What Place Creationists?
Posted by: Loren Coleman on February 17th, 2007
It appears people are dying to argue or debate or yell at each other about evolutionism, creationism, and cryptozoology.
Therefore, as opposed to this discussion popping up, sort of off-topic, in other Cryptomundo blogs’ comment sections, let’s try this. Here are a couple simple questions: Does cryptozoology have room for creationists? Does cryptozoology have room for evolutionists?
In an evidence-based scientific model, does the philosophy or religion of the person gathering the evidence matter when the pursuit of new animals is concerned? When tracking down cryptids, whether the cryptozoologist is chasing Bigfoot, dinosaurs, or new species of rats, does it matter if she or he is a creationist, a evolutionist, or an agnostic?
Let me open up the comments’ section here for a discussion of this, as long as it can remain civil, not personalized, and intelligent.
Does it matter whom it might be or what your belief system is, if you can bring in the first Bigfoot?
Random Posts
- Similar Phenomena:
I think ‘The Plan’ was for us to populate the universe.That is why the earth was so rich in diversity.Now that we have killed off the bulk of species it might be too late to wonder what God meant for us to do.
To me it depends on how you mean creationist. A biblical literalist who thinks the creation happened exactly as described in Genesis probably has not place in cryptozoology. Someone who believes in a creation, but not a literal interpretation of Genesis probably could.
There will be no first bigfoot brought in. The feds already brought in no.1 and no.2. There won’t be another one brought in. Anyone who thinks that there will be is a dreamer. The reasons are all paranormal. Which is well beyond the comprehension of most all flesh & blood bigfoot believers. The real question to be asked and answered, Does cryptozoology have room for biased cherry pickers of both research observations as well as historical fact?
I believe there is a God. I do not presume to know what kind of Presence that God is.
I believe that the universe evolved and that the Earth and living things evolved within it.
I believe that there must have been an selective advantage to spirituality for it to have evolved in humans, because it seems to be a part of every culture and every individual human, in some way. Even atheism is a kind of religion, really.
I do not subscibe to the myth of creationism. I believe that the various myths of creationism arose through human beings’ attempts to understand their origins.
That being said, I find it remarkable that the Bible, for instance, can be reconciled with what we know of evolution, in many ways. In my opinion that illustrates human beings’ glimpsing the processes of the evolution of the physical world before they had the sophistication to begin to understand them.
Whether people consider themselves religious, agnostic, or atheist is intensely individual to each person, no matter how hard-line they may be about their particular belief, and no two people’s religious beliefs are exactly the same, for that reason.
I really don’t think it matters what a zoologist’s or cryptozoologist’s religious beliefs are, as long as their objective is to further our collective knowledge of the creatures around us and they remained focused on that objective.
Each of us is the sum of our own experiences, and we each see the world through the filter of those experiences. That does not have to interefere in the quest for knowledge.
I’m a young earth Creationist, I’m very interested in the subject of Cryptozoology and I don’t see a conflict of interest between the two subjects. Bigfoot for example, which appears to be no fossil evidence in favor of its existance, if it really does exist would “merely” be a new type of ape species that currently remains unknown to science and not some type of “missing link” between apes and humans.
Thank you for this opportunity, Loren.
No, it shouldn’t matter what a person’s particular belief is. As far as any cryptid out there, finding one won’t prove evolution nor will it prove creation. DNA might not even be of any use. After all, Chimpanzees share 97% of our genes but they aren’t human.
The biggest beaf we creationists have with evolutionists is that we are essentially told we are ignorant, superstitious morons because we cannot believe in evolution. They even deny that there are credited scientists that have rejected evolution.
Frankly, I love to have intelligent discussions with evolutionists because it challenges me to know why I believe what I believe. I research and consider anything new I read on the topic.
But the problem really is that evolution is a scientific theory, but evolutionism has become essentially a naturalistic religion, according to Michael Ruse who is a committed Darwinist. I believe he is right. It has become a rivalry of religious dogmas, complete with respective tenants and “proofs”.
We can’t know what happened in prehistory we can only speculate. For every bit of “evidence” an evolutionist can show, a creationist can show equal “evidence” that seems to refute it.
I’ve said before and I’ll say again: let’s work together to find these cryptids and then there will be plenty of time to speculate on whether they were created or they evolved. But even then I doubt that we’ll resolve the issue. So why get caught up in these arguments now? Let’s stay foused on the big picture and respect everyone’s personal beliefs.
I’m a long-standing Cryptomundo reader, although this will be my first post.
I’m glad that this topic was addressed, because lately there have been a couple of comments indicative of some tension in regards to this issue.
To answer the question directly, no, neither one’s methods nor one’s success in the pursuit of cryptids will be shaped by such presuppositions. What will be shaped, however, is his interpretation of any results. Proof-positive of bigfoot, for instance, might be used by evolutionists to argue for a “missing link.” Proof-positive of mokele-mbembe, to give another instance, might be used by creationists to argue for a young earth.
There is going to be foolishness from both camps- expect it. There are going to be creationists who haven’t done the homework that they should have on a particular photo. And there are going to be evolutionists who see a missing link when they look at a pig’s tooth (*cough cough). But don’t judge a position by the credibility that one of its representatives has in some other arena. What if a world-renowned cryptozoologist made the headlines by turning out to be a serial killer? Would you want cryptozoology to be judged by that person’s credibility as a citizen?
Only the intellectually-lazy or the intentionally-blind would find no room for creationists like Bill Gibbons, etc., within cryptozoology. Btw, into who’s system do surviving prehistoric animals fit best, the evolutionists or the creationists?
I’m an evolutionist and atheist and I love cryptozoology, evolution fits perfectly into cryptozoology. The fact that new species keep popping up, and that they’re related by common descent, is just further evidence that evolution is true.
Long time reader and first time poster. Thanks for the opportunity.
I am a believer in the literal word of the Bible. Young earth and six-day creation. I love cryptozoology. I don’t use it to expound my beliefs nor do I think it should be used that way. I don’t see how cryptozoology could be evidence of evolution either. I’m saddened that some feel that creationists can’t be included because of our beliefs. Sounds like profiling to me. I haven’t seen any creationists saying that about evolutionists in these posts. I do resent some of the negative things that have been said about creationists in some of the postings. Shouldn’t this be about intelligent discussion and not personal vendettas to prove or disprove one’s viewpoint?
The fact that new species keep popping up, and that they’re related by common descent, is just further evidence that evolution is true.
#1 Are you suggesting that new species are “popping up” by evolution? That the reason some animals were not previously known is that they recently evolved? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that that was not your point.
#2 If your point had more to do with “common descent,” how do similarities among species point to common-descent and not to a common-creator?
No one’s denying that all canines had a common origin, or that all bears had a common origin, etc. etc. But you’ll never prove common-descent within categories any broader than that, because “God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds–livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.’ And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”
Yes, the believe or study in cryptozoology should not come create conflict with either creationists or evolutionists.
I am a creationist but i also study cryptozoology.
That was easy. No problem here.
Hello everyone.
I am a creationist and a fan of cryptozoology. I have no qualms with an evolutionist in their pursuit of unknown/unclassified animals, so I would hope to have their respect and we could respectfully disagree. One thing that we could agree on is there are still some unclassified animals running/flying/swimming around, so I hope that this would not be an issue to block our research into this phenomena.
One of the reasons I prefer cryptomundo over a couple of other sites is that the people around here tend to stay focused on what it is we love instead of constantly beating each other over the head over what I consider side issues. I have seen some things said at other sites that were very negative and mean-spirited. This makes me glad I am here. Although I do not post often, I check in here almost daily and enjoy the articles and all the replies.
I hope the fact that I am a creationist does not bother any of you, but if there is no place for me here I would gladly leave and go elsewhere, not wanting to cause problems for anyone.
Good evening to you all.
