As soon as we are compelled to believe in the existence of a Creator, we are confronted with the reality of some form of relationship with such Creator.
Thanks for responding. I was concerned that I had put you off of answering Dr. Adequate.
I see several problems with this explanation. One problem is that it is just as easy to believe that the Creator used evolution as his tool. Secondly, my experience is that most Christians don't become Christians for the reasons you cite anyway. The evidence for this is that most Christians are not Creationists of the type that you are. Apparently something other than the method of their creation drives their need to relate to God. For example, nobody said anything to Saul on the road to Damascus about creationism.
Finally I am skeptical that this purported motivation to perpetuate a fraud re: evolution really exists. The fact is that everybody is called into account by earthly authority. We cannot do what we want and still get along with our fellows and stay out of jail. The fact is that most Creationists, Christians, and atheists do chose to be ethical, and that those people who do not behave ethically seem to be of all persuasions.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
As soon as we are compelled to believe in the existence of a Creator, we are confronted with the reality of some form of relationship with such Creator. Indeed a Creator who made us with such emotions, ambitions etc is most likely to be interested in us and this means we are laid bare before a supreme authority.
But anyone perpetrating evolution as a hoax knows that there is a creator. If they didn't know it, it wouldn't be a hoax. All the hoaxers (as distinct from their dupes) must be creationists. So why do a bunch of convinced and assured creationists go about pretending that there's no creator? What are they getting out of it? It cannot be, as you seem to be suggesting, a disbelief in a creator --- if they possessed such a disbelief, then they wouldn't be creationists and it wouldn't be a hoax.
The answer I'm afraid is not scientific, it can't be; it concerns the conscience, the soul.
But any answer from science has to be scientific. If it were not, then perhaps it could be called a hoax, a fraud, or something similar.
[Off topic content deleted]...
...we appease and numb our consciences and repeatedly tell ourselves that we are the result of an "accident" ie evolution.
Science follows the evidence. Occasionally mistakes are made in science, and there have been a few real hoaxes (e.g., Piltdown Man).
When mistakes are made they are eventually corrected as nobody in science values false answers. What good are false answers? Science bases new research in large part on previous research and data, and if that is wrong then subsequent research is probably wrong too. That doesn't do anybody any good.
Piltdown Man was a hoax, but it was a hoax on science, not by science. Paleoanthropologists in England had developed a mindset that a large brain came first, followed by other modern traits. This was incorrect, but that is what that one group was looking for--so somebody created a fake that showed just those specific traits. That fooled the British paleoanthropologists for a while, but researchers in other areas, such as Franz Weidenreich, were not fooled. Weidenreich described Piltdown Man as a composite long before specific tests were devised to be able to prove that that was indeed the case. And as Piltdown Man didn't fit in with the bulk of information, it was more and more just ignored. Eventually tests were devised to prove it was a fake.
So, in this--the most notable hoax in paleoanthropology--it was science that discovered the error and corrected it.
Now, you have asserted that all of evolution is a hoax. Your reasoning, by your own admission, "is not scientific."
Perhaps you could follow the topic of this thread and provide some evidence for your assertion? And it would be best if you tried to be scientific this time. At least with science there are rules of evidence and a procedure for testing that evidence and building upon it. I realize that this is in sharp contrast to religions, which have no such procedures for testing evidence and for judging between competing claims (dogmas and beliefs), but if you want to convince those who do not share your beliefs it would probably be more effective.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
motivation for hoaxes and the exclusion of a Creator
Firstly, I must apologize to Tangle, Jar and others for my post as to the motivation behind hoaxes and evolution, particularly with respect to my rather poor analogy. What I was trying to convey (albeit badly) is that many of our motivations stem from deep in the subconscious. I conveyed a somewhat robotic being when in fact even emotion is in itself a motivation apart from a belief in God. I have through observation and discussion however discovered that the removal of even the mere notion of a higher being is considered attractive to "some" people because they can live with a free albeit numbed or diminished conscience in this area at least. In most of those cases their answer to life is that they go with science as opposed to Christianity for example, in the context that science becomes almost a belief system or religion to them. I believe that true science is compatible with Christianity when we point out definite evidence, (unfortunately even definite can be subjective) but we must then proceed not to "so readily" let our ideas generated from compiling such evidence become "theory and even fact". I find it sad that people consider theories such as evolution FACT, fait accompli, as if there were some ageless being with a clipboard documenting the whole thing. My Biology teacher at high school (who had studied in CA) taught us evolution as fact, and started teaching evolution beginning with the origins of life from Primordial soup. (I have actually re-checked this) At first I accepted it because she was authority and because of the random accidental nature of it all, I initially started to seriously doubt my new found belief in a Creator, basically there was a conflict between my mind and spirit. Fortunately my mathematics teacher helped me understand (through probabilities) that DNA formation almost certainly cannot be a random event. I do acknowledge that even some Christians believe in aspects of evolution, and I am sure that there are a few aspects of truth "within" evolution. I just don't see why people should be allowed to go to the extremes of hoaxes on both sides when we can quite easily teach evolution as just one theory and nothing more than a theory and include creation also just as a theory, that way there is no imposition and it would put paid to the motivation behind hoaxes. I totally disagree with those who believe that accepting evolution is necessary to Biology as a useful science. There are a number of proffessions that are a spin-off from Biology and some of the most acclaimed surgeons for example are creationists, (I know one of them personally). I must also apologize if I conveyed the picture of a ruthless God, in fact (paraphrased!) Christianity teaches that God knows our "warts and all" and came not to condemn us but to save us "warts and all" and that includes every single person in the blogosphere. (Sorry for going off-topic).
