User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Discussion with Filll 3

This is an ongoing discussion between Filll and me. It begins by answering a question I put to Filll at the end of discussions now archived in Discussion with Filll 2. For the edit history of this discussion prior to 10:00 25 January 2007 (UTC), please see the edit history of user talk: Philip J. Rayment.

My views

As I am sure you know, many people have died because of disagreements between Catholics and Protestants, and between Christians and Muslims, or between different types of Muslims. So these sorts of debates are just sort of ludicrous, and unproductive. Each side thinks they are divinely inspired and that God is on their side. Unfortunately, the several thousand Christian sects all believe THEIR version is correct. And the hundreds of major faiths on earth all believe THEIR faith is the true faith. And there really is no way to determine which is the correct one, except by declaration. It is completely arbitrary (although I favor some viewpoints that claim there is not just one path to God, and I am not happy with viewpoints that are dogmatic and condemn others, with often disasterous results). My own person view is:

• there is no overwhelming evidence that God exists
• I choose to believe God exists, even though there is not overwhelming evidence. This is called "faith".
• The universe shows signs of order but not on the scale and of the types that creationists always claim in their worn-out and long ago discredited arguments. Whether this is due to a creator or not, or what ones definition of a creator is, is complicated and not clear.
• The universe shows signs of highly mysterious phenomena which I find as a source of wonder.
• My religious views are in accord with those of people like Thomas Jefferson, Sir Isaac Newton, Pascal and Einstein.
• I think that rejecting evolution is silly. It has nothing to do with God or religion or the bible.
• I think biblical literalism is silly. About 50% of all US evangelicals agree with me, and over 90% of all US Christians in total agree with me.
• I think that creationist views of God are insulting to God. Creationists are creating a vision of God in their own flawed human image. The Creationist God is weak and stupid and a tinkerer. It is embarassing. My vision of God is far more powerful and far more magnificent, and far more omnipotent.
• I subscribe more to the types of views espoused by Maimonides, who equated the scientific laws with angels.
• I think that creationist views are insulting to other Christians and other faiths. They are often intolerant in that they do not respect the rights of others of different faiths to follow their own beliefs. They insist on aggressive proselytizing and changing laws and on trying to teach creationism as science in schools.
• Allowing creationism to continue unchecked in the US will have disasterous consequences for science. It would not take much to push the US over into a Taliban-like theocracy.

--Filll 16:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Debates

Yes, people have died for all sorts of reasons, sometimes including differences over beliefs, but often for political reasons or territorial disputes, and some of these come to be associated with religion even though they are not really about religion. Northern Ireland and Palestine come to mind in this regard. But none of that means that debates are ludicrous and unproductive.:Philip J. Rayment 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

But did the Catholics convince the Jews and Muslims they killed in the Inquisition that their religion was right? Did the Protestants and Catholics who claimed that the geocentric theory was correct accomplish much? In both cases, not much but make themselves look bad.--Filll 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what that has to do with the value of debates. Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It has to do with the resoluteness of the parties in some cases.--Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In some cases? You were making a blanket statement that debates between different religious groups are "ludicrous and unproductive". To support this, you quote people killing each other (which is not debating), and now the resoluteness of the parties in some cases! Philip J. Rayment 01:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok let me turn it around. What do you expect to gain?--Filll 01:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. Philip J. Rayment 02:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Divinely inspired

You are misrepresenting the situation with your claims that each side thinks that their view are divinely inspired and correct. Sure, Christians and Muslims both believe that their scriptures are divinely inspired, but Protestants, for example, don't believe that their views that differ from Catholics are divinely inspired. Nor do Baptists with regard to Anglicans, etc. Sure, Baptists (for example) think that their particular views (where they differ from other denominations) are correct, but not to the point of claiming Divine inspiration or putting others to death for them.:Philip J. Rayment 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well as I read your account, I suspect that your experiences with religion in Australia are very VERY different from mine in the USA. I promise you, there are MANY Protestants (most of them fundamentalists and creationists) in the USA who believe that their views that differ from the Catholics are divinely inspired. I have heard many many tell me in the strongest possible terms that Catholics are blasphemers or atheists or nonChristians etc. Sometimes spitting and cursing when they do it. And I have heard various Protestants say the same about other Protestant sects, and I have heard Catholics say the same about Protestants. And there is no Protestant-Catholic violence now in the USA, but it is not that far below the surface, and it lasted for centuries in Europe. I might also mention the Mormons, who some claim are Christians and some claim are not, who claim to have divinely inspired differences from other Christian faiths. And state militias and the US Cavalry were called out to slaughter them, and it was not that long ago in US history. And there are plenty of other examples that are not much different than that in US history. And the US has lots of fundamentalist militias. I can find you a few web sites of these groups that will shock you with the blatant hatred and violence they advocate.--Filll 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I expect that my experience here is different from the U.S., but I doubt that it is "very VERY" different. Australia is soaked in American culture via TV and the like, and even many of our Christian resources originate in the U.S., so I expect that I have a pretty fair handle on it. I don't dispute that some Protestants will argue that Catholics aren't Christians or that they are blasphemers, but that is not what I was talking about. I do reject Mormons as being Christian, by which I mean someone who believes that Jesus is God, and consider them a separate religion.Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I lived half my life in Canada and half my life in the US. Canada is even more saturated than Australia in US culture. But believe me, they are very very different. And especially in matters of religion.--Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have interacted with quite a few American Christians, and I find relatively little difference. Philip J. Rayment 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you please direct me to a few web-sites where Protestants claim that their views that differ from Catholicism are divinely inspired? I don't mean them claiming that they have a correct understanding of the Divinely-inspired Bible, but that there is a separate Divine inspiration for their interpretation. Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but that is a lot of effort to find exactly that hair splitting distinction. And Mormons believe Jesus is God. They are just waiting for the 3rd coming of Christ, not the 2nd.--Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not a hair-splitting distinction—that was the distinction that you appeared to be making, and to which I was responding, by saying, "...disagreements between Catholics and Protestants ... . Each side thinks they are divinely inspired ...". That is, you were claiming that each side considers their distinctive views divinely inspired, rather than simply having a different interpretation of a commonly-accepted Divinely-inspired book. So that is what I am asking for evidence of.

Mormons claim that Jesus has become a god, but also that He was a created being, which means that He cannot be the eternal God.

Philip J. Rayment 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mormons definitely claim their beliefs are divinely inspired, as I said. And lots of other Protestants claim theirs are divinely inspired as well, and others are not, or they split some other hair. I really do not care. They basically disagree.--Filll 03:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Mormons believe that their beliefs are divinely inspired, but I have already said that I do not count Mormons as Christians, and I was asking for evidence that Christians (i.e. excluding Mormons) claim any divine inspiration for their beliefs other than the Bible, which is common to all Protestants.

As for disagreements, sure, everybody disagrees with somebody else on something; that's not the issue.

Philip J. Rayment 05:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I can get into very complicated analyses, but let's just start with the books of the Catholic Bible, the Protestant bible and the Greek Orthodox bible. The Catholics, Protestants and Greek Orthodox all disagree about which books were divinely inspired. As a Catholic said, "the apocryphal books cannot be rejected as uninspired on the basis that they are never quoted from in the New Testament because Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon are also never quoted in the New Testament, and we all accept them as inspired." Protestants clearly disagree. Martin Luther wanted to even remove the Epistle of James, the Book of Jude, Hebrews and Revelation as uninspired. I have had many people disagree about the divine inspiration for Daniel. And so on. --Filll 18:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll concede a little there. Catholics and Greek Orthodox probably do claim Divine inspiration for some of the distinctives of their beliefs. (I say "probably" because although they do claim Divine inspiration for some books that Protestants don't, you haven't actually shown that these books are used in support of any of their distinctive beliefs.) But you had indicated earlier that every separate group claimed Divine inspiration for their distinctive beliefs: "Each side thinks they are divinely inspired and that God is on their side. Unfortunately, the several thousand Christian sects all believe THEIR version is correct". I was not disputing that some groups claim Divine inspiration for their distinctive beliefs; rather I was disputing that this is always or so often the case. Earlier in this section I asked for evidence specifically that Protestants claim Divine inspiration for beliefs that differ from Catholics, so you provide evidence that Catholics might claim Divine inspiration for beliefs that differ from Protestants! Philip J. Rayment 03:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct

Why can't you determine which one is correct? Like any situation where there are competing claims, you look to see which claims are more consistent, logical, and better fit the evidence. You may not be able to prove in a scientific sense which is correct, but you can still come to a reasonable conclusion. Atheists have promulgated the idea that "religion" is something disconnected from reality, something just in one's mind, and as such is totally subjective and non-testable. But this concept is foreign to Christianity, which believes the opposite. So claiming that one cannot test the claims is to accept the atheistic viewpoint a priori.:Philip J. Rayment 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely not atheism. But of course, I have had many fundamentalists and/or creationists who slap that label on anything that they disagree with. So feel free. Just realize that it is VERY offensive to others. And dont be surprised if they use the same tactic against you, or worse. --Filll 03:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What's not atheism? I was talking about an atheistic view, which may be held by people who are not otherwise atheists. Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is hair splitting and I dismiss the premise anyway.--Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you dismiss it, as that is one of the characteristics of that view—that because it is just a subjective view, you can dismiss it without evidence or reason.

Gould said that Darwin's motive in espousing evolution was to explain things without resorting to God. Other evolutionists have said similar things about how it explains things without God. That seems to me sufficient justification to call it an atheistic idea, even though many theists have accepted it and added God to it.

Philip J. Rayment 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course I can determine what I am comfortable with and what I think is most reasonable. Why on earth do you think I am so stupid and ridiculous? It is because our views on this issue are different. My views on what is right are different than yours. And you cannot convince me otherwise and I cannot convince you. However, the difference is, it does not bother me that you want to believe something else. The only thing that I find disturbing are things like proselytizing. However, what I believe is correct and feel comfortable with, it will not be the same as what someone else is comfortable with. And all these groups with different beliefs claim they are right. Every single one. Some of them scream it frantically. Some use threats and anger to try to bludgeon people into submission. There is no one who says "I follow this faith but I know it is wrong". It does not work like that. And anyone who claims that all those people in other faiths do not believe as fervently, and do not believe their faith is correct, is naive.--Filll 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing "comfort", and by "reasonable", I meant in a logical, evidential sense. Like a court case, where proof only has to be determined "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal cases, or on the basis of probabilities for civil cases. Courts don't go with what they feel comfortable with, but with what best or sufficiently fits the evidence, without it necessarily being beyond any doubt.Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am afraid that the logic and evidence is on my side. And the courts in the US seem to agree. And the vast overwhelming majority of scientists seem to agree as well. But you are free to believe otherwise. As long as you do not expect others to subscribe to it. THAT is the main difference; I do not object to you or anyone else holding those views. I object to them being foisted on others. Maybe not you personally, but many creationists see it as a command from God to force others to adopt their views. NOT good. Not tolerant. Not even legal in the US. Illegal and immoral and obnoxious and aggressive. Sorry.--Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As you keep claiming that you have the logic and evidence on your side, I will keep disputing that claim. And you have yet to substantiate your claim that the courts are on your side in more than one case, despite me asking for examples.

Why shouldn't I expect others to subscribe to creationary views? You expect me to subscribe to evolutionary views, or you wouldn't be here discussing these things and telling me how wrong I am. So that is not a difference at all.

Nobody is forcing their views on you. That is nonsense. How do you think they are doing that? Passing laws to tell you not what should be taught in schools, but what you must believe? Or holding a gun at your head and insisting that you acknowledge that creationists are correct? Of course not. Creationists want to discuss these matters and would even like the information as freely available as evolutionary information is freely available. But they are not about to force people to believe it (which is impossible anyway). Sure, there might be the odd person with twisted views that thinks they can or tries to, but the main creationist organisations (most of which are American) and most creationists are not trying to force their views on anybody.

Philip J. Rayment 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because everyone claims that they are right doesn't mean that it is therefore impossible or fruitless to try and actually determine which one is right. Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I and the courts and mainstream science have already made that determination, havent we? You think we havent? You think we object to creationism just on some offbeat illogical whim?--Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? First you claim that it is not possible ("there really is no way to determine which is the correct one"), then when I point out that it is possible, you claim that is has been done! So which is it? Philip J. Rayment 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Each thinks they are correct. The courts think they are correct. The scientists think they are correct. Each of the different flavors of creationist think they are correct. Each protestant sect thinks they are correct. Each flavor of Catholic and Orthodox Church thinks they are correct. Each type of Jew thinks they are correct. Each type of Muslim, and Hindu and Buddhist and Jainist and so on and so forth. I fully acknowledge that others think they are correct. It would be ridiculous not to.--Filll 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That was not the question. You previously claimed that it is not possible to determine which is correct, then you strongly indicate that it is possible. I asked you which it is, and you have not answered. Which is it? Philip J. Rayment 05:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You are asking the wrong question. There is NO such thing as "correct." There is what is correct for each person. I do not feel it is appropriate for me to dictate to Hindus, or for Muslims or Christian creationists and fundamentalists to dictate to me, or anyone else. However, on some issues, like laws, society dictates what is "correct". It should not dictate what is "correct" on matters of religious faith. In science, there is a procedure, however, flawed, for determining what is "accepted", not what is "correct" per se, or to "prove" anything. There is no truth in science. Even measurements in science have error bars, and are interpreted in the light of other information. There is no proof. There is only acceptance, and even then, the acceptance is temporary.--Filll 19:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You are asking the wrong question. There is NO such thing as "correct."

Then I suppose that we can end our discussions right here. If there is no such thing as "correct", then I guess that nothing that you say, including about creation, can be considered "correct".

But clearly if this is so, then what I just said is correct, which means that you are simply wrong in claiming that there is no such thing as correct. In fact, your claim was self-refuting and therefore illogical.

I do not feel it is appropriate for me to dictate to Hindus, or for Muslims or Christian creationists and fundamentalists to dictate to me, or anyone else.

Yet if that is what creationists are doing, then that is what you are doing. You are dictating to me that creationism is wrong.

In science, there is a procedure, however, flawed, for determining what is "accepted", not what is "correct" per se, or to "prove" anything. There is no truth in science. Even measurements in science have error bars, and are interpreted in the light of other information. There is no proof. There is only acceptance, and even then, the acceptance is temporary.

You're equivocating. First you try and claim that creation is wrong, then that it is not possible to determine what's correct and what's not correct, that science can't do that either, but all the time you are claiming that creation is wrong. You're not fooling anyone.

Philip J. Rayment 04:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Overwhelming

Although it depends on how overwhelming "overwhelming" is, I disagree that there is no overwhelming evidence. I am totally convinced that there is plenty of evidence for anybody with an open enough mind to see the evidence. And the Bible says that there is enough evidence.:Philip J. Rayment 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are free to believe you have overwhelming evidence. I do not need evidence. I have faith. My faith is strong enough not to depend on some claim of evidence. However, what might be convincing evidence to you might very well not be convincing to someone else. And to that I say, fine; live and let live.--Filll 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There's not much point—and it can be downright dangerous—putting your faith in something false, so it is prudent to base your faith on evidence. Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous huh? It only becomes dangerous when you want to force others. Like creationists.--Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have non-evidential faith that a bridge will support your weight when in fact it won't, that could be dangerous. If you have faith that there is no God to whom you are answerable and if there is such a God, that could be dangerous. If you have faith that evolution is true and the Bible therefore is wrong or does not mean what it appears to mean, and extend that to other aspects of Biblical teaching such as salvation, that could be dangerous in eternity.

