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! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbLDKLQYrg8&feature=feedrec_grec_index
Here is the ignorance of atheists. They think historical science and experimental science are the same thing, and they want you to believe that too. http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/historical-science-vs-experimental-science Atheists really really want people to believe that if you believe in the bible that somehow stops the world from inventing cars, cell phones, airplanes, ect.
I notice you avoided mentioning biology. Scientists can't make significant biological advances without believing in evolution, which creationists reject. QED
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. http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf 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 takeâalthough 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 allâbut 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. 3 There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the âAlmosta Miracle Campâ 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. 4 According to Crick âthe 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 goingâ (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a âhappy accidentâ (p. 14). 5 According to Mayr, âa full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this event was.â (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was âvirtually zero. . .our number came up in the Monte Carlo gameâ (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is âchance caught on a wingâ (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: 153) Having calculated the staggering improbability of lifeâs 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 lifeâs emergence mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987) captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into lifeâs 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 Ë In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks âWhatis 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?â (p. 141) And he answers that there are strict limits on the âration of luckâ that we are allowed to postulate in our theories. 6 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 http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf
Speaking of genetics, the head of the National Human Genome Research Institute has rejected atheism and believes in God.