Why do Christian creationists keep debating with scientists?

because religious persons this believing, have been brainwashed and corrupted from childhood in to blindly believing in their bible stories as fact and stripped of their ability to think intelligently and rationally to find truth.

Fear.

Cognitive Dissonance.

Ignorance.

Cause it’s fun?

It seems to me that those who actually debate with Scientists don’t actually believe in the religion they profess to follow. The amount of lies and distortions they employ is incompatible with their religion.
No, I think they do it to ensure that their followers(read: money source) stay in high enough numbers, make sure that religion continues to have enough followers so they can live comfortably (read: in luxury). Science and Education are the biggest and most important tools to make people wake up from their delusions, so naturally what you have to do to combat them is to convince people that Science is evil, that Education is evil, that both are wrong and propagated by evil Scientists, that the bible is literally true and thus any claims that contradict it are wrong (regardless of evidence).

Generally, they can’t separate their beliefs from science. Or they can’t imagine that God would set into motion the process of Evolution. The name “evolution” scares them but to me it would be so much easier if they said that God put it all into motion.

The details of the question lead me to believe the questioner could have more problems with Christianity than ‘Intelligent Design’.

@jlelandg – Intelligent Design is an attempt to form creationism in a different guise. Please take references to creationism as synonymous with Intelligent Design. Lose the argument under one topic, refactor it as another. It’s still bullshit, from a scientific perspective.

“retarded”—really! that’s an insult to retarded people to lump them in with willfully ignorant and delusional people. Retarded people can’t help it.
There is no inherent conflict between scientific theories and religious beliefs if they are held in the heart and mind in their true nature and purpose.
Religious principles guide the morality of our decisions, what is right and wrong behavior, what is good.
Scientific theories and principles embody what we have learned about the physical world the divine has provided using the good brains that the divine has provided.
Why does anyone imagine the divine wants us to ignore what we discern to be facts using the fine minds given us? That is in league with imagining that God wants us to by one brand of gasoline over another. Whole different wavelength.

@gmander I don’t disagree…but you’re asking this question with a certain tone that suggests bias. Why don’t you tell us what’s really bugging you?

@jlelandg – I have no problem with God. I simply do not require any supreme being to dance to my tune. I use my limited experience to try and understand the Universe. God doesn’t seem to show himself, S/he may exist or may not. I don’t know, I don’t care. On balance, I will operate on the assumption that gods do not exist. If I am damned for that opinion then, again, I would tell God, “Go f*** yourself, you meet my definition of evil” I don’t thjnk God would be evil, so it must be you that are wrong. God will show you the errors of your logic.

I’d agree that the emotionally charged words like retarded and scumbag etc distract from the question but there is a good question under the horseshit somewhere with the pony.
Just guessing perhaps @gmander is frustrated with “religious” types who use what they think their kind of god wants to excuse what would otherwise be considered immoral behavior, e.g. discrimination, messing with other people’s loving relationships, dismissing factual information that can save or improve lives, and wars just for starters.

Arrogance.

@dabbler – see other posting with regards to the meaning of retarded. It is is used in physics without any human connotations.

{mod says} Let’s keep it on topic folks, and remember to disagree without being disagreeable.

Mainstream Christianity rests on some rather extraordinary claims made in the Bible. Take away the resurrection of Jesus, for example, and Christianity collapses. Take away the scriptural promises of future triumph of God over the forces of evil and the rescue of believers, and Christianity also loses its potency.

So there’s a heavy investment in the accuracy of the Bible’s extraordinary claims. How can these underpinnings of Christian faith be reliable if other claims the Bible makes are demonstrably inaccurate?

In some ways, it’s easier for Christians to mount a defense for the absolute accuracy of the entire book than to be faced with the challenge of sustaining faith in some parts while acknowledging that other parts are pure fabrication. In the first case, one is pitted against the forces of secularism, which fits nicely with the “good vs. evil” paradigm sounded throughout the Bible; so this whole Christian vs. secular scientists scenario just seems like a natural playing out of the cosmic drama. But in the second case, one actually has to do the hard work of bringing one’s own judgement to bear, all the harder since the Bible explicitly warns against doing this.

[mod says] This is an edited version of the original question. Please stick to the new version while responding. Thanks!

Most scientists these days refuse to debate creationists, because they feel that it gives their viewpoint a legitimacy that it does not deserve.

I am a Christian, and I do not debate scientists.
I just nod, and smile, and say “You’ll see!”

It amuses me when science discovers things that support Bible history.

@crisw is correct. Very few scientist will debate with Creationists. There are notable exceptions, of course, such as when it comes to teaching Creationism in schools.

@Rarebear

And, in that case, it’s usually court hearings, school board hearings and the like that are the venue, rather than one-on-one debates.

@filmfann – What things has science discovered that supports Bible history? I’m struggling with that one.

@filmfann yes, please share because, ancient ruins in the middle east are not grounds for bible fiction becoming historical fact.

The supposedly discovered locations of Sodom & Gomorrah for example, do not make the story true…in any way. The remnants of Solomon’s Temple does make the Ark of the Covenant real.

How about a talking burning bush? Jonah and the Whale (or big fish as people tend to argue for some reason thinking its more believable)? Noah’s Ark and the great flood with 2 of every species on Earth aboard? All humanity created from 1 guy and woman made from his rib?

You believe all this? Really? Do you also believe the Earth is flat and that everything in the universe revolves around it?

News flash!
The Earth is a sphere, nothing revolves around us except the moon, Sodom & Gomorrah were not destroyed by ‘god’, the Ark or the Covenant and Noah’s don’t exist and never did. A man did not survive inside a whale/big fish and evolution has been proven over and over again.

Also, the recent find of the nails supposedly used to crucify jesus? Well probably not, crucifixion was common practice by the Romans at the time so, they could have been anyones crucifixion nails, orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr could have held some wooden scaffolding together or a door frame. could have been used in any number of things.

The premise of “oh damn we/they found some old shit in Israel! It must make the bible true”, is pretty pathetic.

Take a moment, remove the bible from your skull and replace it with a brain and use it to actually think, please. Thats for all religious persons, not only you @filmfann.

Hello @wenn – you so eloquently wrote:

Take a moment, remove the bible from your skull and replace it with a brain and use it to actually think, please. Thats for all religious persons, not only you @filmfann.

First, no need to insult someone here – simply based on his religious beliefs. No-one is calling you an uncouth, stupid naive-like child just because you are incoherent and contribute crappy posts – we tolerate you nonetheless and ask you do the same.

Second, I, too believe in God. I am not religious, but I fear nothing – except His wrath. Why? I don’t know. I just do – and don’t care what you think about it.

I believe in UFO’s and I believe in the Big Bang and evolution – but I also beleive in the Bible – I just don’t think we completely understand what they meant, over the centuries writing it – in terms of chronology.It doesn’t bother me – I still am amazed at the birth of a child – and the cloning of a sheep equally.

Don’t you? Don’t answer – I don’t care.

Perhaps, oh enlightened one, you can make a case for no miracles, no God, and 1.5 Billion Christians have it all wrong. 1 Billion Muslims have it all wrong. A handful of Jews have it wrong. You though, know the answer – there is no God.

But what if there is? See you on the other side buddy. Don’t come screaming to Zen…

I think there is room for God – and science. He doesn’t seem to mind that we can’t grasp how they work together; so I don’t sweat it too much either. Allah, God, Jesus… it’s all good. I haven’t seem him yet – and until I do – I am not disclaiming it either. To be safe.
I have kids – I like to buckle up nowadays.

So go on and believe what you want – most here are athiests anyway. Just don’t insult filmfann – or anyone else. Got it?

[Removed by Fluther]

@wenn Wow, you really kind of went off on me there, without offering me any chance to explain what I said. I hope that is not characteristic of you.
I am not refering to ruins of temples or cities or found graves of men mentioned in the Bible, though that would certainly support Bible stories.
I am also not saying the Earth is flat. There is nothing in the Bible that says that, and that arguement is used by people who haven’t taken the time to read it.
Do I believe in Noah, Adam, and the Ark of the Covenant.
The discoveries of Science that I refered to were things like the current scientific theory of the Big Bang, and how that lines up perfectly with the Creation story. There are no men holding up the planet, or the Earth riding on the back of a turtle in an infinite sea.
This is an interesting site. I don’t agree with everything they say, but it does support my statement.
The Bible is full of miracles. I understand your not wanting to believe in them, since that would point to the existance of God. I hope you can find change in your opinions, and find spirituality.

Wow, @wenn , I’d flag the crap out of you, except that would make the posts of @seazen_ and @filmfann a bit dilute, and both said beautifully what I was thinking. Try to treat others with a bit of respect, even if you don’t agree with them. If that sounds a bit like I’m scolding a child, it’s because you sound like one.

”like the current scientific theory of the Big Bang, and how that lines up perfectly with the Creation story.”
Uh, no it doesn’t.
Day 1 it creates light, before anything else.
Visible light did not exist until the formation of stars, which did not form until 150 million years after the beginning.

Day 2 it creates the “firmament” to “to divide the waters above from the waters below”, meaning that at that point he creates the planet(s).
Needless to say that there is no water above the firmament. There is vacuum.
Day 3 it creates land from what was originally just water.
That is not how the early earth looked like. Earth was a ball of molten rock, not water. Water came later.
it also creates plantlife at that point.

Day 4. Only now does it create the stars, the sun, and the moon.
It creates them after the planets, after it created the first life.
That is not how things went down in reality.
First there were stars which then exploded, seeded our solar system with heavy elements and caused our local gas cloud to collapse and ignite into a medium sized star, with the planets forming after the star from the residual dust cloud. Constant impacts ensured that Earth remained a glowing ball of molten rock for a long time. A massive impact ripped a huge chunk from the Planet and formed the moon. Only after cooling down did water begin to cover the surface.
Day 5 it creates “sea creatures” and birds.
In reality, “Sea creatures” existed way before the first plants grew on land, and the first birds only emerged after the emergence of land based life, which god god creates only on day 6.

(in the second creation story, it creates the man before it made eden, before it made any plants and before it made any animals)

The biblical creation story, even if you take it metaphorically, completely fails to match the actual timeline of the emergence of the universe and life.
It does not “line up perfectly” with the Big Bang theory, nor Cosmological history, nor the Evolutionary timeline as outlined by the Fossil Record and Genetics.

@seazen_ the number of followers of a religion means nothing except it’s ability to overpower said people. The religions of today have reached the numbers they have by brute force. For example, centuries ago if you didn’t believe in the ruling religion and were caught not believing, you converted, were tortured until you converted or were killed. I think it’s fair to say there were a decent amount of people who saved their lives by converting. So on and so forth adding to the religious population.

And your ”But what if there is? See you on the other side buddy. Don’t come screaming to Zen…” statement is a facile argument, I’ve heard this countless times from countless people and it still holds no weight to me. Because it simply implies you, and everyone else who’s said that to me, believe because you are too afraid not to believe or question. Which leads into my next point.

Life is about questions, finding answers and truth. Religion is about control, fear and limiting freedoms all while using 2,000 year old tales (1,400 in the case of islam) with no proof to rule the lives of it’s followers. And today it all adds up to say that people have been following for so long, not always out of free will, we might as well too, just in case.

And if turns out I am wrong there is a god, which I very much don’t believe there is, then I will be a man and deal with it knowing I have lived a life filled with free thought, knowledge, and exploration as a human being and not a blind subject.

That’s not necessarily directed at you personally, but to the statements you have made.

@filmfann just quickly, the Church which ruled much of the world in centuries past was the primary source of education. A couple things they believed and taught, was the earth was flat and was the center of the universe, and if you argued against the Church’s teachings you were in trouble. That’s where those come in into my message above.

The bible also makes references to the four corners and edges of the earth, as well as pillars. and as a sphere has no edges or corners…

I grew up in a Catholic home, went to a Catholic school and have very religious relatives. So I have read a fair amount of the Bible in those years.

The more I read about religions and learned about them, the more it was forced upon me, the less I believed. Up until about age 15 through today and forever more, where I believe none of it.

and as @ragingloli pointed out, the big bang theory does not match up with creationism.

The thing about @filmfann and many other people who believe in God and look to biblical text, is a large amount of these people can compartmentalize their belief in God, religion, and science. Not every Christian denies evolution; in fact there are Popes who agree it is a legitimate scientific theory with plenty of evidence. No reason to attack anyone. @filmfann is always very reasonable, and I look to him for the Christian perspective when I have questions. Nothing wrong with stating facts that contradict a Jelly’s assertion, that’s what we do here, but we can do it without attacking or making assumptions about the person.

Christians can choose to debate with scientist all they want. They are free to do so. Their faith in what they believe is why they do so. I do not think religion should be taught in any public school. Religious education should be generated from the home and if it is really important to them, a parent may decide to send their children to a private religious school. As long as the school also teaches required subjects, it really does not matter.

I also believe the Bible maybe based upon perspective. The human race did not have global awareness or ability to communicate. A flood which covered the entire earth may only be from the perspective of those whom it effected and two of every creature may have been those known in the immediate area. Then again it could be completely literal as many different religions or groups of people had a flood story. Whether you believe in God or not, it does not negate the entire historical perspective of the Bible.

I have no problem with people who do not believe in God or a god. However, I also read the original description that came with the question which was highly inflammatory.

It seems this question is self-fulfilling, since it is trying to draw me in to a debate on creation.
@ragingloli says ”First there were stars which then exploded”
Where did the stars come from? There can’t first be stars. You just completely overstepped the Big Bang.
You’ll see!

@filmfann
Regarding the origin of the solar system only. I wrote earlier that the first stars formed 150 million years after the big bang.

I am a Christian, and I believe that God and science are both true.
I believe that God created science and uses it to rule the universe so there is some form of order, however I still believe just as strongly in God.
Both can exist at once perfectly easily; you just have to realise that many parts of the old testament are not literal things that actually happened, but stories that symbolically show that God id God.
There is much proof for them being symbolic, and science is all about things that can be proved.

Not all Christians debate with scientists.
I’d just like to point out though: you asked why Christian creationists debate with scientists about creation – because they are creationists and they believe what the Bible says! and the scientists believe in what science says created the world.

Despite this I think people have a right to believe whatever they want to believe, no matter how far fetched it sounds to me, including creationists – I just don’t believe exactly the same thing as them; and the way you word this question seems like you are against these beliefs and against Christianity – which I find insulting!! People should have the right to believe what they want!

@filmfann – Quite right! Don’t get drawn into debating. ‘You’ll See!’ should be your mantra.

@NorbertFish4 – I agree that people should have the right to believe what they want and to express their opinion about it. I have trouble finding much historical cases where atheists and agnostics have had that right in the past. Or, in many places in the world, even today. My view would be that you feel insulted because you have an arrogance borne of hundreds of years of oppression of alternative views that doesn’t expect such robust denial of your belief system. Ignore or debate, but please don’t play the ‘I am insulted’ card.

As an atheist, after reading @wenn‘s post, I am reminded why most of my good friends are theists.

gmander – i am merely saying that the way this question was worded made me feel like it was against christianity. I am sorry if i caused offence.

Why?

Reason #1: Strong emotions.

Reason #2: Creationists feel threatened.

Reason #3: They are under the false impression that evolution is an atheist theory.

So one of the problems is the lack of clear or adequate communication. We need to tell creationists that evolution is a scientific theory, just as big bang theory or quantum mechanics. Science is not concerned with the existence of deities. Science is about facts, tested and retested, against a set of assumptions. The realm of science requires testability. Therefore debates about deities belong to the realm of metaphysics, philosophy and religion. Every new atheist ridiculing believers and knowing for a fact that God doesn’t exist, increases the perceived threat and breeding ground for creationism.

So instead of rehashing old arguments of old debates, we should rather focus on understanding the threat creationists feel. We should focus on debunking this threat. Because evolution is no threat to theism. Because evolution is no contradiction to Genesis 1:1–29. Because ultimate explanations are beyond the realm of science.

Time and again, we need to point out that myths are about the human struggle to deal with the great passages of time and life—birth, death, marriage, the transitions from childhood to adulthood to old age. They meet a need in the psychological or spiritual nature of humans that has absolutely nothing to do with science. Myths provide a means to connect our finite lives, bonded by our inescapably mortal condition and the fear that inevitably accompanies the knowledge of our ultimate fate, with the infinite beyond us, a connection that we feel in moments of transcendence where we literally lose our individual selves and communion with something greater than ourselves, be that God, the universe, our antecedents or heroic examples. Myth in short gives our lives meaning and significance in an otherwise frightening and indifferent world. Myths are not to be taken literally, because to do so would take the sacred out of the realm of the sacred and make it profane. Myths inhabit the world of the sacred because they are meant to exist beyond the world of profane explanation.

@mattbrowne #3 I never thought about it like that. Makes perfect sense. As soon as theists who are terrified of atheists couple up stuff with atheists they turn off. It’s why talk of socialism and communism works so well here in the US. They also feel the atheists are trying to take religion away when they want government secular, secular is seen the same as atheism, rather than just neutral.

Well it is sort of an atheist theory in that there is no theism in the theory. Evolution is not incompatable with theism, but God has no place in a scientific discussion of evolution.

@JLeslie – Exactly. But most atheists don’t seem to realize this.

@Rarebear – No, it’s not “sort of an atheist theory”. Neither are Mendelian inheritance laws or big bang theory (both first discovered by priests by the way). Scientific theories are not concerned with theism or atheism. They attempt to describe how nature works.

I don’t know of a single accepted scientific theory that “has theism in it”. Intelligent design or “creation science” are not scientific theories because they either lack testability (God played with DNA molecules) or can easily be refuted (6000-year-old Earth).

@mattbrowne The theory does not involve a god. Therefore it is an atheist theory. No god required. It’s a question of semantics.

@Rarebear – Come on, you can’t be serious. What kind of reasoning are you advocating here?

Some people hold the view that homosexuality doesn’t exist. Big bang theory does not involve homosexuality. Therefore it is a non-gay theory. No gays required.

Promoting scientific theories as atheist theories is intellectually dishonest and it creates fear among creationists. It turns creationists into aggressive creationists. I don’t understand your approach. Funny games with semantics are not helpful.

@Rarebear I have to agree with @mattbrowne, evolution is a scientific theory that theists can agree with. I am pretty sure Darwin was a theist. It seems he would be one of the first people to develop theories of evolution.

@JLeslie @mattbrowne

I think you’re misunderstanding @Rarebear.

It’s a semantic question, not a question of ownership. He isn’t saying you must be an atheist to accept the theory of evolution, or that theists can’t agree with it. He’s saying that the presence or absence of a deity is irrelevant; the theory doesn’t involve them.

@crisw Right, but we are saying theists (certain theists) have decided it is an atheist theory, and so they reject it, because anything promoted by atheists must be bad. I think of secular as being void of religion, but atheism as being a denial of God, or a specific belief God does not exist. The Evangelicals do not se a difference. I just saw Rev. graham, and he said secularism is an afront against Christianity (I’m paraphrasing) and I found that so interesting. I try to explain to Christians all the time that the absence of religion in school and government is not trying to take religion away, only protecting your freedom of religion to believe as you wish. Now I see the message from some preachers is actually separation of church and states is a purposeful attack on Christianity. So, I prefer not to label something like a scientific theory as an atheist theory.

I don’t think the theory of evolution is theistic or atheistic: I would say that it’s secular because AFAIK, it doesn’t make any statement denying or asserting the existence of a deity.

@mattbrowne Oy. Relax, will you? @crisw is absolutely correct. All I’m saying is that scientific theories pretty much by definition do not utilize God in their explanation (if you know of one, I’d like to see it). So, science is non-theistic, or in other words, atheistic. That doesn’t mean that you can’t be a theist as you are and not believe in science. I see theism as being completely outside the realm of science. If you want to be a theist and be a scientist, fine. Just don’t mix the two.

As I sit on my atheist chair using my atheist keyboard staring at my atheist computer screen (all being created without involving God) reading the comments above I noticed that @crisw‘s statement

“the presence or absence of a deity is irrelevant; the theory doesn’t involve them”

and my earlier comment

“scientific theories are not concerned with theism or atheism. They attempt to describe how nature works.”

are basically the same. So why not stick with this? Why are so many creationists still under the impression that evolution points to atheism? Something must have gone wrong with our communication. Attention to detail might be important. Like @JLeslie said, we should not label something like a scientific theory as an atheist theory. Or chairs, for that matter…

“Why are so many creationists still under the impression that evolution points to atheism?”
Because Evolution directly contradicts and refutes the literal interpretation of Genesis. To them this implies that it is therefore a threat to the validity of the Bible and thus, God itself.

A good example of fallacious reasoning. The alternative to a literal interpretation of Genesis is not necessarily atheism.

You try convincing them of that. Dogma is a strong wall.

@Rarebear Maybe it is semantics and we are really saying the same thing. I just wonder if you live in the bible belt? Somehow I doubt it. The theists around you might be very rational people. I think that might influence how we look at it, or how we put it into words.

@mattbrowne Well that’s sort of what I’m saying, although I still seem to evolved an emotional response in you that I didn’t intend. Yes, my chair is atheist in that there was no “god” involved in the making of the chair. It’s an extreme example, but you are, in effect, correct. Does the existence of my chair mean there is no God? Of course not. Similarly, the facts of evolution do not rule out God, but do not involve God.

@JLeslie You are correct, I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. You’re right, all the theists around me are rational thinkers.

I do acknowledge that the word “atheist” invokes strong emotions among many people. That said, I have many theistic (even Evangelical) friends all over the country who are fine with it and don’t reject evolution.

Actually, totally off topic, but a funny story. I went out to dinner last night with a bunch of people here in New Orleans. The guy who sponsored the dinner is an evangelical Christian and a very good friend of mine. He stood up and said, “Is anybody here an atheist?” I said, “I am!” He laughed and said, “Well, stand up and be converted!” And we all stood up and he said a very nice Grace in English and Spanish. We had a wonderful meal.

@Rarebear In cities that are very diverse, there is a better understanding that our country has many different people in it, and there are many different beliefs, and that even people who believe differently can be good moral people. One can have a better understanding that the atheists are not trying to take away religion, because the evangelical in a diverse community has opportunity to know the atheist and see he is a good person, and that there is not much difference between them. When a whole community is evangelical the atheists are boogy men trying to get you.

I don’t know if any of my friends who claim to be Evangelical believe in evolution, I do have Christian friends who do, I know that.

@JLeslie Funny enough, two of my closest friends are Evangelical Christians. One of them lives in Alaska.

@Rarebear
I thought he moved to Arizona? Must be dreaming…

@Rarebear 90% of my closest friends are Catholic. I know a lot of Christians here in TN, but I don’t get into discussions about evolution with them typically, so I don’t know where they stand on the topic.

Actually you know what, I want to know why the scientists keep debating with creationists ?

@dabbler Haha. We need some evangelicals on the Q.

@dabbler – For the same reason Galileo was debating geocentrists.

Many scientists are idealists and they don’t lose hope easily. But this thread contains comments from non-creationists debating non-creationists. There are very few creationists on Fluther and they usually stay out of this to avoid any onslaught. I’ve also seen cases of creationists deleting their Fluther accounts.