And creationists do not want to force others to believe.

Philip J. Rayment 02:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the creationists in Australia do not want to force anyone. Believe me, it is very different here in the US. Some believe that they are commanded by God to proselytize, and they take it to extremes. Not quite the inquisition, but heading in that direction. And as I told you before, I subscribe to Pasal's Wager.--Filll 03:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that you are correct about the difference between Australia and the U.S. I accept that it is different there, but not that much different. "Some believe"? The Bible clearly states that we are to evangelise, although taking it to extremes is another matter. But then what you consider "extreme" may not be what I do. Philip J. Rayment 05:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And my faith, and many others, believe it is a sin to evangelize. And they interpret the bible differently than you and your faith. As is true about just about anything you can name in the bible, after all. There is no agreement about what the vast bulk of it means. To me, evangelizing is acting like a Pharisee. It leads to terrible horrible things. To me, "extreme" is things like:

• threatening others
• cursing others
• imposing your will on others by force
• screaming at others
• condemning others
• falling into the sin of pride about the "rightness" of your beliefs
• resorting to violence, against abortion clinics or anti-war protestors or death penalty protestors or homosexuals or minorities of other races or immigrants

and so on. To me, this is what extreme is. And frankly, if Jesus was here, I am POSITIVE he would not be a fundamentalist or a creationist. He would be ashamed of what has been done to the faith he started and how his name is used to justify the most horrendous beliefs and actions. --Filll 19:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And my faith, and many others, believe it is a sin to evangelize.

Maybe so, but where do you get that from? Certainly not from the Bible.

And they interpret the bible differently than you and your faith. As is true about just about anything you can name in the bible, after all. There is no agreement about what the vast bulk of it means.

As far as the second and third sentences of that quote are concerned, I reject that outright, and I'd suggest that it is nothing more than rhetoric.

To me, evangelizing ... leads to terrible horrible things.

Yet none of the things that you list are natural consequences of evangelising, so your criticism is invalid.

And frankly, if Jesus was here, I am POSITIVE he would not be a fundamentalist or a creationist.

Yet the Bible contradicts you, showing that Jesus believed the Biblical record of creation (e.g. John 5:46 & 47, Mark 10:6), which is only to be expected, given that He was the Creator (Colossians 1:16 & 17).

Philip J. Rayment 04:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Faith

Faith, in the Biblical sense, is trust based on the evidence. Yes, it might go beyond the evidence, but it is not evidence-free. It's like trusting your mate when he says that he is going to do something for you. You have no hard evidence that he will, but you have evidence that he's kept his word in the past, so you trust—or have faith—that he will this time also.:Philip J. Rayment 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your definition of faith depends on evidence. Mine does not, and I believe I share that with many others.--Filll 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally. Your definition does not, and you share that definition with many others. But not with the Bible's use of the word. And I wonder if you are consistent with your definition. If you have faith that a mate will keep his word to you, do you have that faith without any evidence to support it? And if you do not, why do you choose to have faith in him rather than to not have faith in him? Philip J. Rayment 02:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The best way I can explain it is this:

• Most scientists who are religious look for God in what science does understand and has explained. So the way in which my view is different from the creationists or intelligent design proponents is that I find knowledge a compelling reason to believe in God. They find ignorance a compelling reason to believe in God.--Kenneth R. Miller, ActionBioscience.org interview--Filll 03:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Miller is simply wrong, and is setting up a strawman argument against creationists. We do not find ignorance a compelling reason to believe in God. We find evidence a compelling reason to believe in God. Funny though, that seems to be what you are saying by quoting Miller, yet previously you said that your faith does not depend on evidence! So which is it? Philip J. Rayment 05:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally do not worry much about the evidence. The evidence shows what it shows. And if the evidence is that evolution is the best explanation for the data, then so be it. However, I would also claim that there is some evidence of a higher power. But you will not find that evidence by attacking evolution.--Filll 19:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't worry too much about the evidence, then why do you keep claiming that the evidence supports evolution? Or is that an admission that your belief in evolution is first and foremost a matter of blind faith, not evidence? Philip J. Rayment 04:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Worn out

I of course disagree that the creationist arguments are discredited and worn out. The universe shows plenty of order that can only reasonably be explained by means of a creator. Chance (the only alternative) does not produce order. :Philip J. Rayment 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the claims of "order" that I see out of creationists amounts to not understanding science. Most of them make them look incredibly silly. That is why many religious people are embarassed of creationists, and claim they are doing the work of the devil, hurting Christianity and driving people away from religion by their ludicrous antics.--Filll 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing much but rhetoric in that paragraph, except for the claim that creationists are driving people away from religion. On the contrary, what is known as "creation evangelism" is proving very effective. Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by effective. If you mean polarizing, and both extremes gaining (creationism and atheism), that is exactly what is happening here. And there can be quite a backlash when young people discover that creationists have been lying to them for personal financial gain. As it has repeatedly in the US, this pendulum will swing back again.--Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that people who were not Christians, including outright atheists, are becoming Christians by means of creation evangelism. And creationists are no more lying nor doing it for personal gain that evolutionists, and probably less so. Philip J. Rayment 02:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an overall net loss of belief in the US at the same time as their has been a fundamentalist upsurge in the last 20+ years. Of course there are always people converting to Christianity, but on the balance, it is a net loss. Here is a good quote to express what I mean:

• The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?--Francis S. Collins, Director National Human Genome Research Institute, writing in Faith and the Human Genome--Filll 03:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The loss of belief is in the more liberal churches, whilst growth is in the more Bible-believing, or "fundamentalist", churches. In fact, that's consistent with what you said. So how does that indicate that creation evangelism is not working? It actually indicates the opposite.

The creationist view—that God created the world in six days only a few thousand years ago—is demonstrably not a recent view. The rest of Collins' quote is little more than rhetoric with nothing to substantiate it.

Philip J. Rayment 05:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is exactly what I said. The extremes are growing: fundamentalist belief and no belief. The middle is being eroded or ablated away and all that is left are the two polarized camps at the extremes. And the 6 day creation of course is not a recent view, but these efforts ebb and flow with time. At the moment, we are in the middle of a huge revival and push to impose a fundamentalist viewpoint. These cycles of fundamentalist revivals are well documented in the US, and they eventually crest and dissipate.--Filll 19:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that was not exactly what you said. You said that creationists were driving people away from religion. Sure, people in some countries such as the U.S. might be leaving Christianity, but that's in the liberal churches, not the Biblical ones. So it's the liberals that are driving them away, not the creationists, who are being effective in bringing people back into the church, with the result that the "fundamentalist" part is growing. Philip J. Rayment 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Chance

