h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Outside mathematics, absolute proof in the sense of certainty isn't really possible, and even in maths, there's always the possibility hat everyone who has checked a complicated proof has made the same mistake, and the proof is flawed.
Even in mathematics, there are basic axioms that have to be accepted, though in practice those axioms specify or define the particular field of mathematics that is based on them, and don't really have to be taken on faith.
Maybe we need a specific word that means 'effectively proved', or 'virtually certain'.

Going back to the question of evolution, if we accept that
a) Descent with modification of an organism can happen.
b) The variation between parent and offspring organism isn't so large as to be effectively random.
c) The interaction between an organism and the whole outside world has an influence on the reproductive success of that organism.
and
d) Variation in the environment is not so rapid and extreme as to exceed the capacity of at least some organisms to survive.

Then the existence of evolution in its fundamental form is not really possible to argue against, rather one of the assumptions must be shown to be false, and I haven't seen any arguments here or anywhere else that any of them have been shown to be false. Indeed, it seems from observation that the axioms are likely to be correct.


On the other hand, it isn't possible to prove the nonexistence of an invisible god or gods, but since the fundamental axioms in the case of literal religion seem to be
a) One or more invisible gods exists.
and
b) God is responsible for many of the things you don't understand.

There isn't really any way to show evidence for the axioms, since by definition, you can't show any evidence for a), and however much our collective or individual understanding increases, b) is a target always out of reach, the retreat from outright creationism to 'Intelligent Design' being a case in point.

"If they [the infidel] find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"

- St. Augustine

Remember, he lived well before the modern scientific era. Creationists should read it carefully.

Ste

Okay then.

I would like to hear some stuff that supports creationism. *Not* just debunking evolution, no negative statements. Just positive reasons (I'm not even asking for evidence) why people believe in the creation story.

Please.



Ste

I figured I'd better bring this one to attention again.

Why?

Because of Sephanina

I found this in my mailbox - have yet to reply.

"
Hi -As 1 who spent 3 years in Surrey (I'll be there again the last 2 weeks in
September) I enjoy reading the BBC website. I came across your recent
discussion regarding ammonites.
My question is - where did they come from, i.e. their origin? Darwin's
infamous book was On the Origin of Species, but he never discussed the
origin of species. The sedimentary rock units worldwide should indicate ammonites from a non-ammonite ancestor. I see in the Geological Survey of Great Britian that the authors discuss, for example, the various ammonite zones (Casey, 1949 and Breistroffer, 1947) - but nothing on their origin. The closest thing I found was from Eldredge (1987/1989) which wasn't very
helpful. As a creation zoologist (parasitology) I'd like to see a long sequence - 20 to 50 successive fossil species - that document major generic evolution
(MACROevolution). Can you help? Until then, it would seem the creation model stands: ammonites have always been ammonites (as well as trilobites have always been trilobites and bats have always been bats, etc.).

Many thanks in advance.

Frank Sherwin, MA, zoology, U. of Northern Colorado "

Thought this might interest people...

http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html

My own view is that you can flash as many initials as you like around, but if you go looking for a evidence to fit a theory, you will find it.
The whole point of scientific analysis (as far as my understanding goes) is to draw conclusions from any OBJECTIVE research that you have carried out. Not to look for evidence to support a theory that you had arrived at prior to your research. Science shouldn't disprove creation theory in my opinion, they are seperate from eachother. Science is a quest for knowledge, whereas a creationism is a belief paradigm. It is impossible for us to know that we were created (unless we see Slartibartfast's face in a glacier), just as it is impossible for us to know that we weren't. So science cannot prove or disprove creationism one way or another. That's what I reckon anyway.

Maybe Mr Frank Sherwin would like to adpot an alias and join in the fun, instead of personally mailing people? Or maybe I have caught the wrong end of the stick.

Anyway, this is where I'm coming from, that's where Sherwin is coming from. And there's been plenty smarter people than himself who have been proved wrong in the past.

Mr Sherwin - wherever you are. No harm meant.

Can I point folks to two entries regarding "creation science":

A699573 - Creation - The Mainstream Christian Viewpoint (written by a protestant priest and a biblical scholar).

A671717 - Creationism and Creation-Science - A Perspective (my angle on the whole thing.

Thanks

Ste

Ste, dear, you make sense. Unfortunately (or not), so does he. The problem is that no one knows anything for certain, and everyone talks like they do. Heisenberg and all that.

Now, the question still remains. Why is it that creation and evolution *must* be diametrically opposed? Why can't we "buy" both theories, or an amalgamation of the two?