Good point Scott C. (post #9) people forget that part about “according to their kinds”. For example, wild poodles never roamed the earth but they are still canines. People also forget the law of homeostasis (postulated by an evolutionist) that says that creatures resist change and cannot be changed beyond a certain point else they become sterile or revert to their original form. Mules are a good example of this. So are roses. And for all the bacteria who have become resistant to medication, they still remain the same bacteria. Likewise the simple virus. Quite frankly, if evolution were true I would expect less diversity in the world than the abundance we find. I still can’t find an evolutionist who can explain how the egg tooth of a lizard developed or how, against all the laws of probability, all of the necessary elements: the egg, the disposal of fetal waste, the tooth, and the necessary thickness of the shell for protection all came about independently just so the little lizard could be born.
Does Cryptozoology have room for creationists AND evolutionists? It had better. The very concept of “hidden” animals requires an extremely open mind and a willingness to combine rigorous scientific methodology with a bit of old-fashioned faith.
If, however, the purpose of one’s search for cryptids is to somehow “prove” creationistic or evolutionary theory, then I think that perhaps that individual has missed the point. The real joy of cryptozoology, (and the one that found me spending my childhood reading book after tedious book of marginal research and hoping to catch a glimpse of the Sasquatch or its footprints on every camping trip), is in pondering the marvelous and wonderful possiblities of the vast unknown that is life. Whether you believe that some higher intelligence created “kinds” of cryptids or that natural selection created them over eons of existence, it really doesn’t matter to me; just so long as we are here now and we can prove that “they” still are too.
The question might as well be, “Does Cryptozoology have room for Democrats and Republicans?” A person’s paradigm and philosophy won’t matter to any of us investigators one way or another if they are the one who can finally find the conclusive evidence that we are all so eager to believe is out there.
“Are you suggesting that new species are “popping up” by evolution? That the reason some animals were not previously known is that they recently evolved?”
I’m suggesting that the reason that new species keep “popping up” is because of hybridization, dwarfism, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, and mutations. These are all processes of evolution.
These new species didn’t appear out of nowhere, God or gods didn’t make them magically appear, they were the result of evolution.
I have no idea why this is a question. It’s like asking ‘do creationists study animals’ or ‘do evolutionists study animals’. Cryptozoology has absolutely no inherent supernatural or paranormal element that requires one to believe in the ‘mystical’ beginning of life (creation) vs. the ‘natural’ beginning of life (evolution). To me, anyone who suggests otherwise has no business calling themselves a cryptozoologist, which is why I’m puzzled: why is this question even being posed here? I’d think the answer is extremely obvious and logical, it’s the fact that you feel the need to pose the question that disturbs me. There’s a suggestion in it, one direction or the other, that could be nothing but negative to the ongoing communication here.
Mrdark, thank you for your opinion on asking the questions, but I think you miss the point. I am merely trying to air this issue out, give it a one-time platform, and move on from it.
It is troublesome that this “below the surface in-fighting” keeps cropping out, rather off-topic, in the comment sections of other blogs on cryptozoology.
Mrdark’s logic may actually be close to mine.
Evolutionists and creationists may say whatever they feel compelled to say here, and then let’s get back to the business of cryptozoology.
Creationists/evolutionists/agnostists-oriented comments will be deleted elsewhere as “off-topic.”
“wild poodles never roamed the earth but they are still canines”
Of course they are canines, we bred them.
“And for all the bacteria who have become resistant to medication, they still remain the same bacteria. Likewise the simple virus.”
Not true, bacteria that have become resistant to medication have evolved, they’re no longer the same species. You should also give this a read, it’s about how a virus managed to evolve a harmless bacteria into a lethal pathogen:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15353570
“Quite frankly, if evolution were true I would expect less diversity in the world than the abundance we find. I still can’t find an evolutionist who can explain how the egg tooth of a lizard developed or how, against all the laws of probability, all of the necessary elements: the egg, the disposal of fetal waste, the tooth, and the necessary thickness of the shell for protection all came about independently just so the little lizard could be born.”
Are you suggesting that a god or gods are placing new species on our planet just for fun, and that this accounts for the large diversity of species?
Are you suggesting that a god or gods designed a special egg tooth, eggs, and an eggshell of sufficient strength for protection just so a little lizard could be born?
Your question would be akin to asking a creationist or any christian what color robe was Jesus wearing the day he died. Was it bright red as Matthew said it was, or was it purple as Mark and John said? Who put that robe on Jesus, was it Herod’s soldier as Luke said it was, or was it Pilate’s soldiers as Matthew, Mark, and John said?
The fact that the evolutionist you have asked were unable to answer the question does not mean that evolution is a farce. Unlike religion, science doesn’t claim to know all the answers, in fact science is all about learning.
For example, wild poodles never roamed the earth but they are still canines - they did - they were wolves once, but selective breeding by humans have produced a vast variety of breeds of dog with such vastly different personalities, traits and characteristics, which don’t resemble each other to the point where they could be observed (by the naive) as a separate species, which of course they are not. We know all canines descended at one point in time or another from wolves (some breeds more recently than others, eg. Czechoslovakian wolfdog).
Im more agnostic than atheistic, and am open minded to the idea of a god (or gods), but in my opinion, god(s) are a very unlikely phenomenon.
My belief is that if crypto zoology wants to be accepted by science at large, quirky beliefs such as creationism must be left behind, and that one must enter the pursuit with a completely open mind, one without prejudice against the founding principle of modern biology (evolution).
Evolution is backed up by mountains of evidence. Creationism is backed up by one ancient text, without any corroborating evidence, and with the strong probability of having being mistranslated throughout the ages (eg. Ancient Hebrew to ancient Greek, ancient Greek to Latin, Latin to archaic German, German to old English, old English to modern English (missing many, many steps in between, and not to mention the translators who might have taken some… poetic licence in their translations)
You might be able to find the odd rogue scientist who believes a literal interpretation of the bible, but you would be hard pressed to find a true biologist who is even remotely religious (or if they are, certainly not a ‘creationist’).
Science is the pursuit of knowledge, which a literal reading of the bible prevents since it already claims to have the answers. I’m not going to get personal, but if you were to truly take the bible literally, word for word, then you would be stoning your children if they were naughty, killing those who lifted a finger on the Sabbath, and using the natural constant of “pi” as 3 in pursuits of engineering (a big no no..).
I guess, in cryptozoology atleast, you don’t need to be a scientist to actually bring in an unknown animal (a proficiency of trapping and firearms use might help however), but I would certainly hope that the person who examines the specimen IS a scientist, and ponders about the evolutionary process which produced this animal, what family of animals the specimen belongs to, how certain adaptations it displays have helped it to remain ‘hidden’ etc, so we get a full spectrum of ideas which can be explored by more scientists at a later date. If your local church pastor examined it, you might get an answer of “god put it here”, which does not satisfy my curiosity what so ever.
I don’t believe that religion and science (in this case, cryptozoology) are incompatible per se, but a literal interpretation IS incompatible, as it looks in the face of evidence and flat out says “no, I don’t believe my eyes”, and for this reason, I put creationism in the same boat as the flat earth society, and holocaust denial.
Just to add this, for some reason, it seems that only America is afflicted with the whole “evolution vs creation” debate. In Australia, I don’t know any aussies who believe the bible word for word. The only “creationist” I actually know, is an American. Even the church I used to attend, no one actually believed a literal interpretation of Genisis. To me, this is very strange that America, the country who has contributed so much to science, engineering, and related disciplines, has the highest rate of religiosity, to the point that religion is affecting the work of scientists.
I by no means subscribe to “molecules to man”. However, as other posters have already so eloquently stated, whether one is a Darwinist or a Creationist, its obvious that there are many in each camp who frequent this board, and ALL share an intense interest in Cryptozoology. Forget about trying to guess if one has a hidden agenda for doing so-or not. Truth is truth. Does Sasquatch exist? Does M’kele M’mbembe? The Molgolian Deathworm? There will not be a different answer for the creationist and the Darwinist. Now: are we going to to treat each other the way that Dr. Meldrum is treated by his colleagues? Because if we do, we are no better than they are. The Creation/Evolution debate continues-we all know that; but unless the rules of this board specifically forbids one camp or another from participating in this blog, I think a “creationists verboten” attitude(or a “Darwinists verboten” one for that matter)-just doesnt belong here. Bob Dylan once wrote, “We always did feel the same, we just saw it from a different point of view.” Given the general subject matter and scope of this blog, I think that we can all co-exist on these boards with that very attitude. Would calling for some common courtesy be that far out of the question?
cradossk:
You said, “You’d be hard pressed to find a biologist who is remotely religious, (or if they, certainly not a creationist.)”
