“It just comes down to what glasses you are wearing”…
THE flat young earthers are back, as creationist Stephen Moore explains why he’d like any new Causeway centre to include ‘information’ on its ‘biblical’ origins. He’d also like his theories to be included in the Ulster Museum, to explain how dinosaurs walked the earth with humans. However, last night God came to me in a dream and told me that the Giant’s Causeway was in fact created by a legendary Irish hunter-warrior called Finn MacCool, and I am disappointed that this widely-held and obviously sincere view is merely considered a legend and not as seriously as this ‘volcanic activity’ humbug. Perhaps I should start a petition. Or maybe I have more sense.
Conspiracy theory alert!
Look, these creationist stories keep turning up on Slugger with suspicious and ridiculous regularity. And we all rise to the bait (if only to see Sam Hanna bate).
So: –
What are Fealty, Gonzo and the others trying to hide?
“it was your ancestors who tried to burn to death any scientist who stood agaisn the latest popular theory of a flat earth.”
Of course it was, Sam.
But since you’re such an advocate of scientific exploration..
As I said previously..
“If you want your preferred conjecture about the geological, or indeed evolutionary, development of this Earth to be taken seriously then produce an hypothesus, test it, provide the results, and allow it to be peer reviewed.”
Otherwise, stop trying to get your beliefs taught as if they were science.
Well Gonzo’s got a direct line to God through his dreamtime, so maybe he knows something we don’t
I live in Spain, Sam. You should move here, you could go and march with Jose Maria Aznar and his right-wing chums for God and Spain and to keep the Catholic Church in control of a lot of private education (but with lots of public dosh). With their fervour for the war in Iraq they must be into the Old Testament God, though, I reckon.
Night all.
Snakebrain, yes that would be Usher. I now see that he is also mentioned a lot on the other Creationist thread.
It would be interesting to know the percentage of creationists in the various bits of Ireland and Britain. Who would top the League of Loonies, I wonder?
Pete Baker
Am I missing something here. You are accusing me of trying to suppress scientific exploration when I am advocating that the views of our leading scientists such as Prof Nevin be presented for examination – not just by scientists as many of those are very limited in their specialisation and thinking but all critical thinkers.
I don’t know what “Foreign Correspondent ” is waffling about Anzar in Spain but he cannot give us any justification for why school children should be taught his view of science over another man’s at the public expense. You might want to be careful who you refer to as a “loony” as I strongly suspect their academic credentials would put them ahead of you in every category.
Creationism is pure mumbo jumbo. If it wasn`t, articles supporting it would have been filling up major peer reviewed science journals for years by now.
No article promoting creationism have ever appeared in prominent sciince journals like “Science” or “Nature” so it should be dismissed for the nonsense it is.
“Creationism is pure mumbo jumbo. If it wasn`t, articles supporting it would have been filling up major peer reviewed science journals for years by now.”
The voice of enlightened reason…….not!
There are many outstanding creation scientists – the leading Ulster Scientis, Prof Nevin is a good example. However, the prevailing orthodoxy is the religion of evolution so naturally it dominates all journals.
One of the things you clearly cannot grasp is that if you define “science” as being outside of any “creation model” then it is easy to exclude it from any examination. It is not hard to heap pejoratives from that artifical but deeply tendentious position.
Sam can you tell me whan snakes lost the power of speech, and where Noah’s ark is moored or where it sank?
*when*
“. However, the prevailing orthodoxy is the religion of evolution so naturally it dominates all journals.”
And why shouldn`t it? Evolution is the only explanation about our origins which has substansive evidence from every relevent field of science to back it up, genetics, geology astronomy etc. Hence it`s domination of the science journals.
The hypothesis of recent creation has none whatsoever to support and the notion that this planet was covered completely in water for a few months 4500 years ago is to silly to even agrue against.
Prof Levin is but one of a few mavericks who let their religious beliefs cloud their judgement.In any profession there are always a few nutters who are mavericks….like David Irving, the historian who doesn`t think the Halocaust actually happened.
Sam
Why does the Bible have to be taken literally? After all, isn’t there always something lost in translation, as well as a certain amount of selectivity about what has been included throughout the ages? Are those Christians who don’t take it all literally going to hell?
I have been thinking on this whole issue. It is one I generally ignore till forced to address it.
