Scientific Evidence and Religious Belief

The greatest objection which the science advocates have to the "creation science" stance in the EvC debate is the latter's attempt to produce scientific support for their religious dogma. As NosyNed has asked elsewhere: "Why bother with any scientific evidence if you have to invoke the supernatural to make any of your speculations work?"It seems that creationists inherently recognise the respectibility, believability and authority which science has in modern societies and they wish to clothe their religious dogma in such qualities by giving it scientific backing. Creationists crave for the physical, scientifically verifiable evidence which would support their dogma, whether it is rapid stratification or rapid evolution within a kind (both necessary to fit most of the earth's history and geology into the nost-flood era).But of course creationists must attack those parts of science which provide evidence which is inconsistent with their religious dogma. Radiometric dating must be wrong if it makes the earth billions of years old. The geological column must be an artifact of the flood and lithification must occur quickly. Fossils must be arranged by in accordance with a hydrological theory or habitat or mobility (all those fleeing angiosperms), any criteria except an evolutionary process.Why do creationists even bother to invoke scientific information and logic in their cause? Do creationist think that too much reliance on miracles to explain all of the scientific evidence which is inconsistent with their religious dogma stretches their credibility? Do they hope to explain as much as possible of the past physical and biological world with non-threatening science and only employ the essential minimum number of miracles?If creationists simply relied on "goddunit" to every scientific finding then both camps could peacefully coexist. Science would ignore creationists and leave them in their intellectual ghetto because they would not be making scientific claims; and creationists could ignore the scientific findings which disturb their dogma by invoking yet another miracle which defies humanly explanation.

Hi wj,What you talk about in your post is essentially applicable to the history and archaeological data as well.What I have found is that certain Bible inerrantists set out to prove the Bible correct by trying to find archaeological evidence to support biblical events, and when they come up with virtually no support, they then rely on the miracle clause again. My objection is that if they are confident enough to rely on archaeology to support their beliefs, and they are sure that archaeology can do this, then why is it when they come up with nothing (in some cases) do they then ignore the negative evidence from archaeology?If archaeology is good enough in their mind to prove the Bible correct before they set out to research it, then why appeal to miracles when they find archaeology is not the Bible’s best friend?If they are going to rely on miracles then they need to realise that archaeology and history are not in the miracle market place, historians simply do not like or involve miracles for an explanation of anything. They might try to explain an alleged miracle by attributing it to a natural phenomenon, but divine intervention is not a part of archaeological/historical methodology. However, try telling an inerrantist that and you get all types of excuses. Excuses such as, maybe God hid the evidence to confound the wise, the evidence is there we just haven’t found it yet, or ‘I really don’t see how we could find any evidence anyway.’ These examples are genuine, taken straight from my personal e-mail.But I totally agree with what you are saying; if their minds are made up and God and the Bible are 100% true, then why bother checking out science or archaeology? These people are simply not going to accept the vast mountains of contrary evidence against their Book, maybe they would be better spending their time trying to be a sheep rather than a goat. (token Bible teaching)Brian.

I think I know why they do it in the first place...The world is getting more scientific. People are starting to find scientific explanations for everything - which is all good and correct, and advances our knowledge and culture etc. In short, people are finding different explanations for stuff that was originally explained by miracles.So religion is faced with a dilemma. Its influence is dropping like a stone because people are enlightened and can't take miracles seriously anymore. Very soon, people will not be able to take anything in religion seriously. They still have faith, they still believe - but all this stuff in the Bible is bullshit. How can they believe that the Bible is the Word of God if science says it's wrong? They are just too enlightened and rational now to accept the explanations that were good enough for their parents and granparents. The leaders of religion face a crisis: How can they possibly get people to believe in the Bible again?Enter creationism. If it can prove that the Bible is right after all, then science has lost, people will be more inclined to believe in religion, and will accept miracles more easily. After all, how can any rational person deny the credibility of the Bible when science actually supports it?Creationists need science to support them because they are facing an Age of Enlightenment where strict religions will be forgotten. The Bible will be reduced to nothing more than an interesting historical document. The power of the leaders of religion will be reduced to virtually nothing. And this is too horrifying for them to contemplate.Well, there's my take on it. Enjoy...The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

I'm not sure this is true. There are lots of religious like things that people jump into. A large percentage of people don't have to be rational at all. They even seem to like it otherwise.Healing touch, astrology etc. are all doing fine.

Alternative therapies tend not to be as strict as actual religions. They don't require much faith for a start. They certainly don't care if you believe in them, and they don't care about those who do things they don't believe in. Reflexologists, for example, don't go on holy wars to crush the heretics who practice acupuncture.A lot of the time there is nothing that proves alternative therapies are wrong. There is no scientific explanation for them; but there's also no scientific explanation against them, because science accepts that there's stuff we don't know yet.Personally, I 'm a skeptic, but it still not accurate to lump these in with miracles.The Rock Hound

quote:

---

Creationists need science to support them because they are facing an Age of Enlightenment where strict religions will be forgotten. The Bible will be reduced to nothing more than an interesting historical document. The power of the leaders of religion will be reduced to virtually nothing. And this is too horrifying for them to contemplate.