By the way, did you realize all the colors you are able to see arise from chance? Just about every atomic structure has chance in it? Your body's metabolism? When Einstein tried to prove "God does not play dice" he failed and came up with even stronger evidence for chance. However, what you describe as chance, repeating the same tired old incorrect statement like a mantra, is not even chance. So sorry. Just proves that creationists do not know much science.--Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather, you statement proves that you are quite able to make a series of assertions with not a shred of actual evidence nor deductive reasoning. Philip J. Rayment 02:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No evidence? I have no evidence for what? No evidence that there is a stochastic component to nature? Good lord. I am not going to give you 1000000000000 pages of physics and chemistry and biology. You can learn it for yourself at statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics and about another 200 fields.--Filll 03:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant that you provided no evidence with your assertions. And your allusions to evidence that you've now mentioned might show that there is a random factor in nature, but would not indicate that chance was the origin of colours, for example. Philip J. Rayment 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean "origin" of colors. Colors result from a combination of stochastic and determistic processes. So what? --Filll 19:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought that you were claiming that the origin of colours, where they first came from, was due to chance. I now think you were not meaning that. But in that case, what you are talking about is not an example of chance producing order. I said that chance does not produce order, and your attempt at a rebuttal has missed the mark on that. Chance might be a component in some things (for example, a carpenter building a cupboard may choose his next nail randomly), but it is not chance that produces order (the random choice of the next nail is not the thing that designs the cupboard). Philip J. Rayment 05:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bible

I agree that evolution has nothing to do with the Bible, and it is for this reason that rejecting evolution is not silly. The Biblical record is extremely incompatible with goo-to-you evolution, so one or the other must be wrong. I prefer to believe the God who was there and recorded history for us than the evolutionary scientists making up stories Kipling-like to explain how things came to be.:Philip J. Rayment 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe in biblical literalism. I share this with 90% of American Christians, and probably more of all Christians world wide, as I said repeatedly. You are free to believe in biblical literalism if you like. However, one must realize that not all biblical literalists agree with each other. I do not mind, but it all gets a bit silly when they start to get aggressive about which one is correct.--Filll 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In that paragraph you pretty well ignored everything I said and just repeated your own opinions. Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You might view it as agreeing with you, but with a different conclusion. You choose to believe the bible is the ultimate authority. I choose to believe the hand of God as revealed in nature as the ultimate authority. You choose to believe some self appointed religious leader who claims to speak for God. I choose to follow the dictates of Galileo, who said, "I cannot believe God would give us the power of reason and not want us to use it."--Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong about my views. Yes, I choose to believe that God (and by extension, the Bible) is the ultimate authority. I do not choose to believe religious leaders who claim to speak for God (unless, of course, their arguments make sense). And like you and the creationist you quoted, I believe that God would want us to use the power of reason that he gave us. I find it very satisfying that the powers of reason point to the same conclusion as what God has told us. Philip J. Rayment 02:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You are free to believe that. Others disagree. And we want to continue to be able to disagree. Just as Galileo should have been free to disagree.

• De t'ings dat yo li'ble To read in de Bible - It ain't necessarily so.--It Ain't Necessarily So, Porgy and Bess (George Gershwin)
• Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books.--Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Renaissance author, courtier, and father of deductive reasoning--Filll 03:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

We weren't discussing freedom to believe, but what my beliefs actually are. You said that I believed two things in particular, and contrasted it with one that you believe. But I denied that I believed one of the things you attributed to me, and added that I also believe the thing that you believe.

And nobody (i.e. not me and not mainstream creationists) is suggesting that you are not free to disagree. In fact it is the creationists who are not free to disagree—in science journals, for example. We would like the same freedom to disagree that evolutionists have.

Philip J. Rayment 06:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

We are indeed discussing freedom to believe. That is the entire root of the evolution-creationist controversy. If there was freedom to believe, it would not be an issue at all. Creationists are free to enter the science game as much as anyone else. They just must pass the same barriers as anyone else-no special treatment. No degrees out of cracker jack boxes for example. It is a tough game, and if they do not like it, then it is too bad. That is how it is.--Filll 19:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, in this section we were NOT discussing freedom to believe. I challenge you to show me otherwise. I pointed out that you ignored what I said in the first paragraph, and your response was to tell me what my beliefs are, in which you were partly wrong. I pointed that out, and you switched to arguing that you should have the freedom to disagree—another change of subject.

You then proceeded to claim that the root problem is the lack of freedom to believe, but then contradicted that by claiming that Creationists are free to put their views on the same grounds as evolutionists, despite me already claiming otherwise and you offering no rebuttal of that. To support your point, you raised the old lie of anti-creationists that creationist qualifications are invalid. It seems that you simply cannot stick to the point under discussion and keep resorting to diversions and red herrings to hide your lack of argument.

Philip J. Rayment 05:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What bible authors meant

What is so silly about believing that the Biblical authors wrote what they meant and meant what they wrote? And Jesus clearly believed the history recorded in Genesis, so was He silly too? And what about the scholars of Hebrew and the Old Testament that tell us that the authors meant the record to be taken as it reads?:Philip J. Rayment 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest strongly looking into the history of how the bible came to be, the full range of biblical scholar's opinions, discussion of the pseudopigraphia, the apocrypha, and other noncanonical works, the compilations of hundreds of thousands of contradictions and errors, the scholarly discussions of disputes over translations, the early history of Christianity and the nonbiblical traditions that were adopted, the disagreements of various sorts at congresses like Nicea in 325, the Schisms of various types, the disagreements over parables, aphorisms, metaphors, similes, and so on. It is very interesting. I find most people would rather ignore it all. Which is fine. Just do not get upset if people like me want to know a bit more. And view the "facts" differently. I was raised this way. I was taught this. I taught it to my classes. And that is how it is. So do not get upset about it. It just is how it is. It is pointless to worry about it. Like arguing with a Muslim (which I would highly reccommend you do for your own edification and broadening your mind, or argue your faith with a Jehovah's Witness, or a Christian Scientist or a Seventh Day Adventists, or a Mormon, etc. I do not think you have done any of these. When you have done it 10 times with someone of each alternate faith that I listed, then talk to me about how wrong they are and how convinced they are they are wrong.). --Filll 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What contradictions and errors? I've seen many such claims, but next to none that stand up to scrutiny. Although I'm not an expert on the history of the canon, I have a fair idea of it, and many of the accusations made about it don't stand up to scrutiny either.

You are free to believe that. However, I do not. And Muslims do not (who are growing at a much faster rate by the way). And the huge majority of Christians in the US do not believe it. Everyone claims their version is correct.--Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A huge majority do not believe what? That there are no contradictions and errors in the Bible? If so, is this the same group who believe that their version is correct? How can they both believe that their views are correct and believe that the source of their views contains errors? Philip J. Rayment 02:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Most Christians in the US do not believe in biblical inerrancy.

• De t'ings dat yo li'ble To read in de Bible - It ain't necessarily so.--It Ain't Necessarily So, Porgy and Bess (George Gershwin)
• Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books.--Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Renaissance author, courtier, and father of deductive reasoning--Filll 03:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How about actually answering the questions instead of changing the subject again? Philip J. Rayment 05:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Groups

All those groups exist in Australia, although I don't recall ever meeting a follower of Christian Science. I find it hard to argue with JWs and Mormons because they won't talk to me! I've twice had visits from JWs (at two different addresses) in which I showed them where their beliefs were wrong, and they obviously decided that they would be better off not calling on me again. I've also had lengthy talks with a couple of Mormons, and I'm obviously on their blacklist also. I've had a meal with a Muslim who was a creationist, and I've met plenty of SDAs and got along fine with them. They are creationists too and although they have some beliefs that I disagree with, I consider them fellow Christians (I do realise that acceptance of SDAs by other Christians is not as common in the U.S.).

Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you need more experience and some exposure to some more radical types. Some who will make sure you get the message loud and clear in no uncertain terms that they are right, and you are wrong and damned and cursed and a blasphemer etc (in their view of course). And tell you that you are following a nonscriptural interpretation and a cult and are evil and a satanist or an atheist etc. Then you might get a bit of perspective. You need an experience like that a good 40 times from different sources I would say. Then you might start to understand. Everyone thinks they are right. --Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's one group that I didn't mention that I've had plenty of heated debates with. Anticreationists. And some of them accuse us of being nuts, demented, evil, etc. Does that experience count? Probably not, because they are the ones that are "correct" and that are not interested in foisting their views on others (although trying very hard to stop competing views). But that's okay, isn't it, because they are "right". Philip J. Rayment 02:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No you do not get the point. You need to talk to someone who for religious reasons claims you are wrong. And lets you have it with both barrels. Over and over. Just give you some seasoning.--Filll 03:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That description fits most anti-creationists very well. Yes, including the religious reasons bit. Philip J. Rayment 06:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

According the creationist definition of religion, cleaning toilets or drag racing is a religion.--Filll 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Another attempt to change the subject, and not accurately put either. Cleaning toilets or drag racing is a religion according to your interpretation of a definition that some creationists have given to you. Even if your interpretation of the definition is valid, to claim that that definition is "the creationist definition of religion" is incorrect. Philip J. Rayment 05:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

View

Creationists have a view of God that is in line with how the Bible describes Him. I don't know how you can think that the creationist view of God is of a weak and stupid tinkerer when we see him as creating the entire universe out of nothing in a virtual instant. How is your view of God more powerful, magnificent, and omnipotent than that?:Philip J. Rayment 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

EVERY Christian says they have a view of God in line with how the bible describes Him. How on earth can you think that other faiths do not? If you claimed otherwise, it would be INSANITY. Sorry. And someone who claimed it would have not lived enough or encountered enough people and ideas outside a very very very narrow little view of the world and life and religion and God. And no, the creationist view is not of a God who created the entire universe out of nothing in a virtual instant. Not the ones I talk to. Because otherwise, I am a creationist. Otherwise, the creationists would have no problem with evolution. My vision of God is that he can do whatever he likes however he likes. And it is the height of arrogance to assume that some creationist someplace is going to dictate to God how he made the world, and then dictate to the rest of us and lecture the rest of us how God did it. I refuse to listen to any human being who claims to speak for God. That is blasphemy and the height of obscenity. Anyone who says that is in a cult, not a religion.--Filll 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose every Christian does say that their view of God is in line with how the Bible describes Him. But one difference, for example, is when the Bible says (Exodus 20:11 for the most explicit passage) that God created the world in six days, I believe that, unlike many other Christians who believe that He took millions and millions of years. And when the Bible says that death came into the world as a result of man's sin, I believe that, unlike those Christians who believe the evolution story that has millions and millions of years of death before man appeared on the scene. I don't claim that my understanding of God is exactly correct, but on key points like those examples, where the Bible is quite clear, I believe that I have grounds for claiming—actually I wasn't claiming, I was refuting your claim of creationists creating a flawed view of God—that creationist views of God are Biblical ones, as opposed to views that compromise with contrary views of the secular world. Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not claim your view is wrong. You are free to have it. As I said, our difference is tolerance. I do not mind that you want to believe anything at all, including Russell's orbiting teapot. I just draw the line at things like intolerance, violence, coercion, proselytizing etc.--Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean that you do not claim that my view is wrong? Of course you do. That's why you are posting things on my talk page! I believe that God created the world in six days about 6,000 years ago. I believe that the evidence is consistent with that. You claim that I'm wrong on all those points.Philip J. Rayment 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course I disagree. I believe the evidence is inconsistent with it. But you are free to deny it. As I have said over and over, you can personally deny it. But that is as far as your rights go. I am not saying YOU do, but many creationists want to go much much farther than just being permitted to believe whatever they want. They take it as a terrible offense that others do not agree with them. Well I say, too bad. --Filll 03:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not claim your view is wrong.

Of course I disagree. I believe the evidence is inconsistent with it.

You know, you've contradicted yourself so many times now that it's about time you owned up to it.

Philip J. Rayment 06:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You believe that those statements are inconsistent? I do not. You are not able to see that there is no problem with holding both of those views? I do not KNOW what is the right view and what is the wrong view. I have no certainty. I have my own feelings, which are a speculation, a conjecture, a guess. I have my own beliefs. My opinion. My opinion disagrees with yours. I might be wrong, and you might be right. We might both be wrong. In some strange way we might both be right. So what is so difficult about that for you?--Filll 13:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagreeing with a view is, by definition, claiming that the view is wrong. So if you are disagreeing with my view, you are claiming that it is wrong, but you are also denying that you are claiming that my view is wrong. And for someone who claims that there is no certainty in your views, you are awfully rude and aggressive in condemning opposing views. What I find difficult about believing that we are both right is that two contradictory ideas cannot both be right, else they would not be described a contradictory! Philip J. Rayment 05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You keep claiming things like the difference being "intolerance, violence, coercion, proselytizing, etc.", but have I been violent towards you, or even threatened you with violence? Have I tried to coerce you? Have I been intolerant of you? Have I proselytised you? No, but here you are, disagreeing with me, who has done none of those things. Your motives are clearly not to dispute intolerance, etc., but to dispute creationism itself.

Philip J. Rayment 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You are not being violent. You are not threatening. You have not coerced. You have not been intolerant. You have not proselytized. However, I wish I could say the same for all other fundamentalists and creationists. If that was true, there would be zero problem. What you are seeing is a belated alert go out in science after a lot of disturbing events and signs.--03:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said in an earlier post, you need to make up your mind just who or what you are arguing against. Because you keep arguing with me points that you now acknowledge are not true of me.

The same applies to the anti-creationist community, if you are correct. They should make clear that they are not arguing against creationism per se, but against the (alleged) dubious practices of some of its promoters. Or is that really true? Aren't they in fact arguing against creationism per se? You yourself have argued that creationism would be fatal for science, which assertion has nothing to do with being violence, threats, coercion, intolerance, or proselytising. Which indicates that those things are not the real problem, and that when you claim that "if that was true, there would be no problem", you must be either lying or self-deluded. So again, which is it? The violence, threats, etc., or the very idea? Come on, admit it. It's the very idea that offends you, and the allegations of violence, threats, etc., are just a debating tactic to take the focus off the main issue.

Philip J. Rayment 06:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well improper behavior does offend me. And the improper behavior is used to try to impose their views. And their views also are poisonous for science. They do not offend me per se, they just are not part of science. I have no more interest in including arkeology in science or baraminology as I would studies of how many angels can dance on a head of pin, or astrology, or prognostication by examining chicken entrails.--Filll 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I object to improper behaviour also, but I don't use improper behaviour on the part of a few to criticise an idea. So please forget about the improper behaviour of some and just concentrate on the idea. Philip J. Rayment 05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Respect

