Why do most think that Science is Bad?

Personally I think every church should teach it as something to avoid, but I can only speak to those which I belong.

So what argument are you making? If it's not to defend them, and if it's not to request decorum, what exactly are you trying to say?

I'll just reply to your next post.

edited 27th Jun '11 5:57:49 PM by blueharp

I am trying to say that the specific claim that the age of the universe is that which is found in the Bible, and individuals who make it, should not be automatically branded as ignorant, crazy, anti-science, or logically invalid. There are numerous valid criticisms of both the claim itself and YECs in general that can be made, but the claim that the age of the universe is that which is found in the Bible, while unscientific, is not necessarily ignorant, crazy, anti-science or logically invalid.

Merely being unscientific is not the same as being ignorant, crazy, anti-science or logically invalid. That is my main point. I wonder if I might have had more success in making it if I had talked about tasseomancy or something similarly "safe".

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

If it's to defend this one specific belief regarding the creation of the Universe, which as I said, is taken by them to be as literally true, as described in the Bible, then I don't think you are recognizing the ramifications of that belief at all. You aren't even representing it very accurately, it is not just a matter of age, but the entirety of the process.

That is why it requires rejecting science and assuming God has created a deceitful universe. It is part of their whole belief system. One that goes much further than you seem to realize.

And no, I'm not automatically rejecting their beliefs, it's actually after listening to them, and really understanding what they have to say, and observing what they are trying to do. I have experience with them. It is negative, and I think I have good reasons. You don't have the same experience, fair enough, but please don't act like I don't know what I'm talking about and presume that I am just automatically dismissing them. I feel more like you are automatically defending them rather than taking the time to know what you're talking about it, or even listen to the concerns I, or others have expressed. Note how you have dismissed the very real actions they've taken as irrelevant. That's actually one of the most important parts.

edited 27th Jun '11 6:06:06 PM by blueharp

I'm sorry, I oversimplified the belief because I was aiming for brevity, but OK: the belief I am defending the logical validity of is the belief that the creation of the Earth and the universe happened precisely as can be found in a literal reading of the Bible.

If you'll recall, I started defending this because I objected to the claim that Creationism (not limited to, but including, YEC) and science are mutually exclusive. I stand by that objection.

I do not think that you don't know what you're talking about. I am quite certain that you have had more experience with these people than I have, and I am reasonably sure that my experiences have not been representative of the norm. I nevertheless disagree with the specific claim that the belief that the creation of the Earth and the universe happened precisely as can be found in a literal reading of the Bible, in and of itself, is inherently logically invalid and inherently anti-science.

edited 27th Jun '11 6:13:14 PM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

@Bobby: and I think it is, because you cant apply science in some cases, declare science invalid in other cases, and not as a result invalidate science as a procedure.

If a method obtains results which appear to be accurate in most circumstances, but are definitely inaccurate in others, is that method useless? I don't think it is.

If science has obtained results with practical applications, it clearly cannot be dismissed offhand. This does not mean it is irrational to reject those results which contradict something else which is already known to be true.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Logically invalid and anti-science? I do not know what these phrases mean to you, I don't particularly use them myself.

But the literal interpretation of creation as found in the Bible does require a rejection of numerous scientific theories and much scientific evidence, I'm sure you can find an examination of the reasoning for that if you want, it would almost certainly be better than anything I could produce myself.

And since the persons holding these beliefs do say they reject those aspects of science, I don't see why it's worth arguing over. They are saying it already themselves.

Known to be true? I think you're back to the proof stage with that one.

edited 27th Jun '11 6:22:16 PM by blueharp

Because holding an unscientific belief is not the same thing as being anti-science, that's why I'm arguing. I was arguing that back on page 1, before creationism was even mentioned.

As for "known to be true", like I said, it's a premise. A premise which I do not accept. But every argument needs a premise.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

How does "the universe began in media res", as a premise, reject science?

edited 27th Jun '11 6:35:24 PM by Tangent128

Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?

I don't know what the heck you mean by anti-science, it's a phrase I don't use myself, but I do know that they do require a rejection of science, as part of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

It's part of their beliefs. Explicitly so.

edited 27th Jun '11 6:34:21 PM by blueharp

No, they require a rejection of certain specific scientific theories, not science as a whole.

Some of them also explicitly reject all science, but not all of them. Midgetsnowman claimed that belief in YEC and science were incompatible, not merely that any, many or most YECs reject science.

edited 27th Jun '11 6:37:02 PM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Nope. They reject science and require an absolute and literal belief in the Bible.