I am a creationist in the teeth of all the evidence to the contrary. This is a faith position. I am sure there is some evidence for creationism I am not actually very interested in it. I am aware there are things which evolution cannot explain but the whole theory is not necessarily a house of cards. Demonstrating one flaw does not end the whole thing. There seems to me to be quite a lot of evidence of evolution, not enough to be utterly overwhelming but in fairness it makes explaining the world possible with less complex leaps of logic than accepting creationism. So why do I not believe in evolution? I have thought about this. I used to accept it long after I bacame a Christian. I have decided that in my case (and very probably in my case alone) I feel God has asked me to believe in creationism. Not to shout it from the roof tops but to quietly get on with beleving it. This may be a cop out but as it does not really affect my life it is one I am happy with.
In terms of a few points raised.
Sam has said that theistic evolution is a nonsense. I do not necessarily agree. Our God is infinitely powerful. Had He decided to do it that way He would have had no problem so doing. He would have given man a soul when seemed best to Him. That requires no more a leap of faith than any other part of creation.
Sam I really admire what you do but I do think bringing Norman Nevin into it all the time is missing the point. His work is not about evolution nor creationism. He is a very respected doctor and medical researcher. That does not make him an expert on biological evolution. I know a number of doctors (admittedly less eminent than Prof Nevin) who believe in creationism. How the world got here has no impact at all on their day to day work. Prof Nevin has no doubt spent a life time immersed in the research literature on his field but not on the field of evolution. He will be good at weighing scientific evidence up to a point but evolution is not his field. Look at Malcolm Redfellow. He is clearly an expert on English Literature. Neither Professor Nevin nor anyone else in medicine or say evolutionary biology will be competently able to debate English Literature with Malcolm because they are different disciplines. Equally Malcolm would not be able to debate genetic diseases with Prof Nevin nor even my field with me. and I am a lot less clever than Prof Nevin or probably Malcolm.
Turning to the snake and speaking. I do not fully understand this. My explanation is that the devil entered into the snake and spoke through it; not that the snake had an inherent power of speech. There may well be other explanations. Incidentally and totally irrelevant this snake story is really cool and has a happy ending. Essentially there I am showing off my new found ability to post links in that cool way. Thanks Nevin (presumably not Norman Nevin?)
In answer to Belfast Gonzo. Of course those who do not take the bible literally are not necessarily going to hell. To say that means that one can do something (believing the literal truth of the bible) to help in or ensure ones own salvation. This offends against Unconditional election, Irrestible grace and Perseverance of the saints and the Arminian equivalents. I would argue that to believe that one has to believe in the literal truth of the bible to be saved is actually heretical.
Mr Hanna has ceased to be funny, or even diverting.
In the last few hours he has informed me, among a whole list of other chronological and linguistic impossibilities:
that the meaning of Ï€Ïϖτος (Greek adjective, “first”) changes depending on whether it is in agreement with a masculine or a feminine noun.
that, by implication, St John’s Greek is better than St Luke’s (it most definitely isn’t);
that the Great Flood must have happened because it appears as a legend across numerous ancient texts (which presumably also “proves” almost any myth or legend);
that Moses wrote the Pentateuch in a language that would not evolve for several hundred years (very prescient of him);
and, gem of gems, try this one:
If you had truly studied Judaism over the last 2,000 years you would understand that they are even more splinterd in their interpretations of issues like this than Christianity is, hence the latest fad Kabbalism (sic).
I will treasure that: the prospect of living two millennia, the lack of grammatical agreement and punctuation, the confusion of a fringe sect with a mainstream religion (and the religion of Jesus himself, no less), and the assurance that Christianity’s factionalisms (Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Orthodox, Adventists …) are less significant than those of Judaism.
My, my.
No God. No hell. No afterlife.
Jesus was just one of a zillion preachers whose followers happened to hit the religions jackpot when Christianity was made the official opium of the Roman empire.
Face it, grumbling Christians, deep deep down you KNOW it´s all mumbojumbo.
Appealing to “äuthority” authority , especially when that “authority” is outside of his or her area of expertise is frowned upon (to say the least) in all scientific societies.
Sorry Sam, try again.
Secular humanism may indeed have contributed much to humanity. But at the level of the individual (including many individuals who would consider themselves not to be religious), the concept of a greater being, to whom they can cry out in times of pain or anguish, seems to be enormously useful, even necessary.
I accept that many thinking people can deal satisfactorily without believing in a divine power, but I am not yet convinced that this would, in the round, be good for the population of the world as a whole (and I say this despite recognising that the worst excesses of religion fly in the face of humanity).
