Escape from the Creation Conference (2 of 2)

Posted on October 10, 2011 by Bob Seidensticker

This is the second of two posts about the Reality-Distortion Zone that is a Creationist conference. Read the first one here.

The second lecture was by a science teacher. He injected more than a dozen Bible quotes and Christian imagery into what was otherwise a decent astronomy lecture.

The irony was lost on him. He used videos, animations, presentation software, a PC. He showed Hubble photos of galaxies and satellite photos of solar flares. He lauded the Apollo program. This was science revealed to us by technology built on science. He made a good case—science delivers!

One video took us on a five-minute trip through the universe, accelerating from Earth past the solar system, Alpha Centauri, our galaxy, and our local group of galaxies to eventually take in the entire universe. And the ancient prescientific desert tribe that made up the Genesis account was stuck back there on Earth 3000 years ago, trying to make sense of things with their Iron Age worldview.

There was yet more unacknowledged irony when he emphasized the size of “God’s creation.” The Bible says, “[God] also made the stars” (Gen. 1:16). That’s it. That’s all the Bible says about the 99.9999999999999999999999999% of the universe¹ that’s not the earth. Makes you think that the authors of Genesis didn’t know about the vastness of the universe.

He played the audio of Apollo 8’s famous Christmas Eve 1968 reading of Genesis 1:1–10. According to that passage, here’s what God was up to on the second day:

And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.”

See if that sounds like this: “[They] envisioned the universe as a closed dome surrounded by a primordial saltwater sea. Underneath the terrestrial earth, which formed the base of the dome, existed an underworld and a freshwater ocean.” This was the cosmology of the Sumerians, who preceded the Jews by centuries.

To me, the Apollo reading of this prescientific view of nature doesn’t sound majestic but is meaningful only as it highlights what we’ve discarded.

The speaker made the obligatory slam of Continue reading →

Bungling the Facts Behind Evolution

Posted on October 7, 2011 by Bob Seidensticker

A Huffington Post article earlier this week asked, “Does Questioning Evolution Make You Anti-Science?”

Yeah, pretty much.

The author notes the flak Rick Perry received for stating that evolution was “just a theory” and that it has “some gaps in it” and tried to make the case that Republicans aren’t as anti-science as they’re portrayed. I’m not interested in the politics here, but the science (or failure to understand science) is worth mentioning.

Denial of both climate change and evolution is popular among conservatives. The author said, “While I cannot comment on climate-change science, I do have a great deal to say about evolution.” He lists his credentials as organizing an annual science vs. religion debate at Oxford University, which were typically about evolution, and giving Richard Dawkins a good thrashing at another debate for good measure.

But for someone who’s well versed in these matters, his understanding of science seems stunted.

What I learned from these debates, as well as reading extensively on evolution, is that evolutionists have a tough time defending the theory when challenged in open dialogue.

I doubt that, but let’s assume it’s the case. Who cares? Science, not debate, is where our confidence in evolution comes from.

[Attacks on evolution do not] mean that evolution is not true or that theory is without merit or evidence. It does, however, corroborate what Governor Perry said. Evolution is a theory. Unlike, say, the laws of thermodynamics, it has never been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be true.

Wow—where do you start?

Evolution is an explanation. It claims to give us the mechanism explaining how life got to be the way it is. The best evolution can hope for is to become a theory, and it has done so. The same is true for germ theory, another explanation, which has also reached that pinnacle and can’t become anything better.

By contrast, a scientific law is Continue reading →

I Survived the Creation Conference (1 of 2)

Posted on October 4, 2011 by Bob Seidensticker

I attended the 2011 Seattle Creation Conference and made it out to tell the tale.

The slogan of the conference was, “Dedicated to glorifying God through the scientific study of His Creation and refuting the false claims of Evolutionism.” (Is it just me or does that last phrase betray a presupposition?) There were prayers galore, sometimes both opening and closing a single lecture.

If the speakers were confident that science will eventually support the biblical view, they could let the science speak for itself. They could show confidence that science will lead us to the biblical answer. The question, “If Science and Scripture diverged, which one would you follow?” came to mind, but the answer was obvious.

This was a young-earth Creationism conference. “Young earth” means: the earth is less than 10,000 years old. “Creationism” means: evolution is nonsense. There were probably some old-earthers there too, but I’m pretty sure that I was the only one stupid enough to accept the scientific consensus on evolution.

The remainder of this post is about lectures by Mike Oard from Creation Ministries International, who spoke for two hours on Noah’s flood. (Let me add that everyone was polite, including me, so I’m attacking the “science,” not the speakers.)

Oard began with a couple of Bible quotes to justify using reason. It’s odd to need such a justification in a conference “dedicated to … scientific study,” but OK. One quote was, “Examine carefully; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thes. 5:21). I suspect that the last phrase was seen as license to pick and choose.

