Should the BSA promote creationism?

[bbng]

First, in response to the post that started all this, I personally do not believe that the BSA promotes creationism or that it necessarily should. It does promote respect for creation; think Leave No Trace, Outdoor Code, and various merit badges that support respect for the environment.

 

Now, I happen to be what is called a creationist, though I don't care much for labels as they tend to be so limiting. At the same time, I have tremendous respect for science and actually think that the more I learn of science, the more I see how it "fits" with my faith. There is still much to learn, and I am not a scientist, but I honestly don't see how creationism and science work against one another though I can how they might be percieved to do just that. I've put a link below to a site, that though I don't agree with all of it because I haven't yet read all of it, does a pretty good job of explaining how creationism and science do go together.

 

As for being created in God's image. To me, nothing could be more special than knowing that God himself created me to be like him. I don't believe that is in respect to appearance but rather to character traits and what it is that makes a person who he is inside and not what he looks like. I can look up my notes, but I once studied this using scripture and word studies, but quite frankly, we all know that one who believes believes, and one who doesn't doesn't, and I prefer not to try to persuade. Perhaps just give a different perspective. It is humbling to me to believe that God made himself known to me through the written word. I'm a simple person, full of flaws, and I have often wondered why God would bother with me. Yet, he does. The God I know is one who desires a relationship with those he has made in his image, and that is why the bible is so important. Does he chuckle? Yeah, probably, and at me most likely quite frequently. Yet he also loves me with a love that I admit I cannot comprehend fully.

 

As I have much yet to learn about science, I've much to learn about God's character. The more I learn of each, the stronger my faith is. That is why I couldn't resist joining this thread. Somehow science versus creationism just puzzles me, for in my mind, there's no competition.

 

Interesting discussion. And here's the link I mentioned above:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

[firstpusk]

"I stated earlier that creationists are not necessarily (Bibical)literalists, but that literalists are creationists. And it is not evolution = natural selection. Your comingling comes at the big bang and that which you call evolution is not natural selection."

 

Natural selection is the key concept of the theory of evolution. It is not the only cause of evolution but it is central to the theory. Evolution does not begin until after there is life - around 11 billion years after the big bang.

 

"So the science which you seem to deny-physcis, chemistry, math-can not and do not have theories, hypothesis, or formuli to account for that which was before the big bang. In a void there is nothing and science does not even portend a clue as to where that infinate matter that was compressed into a finite space orgininated. It had to come about somehow-ask a creationist because scientists don't even have a theory.... "

 

And not have a theory for the moment before the big bang is a problem for science that creationism will resolve? Ludicrous. There is no science in creationism much less any scientific theory.

[firstpusk]

bbng,

 

I hate to break this to you, but there is little science to be found at the Answers in Genesis website. It is not the worst in creationist deception, but it might be one of the most popular. Their production values may be high, but their content in terms of truth or science is extremely low. Don't waste you time on them.

 

When I looked at the link you offered, I was not surprised by the fact that Ken Ham was up to his usual rhetorical tricks (to put it far to nicely). Ham always pulls out a number of these tricks in order to deny the reality of evidence for ideas like an ancient earth. One of his favorite is to ask, "Where you there?" Somehow claiming that unless I can affirm to witnessing the passing of millions of years, he can simply deny the relality of millions of years. He is a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) and firmly believes that the earth is at most 10,000 years old. There is not the slightest possibility that this is true. It can be quite entertaining to watch the verbal and intellectual gymnastics he engages in to try to defend this proposition.

 

Another of his favorites is to claim that to accept evolution is to deny God. His faith may be based on a literal reading of the first chapters of Genesis, but most Christians don't share this problem.

 

The page claims that creationists can understand the arguments for evolution, but those accepting evolution can not understand creationism because they fail to understand the "Biblical" world view. That is a pile of hooey. I have been involved in this debate for more than a quarter of a century. I understand the arguments of creationists very well. When they misinterpret science or misquote scientists, I can often tell them where the argument came from and why it is unethical to use it.

 

The simple fact is that I have been looking at this for many years and as yet I have not found a single valid scientific argument that favors creationism.

[packsaddle]

I will attempt to respond, bbng. Firstpusk has already addressed part of what I would have said. I also examined the web site. The statement from that site, "Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God...", is in itself a presupposition (actually a prejudice) by the author that is false, but necessary for him to strengthen his so-called reasoning. And it doesn't seem to fit with your characterization of the site that it does "...a pretty good job of explaining how creationism and science do go together." Persons who accept the idea of evolution by natural selection may or may not reject the existence of God. From the scientist's perspective, there isn't necessarily a presuppostion regarding God at all...it isn't necessary. But claiming this about scientists may seem more convincing to persons who fail to view the site critically.

 

I was raised to accept creationism but I no longer accept the contention that the various creation myths are literally true. I might if I could figure out which one was more correct than the others.

