from both sides
There are no sides. There is no controversy. Evolution happens. If you watched Ken Miller’s (who is a theist BTW) presentation, it should be clear to even the most rabid creationist that ID has been exposed as a fraud. ID, which is really creationism relabeled, is not science it is religion. For God’s sake, they found the original version of “Panda’s and People” and showed where the word processor did a “Find Replace All” for the word “created” with “designed.” At least have the integrity to admit that much.
Lewis Black – on religion and evolution
He puts it perfectly!
"spouting all the platitudes I had been taught." Are you serious? This guy was obviously a creationist to begin with and only people who desperately want to believe in ID can't see that plain truth.
Well, he *wasn't* a creationist when he read the book – that's the point. Sure, NOW he calls them platitudes, but back then, I'm sure he believed them. So did I until I read up. And as I've said, I was doubly mad because I was a biochem major, and had been duped by years of teaching into thinking that evolution was a fact beyond dispute. I wasn't taught how to think, but what. And this is common in science when it comes to evolution.
Sure, NOW he calls them platitudes, but back then, I’m sure he believed them. So did I until I read up. And as I’ve said, I was doubly mad because I was a biochem major, and had been duped by years of teaching into thinking that evolution was a fact beyond dispute. I wasn’t taught how to think, but what.
Seeker, the book you “read up” on was the King James Bible. A 2000 year old Jewish account of creation falls just a smidgen behind Newton’s “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica”, Darwin’s “The Origin of Species”, Galileo’s “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems”, Copernicus’ “On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres” and Einstein’s “Relativity: The Special and General Theory.” In matters of science, if you place the the Bible before any of those books, you immediately lose all credibility because you cease to follow the scientific method. If I were you I would be “doubly mad” because you have been bamboozled into believing the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Think about the magnitudes of difference between a 6000 year of Earth compared to a 4.3 billion year old Earth. YEC goes against Biology (evolution), Geology (rock ages), Astronomy (light years measured from distant stars), Paleontology (Fossils, missing links). As a YEC the mental acrobatics you must perform to deny all these scientific fields defies belief. You remind me of this:Why I Am Hostile Toward Religion:
Seeker, if your story is like that of Kurt Wise, I would agree with Richard Dawkins. It would make me hostile to religion as well.
Seeker, the book you "read up" on was the King James Bible.
Not at all. I began with Gish's "Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!", then followed it up with Morris' "Scientific Creationism" and many others, including Lubenow's "Bones of Contention" and others.
And what was really motivating was not that the facts definitively prove creationism, but that they DON'T definitively prove evolution, and in many cases which I was shielded from, contradict evolution!
I have also read The Selfish Gene and some of Gould's works, not to mention the fact that I got a degree in Biochem from a secular University.
Do you really believe in creationism or is it just a case, like Kurt Wise, where you can't afford to believe in evolution lest it destroy your faith? I guess what I am asking is, did you have to make a choice between the two since they conflict: literal interpretation of Genesis or Science?
Even when I left my faith for 6 years, I continued to disbelieve in evolution based on my evaluation of the facts, and not faith.
Many people, including Francis Collins, maintain an active Chrstian faith and yet believe in evolution. Me, I think there are not only factual problems with evolution, and so I find it scientifically wanting, but I do think evolution is theologically and philosophically opposed to Christianity.
Even when I left my faith for 6 years, I continued to disbelieve in evolution based on my evaluation of the facts, and not faith.
– Seeker
Well then, you were not truly "Conned by Evolution" as the thread title suggests, for "Even when I left my faith for 6 years, I continued to disbelieve in evolution." You never believed in evolution in the first place. I said earlier, "This guy was obviously a creationist to begin with." That goes for you too Seeker!
I'm ready for more rationalizations from you now :) Ready? Set? Go!
You never believed in evolution in the first place.
Ohh, but I did. I grew up as an agnostic scientist, with no religion in my family. I became a Christian, then later abandoned evolution while a believer, then left Christianity for years, remaining a doubter in evolution.
Now that I’ve returned to faith, I continue to believe in creationism.
So to head off any questions, yes, my conversion to Christianity probably did affect my evaluation of evolution, but again, after conversion, I was still a firm believer in evolution. In fact, when I met xians who believed in creationism, I thought them uneducated, until I began to read for myself.
What xianity did for me is NOT force me to abandon evolution, but it freed me from having to believe it as the only scientifically credible explanation of origins.
Do you really believe in creationism or is it just a case where you can't afford to believe in evolution lest it destroy your faith?
Please be honest with a straight answer. Please don't lie or dissemble. Keep these implications in mind before you answer…
You really honestly and truly believe the Earth was created in 6 days? You really honestly and truly believe the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old? You really honestly and truly believe the Speed of light is not constant? [else it would contradict the biblical age of the Earth] You really honestly and truly believe that Dinosaurs lived along with man? As a scientist, do you honestly believe all these things to be so?
If you don't want to answer it's cool. I don't want to press too hard. It's just difficult for me to believe you really think the above to be true and still call yourself a scientist with a clear conscience. I mean, can you swear to God that your YEC positions, if that is what you truly believe, are purely scientific and not religiously biased?
You really honestly and truly believe the Earth was created in 6 days?
As I have often said, the evidence is not entirely conclusive behind any creation or evolution theory. So I lean towards YEC views, but I wouldn't say they are proven – the OECs or even the evolutionists *could* be right, but I doubt it.
Do I think the data convincingly contradicts and falsifies evolution? Yes.
Do I think that the creation/noahic flood theories fit the data better? Yes.
Do I think that the creation could have taken place on the order of 10000 years ago? Yes.
Do I *know*? No. But I prefer the YEC ideas because (in this order)
1. They fit the data as well as or better than either evolution or OEC, imho
2. I like being a pain
3. They fit my hermeneutic and theology better
They fit my hermeneutic and theology better
So you believe YEC fits the data better because of religious beliefs. That is why you are forced to argue that the speed of light is a variable. It's not that you believe the speed of light actually varies, it's a situation where if you admit C is a constant then Genesis fails scientifically.
So you believe YEC fits the data better because of religious beliefs….it's a situation where if you admit C is a constant then Genesis fails scientifically.
No. I think other young earth evidences are also convincing. But yes, my theology does affect which theories I lean towards.
But the variable speed of light is only one possible explanation, so even if that turns out to not be true, Genesis does not "fail scientifically."
But yes, my theology does affect which theories I lean towards.
By admitting this, you show integrity Seeker. I mean that as a compliment so don't accuse me of patronizing. I know it was not easy. Whether you admitted it or not though, all of us here, the 2or3 regulars, already knew this as truth. It was just important to hear it from you because it explains some of your rationalizations that have zero scientific validity. The speed of light is something that is really difficult to argue against because it can be measured and tested repeatedly. I'm sure you realize that if you allow theology to bias you toward one theory or another, you lose all scientific credibility. You are no longer impartial. You can't call yourself a scientist when you don't believe in or practice the core tenants of science like the scientific method. You can't presuppose a conclusion like genesis and then try to make things fit like the speed of light varying or redshifts being off. If you say Hubble's Law is wrong you must prove it. In science you need to draw the conclusions from the facts, not the other way around. This is only one of the reasons why creation science is an oxymoron.
It was just important to hear it from you because it explains some of your rationalizations that have zero scientific validity.
LOL. WhatEver ;)
The speed of light is something that is really difficult to argue against because it can be measured and tested repeatedly.
Only for the last 300 or so years, and depending on how you massage the data, it is very possible that we are at the end of an asymptotic curve that appears to be flat because we are at the trailing end of the curve. It is an intriguing possibility.
You are no longer impartial. You can't call yourself a scientist when you don't believe in or practice the core tenants of science like the scientific method.
First, no one is impartial. As my old scientific mentor used to say, "All scientists are biased, but the good ones consciously design their experiments so that their biases can not skew the data."
Second, I do believe in and practice the core tenets of the scientific method. In fact, I constantly am trying to get the point across that, despite the group think consensus, it is evolutionists who are not sticking to science, but rather, are calling their philosophy "science."
You can't presuppose a conclusion like genesis and then try to make things fit like the speed of light varying or redshifts being off.
Actually, I have argued that you absolutely can, and that naturalistic science also makes assumptions about starting conditions which can not be proven. All of their science is done based on these assumptions, and this is how creation science is also done. While I understand why materialists do not accept a creation event as a starting assumption, I contend that they are incorrect in disallowing such, and that true science most certainly can be done based on this assumption.
In science you need to draw the conclusions from the facts, not the other way around.
Actually, I disagree. While you are arguing purely for an inductive method, I would argue that in actuality, we do and must use a combination of induction AND deduction. That is, you don't just formulate theories from data, you also apply various possible models ahead of the data to see if a known or proposed model fits the new data.
Purely inductive science is, imho, impractical, if not impossible to do, because data does NOT speak for itself, and you must formulate hypotheses. I know that you are not arguing against this, but what I am saying is that pre-formed, tentative conclusions (a.k.a. hypotheses) are part of science, and the information doesn't just flow from data to model, but back and forth.
This is only one of the reasons why creation science is an oxymoron.
Again, this is only in the mind of the person who doesn't realized that his own naturalistic assumptions about origins (i.e. the singularity before the big bang) are in a sense, supernatural because you can't directly prove such a thing, but you can try to prove that all that you can measure or record since then could point back to that. This is exactly what creation science does, and I find it totally valid as science.
Only for the last 300 or so years, and depending on how you massage the data, it is very possible that we are at the end of an asymptotic curve that appears to be flat because we are at the trailing end of the curve.
An alternative creationist theory would be if we can time a lightning bolt to hit the flux capacitor at 88 mph (140.8 km/h) with 1.21 gigawatts of power when can travel back in time!!!
Seeker, you have just explained to everyone why you are a quack (a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan).