Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ask a former Creationist

Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 6:54:26 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Up until about 10 years ago, I was an old earth creationist (OEC) a la CS Lewis. That also means that I was onboard with Intelligent Design as valid science. I came to accept the fact and theory of evolution via-- if you can believe it-- online debate-- along with various science websites. After debating and observing the debate between practicing biologists and fellow believers like myself, I came to see that the preponderance of evidence, information, education, and intellectual honesty lay with the biologists and the science literate arguing for evolution. This process of changing my stance took about 2 years, so it was not a minor transition for me.

If you have relevant questions to ask of me, ask away! I just ask in return that you come correct.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:01:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 6:54:26 PM, Fly wrote:
Up until about 10 years ago, I was an old earth creationist (OEC) a la CS Lewis. That also means that I was onboard with Intelligent Design as valid science. I came to accept the fact and theory of evolution via-- if you can believe it-- online debate-- along with various science websites. After debating and observing the debate between practicing biologists and fellow believers like myself, I came to see that the preponderance of evidence, information, education, and intellectual honesty lay with the biologists and the science literate arguing for evolution. This process of changing my stance took about 2 years, so it was not a minor transition for me.

If you have relevant questions to ask of me, ask away! I just ask in return that you come correct.

What do you make of Berlinski's comments?

https://www.youtube.com...

Harry.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:09:18 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Fly, thank you for posting this thread, which I acknowledge you did at my request. I acknowledge your bravery in doing so, and hope it's of broad interest both to members with and without religious faith, and look forward to asking you some questions myself.

By way of context, when I asked you to post this, we agreed that having members argue that you betrayed your faith from negligence or deliberate disrespect would be both pointless and insulting. And I offered to rip a new one for anyone who so insulted you in this thread. This acknowledgement reaffirms my commitment to do so. [http://www.debate.org...]

Accordingly, and in the interests of a constructive thread and pleasant engagement, I politely ask fellow members to be respectful, and not to accuse our colleague Fly of moral negligence or lack of faith when asking questions.

This is the only time in this thread that I shall feel obliged to make that request politely and in good humour.
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:14:55 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 7:01:49 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:26 PM, Fly wrote:
Up until about 10 years ago, I was an old earth creationist (OEC) a la CS Lewis. That also means that I was onboard with Intelligent Design as valid science. I came to accept the fact and theory of evolution via-- if you can believe it-- online debate-- along with various science websites. After debating and observing the debate between practicing biologists and fellow believers like myself, I came to see that the preponderance of evidence, information, education, and intellectual honesty lay with the biologists and the science literate arguing for evolution. This process of changing my stance took about 2 years, so it was not a minor transition for me.

If you have relevant questions to ask of me, ask away! I just ask in return that you come correct.

What do you make of Berlinski's comments?

https://www.youtube.com...

Harry.

There is a saying my wife has told me: "Begin as you mean to go on"-- meaning don't set a precedent you do not wish to be set. While I may get around to your question, it is really not part of the intent of this thread. If it were, then people could just throw out any video, any article, or any book in my direction and say, "Hey watch/read this, and then tell me what you think." Then it inevitably becomes a debate over that, rather than a genuine AMA.

At best, it is a time consuming exercise beyond the intent of the thread. Note that my thread is not titled: "Do your best to convert me back to Creationism." At worst, it can get to the point of constituting Gish Gallop.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:19:05 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 7:14:55 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:01:49 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:26 PM, Fly wrote:
Up until about 10 years ago, I was an old earth creationist (OEC) a la CS Lewis. That also means that I was onboard with Intelligent Design as valid science. I came to accept the fact and theory of evolution via-- if you can believe it-- online debate-- along with various science websites. After debating and observing the debate between practicing biologists and fellow believers like myself, I came to see that the preponderance of evidence, information, education, and intellectual honesty lay with the biologists and the science literate arguing for evolution. This process of changing my stance took about 2 years, so it was not a minor transition for me.

If you have relevant questions to ask of me, ask away! I just ask in return that you come correct.

What do you make of Berlinski's comments?

https://www.youtube.com...

Harry.

There is a saying my wife has told me: "Begin as you mean to go on"-- meaning don't set a precedent you do not wish to be set. While I may get around to your question, it is really not part of the intent of this thread. If it were, then people could just throw out any video, any article, or any book in my direction and say, "Hey watch/read this, and then tell me what you think." Then it inevitably becomes a debate over that, rather than a genuine AMA.