That said, I also cannot reject the myths through experimentation. They represent a system of understanding that is not available to scientific methods and therefore they do not qualify as science. None of them. In this respect, you are correct - science does not conflict with creationism. Because creationism is unavailable to scientific examination. It isn't science. To some, this appears to be a criticism of creationism. There is no need for such a defensive posture.

 

While there seems to be a tendency for creationists to feel threatened by ideas that do not confirm their beliefs (evidence, the web site), this is more often associated with questions of origins rather than, say, whether or not the earth is the center of the solar system (although some still cling to that idea, go figure).

This, I think, is a misunderstanding. The actual difference between creationism and science is the difference between:

1) beliefs based on faith and,

2) tentative ideas based on a system of objective observations open to critical examination through experimentation or other tests.

The particular idea in question is irrelevant - the difference is in the way 'understanding' is acquired and applied.

 

In science, the 'faith' that you observe is actually a working assumption, tentatively accepted until a better idea is discovered. If the assumption is being subjected to critical examination it may form a hypothesis. All scientific ideas are forever available for rejection should sufficient objective evidence be found for such rejection. I know of no faith-based belief that demands such a critical test for its acceptance. If there is one, I would be very interested in learning more about it.

 

The web site, as noted by firstpusk, promotes a young earth (universe) version of creationism. I understand that this is necessary because persons holding that view see a more ancient earth as contradictory to their version of the biblical account. It provides an instructive example.

To explain the scientific evidence for an earth with much greater age, these persons have proposed very elaborate ideas in which, for example, radioactive decay does not occur at the same rate today as it did back in time. In essence this argument depends on our inability to examine past decay rates as a test of the idea. It can't be tested therefore it can't be rejected. Nevermind that the only reason to concoct the idea in the first place is in order to try to conform to the...what was that term..."presupposition" of the correctness of their biblical interpretation. There IS a lesson in all this. But it has more to do with self-deception (and I'm being very charitable here) than with science.

[firstpusk]

Pack, good post. The heart of the matter for guys like Ham is to insist that you must agree with his version if you want to be a Christian. It is an effort to manipulate people by the use of scare tactics.

 

I wanted to add one thing about the last paragraph of your post. Ham does indeed try to question the reliability of radiometric dating techniques. This is a common tactic of all YEC's. Ham applies the "Were you there?" argument to the question of rates of radioactive decay. The problem with this approach is that these dating methods are not used alone. In order to date any particular fossil one must gain a complete understanding of the strata that it came from. By examining the strata a geologist can tell you something about the environment in which it was formed. They do the same for the layers above and below the fossil. The idea of an ancient earth came long before radiometric dating. It was understood well before Darwin that there was no way that the earth was only a few thousand years old.

 

Radiometric dating came along and confirmed the ealier relative dating techniques. We knew the earth was very old and radiometric dating gave us a tool that could tell us just how old these rocks were. These methods are not the only method telling us the earth is very old.

[Hunt]

I'm considering starting a religion with a doctrine that the universe was created on the day I was born. After all, I have never personally seen any truly persuasive evidence that anything existed before that. The universe could easily have been created with apparent age on that day by an omnipotent God--and all you people who believe you are older than me were simply created with memories already in place. This theory perfectly explains every single observable fact in science, and every single possible future fact as well.

Do I really think this? No. But it points out the difference between a religious belief and a scientific theory. Personally, I think God did create the universe, but I don't think there is or ever will be any scientific evidence to support (or refute) this belief.

[Trevorum]

Hunt,

This religion (or more precisely, philosophical system) already exists! It is called Solopsism (see http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/solipsis.htm and other similar sites.

 

There are probably thousands of these congregations worldwide, but unfortunately for you, each has a membership of precisely one. You'll have to start your one congregation.

[stlscouter]

Just as we find non total agreement in the links here about what exactly creationists believe and what science professes. Science theorizes certain things and if new evidence comes along it changes the theory-fair enough. But as I have tried to state several times, why does science have no theory about what was before the bang?, why does time go in only one direction?. Nobel, Einstein and other super scientists gave us ways to destroy everything but not one way to create anything.

 

Let me ask this -if the scientific theory of evolution is correct and evolution takes place in infinitesimal stages over long periods of time what happens to the natural selection process when science interferes? For example-invitrofertilzation interferes with the natural selection of conception or rather non-conception. The genome project is identifying certain genetic factors that can be "corrected" or call it genetic engineering. Abortion eliminates millions from the gene pool. None of the above adds to the diversity of the species. So scientists are interfering with evolution to a good end?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

stlscouter writes:

But as I have tried to state several times, why does science have no theory about what was before the bang?

 

There are various hypotheses, but since it's pretty hard to test this sort of thing, they remain hypotheses. Science has no problem having unanswered questions, and many answers in science just lead to even more questions.