Re: motivation for hoaxes and the exclusion of a Creator
(Sorry for going off-topic).
When were you ever on-topic? If there is to be no point at which you'll be on-topic perhaps you could find a more appropriate thread, or propose a new topic over at Proposed New Topics. Obviously people want to discuss what you're saying with you, but this thread is about frauds and hoaxes, not subconscious tactics for mental self-manipulation, to which, by the way, creationists are as vulnerable as the rest of humanity.
Did you read the article in full? It clearly states the conclusion that it is a shark. It’s disingenuous to link to that article suggesting it is a hoax.
If you look at the rest of the links he supplies, they are overwhelmingly not to articles which are examples of a hoax being perpetrated, but to articles which debunk the hoax. Like this one. So what makes you think he intended it to be an instance of the former rather than the latter class?
If I posted here every time a creationist told a lie, I'd never do anything else. However, here's something new. The Discovery Institute made a video of one of their scientumists talking crap in a nice-looking laboratory ...
Re: motivation for hoaxes and the exclusion of a Creator
Hi Geneologist, and welcome to the fray (if you are still around)
This thread is about documenting hoaxes and frauds from both creationist sources and scientific sources. So far creationists are losing ...
I believe that true science is compatible with Christianity when we point out definite evidence, (unfortunately even definite can be subjective) but we must then proceed not to "so readily" let our ideas generated from compiling such evidence become "theory and even fact". I find it sad that people consider theories such as evolution FACT, fait accompli, as if there were some ageless being with a clipboard documenting the whole thing.
Science deals with natural processes -- processes put into effect with the creation of the universe.
There is valid science and there is invalid science, and no conclusions of science are accepted as more than tentatively true, as opposed to absolutely true. Theories cannot be proven, but they can be disproven.
There are also many different kinds of Christianity ... including some that hold delusional beliefs (beliefs contrary to objective empirical evidence).
For instance the YEC concept that the earth is young is an invalid (proven to be false) belief, falsified by the mountains of evidence for an old earth (and you can review the tip of this mountain at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 should you believe the earth is young).
When it comes to evolution, we can see that various processes do in fact occur -- such as mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, speciation -- and thus that it is true, it is fact, that these things do occur.
If you have any evidence that evolution is a hoax, then please feel free to present such evidence here, including how the hoax was uncovered, by whom, and who were the perpetrators. Good luck with that.
Regarding\believing\hoping something is a hoax does not make it so -- you need evidence, objective empirical evidence, to actually demonstrate that it is a hoax.
For instance see Message 193 for an example of evidence of a hoax being perpetrated by the Discovery Institute ... click on the link to "this nice-looking laboratory" ... and then explain why the Discovery Institute should post such a hoax.
quote:I used an image from a Biblical site thinking Faith might find it more credible as an example of interbedding, but it looks like I walked right into the middle of some creationist hanky panky. Take a look at this discussion from EvolutionFairyTale where this image was posted and critiqued in Message 21:
The author of Message 21 noticed the white scattered about the canyon and thought it might be snow and that therefore the claims about interbedding between the Redwall and Mauv didn't really hold up.
It's a little hard to tell, but if you look carefully you'll see that the image I posted is a cropped area of this same image. I didn't pay any attention to the labeling in that image, but obviously it is wrong. There could be no interbedding between the Mauv and any layer above because the top of the Mauv is an erosion layer that was once overlain by other ancient now-gone layers. The Wikipedia article on the geology of the Grand Canyon area says, "deep channels were carved on the top of the Muav Limestone," by either streams or marine scour. The top of the Mauv was obviously eroded down and could never have interbedded with any above layer.
There could also be no interbedding between the top of the Temple Butte and the bottom of the Redwall because the top of the Temple Butte is also an erosion interface.
But hey, add a dusting of snow that selectively remains on some layers and not others and you can claim that the white layers are the Mauv interbedded with the Redwall.