Scientists converting?

[Tamazon]

So I met a creationist for the first time ever (at least that I know of). And we had a very interesting debate last night. I'm still fairly new to the whole thing so am not extremely versed in all the arguments but I thought I did fairly well. There's no reasoning with these people anyways. I generally like the person so it was a friendly debate but even though I shouldn't have been, I was amazed at the intense delusion.

My question is this:

He claims that many scientists (even atheists) are being swayed to the side of the creationists because of the undeniable evidence being proffered by them, or lack of evidence for evolution. While I know this can't possibly be true I wonder where he would have gotten such information, (he just said he read it somewhere) and how it can be refuted.

Thank-you.

[Oualawouzou]

He's making the claim, the burden of proof is on him. Do not let him switch the burden of proof, as it's impossible to prove a negative (you cannot prove that there isn't a large number of scientists converting, just like I cannot prove there isn't a secret tribe of ninjas using my cupboard as their headquarters).

[Fnord]

He's making the claim, the burden of proof is on him. Do not let him switch the burden of proof, as it's impossible to prove a negative (you cannot prove that there isn't a large number of scientists converting, just like I cannot prove there isn't a secret tribe of ninjas using my cupboard as their headquarters).

私達は私達のズボン内の恥を表現しないですぐにそして静かに逃げることを許可した私達を発見さ れる。

("We are discovered. Let us flee both quickly and quietly without expressing shame within our trousers.")

[my_wan]

A recent test case for these claim deal with Intelligent Design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) ID put forth by The Discovey Institute (http://www.discovery.org/) DI with the main argument being Irreducible complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity) IC. On the DI website they have a link called "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science)". Read that page if you want to know what they are qualifying as peer review. The first few paragraphs are devoted to leading the reader to believe that something published on a university press means it is scientific. They certainly don't have what the link title claims. They devised what is called the "Wedge strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy)" to give the appearance of legitimacy and effect public policy. The Judge that ruled against Intelligent Design even called several board members "lier's (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/)".

The more general approach is to create a controversy then claim because there is a controversy and that all scientist don't agree (regardless of the field of science they practice in or whether the disagreement is even related to the validity of ID) it must have scientific legitimacy. This subversion can extend to insinuating that published at a university press is "peer review" and all kinds of other subversions.

Ask your friend if you got a PhD in philosophy and bought a tape recorder to chase ghost does that make me a scientist? It does to the people making the claims he just made. In fact many don't even require the PhD.

Even computer models of evolution have shown to exhibit Irreducible Complexity. You can read about it in this discovermagazine (http://discovermagazine.com/2005/feb/cover) article or download it it for free here http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/.

[DavidS]

He's making the claim, the burden of proof is on him. Do not let him switch the burden of proof...
Fair enough.
... as it's impossible to prove a negative (you cannot prove that there isn't a large number of scientists converting, just like I cannot prove there isn't a secret tribe of ninjas using my cupboard as their headquarters).
There's nothing magic about "negatives" that precludes their proof. Pure induction won't prove them, but other reasoning might. That is, repeatedly finding no ninjas meeting in your cupboard night after night doesn't prove it's not their headquarters, but if you could show that ninjas always maintain an offering of sushi for Santa at their headquarters, the absence of sushi would in fact be disproof of your cupboard's true headquarters-nature.

[Oualawouzou]

I see your point and thank you for it, but my, you so underestimate the sneakiness of ninjas.

[cbish]

So I met a creationist for the first time ever................
.........I wonder where he would have gotten such information.

Thank-you.

Whoa, how old are you, 3? You've never met a creationist before? Gads, they're all over. They're as common as house-flies. I don't know how old the creationist was but the most likely answer to your question is:
a) parents/family members
b) youth pastor
c) pastor
d) camp counselor
e) any adult authority figure associated with their church and/or church related programs.
f) all of the above

I choose F.

Did they also tell you about how Noah's Flood explains fossils and that God put fossils here with the 'appearance of age' to test our faith?
Did they tell you that 'science doesn't know everything'?
Did they tell you that there is scientific evidence for the existence of the soul?
Did they harp on the fact that there must be a God because the world is so perfect?
Add to that, did they ask you to explain the development of such perfect organs as the eye, the flower, the immune system?
Did they ask you to explain why the Earth seems to be immune to meteor strikes compared to other planets?
Did they tell you about how man has dominion over the earth and that there is no way we can harm the planet. Add to that; God will provide.

Just a few off the top of my head. Feel free to forward any others that you hear in future conversations.

[Oualawouzou]

Well, Tamazon is from Canada. Alberta is about the most conservative province, but it's still not comparable to most conservative US states. I don't know if Americans realize how weird it is to the majority of the "Western" world how your country still wrestles with the teaching of ID vs evolution.

[Tamazon]

Whoa, how old are you, 3? You've never met a creationist before? Gads, they're all over. They're as common as house-flies.

Add a 5 at the end of the 3. :) Well I since about 6 months ago, I really didn't have any interest in the topic and never discussed it with anyone. I could very well be surrounded by them but he is the first I've ever personally known to be one and have talked to about it. The mind-set and blind faith they have is really quite fascinating.

I don't know how old the creationist was but the most likely answer to your question is:
a) parents/family members
b) youth pastor
c) pastor
d) camp counselor
e) any adult authority figure associated with their church and/or church related programs.
f) all of the above

I choose F.He's about 47 and he did mention a pastor and being raised by a catholic father. But about the scientists, he just said he read it somewhere. I asked him if it was in something written by creationists. :D I'll have to ask him to bring in this documentation. He also threw in my face that anything I know is just from stuff I'd "read somewhere" too.

Did they also tell you about how Noah's Flood explains fossils and that God put fossils here with the 'appearance of age' to test our faith?Well the flood happened of course but the only thing he talked about with regards to fossils is that scientists are always thinking that the found the missing link and are always wrong.

Did they tell you that 'science doesn't know everything'?Yeah, that came up and he said that since everything can never be "proven", that scientists are going to one day have to basically shrug their shoulders and take it on "faith" that something is true even though there is no proof for it.

Did they tell you that there is scientific evidence for the existence of the soul?We didn't talk about souls. I'll have to ask him about that. But he does believe in heaven.

Did they harp on the fact that there must be a God because the world is so perfect?Yeah, and I told him it's not so perfect which brought up the whole Adam and Eve apple incident and fallen angels. Bleeech.

Add to that, did they ask you to explain the development of such perfect organs as the eye, the flower, the immune system?
Did they ask you to explain why the Earth seems to be immune to meteor strikes compared to other planets?
Did they tell you about how man has dominion over the earth and that there is no way we can harm the planet. Add to that; God will provide.Didn't get too much into all that as we were at work and only talked for a little while. But this gives me some things to look into to and be prepared for out next conversation. Thank-you.

Just a few off the top of my head. Feel free to forward any others that you hear in future conversations.Well, I thought that they all believed that the earth was only about 6000 years old but he concedes that it could be older as god said that 1 day to him is 1000 years to us. So when he created the earth in 6 days it was actually 6000 years then plus the 6000 years we've been here. Well, I guess that's only 12,000 years.

Sorry if I sound like a rank amateur. Probably because I am. The whole skeptical movement is still fairly new to me and I'm learning more every day. One day I hope to be on par with the many intelligent people I've met on this forum. Thanks for your responses.

[Tamazon]

Well, Tamazon is from Canada. Alberta is about the most conservative province, but it's still not comparable to most conservative US states. I don't know if Americans realize how weird it is to the majority of the "Western" world how your country still wrestles with the teaching of ID vs evolution.

Yeah, Alberta is pretty wooish and we just got our very own creationist museum!!

But I've never heard of any controversy about whether ID should be taught in schools. If that ever happens, I'm home schooling my daughter!

[articulett]

So I met a creationist for the first time ever (at least that I know of). And we had a very interesting debate last night. I'm still fairly new to the whole thing so am not extremely versed in all the arguments but I thought I did fairly well. There's no reasoning with these people anyways. I generally like the person so it was a friendly debate but even though I shouldn't have been, I was amazed at the intense delusion.

My question is this:

He claims that many scientists (even atheists) are being swayed to the side of the creationists because of the undeniable evidence being proffered by them, or lack of evidence for evolution. While I know this can't possibly be true I wonder where he would have gotten such information, (he just said he read it somewhere) and how it can be refuted.

Thank-you.

In their wet dreams.

The only former atheist I know who has converted is Francis Collins and he most certainly is an evolutionist--(though loosely, I'd call him a creationist as well.) His god lies outside of science and set off the big bang and flicked evolution into action (and so his god must account, I presume, for waste, suffering, vestigial structures, junk DNA, our less than central placement in the galaxy, unspeakable cruelties, etc.)

Creationists are obfuscating, deceptive, delusional people. Check them out on our other threads. If they use a lot of words, but never seem to be saying anything of value or that can be verified while tossing out claims willy nilly--chances are you've got one on your hands. It comes from years of convincing themselve there are higher truths in banal platitudes from a primitive text of questionable authorship. When trapped, they sidestep, deny, evade, blame, change the subject, or ignore the questions while pounding in their point of view at every turn.

Many will say they are not creationists--because they want "intelligent design" to be seen as a science and creationism has already been labeled a religious dogma in US courts. Many a person who claims they are not a creationist, IS a proponent of "intelligent design"--top down purposefull design--the opposite of natural selection, bottom up evolving "design".