At best, it is a time consuming exercise beyond the intent of the thread. Note that my thread is not titled: "Do your best to convert me back to Creationism." At worst, it can get to the point of constituting Gish Gallop.

Understood - but you did invite the reader to ask you questions, I was simply doing that.

Incidentally I did the exact opposite - I went from a strong and definite materialist and science based worldview to a an acceptance that God exists, so I understand what it's like to voluntarily reject former deeply held convictions.

Harry.
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:22:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 7:14:15 PM, Torton wrote:
Did you ever have any particularly interesting conversations between atheists, before you changed positions?

Yes. I will add here that the larger issue is that people in the US, at least, view evolution as equivalent to atheism and diametrically opposed to theism. It does not have to be that way. There are theists who accept evolution worldwide. In fact, the Pope officially accepted evolution on behalf of the Catholic Church some years ago.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:27:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 7:19:05 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:14:55 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:01:49 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:26 PM, Fly wrote:
Up until about 10 years ago, I was an old earth creationist (OEC) a la CS Lewis. That also means that I was onboard with Intelligent Design as valid science. I came to accept the fact and theory of evolution via-- if you can believe it-- online debate-- along with various science websites. After debating and observing the debate between practicing biologists and fellow believers like myself, I came to see that the preponderance of evidence, information, education, and intellectual honesty lay with the biologists and the science literate arguing for evolution. This process of changing my stance took about 2 years, so it was not a minor transition for me.

If you have relevant questions to ask of me, ask away! I just ask in return that you come correct.

What do you make of Berlinski's comments?

https://www.youtube.com...

Harry.

There is a saying my wife has told me: "Begin as you mean to go on"-- meaning don't set a precedent you do not wish to be set. While I may get around to your question, it is really not part of the intent of this thread. If it were, then people could just throw out any video, any article, or any book in my direction and say, "Hey watch/read this, and then tell me what you think." Then it inevitably becomes a debate over that, rather than a genuine AMA.

At best, it is a time consuming exercise beyond the intent of the thread. Note that my thread is not titled: "Do your best to convert me back to Creationism." At worst, it can get to the point of constituting Gish Gallop.

Understood - but you did invite the reader to ask you questions, I was simply doing that.

Incidentally I did the exact opposite - I went from a strong and definite materialist and science based worldview to a an acceptance that God exists, so I understand what it's like to voluntarily reject former deeply held convictions.

Harry.

Sounds like a perfect idea for a "mirror image" thread authored by you!
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,965
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:30:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 6:54:26 PM, Fly wrote:
Up until about 10 years ago, I was an old earth creationist (OEC) a la CS Lewis. That also means that I was onboard with Intelligent Design as valid science. I came to accept the fact and theory of evolution via-- if you can believe it-- online debate-- along with various science websites. After debating and observing the debate between practicing biologists and fellow believers like myself, I came to see that the preponderance of evidence, information, education, and intellectual honesty lay with the biologists and the science literate arguing for evolution. This process of changing my stance took about 2 years, so it was not a minor transition for me.

If you have relevant questions to ask of me, ask away! I just ask in return that you come correct.

How do you explain the origin of genetic information?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:38:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 7:19:05 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:14:55 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:01:49 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:26 PM, Fly wrote:
Up until about 10 years ago, I was an old earth creationist (OEC) a la CS Lewis. That also means that I was onboard with Intelligent Design as valid science. I came to accept the fact and theory of evolution via-- if you can believe it-- online debate-- along with various science websites. After debating and observing the debate between practicing biologists and fellow believers like myself, I came to see that the preponderance of evidence, information, education, and intellectual honesty lay with the biologists and the science literate arguing for evolution. This process of changing my stance took about 2 years, so it was not a minor transition for me.

If you have relevant questions to ask of me, ask away! I just ask in return that you come correct.

What do you make of Berlinski's comments?

https://www.youtube.com...

Harry.

There is a saying my wife has told me: "Begin as you mean to go on"-- meaning don't set a precedent you do not wish to be set. While I may get around to your question, it is really not part of the intent of this thread. If it were, then people could just throw out any video, any article, or any book in my direction and say, "Hey watch/read this, and then tell me what you think." Then it inevitably becomes a debate over that, rather than a genuine AMA.

At best, it is a time consuming exercise beyond the intent of the thread. Note that my thread is not titled: "Do your best to convert me back to Creationism." At worst, it can get to the point of constituting Gish Gallop.

Understood - but you did invite the reader to ask you questions, I was simply doing that.

In case Fly would like to respond to the detail of the video without having to expend needless effort watching it, I offer a summary of Berlinski's points below:

1) The fossil record is too mystifying to support evolution or anything else;

2) Due to lack of specific prediction, science has never been able to examine the central Darwinian claim that natural selection and random variation can account for biological complexity, so science cannot evaluate whether evolution is adequate for its intended purposes. Here he has argued that evolutionary biology (in fact, he said 'biology') is not a 'serious science';

3) You cannot program evolution into a simulation to confirm the consequences of its mechanisms. Despite the simple mechanisms of evolution, no computer program has produced something of biological-like complexity without great manipulation, ad-hoc constraints and abandoning Darwinian mechanisms. He asserts that people working with genetic algorithms know they will not work for their intended purposes; and finally

4) There is no laboratory evidence supporting that random mutation and natural selection will change the 'fundamental nature' within species -- so small variations rather than large variations are possible.

Berlinski's biography lists him as an academic philosopher out of Princeton, however the video lists him as a Columbia University Post Doctoral Fellow in Molecular Biology who taught Philosophy, Math and English at Stanford, Rutgers, Columbia and the Universite de Paris, Jussieu. His biography lists him as a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. Apparently his 'postdoctoral fellowship' in molecular biology arises from having once been a research assistant at Columbia. [https://en.wikipedia.org...].

This post is submitted as a courtesy to Fly and to help Harry get the answers he asked about. It's not my intention to comment on Berlinski's qualifications nor his arguments here.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:42:34 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 7:22:49 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:14:15 PM, Torton wrote:
Did you ever have any particularly interesting conversations between atheists, before you changed positions?

Yes. I will add here that the larger issue is that people in the US, at least, view evolution as equivalent to atheism and diametrically opposed to theism. It does not have to be that way. There are theists who accept evolution worldwide. In fact, the Pope officially accepted evolution on behalf of the Catholic Church some years ago.

I am also a former Christian. In my late teens, I came to believe that the biblical account of creation had to be metaphorical for obvious reasons. For 15 years, I called myself a Christian that believed in evolution. Finally, I had to abandon the bible completely out of intellectual honesty. Now, I accept a possibility of a non-interventionist "universal consciousness" but believe in evolution of course.

One of the best books I have read that completely shreds the bible is The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine (the US founding father). After reading that book, its embarrassing that I ever took Christianity seriously.

It was an important life lesson for me on how powerful biases can be even to otherwise intelligent people. I now regularly question all my beliefs as I think that is healthy.

Skepticism only makes the truth stronger. Faith without evidence is destructive and will blind you.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:43:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 6:54:26 PM, Fly wrote:
If you have relevant questions to ask of me, ask away! I just ask in return that you come correct.

1. How would you describe your old self from the point just before you began your transition? What would you say were the driving factors that made you believe in creationism and reject evolution (from evidence and reasoning to your psychology)?

2. Do you find similarities in the majority of creationists you come across today? Would you say, from your perspective, that your old self is representative of the creationism community?
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:43:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 7:30:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:26 PM, Fly wrote:
Up until about 10 years ago, I was an old earth creationist (OEC) a la CS Lewis. That also means that I was onboard with Intelligent Design as valid science. I came to accept the fact and theory of evolution via-- if you can believe it-- online debate-- along with various science websites. After debating and observing the debate between practicing biologists and fellow believers like myself, I came to see that the preponderance of evidence, information, education, and intellectual honesty lay with the biologists and the science literate arguing for evolution. This process of changing my stance took about 2 years, so it was not a minor transition for me.

If you have relevant questions to ask of me, ask away! I just ask in return that you come correct.

How do you explain the origin of genetic information?

I see that the potential to go off the rails is high here. I have a long answer and a short answer to this. The problem with the long answer is that it would be in response to a question best asked in the Science forum.

Therefor, I am left with the short answer which is true to the context of this thread: in the process of changing my stance, I came to realize that scientists have either answered this question in a way not satisfactory to intransigent creationists, or they are doing their damnedest to find the answer. One thing is for sure in science: saying "Goddidit" is not a scientific answer, and being satisfied with that answer at any point stifles curiosity about how things work in nature.

Hmm... I thought that answer was going to be shorter, actually...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 7:47:12 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
While I am not a fan of posting external links to videos, I have given this one to people who don't understand how strong the evidence is for evolution. I think every evolutionist should have this information. It is easy to follow and concise. Would highly recommend anyone watching it that doesn't understand the magnitude of evidence.

https://www.youtube.com...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 8:02:33 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
What do you think of the following thoughts?

Fermis Paradox

States that by probability alone there should be civilizations all over the galaxy and universe, yet we have seen none.

Cambrian Explosion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

100 million year old creatures caught in amber look like they do today.

http://m.phys.org...

Based off of the Cambrian explosion and ancient creatures found that look like they do today, I propose that complex creatures all came into being during a relatively short stretch scientifically speaking and most of them simply became extinct.

The Cambrian Explosion is a sudden appearance of all life as we know it." There are exceedingly few that come before this and those that follow the Cambrian show no differences than their ancestral cousins or predecessors that follow." It is like an explosion of life that appears almost instantaneously on earth." What is amazing about the Cambrian layer is what is not there before it and after it." In other words, you will find almost no predecessors or ancestors of the Cambrian creatures; that is, absolutely nothing above or below this layer." This roaring silence of evidence is what was a problematic area for Darwin, who believed that in the years to come, there would be hundreds of transitional fossils that would validate his theory." With hundreds of thousands of digs, there are still gigantic gaps in the transitional fossils that would allegedly show the transitions of species into totally different species.

www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/cambrian-explosion-why-christians-need-to-know
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
keithprosser
Posts: 1,983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 8:04:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
One thing is for sure in science: saying "Goddidit" is not a scientific answer, and being satisfied with that answer at any point stifles curiosity about how things work in nature.

http://www.condenaststore.com...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 8:19:03 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Still, the reason why life lingered so long in a rather simple form, and then rapidly diversified into multifarious and complex forms, has been a long-standing puzzle in paleobiology..

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 8:29:12 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 7:43:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:26 PM, Fly wrote:
If you have relevant questions to ask of me, ask away! I just ask in return that you come correct.

1. How would you describe your old self from the point just before you began your transition? What would you say were the driving factors that made you believe in creationism and reject evolution (from evidence and reasoning to your psychology)?

While my personality is largely the same, I was much more gullible before. My critical thinking skills paled in comparison to now. My largest regret is that I would have done much better in college if I had the reasoning skills then that I have now. I am a late bloomer. I would describe myself as a skeptic now, but I also feel as though I understand the scientific endeavor for the first time in my life-- as of 10 years ago.

I believed in creationism because it was the first thing I was ever taught (primacy of learning principle). After that, I was taught that evolution = rejecting God, and I surely didn't want to do that!

2. Do you find similarities in the majority of creationists you come across today? Would you say, from your perspective, that your old self is representative of the creationism community?

Yes, except that I was never as onboard with Hell theology as most fundamentalists seem to be. Creationists see much of science as anti-God. They refuse to grasp that the very principles that lead to things they like (going to the moon, computers, phones) also lead to things they don't like (evolution, observation of climate change).
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 8:33:03 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 8:02:33 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
What do you think of the following thoughts?

Fermis Paradox

States that by probability alone there should be civilizations all over the galaxy and universe, yet we have seen none.

Cambrian Explosion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

100 million year old creatures caught in amber look like they do today.

http://m.phys.org...

Based off of the Cambrian explosion and ancient creatures found that look like they do today, I propose that complex creatures all came into being during a relatively short stretch scientifically speaking and most of them simply became extinct.