Kenneth B. Cummings, Biologist, Ph.d, Harvard University comes to mind. I can also name several others if you like. Also Andrew A. Snelling, Geologist, Ph.d, Univ. of Sydney. Both creationists and literal Bible believers.
It’s is exactly this kind of statement from evolutionists that bother creationist. Evolutionists need to do some research before they make such sweeping statements. They seem to assume that if you don’t believe in evolution you’re a moron and can’t possibly be a highly educated person. (Let alone have a doctorate.) By the way, poodles are canines as are all dogs and, incidently, wolves. Yes, they have been bred by humans for certain characteristics but no one has changed them from being canines. Homeostasis still applies and the species can only be bred so far before it becomes sterile.
In reality such breeding attempts are a good evidence against evolution. The long attempts at breeding these dogs have resulted in inbreeding and occasional genetic mutations that have been malignant. When one develops workable gills or wings or the ability to speak and create tools, please let me know.
Loren:
Just re-read your remarks above. I so agree with you. Why do we have to justify the possible existence of cryptids in terms of our personal beliefs? I appreciate this opportunity for us to get some things out, but we really need to stay focused on reports, follow-ups and finding these creatures, evolvers or whatever someone cares to think of them as.
Well, I am going to try not to get too drawn into this debate, but a couple thoughts. I personally do not subscribe to creationism as some people here may know. I am actually known to get quite heated about it. But the fact of the matter is that there are some very intelligent, very qualified scientists out there that happen to be creationists. I was just reading recently about a Phd geologist who is a leading expert on the Earth’s crust, has written several well recieved papers on it, and guess what? He is a creationist. I have met biologists who are creationists as well and we have argued over it many a time. At first, I strongly thought this was counterintuitive, this idea of a creationist being a scientist. But I have softened my view on this. In the end, these are intelligent people and they have commited themselves to finding out how the worlds works no matter what their personal views are. I say that as long as their work is solid and follows scientific standards, than there is no reason why a creationist cannot be a scientist. They look at the evidence and deal with it without letting their personal views get in the way and this is what is important to me. If the research is being done in a responsible way, I don’t think it really matters what the scientists religious views are.
Mr. Coleman,
Maybe your next question should be, “Does Cryptozoology have room for scientists? Does Cryptozoology have room for amateurs?” It seems the debate as to whether Cryptozoology is a true science is as hotly debated as the evolution/creation one. You could have biologists, paleotologists, etc. debating with us amatuer enthusiasts about the existence of unknown animals. LOL.
One thing I do think it is going to be hard to do is police the blogs for debates breaking out about this topic. A good deal of the articles and speculation on the origins of cryptids rely on people talking about evolution. If a creationist, which it appears there are a lot of on this blog put out a creationist theory, some evolutionists are going to call them out on that and voila, a debate. Can’t very well just allow mentions of evolution to be posted because then creationists feel left out and I think some creationists are going to want to express their own veiws when, say, Bigfoot’s biology gets brought up. You can’t really have any discussion on this topic coming up without evolution being mentioned at some point so it is going to be hard to make everybody happy, I feel. There is going to have to be some peaceful coexistence going on.
Kenneth B. Cummings, Biologist, Ph.d, Harvard University comes to mind. I can also name several others if you like. Also Andrew A. Snelling, Geologist, Ph.d, Univ. of Sydney. Both creationists and literal Bible believers.
I’m having a hard time finding any info at all about Kenneth B. Cummings’ credentials. I found a short abstract about him claiming that finches are a big problem for evolutionists, which I think is absolutely ridiculous and may explain why I’m having a hard time finding information about his credentials.
Andrew A. Snelling is a Young Earth Creationist, these people believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. That alone should be enough to discount anything that comes out of his mouth, I mean who in their right mind would believe that the T.rex lived 6,000 years ago and that they co-existed with humans? But that’s not all, it turns out that there’s even more troubling facts about Andrew Snelling, I suggest giving this article a read, a detailed account about Andrew Snelling’s two-faced life.
Just one more note: Neither Kenneth Cummings nor Andrew Snelling are notable enough to have an article about them on Wikipedia.
Agree with mystery_man, particularly the last post.
Stepping in when it goes over a line has worked here.
That said: why can’t one believe in God AND subscribe to evolution? To me, if there’s any evidence of a God (and in the direct sense there isn’t), evolution is it.
I have been an amateur cryptozoologist for over 30 years. I have no particular religious beliefs.
The only belief you need is a belief in cryptids. It doesn’t matter where that comes from, what book, what religious text. It is the belief that will make research happen. It’s the belief in cryptozoology that sends you out to sit in wet cold places for hours watching for cryptids. I personally don’t care what else someone believes in if they are the first to bring proof of a cryptid, I just want to shake their hand.
All this infighting does nothing to help the standing of cryptozoology in the scientific world and only divides us when we should be working together.
DWA, are you saying that God created countless amount of stars, countless amounts of planets, and that he placed simple single-cell organisms on planet Earth so that he can watch it evolve into the wide diversity of life that we have today? If you believe that, do you think that God has only watched this planet and not done anything else?
When humans go into outer-space, does God follow them to see what they’re doing? If humans were to colonize another planet, would he be watching both planets? What if billions of years in the future humans have colonized millions of planets, would he watch all million planets? If humans are wiped out by robots that they built themselves, would God continue watching the robots evolve? Would he ever get bored and create new creatures to battle the robots?
See, the idea of God just doesn’t make sense when one really thinks about it. There’s just no purpose to it.
Alright, first of all, I appreciate the spirit behind Loren’s method. Get this aired out and leave it alone since it isn’t essential to our common interest. However, mystery_man has a point: is this policy going to be consistently enforced? Will all reference to evolution be treated as all reference to creation? Or will Cryptomundo follow in the footsteps of the school-system’s double-standard?
Secondly, I’ll agree with Leto on his last post- Theistic Evolution doesn’t make sense- it’s a compromise no matter which side you’re coming from. However, looking at that compromise and then concluding “See, the idea of God doesn’t make sense,” is apples and oranges.
Also, I really appreciate mystery_man’s admission of intelligence and credibility on the part of many creationists. I don’t want to fall into mean-spirited name-calling, but I’ll repeat as kindly as possible that you’re either intellectually-lazy or intentionally-blind if you know nothing of credible creationists/creationism.
Finally, I really need to take issue with Cradossk. His is the most disturbing post thus far. Open question here: has any Creationist on this blog ever denied evolutionists a place in cryptozoology? No, never. Has any evolutionist on this blog ever denied creationists a place in cryptozoology? Yes, twice on this thread thus far. This is the same double standard that plays out in the media all the time: political liberals can bash others all day long, and you’ll rarely hear about it; but the moment a conservative lifts a finger, everybody’s all over it.
Now, Cradossk.
“My belief is that if crypto zoology wants to be accepted by science at large, quirky beliefs such as creationism must be left behind, and that one must enter the pursuit with a completely open mind, one without prejudice against the founding principle of modern biology (evolution).”
You’re not living in the real world if you brush off creationism as a “quirky belief.” It’s mainstream. But I’ll get back to that in a minute. More importantly, do you not see what you did? “open mind, one without prejudice against…evolution.” What if I said, “open mind, one without prejudice against creation.” Somehow, in the same sentence, you said both that we had to be open-minded and that we had to believe exactly like you. Amazing.
“Evolution is backed up by mountains of evidence. Creationism is backed up by one ancient text…”
Do your homework, you’re embarrassing yourself.
“one ancient text, without any corroborating evidence, and with the strong probability of having being mistranslated throughout the ages (eg. Ancient Hebrew to ancient Greek, ancient Greek to Latin, Latin to archaic German, German to old English, old English to modern English”
Go look up what historical document has more extant manuscript evidence than any other: The New Testament of the Bible, and the OT is very well accounted for as well. Specifically, we have over 5,000 extant mss. As for the strong probability of being mistranslated- if you found 5,000 copies of Moby Dick, dated to Melvill’s lifetime, and they all said the same thing, would you seriously doubt their accuracy? And as far as the OT, go research the Dead Sea scrolls. Finally, we don’t translate from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to German to English- when we want an English translation of the OT, we go directly to the Masoretic Text as corroborated by the Dead Sea scrolls. And as far as the NT, we have mss. dating to the 2nd century. All in the original Hebrew and Greek (and a small portion of Daniel in Aramaic).
“Science is the pursuit of knowledge, which a literal reading of the bible prevents since it already claims to have the answers.”
The scientific method, applied in the traditional sense, will never PROVE anything, no matter how helpful it may be. Let me clarify: science is, by definition, inductive. It looks for the generals behind the specifics. You set up an experiment, see a result, and repeat it many times. Good, you’ve proven that such-and-such a result CAN happen in association with such-and-such a condition. But can you prove that it will always do that, by running the experiment an infinite number of times? Can you prove that there’s no third variable, actually responsible for the causation of any given result, that you’re missing? Science will always be inductive, and induction can’t prove.
“the pursuit of knowledge, which a literal reading of the bible prevents since it already claims to have the answers.”
And you claim to have your answers. We all work off of presuppositions. Study the philosophy of Epistemology. I could ask you why you believe a certain thing. You’d give an answer. I’d ask why you believe that answer, you’d give me another answer, etc. That may go on for awhile, but it would not be infinite-regress, because eventually we’d arrive at the foundation of your thinking- your presuppositions. Let’s say that we eventually conclude that all your thinking hinges on the scientific method (it may or may not). How do you prove the scientific method? By the scientific method? Ok, then how do you prove that the scientific method that you used to prove the scientific method is correct? By the scientific method? ad infinitum, you get the point. Now we are in infinite-regress, because there’s nothing logically-prior to the foundation of your thinking. Why? because it’s a presupposition. Our presupposition is that God revealed propositional truth in the form of Scripture.
“if you were to truly take the bible literally, word for word, then you would be stoning your children if they were naughty, killing those who lifted a finger on the Sabbath…”
Only if I was a jew living under the Old Covenant before the death of Christ. God has chosen to interact with man through a progression of different covenants throughout history. The Old Covenant, which you quoted from, was in effect from the time of Moses until the death of Christ. The New Covenant was prophesied in Ezekiel and Jeremiah, taught by Christ, and expounded upon in the book of Hebrews.
“but a literal interpretation IS incompatible, as it looks in the face of evidence and flat out says ‘no, I don’t believe my eyes”
As was mentioned previously, explain the evolution of the separate elements of the lizard egg. If there was ever a time that any one of those elements did not exist, we would have no lizards today. Explain the evolution of all components of the bombardier beetle. If the hydrogen and hydroquinone evolved before the inhibitor, there would be no bombardier beetles…so explain why the inhibitor would have evolved first? The list could go on and on, but at the end of the day, you’ll still “look in the face of evidence and flat out says, no.”
Let me conclude by saying that this is all way off the topic of cryptozoology, but anyone who wants to remind me of that can remind Cradossk first, because I’m only walking through doors he opened.
There’s no proof for creation at all. Believing stories to be true that were written in ancient times is irrational in my opinion. Science provides hard evidence for evolution, creationists have no proof. Simple as that, its all stories written by man.
I took a class in college called “Drugs and Society”. My teacher made a statement that actually provoked some Christian students to get up and leave. He said ” It’s interesting that most of the unbelievable stories in the bible were written at the same time when man first discovered hallucinogens (shrooms).”
Leto: you need to slow down!
Never said anywhere in that post that I believe in God. I just find it really amusing that no one thinks God would work through evolution. Just for the sheer screaming hell of it.
Just like you’ll try tequila shots with vodka chaser one night and 151 shots with a beer chaser the next, maybe he did five billion years of evolution here, a six-day Creation there, a six-month Creation out there…just ’cause he thought it would be cool to watch!
You really seem to be limiting God. See, I’m not so sure God created Man in his image. It frequently seems like precisely the other way around.
Read your first paragraph. Why wouldn’t God have done that?
On three hundred billion trillion planets, in a trillion universes? Hmmm? Spinning it a little differently each time to watch what happened? And making more universes to pass the time while he was watching? And making more universes to pass the time while he was making those? And taking a few minutes every century or so to see what Homo sapiens was up to? OR WATCHING ALL OF IT, INTENTLY, AT THE SAME TIME?
Now read your last paragraph. Why should God make “sense”? Does war make “sense”? Doesn’t it take one heck of a lot of temerity for us to presume that the human concept of “sense” - or any human concept for that matter - has anything to do with God? Maybe - and I think this may be true - “sense,” and human intelligence and spirituality for that matter, are just an evolutionary experiment, like the fangs of the sabertooth or the antlers of the Irish elk.
Too much musing about God seems to want to put him in our sandbox, rather then us in his.
In a recent debate in Time magazine, a scientist debated another scientist on the concept of God. The one who DIDN’T think you needed a God to explain the universe said, at the end, essentially this:
If there is a God, he will be much bigger and much vaster and much more amazing that anything any theologian of any religion has yet imagined.
I’ll go with that.
What’s the purpose? That’s a HUMAN concept, Leto. Why not just think that God made us so he’d have an audience?
Leto said:
“DWA, are you saying that God created countless amount of stars, countless amounts of planets, and that he placed simple single-cell organisms on planet Earth so that he can watch it evolve into the wide diversity of life that we have today? If you believe that, do you think that God has only watched this planet and not done anything else?”
Leto, if God IS, and if by God one means an all-powerful Being or Presence, then God can do whatever God wants to do. Whether the the Earth is God’s Own project, or a happy (for us) accident, whether God watches the processes of evolution without interfering, or gives it a nudge once in awhile, is something that we cannot know. Whether God is watching other planets too is also impossible to know. We cannot know for sure IF God Is, much less WHAT God is. God may be a part of the human psyche instead of a separate, absolute consciousness. We cannot know; people who believe in God have to take it on faith that God exists. Their “proof” is whatever they see around them in the natural world that reinforces that faith. “Faith” is “belief without empirical proof“.
Leto said:
“See, the idea of God just doesn’t make sense when one really thinks about it. There’s just no purpose to it. ”
Believing in God or some higher power does not have to “make sense”. Neither should one let their faith interfere with their understanding of the natural world. There must be a “purpose” or reason for spiritual beliefs to have evolved in humans. Whether that “purpose” is so that we can deal with our self-awareness, or whether it evolved specifically so that we can worship God or gods, is a matter of personal belief and is unprovable either way. I see no reason that a zoologist or a cryptozoologist can’t have their own beliefs and still practice good science. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
Scott C. said:
“Btw, into who’s system do surviving prehistoric animals fit best, the evolutionists or the creationists?”
Those people who believe that some prehistoric species’ survival to this day indicates that they somehow did not evolve to fill a niche show a lack of knowledge and understanding of evolution. Most species existing today, including us, were once “prehistoric” species. That some animals, once thought by us to be extinct and known only from fossils, are found to still be living on earth today fits perfectly into the fact of evolution. It simply means that some members of that species were isolated in a pocket environment to which they were well suited, and that we only recently found thenm there. Or that they were sufficiently adaptable to changing conditions as to be able to survive under those conditions and we recently found them. The survival of species once thought extinct offers further proof, rather than any sort of disproof, that evolution occurs. The fact that we only recently “discovered” them is an indication of our imperfect knowledge of the world, and the fact that we have not explored every squre foot of it yet. Of course, literal creationists can say that those species survived unchanged because God wills their survival. But if one believes in God, whether one is a creationist or an evolutionist, then EVERYTHING that exists, survives because God wills its survival.
Rillo777 said:
“ By the way, poodles are canines as are all dogs and, incidently, wolves. Yes, they have been bred by humans for certain characteristics but no one has changed them from being canines. Homeostasis still applies and the species can only be bred so far before it becomes sterile.”
