Without religion, science would still draw the same conclusions on evolution and the age of the earth. But without religion, no one would draw the conclusion it portrays from a literal interpretation. That’s part of how we know it’s not history.
1 Like
Forgive them Christy, they know not what they do. They are not lying. Their epistemology is utterly broken but strangely consistent and therefore part of common psychological development.
My first thought is that it’s a form of or a homologue with conspiracy theory:
Psychological origins
Some psychologists believe that a search for meaning is common in conspiracism and creationism. Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy or creationist theory has become embedded within a social group, communal reinforcement may also play a part.[76]
Inquiry into possible motives behind the accepting of irrational conspiracy theories has linked[77] these beliefs to distress resulting from an event that occurred, such as the events of 9/11. Additionally, research[78] done by Manchester Metropolitan University suggests that “delusional ideation” is the most likely condition that would indicate an elevated belief in conspiracy and creationist theories. Studies[79] also show that an increased attachment to these irrational beliefs lead to a decrease in desire for civic engagement
Professor Quassim Cassam argues that conspiracy (and creationist - Klax) theorists hold their beliefs due to flaws in their thinking and more precisely, their intellectual character. He cites philosopher Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski and her book Virtues of the Mind in outlining intellectual virtues (such as humility, caution and carefulness) and intellectual vices (such as gullibility, carelessness and closed-mindedness). Whereas intellectual virtues help in reaching sound examination, intellectual vices “impede effective and responsible inquiry”, meaning that those who are prone to believing in conspiracy theories possess certain vices while lacking necessary virtues.[80]
Wiki
Bold edits mine. What do you think?
Elsewhere: ‘creationists are misinformed about many basic facts, frequently misunderstand the theoretical constructs scientists use to explain those facts, and are rather undiscerning in deciding who to trust on these issues’.
We seriously need a generous orthodoxy as I’m quite amazed at how little comes up when you search with ‘why do people believe in creationism’ and ‘psychology of creationism’. This is a fundamentally interesting starting point: ‘So our lifelong impulse is to see the world as ordered and purposeful; some of us add the God part on, but it’s not necessary to explain the brain’s urge for order.’.
Another piece of thread to pull on.
As Viktor Frankl learned in Auschwitz, it’s all part of man’s search for meaning. Any meaning will do.
2 Likes
I would like to shift the conversation from young/old earth and ask the writer of the post if he also believes in the strict biblical cosmology model that represents waters above the firmament and this is only an example.
If we want the Bible to be true “literally” with no mistakes or figurative representations of origins we must think about not only about a young earth but about a cosmology model that does not represent the truth.
It represents their truth ylsalvus. Our truths vary with our education. It’s no one’s fault.
1 Like
You are of course free to believe in the classic literal translation of Genesis. In doing so, however, there is only one honest response to the overwhelming evidence, from a variety of independent sources, all of which give the same “billions not thousands” answer to the age of the earth and universe. And to the extensive fossil record. And that honest response is: “I don’t care, I’ll believe what I think the bible teaches.” To which, I’m confident, most of us would say: “fair enough.”
A dishonest response is to think you can trivially dismiss science by parroting worn-out “gotchas.” You just end up looking foolish.
By the way, like many on here, I’m a professional scientist and a theist. You will have to do much, much better if your aim is to convince anyone that you actually understand math and science.
3 Likes
That’s what creationists believe.
If we are talking about scientists who study abiogenesis, they are proposing very simple cells.
We would have to see the premises of this argument to determine if it is logical.
1 Like
There are no proteins that are ordered by suit or alpha-numeric sequence. All you are doing is drawing a bulls eye around the arrow.
Those are all modern cells. You need to show that the first cells also had proteins. If they did have proteins, you have to show how many different proteins could result in life. Without this evidence your calculations are meaningless.
1 Like
Could you describe these experiments for us and the expected results you would get to positively evidence God’s existence? What would be the null hypothesis which is the type of experimental results expected if God does not exist?
If you want science to include God you need to demonstrate how it can be done.
Can you show us any scientist or scientific source that says this? It appears you are erecting strawmen.
The Great Unconformity should be easy to see.
Keep an eye out for the cross bedded Coconino sandstones.
2 Likes
With what little knowledge I have about DNA and the amount it takes to make a “simple cell”, It is obvious that there is nothing simple about any cell.
How did the first cell spontaneously form?
That would be an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy.
I have no idea. I don’t know where the first life came from. However, there is tons of evidence that modern species share a common ancestor.
2 Likes
It didn’t. Not according to the scientists doing research into the question of abiogenesis, to which this question refers. Evolutionary biologists start with a “first cell” because the focus of their studies is what happens from there and how this produced the huge diversity of species on the Earth today.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.