[ChristineR]

There are some scientists with relevant credentials who are also creationists. There is no reason why a creationist can't go to university and get a degree, even in evolutionary biology. As long as they understand how it works, they can pass their exams.

Every once in a while a scientist does convert to creationism and makes a big deal out of how "evolution was my religion" and that sort of thing.

They are a tiny minority, and there have always been such creationist scientists and converts. I know of know evidence that their numbers are increasing.

In my experience these are people that will tell you openly that even though the evidence supports evolution, the theory must be wrong because the Bible trumps everything. That is, they are looking for the most likely scientific theory that fits the facts and the book of Genesis. They consider Genesis to be another data point, and a higher quality data point as well. These are the people who come up with variable radioactive decay rates and the like.

[Tamazon]

A recent test case for these claim deal with Intelligent Design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) ID put forth by The Discovey Institute (http://www.discovery.org/) DI with the main argument being Irreducible complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity) IC. On the DI website they have a link called "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science)". Read that page if you want to know what they are qualifying as peer review. The first few paragraphs are devoted to leading the reader to believe that something published on a university press means it is scientific. They certainly don't have what the link title claims. They devised what is called the "Wedge strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy)" to give the appearance of legitimacy and effect public policy. The Judge that ruled against Intelligent Design even called several board members "lier's (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/)".

The more general approach is to create a controversy then claim because there is a controversy and that all scientist don't agree (regardless of the field of science they practice in or whether the disagreement is even related to the validity of ID) it must have scientific legitimacy. This subversion can extend to insinuating that published at a university press is "peer review" and all kinds of other subversions.

Ask your friend if you got a PhD in philosophy and bought a tape recorder to chase ghost does that make me a scientist? It does to the people making the claims he just made. In fact many don't even require the PhD.

Even computer models of evolution have shown to exhibit Irreducible Complexity. You can read about it in this discovermagazine (http://discovermagazine.com/2005/feb/cover) article or download it it for free here http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/.


Wow, I don't know whether to thank-you or not! Now I'm going to have to lock myself in the basement to read all that. That is not going to make my husband very happy and my child will likely get very hungry. ;)

[cbish]

Ah yes,
the 'science is really a form of faith' one. How could I forget? Articulett should have caught me on that one. What about radiometric dating? Did he bring up the fact that they carbon dated a twinkie to be x,000 yrs old? Ah, you're in for a treat!

[Tamazon]

Ah yes,
the 'science is really a form of faith' one. How could I forget? Articulett should have caught me on that one. What about radiometric dating? Did he bring up the fact that they carbon dated a twinkie to be x,000 yrs old? Ah, you're in for a treat!

Yummy! Haven't heard that one. I'm looking forward to my next conversation with him though.

[cbish]

See, Articulett and I are science teachers. I'm high school and I believe she is also. If you teach Biology, especially in the U.S., you've heard them all! I, like you, never knew these people existed. I did the whole Catholic thing up until high school, but it was never an issue. I was ignorant of this until I started teaching in 1989. It seems to be an issue every year, but there are peaks and valleys. I believe there was a "fad christianity" in the 1990's that seems to be dying down, but it is still there. I have to apologize to Articullet for not keeping up the fight on this board for I have been teaching Chemistry all year and haven't had it come up. With that being said, though, I remember completely the battle that Science Teachers face. IMO, it would serve you well to view the TalkOrigns website at http://www.talkorigins.org/
This is one of the most cited websites on this board. It may seem overwhelming at first, but you can go directly to christian debate for the time being and check out the rest for backup later.
good luch
Chris

[Dorian Gray]

The more general approach is to create a controversy then claim because there is a controversy and that all scientist don't agree (regardless of the field of science they practice in or whether the disagreement is even related to the validity of ID) it must have scientific legitimacy. This subversion can extend to insinuating that published at a university press is "peer review" and all kinds of other subversions.
And the obvious response is to claim that because there is a religious controversy and that all believers don't agree on the same deity, God must not exist.

[Slimething]

I've never had them intelligently explain to me how, if micro-evolution works as even they admit it does, that would not contribute to macro-evolution. Where is the magic reset switch and when is it triggered? My guess is just before speciation but I'm jumping to conclusions here.

[ChristineR]

I've never had them intelligently explain to me how, if micro-evolution works as even they admit it does, that would not contribute to macro-evolution. Where is the magic reset switch and when is it triggered? My guess is just before speciation but I'm jumping to conclusions here.

The DNA of a "kind" is supposedly unalterably associated with that kind. They make comments like "a dog can never give birth to anything but a dog" which is true of course, as there is no dog line for it to cross. They deny the existence of intermediate species. All the extinct hominids they either declare "fully ape" or fully human. All the existing intermediates they declare to be "fully formed unique species" which of course they are.

They don't accept the idea that you could breed a dog into something else. If someone ever does it, they'll call it a funny looking dog. It's not like anyone will ever breed a dog into a fish, hence proving the uniqueness of the dog kind.