It's part of their credo.

Ok, so you say there's some who don't, but they still have the problem of consistency, which we covered already. I think it makes their beliefs WORSE, and points to a twisted petty God.

We're really just plowing the same field.

edited 27th Jun '11 6:38:27 PM by blueharp

Can you link me to this credo in its universally accepted, canonical form? It's possible I'm misusing the term "Young Earth Creationist" to refer to a broader group than it actually applies to. I've been taking the term literally.

And no, those who don't do not have the problem of consistency unless they also believe that science is absolutely true, rather that fallible.

edited 27th Jun '11 6:40:37 PM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

I have no desire whatsoever to look through their websites, and my experiences with them were offline anyway. Young Earth Creationists does refer to literal biblical interpretation though, and is not simply just a matter of age, and it is not a term simply describing their beliefs, but a particular group. There may be a range of nuances in that group, but the literal interpretation of the Bible, and the rejection of science is part of the group as I consider them. Other people who may place themselves under that banner, or who you may have been grouping in with them, well, I do not.

And yes, regardless of what group we're talking about they may claim to not be rejecting science*

, but I realized that was just them trying to avoid owning up to their beliefs. In other words, it was part of their deceit.

And no, I don't think you understand the problem with their inconsistency, which is that they require the universe to have been created in an inconsistent fashion, which would as I said, require God to intend to deceive us. Not for us to be wrong, or mistaken, but for it to be a trick on us.

edited 27th Jun '11 7:00:37 PM by blueharp

Wikipedia makes no mention of any such document, FWIW.

But I'll accept that I may have misused the term. To clarify, though, I never claimed that not all YECs are Biblical literalists; my intent, when defending the use of different interpretations of "day", was not to defend YECs.

And, oh, I see, that inconsistency. I disagree that a petty God is a necessary assumption (after all, who can say why God does everything He does? That He has a good reason is usually taken on faith), but I'll admit that to believe otherwise does appear to complicate things somewhat, and I can see why you would find the idea distasteful. I don't think God would deliberately mislead humanity, either, but the God worshipped by Biblical literalists bears little resemblance to my God anyway, so a few hidden fossils and misleading redshift is just the tip of the iceberg in that respect.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

They don't have a different interpretation of day. It is literally one day. Along with everything else that's covered in the Bible. Literal and absolute truth.

It does require for science to be rejected across a broad scale on its own, so I'm not even worrying about producing their credo. It could just have been the group I encountered, but I see no real distinction between them and the description on the Wikipedia page, or reason to believe they would not reject science as they saw fit.

Yes, YECs do not have a different interpretation of "day". I just said that. I never once, at any point, claimed otherwise.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

I was pointing out that belief to expand on why they were necessarily rejecting science as part of their beliefs.

Would it have helped you if I had lead off with "That's the thing" ?

edited 27th Jun '11 7:23:21 PM by blueharp

Ah, sorry, I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Then I think my only disagreement is that I do not think rejecting science in a very specific set of circumstances (that being when a literal reading of the Bible contradicts scientific claims) constitutes a necessary rejection of science as a whole.

edited 27th Jun '11 7:27:16 PM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Has anyone brought up the Wedge Strategy yet?

yey

I think that with a literal interpretation that it's inevitable to go that way, but even if it's not, you're still forced to reject such a vast host of science that it's very untenable.

^^ That's different, since that's an attempt to replace science altogether, and therefore necessarily must reject science.

^ Maybe. I wouldn't have thought it would be quite so drastic as you're making it out to be, but I'll admit I haven't read the whole Bible cover to cover so I don't know everything that's in there. And of course, I don't know what future scientific developments will be made, either.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

As I understand it, Bobby is using "Young Earth Creationist" to mean "somebody who believes the universe originated a geologically short period of time ago, perhaps on the order of 6000 years"; if you mean something more specific, please clarify, and give your label for the former premise.

On its own, that premise forces you to reject the premise that "today's processes have been running undisturbed indefinitely backwards in time". Other than that, which is not specifically necessary for the scientific method, what specific contradictions can you name?

Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?

^ Where the basis of such a belief is a literal reading of the Book of Genesis, yes.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

@Tangent: thats the problem.

If all processes havent been running indefinitely, then catastrophism must be considered legitimate again. which leads to further questions like 'why scientifically did processes suddenly slow down amazingly, and what process caused it?"

Not to mention it means Carbon dating is just plain useless, for one, Nor do we have any idea how long stars will burn