Many people, including the creationists, cling most tenaciously to unlikely beliefs and will tolerate many intellectual leaps to defend them. I’m not sure how some of them would respond if they in the end absorbed the hard truth. It might not however thrust them immediately into the arms of secular humanism!
And here’s your bishop, Foreign Correspondent, and wouldn’t you know it – he’s a norniron prodiban:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher
But of course ol’ Spencer Tracey, playing the character based on the American lawyer Clarence Darrow, in the film Inherit the Wind which was a dramatised account of the Tennessee Monkey Trial, fairly demolished ol’ Ussher. Now where is ol’ Spencer when we need him.
Anyway, this is all becoming a bit tiresome. Can we not get back to the ould sodomy? That’s much more entertaining.
Bugger that.
joe,
I should not find that funny. But it is.
Turgon – I still can’t do those blasted URL to words things. How ? What’s Microsoft Front Page ?
Evolution is not a testable hypothesis as the conditions it describes cannot be replicated today and its underlying mechanism of natural selection cannot be gainsayed.
This is a classic display of ignorance from a typical fundamentalist mindset.I have already given Sam the names of the two scientists who carried out a study of the evolutionary process in action, posited tested and proved.
Likewise, Sam has been completely unable to back up with facts his claim that the theory of evolution is been proven false.
Why should we give him the time of day when it comes to science if he can’t even get it right about the bible?
Moses wrote the Pentateuch?
What, even the chapters about his own death?
Right, of course he did…
His comments on sodomy just reinforce the fact that he is an ignorant inflexible Christian bigot.
Evolution is not a testable hypothesis as the conditions it describes cannot be replicated today and its underlying mechanism of natural selection cannot be gainsayed
Hey Sam
You realize every bit of steak, every egg, every slice of bacon and every sliver of toast was once living proof of just how wrong you are. Human forced evolution are inherant in all of them.
Sam,
Lets ask Ulster’s pre-eminent and world recognised scientist, Prof Norman Nevin of QUB for an opinion.
Those of us concerned with science are not so interested in his opinions, but the facts and observations which have led him to arrive at his conclusions. I would be particularly interested to hear what led him to select the bible, as opposed to other alternative religious texts. Actually Sam, I’d be interested to hear why you have selected the bible from the range of alternatives. There are thousands of religions in the world. What led you to make your choice ?
I trust you are also consistent enough to defend my right not to have evolution, pro -sodomy foisted on to my kids or is your tolerance one-sided?
What would your reaction be if one of your kids grew up and turned out to be gay ? Imagine you were Paul Berry’s father. Would you throw him out of the house ?
I am advocating that the views of our leading scientists such as Prof Nevin be presented for examination
Views aren’t interesting. Observations are. What are Nevin’s observations ? And how do they stack up to the consensus of origin held by the entire scientific community ?
..he cannot give us any justification for why school children should be taught his view of science over another man’s at the public expense.
Science classes do not teach “a view of science”, they teach science, which is the process of describing and modelling the environment and world around us based on observation. Science teaches that the sky is blue, because you look up and you can see it. It does not teach that the sky is blue because it says so in a book.
Teaching creationism in science class is like teaching the use of leeches, homeopathy, acupuncture or whatever in medical school. The argument about whether they work or not is not the problem, it’s the fact that they aren’t medicine which is the problem. Likewise, creationism is not about observation. Your views are not about observation. You hold them because you read a very old book and convinced yourself, for no readily apparent reason, that it was infallible. The ideal of infallibility of any kind is anathema to science, it is the exact opposite of what science is about. Science stands up and shouts from the rooftops “challenge me”. That is why you can’t be allowed to teach creationism in a science class.
Your ongoing, and apparently deliberate, misunderstanding of the issues here suggests that you aren’t faintly qualified to competently make any actual arguments about the matter at hand here. All you can do is name-drop one or two people who happen to be eminent figures who agree with you, and you seem to think that this absolves you from the requirement to actually defend your case.
The facts about how science is defined and operated do not seem to get through. The fact is that you conduct your everyday life in a scientific way all the time; you react to what you observe around you, and you instinctively try to develop theories through conjecture, and you test and exercise them to solve problems, and you do all of this without actually being aware of it. You do not consult a book. It’s how human beings think. Creationism is about trying to teach people NOT to think. That’s what makes it so damn dangerous.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7122908.stm
Repent quick.