It is slanderous to claim that creationists do not respect the rights of others. And why shouldn't creationists try and change the laws that forbid teaching creation in schools? Why is it that evolutionists have the education system almost all their own way and work hard to exclude creation, but it is somehow the creationists that do not respect the rights of others? Is there a better example of the pot calling the kettle black?:Philip J. Rayment 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You live in Australia, not the USA. It is very different here. We have laws here that allow abortions. Should a fundamentalist take it into his own hands to make his own laws and enforce them? It happens here all the time. And fundamentalists and creationists are very similar in the US and have about a 99% overlap. In the USA there are no laws that forbid teaching of creationism in schools. The ONLY law that exists is a law that makes it illegal to REQUIRE the teaching of creationism in science classes in secular publicly funded schools. Period. So if you have a religious school, you can teach creationism as science in the science classroom. If you are in a nonreligious school, you can require the teaching of creationism in religion class, in psychology class, in social studies class, in debate class, in public speaking classes, in law classes, in history classes, in current affairs classes, in language arts classes, in philosophy classes, in any other class besides science. The only class you cannot require the teaching of creationism in is science class. However, teachers can voluntarily teach creationism in science classes in the USA in public schools. It just is illegal to require it. That is where the boundary is in the USA. So now tell me, how hard done by are creationists in the USA? Not at all. The ONLY restriction is that states and school districts are not allowed to require the teaching of creationism. That is it. And all of these fights in courts are about breaking that down, so they can fire teachers who refuse to teach creationism, and/or fine them, or even put them in jail for refusing to teach creationism. So give me a break. Try to learn a little bit about the situation in the USA first before you tell me how hard the creationists have it here. I am completely underwhelmed by these arguments about how persecuted creationists are. It is ludicrous. So you think that "evolutionists" have the situation their own way in the USA? maybe they do in Australia, but the situation is far far different here. Why do you think Ken Ham left Australia and came to the USA? You know his organization raises about 10 million dollars a year or more ? No way he could continue to do that in Queensland. And I do not mind creationists having the rights to teach their views. Just one thin boundary exists now: the restrictions against FORCING the teaching of creationism in US secular science classrooms. So please, I am just not that sympathetic.--Filll 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Australia is not that much different to America. Abortions are also allowed here, in practice at least. And I'm not talking about people making up their own laws and enforcing them themselves; I'm talking about being involved with the process of government where laws are supposed to be made.Filll 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How are creationists not involved in the process of government in the US? For 25 years both political parties have courted the creationists. In the 2000 election, both presidential candidates were creationists. Bush is a creationist. Clinton belongs to a fundamentalist faith. Reagan claimed to be born again. Carter was a creationist. A huge fraction of senators and representatives are as well. Fundamentalist leaders have weekly consultation with Bush to give him advice. The US Air Force is moving towards exclusion of regular Christians and Catholics and others from the Air Force, or at least discriminating against them, and favoring fundamentalists and creationists.--Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that creationists are not involved in the process of government. I said the opposite—that they are trying to change laws via the process of government, not by making up laws and enforcing them outside the process of government, as you were claiming ("Should a fundamentalist take it into his own hands to make his own laws and enforce them?").

I've not seen any evidence that all the people that you mention didn't believe in evolution. If you have any evidence, I'd like to see it, along with any evidence that you have of your claim about the Air Force.

Philip J. Rayment 02:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the mainstream of fundamentalists are involved in government. Up one side and down the other here. And the extremists have unfortunately taken the law into their own hands on a few occassions. Like the bombing during the olympics. I guess being in australia you are not saturated with it in the media like we are here. All this evidence about Carter, Mondale, Reagan, Bush 43 (not Bush 41 I dont think) Perot, Gore, Clinton etc is on the internet I am sure. We just get it all the time. And there has been plenty on the troubles at the Air Force as well. If I run across it I will show you. But I am sure there is plenty out there.--Filll 03:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is the left/atheistic/liberal/secular view that the government is somewhat fundamentalist, but that appears to me to be simply derogatory labels put on them by people with views at the opposite end of the spectrum. I've seen a creationist criticise G. W. Bush for being too liberal, and it is clear to me that Bush is not a fundamentalist nor an anti-evolutionist. And none of the other people you mention (with the exception of Mondale and Perot, whom I know nothing about) would be even further removed from the "fundamentalist" or creationist viewpoint. Philip J. Rayment 05:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well first, there are a wide variety of creationist or fundamentalist beliefs, as I have said. That is why it is so difficult when one claims that we have to ignore the other 10,000 fundamentalist views and listen to his and his only, based purely on his words and his claims about how to interpret the bible and pick and choose among the verses of his favorite version and translation of the bible. Just is a bit much to buy. Second, all those people have to at least pretend to be creationists to get political support and votes. That is how politics is. A rough dirty cheating lying game.--Filll 19:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well first, there are a wide variety of creationist or fundamentalist beliefs, as I have said.

But that does not make it so. It seems that you want to label almost anything not atheistically evolutionist as creationist or fundamentalist.

That is why it is so difficult when one claims that we have to ignore the other 10,000 fundamentalist views and listen to his and his only, based purely on his words and his claims about how to interpret the bible and pick and choose among the verses of his favorite version and translation of the bible.

What 10,000 fundamentalist views? You wouldn't be exaggerating a tad there, would you? Your statement is simply an extremely exaggerated claim to support your previous ridiculous claim.

Philip J. Rayment 05:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Schools

I did not mean to indicate that there are laws that explicitly ban the teaching of creation in schools, but the effect is there. Because of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, I don't believe that it is allowed to teach creation in government schools, as it would be seen as "promoting religion". Not all the attempts at passing laws about teaching creationism have been to require it; some have simply been to allow it, because it is effectively if not explicitly not possible to do it. Answers in Genesis are on record as saying that the oppose laws that require teaching creation in schools, but are they therefore happy with the status quo? No, they would like laws that allow it, or that protect a teacher who wants to teach it, because currently such doesn't exist.

There have been some cases where people attempted to get laws passed that creation had to be taught if evolution was taught (i.e. being even-handed), but other cases have been simply to point out to students that evolution is not the only candidate on the block. But even these laws have been opposed vehemently and shot down.Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe your analysis of the legal situation in the US is incorrect. The problem confronting creationists in the US is that if the teacher or school does not want to teach creationism, or the textbooks include evolution only, what do they do? So they want the power to fire that teacher, or to jail that teacher (which they had until the 1960s by the way-they only want to go back to what they had before). THAT is what will give them reliable access to power to require creationism in science classrooms in government schools. Otherwise, it is catch as catch can. They cannot be sure that ALL children will get taught that evolution is wrong or in doubt and creationism is not. They do not worry just about their children; they want to force it on ALL children, including Hindus and atheists and Muslims and Buddhists and Jainists and conventional Christians (catholics and mainline protestants) or even the 50% of the Evangelical Christians who do not believe in biblical literalism. The other 90% of the population, basically. And THAT is illegal in the US. Because that is the precept on which the US was founded. Sorry. If they do not like it, they can either try to change the law (which they have proposed; it is a constitutional amendment and very difficult to do) or move to another country. Or, as the most common American response to any of this is, you are free to do whatever you want. Just pay money. --Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet another evidence-free series of assertions, which ignores the evidence I provided. Philip J. Rayment 02:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well since you disbelieve me, I guess you need cites, references, sources. I might get around to getting those for you. However, let me just reiterate. You do not understand the situation here. Creationism can be taught in private schools. Creationism can be taught in public schools in religion class, philosophy class, social studies class, law class, public affairs class, debate class, current events class, government class, philosophy class, social studies class, and so on. And the school boards and states can even pass laws that require this, as long as it does it in a balanced way not to promote one religion over another. And if a teacher decides on his or her own, they can teach creationism in science classes in public schools if it is ok with their principal etc. However the one thing that cannot be done, is for a school board or a county or a state to pass a law saying that teachers are required to teach creationism in science class. That is it. No big deal. Very small. But STILL creationists don't like it. So they sue and sue and sue and sue. And lobby governments. Why? Because up until 1968, school boards and states COULD have laws requiring the teaching of creationism and forbidding the teaching of evolution in science classes. It was illegal in many states in the US until 1968. And so the Supreme Court of the USA produced a decision that made it illegal to require by law that teachers teach creationism in science classes in public schools. ONLY science classes. ONLY public schools. ONLY required teaching of creationism. ONLY in that restricted domain did creationism lose out in the US. And ever since, creationists have been desperate to try to roll back the clock and make it illegal again to teach evolution. And they still might do it. We will see. What do you want to see proof of?

1. current US Supreme court restrictions on teaching creationism?
2. historical US laws on teaching creationism and evolution?