Evolution in most cases is not about animals slowly over many many centuries turning into something else. Natural selection DOES favor equilibrium. Speciation occurs when some type of environmental change forces animals to adapt to it. When favorable mutations, major or minor, occur that allow the individuals with the mutations to produce more offspring which in turn survive to breed and exploit the new environmental conditions, new and diverse species can develop fairly rapidly. At least 90% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct, mostly through natural pracesses.
Canines evolved from animals that were general small carnivores called miacids, as did all the other Carnivora. There is no specific point at which we can say “There’s the first true canid”, because the fossil record is incomplete and fossils of mammalian carnivores are rare. But we can trace the evolution of anatomical features that define the animals we call canines through other species of “not-canines”, to the point where the animals branched into the dog and bear families and from there into the Canidae as the family exists today. That miacids themselves were very successful is beyond question. The genets and mongoose of today resemble them so closely that they were once thought to be surviving miacids, although that view has fallen out of favor.
As to hybridization necessarily leading to “dead ends”, that is not the case. In closely related species such as domestic animals and their immediate wild ancestors, hybridization occurs regularly in some parts of the world, and the resulting offspring are usually fertile. In less closely related animals such as lions and tigers (or horses and donkeys), the first-generation male offspring are usually sterile, but not always, and many of the first generation females are fertile. If those fertile females mate with a male of either parent species, the resulting female offspring, and some of the males, are usually fertile. By the fourth or fifth generation most animals of both sexes are fertile. In small, isolated populations this hybridization can lead to speciation. I personally know of and have seen a female mule that is fertile. She produced a filly when she was accidentally bred to a stallion (she was penned with him because everybody “knows” that mules are sterile), and she later produced a colt (or jack?) when bred to a jack donkey. I don’t know what eventually happened to that mule’s offspring, but I have no reason to doubt that they were fertile too. This is known to happen in plants as well, in fact more often than in animals, so I don’t know where your reference to roses fits in.
Leto said:
“I’m suggesting that the reason that new species keep “popping up” is because of hybridization, dwarfism, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, and mutations. These are all processes of evolution.”
Leto, I agree wholeheartedly. But that does not disprove the existence of a higher power.
Thank you, Loren, for airing this topic. This is something I have pondered literally all my life. An early interest in science raised troubling questions for me, having grown up in an intensely traditionally religious family, in an intensely fundamentalist region of the country. I have come to a conclusion that works for me. I don’t expect it works for everybody, and I don’t view creationists as being any less intelligent because of their beliefs.
DWA said:
“why can’t one believe in God AND subscribe to evolution? To me, if there’s any evidence of a God (and in the direct sense there isn’t), evolution is it. ”
My feelings exactly, DWA. I view the evolution of life on earth as a beautiful expression of the infinite Mind of God.
I read something once, I forget where, that said “Man created God in his own image”.
I believe that the only way the human mind can grasp the concept of a God is as a projection of itself. That’s more of a reflection of human limitations than of any limitation of God.
I can’t be a strict anything, seven day creationist or evolutionist, there are too many wonders, too many mysteries, too many anomalies to be amazed by. That’s why I come here, to be amazed and to appreciate the wonder and mystery of it all.
I agree with Mrdark’s logic on this debate. Besides we all have a love of cryptozoology, and taking sides based on your beliefs has no point as a whole.
We all are after the same thing, now we may have different reasons for studying this, but basically we all love the idea of hidden creatures, so we just need to put our religious differences aside and look at that common ground that we do have.
Look at the other areas of science, this debate on evolution vs. creationism is getting ugly and it takes the fun out of studying science. So, why don’t we set the example and work together and show everyone else that it doesn’t matter what your beliefs are, what matters is that you love what you do.
I mean c’mon, what do you want to be thought of in cryptozoology? An evolutionist? A creationist? Or as a cryptozoologist?
Personally i want to be thought of as a cryptozoologist, with out the restrictions for my beliefs stopping me from looking at what is in front of me and finding the best possible answer for what it is and why it’s here.
Just my thoughts on this.
I was just on here, writing a long, drawn out post and Kittenz and DWA hit most of my points so I won’t post it. DWA and Kittenz, great posts!
And Kittenz, wow, good explainations on evolution. Accurate and well thought out. Nicely done! I have found some creationists that have a suprising lack of understanding on how evolution works, so thank you for clearing up some points.
What we believe may not be true.
What is true we may not believe.
So what?
What is, is. It is or it isn’t despite what is believed.
Bigfoot is or isn’t.
Starting with an agenda to fit ones perception of the facts, seems pretty silly. Are you out to discover Bigfoot or convert him to a belief system?
And who will be discovering who? If Bigfoot is out there he’s already discovered us and didn’t like what he saw.
If. If only exists in our minds. If he is in the woods, he knows it. Does he need to know the mechanics of his existence in order to ‘be’?
Are you a Cryptozoologist, a Detective, or an apologist for whatever belief system you have come to convince yourself exists.
Belief in anything is no more than the sum of what it has taken to convince you.
It takes some more than others to arrive at a belief system.
Again, so what.
Bigfoot is there or he is not.
He is an imaginary friend or not.
If you believe that it’s all so complex there must have been a God to create it, then Bigfoot is still there or not to be found.
If you believe that because it’s all so complex then any God would also have to have been created and back to reverse infinity to an initial ’spark’, well, then Bigfoot is still there or not.
Let’s find Bigfoot. Or not.
The belief systems can kick in when AFTER we have looked everywhere there is to look and he still hasn’t shown up, then it’s a matter of belief.
So grab your bootstraps and let’s hit the woods.
If an investigator does a good job, carries out proper interviews and collects evidence in a reliable orderly way, I don’t think it matters.
And if they come out of the woods with a bigfoot tied to their bumper and make it available for proper scientific study, I wouldn’t care if they were flat-Earth, Marxist disco-dancers who think Queen Elizabeth is a shape-shifting lizard.
To me, a creationist, there is more room for the creation belief than conventional evolution. I say this because the evolution taught to us in school denies the possibility of the crypto creatures. In the creationist belief (I am talking christianity here) God is all powerful, and can do whatever He desires. So, in that respect, he also could have created aliens, shadow creatures, shape shifters, etc… Also, because of my background here, I have been able to see the evidence for what it is. I do not feel threatened in anyway if the evidence seems to point the other way. I say that because I know of (off top of my head) 3 different places where the evolutionists covered up the evidence. If you go to see the cave paintings in Europe (which you have to be something of a scientist to do) you will find that the pics we grew up looking at in text books and national geographics are not complete. I have a friend that got to go in and he found a wall painting of men hunting down a dinosaur. Then you have the footprints down in Potete, Texas. You know, the ones with men walking next to dinosaur footprints? I actually heard an evolutionist say that the ground must have softened up again for the man to leave footprints next to the dinosaur. A geologist (colleague of this man) almost had a heart attack hearing this and then explained to the evolutionist that it is extremely rare, if not impossible, for the ground to do that. He said for those prints to be like that, they would have had to be walking side by side. Oh, the geologist was an evolutionist too. Ok, to put it plainly, I can open my eyes and mind to the endless crypto and paranormal possibilities because all of them can fit with my creationist belief. Now, let’s all be careful to lump everyone into these two categories. I know of creationists who are so narrow minded that I wouldn’t be surprised if they question man’s existence. And there are some evolutionists out there where evolution is their religion. So, I say, as long as there are open minds, a willingness to talk and listen to eyewitnesses and then people willing to go look, personal beliefs should aide anyone to find the truth.
Shumway- I don’t see at all how evolution denies crypto creatures as we approach them on this site. Cryptids are just regular creatures, they just have not been discovered yet. I don’t follow how not being discovered yet means that evolution denies them. It doesn’t make any sense.
When I encounter someone who is an avowed biblical literalist using scriptural interpretation to explain how it is in the world of science, I usually nod; knowing that their views are already fairly well set and that nothing I or anyone else can say will likely change it. I’d rather spend my time investigating subjects which interest me with an open mind and enjoy the wealth of really gratifying knowledge that’s out there if we will only allow ourselves the opportunity to engage it. My indulgence in what I prefer to call “speculative biology” integrates my love of science and nature (despite my inherent short-comings when it comes to math…(I suck at it, I suspect due to marginal dyslexia) and my lifelong pursuit of art and worldly experience.
