If aliens were creationists...

[skep155]

If a technologically advanced species of aliens came to Earth, lets say they landed on the white house lawn tomorrow, what would you do if they were creationists? E.g if for all intents and purposes they appeared highly advanced, yet they believed that the universe was created ten thousand years ago by a deity who took just a few days to make it? When we told them about evolution and abiogenesis they considered the ideas laughable and told us all that we were fools for believing in such nonsense. However when asked to prove the ideas to be false they carted out the same old crap about carbon dating being flawed, the fossil records being incomplete, no body was there to watch it happen etc…In other words their arguments were really not much better than those of Earths creationists.

Would you still have the strength of conviction to tell them that they are religious lunatics and that they have got it all wrong? Even if they possessed faster than light travel, holodecks, transporters, tractor beams, life extending technology and all the standard sci-fi stuff?

The reason I ask is because the appeal to authority can be a strong one; right now the worlds most hyper-religious nations are poor and backward, whilst the scientifically enlightened secular west is powerful. However if the boot was on the other foot, and we were suddenly confronted by a hyper-religious force which was so much more powerful than us, do you think that a lot of ordinary people might ‘switch sides’ and turn into religious zealots through a sort of ‘might is right’ mentality?

 

[iguana_tonante]

I think that you had it backwards: the appeal to authority is something that creationists do, not scientists. Science recognize no authority, except for the rule of facts: facts always supercede pretty hypothesis.

Another flaw in your reasoning, is that "right now the worlds most hyper-religious nations are poor and backward, whilst the scientifically enlightened secular west is powerful". That's simply not true, since the most powerful and technologically advanced nation is the US, that is also strongly religious, compared to the mostly secularized Europe.

So, all in all, even if super-advanced aliens came and they were creationists, the questions will be the same asked to creationists now: where are your facts about the age of the universe? Where are your proofs about the intervention of a supernatural entity? Show us, and we can talk about it. If shown sufficient and exhaustive proofs, most scientists will reconsider their position. If not, they will laugh at them (and probably be atomized, but that's another story).

The beautiful thing about science, is that it's independent from its supporters: good science is good science, and bad science is bad science, be it coming from backward hicks or super-advanced aliens.

 

[SilentP]

Well if there is the problem about how they deal with the fact they've just encountered another intelligent species. How does such an event fit into their belief system? Do they just account for our existance as part of their deity's plan, either as an accepted part of creation, or as some kind of 'test of faith'? Are we a race to be converted to join the 'Path of Truth' or to be eliminated due to their own percieved Manifest Destiny? That's perhaps something that may bear worrying about.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Quite so -- if they have interstellar space travel, they'd probably whup our heathen asses, and impose a theocracy on us, assuming that they don't just exterminate us for not being the chosen people of their particular deity or deities.

 

[The Badger]

... their arguments were really not much better than those of Earths creationists.

If they had nothing new it would make no difference. A flawed argument is a flawed argument, irrespective of the source.
If they did offer something new, that would be important, and the scientific community would have to consider it with the respect all new evidence deserves. But it would have to be evidence based, something better than all that 'what use is half an eye?' or 'banana's are an atheist's nightmare!' style gibberish that creationists usually put forward.

I think that you had it backwards: the appeal to authority is something that creationists do, not scientists. Science recognize no authority, except for the rule of facts: facts always supercede pretty hypothesis.

Quite right. Just to put it in perspective, the Royal Society has the motto 'Nullius in Verba', which essentially means 'take no one's word for it'. In other words, look to the facts, not authority.

 

[Marie1]

The beautiful thing about science, is that it's independent from its supporters: good science is good science, and bad science is bad science, be it coming from backward hicks or super-advanced aliens.

Exactly. Just because someone can fly through space doesn't give them special insight into the formation of the universe or the existence of a deity.

We already know for a fact the universe is billions of years old, so aliens contending that it's not...

 

[skep155]

I think that you had it backwards: the appeal to authority is something that creationists do, not scientists. Science recognize no authority, except for the rule of facts: facts always supercede pretty hypothesis.

That was my point, most people aren't scientists and an appeal to authority is taken seriously in the general population. If alien creationists turned up you'd have large swathes of the population deciding that evolution is false because the little green men with the ray guns say it is.
Creationists would use the aliens as the ultimate appeal to authority "how can you say that we just got here by random chance when even advanced alien scientists who have developed technology that we can only dream of have concluded that evolution is a fairytale. Look they believe in Gods creation too".

 

[iguana_tonante]

That was my point, most people aren't scientists and an appeal to authority is taken seriously in the general population. If alien creationists turned up you'd have large swathes of the population deciding that evolution is false because the little green men with the ray guns say it is.

If your point was that most people have a very sketchy and biased view of science, then I agree.

What I find reprehensible (actually, abhorrent) is that, even if most people are not scientists, they don't even know what science is about or how it works.

Most people are not sculptors, too, but I they know what sculptures are and how they are made. With science, it's not that simple. You have to wade through misconceptions, distrust, and sometimes even hostility, before you can get your point across.

Creationists would use the aliens as the ultimate appeal to authority "how can you say that we just got here by random chance when even advanced alien scientists who have developed technology that we can only dream of have concluded that evolution is a fairytale. Look they believe in Gods creation too".

Creationists already use (their) God as the ultimate authority, so I don't think they need anything else. Besides, most creationists lean to a literal interpretation of Genesis, so they have to re-conciliate their creation account (which does not mention any alien, obviously) with the alien creation account, whatever it may be. I suspect it can't end very well.

 

[SilentP]

Creationists already use (their) God as the ultimate authority, so I don't think they need anything else. Besides, most creationists lean to a literal interpretation of Genesis, so they have to re-conciliate their creation account (which does not mention any alien, obviously) with the alien creation account, whatever it may be. I suspect it can't end very well.

Hence why I reckon if aliens were of a similiar persuasion (i.e. a literal interperation of their 'Genesis') they'd probably wipe us out, and scrub out any evidence of our ever existing.

 

[Brent]

Would you still have the strength of conviction to tell them that they are religious lunatics and that they have got it all wrong?

Who are we to tell ANYONE that they are "lunatics" for believing in creationism?

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

Now wait a sec. Do the aliens in this example have their own creationist origin story, or do they believe the exact same one that is found in Genesis? If the aliens listened to human Christian Fundamentalists explain Earth's origin and responded by saying "Wow, you guys have all the details exactly right, even down to the parts about the rib and the fig leaves" that would open up all sorts of new questions.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Would you still have the strength of conviction to tell them that they are religious lunatics and that they have got it all wrong?

Who are we to tell ANYONE that they are "lunatics" for believing in creationism?

Maybe "lunatics" is too harsh a word, but you must admit that literal word-by-word creationism, unsupported by any kind of material proofs, shows a undeniable disconnection from scientific reality.

 

[skep155]

Now wait a sec. Do the aliens in this example have their own creationist origin story, or do they believe the exact same one that is found in Genesis? If the aliens listened to human Christian Fundamentalists explain Earth's origin and responded by saying "Wow, you guys have all the details exactly right, even down to the parts about the rib and the fig leaves" that would open up all sorts of new questions.

I left it deliberately vague. But i'd say that in this example they have a somewhat similar creation story. Not identical but sharing the same basic ideas. A single creator God who created the universe and everything in it, he made it all within the last thirty thousand years and it only took him a few Earth weeks to create everything.

Im not saying its going to persuade many scientists or anything, but i could see a huge religious revival in such a scenario. It doesn't matter that the details of the religious doctrines are not exactly the same, religions seeking to propagate themselves find a common enemy in atheism/agnosticism and deism. They have an unwritten agreement not to make fun of each others creation/miracle stories, for obvious reasons. The denial of miracles in general is more dangerous to them than the denial of single miracles particular to one religion.

 

[PurpleBuddha]

The beautiful thing about science, is that it's independent from its supporters: good science is good science, and bad science is bad science, be it coming from backward hicks or super-advanced aliens.

Exactly. Just because someone can fly through space doesn't give them special insight into the formation of the universe or the existence of a deity.

We already know for a fact the universe is billions of years old, so aliens contending that it's not...

While I cannot know for sure, I am reasonably sure that the knowledge necessary to master interstellar travel would probably be built on several theories some of which would include a basic or even more than basic understanding involving the time scale for the formation of the universe. For that reason, if aliens show up we probably do not have to worry about them spouting some BS about the universe only being 10 thousand years old.

But if such beings did land and made such an absurdly remarkable claim, I would expect remarkable evidence to follow.

 

[Brent]

Would you still have the strength of conviction to tell them that they are religious lunatics and that they have got it all wrong?

Who are we to tell ANYONE that they are "lunatics" for believing in creationism?

Maybe "lunatics" is too harsh a word, but you must admit that literal word-by-word creationism, unsupported by any kind of material proofs, shows a undeniable disconnection from scientific reality.

What's so wrong about not being scientific about everything?

My mind is open to the possibility that there are other possibilities and explanations that science cannot answer.

 

[SilentP]

What's so wrong about not being scientific about everything?

My mind is open to the possibility that there are other possibilities and explanations that science cannot answer.

The problem is when people proclaim that they have non-scientific answers to problems that science can perfectly well explain, and a lot more reliably to boot.

 

[Brent]

Not everyone believes in science as being the absolute truth about some of those answers

 

[Deks]

Not everyone believes in science as being the absolute truth about some of those answers

Science to my knowledge is not 'absolute truth' (or a belief to be exact).
It's subject to interpretation and change.
Just because we can explain through science the working processes of nature in one way today, that doesn't mean the explanation will not be different in the future or absolute/universal.

'Belief' down to it's core requires faith ... something that science is not based upon, which is why it relies on theories, tests and proof.

It's not my problem if people decide to attribute supernatural explanations that are outside of realm of science to begin with ... the credibility of such claims then is dubious at best to others.

What I got from the OP is that he/she is applying advanced aliens with ray guns analogy as an intimidation factor to accept how their POV is correct.
I'm sorry, that's just called 'coercion' into accepting whatever the aliens in question claim as the truth. And even if coercion was not a factor, accepting anything these hypothetical aliens say as the truth would again fall into the category of 'belief'.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Maybe "lunatics" is too harsh a word, but you must admit that literal word-by-word creationism, unsupported by any kind of material proofs, shows a undeniable disconnection from scientific reality.

What's so wrong about not being scientific about everything?

My mind is open to the possibility that there are other possibilities and explanations that science cannot answer.

Nothing wrong about not being scientific about everything. Even scientists are not scientific about love, friendship, hope, even faith. However, there is everything wrong in being not scientific about science. And questions like the age or the evolution of the universe are scientific in nature, so unscientific answers are usually based of unsound assumptions. On the other hand, questions like the reason for the existence of the universe or the ultimate purpose of life, those are food for philosophy or religion (whatever you prefer), and as thus science makes no claim about them.

Not everyone believes in science as being the absolute truth about some of those answers

Science rarely deals with absolute truth, but with reasonable and consistent answers based of facts. If someone wants to ignore facts to indulge in their beliefs, they are free to do so, of course. However, from science's point of view, they are wrong.

 

[Joshua Howard]

If aliens were creationists - a cartoon I ran across the other day:
http://rlv.zcache.com/first_contact_poster-p228971634223066453tdcp_400.jpg

A machine, to exist, must rely on a cycle of operation. The universe is a machine occupying infinite space. A cycle must have a high point and a low point to complete its circle. An infinite value cannot have a high or a low cycle. The only way to explain the infinite universe guided by a cycle of limited operations is that infinity has limits; and the only way to explain that is to hypothesize that physical time and space can somehow be contained within something made of neither time or space.

Ultimately, the traditional definition of God could not exist in a highly advanced space-faring society, because the nature of space itself raises inevitable questions of origin which conventional theology is not equipped to answer.

-

Personally, I have a rather creepy theory that there may be something absolutely huge out there beyond space; perhaps even beyond the universe as we define it. An entity, or a power, which is using everything in existance like a tyranical scientist experimenting on lab rats. The question of purpose, origin, and destination remain unanswered; and to add to the mystery, Earth legends which speak of strange phenomena passed along for thousands of years sometimes seem like they must have started off as more than just idle imagination.

Biblical accounts speak of folks living to be very old a long time ago; then it is suggested that they became corrupted, and that their lifespans were shortened so that their knowledge would not lead to evil. Why would we, beings of such an advanced biological structure - be designed to reproduce quickly and die in abundance? Is it because something does not want people to remember their past, or easily communicate information from one time to another?

Granted, I have lots of blanks with big question marks in them; but when I look up at the sky, I think of my short life and want to know more than anything what the heck is up there. If there is a creator of the universe, I am convinced that he/she/it is neither benevolent or trustworthy. The chilling question remains; what is the ultimate answer? I have a feeling that if we actually knew, the truth would be more surprisingly epic and terrifying than we presently imagine.