View Single Post
Old August 28 2012, 08:27 AM   #98
Rear Admiral
Gary7's Avatar
Location: Near Manhattan ··· in an alternate reality
Re: Bill Nye: “Creationism is not Appropriate for Children”

The trouble with religion is that in many respects there are rather ambiguous things said that I believe are actually symbolic references, yet they still may be interpreted literally (which brings about friction against science). For instance, God creating the Earth in 6 days, resting on the 7th. A day is defined by the full 360 degree rotation of the Earth on its axis. So, how can you even measure a day if you're in the midst of creating the planet that a day refers to? It makes no sense. The only obvious thing you can do to maintain any kind of credibility to the story is to infer that this is some symbolic representation of time. And then it goes hand in hand that other time references are not literal. Why not? Well, people have tried and it OVERTLY conflicts with scientific evidence. The planet is not a mere 7,000 years old. If we make an exception to the science and say that the carbon 14 dating measurement is flawed, then all of it is suspect and the science can't stand. Yet, various tests confirm that it is a trustworthy form of time measurement (with some margin for error, of course). The Earth is considerably older than what creationists profess and it must be recognized as such.

"God created human beings from dust". Well, obviously it can't be just any old dust because there needs to be biological matter. And what of the processes of life? The time frame from thought to incarnation of humanity was mentioned as if within a day or mere hours/minutes, but treating that symbolically it could have been a million years. It's also worded to be comprehended by a population with practically no scientific understanding of their world whatsoever. Thus, they should realize that evolution and natural adaptation are an integral part of the process that we managed to learn about on our own. It wouldn't be documented in any religious texts, because the people would have no frame of reference to understand it.

I'm bringing this up because it's possible for those hard wired to stick with religion can "reframe" how they see it to fit within the parameters of scientific evidence. Deism treats the creationism on a different scale and scope, so that it mostly fits within science and still within religion. Without this "middle ground" perspective, it remains a highly polarized contention--evolution or divine intervention--with little chance for compromise.

But then the real truth comes out... and you have people who won't budge on their beliefs, determined to stick with them through thick and thin despite contrary evidence presented. You just can't argue with such people.
Remembering Ensign Mallory.
Gary7 is offline   Reply With Quote