It seems I have sparked an avalanche of hate mail.
Turgon
I do think that anyone not taking the Bible literally will go to hell. Personally, I am not sure if you have thought thorugh the implications of some of your remarks in your attempt to do a Dale Carnegie act here. If the Bible is not literal, was Jesus literal? was the Cross literal? Christ said Moses wrote the Pentateuch – you are now saying that those who say He is a liar can be a Christian!
Malcolm – can you explain you point as I am happy to answer your Greek grammar point if you would explain it. The question of the Hebrew language origin has been clearly established as being in the 10th century BC by secular linguists – I don’t know why you are persisting in your outlandish claims.
The Great Flood clearly has huge amounts of historical support. Can you name any historical event from 4,000 years ago that is referred to in 500 different accounts scattered around the globe in very different cultures and languages? It is intellectually dishonest of you to refuse to face the issue just because you don’t like the implications of it.
Clearly you have never studied Judaism or you would not even come up with such rubbish. Having completed a semester in Graduate school on this very subject in the past I am happy to list all of the various rabbinical schools, theories, Messiahs that “Judaism” has produced but it would take a lot of band width.
Prof Nevin
There is clearly very few on this board who have any background in science. Once you enter graduate level work in science, especially in the UK, you specialise in a very esoteric area of science. It doesn’t give you the right to speak authoratively in every area of science. Prof Nevin is a world recognised expert in medical genetics – which is the “engine” of the evolutionary development of man theory. Most other areas of science are incidental to the evolutionary debate, but if the genetics model breaks down then frankly it all falls apart. If Prof Nevin, is sceptical that genetic mutations and recombinations, genetic drift et al lacks the explanatory and evidential power then that is something that needs to be taken very seriously. If some bearded, liberal airhead geologist thinks rocks are billions of years old then his view of evolution is going to be nowhere near as persuasive.
Fools here who direct ad hominen arguments at Prof Nevin simply because he rejects their Darwin Fundamentalism only show their own bigotry and ignorance. He is one of the world’s leading experts in his field and is recognised as such by all leading authorities. His credentials are impeccable. Nevin taught me at QUB many years ago on the very area that is central to all of this discussion, so I know he can speak with authority. He is not some slightly eccentric family doctor who helps treat genetic diseases but has no understanding to the genetic sub-molecular issues.
I think it’s about time this thread lightened up a bit, so here’s a joke. (Sorry if it offends anybody, but I think it’s pretty harmless and relatively on-topic.)
Jesus is preaching to a gathered crowd. He’s getting into his flow, holding them in the palm of his hand as he rises to his oratorical conclusion.
“And so I say to you, let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” he thunders.
Almost immediately a stone comes hurtling from the crowd and glances off him.
He looks down to see who’s thrown it, and groans, “Mother, I [i]wish[/i] you wouldn’t do that.”
Originality, Snakebrain, I can’t resist it. More, please.
Originality? I’m getting that sinking feeling someone told that joke already?
Sam Hanna “The Great Flood clearly has huge amounts of historical support. Can you name any historical event from 4,000 years ago that is referred to in 500 different accounts scattered around the globe
Presumably those 500 authors made it on to the ark as sto’aways? since to write about the Great Flood you would have had to survive it? Even if they had been writing about it second hand that means the accounts at best were 2nd hand 20 ish years after the event. Great basis.
Come on!
Are we really to take this stuff literally?
Let’s address this Creationist Idea more scientifically. If someone can show me the maths behind the great flood I will personally stick £20 (which I likely should do anyway!) in the Slugger coffer.
How much water would it take to flood the entire globe?
At what rate would it have to rain to cover the globe in water in a 40 day period?
Do Creationists still belive in meteorology?
Bear in mind the water cycle – to replenish the clouds there would of had to been dry spells somewhere for evaporation to take place or was all this additional water in the clouds at the start of the flood – what air pressure would have been required to hold those vast amounts of water up in the sky?
Would the Ice caps have had to melt to get this much water or did God break the laws of Physics when he was at it and pull mater out of thin air?
Fuck it I’m feeling generous – anyone proves that lot and I’ll quit my job and become Pete Baker’s PA.
YEP.
I told that joke a week ago. Forget which thread.
Sam
I like to see your posts here (to voice the creationist viewpoint for others to judge) however this Nevin business is a bit strange. I’m sure you could speak to the good professor and ask him to publish in a scientific manner his research into the age of the causeway (back on thread!) but even I (a non scientist) recognise that the views of a geologist, even a bearded liberal airhead, trump those of a biologist when speaking about rocks. In fact ask him to contact Pete or Gonzo and I’m sure they would provide a forum for his views. Otherwise stop using his name in vain.
P.S. Comrade Stalin’s 01.22 post should just about be the last word- Amen!
I repeat Sam. Appeals to authority just don’t cut it. Evidence is required. There is NONE for creationism. It’s just a belief. And that’s fair enough. People can believe whatever they want to.
It doesn’t make it so. Sorry!
Norman Nevin’s expertise is compltely irrelevent to the age of the Giant’s Causeway. He’s a geneticist and is no more qualified than the average man in the street in determining its age. That’s the preseve of geologists and chemists.
Moreover, science doesn’t give a damn what his, Sam Hanna’s or my religious opinions are.
From a purely personal position, having spent a life time watching extreme religion in Northern Ireland, I remain a fully fledged non-believer partly as a consequence.
As far as I am concerned, pushing creationist literature at the future Giant Causeway’s visitors centre is no different in covering it with UDA/IRA murals. The message to the rest of the world is exactly the same. Learn nothing, forget nothing.
While others are better qualified than me to demolish the nonsense of creationism, I can only think that any debate which leaves me on the side of my normally erstwhile political foes is odd.
Sam, and others, seem to elevate a system of belief with no evidential basis (unless Sam or others are going to say ‘I tested all of the major religions and found this one best fitted what I thought) to a way of explaining from the world.
Listen up clowns! People have been cutting, measuring, weighing, comparing and looking to try and find out how the world works….what on earth gives the creationists the arrogance to nit pick anything that doesn’t quite make sense yet to justify their faith, and yet as soon as any of their nonsense is disproved, they fall back on their faith.
There is clearly very few on this board who have any background in science.
What difference does this make ?
Once you enter graduate level work in science, especially in the UK, you specialise in a very esoteric area of science. It doesn’t give you the right to speak authoratively in every area of science.
So what ?
Most other areas of science are incidental to the evolutionary debate, but if the genetics model breaks down then frankly it all falls apart.
Can you explain what the “genetics model” is and how it “falls apart” ?
If Prof Nevin, is sceptical that genetic mutations and recombinations, genetic drift et al lacks the explanatory and evidential power then that is something that needs to be taken very seriously.
No it isn’t, until he explains the observations which allow him to arrive at his conclusions.
I would incidentally point out that those who say “Nevin is a geneticist and is not qualified to discuss this matter” are as equally wrong as those who say “Nevin is a geneticist and therefore his opinions on evolution can be considered to be fact”. Qualifications and authority do not matter. It is about establishing a theory that best fits the available facts, you don’t need letters after your name to do that. Nevin hasn’t explained how he has done this yet, to my knowledge, so therefore the question stands.
If some bearded, liberal airhead geologist thinks rocks are billions of years old
I would welcome a link explaining the correct way to determine the age of rocks. Have you got one ?
then his view of evolution is going to be nowhere near as persuasive.
Sam, how can you talk about what it is to be persuaded ? Persuading you of anything is utterly impossible; there are no conceivable facts or observations that can cause you to change your mind. You already have the explanations for everything that can or will happen for the rest of eternity. That’s where the total failure of your credibility lies.
Fools here who direct ad hominen arguments at Prof Nevin
I didn’t see an ad hominem remark. People merely pointed out that he has no qualifications on the matter. While I object to that line of argument, it isn’t really a personal criticism of the guy.
He is one of the world’s leading experts in his field and is recognised as such by all leading authorities. His credentials are impeccable. Nevin taught me at QUB many years ago on the very area that is central to all of this discussion
What did you do at QUB ? I think I asked you this before, but I don’t remember your answer.
so I know he can speak with authority.
What about the thousands of other professors in genetics who also speak with authority, whose positions on evolution you reject ? What makes you accept the view of one professor, and reject the view of all the others ?
For those amateur scientists, who keep asking me to furnish material published by Prof Nevin thaen I direct them to the following
http://www.shop-secure.biz/productdetails/science.html
Interesting it states he speaks on “What are mutations? What is the cause/source of mutated or missing genes?” Worth a purchase before some of you engage mouth with your size 12 planted in it.