 

why does time go in only one direction?

 

Many scientists have addressed this question too, like Stephen Hawking. This one probably has a better chance of being answered that your first question.

 

Nobel, Einstein and other super scientists gave us ways to destroy everything but not one way to create anything.

 

Einstein gave us ways to convert matter into energy and vice-versa. That's certainly creating things.

 

Let me ask this -if the scientific theory of evolution is correct and evolution takes place in infinitesimal stages over long periods of time what happens to the natural selection process when science interferes? For example-invitrofertilzation interferes with the natural selection of conception or rather non-conception. The genome project is identifying certain genetic factors that can be "corrected" or call it genetic engineering. Abortion eliminates millions from the gene pool. None of the above adds to the diversity of the species. So scientists are interfering with evolution to a good end?

 

Lots of things "interfere" with evolution, in that they can affect how successful individual humans are at leaving viable offspring. Religions discouraging sex outside of marriage, for example, also reduces what the gene pool could be, because presumably some people don't have sex at some point due to its influence.

[Hunt]

Trevorum, I would say those other solipsists were copying me--if they were real.

 

It seems to me that ultimately there only a few ways to maintain a belief that God created the universe. The first is to simply disregard the scientific evidence--this is where we get ideas like creation with apparent age (as Groucho Marx said, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"). The second is to fight a sort of rear-guard action, pointing to gaps in the evidence for evolutionary theory as evidence for God's involvement--this is what Intelligent Design is, and the problem is that it just gets weaker and weaker as more gaps are filled in. Finally, you can simply take the leap of faith and say that things are the way they are because God intended them to be that way, even if scientific investigation makes them appear to be random. This point of view, at least, has the powerful advantage that it can never be disproven by scientific evidence, because it is a belief of a different type.

[stlscouter]

Einstein gave use E=MC2 GREAT! and the energy came from where(?) or the matter came from where(?) and allof this is part of a greater theory. the unified field theory and gravity and time and weaker particles and dark matter and string theory, Hawking is still working on it. The everything theory still remains a name and not even a hypothesis has been proposed for critical examination or..."proof".

 

The idea that one question begets even more questions-how quaint. Even the BIBLE acknowledges that your questions will be answered on the last day. As in "your eyes will be opened..."

 

I don't discount science, never have, never will, but when science refuses to acknowledge the questions of non-scientists with the aloof flip of the hand or the sactamonious you just wouldn't understand. Creationists (not literalists) can assume the same posture.

 

edited part-and about the interference by scientists and human manipulation and with evolution-not ever on this scale as in the past 20 years not even by Joseph Mengala(This message has been edited by stlscouter)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

stlscouter, your previous message apparently means something to you, but I have no idea what. If you would like a good introduction to evolution and the problems with creationism, you can try e.g. www.talkorigins.org

[Hunt]

"I don't discount science, never have, never will, but when science refuses to acknowledge the questions of non-scientists with the aloof flip of the hand or the sactamonious you just wouldn't understand. Creationists (not literalists) can assume the same posture."

 

I suppose there are some scientists who act that way, but there are plenty of scientists who believe in God, but just don't see the scientific evidence for young-earth creationism, or even for Intelligent Design. I think you'll find that virtually all Creation Science and Intelligent Design advocates are trying to reconcile their existing relgious beliefs with the scientific evidence. But unless you're wedded to the idea of a literal creation 10,000 years ago, why bother? Why not just say that however the universe is, that's how God intended it to be?

 

I'd like to throw out another idea about Intelligent Design: that it's not really a scientific or religious idea, but rather an aesthetic one. I personally am sympathetic to the kind of statement that, "I can't look at the stars in the sky or an infant's face and believe that there is no purpose to the Universe." (On the flip side, it's hard to look at some other things without thinking that evil is real.) It's a concept like "beauty" which really has nothing to do with science.

 

As far as humans affecting evolution, you're probably right. Certainly, the species we've driven into extinction won't evolve any more, and it's probably true that civilization is changing human natural selection as well. For example, people with certain genetic diseases are growing up and reproducing due to medical advances who would have died in childhood before--that means that the genes giving rise to those illnesses will be more common. Is this bad? Who's to say? And it's not really evidence one way or the other for whether evolution is occuring.

[Trevorum]

stlscouter,

Your statements are somewhat difficult to parse and I'm not certain what it is you are really trying to say. So please forgive me if I am wrong here, but it seems to me that you are convinced that there is some kind of inherent conflict between religion and science. I'm sorry you feel that way, because I see no conflict at all. If that is your worldview, then I (and/or others) will never be able to convince you otherwise.

[Greying Beaver]

NO! Nor any of the tenents of any religious body. Further, when a scout asks a scouter about creationism, the scouter needs to say, "You need to take that up with your pastor, priest, or spiritual advisor, okay?"