[The Great Hairy One]

Hi Tamazon,

I'm still in touch with several of my scientist friends from when I was engaged in that type of work, and the majority of those were (still are) atheists who used the theories of evolution every day in their lab work. However, that's an anecdote, and isn't really evidence. :)

Here's a link which discusses religion versus intelligence. As expected, there's no consensus here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

Check this one out, purely for interest's sake:
http://creationwiki.org/Atheism
It's from creationwiki, so note the extremely heavy religious bias. What's of interest, though, is the first paragraph of the analysis section, which clearly states that the majority of scientists are atheists! :newlol

Here's a very good resource on creationism and science:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
A blog written by P Z Myers, a biologist and atheist. He's quite forward about being an atheist, and standing up to creationists. He's got discussions on pretty much all the creationists arguments there, you may have to search for them though.

Like others have already said, if your friend is saying that large numbers of scientists are leaving atheism and evolution, he needs to provide evidence to back up this assertion. Otherwise, it's purely hot air. As someone who studied and used evolution extensively, I can tell you it's an extremely solid theory, with a huge body of evidence backing it up.

If you need a hand, you're quite welcome to post any arguments your friend makes here, we'll quickly reduce them to dust. :)

Cheers,
TGHO

[Slimething]

The DNA of a "kind" is supposedly unalterably associated with that kind. They make comments like "a dog can never give birth to anything but a dog" which is true of course, as there is no dog line for it to cross. They deny the existence of intermediate species. All the extinct hominids they either declare "fully ape" or fully human. All the existing intermediates they declare to be "fully formed unique species" which of course they are.

They don't accept the idea that you could breed a dog into something else. If someone ever does it, they'll call it a funny looking dog. It's not like anyone will ever breed a dog into a fish, hence proving the uniqueness of the dog kind.

Thanks for explaining that. One day I'll have to ask one to explain mules to me. Do plants count? :)

[ChristineR]

Now that I think about it, I've actually made a creation science prediction!

The claim is that dog DNA is distinctive, and that mutations to the fundamental dog-ness will result in an unviable offspring. So by comparing dog, wolf, jackal, dingo and fox DNA we should be able to identify sequences that are responsible for the fundamental dog-ness.

The prediction is that it is impossible to have viable offspring that do not preserve at least one sequence. We don't know which sequences are fundamental, but we can eliminate any sequences found in other species (like the cat), any sequences not universal to the "kind" and any sequence we can mutate and still have a viable offspring.

Kewl. :D

[Art Vandelay]

This idea strikes as especially bizarre. In the late nineteenth century, Darwin published a book laying out the basics of evolution, relying on the relatively small amount of data then available. At the time, there was a deep ideological prejudice against the theory, as many people considered it to be hostile to Christianity. Furthermore, this was a time when being seen as hostile to Christianity could be dangerous, to your social standing, career, and sometimes your life. But the evidence for evolution was so overwhelming that it won, despite the deck being massively stacked against it.

Now that evolution has the backing of the scientific community, and more than a century of evidence has been compiled showing again and again its validity, Creationists would have us believe that suddenly scientists are realizing the errors of their ways. If evolution such an obviously flawed ideology that even those indoctrinated in from birth are seing its invalidity, why was it able to win out against religious fundamentalism in the first place?

I've never had them intelligently explain to me how, if micro-evolution works as even they admit it does, that would not contribute to macro-evolution. Where is the magic reset switch and when is it triggered? My guess is just before speciation but I'm jumping to conclusions here.Apparently, they believe in something called a "kind". Each kind includes the potential for variation within the kind. Variation thus comes from either latent genes being activated, or loss of genetic information. Adam and Eve had genes for every single body type now in existence, and probably many more. The first dogs had genes for every single breed of dog which exists or could exist, and unless their genes have been "degraded", every dog still has genes for every breed.

Now that I think about it, I've actually made a creation science prediction!

The claim is that dog DNA is distinctive, and that mutations to the fundamental dog-ness will result in an unviable offspring. So by comparing dog, wolf, jackal, dingo and fox DNA we should be able to identify sequences that are responsible for the fundamental dog-ness.You seem to be assuming that dogs and wolves are different kinds. The beauty of Creationism is that it can be never be proven wrong. Even if we could show one species evolving into another, that just shows that they're of the same kind. We will never find any member of one kind evolving into another kind, because if that happened, that would just show that they are actually the same kind.

If anyone isn't quite clear what the difference between microevolution and macroevolution is, here it is: microevolution consists of the sort of variation for which the evidence is so overwhelming that even Creationists admit it exists. Macroevolution is everything else.