Athieism is currently on the rampage and attacking traditional religious belief with a vehemence that probably goes a little over the top, offending people. Of course the offended defenders of their faith have never had much of a problem offending those of us who don’t share their ecclesiastical views…for that matter they havent had much problem burning ‘em at the stake, historically and metaphorically speaking. Paybacks are hell…which is why the literalists would be wise to pay more attention to ecclesiastes rather than genesis.
I agree fully with kittenz up in the early posts on this subject. I believe that we’re genetically instinctively directed to ponder our condition, especially the unexplainable and we do gain an advantage by having a more comprehensive view of our world so we can behave with our awarenesses helping us to make sense of the changes which threaten us. If a local volcano blows it’s top, it is an advantage to a population such as ours which so clearly is evolutionarily adapted to live as a group, to stick together and so it will interpret it the same way and to move together to avoid the threat and survive as a population intact with its acquired culture. It matters not one whit whether the volcano is caused by some supernatural being or not, but those who have this instinctive ability to form some kind of understanding about the mysteries that surround us, they will survive and this behavioral potential would be passed on too.
Similarly, if there were a divine entity who has planned all this out, but “decided” to use the mechanism of “natural selection”, how would we know unless this divine entity gave us some irrefutable evidence of its existence…and so far, I havent seen it, and that which is offered by religionists has failed to convince me, and the widely-presumed-to-be omnipotent has yet to show me any un-ambiguous proof…like why can’t the all-powerful restore the functioning limbs for amputees?
Scott C. wrote:
Okay, look, I don’t haunt the screen here, although it may look that way. LOL.
I am committed and responsive to the cryptozoological interests of all comers, and try to be fair. But I have my limits and gaps like everyone else. Take for example, the recent photoshopped Triceratops posting, which I uploaded lightheartedly and educationally, as news. I did not enjoy the direction of the personalized attacks in some of the comments there and thus I did moderate and end up deleting a few comments. But I decided to encourage the evolutionists, the creationists, and those interested in that debate to come here instead. To focus, to be civil, to be intellectual. And then get back to cryptozoology.
However, I am only human, and therefore, only humanly available to haunt the moderation pages. As I have said repeatedly, not all “moderations,” even on my blogs, are all mine, but may be from an invisible editor or a robot. While I am committed to keeping Cryptomundo within the parameters of my vision of cryptozoology (as outlined in my books, articles and here), I sometimes do let some comment sections go wild. Sometimes, I do pull in others that I feel should be kept more scientific or humorous or popular cultural. I would get bored with having a standard that is without flexibility, including one that misses the fact I make mistakes, do have occasional bouts of inattention, or am away on roadtrips.
Know what I mean?
So far, not one deletion of any messages has occurred here. That’s what I had hoped for, an exchange centered that would be nicely focussed.
It is obvious from the number of comments, needless to say, that people wanted to talk about this issue in relationship to cryptozoology, and so be it.
I’m for the results of cryptozoology, if done with respect and humanely, including within the context of the presentation of this blog.
I also feel that the “all powerful being who can make anything happen” is kind of playing the trump card. By that rationale, we cannot believe anything we see at all or even trust mathematics because God can do whatever he likes at any time. This to me is a kind of cop out. It makes no attempt to learn about how the natural world works, or gather the needed evidence for us to understand it but rather neatly places everything under the “because God wishes it to be” umbrella. It is an unprovable theory because God is omnipotent. It requires no hard data and allows evidence or data that creationists don’t like to be flatly dismissed because, well, God can do whatever he likes. If this is the case, then all research is a bit pointless because it can change at any time according to God’s will.
I think in science, there is a lot of room for theories to be disproven when new evidence comes up. Not so from what I’ve seen with some creationists (not all). Their theory is true no matter what anyone says, there is no room for change. Science can take new data and change its ideas based on this. The world was thought to be flat until it was proven to be round and so on. Theories are open to change. Even the theory of relativity could be challenged if there was the data to back it up. That is the beauty of the scientific method.
Science also has the tendency to admit it doesn’t know all the answers. There is a willingness to admit that the answer may not be clear. That is why experiments are done and why scientists are out trying hard to figure out how the world works. Not everything is known about, say, the Big bang theory and scientists can admit that and go about trying to get to the bottom of it. They can take a natural phenomena and say “I wonder what is going on there? Hmmm, Let’s do some research and find out.” A lot of creationists on the other hand, and again I don’t say all, simply refuse to admit that they may be wrong. They have all the answers. Some of my ideas have been refuted even when they were based on common scientific knowledge. Whereas a scientist sees holes in the fossil record and strives to understand why because they don’t know, some creationists take that as concrete proof against evolution without any consideration otherwise. This is not, in my opinion, the best way to really get down to how our universe works.
This is why I feel that the research has to hold to certain standards. There has to be a willingness for ones theories to be testable and they have to be based on hard data that is open to being disproven. Scientists do not have the luxury of ascribing anything to an all powerful deity. They have to show how and why something is feasible. I feel one cannot go into any research feeling that they know how the earth works already. I think as long as there is an open mind to the evidence presented, a willingness to concede a theory does not hold water, and an unbiased attention to facts presented, then in the end it does not matter what religion one is in a scientific field.
One more thing, I also don’t see how a belief in evolution neccesarily rules out other types of Fortean phenomena, as Shumway said. I am a science teacher, yet I believe in the possibility of a lot of different phenomena without the belief in creationism. I believe that these phenomena are capable of being explained in a scientific way. I think that in the end, these things can be studied and we can learn how they work within the framework of the natural world. Evolution does not necesarily deny the possibility of various phenomena. But we do have to go out and find out how they work in a scientific fashion.
“What’s the purpose? That’s a HUMAN concept, Leto. Why not just think that God made us so he’d have an audience?”
God, gods, and religion are human concepts as well. Why would a God need an audience? Being a Creationist is incredibly simple, for them the answer to everything is simply “Because God wishes it so”.
“Leto, I agree wholeheartedly. But that does not disprove the existence of a higher power.”
Nor does it prove the existence of a higher power, in fact religion offers no proof at all, simply believing in God is not proof. Some religious people are trying to “unite” with science, I say that’s an attempt to not be left behind, I say there’s no room for religion in science. Religion is simply incompatible with science. Religion says “I have the answers”, science says “I don’t have the answers but I’m willing to learn by exploring the enviroment”. Whereas religion is afraid of change, science embraces change.
“I view the evolution of life on earth as a beautiful expression of the infinite Mind of God.”
See, clearly religious people are trying desperately not to be left behind. Whereas in the past they were simply evolution deniers, now there are some religious groups who are beginning to accept evolution. So what do these new religious groups do to maintain their faith? They simply say “evolution is true because God wishes it so”. Ah, if only the answer to everything were really that simple.
Leto says: “God, gods, and religion are human concepts as well. Why would a God need an audience? Being a Creationist is incredibly simple, for them the answer to everything is simply “Because God wishes it so”.
Well, there you go being human again.
Because something (like God) is a human concept doesn’t mean it can’t exist outside of us. “Bear” is a human concept. But the animal, sans all the names and attributes we bestow upon it, exists outside of us.
Why would God need an audience? He needs nothing. He might want one though. You ever ask him?
Being a creationist is (in my view) incredibly simple.
So is being an evolutionist who believes in a God.
Or doesn’t.
To make it quick: I fully support cradossk’s and the other evolutionist’s perspective in this discussion.
Evolutionalism is science. Science is about finding the truth through constant research, shaping theories by adapting them to newest knowledge.
Therefore evolutionalism is a representation of our current understanding of the world.
Creationalism works the other way around. It’s not about finding the truth, but about defending a posit given truth from science by pre-selected evidence — to give one of the world’s religious communities more credibilty.
To me the first approach feels a lot more sophisticated, honest and noble to me.
“Because something (like God) is a human concept doesn’t mean it can’t exist outside of us. “Bear” is a human concept. But the animal, sans all the names and attributes we bestow upon it, exists outside of us.”
No offense but that analogy makes no sense. We can see, touch, and smell bears, you can’t do that with concepts such as God or gods.