Norman Nevin is Professor of Medical Genetics at The Queen’s University of Belfast and consultant clinical geneticist and Head of the Northern Ireland Regional Genetics Service. He qualified as MB, BCh, BAO in 1960 and MD in 1964. From 1964 to 1965 he was awarded an MRC Clinical Fellowship to train in clinical genetics at the Institute of Child Health, London and the Population Genetics Unit, Oxford. He was appointed Lecturer in Human Genetics at The Queens University, Belfast in 1967 and subsequently appointed to the Chair in Medical Genetics in 1975.
He was a member of the Council of Clinical Genetics Society from 1970 to 1993 and President from 1991 to 1992. He has been a member of the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee since 1993 and its Chair since 1996. He was also a Member of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission from 1996 to 1999 and has been Vice-Chairman of the Research Ethics Committee, The Queen’s University of Belfast, since 1989. He has published over 300 peer-reviewed articles on congenital abnormalities, particularly spina bifida, and on genetic disorders.
Sam
Has he published anything on the age of the Giant’s Causeway?
SURELY THEY CANNOT ALL BE ADVOCATING A FLAT EARTH THEORY THAT HAS NO CREDIBILITY (apparently in the amateur scientist confinesd of slugger)
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/217/63/
As reported yesterday in the Sunday Times, twelve senior academics have written to the Prime Minister and Education Secretary in support of Truth in Science.
The group was led by Norman Nevin OBE, Professor Emeritus of Medical Genetics, Queen’s University of Belfast and included Antony Flew, former Professor of Philosophy at Reading University and a distinguished supporter of humanism.
“We write to applaud the Truth in Science initiative,” the letter said. Empirical science has to recognise “severe limitations concerning origins” and Darwinism is not necessarily “the best scientific model to fit the data that we observe”.
They concluded: “We ask therefore that, where schools so choose, you ensure an open and honest approach to this subject under the National Curriculum, at the same time ensuring that the necessary criteria are maintained to deliver a rigorous education.”
The other signatories were: David Back, Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Liverpool; Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at Warwick University; Mart de Groot, Director, Retired, Armagh Astronomical Observatory; Terry Hamblin, Professor of Immunohaematology, University of Southampton; Colin Reeves, Professor of Operational Research at Coventry University and John Walton, Professor of Chemistry, St Andrews University, as well as the three University Professors who are members of the TiS Board and Council.
Interesting clip of Richard Dawkins being made absolutely a fool by Will Crawley who is usually very benign to pompass asses like Dawkins.
Dawkins, like many here, tries to write off as mad all ID scientists until he is confronted with the fact that one of the most brilliant physics professors in the world, Sir John Polkinghorne is also an Anglican Vicar and devoted theist,
http://www.takeheed.net/DeludedDawkins.htm
I’ve got the hang of this at last!
If yesterday is Sunday of course the world is 6,000 yrs old.
“As reported yesterday in the Sunday Times,”
Posted by Sam Hanna on Dec 01, 2007 @ 09:28 PM
In the course of along, chatty and slightly (?) inebriated afternoon, I mentioned this repetitive thread to an acquaintance.
A thoughtful pause, and another pull at the pint ensued.
Then came the deliberated thought: “Thank God I’m a member of the Church of England, so I don’t have to believe anything.”
Sam,
Let’s face it. You don’t understand science or Nevin’s ideas, so instead of sitting here and arguing, you’re using Google to do the work for you. I can’t sit here and spend all night trawling through Nevin’s work to figure out which bits justify your statements, and it’s not reasonable to expect that I will. Why can’t you argue your own bloody case ?
And will you for God’s sake stop rabbiting on about how great Nevin is. I already get it, you don’t need to keep repeating it. Just explain to us why you think Nevin’s views on creation are right, and the views of most of the other geneticists in the world are wrong. Nevin isn’t the only distinguished geneticist in the world. What are you willing to bet that there are other equally distinguished geneticists who support evolutionary theory ?
What did you study at QUB exactly ?
BTW, as an exception to the above I’ll quite happily accept a link on how to calculate the age of rocks more accurately than the methods used by geologists. If you can’t provide one, I’ll draw my own conclusions.
Sam
Good to see your reference to John Polkinghorne.
You refer to him as an Anglican Vicar and devoted theist, does that mean that you regard him as a fellow christian?
