why is religious willful ignorance bad?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Free Thinker, Nov 1, 2011.

  1. why is religious willful ignorance bad? can those who say ""if conclusions contradict the word of God, the conclusions are wrong no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."biology textbook printed by conservative Christian publisher Bob Jones University Press" really do the rest of us harm. why not just let them have their harmless delusions?

    lets look at history. at one time the middle east was the center of scientific knowledge. what happened:

    Introducing Islam's 12th century Kent Hovind - Hamid Al-Ghazali . A warning from history by Neil deGrasse about what happens when a creationist is allowed to overule scientists.

    800AD to 1100AD Islamic scientists were the best in the world yet look at Arabic countries now!

  2. Lucrum


    Oh for Christs sakes.

  3. Ricter


  4. kut2k2


    I notice you avoided mentioning biology. Scientists can't make significant biological advances without believing in evolution, which creationists reject. QED
  5. jem


    Many scientists are now suggesting that there is no way life evolved by random chance. Some top scientists now suggest evolution is directed or pre-designed to create life.

    Which is not inconsistent with most Christian's beliefs.


    We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
    be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
    discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
    have little idea yet what form this explanation will take—although of course it
    will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
    last resort, if an option at all—but we have every reason to look for such an
    explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
    In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
    the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
    most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
    fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
    researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
    they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
    on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
    in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
    theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
    There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the “Almosta Miracle Camp” including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982),
    and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life
    arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low.
    According to Crick “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
    miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied
    to get it going” (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a “happy
    accident” (p. 14).
    According to Mayr, “a full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this
    event was.” (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was “virtually zero. . .our number came up in the
    Monte Carlo game” (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is “chance caught
    on a wing” (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable
    fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459
    However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work
    in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly
    by J. D. Bernal.
    [T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms,
    clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge
    that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than
    chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000:
    Having calculated the staggering improbability of life’s emergence by chance,
    Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes,
    The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of
    a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional
    efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and
    error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11)
    It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence
    making itreproducible in principle:
    The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain
    the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements
    are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11)
    According to Christian de Duve (1991),
    . . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an
    enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at
    the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to
    a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the
    combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally.
    (p. 217)
    Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that life’s emergence
    mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987)
    captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into life’s
    origin. According to Dawkins,
    All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as
    the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance
    event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus
    of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS ˆ
    In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks
    “Whatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories,
    and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?” (p. 141) And
    he answers that there are strict limits on the “ration of luck” that we are
    allowed to postulate in our theories.
    According to Dawkins, an examination
    of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA
    replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a
    highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative
    explanations are on the table

  6. is the science of genetics historical science or experimental science?
  7. Speaking of genetics, the head of the National Human Genome Research Institute has rejected atheism and believes in God.
  8. Lucrum


    You just ruined Tinker Bell's whole day.