I have a young earther friend who is a radiochemist (chemist who specializes in radioactive stuff). He has a complete understanding of the principles behind the various radioactive decay based dating methods and still is able to dismiss them somehow.
Not quite a majority:
[quote]In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins
The 46% of Americans who today believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years is little changed from the 44% who believed this 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question.[/quote]
1 Like
I think itâs safe to say that in any large enough group of people you will find divergent opinions, especially when they are geographically and/or socially separated.
1 Like
"At a recent hearing, committee member Randy Weber (RâTX) implied that
science couldnât really make claims about things that happened tens of
thousands or millions of years ago, because it couldnât directly observe
them. Itâs a terrifying position for a legislator who sits in a
position of power over national science policy to hold.
"
Actually this is a wonderful position because in the same breath he affirms that nothing in the bible could possibly be true because no one here could have directly observed it. So in denying science he denies the faith he provides as the alternative example.
2 Likes
If only.
Itâs also worth mentioning that the original Jews were polytheistic, recognizing multiple tribal deities. Itâs kind of the whole point of the story: that a single tribe and a single god formed an exclusive arrangement with each other, thus the "no other gods before me thing.
But thatâs neither here nor there.
Actually, thereâs a lot of evidence to suggest that it was an RNA World when life began - not DNA. RNA can actually perform catalytic chemistry (unlike DNA) - and is found, for example, in the core ribosomes that makes proteins. Jack Szostak theorized that life probably began near thermal vents where the heat differential could act like a little PCR machine to melt the RNA duplex and allow replication on the single-strands. DNA is theorized to have evolved from wily viruses that used deoxynucleotides to prevent the early cells from using their innate immune response to foreign - restriction enzymes.
4 Likes
Actually, the hardest, least probable part, was the spontaneous formations of the precursors, which it turns out readily form wherever there is the right material and a temperature differential. The temperature differential is the catalyst for creating these compounds. When these compounds join they create building blocks of life. pre-cellular life digresses down past the point we consider alive, is a prion (self replicating rna strand) alive? are the various workers in a cells nucleus alive? is a chunk of RNA alive? from virii to preons, to much simple more replicating structures, you can follow the rabit hole all the way down. It isnât the mystery some people were miseducated to believe it is, we have a pretty good idea of how it all went down, really. It hasnât been replicated from start to finish, from raw elements to life, experimentally, because of the sheer length of time required for these processes to unfold, but we have already experimentally replicated some of the key transitions.
Goldilocks not required, as scientists have found, life can exist in much more extreme environments then the outdated Goldilocks theory, including hard space, and that is just âsimilarâ carbon based organic life here on earth. extremeophile organisms here on earth are nothing compared to what could arise in completely different conditions so long as there is temperature differential via radiation from a star or gravity and a geo-thermal core.
Turns out that the idea that life is special one time or rare occurrence is about as myopically naive as thinking our planet is the center of the universe.
Exactly. That is the beauty of science, right? It is about observing and testing and verifying those observations, and using that to expand our knowledge. Self refining and improving understanding. The systematic cataloging of what can be known. That is what makes it trump religionâs make random stuff up method, at least when it comes to understanding and explaining the universe we live in. I love science. 
Actually most religions run the full gambit and have many branches and variations, that is human nature. Nothing particularly special about Christianity in that regard.
The thing is, when you understand the science of it, there is no need, no place, nor evidence of a creator. In fact, if there were a creator most organisms would function quite differently as the paths life followed were best suited to the environments at the time, not any sort of ideal optimization that any intelligent being would have imposed on any such process. I think that is source of the schism between Christianity and science, or any belief system that answered the big how questions through historical mythology, is that these myths were made up prior to our understanding how these things actually happened. The reason some some other belief systems such as Buddhism embrace and are much more in line with science is there is no fundamental contradictions, they never attempted to provide all the answers in the same manner.
He must not be a very good radio chemist, as a âcomplete understandingâ directly contradicts any young earth theories. If you dismiss the very core pieces of a branch of science you donât really have a complete understanding by definition.
Exactly this. So nice to see a concise explanation of the science. Thank you!
1 Like
It is called cognitive dissonanceâŚ
1 Like
Yes it is. Cognitive dissonance negates complete understanding, the contradictions cause you to turn a blind eye to aspects that are in fundamental contradiction. I donât think we disagree?
My point was, can you really be good at a field where you practice an extreme form of cognitive dissonance that denies the very core principals of the system of understanding of that field? Can you really have a âcomplete understandingâ when you donât grasp the fundamental pieces that everything else is built upon, that these pieces are necessary and undeniable for everything else in that field to make sense?
Probably the wrong line of work for that guy. Similar to how one wouldnât make a good doctor if they didnât believe in internal organs and thought bodies were full of jelly beans. Thatâs all.
2 Likes
Modern science begs to differ⌠According to the latest research it is capybaras and cats.
4 Likes
Youâre both heretics. I think itâs time for a dance off.
2 Likes
I thought it was called âpoliticsâ?
2 Likes
I recognise that. Whatâs it from?
that made me laugh.
unfortunately in the USA âpoliticsâ is only a 2 player game both of which are the denomination of Christianity known as Corporationists. They both put all their faith in the other kind of prophet. Granted one party is âfundamental corporationistsâ and the other party is ânew reform corporationistsâ, they arenât as different as one might hope, alas.
i was picturing a more open playing field where every religion was represented, silly me.
Perhaps you meant to reference @Medievalistâs image â I forget the story (I think that it was critters scaring off some thieves).
1 Like
I thought it was the Bremen Town Musicians, a Grimm fairy tale.
2 Likes
Nah, no capybaras in Bremen. It must just remind me of some old kidâs book. I like it, itâs got a Hugh Lofting sort of feel.
1 Like
Some good science-talk here, but to be clear, the actionable problem is not merely that whackadoodles are whackadoodles, itâs that a specific, peculiarly-enthused subset of a particular cult are 1) in government and 2) trying to infect it with their nonsense. Whackadoodleosity is innately problematic, sure, but history suggests that explicit governmental addressing of religions is counterproductive. Tolerate but donât respect religiousness, I think, except when it encroaches on governance, in which case fight it tooth and nail.
The problem really isnât fundamentalism but the fundamentals themselves, and thatâs why all religious inclinations are to be distrusted. Rejection of methodological naturalism intrinsically leads to divergence from reality, i.e. that shared space in which we all suffer and feel joy (random irrelevant question: whatâs a one-word verbal antonym for âsufferâ?). Even the wateriest, most defanged deism indicates poor reasoning (e.g. wishful thinking) and/or lack of basic scientific literacy.
Consider this: if a fundyâs fundamentals were âuse methodological naturalism as a basis for observation and accumulation of knowledge and forget about metaphysicsâ then they might or might not be a good person, but theyâd at least be more in touch with reality. They could also be a warlord or a bigot or whatever, and thatâs where ethics comes into play, but thereâs no need for metaphysics there, either.
We can make moral claims such as âconsenting adults shall be defined as humans age X-Zâ and âconsenting adults shall not be physically harmed unless in delimited scenariosâ, and we can do this despite the obvious infinite regression and eventual muddy dissolution of any claim, moral or otherwise. We can do that simply by referencing the preferences of extant human beingsâhow they react to pain and pleasure, company and solitude, satiety and hunger, etc in specific contexts (i.e. thereâs a difference between, say, assault and consensual BDSM).
