Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience

[jem]

Quote from Free Thinker:

jem we have been down this road before. you have a habit of making shit up. nobel prize winning scientists believe the universe was designed....bla bla bla. in every case i, stu and othere have shown you where you are wrong but you have a deep seated need to believe so you fall back on willfull ignorance to rationalize your beliefs.
at least enlightened thinkers are making progress. i can remember when i used to debate bible thumpers who thought the earth was 6000 years old and was once covered by a great flood and an invisible man in the sky made man out of dirt. all but the most deluded have fallen back from that position to "intelligent design". soon scientific knowledge will be such that there will be few gaps left to slip in your god. education is making slow but sure progress:

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/09/on_reading_evolution_polls.php
"couple weeks ago, Fox News released a new poll asking about evolution and creationism. It didn't strike me as especially noteworthy, though it does show a statistically significant rise in acceptance of evolution (21% think "the theory of evolution as outlined by Darwin and other scientist" is "more likely to be the explanation for the origin of human life on earth") since they last asked the same question in 1999 (when it was just 15%).
encouraging. Although the fraction of the American public that agrees with the Young Earth Creationist position hasn't changed significantly for almost half a century, the fraction that agrees with the position taken by evolutionary biologists has increased very significantly since the Gallup organization first polled Americans on this question in 1982.

He also has a graph, tacking the 2011 Fox result on to the Gallup time series, as if it were directly comparable, and writing:

From 9% to 21% in only twenty-nine years (i.e. less than two generations)! If you plot the data, the increase is clearly exponential, with the inflection point at around 2006 (i.e. following the Kitzmiller-Dover decision). At the current exponential rate of increase, the "evolutionary biology" position should be the majority position within another generation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout history, God has been shrinking. The time when the world was small and God was in control is always in the far distant, half-remembered past. The closer we approach to the present, the less common miracles are and the less accessible he becomes, until the present day when divine activity has dwindled until it is indistinguishable from the nonexistent. Where the Bible tells us God once shaped worlds out of the void and parted great seas with the power of his word, today his most impressive acts seem to be shaping sticky buns into the likenesses of saints and conferring vaguely-defined warm feelings on his believers' hearts when they attend church.

before I address your lie..

I ask you... what proof evidence do you have which shows the universe got here by random chance.

---

now for your lie...

I have have given you quotes from noble prize winning scientists who state the universe appears designed. You may not like them... but they are true quotes and in context.

We even have quotes from Hawkings most recent book... which explains that this universe appears designed.

Now he goes on to say that the multiverse speculation contraindicates a conclusion of designer... but the multiverse is speculation.

So once again... you can lead an ET atheist to science but you can not make him think.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from jem:

I have have given you quotes from noble prize winning scientists who state the universe appears designed. You may not like them... but they are true quotes and in context.

i fixed this to make it accurate:

I have have given you quotes from noble prize winning scientists who state the universe appears designed BUT THEN WENT ON TO EXPLAIN THAT IT IS NOT.

 

[377OHMS]

Quote from Free Thinker:

i fixed this to make it accurate:

I have have given you quotes from noble prize winning scientists who state the universe appears designed BUT THEN WENT ON TO EXPLAIN THAT IT IS NOT.

Do you think living cells simply organized themselves from mud spontaneously?

 

[jem]

nothinker...
here are quotes... I can give you a deluge....
but, this one from your favorite atheist Dawkins.

The following quotes are from Dawkin's book, The God Delusion:
“One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.”

“The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artifact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person.”
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Boston, Massachusetts: Mariner Books 2008, p. 157-158.

Note... if you follow Dawkins... his explanation for that appearance of design... is a speculative as any religion... he is speculating on a multiverse. Unproven, unobserved hypthetical...... almost infinite number of universes.

----

Phillip E. Johnson cites the renowned geneticist Francis Crick in order to illustrate the fact that the biological world has the strong appearance of being designed:
“One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir Francis Crick, the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner... Crick is also a fervent atheistic materialist, who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are.”
Phillip E. Johnson, Essay: Evolution And Christian Faith.

Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery, New York, New York: Basic Books 1990, p. 138.

Moreover, Crick has written several times that problems with an undirected origin of life on earth are so great that we should consider the idea that space aliens sent a rocket ship to the earth to seed it with spores to begin life. Crick also stongly recommends Dawkin's book The Blind Watchmaker, which says plainly that living things have the appearance of design.

Crick also wrote:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.”
Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, New York, NY: Simon & Schust

 

[jem]

Quote from Free Thinker:

i fixed this to make it accurate:

I have have given you quotes from noble prize winning scientists who state the universe appears designed BUT THEN WENT ON TO EXPLAIN THAT IT IS NOT.

first of all you just made stuff up. they have not gone on to explain the appearance does not exist. The appearance is still here.

What they do is state you may not wish to conclude design if there are trillions of other universes.

Of course they are speculating there other other universes... There is no proof or even observation of other universes.

And here.... I see no hedge from a noble prize winner.


The eminent astrophysicist Arno Penzias was co-awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for discovery of a faint microwave background radiation throughout the universe, which lent strong support to the big-bang model of cosmic evolution. However, he admitted:
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”
Arno Penzias, Cosmos, Bios, and Theos, Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed., La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing, 1992, p. 83.

http://www.miraclesormagic.com/intelligent-design-vs-evolution.html

So nothinker why don't you tell us again...

you state there is no creator and you base your statement on what evidence?

You and stu know more about the appearance of design than a nobel prize winning astrophysicist Arno Penzias.

Grow up and start thinking.

Our universe appears designed.
You might not wish to conclude designer... but it does appear designed to just about every one who understands the science.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
Our universe appears designed.

The Earth appears flat.

Quote from jem:
they have not gone on to explain the appearance does not exist. The appearance is still here.

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
— Francis Crick What Mad Pursuit (1990)

Quote from jem:
you state there is no creator and you base your statement on what evidence?

On the same evidence there is no Mother Goose.


All your second and third hand quote mining, copying someone who describes their main qualification as having '10 years of experience leading in-depth church and home Bible studies' is never going to be about understanding science.

 

[stu]

Quote from 377OHMS:

Do you think living cells simply organized themselves from mud spontaneously?

...justifying the thread title:

Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience

 

[377OHMS]

Quote from stu:

...justifying the thread title:

Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience

Care to elaborate or are you just pissing from great height?

 

[Artful D0dger]

Can you find us anything on why obsessive atheist zealot biggots ironically display religious zeal for indicting the right of others to their own beliefs? That would be an interesting topic to read about...

Quote from Free Thinker:

bingo. i have been saying this for years. its willful ignorance:

"So why have evangelicals been so ready to reject the generally accepted conclusions of the scientific community on global warming?

I want to suggest that the reason has nothing to do with climate science per se, but derives from the generally dim view that many evangelicals have of science and scientists -- views that make it hard to distinguish credible science from fake challengers.

One of the strategies employed most effectively by evangelicals in their crusade against evolution, which does pose real, although soluble, biblical and theological problems, has been to undermine the entire scientific enterprise. If science is a deeply flawed, ideologically driven, philosophically suspect enterprise, then why should anyone care if almost every scientist supports the theory of evolution?"

Across the board we find evangelical Christians attracted to indefensible views in many areas: American history (the Founding Fathers intended America to be a Christian nation), sexual orientation (you can "pray away the gay"), climate change (not happening), evolution (never happened), cosmology (Big Bang is a big joke) and even biblical studies (the bible tells us what is about to happen in the Middle East).



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-giberson-phd/evangelicals-and-science_b_975821.html


and to follow up. if you teach your children that science is evil how do expect them to become educated in the sciences. its no wonder the usa has fallen so far behind. there is a real cost to religious superstition.


"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

The Earth appears flat.


"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
— Francis Crick What Mad Pursuit (1990)


On the same evidence there is no Mother Goose.


All your second and third hand quote mining, copying someone who describes their main qualification as having '10 years of experience leading in-depth church and home Bible studies' is never going to be about understanding science.

That is the thing about et atheist fools. They get hit over the head with science and they attempt say the science is wrong because they did not like the name of the website or the author who quoted the scientist.