The Cambrian Explosion is a sudden appearance of all life as we know it." There are exceedingly few that come before this and those that follow the Cambrian show no differences than their ancestral cousins or predecessors that follow." It is like an explosion of life that appears almost instantaneously on earth." What is amazing about the Cambrian layer is what is not there before it and after it." In other words, you will find almost no predecessors or ancestors of the Cambrian creatures; that is, absolutely nothing above or below this layer." This roaring silence of evidence is what was a problematic area for Darwin, who believed that in the years to come, there would be hundreds of transitional fossils that would validate his theory." With hundreds of thousands of digs, there are still gigantic gaps in the transitional fossils that would allegedly show the transitions of species into totally different species.

www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/cambrian-explosion-why-christians-need-to-know

I refer you back to post #5.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 8:41:48 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 8:29:12 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:43:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:26 PM, Fly wrote:
If you have relevant questions to ask of me, ask away! I just ask in return that you come correct.

1. How would you describe your old self from the point just before you began your transition? What would you say were the driving factors that made you believe in creationism and reject evolution (from evidence and reasoning to your psychology)?

While my personality is largely the same, I was much more gullible before. My critical thinking skills paled in comparison to now. My largest regret is that I would have done much better in college if I had the reasoning skills then that I have now. I am a late bloomer. I would describe myself as a skeptic now, but I also feel as though I understand the scientific endeavor for the first time in my life-- as of 10 years ago.


Yes!! I would say the exact same thing. My logic is FAR more developed. Once the blinders are removed, the prevalence of entrenched cognitive dissonance is staggering, if not disturbing.

I believed in creationism because it was the first thing I was ever taught (primacy of learning principle). After that, I was taught that evolution = rejecting God, and I surely didn't want to do that!

That is how I would describe my experience also. Guilt for questioning dogma is fuel for biases.
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 8:42:11 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 7:38:52 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:19:05 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:14:55 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:01:49 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:26 PM, Fly wrote:
Up until about 10 years ago, I was an old earth creationist (OEC) a la CS Lewis. That also means that I was onboard with Intelligent Design as valid science. I came to accept the fact and theory of evolution via-- if you can believe it-- online debate-- along with various science websites. After debating and observing the debate between practicing biologists and fellow believers like myself, I came to see that the preponderance of evidence, information, education, and intellectual honesty lay with the biologists and the science literate arguing for evolution. This process of changing my stance took about 2 years, so it was not a minor transition for me.

If you have relevant questions to ask of me, ask away! I just ask in return that you come correct.

What do you make of Berlinski's comments?

https://www.youtube.com...

Harry.

There is a saying my wife has told me: "Begin as you mean to go on"-- meaning don't set a precedent you do not wish to be set. While I may get around to your question, it is really not part of the intent of this thread. If it were, then people could just throw out any video, any article, or any book in my direction and say, "Hey watch/read this, and then tell me what you think." Then it inevitably becomes a debate over that, rather than a genuine AMA.

At best, it is a time consuming exercise beyond the intent of the thread. Note that my thread is not titled: "Do your best to convert me back to Creationism." At worst, it can get to the point of constituting Gish Gallop.

Understood - but you did invite the reader to ask you questions, I was simply doing that.

In case Fly would like to respond to the detail of the video without having to expend needless effort watching it, I offer a summary of Berlinski's points below:

1) The fossil record is too mystifying to support evolution or anything else;

2) Due to lack of specific prediction, science has never been able to examine the central Darwinian claim that natural selection and random variation can account for biological complexity, so science cannot evaluate whether evolution is adequate for its intended purposes. Here he has argued that evolutionary biology (in fact, he said 'biology') is not a 'serious science';

3) You cannot program evolution into a simulation to confirm the consequences of its mechanisms. Despite the simple mechanisms of evolution, no computer program has produced something of biological-like complexity without great manipulation, ad-hoc constraints and abandoning Darwinian mechanisms. He asserts that people working with genetic algorithms know they will not work for their intended purposes; and finally

4) There is no laboratory evidence supporting that random mutation and natural selection will change the 'fundamental nature' within species -- so small variations rather than large variations are possible.

Berlinski's biography lists him as an academic philosopher out of Princeton, however the video lists him as a Columbia University Post Doctoral Fellow in Molecular Biology who taught Philosophy, Math and English at Stanford, Rutgers, Columbia and the Universite de Paris, Jussieu. His biography lists him as a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. Apparently his 'postdoctoral fellowship' in molecular biology arises from having once been a research assistant at Columbia. [https://en.wikipedia.org...].

This post is submitted as a courtesy to Fly and to help Harry get the answers he asked about. It's not my intention to comment on Berlinski's qualifications nor his arguments here.

Thanks, but my explanation in post #5 still stands.

I have been looking into people and claims such as this for over a decade, and they all follow the same debunked pattern: a person of non science (even engineering does not qualify) credentials pontificating on how science is wrong, and how some pseudoscientific undertaking has it right.

The Discovery Institute, like so many such think tanks claiming to be after scientific truths, operates with a "Statement of Faith" at its premise. That is an open admission of extreme bias. That means that any conclusions they come to must align with the preexisting conclusions of their faith. Science does not operate that way. Flawed science is refuted by superior science, not non science.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 9:06:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 8:42:11 PM, Fly wrote:
The Discovery Institute, like so many such think tanks claiming to be after scientific truths, operates with a "Statement of Faith" at its premise. That is an open admission of extreme bias. That means that any conclusions they come to must align with the preexisting conclusions of their faith. Science does not operate that way. Flawed science is refuted by superior science, not non science.

Very well said...
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 9:07:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 8:41:48 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 2/13/2016 8:29:12 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:43:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:26 PM, Fly wrote:
If you have relevant questions to ask of me, ask away! I just ask in return that you come correct.

1. How would you describe your old self from the point just before you began your transition? What would you say were the driving factors that made you believe in creationism and reject evolution (from evidence and reasoning to your psychology)?

While my personality is largely the same, I was much more gullible before. My critical thinking skills paled in comparison to now. My largest regret is that I would have done much better in college if I had the reasoning skills then that I have now. I am a late bloomer. I would describe myself as a skeptic now, but I also feel as though I understand the scientific endeavor for the first time in my life-- as of 10 years ago.


Yes!! I would say the exact same thing. My logic is FAR more developed. Once the blinders are removed, the prevalence of entrenched cognitive dissonance is staggering, if not disturbing.

I believed in creationism because it was the first thing I was ever taught (primacy of learning principle). After that, I was taught that evolution = rejecting God, and I surely didn't want to do that!

That is how I would describe my experience also. Guilt for questioning dogma is fuel for biases.

There are more of us out there than I ever would have imagined as a teen. I used to think that leaving Christianity had to be an emotion based decision-- people angry with God, angry with fellow believers, etc. With me, however, it was my indoctrination and intellect that got me in and my intellect and information that got me out.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
graceofgod
Posts: 5,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 9:24:31 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 6:54:26 PM, Fly wrote:
Up until about 10 years ago, I was an old earth creationist (OEC) a la CS Lewis. That also means that I was onboard with Intelligent Design as valid science. I came to accept the fact and theory of evolution via-- if you can believe it-- online debate-- along with various science websites. After debating and observing the debate between practicing biologists and fellow believers like myself, I came to see that the preponderance of evidence, information, education, and intellectual honesty lay with the biologists and the science literate arguing for evolution. This process of changing my stance took about 2 years, so it was not a minor transition for me.

If you have relevant questions to ask of me, ask away! I just ask in return that you come correct.

you swapped religions what more is there to say...lol
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 9:38:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 9:24:31 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:26 PM, Fly wrote:
Up until about 10 years ago, I was an old earth creationist (OEC) a la CS Lewis. That also means that I was onboard with Intelligent Design as valid science. I came to accept the fact and theory of evolution via-- if you can believe it-- online debate-- along with various science websites. After debating and observing the debate between practicing biologists and fellow believers like myself, I came to see that the preponderance of evidence, information, education, and intellectual honesty lay with the biologists and the science literate arguing for evolution. This process of changing my stance took about 2 years, so it was not a minor transition for me.

If you have relevant questions to ask of me, ask away! I just ask in return that you come correct.

you swapped religions what more is there to say...lol

I still subscribed to Christianity for awhile after accepting evolution. So, no, even by your definition of religion, no swapping occurred. More like modification. As I pointed out, the Catholic Church has also done this.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 9:46:45 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 9:24:31 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:26 PM, Fly wrote:
Up until about 10 years ago, I was an old earth creationist (OEC) a la CS Lewis. That also means that I was onboard with Intelligent Design as valid science. I came to accept the fact and theory of evolution via-- if you can believe it-- online debate-- along with various science websites. After debating and observing the debate between practicing biologists and fellow believers like myself, I came to see that the preponderance of evidence, information, education, and intellectual honesty lay with the biologists and the science literate arguing for evolution. This process of changing my stance took about 2 years, so it was not a minor transition for me.