What exactly is it that you doubt? Also, what evidence did you cite? I didnt see any references, web links, sources, official US supreme court rulings, US laws, nothing. --Filll 03:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that laws that require the teaching of creationism and evolution together in science classes in public secular schools have been shot down, at least so far. Thank god. That does not mean creationism cannot be taught in another class. Or in a religious or private school. Or be taught voluntarily by a teacher.--Filll 03:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that creation can be taught in non-government schools, but would a teacher who wanted to teach it have any protection for that if others objected? And why shouldn't the scientific evidence that supports creation—if there is any—be taught in science classes? Why should any such evidence be excluded simply because it presupposes a creator? Philip J. Rayment 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is something else you do not understand about the US. And it is very different from Australia or Canada or Europe or many other countries. In the US, you have no rights to employment. Even if you have a contract here like a teacher might, the contract will probably be much weaker than it is in many other countries. It is called "at will" employment and Americans are very proud of it. That means, if a lawyer shows up to work with the wrong color tie, or crosses his legs left over right instead of right over left, he can be fired. His boss can decide he doesn't like the lawyer's habit of using a fine point pen instead of a medium point pen and fire him. No warning needed. No questions asked. And any court in the US would uphold it. In fact, it would never make it to court. The person fired and bringing a suit might even get sued for misusing the legal system or harassment etc. A factory worker that has the wrong colored eyes can be fired after 25 years of service, with no recourse. No teacher has much protection if they go against what their principal says, if that is who controls their employment. And that include teachers who want to teach evolution but whose principal disagrees. The ONLY thing that the law says in the US is that school boards and States cannot make it REQUIRED across all schools to teach creationism. Now if the hiring and firing authority in each school happened to support teaching creationism and not evolution, then your entire region would end up with schools teaching creationism and not evolution. Now the parents might complain and eventually they might be forced to listen to the parents, who can vote in and out school board members, who might put pressure on the school district to fire principals or teachers that favor creationism over evolution. The only thing is, no state or schoolboard can write it into law that creationism be required. This does not mean that creationism is not taught in the US, even in public schools, and even in public school science classes. It just means that no state can force it. No school district, say at the county or city level, can force it. Some have tried, and the courts shot them down, at least so far. --Filll 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering one of my questions, but you missed the others.

And thanks for explaining the employment situation to me. But despite what you said, there are already some exceptions, where employees cannot be fired for certain discriminatory reasons, so there is already a precedent for this sort of thing.

So the answer to my first question is NO, a teacher who taught creation would have no protection from the law. So discrimination is allowed. And despite what you said, the evidence is that if a school district does try to introduce creation into classes, it will still not happen (for very long at least), because it won't be up to the parents voting out the school board members; the ruling will be taken to court.

Now how about an answer to the other two questions?

Philip J. Rayment 06:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ken Ham

I don't believe for one moment that Ken Ham left Australia to make more money, and I can say that as someone who has known him (not in the sense of being a personal friend) since well before he left this country.

Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. However, the emails and letters and documents between AIG and the parent organization in Australia are quite enlightening about these financial matters. Basically, the evidence is quite suggestive.--Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Very few of those documents have anything to do with why Ken Ham moved to the U.S., and none of them suggest that it was because of money. Yes, money does appear to be a small part of the issue now, but not then. Philip J. Rayment 02:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I do not really care. But there is plenty of money involved in this entire issue. This IS the US. And everything is about money here.--Filll 02:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything is about money? Is that why you are debating with me, for money?

Yes, there is plenty of money made available by governments for evolutionary research, but nothing for creationary research. So if it is all about money, is that why evolution is defended so strongly?

Philip J. Rayment 03:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The taxfree status of the Churches and creationist organizations in the US is worth billions and billions of dollars. The government also gives them tax money for running social programs. Churches and creationist organizations are not money-losing operations in the US in general. And I do not get any money from this. I find out what excuses you put forward so I can sharpen my arguments against creationists. --Filll 03:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are not money-losing operations—most of them are supported by volunteers who provide their services free of charge. And they are tax-free because they are non-profit organisations. In Australia, being a religious group does not confer any special status on you (money put in the offering plate is not tax-deductible by the donor, for example), but they are tax-free because they are non-profits, just like various other non-profit non-religious organisations. Being non-profit, nobody makes a profit from them. Sure, there are employees to be paid, and I'll accept that some employees get paid an amount that is morally dubious, but that's about it. The same applies to non-religious non-profit organisations. And of course that ignores all those who don't get paid for it (like me). They are clearly not in it for the money.

So you do not do this debating for money? I'll accept that (I never actually thought otherwise), but it means that you were wrong to make the blanket statement that "everything is about money". As you yourself have indicated about your own motives, there are other reasons than money. Conclusion: Your claim that it was all about money was just anti-creationist mud-slinging.

Philip J. Rayment 06:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of fundamentalists in the US who are living in multimillion dollar houses driving 100,000 dollar cars. At least in the US, this is a money-making operation for those who are the driving force. Not for me, not for you, but for some, yes, at least in the US. If there were no money involved, it probably would not exist in the size that it does. Not even close. --Filll 19:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe for a moment that they are primarily in it for the money, and you have not demonstrated that. Many creation scientists could—and did—earn more in secular employment. Philip J. Rayment 06:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Science

It is utter rubbish to claim that creationism will have disastrous consequences for science, and it is slanderous to equate them with the Taliban. Modern science was mostly founded by creationists, because they were creationists, and it has been creationists that have done much to encourage democracy (e.g. it was the religious leaders in England that put a brake on the powers of the monarchy).

Philip J. Rayment 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, you live in Australia. You do not live in the USA. I doubt if you have ever been to the USA or lived here for any length of time at least. It is a very different culture. The claims and the aims of these creationists and/or fundamentalists here are not much different than what I heard out of the Taliban. And I am not the only one who noticed the parallels. And you think that all these science organizations are spending millions of dollars to fight creationism because they think it will not harm science? How many PhDs and masters in science do you personally have? I have 4 graduate degrees in science. And believe me, I agree with the other 99.9% of scientists in the relevant fields; creationism in science is pure poison for science. Ruinous. And I would swear that in court. Under oath. I would take a polygraph. I am not kidding. I am more sure of this than anything. And those lists of purported creationists who existed at the birth of science are completely misleading. Newton was a Unitarian. Do you know what that is? Do you know what creationists think of Unitarians? He did a lot of work looking for evidence of the scriptures. He came up empty. And that work we do not remember at all. There is no hint of creationism or other nonsense in the work of Newton's we remember. 90+% of Newton's work was thrown in the trash can. We only remember his nonreligious work because that is the only work that was of value. And the same is true for just about every other scientist that fundamentalists and creationists claim.--Filll 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, I've heard the creationist/Taliban connection (or something very similar) right here in Australia. But the connection was imaginary here, and I'm inclined to think that the same applies in America.Philip J. Rayment 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

YOu are free to believe that. And I and others are free to oppose them on that basis, since we believe we have evidence that is suggestive.--Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are able to believe anything you want, but if you are going to make derogatory claims, the proper thing to do is to provide supporting evidence, which you have not done, which means that I am free to dismiss your claims as uncivil name-calling. Philip J. Rayment 06:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your argument about why anti-creationist organisations fight creationism doesn't hold water, because (a) it ignores other possible motives, and (b) it presumes that they are correct. Regarding option (a), it could be for spiritual reasons, that is, because they don't like the idea of having a God to whom they are ultimately answerable. (I'm not disputing that belief that it will harm science is also a possible or additional motive.) Regarding option (b), so what if they think it will harm science? They can believe that sincerely but still be wrong. Similarly, your belief I accept is sincere (so I don't doubt that you would pass a polygraph test on that), but it can still be wrong.Philip J. Rayment 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are free to believe that I am wrong. However, the bulk of scientists and all the courts agree with me. And as strongly as some tiny minority believes something, it will not have much impact unless they convince others to the contrary.--Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be for spiritual reasons, that their vision of God is not yours. And by trying to force someone else's vision of God on them, one is committing the sin of the Pharisees, and the same offense as the Inquisition, and against the constitution of the US, the very basis on which the country is founded.--Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationists are no more trying to force their view on others than evolutionists are, and evolutionists have most of the education system, the government, and the media at their disposal. Philip J. Rayment 06:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Unitarian