You might be interested in this discussion about the literal truth of Genesis with Rev Polkinghorne.
http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/qanda.html#Taking_Genesis_Literally
Quote
Taking Genesis Literally Would you and Dr. Polkinghorne please consider this “quantum†alternative to your position that Genesis 1 and 2 are not to be taken literally?
Edit for space
Man is created before any animals or plants have appeared on the earth [earth can also mean “original creation†in Hebrew]. That is exactly what you would expect to see described if the first conscious being to observe the universe was Adam because that observation would have collapsed the “real” history of our 13 billion year old universe out of a superposition of all possible histories of the universe while it was in superposition. And that first “observation†could have occurred 6,000 years ago. There is much scriptural support for this position in the Bible, as well as a scriptural description of special relativity that predicts a 13 billion year old universe and resolves the six day creation “problem” but it would take me too much space to write more here. Any reaction?
Preliminary Response: This is ingenious but I think mistaken. Firstly it is clear that Adam and Eve are the first morally conscious human beings. But consciousness must have come into being before moral consciousness (the one presupposes the other). Whatever Hawking or anyone else says we simply don’t know the correct solution of the measurement problem, and whether the Many Worlds interpretation is right, let alone whether the “many histories†idea is correct. But even if we assume that Adam and Eve collapsed the wavefunction of the Universe, they would still have perceived the history that was implicit in the collapse – ie in their worldline the plants would have happened first and then the animals. Furthermore there is very strong archaeological evidence that there were religiously conscious human beings a good 20,000 years BC and any common ancestor of Hom Sap has to be a lot older than 4004BC.
It’s really important to understand what kind of thing the Bible is saying at any point. For example, we had a sermon on Ezekiel tonight, speaking about heart of stone and heart of flesh. It’s simply impossible to understand what God is saying here if you try to take it literally!
John adds: I very much agree with what Nick has said. It’s important to recognise how speculative and uncertain all notions of quantum cosmology are at present. Also I do not warm to Wheeler’s participatory ideas, not least because it seems to me that measurement involves simply irreversible macroscopic registration, of whatever kinds there may be, and does not specifically need to involve consciousness.
Dawkins, like many here, tries to write off as mad all ID scientists until he is confronted with the fact that one of the most brilliant physics professors in the world, Sir John Polkinghorne is also an Anglican Vicar and devoted theist,
This is an example of the weird way you argue. I can’t find anything brilliant or distinguishing about Polkinghorne anywhere, I’d never even heard of the guy. When I think of “most brilliant Physics professors in the world” I think of people like Stephen Hawking or those other guys who have made remarkable contributions to science. I suspect that you have no basis for your “most brilliant” attribution, other than the fact that you have found yet another scientist who is also a theist, and you think that this absolves you of the need to argue your case.
I think your problem is that you don’t have any confidence in yourself, your own understanding of things, or your own ability to argue your point of view. You just hate science and you hate people who argue that the bible shouldn’t be taken literally, but you lack the intellectual depth to explain and argue why you feel this way. That is probably why you seem to obsessively look out for really clever people who agree with you, in an apparent effort to conceal your own insecurity. If this is what’s going on, then you’re not doing a very good job of hiding it.
Wikipedia has a quote from Dawkins suggesting that he respects Polkinghorn and regards him as a good scientist who is sincerely religious. It sounds a bit like you are trying to suggest a conflict that isn’t really there.
Doing some Googling I came across some of Sir John’s articles. In one particular article he talks of how science is valid and how it informs theology. Indeed he expresses his hope that science will continue discovering new theories. Now, maybe I’m misinterpreting things here, but this sounds very like a chap who sees that science is entirely compatible with faith. I have no problem with that view at all. The danger is that science and religion should not mix. Sir John’s article suggests that he is happy about the dividing line and where it lies. I would say that if Sir John were to come along and read this thread, he’d be taking my side, not yours.
Note this particular remark:
Consider genetic mutation, which has driven the amazingly fruitful history of life on Earth, eventually turning bacteria into human beings.
It sounds like Sir John expounds precisely the beliefs that you consider to be rubbish. Bit daft of you to bring him up in the first place, really.
“Thank God I’m a member of the Church of England, so I don’t have to believe anything.â€
Malcolm,
The late Auberon Waugh once recounted how an acquaintance of his had approached his local vicar on “a matter of spiritual crisis”. The good vicar became terribly flustered and declared, “Oh no! we Anglicans don’t do that sort of thing, best try the fellow at St. Pat’s down the road”.
