Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (Religion bashing alert)

Times Online UK ^ | May 21, 2005 | Richard Dawkins

[PatrickHenry]

100

[narby]

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

So how does that verse disagree with sciences understanding of the solar system accreting from interstellar dust and gas?

If it rains, you would say that "God brought the rain". You would be right.

But I might choose to say that moisture condensed out of the air in the low pressure system, and I would be right as well.

The Bible does not disagree with science. Only your interpretation of it does.

[RadioAstronomer]

What a splendid essay!

Why I bookmarked the original.

[js1138]

He particularly hates creationists and reserves most of his venom for them...

That would be because of the lies told by creationists. Do you worship the Lord of Lies?

Out of context quotes are lies.

[patriot_wes]

Good point...and it was the church who told them the earth was round!

[VadeRetro]

all you have done is push back "miracles" in time. "laws" (lawgiver??), "life" (life giver). to the point where you can rationalize away a miracle subtitute it with "first cause" and suggest its not about it. however, if a first cause miracle can happen, whould there be any reason for there not to be more.

Maybe He got it right the first time. If He's supposed to be all-powerful, I'd allow for that.

[Liberal Classic]

Contrary to public perception, theories are not "promoted" to laws. A law is a concise mathematical relationship that we observe, such as Newton's law of universal gravitation. A theory seeks to explain how the law we observe works, such as Einstein's theory of general relativity. In the early part of the 20th century, it was observed that the orbits of all the planets obeyed Newton's laws except one: Mercury. Look up on the web the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Einstein showed that Newton's law of universal gravitation was an approximation that becomes inaccurate in the presence of strong gravitational fields. Newton's laws are still taught, of course, and for ordinary things work quite well. However, Einstein's theories are currently the dominant paradigm of how we believe gravity works. In this way, gravity is both a fact and a theory.

[armymarinedad]

It was about the time of Aristotle. He would not have had to argue the fact if it was believed to be round. Science grows and learns.

[VadeRetro]

You may have accidentally hit a real prime, there.

[PatrickHenry]

It occurs to me that Dawkins is probably aware of threads like this. People with published writings are known to do Google searches on their own names, to see where they or their works are being discussed.

So, Professor Dawkins, if you should encounter this thread, I salute you!

[donh]

That said, there is a lot of good research that can come out of Intelligent Design study.

Really? Like what? Suggest a fruitful research project to me.

[AndrewC]

The Bible does not disagree with science. Only your interpretation of it does.

Oh, really? Please tell me what my interpretation is.

[narby]

I've got a friend who knows a guy who did some original research on the Spotted Owl. He's the reason why the enviros don't mention SO's any more.

Seems as how SO's were pretty rare in pre development days, nearly non-existent. They live in trees, and hunt best in open fields where they can catch critters for dinner.

But when loggers started clearcutting, the SO population went up considerably, because there were now more fields for them to hunt in, and THEN they were discovered by enviros who made the point that they lived in large trees, not in clearcut fields.

The point is that loggers actually caused the population of Spotted Owls to grow, not decline.

Result - enviros have shut their trap on Spotted Owls.

[donh]

Is there any evidence of evolution that would make it a "law"?

Is there any evidence supporting the theory of gravitation that would make it a "law"?

[TomB]

Contrary to public perception, theories are not "promoted" to laws

Of course. Thanks for helping out with what was going to be my next post (and I had no idea how to word it).

My original point is that there is no way for evolution to become a "law", as defined by creationists. They will always have questions, and that, in their mind, will invalidate the "law".

[flevit]

would that not be teaching by example? considering how the important the 6 days of work and 1 day of rest is through-out the bible.

[donh]

Over 500 people observed Christ Resurrection after He died on the cross. Many people who saw and relayed it back were killed. Not quick deaths mind you, but tortured under extreme measures to shut people up. You would think if this was just sacred fiction they would be subdued about the subject or even keep it a secret.

The conspiracy theory of salvation--I love it.

[wideawake]

That would be because of the lies told by creationists.

Which lies are those? And I'm not talking about random anonymous statements on fly-by-night websites. I'm talking about published evolution critics like Johnson, Behe, Dembski, etc.

Out of context quotes are lies.

No published author in the ID movement has quoted Dawkins out of context. They have pointed out where his stated views conflict with some of his observations.

[walden]

Indeed it is-- it was one of the first books of the bible that I read, and I love it. It helped inspire me to read the rest of the bible, and I can't tell you how glad I am that I did that. Modern Christians (with the possible exception of the Baptists) don't read and study the bible nearly enough-- I was raised Episcopalian, confirmed at 12, and I can tell you that I got hardly any exposure to it at all. I didn't read much of it until many years later, in my mid-twenties, when I went back to college and studied English literature. My seventeenth-century poetry class focused mostly on John Donne, Andrew Marvell, George Herbert and Richard Crashaw, and let me tell you, you can't read those guys without a background in the bible. But I never got around to reading the whole thing until this past year or so, and I just finished the last of it a couple of weeks ago.

[stremba]

Theories never become laws. Theories will always be theories. They are two different things. For example, it once was thought that the law of gravity was an accurate universal description of gravity. Once a THEORY of gravity (better known as the general theory of relativity) was formulated, however, it was realized that the law of gravity isn't accurate in some situations. Basically, this is an example of a theory replacing a law. The problem is poor science education. I am aware that many incompetent science teachers have promulgated the notion that ideas in science progress from hypothesis to theory to law, but that is utterly false. The reality is that theories and laws are different types of ideas. In a nutshell, laws describe phenomena, theories explain them. What scientists actually strive for are theories, not laws.