A Flexitarian Opinion On The Real Fear of Atheist Scienists Like Richard Dawkins

To sum up this article in one sentence; the atheist, materialistic scientists like Richard Dawkins will not encourage the debating of Young Earth Creationists because they fear something far worse in their eyes, an intelligent position that includes God or gods in the picture.

How did we come to this conclusion? Take a read!

Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham About Evolution, And Scientists Cringe In Fear? Why?

The internet let out a confused, collective shriek when Bill Nye filmed a micro video for Big Think, an organization known for producing 2-3 minute clips of innovative thinkers on broad topics. Bill Nye's three minute conversation was to encourage his listeners to not teach creationism to their kids. The materialist science crowd shrieked in support of the notion. The large percentage of Americans who believe in some sort of creation involving a god shrieked in horror.

A gallup poll in 2012 showed that 46% of Americans believe in Young Earth Creationism, which is a belief that the world was created by God in under 10,000 years 1) (the number of years varies with the theory). Not surprisingly, the people representing the “teach creationism” camp responded. Widely known creationist with a dubious history at best, Ken Ham, lead the way with sparking conversation between Bill Nye and the hard core evolutionist position. Ham runs a Christian based organization called Answers in Genesis, which provides Christians with a number of resources for understanding the Young Earth Creationism position. Their main presence is in Kentucky where Answers in Genesis has a Young Earth Creationists museum, which depicts the evidence for the creationist position. Eventually, the small discussions between the two leaders lead to the idea of a debate, and then only one side of the polarity shrieked again; the side of the scientists.

What was the big deal? Richard Dawkins immediately condemned the concept of someone representing evolution and debating creationism. His foundation had other writers to follow up the condemnation along with the reasoning behind its position 2). Other science endorsers like Bill Maher rightly condemned Bill Nye for considering a debate of creationism worthy of anyone's time. So what was the concern from the scientific side?

The concerns listed in the Dawkins Institute article stem essentially from one point of contention; that even going about a proper debate gives the other side too much credit and lessens the cause 3). Creationism is such a nonsensical concept, they assert, that even to go about the business of a formal debate is too risky. Could this be true? Let us look at another formerly hotly debated scientific vs. religious belief and see if this system of refusing to debate would help the “cause”.

A Science History As An Example

In the pre-Renaissance era, many intellectuals came up with analytical ways to explain how the Sun revolved around the Earth. They had all sorts of graphics depicting this process and indeed the rest of the planets' supposed orbits arund Earth. Philosophical giants such as Plato and Aristotle are known to have written about the Earth as though it were stationary in the universe and the Sun revolved around it 4). The Sun certainly appeared to move across the sky as though it were the one moving and not the Earth. It wasn't until 1543, when Copernicus published his On The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, wherein he posited that the Earth and all the other planets actually obrit in circles around the Sun. His theory was upgraded by Kepler who noticed they were not perfect circular orbits. It was Kepler and Galileo's work that influenced Isaac Newton, who was able to deduce from these heliocentric models (almost 100 years later) a law of gravitation, which profoundly affects our science to this day, over 300 years later. Today, we see virtually no support for the geocentric model of the universe.

What got people to believe in the heliocentric model, despite its counter intuitiveness and religious thought backing the geocentric model? Lots and lots of evidence. Not only evidence, but people like Newton used the heliocentric model to make impressive gains in scientific discovery. It took a long time, but in the end the theory that was true won out. This should be an example to those who are afraid evolutionary theory will lose to the creationists. If indeed your evidence is correct, time will be on your side.

If there was a rise in geocetric believers to the extent that they were considered 5% of the population, one might expect the heliocentric forces to come out in droves to prove their theory. Or if we imagine the movement getting as much as 10-20% of the population's beliefs, you would expect the heliocentric promoters encouraging debate and edcuation on all sides. Why? Because if your theory is 100% true and you know this, then you will take every opportunity to explain the evidence because the evidence is on your side. This is why it is so peculiar to see that almost half of Americans believe in some sort of God helping in the creation of the universe (in 10,000 years) and the promoters of science want to ignore this fact. It would go without saying that if the geocentric believers got to 50% of the population, science would declare its total focus on clearing up this debacle. They most assuredly would not refuse to debate. If the facts are so clear cut, it should be an honor to demonstrate the truth in a simple manner, not to hide the information and shout from the outside that the geocentric model is not worth debating. If it's not worth debating, it's the easiest thing on Earth to debate, and therefore there should be nothing to fear.

Try to think about this scenario outside the context of evolution and creationism. Imagine there are two people who have different theories and they are both widely held amongst the populace. One of them is eager for debate, the other is running from debate because it gives the other side credibility and they think so lowly of the other side they don't want to give them that satisfaction of credibility. An independent observer, one would imagine, would say that this position held by the group shunning debate appears scared of debate. Like a dictator who refuses an election, if its not worth the people's eyes and ears, how can we trust you?