He stressed that, while some Christians imagine this to be a local flood, it was global. I enjoy seeing Creationists attack each other, but Continue reading →

Confused Thinking About Homosexuality

Posted on October 3, 2011 by Bob Seidensticker

In an article subtitled “Christian defense against Homosexuality,” the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) attacks homosexuality. I’ve pulled out claims that need a response.

Homosexuals want others in society to think like them (and behave like them?).

Is this the fabled Gay Agenda® where homosexuals will make all Americans homosexual to weaken the country for an eventual Communist takeover? Or something?

“If you have to ask, you are probably already under its pernicious influence and blithely hop-scotching your way straight to Hell.” Thank you, Betty Bowers.

They want others to accept them.

Well, yeah. Is that a problem?

What gives them the right to try and change society into what they want it to be?

I’m pretty sure that’s what they said about African Americans during the Jim Crow period.

Saying that homosexuality is natural because it occurs in the animal kingdom does not mean it is morally correct. Animals also eat each other alive, devour offspring, etc. Should we imitate those things as well because the animals do it?

So then do we at least agree that homosexuality occurs in nature and then is, by definition, natural?

As for morality, let’s not get cocky. For barbarism, no one beats humans. Only humans have invented Continue reading →

Jesus and Aliens

Posted on September 28, 2011 by Bob Seidensticker

The editor of the New York Times recently published an article called “Asking Candidates Tougher Questions About Faith.” He opens with this:

If a candidate for president said he believed that space aliens dwell among us, would that affect your willingness to vote for him? Personally, I might not disqualify him out of hand; one out of three Americans believe we have had Visitors and, hey, who knows? But I would certainly want to ask a few questions. Like, where does he get his information? Does he talk to the aliens? Do they have an economic plan?

Yet when it comes to the religious beliefs of our would-be presidents, we are a little squeamish about probing too aggressively.

My own view is that religion is off topic. Candidates for a job as pastor can expect questions about religion. But for the job of president? Religious questions are out of bounds. We’re governed by a secular constitution that includes the constraint, “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust.”

I long for the day when a candidate will dismiss a question about his/her religion with, “That’s irrelevant. Next question.” Ask about candidates’ values, their specific plans, their qualifications, and so on, but one’s religion is as relevant and as personal as questions about the style of one’s underwear.

A columnist from GetReligion.org was quick with a response. She seemed outraged at the Jesus/aliens comparison, but her most substantial comment was to reprint the comparison and state, “I’m not joking.”

Is outrage appropriate? Which belief—in aliens or Jesus—raises the bigger questions about a candidate’s ability to reason?

Sure, I see the difference between Jesus belief and alien belief. Jesus is supernatural. Space aliens are not. We have nothing to compare a supernatural Jesus to except myths or legends, which sure makes the Jesus story look like a myth or a legend.

On the other hand, aliens aren’t supernatural. They are life forms (we know about plenty of those) who travel using technology (we know about plenty of that). Science keeps finding strange new animals on earth living in extreme environments—at the bottom of the ocean, under miles of rock, in glaciers. Is it so hard to imagine them on other worlds? Their discovery would be surprising or even shocking, but we wouldn’t need to discard any scientific laws if aliens presented themselves.

I’ll agree that belief in aliens with insufficient evidence is a bit nutty. But that’s nothing like believing in supernatural beings with insufficient evidence. I’m not joking.

Photo credit: Jesus Was a Space Alien

Why Worry About a God That Isn’t There?

Posted on September 26, 2011 by Bob Seidensticker

I get this a lot. “Why do you worry about something you don’t even think exists? Why call yourself an atheist?”

That’s a reasonable question. People with no God belief may not call themselves atheists for lots of reasons. Maybe they prefer another name like freethinker or agnostic. Maybe they want to focus on what they do believe in and so think of themselves as humanists or naturalists. Maybe, as the cartoon suggests, not believing in God is as irrelevant to their lives as not believing in unicorns or Santa Claus.

But I do call myself an atheist. God belief impacts society in ways that unicorn belief or Santa belief could never do. In the list of Christian excesses below, see if you agree that only religion—and not mere belief in mythical creatures—could provoke these actions.

The Pope says that condoms shouldn’t be used in Africa to stop the spread of HIV
U.S. preachers provoke anti-gay legislation in Uganda
Some churches forbid birth control
Stem cell research is held up
Young women are urged not to get the HPV vaccine that protects against cervical cancer
In-vitro fertilization, which has brought four million children to parents unable to conceive, is attacked by the Catholic church
Some Christians push for Creationism to be taught in science class, for Christian prayers to be said in public schools, and for the Ten Commandments to be displayed in courthouses
Christian belief seems to increasingly be a requirement for public office, despite the fact that the Constitution makes clear that no religious test shall ever be required
… and other excesses that come to mind for you.

If Christianity could work and play well with others, that would be great, and I’d find other activities to occupy my time. But it doesn’t.

If you’re a Christian reading this, you may respond that your church doesn’t do this. In that case, agree with me! Agree that Christianity—in some versions, anyway—crosses the line and must be kept in check.

Artwork credit: Mike Stanfill

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: