MiloCast

Yes, I seem to have gotten a bee in my bonnet about young-earth creationism recently. The more I learn about the universe in general and the earth in particular, the more I find it laughably ridiculous that some people believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

While browsing on another topic, I found an article by a man named Glenn R. Morton, a trained physicist who was once active in young-earth creationism, and had published many papers with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Mr. Morton had received his degree in physics only to find that there was no market for physicists, and eventually ended up working as a geophysicist for the oil company Atlantic Richfield.

The story which followed is sad, frightening, and uplifting. Morton describes how, as a believer in Christianity, he sought to reconcile undeniable natural facts with his faith, and was in turn attacked by his own people. As of the end of the article, he claims to have held onto his faith, despite abandoning any young earth ideas.

Enjoy the article:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

If someone believes that the earth is only thousands of years old, instead of billions, then let them explain the oil and gasoline in their car. The fossil fuels which provide so much of the energy which has brought our standard of living up so high took millions of years to form.

What would be funny if it wasn’t so damned sad is that there are Web sites declaring that oil can be created in as little as three hours. Of course they’re right — certain types of oil can. And these oils can be used for various things. But the petroleum used to keep our vehicles and aircraft going don’t run on that kind of oil — they need fossil fuels.

This kind of short-circuited thinking is typical of creationist claims. It goes like this:

I believe the earth is too young for oil to have been created over millions of years. Oh look — a story about oil created in three hours! Problem solved! Back to watching “7th Heaven.”

Of course, the problem here is that there are so many types of oil, which take different amounts of time to produce, and from different raw materials.

In doing a little Web research for this article, I discovered that plenty of other people have already had this idea before I did, and plenty of creationists have already claimed to prove it wrong (using unfounded arguments such as the one above). Still, it’s an important thing to be reminded of; something we take for granted, such as oil, informs us about the accuracy of the bible. Or, should I say inaccuracy…

Some people claim that “believing in” evolution or not believing in a god requires just as much faith as believing in a religion. They think that scientists say some things and preachers say other things, and which one you believe is a personal choice. Here’s why that’s wrong.

Scientists begin with the evidence. They try to figure out what the evidence indicates. Once they have an idea (a hypothesis), the do tests to try to prove the hypothesis false. If they can’t do that, then they may start having more ideas about what else may be true if their hypothesis is true. However, if they (or anyone else) does prove the hypothesis is false, they throw it away and try to find out what is really true. If they can’t prove it false, and other things their hypothesis indicates should also be true are observed, then the hypothesis may become a scientific theory.

Religious thinkers begin with the conclusion, and try to figure out how the evidence fits in their preconceived picture of reality. When evidence fits what they believe, they point at it as “proof.” When evidence contradicts their beliefs, they explain that the evidence is not what it appears to be, or that their holy book must be interpreted in order to understand what it says.

So the reason I accept evolution, despite the fact that I am not an evolutionary biologist, is that a rigorous system of thinking and testing ideas (known as “science”), has shown that evolution has happened and continues to happen. The reason I believe the earth is billions of years old is not because a white-haired man in a lab coat told me, but because countless tests have shown that the earth must be billions of years old, and corroborating evidence can be found by astronomers, geologists, and many others.

Just in case some are still shaking their heads and claiming that I’m still believing what other people tell me without evidence, let me reiterate the most important part of this. Anyone who is interested can learn more about the scientific method and do experiments on their own. Nobody who believes in a religion is able to do tests to prove the claims made by their holy book.

Because of this, it is impossible for the “scientific community” to maintain a conspiracy and feed the public false knowledge. It’s not even possible for it to start a widespread conspiracy. The reason is that scientists have no reason to agree with one another. Some are religious, some are not. Some think animals should have the same rights as humans, and some do not. If any scientist, or group of scientists, put forth a claim that was false (knowingly or not), other scientists would test it in order to confirm it, and the false claim would fall apart. In fact, disproving the work of other scientists is a great way for a scientist to get attention, and maybe funding for his own research. Also, any scientist who found any evidence to prove a religion would, without any possibility of a doubt, become extremely wealthy and famous. So, science is not anti-religion. Religion, however, is anti-science, because it throws away all the useful rules of deciding what might be true and replaces them with blind faith.