If you have relevant questions to ask of me, ask away! I just ask in return that you come correct.

you swapped religions what more is there to say...lol

Few things are more entertaining then listening to the religious try to downgrade science by calling it a religion. It not only displays remarkable ignorance as to the vast difference between science and religion, but also demonstrates just how inferior religious thinking is since their way of defending it is to claim that other ways of thinking are just as silly as theirs.
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 9:54:05 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 9:46:45 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/13/2016 9:24:31 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:26 PM, Fly wrote:
Up until about 10 years ago, I was an old earth creationist (OEC) a la CS Lewis. That also means that I was onboard with Intelligent Design as valid science. I came to accept the fact and theory of evolution via-- if you can believe it-- online debate-- along with various science websites. After debating and observing the debate between practicing biologists and fellow believers like myself, I came to see that the preponderance of evidence, information, education, and intellectual honesty lay with the biologists and the science literate arguing for evolution. This process of changing my stance took about 2 years, so it was not a minor transition for me.

If you have relevant questions to ask of me, ask away! I just ask in return that you come correct.

you swapped religions what more is there to say...lol

Few things are more entertaining then listening to the religious try to downgrade science by calling it a religion. It not only displays remarkable ignorance as to the vast difference between science and religion, but also demonstrates just how inferior religious thinking is since their way of defending it is to claim that other ways of thinking are just as silly as theirs.

Yes, in my head, I hear this translation: "You guys are just as fvcked up as we are!"
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 10:04:51 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 9:24:31 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:26 PM, Fly wrote:
Up until about 10 years ago, I was an old earth creationist (OEC) a la CS Lewis. That also means that I was onboard with Intelligent Design as valid science. I came to accept the fact and theory of evolution via-- if you can believe it-- online debate-- along with various science websites. After debating and observing the debate between practicing biologists and fellow believers like myself, I came to see that the preponderance of evidence, information, education, and intellectual honesty lay with the biologists and the science literate arguing for evolution. This process of changing my stance took about 2 years, so it was not a minor transition for me.

If you have relevant questions to ask of me, ask away! I just ask in return that you come correct.

you swapped religions what more is there to say...lol

Religious people like to say that as if it makes sense. I don't understand why this makes sense to anyone. By definition, a religion requires faith. The change was from believing things without evidence to a worldview that operates primarily from a vantage of evidence.

If someone moves away from Scientology, does that automatically mean that a non-belief in Scientology requires some kind of new faith? This is how religious people sound when they make that statement and is indicative of their skewed logic.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 10:32:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 9:07:49 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/13/2016 8:41:48 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 2/13/2016 8:29:12 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/13/2016 7:43:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/13/2016 6:54:26 PM, Fly wrote:
If you have relevant questions to ask of me, ask away! I just ask in return that you come correct.

1. How would you describe your old self from the point just before you began your transition? What would you say were the driving factors that made you believe in creationism and reject evolution (from evidence and reasoning to your psychology)?

While my personality is largely the same, I was much more gullible before. My critical thinking skills paled in comparison to now. My largest regret is that I would have done much better in college if I had the reasoning skills then that I have now. I am a late bloomer. I would describe myself as a skeptic now, but I also feel as though I understand the scientific endeavor for the first time in my life-- as of 10 years ago.


Yes!! I would say the exact same thing. My logic is FAR more developed. Once the blinders are removed, the prevalence of entrenched cognitive dissonance is staggering, if not disturbing.

I believed in creationism because it was the first thing I was ever taught (primacy of learning principle). After that, I was taught that evolution = rejecting God, and I surely didn't want to do that!

That is how I would describe my experience also. Guilt for questioning dogma is fuel for biases.

There are more of us out there than I ever would have imagined as a teen. I used to think that leaving Christianity had to be an emotion based decision-- people angry with God, angry with fellow believers, etc. With me, however, it was my indoctrination and intellect that got me in and my intellect and information that got me out.

That's interesting that you say that because I used to say that atheists are just angry with god. I think its a common characterization.

I think I was also subconsciously a little jealous also that they had intellectual freedoms that I didn't have.