Well, they say two different things. So it is hard to say they are both valid. And as for a mix of them, not unless we have a real reason to instead of just trying to make peace with creationists

It would be easier if people took the Catholic route of embrace and extend. Even the Pope accepts that evolution is the best explanation of how life has become as complex as it is. However, he would argue that God's hand was guiding the process.

Creationists, on the other hand, have no imagination, so all they can see is the ludicrous image of a god placing every single molecule in place fully formed.

I've said it before, but I much prefer a God who's smart enough to invent Quantum physics and DNA.

But by saying Evolution is correct, that means the whole Creation thing is a lie. So why did God lie to us there, and how much elese is then wrong?

Slight flaw in the argument there.
If people are capable of inventing and believing in gods that don't exist (which it seems clear that they are, unless all world religions can be somehow reconciled and unified), then it stands to reason that even if there was a god, it still would be possible for people to invent and believe in scriptures that weren't divinely inspired, even though the believers thought that they were.

It wouldn't necessarily mean that god was lying just because some people invented a story that didn't stand up to the evidence, merely that anything else those people said on the subject of divinity would have to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Then we would just need to find out just how much else was simply made up, before we knew what God was talking about. Was jesus also just make believe then?

I've no idea what was made up at the time, what was old myth, and what was more or less embellished contemporary history. The point I was trying to make was that mistakes of dogma made by any given religion have only a limited application to the general question of the existence, non-existence, or behaviour of a deity.

Serious mistakes can be used to conclude that people who claimed to be divinely inspired probably weren't, and serious discrepancies between religions, or betwwen any one religion and secular evidence can also be used to support the conclusion that many people seem to have a strong desire for the kind of comforts that religions bring, and that conclusion can be useful when examining the claims made by people who identify themselves of believers.

For example, if someone claims to have been impregnated by an alien, the question of *why* an alien would do such a thing becomes rather meaningless once you've concluded that the account was mistaken.
Likewise, if someone claims divine inspiration for their story, once you have decided the story is at variance with available evidence, by far the likeliest conclusion is that they weren't inspired at all, (even though they may be convinced that they were), not that they were inspired by a deceitful god.

I once wrote a short story on this subject. Here's an excerpt from memory:

Me: "So, how much of Genesis is true?"
God: "The problem with Genesis was Moses*. He was a bit of a duffer, you see. Fine with all the curses and the sea parting, but absolutely clueless when it came to quantum mechanics. By the time I'd got it simplified to something he understood, we were down to six days for the whole shooting match. I kept telling him it was a metaphor but he left that bit out. If I'd realised that people would be taking it seriously at this stage of your development I'd have tried a bit harder."

* On the basis that when I wrote the story, I was under the impression that Genesis and Exodus were originally drafted by Moses. I now understand this is incorrect, but it makes a good line, so I've left it.

I concur. Now then, boys and girls (if there are any girls besides me still in this forum!!!, someone asked if Jesus was make believe. Why earth would believing in evolution automatically make a Nazarene by the name of Jesus a non-starter? Why couldn't he just have been this guy who decided that maybe, just maybe, everyone needed to get a perspective on things, and decided the way to do it was by shaking up the establishment (i.e., both the Roman occupiers AND the Jewish heirarchy).

We make stuff up to explain how things work. Lightning? Ah, yes, that would be Zeus. Ad infinitum.

Did you know Moses probably didn't part the Red Sea? In the earliest transmitted texts, it actually says he parted the Reed Sea, which would indicate that really all he did was wait for the tide to go out, and then simply walked across. When the tide came back in, too bad for the following Egyptians, eh?

And anyone who wants to argue that the Bible is some sort of absolute really needs to understand basic text transmittal, because that's what it really boils down to. What we know as "The Bible" is really an early medieval conglomeration of texts. It's sort of like a game of telephone, only the last person at the end says their garbled version of what the first person actually said is the truth.

How teleological is THAT?

(Sorry, been thinking for a few months here....)

It's very slightly OT, but I'm becomming increasingly impatient with 'the creationist lobby.' I don't know if this is me growing older or the higher media profile they've maintained recently.
Faith schools bother me, and you could probably argue that religious sentiment held back the study (and practice) of science for decades or centuries.
Retreating to childish ideas such as a God created Earth would be the biggest mistake a school could ever make, it would be damaging not just to 'science' but to society as a whole. And Tony Blair's apparant support of them is just one more reason (along with all the corruption in his government) to get rid of him at the first opportunity.
Keep Religion Out of Schools.

Back On Topic...

I like the idea of Jesus being a socialist revolutionary (the meek shall inherit the earth and all that) and I really do wish there will be a heaven so that all the religious right can be cast out for their abhorrent ideas.
Sorry to go on. Slow day at work.