---

This depends on education. How many people really understand or are interested in science or scientific explanations for natural phenomenon? I don't think we are necessarily approaching an Age of Enlightenment but more like the gap between rich and poor there will be a gap between those with knowledge and those without based on educational access. Fundamentalist religious leaders will always find followers among the masses without an education.The religions that will probably persist are those that are not so dogmatic and do not come in such violent conflict with science when it demonstrates some part of the dogma to be wrong. For example, religious fundamentalism in Europe is nothing like that in the US and the overall interest and science knowledge is higher while at the same time, religious institutions are highly integrated in society.

Good point.Think about it this way, though - stricter religions that clash with science will find that their support among the well-educated (and therefore the people most likely to be running things) will fall considerably. This will place them at a disadvantage that they would probably rather avoid; hence, creationism.The whole 'Age of Enlightenment' thing was more a joke, sorry. I just wanted to highlight a particular view of things.I do wonder though - education is getting better, in Ireland at least. Most young people are leaving the Catholic Church in their thousands, because it's just too restrictive and old-fashioned. ('Course that could just be Ireland.) I can certainly see a time here when the Church will be desperate for new members, and most people won't be interested.The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

Hi IrishRockhound,I am not sure that well educated people run things. That is certainly not true in the US (at least not the current administration). Culturally, if you are well educated you will often be considered part of an evil arrogant elite and garner little respect whereas a large grunting mass of flesh who cannot form an intelligible sentence but who can throw a football (before getting thrown in jail) will be treated like royalty. But I agree nonetheless that better (though not great education) is spreading somewhat in the developed world which cuts the base of people that the fundamentalists can tap into.I am living in Bavaria where if you indicate that you are Catholic, you have to pay a tax of 3% of your income to the church. You can leave the church and avoid the tax and people have in droves. However, the church is still powerful because it is not fundamentalist. On issues of science, the church has adapted somewhat i.e. the pope accepting the theory of evolution. Though from my recollection, the catholic church in Ireland is one of the most conservative and strict in all of Europe. Spain was like that about 20 years ago..I even remember being at a protest in Salamanca where people were demonstrating for the right to get a divorce.cheers,
M

There is evidence that some of them are wrong. Totally wrong.However, that doesn't stop people. They are acting on irrational belief only. There will always be enough of that around I'm afraid.

'but all this stuff in the Bible is bullshit. How can they believe that the Bible is the Word of God if science says it's wrong?'personally i think that people should be allowed to believe in what they want,your statement has nothing to do with evc.if i have faith and believe in the word of God what is wrong with that?

Gotta say I agree with you on this, Mike. Who ever said that atheism means having to make everyone else believe the same as you?

hi Crash,
your the only guy who seems to be around when i am. Yes his statement was harsh and unnecesary , if he wants to attack creationists he isn't he's just attacking believers, he might aswell say 'any book you read which claims to be true is bull---t'.
i think a healthier and productive debate is better than just attacking each other! atheism is totally your choice , and so it should be , we all have the right to believe in what we want!!!
good to hear from ya ![This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-04-2003]

The Problem is Mike its hard for alot of us to have Productive Debates with creationists. Most are too Set in their ways to think about the Facts.... most go like this
"I was brought up to Believe it so I do"
"its in the Bible it must be true"
"Evolution can't be right it goes against the Bible"
"My parents Believe so I do" etc....
This leaves for Closed Mindedness. where as most Evolutionist are very Open minded... we seek new Facts to try to Understand. you do have the right to Believe what you what but you also Have the right to think not just Follow whats happening! I will admit I respect the Bible for the Lessons it Teaches.. however I can't except it as truth Because their are no Facts to back it up. if there where things would be different...... I mean I know how it is I was Brought Up a Christen(Catholic) But then I wanted to look into what I believed. and I decided the facts just aren't there........ sorry .......... if we seem harsh at times. but I know I can't stand what I think is Ignorant thinking.(please don't take offence to this I don't mean it that way)

The problem is, close-mindedness isn't restricted to creationists. When an atheist says "anyone who believes in god is an idiot" or something, that's being close-minded.As an atheist I can and do accept that some highly intelligent people will disagree with my position. That doesn't make them ignorant. It simply means that they've chosen to predicate their beliefs on something different than what I've chosen.

Hi Crash,I agree that many very intelligent people will disagree with my position too. However, intelligent people present intelligent arguments, most creationists do not present intelligent, rational arguments.We recently had a student teacher working in the department, he is a born again Christian. I was showing another teacher my website, which at the time contained a few essays that ridiculed the well known creationists such as Hovind, Baugh and Ham.The student did approach me about it, I think he was a bit upset because we got on very well, he is a very decent guy, very honest and hard working. But he said to me, 'so you think people like me are a bit crazy?' But my reply relaxed him.What I said was that I dont think that he is crazy because he puts his arguments across in a logical and well thought out manner, he supports his arguments and does not ignore problematic areas. I told him that my problems are with the creationists and Bible inerrantists who argue as if they are 5 years old. They posit arguments that are so embarrassing that it is difficult to take them seriously. They continue to use arguments that have been proven to be garbage so many times that it gets tedious refuting them. Just think how many times the same arguments get presented here from creationists, if I hear 'if we evolved from apes why are there still apes?' again, I think I will scream!But to a lot of people this seems like a good argument, but to an intelligent person, who has the ability to find out an answer to this question themselves, it is a stupid argument that displays a total lack of background knowledge.So I agree, there are very intelligent creationists, but they are very few and far between.Brian.