Most importantly, understand this: Science is not a philosophy. Science is not a worldview. Science is not a religion. Science is nothing but a methodology. When people “do science,” all they’re doing is testing their ideas according to a strict set of rules designed to find the truth, no matter what it is.

“I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours as well.” - Stephen F. Roberts

There’s not much more I can add to this. I just ask that you think about it. As Greydon Square says — you just believe in the god native to your region. That’s the only true reason.

I could be wrong. About what? About anything. If you take issue with anything anywhere on my site, let me know. If I am wrong, I want to be set right.

However, the same applies in reverse. If you disagree with me, you must first admit that you could be wrong as well. If you can’t do that, then your position is not based on reason, and is therefore worthless.

Before I give the impression that I’m an intolerant jerk (too late?), let me say that I consider all the human beings on this planet to be my brothers and sisters, and I truly hope we can all come to agree on the important issues which affect our lives. That’s the only reason I write these articles. Thanks for reading.

Why is the Christian god always referred to as a “he”? If this being has a sex, then it seems there must be a species here, not one single being. That would be backed up by the whole concept of Jesus being a “son” in any sense.

This opens a whole Pandora’s Box of questions, and seems to give credit to the argument of infinite regression. I think infinite regression is kind of a joke argument used by skeptics against a self-defeating argument used by apologists. Apologists claim that man is too complex to have gotten here without a designer, so that proves their god. Skeptics retort that if that’s true, then the Christian god is even more complex, and thus requires an even more advanced designer. You can carry that argument on forever.

The most obvious explanation, in my opinion, is that man created God in his own likeness and image. Yeah, I know, I win a Captain Obvious bumper sticker for that one. But isn’t this something which should be brought up in conversation more often? If God existed and created people, why create them as sexual beings in the first place? Depending on which chapter of Genesis you read, God created Adam, apparently with genitals, without any intention of creating Eve.

The simple fact is that humans have been creating gods for at least thousands of years. All of them are eventually forgotten, as those who worship them die off. Not a single one has a shred of evidence which can be observed directly or indirectly to prove their existence, so the current favorites will be gone soon as well. I only hope that we don’t replace them, or that they don’t vanish because we destroy ourselves and this planet fighting over them.

I’m a member of a mailing list for non-theists. I wrote a message to the group today about a point a theist friend of mine and I disagree on in order to start a conversation on that point. Instead, one of the members responded with incredulity that I referred to my theist friend as “very intelligent.” This kind of thinking is a huge hindrance to the skeptical movement for many reasons. What follows is my reply to my fellow non-believer.

I understand where you’re coming from, and you have fallen victim to a very common misconception among freethinkers. We assume that since we are smart enough to see such obvious truths which are so fundamental to reality, we are somehow smarter than anyone who believes in pseudoscience, religion, or any other irrational junk.

What we must realize is that by treating people differently based on that judgment makes us as guilty of intolerance based on ignorance as fundamentalists. If people who believe religious garbage are necessarily not intelligent, then we would clearly see this in the real world: All the religious people would work at McDonalds or be on welfare, and all the millionaires, CEOs, and scientists would be atheists. Obviously this is not the case.

The truth is we simply don’t know what the difference is between a theist’s mind and a non-theist’s mind — not even those of us who are ex-theists. If we did, we’d be using that information to systematically eliminate religion from this world because of the harm it does.

Every intelligent theist makes decisions as rationally and intelligently as we do. However, they base their decisions on a collection of beliefs which contains some very wrong ideas. I’m sure you and I do the same and have some very wrong ideas about other things, although they may be nearly insignificant compared to religious dogma.

Understanding this and treating people with opposing views properly based on these ideas is very important. First of all, treating them like idiots is a stupid way to try to convince them to listen to us. Also, if we approach the problem with an incorrect hypothesis about the source of it, no solution we dream up is likely to be effective in actually fixing the problem.