[my_wan]

Wow, I don't know whether to thank-you or not! Now I'm going to have to lock myself in the basement to read all that. That is not going to make my husband very happy and my child will likely get very hungry. ;)

Yes that is just the length these people will go to give their silly statements legitimacy in the public eye. :boggled: Maybe we should be the ones hollering "conspiracy!!!"...

[tracer]

I see your point and thank you for it, but my, you so underestimate the sneakiness of ninjas.
If there were ninjas in my cupboard, they would have totally flipped out and killed me (http://www.realultimatepower.net/index4.htm) by now.

[toddjh]

I've found that Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5945_the_faqs_2_16_2003.asp) is a fun response to claims of scientists jumping ship to creationism.

As for the micro/macroevolution thing, the key there is usually to get them to try to come up with a "scientific" criterion for distinguishing between the two. For example, how close does the DNA have to be before two species should be considered the same "kind?" Once they give an answer to that question, they've already lost -- no matter what answer they give, it's either going to mean that housecats and lions aren't the same "kind," or that humans and chimpanzees are.

Macro- and microevolution (in the sense that creationists use the terms, as opposed to the way they're sometimes used in legitimate literature) are just not scientific concepts, and so any attempt by creationists to rationalize them using scientific-sounding language will turn around and bite them on the ass pretty fast.

[ChristineR]

No dogs and wolves are the same kind. In fact you can make a strong argument that they are the same species, they cross freely, have viable offspring, and there is no more genetic variation from some breeds to wolf than among breeds.

No, the claim is that even though you can vary within the "kind" that you can never mutate some genes that are defining and fundamental to the kind without killing the offspring. We ought to be able to identify these genes by process of elimination.

[Foster Zygote]

So I met a creationist for the first time ever (at least that I know of). And we had a very interesting debate last night. I'm still fairly new to the whole thing so am not extremely versed in all the arguments but I thought I did fairly well. There's no reasoning with these people anyways. I generally like the person so it was a friendly debate but even though I shouldn't have been, I was amazed at the intense delusion.

My question is this:

He claims that many scientists (even atheists) are being swayed to the side of the creationists because of the undeniable evidence being proffered by them, or lack of evidence for evolution. While I know this can't possibly be true I wonder where he would have gotten such information, (he just said he read it somewhere) and how it can be refuted.

Thank-you.

I heard James Dobson say this back in the '70s. He also claimed at the time that evolutionary theory was dead at the research level and that it would only be a matter of a few years before they stopped teaching it in schools.

[KingMerv00]

Who cares how many scientists convert. Creationism is still crap.

Truth is not determined by a majority vote.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Every once in a while a scientist does convert to creationism and makes a big deal out of how "evolution was my religion" and that sort of thing.

I'd suggest a small change in verbiage here. Change "convert to creationism" to "convert to fundamentalist Christianity" and then adopts Creationism. Possibly there are some scientists who were swayed by Creationist arguments, but I'm not aware of any. Most have a religious conversion or rededication and then try and integrate Creationism into their new belief/devotion.

[ChristineR]

Well, there are creationist Jews and Muslims, but you're correct, I'm not aware of any creationists that don't have some sort of religious belief driving them.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Well, there are creationist Jews and Muslims, but you're correct, I'm not aware of any creationists that don't have some sort of religious belief driving them.

Yes, I'd forgotten about them because most of the ones involved with organized Creationism in the states tend to be evangelicals or Catholics.

And then there's freaks like Moonie Jonathan Wells. :D

[Tamazon]

What really annoys me about these people is that they have a pat, convenient answer for everything. It's all been thought out and written down in their book for easy memorization and regurgitation.

Why did god answer your prayer but not the mother praying that her child won't die of cancer? "It's his will and we dare not question it." (insert the story of Job here)

Why is there suffering in the world? "Eve ate the apple."

"Because he created it that way." "Because Jesus died for our sins." "Because, because, because...."

Ugh....it would be nice if we could rely on the make-believe, magical guy in the sky who can do anything. Unfortunately we have to rely on all those pesky facts and that annoying thing called reason.

It just really irks me how they just can't see how ridiculous they sound.

Did you know that all us atheists actually believe in god? Yup, since in order to argue against a god, we have to first acknowledge that there is one. Yeah, I told him that that was the most absurd thing I'd ever heard too.

Sorry, just had to vent. I feel better now. :o

[The Great Hairy One]

No problems on the venting, I know how you feel!

Generally I find the best way to handle "pat" answers is to say something like "Oh, okay. And do you have a personal answer which isn't just something you're parroting from a priest? Have you actually thought about that, or are you just a human tape recorder set to 'replay'?"

As I said before, you're welcome to bring anything this friend of yours says to us here, and we'll offer counter arguments. Happy to help any time. :)

Cheers,
TGHO

[DRBUZZ0]

So I met a creationist for the first time ever (at least that I know of). And we had a very interesting debate last night. I'm still fairly new to the whole thing so am not extremely versed in all the arguments but I thought I did fairly well. There's no reasoning with these people anyways. I generally like the person so it was a friendly debate but even though I shouldn't have been, I was amazed at the intense delusion.