I have had a heart-warmingly pleasant and sociable day, in good company, and with fine conversation and debate. Not for a moment did I miss being involved in this dialogue with the deaf.
However, I cannot lightly pass over one point:
Sam Hanna on Dec 01, 2007 @ 05:05 PM:
Can you name any historical event from 4,000 years ago that is referred to in 500 different accounts scattered around the globe in very different cultures and languages?
Well, yes, I can and will in what follows (clue: creation).
First, though, the “intellectual dishonesty” is to persist in claiming as a “fact” something which does not, repeat not, exist outside a universal myth, and which (outside of legend) has no basis in evidence or logic.
There are all kinds of taxonomies of “plot”: depending on the critic, these can be 36 (Georges Polti), 20 (Ronald Tobias), 7 (Christopher Booker), 3 (Foster-Harris) or just two (me v. you; me v. me) in number. We need not concern ourselves with all that here. Suffice it to say that one of the most basic “plots” is “escape”. Another is the human versus the environment. Another is revenge. And then there is the renewal, new hope … And so on.
Combine those and a few other ingredients, and voila!, the Flood story! That it appears so widely, across different cultures, is no more significant than the discovery that cooked meat is more edible than the raw stuff. Or, to answer your challenge directly, that seven days make a week (nothing to do with the Genesis story, because it also happens in non-Judaeo-Christian societies, including pre-Columban America; probably a lot to do with the seven moving objects in the sky visible to the naked eye).
I believe, because I see it all around me, in human intellect. What is this “intellect”? It is the need to make stories (including a reason for seven days in the week).
Some of those stories are based on experiment and experience (and count as “factual” or “science” or “economics” or whatever -ology rocks one’s boat and pays the mortgage). Others are for the pure joy of a good story.
The child comes home from school. Mum asks “What did you do today?” The infant begins, “Well, you’d never believe it …” In the story that follows there will be a hero (almost certainly in the first person), a villain or a menace, a complication, and a happy ending for the hero. There will also be literary exaggeration: “thousands of” this, “tons of” that. That child, like every child of wit and intellect, has discovered narrative.
That “plot” is repetitive is illustrated by a nice viral that has been going round the net for the last while. It looks like this:
Star Wars A New HopeHarry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone: synopsisLuke SkywalkerHarry Potter is an orphan living with his uncle and aunt in the wilderness ofTatooinesuburbs.He is rescued from
aliensmuggles by wise, beardedBen KenobiHagrid, who turns out to be aJedi Knightwizard.BenHagrid reveals toLukeHarry thatLuke’sHarry’s father was also aJedi Knightwizard, and was the bestpilotquidditch-player he had ever seen.LukeHarry is also instructed in how to usethe Jedi light sabrea magic wand as he too trains to be aJediwizard.LukeHarry has many adventures inthe galaxyHogwart’s and makes new friends such asHan SoloRon andPrincess LeiaHermione.In the course of these adventures he distinguishes himself as a top
X-wing pilotquidditch-seeker in theBattle of the Death Starquidditch match, making the direct hit that secures theRebels’Gryffindor victory againstthe forces of evilSlytherin.LukeHarry also sees off the threat ofDarth VaderLord Voldemort, who we know murdered hisuncle and auntparents.In the finale,
LukeHarry and his new friends receivemedals of valourthe House Cup.All of this will be set to music by John Williams.
To be fair, neither Jesus nor Luke had a ginger mate. A ginger kid with two friends? now that is a miracle…
(old joke, I know)
“The Great Flood clearly has huge amounts of historical support”
No Sam…there simply isn`t enough water on this planet to cause a global flood capable of submerging Mt Everest. And as for Prof Nevin…he is a maverick who is vastly outnumbered by his evolutionist peers. Why should we trust him any more than that maverick historian…David Irving… who denies the Halocaust happened?
It`s also curious that the ancient Egyptian dynasties which existed 4000 years ago didn`t notice this global deluge and still managed to build the pyramids. It`s also strange that the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps weren`t broken up by these global floodwaters.
Need I go on?
Michael – I’m worrying about tomorrow:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/uk_tow_surfers/html/1.stm
Sorry joe – thought i’d picked that one up somewhere else.
If it’s any consolation, I’ve been telling that joke to everyone i’ve met in the last few days. I love it.
So thanks for the joke. I’m feeling distinctly ashamed of myself for not remembering where I heard it now……