I know what a Unitarian is, and I knew that Newton was one. But he also believed that the world was created, and that was not poison to his science. And it is not true that almost every other early scientist was the same. Newton is a good example of a creationist mainly because he is so well know, plus his scientific credentials. Most of the other early scientists are much better examples of creationists for whom their creationism was not poison. In other words, you've picked on the weakest example.Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to investigate Unitarians. But here in the US, there are few sects that inspire loathing and hatred among creationists and fundamentalists more than the Unitarians (maybe the Mormons). I also believe the world was "created" and so do Muslims and Hindus etc. But, that does not mean creationists agree with us, or we with them or each other. And the difference is, I say that is fine. Creationists say it is not fine, in fact it is a crisis.

I said that it was because they were creationists that they founded modern science. That science started because of a Biblical worldview is acknowledged by a number of authorities, including for example Rodney Stark, who wrote a book titled For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery [1].

Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a very selective view. While Western Europe was throwing human waste in the streets and living in filthy primitive conditions for 1500 years, with no science or learning to speak of, the Muslim world had Universities and were preserving and building on the science of the Ancient world. And to Muslims, Christians are NOT monotheists. Many of them have told me they want to kill Christians on the basis that they are not monotheists, by the way. Hinduism and Buddhism and Confuscianism also made huge progress in the sciences long before Western Europe, and were considerably advanced. The Mayan calendar was more accurate than the European Calendars until only 150-200 years ago or so. Egypt had a monotheistic religion, perhaps the first in the world, but it is not clear that it is connected with science in Ancient Egypt. Zoroastrianism is another contender for first monotheistic faith and I do not know that this was associated with an explosion of scientific progress in ancient Persia and Bactria. Hindus will claim that they in fact follow a monotheistic faith, but it is so complicated it is difficult to tell. Really, the ferment in science in Europe resulted from one thing: Weakening the death grip on science that Christianity was exercising. And you might not agree, which is fine. You are free to believe whatever you like. You are just not free to coerce others to accept it.--Filll 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your view of history is at odds with a number of people (not just Stark) who have studied it at some length. Actually, your comments all seem to be based on nothing more than the title of the book.

And what on Earth gives you the idea that I'm coercing others?

Philip J. Rayment 02:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You might not be coercing others. But some who espouse the same philosophy as you seem to sure do it. And want to do it. They feel they are commanded by God to do it. I disagree. And what did I state that was incorrect in your view?--Filll 03:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please name me one mainstream creationist who espouses coercing others (and provide evidence). I'm not interested in some whacko man in the street (you could find examples of anything with a criteria that wide), but one of the leading/mainstream creationists.

And please make up your mind who or what it is that you are arguing against. Are you arguing against the individuals who espouse views that are not part of creationism, or are you arguing against creationism per se? If the former, then you have no argument with me. If the latter, then the former is just a distraction or a red herring, and should be ignored (as far as this discussion is concerned).

What did you state that was incorrect? For one, your claim that Europeans had no science or learning for 1500 years. Stark has this to say [2]:

...the story that after the “fall” of Rome a long dark night of ignorance and superstition settled over Europe is as fictional as the Columbus story. In fact this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress ... the Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth century was the ... result of [Christian scholarship] starting in the eleventh century...

As for the other developers of science, the reviewer of Stark's book in that same article covered that (my emphasis):

What is science? It is a combination of observation and theory that leads to testable predictions and prohibitions about the results of further observations. A great deal of knowledge was gathered by observation and by trial and error in all ancient cultures, but this is not science. Aristotle, for example, observed widely and theorized extensively, but he did not test his theories against his observations so he was not a scientist. Alchemy and astrology were highly developed in China, Islamic regions, India and ancient Greece and Rome, but only in medieval Europe did these become the sciences of chemistry and astronomy. ‘It is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe.’ The leading scientific figures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God’s handiwork (pp. 123, 126–127).

Philip J. Rayment 06:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Any creationist who advocates changing the laws or impeaching the judges to get their version of Christianity taught to everyone else in public schools is advocating coercion. How long a list do you want? Kent Hovind I would say is a good place to start. Pat Robertson is another good example. What do I argue against?

• In the US, creationism is associated with a flavor of fundamentalism that comes with many other beliefs that are reprehensible and intolerant. I do not agree with those religious beliefs.
• I do not think that creationism is science. I do not believe it should be promoted as science or taught as science or treated as science.
• I do not believe that the evidence supports creationist views.
• I believe others can hold creationist views if they want, but they should not require these views to be taught to others with public money. If the public decides they want to spend their money this way, then it is a very sad day for reason and science.
• I do not believe in biblical literalism in any way shape or form. I believe it is the height of ignorance to believe it.
• I do not agree with Stark. Many others do not as well. That is quite a biased eurocentric view. The same sorts of views that lead the Australians to hunt the aborigines like animals well into the 20th century (oh yes, I know that Europeans do not have a clean history in Australia. Probably fueled by religious views I bet).

--Filll 14:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Any creationist who advocates changing the laws or impeaching the judges to get their version of Christianity taught to everyone else in public schools is advocating coercion.

Oh? Then what about anybody else who makes laws? Are they guilty of coercion? Funny, I thought that making laws was the proper way to do things in governments.

In the US, creationism is associated with a flavor of fundamentalism that comes with many other beliefs that are reprehensible and intolerant.

In your view. That does not make it so.

I do not think that creationism is science. I do not believe it should be promoted as science or taught as science or treated as science.

But can that personal opinion of yours be substantiated with evidence or logic? If not, why should I take any notice of it?

I do not believe that the evidence supports creationist views.

Yet you clearly have little knowledge of creationist views (for example, thinking that creationists believe that God changed the laws of physics after the Flood), so that personal opinion can equally be dismissed. Why don't you go away and study—from creationists, not anti-creationists—what they actually believe before you presume to pontificate on the correctness of their views?

I believe others can hold creationist views if they want, but they should not require these views to be taught to others with public money. If the public decides they want to spend their money this way, then it is a very sad day for reason and science.

So people who hold evolutionary views can use public money to spread their views, but people who hold creationary views should not? And how is it a sad day for reason and science given that creation is reasonable and scientific (despite your unsubstantiated views to the contrary)?

I do not believe in biblical literalism in any way shape or form. I believe it is the height of ignorance to believe it.

Even if the Bible is literally true? That is illogical.

I do not agree with Stark. Many others do not as well. That is quite a biased eurocentric view.

For what reason? Because he does not have the qualifications? Nope, he has them. Because he hasn't done the research? Nope, he's done that. Because you don't agree with his conclusions? Yep, that must be it. So you simply dismiss a scholarly view because you don't agree with it. Great argument.

The same sorts of views that lead the Australians to hunt the aborigines like animals well into the 20th century (oh yes, I know that Europeans do not have a clean history in Australia. Probably fueled by religious views I bet).

Actually, fuelled by evolutionary views that aborigines were not fully human. Oops.

Philip J. Rayment 06:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The truth about Genesis and the origin of life

You have to read this one:

• [3]

--Filll 03:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't, but I now have. There's some weirdos out there amongst those that oppose young-Earth creationists, aren't there? Philip J. Rayment 07:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Religious belief test

[4]--Filll 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)