“Why would God need an audience? He needs nothing. He might want one though. You ever ask him?”
Why would God ever want one if God needs nothing?
“Being a creationist is (in my view) incredibly simple. So is being an evolutionist who believes in a God. Or doesn’t.”
Being a creationist is simple, and being a religious person who accepts evolution is simple (like I said earlier all they do is say “evolution is true because God wishes it so”) , but being a true evolutionist is not simple, they actually do science.
Wow Loren, look what you started.
My two cents: Cryptozoology is neither a science or a religion; it’s a convention.
Everyone wears their favorite blobsquatch costume, and comment on how real each other looks.
Many people try to give substance to that which remains insubstantial, and then attach personal beliefs to it.
What do they accomplish?
Thank you Loren. I have to say, I really enjoyed reading the entertaining responses to this topic.
Whoa. Lots to respond to here.
You say: “No offense but that analogy makes no sense. We can see, touch, and smell bears, you can’t do that with concepts such as God or gods.”
Of course it makes sense! I’m sure you’re not saying that without us to see, touch and smell them, bears wouldn’t exist. If we couldn’t sense a God, that wouldn’t make God non-existent. Our senses are beside the point; God exists outside of evidence. (Or not.)
You say: “Why would God ever want one if God needs nothing?”
Same reason I’d like to have a beer sometime today.
If you’re talking about a supreme intelligence, you must presume SOME kind of motivation, or why bother?
You say: “Being a creationist is simple, and being a religious person who accepts evolution is simple (like I said earlier all they do is say “evolution is true because God wishes it so”) , but being a true evolutionist is not simple, they actually do science.”
Being a true evolutionist is VERY simple. (And BTW, a true evolutionist, who’s a scientist, can believe in God. There are many of those. Just wanted to make sure that got in there.) Show me how it’s complex. You don’t have to understand, in detail, the precise mechanisms by which evolution operates in order to consider it a reasonable explanation of what you see. I probably understand it better than most laymen. But I’m no scientist. It just seems to explain what I see better than six-days does.
Too many people equate “religion” with God. So they think one has to believe in the religious concepts of God. Religion is a human concept. If God exists, he exists outside of it. I just consider it highly amusing that so many people are apparently incapable of conceving of evolution as the product of a supreme intelligence. It makes for a lot of unnecessary - and silly - discussion.
He could have done it in six days or in however many days are in five billion years. He’s GOD ferpetesake. Let him have some FUN.
But we HAVE seen bears and empirical evidence proves they exist. Your refutation does not follow. I am surprised at all the superstition among the posters on a site like this. I suppose one could argue that visitors here have “faith” in the existence of bigfoot, so it’s not surprising many would have “faith” in the existence of some kind of “god” with even less proof. However, it still dismays me. The human race is and will continue to be beset by huge problems going forward, and clear thinking and logic are the only ways they will be overcome. Remember, nothing fails like prayer.
I say that evolution is not a matter of religion, but rather of science, and, if a creationist could indeed be classified as someone who believes in a creation, but not the way it happens in the Bible, then you can group me with them.
Ha ha, you’re right DWA, there certainly is a lot to respond to. Too much, actually; so I won’t try. What I will do is hit some major themes in hopes of clarifying the position of Biblical Christianity.
First of all, the reason that we creationists often see cryptozoology as more compatible with our scheme than with the evolutionists’ is that it’s easier to believe that a group of sauropods, for instance, survived the rest of their species by a few thousand years than by a few million years. Does that prove anything? No. Is that the reason we’re creationists? No. It’s just food for thought.
Secondly, in the Christian worldview, God IS limited by something- His own nature. The informed Christian does not believe that God can do just anything. He believes that God can do just anything compatible with His nature. Could God be illogical? No, because God is logical.
Thirdly, Christians are open to correction on anything not clearly taught in Scripture. This has obviously been a area of major misunderstanding. To say that Creationists believe that “they have all the answers” is way too sweeping a statement. More accurately, we have the answers to those things which are addressed by Scripture, and we have those answers only to the extent that they are addressed in Scripture. So do you- just pick up a Bible. I think we’re open to anything compatible with Biblical absolutes. The Bible is not a history book, but where it speaks to history, it speaks accurately. The Bible is not a science book, but where it speaks to science, it speaks accurately. etc. etc.
Christians will go with science anywhere that doesn’t contradict Scripture. Einstein proves relativity? Fine, we go with relativity. No problem here- no Scripture is contradicted.
I also think it’s important for me to repeat something that I posted ealier: we all work off of presuppositions, scientists included. Don’t pretend that creationists do and evolutionists don’t. If I asked you why you believe a certain thing, you’d give an answer. I would then ask you why you believe that answer, and you’d give me another answer, and so on. That would go on for awhile, but it would not be infinite-regress, because eventually we’d arrive at the foundation of your thinking- your presuppositions. Let’s say that we eventually conclude that the scientific method is your presupposition- all your thinking hinges on it. How do you prove the scientific method? By the scientific method? Ok, then how do you prove that the scientific method that you used to prove the scientific method is correct? By the scientific method again? ad infinitum- you get the point. Now we ARE in infinite-regress, because there’s nothing logically-prior to the your presupposition. The creationist/Christian presupposition is that God revealed propositional truth in the form of Scripture.
Finally, to those who are discussing the very existence of God, I’ll just tell you that that discussion is WAY beyond the scope of this blog.
Unfortunately, many Christians try to prove Christianity through history, science, archeology….or even cryptozoology. But those things don’t PROVE anything, just like science can’t ultimately prove anything (see my ealier post for that). The real purpose of our arguments in those fields is to make an “ad hominem”: to demonstrate that even IF our presupposition was the same as the evolutionists’, it would still point to creationism.
The real proof of the existence of God is in the impossibility of the contrary as it relates to such transcendentals as logic, morality, etc. Which, as I said, is way beyond the scope of this blog.
It’s very difficult to have a true debate when both sides use different meanings for the words - ‘evolution’, ‘theory’, ‘evidence’, ‘random’, etc., and where belief, as opposed to logic, is part of the equation.
As a scientist (geologist) I’ve been dismayed at the attitude of some of these posts and impressed with the tact and levelheadedness of mystery_man, Leto, sundevit and well done, cradossk. Regardless of that, I think this question does not belong here because your religious belief (creationism is a purely religious belief) should have nothing to do with subject at hand in the manner that it is discussed here.
Not that long ago, Loren (and the other editors) abstained from allowing off topic debates and commentary in response to posts, claiming that the blog was to disseminate news, it was not a message board. I respected that view and would suggest they might return to that format (but I suspect that the looser rules have generated an upsurge in return viewers to the site?)
Larrykat said:
“But we HAVE seen bears and empirical evidence proves they exist.”
How do you prove that empirical evidence is an accurate measure of truth? By empirical evidence? Ok, how do you prove that the empirical evidence that you used to prove that empirical evidence is an accurate measure of truth is an accurate measure of truth? By empirical evidence again? ad infinitum.
Can you even define “evidence”? How do you prove that your definition of evidence is the correct definition of evidence? Do you have evidence for that? If so, how do you prove that evidence? We could go all day. The point is that you can’t prove anything for sure because you can’t even prove the presuppositons off of which you work.
“If evidence is empirical, it is also inductive, and if it is inductive, then for you to prove your principle, you must use it to verify every possible proposition conceivable by an omnicient mind in order to assert it without fallacy. But if you cannot show that your principle is correct by your own principle, then how can you verify any proposition by the same principle? Thus your principle destroys itself by generating a viciously circular logical loop.” -Vincent Cheung, “Ultimate Questions”
Leto, I can’t see, feel, or touch a Black Hole, either, but I don’t take that as an indication that they cannot exist.
I make a diiference between being spiritual and being religious. I am in no way religious, but I consider myself to be a spiritual person. I did not say “Evolution is true because God wishes it so”. What I said is that science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
You choose not to believe in God, apparently with a fervor that rivals some people’s belief in same. You have a right to believe whatever you choose. That does not make your point of view more or less valid than anyone else’s. DWA is right; you are only being human.
If you know anything about science at all, you know that you can’t prove a negative. If other people have had experiences that lead them to believe in a higher power, who are you to say that their experiences are invalid? You cannot prove that there is no God. You can only harbor that belief. Aetheism is just another kind of religious belief. We humans have developed a plethora of those.
Scott C. says:
“First of all, the reason that we creationists often see cryptozoology as more compatible with our scheme than with the evolutionists’ is that it’s easier to believe that a group of sauropods, for instance, survived the rest of their species by a few thousand years than by a few million years. Does that prove anything? No. Is that the reason we’re creationists? No. It’s just food for thought.”
and then says:
“I think we’re open to anything compatible with Biblical absolutes. The Bible is not a history book, but where it speaks to history, it speaks accurately. The Bible is not a science book, but where it speaks to science, it speaks accurately. etc. etc. Christians will go with science anywhere that doesn’t contradict Scripture.”
Oh my. That says it all. Creationism sounds good and we wish to base all our ideas about the world/universe not on evidence and human understanding, but on a book someone tells us was the word of God. How can one even begin to argue with that? (I’m not being sarcastic; you just can’t have a logical debate about that. The Bible is absolute. The end.) I most heartily disagree that the Bible says anything really valuable about science and frequently is messed up or contradictory re: history. And, I did study it.
Larrykat: my response to you is similar to kittenz’s response to Leto. But let’s go anyway.
I see a lot of superstitious belief in science here. That is, I see a lot of truly fervid belief that science solves everything and if science can’t explain it, it can’t be possible. Science is a great thing, but it’s human just like the humans that practice it.
There’s also a lot of feverish disbelief in God among people who consider themselves rational. If you believe God doesn’t exist, you are, by definition, making an illogical reach, no less illogical than the one you accuse believers in God of making.
The huge problems of the human race won’t all be solved by rational thinking. In fact they are much more likely to be solved by faith in human nature.
Which means, to me: equally unlikely to be solved by either one, at least alone.
Nothing’s failed like science, so far. For all the great things it has done for us, it’s pretty close to making the world a most unpleasant place, if not an impossible one, to inhabit.
I wholeheartedly agree with what some of the evolutionists have said in that we need to apply scientific method to our approach of cryptids. Absolutely! If I, for example, brought in the first bigfoot, I would want a whole team of scientists studying it and I wouldn’t care what their beliefs were. Creationism is a world view of how things came to be. So is evolution. Beyond that, we still both need to study, document and apply generally approved methods to our examination of cryptozoology. No argument here and I’d be happy to do it with any hardcore evolutionist. All I ask is that we have mutual respect even if we completely disagree on our views.
As far as policing these posts for references to creation, evolution, and so forth. I agree that I don’t see how that is possible. But I would say that I won’t attack someone who postulates the evolutionary side and ask that I don’t be attacked if I disagree with it. Personally, I’m not trying to prove creationism or God or anything else here and I’ll be happy to hold my tongue if we can just get on with examining the evidence for cryptids and not get caught up in what is basically a side issue at the moment. We’ve all vented and hopefully come to the intelligent decision to agree to disagree peacefully.
By the way, as a creationist, I do enjoy the intelligent insights from the evolutionists. And they are right about the need for scientific protocols. The methods are sound even if we disagree on biological origins. And we all want to know the truth of these creatures.
ScottC: maybe a much shorter way to look at what you’re saying in your last post is ‘je pense, donc je suis.’
Your existence is really the only yardstick you have by which to judge anything. What’s behind your existence? Heck, all this could be a movie inside your head.
In what universe is it inconceivable that God could work via evolution? By what rules must science be wrong if there is a God, and God nonexistent if science is right?
Science works fine. For what it works for. (It’s like a hammer that way. OK, a bit more versatile. But the point is the same.) To presume science to be the governor of all that is, and to presume God to be nonexistent because he exists (if he does) outside of science, is to be no more logical than primitive cultures are when they sacrifice maidens to Xoxolotl.
I love cryptozoology. I love science. I 100% completely accept evolution as the done thing, the only ‘method’ to get me where I am now that makes sense to me. I often actually have trouble understanding why everyone has a problem with the other theories. My girlfriend lives by the bible whereas i’ve no idea on most of the contents, she believes that god created everything 6000 years ago etc, but we get along just fine and dandy. I’ve heard creationists say that things are too complex to be forced by evolution alone, but what on earth is simple about evolution? God could well have created earth and everything associated with it, but it still doesn’t stop science being extremely important to us all. If we abandon science and live solely by religion, we’re in deep deep trouble.
On another note, I’m quite saddened that a few people here seem to have taken this topic to heart so easily, this is where one of the main problems is, people can’t just take in the fact that other people believe something different, something that makes more sense to them.
Maybe I’m using the adjective much, much too loosely, but I always think of Creationism (and other religious ideas) as actually BEING “Fortean” in some sense of the word, just by being at odds with “established” science, and by being a sort of thorn in its side. And to some degree, a lot of debunkers have actually PUT the two things (religion and “forteana”) together, as targets. In spite of all the warnings about the “Religious Right Wing” (not that I DISbelieve in such a thing) having so much power, religion has ALSO become such a “boogie-man” nowadays, because it’s supposedly going to rot the mind of anyone who remotely believes in it. And that’s exactly what paranormal beliefs are accused of. So, even though it doesn’t really answer the question, again, I’ve always thought of the two things as being “in the same boat.” And, again, I always think of both things as being a sort of “gadfly” for the “Establishment.” (In this case, the scientific one.)
Shill writes:
Besides perhaps the incorrect use of “abstained from allowing” as opposed to “reinforcing the disallowing of off-topic” comments, I think the point, once again, of this blog is being lost on shill.
I suggest anyone who doesn’t get it merely look up the gathering of comments to see that I have addressed this issue already.
Cryptomundo, as a blog is not a chatroom and not a forum that encourages or supports these kinds of debates - usually. However, as noted, the energy and distractions within the comment sections were getting out-of-hand. Therefore, a decision was made to turn over this one comment platform to people who wish to comment on this issue, via a civil exchange.
Frankly, cryptozoology is a separate issue to me.
I happen to be a Bible-believing creationist. But I find searching for reported, but uncatalogued animals fascinating. I once contributed to a paper submitted to the IAU. Science is fascinating, discovering things is fascinating.
Neither creationists nor evolutionists who are attracted to cryptozoology are going to be typical for their ‘factions’.
There are times and places where I will try to argue for a creation paradigm. I think it is scientifically plausible. This isn’t one of those times and places.
We are united in a quest to catalog and study animals before they are rendered extinct.
Can’t we get along on this quest that we agree about??
I love science, especially the natural sciences. I love puzzles, and the natural world is like a vast puzzle. Deciphering the past and continuing evolution of life is part of that puzzle. I really don’t understand how anyone can study, really study, life and not realize that evolution is the only answer that makes any sense.
If people choose to overlook the obvious, and believe in creationism, well, that is their privilege. I’ve explored some kind of off-the-wall beliefs in my time, too. At different times in my life I have been an atheist, an agnostic, even a (sort-of) pagan. I have, at times, believed that psychic powers exist, and for a long time I was an enthusiastic, if tongue-in-cheek, astrologer. (But Virgos don’t believe in horoscopes so I dropped that. Lol.) I have allowed my mind to wander over a wide range of topics and I’ve explored many beliefs, many of which seem really silly to me now. I’ve finally making peace with myself as a sort of nature worshipper. Personal experiences have instilled in me a belief that there is a higher power which, for lack of a more appropriate word, I call God. Never have I seen or learned anything that changed my views on the evolution of life.
But cryptozoology is a separate issue to me as well. I don’t think that a person’s religious beliefs matter, when it comes to having an enthusiasm for cryptozoology. As Tabitca so aptly put it, “The only belief you need is a belief in cryptids“.
Wow Loren! This sure brought ‘em out of the woodwork.
My opinion? I don’t believe in belief. I either know or I don’t know. (Mostly I don’t know ;-))
I do however choose to err on the side of God. Why? Simply because choosing to believe that it’s all some kind of purposeless accident would make me sad. And I KNOW I don’t like to feel sad!