My question is this:

He claims that many scientists (even atheists) are being swayed to the side of the creationists because of the undeniable evidence being proffered by them, or lack of evidence for evolution. While I know this can't possibly be true I wonder where he would have gotten such information, (he just said he read it somewhere) and how it can be refuted.

Thank-you.

I'm sure there are scientists who "converted" then again, there are a lot of scientists in the world. A few are bound to go loony from time to time. Hell, I bet the creationists could probably find six or seven if they looked hard enough. (reminds me of the Steve Project vrs the creationist scientist thing)

Yes, there are probably scientists who have gone creationist, possibly because they had a pipe go through their head like Phineas Gage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage) or something.... or they just lost it.

But if a creationist can come to me and say "Look, I found a retired chemist in Montana, a professor of metallurgy from Germany, a meteorologist from a TV station in Nebraska, a Russian geologist, an organic chemist who works for an Indian fertilizer company, a food scientist for a British company that makes artificial flavoring agents and a retired health physicist in Vermont"


well... that's really just aint going to convince me that they're all becoming creationists.

[JQH]

Anybody know of conversions the other way? ie creationists realising they're talking rubbish and adopt scientific thinking?

[The Great Hairy One]

Anybody know of conversions the other way? ie creationists realising they're talking rubbish and adopt scientific thinking?


Yes. In the ten or so years I was posting regularly to alt.atheism and alt.athiesm, there were several theists who deconverted to atheism. A couple of those were extreme fundamentalists. There were also one or two atheists who became theists, one I remember distinctly becoming a raving christian fundamentalist.

Cheers,
TGHO

[Diabolos]

Anybody know of conversions the other way? ie creationists realising they're talking rubbish and adopt scientific thinking?
Michael Shermer?

[JQH]

So if Tamazon's fundie workmate thinks atheists converting to creationism is proof of creationism's truth, then she can point to examples of people going the other way as proof of atheism's truth. This will either totally flummox the fundie, or make him realise his initial argument was invalid.

[JQH]

...."

Did you know that all us atheists actually believe in god? Yup, since in order to argue against a god, we have to first acknowledge that there is one. Yeah, I told him that that was the most absurd thing I'd ever heard too.



Riiight.

So if I tell him that there is a pink unicorn in my back garden, and he argues for the non-existant of said unicorn, he is acknowledging it actually exists?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Anybody know of conversions the other way? ie creationists realising they're talking rubbish and adopt scientific thinking?

Are you talking about scientists or Creationists at large? I'm not aware of any Creationist scientists who came around though I'm sure there are plenty, just maybe not high profile ones. I am aware of a lot of Creationists who dropped YECism and became Theistic Evolutionists or atheists after a crisis of faith.

So if Tamazon's fundie workmate thinks atheists converting to creationism is proof of creationism's truth, then she can point to examples of people going the other way as proof of atheism's truth. This will either totally flummox the fundie, or make him realise his initial argument was invalid.

I find the most productive conversations come when you don't frame it as Christianity vs. Atheism because if you go after the very foundation of someone's faith you tend to meet more resistance. If you keep the conversation limited to Creationism vs. evolution, then you keep them off balance by not allowing them to tangent and blather about sin and where the Universe came from. If you make them stick to the science they tend to trip up a lot faster.

Tamazon, I was going to mention something like this in response to your "get it off your chest" rant above (nice one btw). If you're getting into an atheism vs. Christianity debate, get ready to hear all sorts of ad hoc and/or canned answers because most of the questions you can ask have been mulled over by apologists and theologians sometimes for centuries. If you stick to Creationism and evolution you'll find their answers are similarly ad hoc but they won't have so many of them and with just a bit of preparation you can be ready to debunk them as soon as they say them.

[Foster Zygote]

Did you know that all us atheists actually believe in god? Yup, since in order to argue against a god, we have to first acknowledge that there is one. Yeah, I told him that that was the most absurd thing I'd ever heard too.

You should tell him that he is actually a polytheist. Because to argue against all other gods he has to first acknowledge that all other gods exist. Oh, and he also believes in the Easter Bunny and underpants gnomes.

[Foster Zygote]

Anybody know of conversions the other way? ie creationists realising they're talking rubbish and adopt scientific thinking?

Myself and many others on this forum.

[Dr Adequate]

He claims that many scientists (even atheists) are being swayed to the side of the creationists ... Atheist creationists?

Look, that can't be true.

... because of the undeniable evidence being proffered by them, or lack of evidence for evolution. While I know this can't possibly be true I wonder where he would have gotten such information, (he just said he read it somewhere) ... He'd have got the information from someone like him, who just read it somewhere.

The legend that creationists are about to win has actually been handed down from generation to generation, they've been saying it for the past 180 years.

... and how it can be refuted.

For a rebuttal, try the SkepticWiki article Evolution is losing support among scientists

[Wolverine]

Atheist creationists?

Look, that can't be true.

Tell that to the Raelians. :D

[ChristineR]

Tell that to the Raelians. :D

I've been very carefully structuring my responses to be inclusive of the atheist creationists! They are religious atheist creationists--their creationist beliefs are religious in nature, not based on any scientific analysis of the evidence.

[Wolverine]

I've been very carefully structuring my responses to be inclusive of the atheist creationists! They are religious atheist creationists--their creationist beliefs are religious in nature, not based on any scientific analysis of the evidence.

So I see.

Oh, and by the way -- those who haven't already seen it might enjoy Rael's Blasphemy Challenge entry (http://www.raelianews.org/news.php?extend.212). :D

Whee! :duck:

[UnrepentantSinner]

Tell that to the Raelians. :D

Technically the Raelians are atheist IDers, not Creationists per se. And yeah, they're all bordering on crazy... if not so, but it's important to keep terms specific in the debate.

[Tanstaafl]

This reminds me of a show I saw on TBN, I think it was Carl Baugh's show. He had on a former scientist of some sort, who told how he believed in evolution previously, but then one day he realized that "everything worth knowing was in the bible". So he stopped doing research, resigned his position, and focused on reading the bible.

Which made me wonder, why was he on TV? Because, after all, the bible doesn't say how to build a TV transmitter or receiver. Therefore this is not worth knowing, and it seems to me it is therefore not worth using.

But then again, I didn't really believe a word of his story anyway.

[Foster Zygote]

This reminds me of a show I saw on TBN, I think it was Carl Baugh's show. He had on a former scientist of some sort, who told how he believed in evolution previously, but then one day he realized that "everything worth knowing was in the bible". So he stopped doing research, resigned his position, and focused on reading the bible.

Which made me wonder, why was he on TV? Because, after all, the bible doesn't say how to build a TV transmitter or receiver. Therefore this is not worth knowing, and it seems to me it is therefore not worth using.

But then again, I didn't really believe a word of his story anyway.

I wonder what sort of science he specialized in. Ten bucks says it wasn't biology or geology.

[reasonmusic]

I am creationist AND a skeptic. I sometimes see this world (and myself) and think this is all too much of a chance, but I can't truly accept it all the time because I cannot see beyond the physical into what people claim is "supernatural", so I doubt and analyze. I wonder if I would believe that there IS a difference between my butt and a hole in the ground. I may question it too much.

[The Great Hairy One]

I wonder what sort of science he specialized in. Ten bucks says it wasn't biology or geology.


Oh, I remember that guy, but his name escapes me right now. He was studying for his PhD in geology, IIRC. Mentioned on P Z Myer's Blog (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/), but I can't remember the guy's name, damnit. The problem was that he was a devout and fundamentalist christian, and he got to the point in his studies where he had to make a choice - remain a fundamentalist believing that the bible is 100% inerrant, or become an atheist. He mentioned that he sat up all night, poring through his bible, crossing out everything he would have to discard if he completed his PhD. He found out that he crossed out the entire book, and had to make the choice between faith and no faith. He chose faith.

Cheers,
TGHO

[The Great Hairy One]

I am creationist AND a skeptic. I sometimes see this world (and myself) and think this is all too much of a chance, but I can't truly accept it all the time because I cannot see beyond the physical into what people claim is "supernatural", so I doubt and analyze. I wonder if I would believe that there IS a difference between my butt and a hole in the ground. I may question it too much.


What type of creationist are you?

Cheers,
TGHO

[cbish]

I am creationist AND a skeptic. I sometimes see this world (and myself) and think this is all too much of a chance, but I can't truly accept it all the time because I cannot see beyond the physical into what people claim is "supernatural", so I doubt and analyze. I wonder if I would believe that there IS a difference between my butt and a hole in the ground. I may question it too much.Ummm, have you actually studied anything? Why do you think it's all 'too much of a chance'? Give a scenario. What is the difference between your butt and a hole in the ground!?!? Question too much??? I doubt it!

[cbish]

I wonder what sort of science he specialized in. Ten bucks says it wasn't biology or geology.
For some reason physicits and medical doctors seem to fall into this type of thing.

[Slimething]

...he got to the point in his studies where he had to make a choice - remain a fundamentalist believing that the bible is 100% inerrant, or become an atheist. He mentioned that he sat up all night, poring through his bible, crossing out everything he would have to discard if he completed his PhD. He found out that he crossed out the entire book, and had to make the choice between faith and no faith. He chose faith.

Science: "That was too close! Maybe there is a god after all!" :D

I wonder if this dumbass ever thought about what he was saying. On television, no less. (Thanks, Tanstaafl, for pointing out the irony.) IOW, belief in any of sciences provable tenets wipes the bible out as inerrant. I'm happy this guy chose faith. I really don't need another wastebucket in the lab.

[UnrepentantSinner]

What's with all the miltant hatred? I really just don't understand it.

[Tamazon]

As I said before, you're welcome to bring anything this friend of yours says to us here, and we'll offer counter arguments. Happy to help any time.Thank-you. I will remember that.

So if Tamazon's fundie workmate thinks atheists converting to creationism is proof of creationism's truth, then she can point to examples of people going the other way as proof of atheism's truth. This will either totally flummox the fundie, or make him realise his initial argument was invalid.I'll give that a go. See what he says.

there is a pink unicorn in my back gardenI call her Rosebud, she likes strawberries....

Tamazon, I was going to mention something like this in response to your "get it off your chest" rant above (nice one btw). If you're getting into an atheism vs. Christianity debate, get ready to hear all sorts of ad hoc and/or canned answers because most of the questions you can ask have been mulled over by apologists and theologians sometimes for centuries. If you stick to Creationism and evolution you'll find their answers are similarly ad hoc but they won't have so many of them and with just a bit of preparation you can be ready to debunk them as soon as they say them.Even with the bit I do know, I did pretty well. He did say I was smart. :D But I agree with you that arguing about their religious beliefs outside of creationism is folly, not to mention frustrating.

For a rebuttal, try the SkepticWiki article Evolution is losing support among scientistsSW (http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Evolution%20is%20losing%20support%20among%20scient ists)Ah yes, thanks for this. I now remember reading about that in "Why People Believe Weird Things." I will have to re-read that chapter.

I know my vent sounded harsh but I generally like most of the religious folks I've met. Including the person the OP is about. I just want to give them a good shake, you know.

But then sometimes I wonder why I would want to burst bubbles. Other then those that shove it down our throats and those that want ID taught in schools, the average believer just likes the warm fuzzies that their faith gives them. Then I think about organized religion and.... :mad:

Yeah, I'm just a gutless flip-flopper.

[logical muse]

Hey Tamazon,

Here's my little contribution: http://www.notjustatheory.com/

It just might help if you ever get stuck on that point in your discussions.

[JQH]

Tamazon, ask him how old he think's the Earth is.

If he's a Young Earth Creationist, he'll come out with a figure of not more than 10,000 years.

Ask him how come astronomers can see objects much more than 10,000 light years away. If you need to know how such distances are measured I and lots of other people here will be able to describe the methods.

Alternatively, he may claim that light travelled much faster in the past.:eye-poppi I had this one thrown at me so I simply asked for evidence of this. She said she would get me a copy of the paper that proved this. That was three years ago. I'm still waiting.:rolleyes:

[KingMerv00]

I am creationist AND a skeptic. I sometimes see this world (and myself) and think this is all too much of a chance...

Two things:

1) The configuration of the universe is not the result of chance. The natural laws are quite predictable. Look at planets and stars for instance. They are round not by chance but because gravity molds them that way.

2) How is ignorance proof of a Creator?

[DavidS]

I see your point and thank you for it, but my, you so underestimate the sneakiness of ninjas.

On the contrary, I hope to encourage my cupboard ninjas to fully employ their sneakiness to permit absolutely no hint, let alone evidence, that they exist. Not assassinating me would be admirably sneaky from my perspective.

[A3n]

Anybody know of conversions the other way? ie creationists realising they're talking rubbish and adopt scientific thinking?

I wonder about this too, but after reading a bit it seems there are, so my question is:
How can you make a creationist into a critical thinker or non-dogmatic thinker ?
What is the best way to make a creationist make him/her see that they got strongly misinformed ?
Is it even worth arguing with creationists ?

[UnrepentantSinner]

I wonder about this too, but after reading a bit it seems there are, so my question is:
How can you make a creationist into a critical thinker or non-dogmatic thinker ?

Time and patience. But the most important thing to remember is the effort will not come on your part, but on the part of the Creationist and whether they are truely open minded or not. No amount of evidence will convince a comitted Creationist, but time, effort, patience and politeness will work with people who have an open mind.

What is the best way to make a creationist make him/her see that they got strongly misinformed ?

Familiarize yourself to Creationist PRATTs (Previously Refuted A Thousdand Times arguments) and have a ready response. Have references on the Web, in books and in journals, magazines or museums they can check out themselves. But keep in mind that they must be open to the alternative and it will take, as noted above, time, effort, patience and politeness.

Is it even worth arguing with creationists ?

Yes. In public and on the Internet. Privately it will be on a case by case basis, but publically and on the Internet don't forget that for every 1 person you engage directly there could be between 2 and 200 audience/lurkers who will be listening to your evidence and depending on how receptive they are you will make a difference.