But this is a genuine fear on the side of atheist materialists, that debating creationists is dangerous to the cause of advancing correct information. The unspoken reality is that science is upset at the lack of increase in the belief (or understanding) of evolution. The fact that Darwin could produce such an all encompassing theory over 100 years ago and there still is massive resistance to the findings is irksome to scientist who don't believe in God. And therein lies the help that a Flexitarian position would bring to the picture.

Joe Rogan and Brian Dunning; A Causal Conversation Explains The Flexitarian Position

Let us look at a conversation on the topic of science and how to advocate it between comedian Joe Rogan and skeptic Brain Dunning. A skeptic in today's parlance is usually someone who holds very conservative, status quo positions as they relate to scientific public policy. They naturally gravitate towards incomprehensible conspiracy theories and debate those with their earnest believers. Around 1:00:00 into the discussion, Dunning suggests to Rogan after he makes multiple references to the interesting collapse of Word Trade Center building 7, that entertaining ideas that are known to be false is misleading and causing more harm than good. He also mentions the same belief as Dawkins and others that Bill Nye debating a creationist is bad for science with the same reasoning listed above.

At around 1:06:30, Dunning makes the case that all alternative theories (in particular conspiracy theories) tend to be mutually exclusive and just because there are 20 conspiracies disputing the status quo, they don't actually support each other's conclusions, and therefore its reasonable to assume most or all of these alternative theories are not worthy of consideration. In other words, Dunning prefers a dualistic, one dimensional view of the creation vs. evolution question and indeed other polarities as they relate to official scientific positions and there alternative positions on the fringe. There is only creation or evolution, but not both, and anything that is associated with creationism is not worthy of discussion. Period.

Joe Rogan comments in a similar vein to this writer's thoughts and calls that a disengenuous argument. Rogan goes on to say that he most certainly believes in a multi billion year old Earth basd on tons of evidence to lead to that conclusion. He, like this writer, feels like if there is tons and tons of evidence to support your conclusion, why wouldn't you use your tons of evidence to educate people?

The skeptic Dunning continues at 1:13:25 by saying he has never read the Warren Commission Report and he has not read the 911 Commission. He doesn't need to because he accepts the official story more or less as he sees it, calling it a “Standard Model” of history. As Joe Rogan reacts negatively to this concept, he points out that official stories are merely interpretations of evidence and they are not to be taken as objective reality. There could be realistic counter points to those official perspectives on what happened, right? Then Dunning goes to the farthest end of the 911 conspiracy spectrum and says (more or less) that there a people that believe no planes hit the towers. This is a disengenuine argument because he is refusing to see positions intebween the “no planers” theory and tamer positions within the middle. This is the heart of the skeptical science mistake, their unwillingness to allow all information to be contemplated by its learners. If the skeptical science community could have it's way, it would have a centralized database online wherein you can read rebuttals of every scientific theory that goes outside the status quo of currency science practice. The reality is that science is way more malleable then they make it out to be. As soon as evidence comes in proving an outside the box theory, science will embrace it. Why then are they so afraid for people to consider heterodox thoughts?

Theistic Evolution Is The Real Enemy Who Must Not Be Named

When you take a Flexitarian approach to this either/or fallacy, one can see a much safer avenue of approach for science that is utlimately good for science and people as a whole. The reality that is not acknowledged by the materialist science point of view is that there is an entire spectrum of beliefs between the theory of evolution and the theory of Young Earth Creationism. There are Old Earth Creationists, there are Theistic Evolutionists and a few more inbetween. The importance of highlighting this fact is that when you break down the micro arguments for evolution, a number of those positions that are negated by the Young Earth Creationsists are accepted by the Theistic Evolutionists. A Theistic Evolutionist believes in all of the proofs of science exept the oldest one of all; the source of life coming from inorganic matter. The Theistic Evolution position is essentially a deist one, where God was the creator but he does not meddle with the universe and its course. The sources of evolution are all seen as true and not incompatible with a belief in god.

When scientists point to the age of tree rings as evidence against Young Earth Creationism, Theistic Evolutions accept the scientists argument over the YECs. Ice core samples that have tiny air pockets which are formed during the changing seasons, some of which show over 450,000 season cycles, are believed to be real and true in Theistic Evolutionist circles but not In YEC circles. Evidence of radiocarbon dating on all things ancient is accepted by Theistic Evolutionists and not by YECs. Indeed, the evidence highlighted by Ken Miller is particularly fresh and equally fascinating. In this presentation, Miller points out that we know the genomes of the great apes and the chimpanzees, our supposed ancestors. In the theory of evolution, we should be able to make predictions and investigate those finding to see their lieklihood of being true. This was done and it is just about the nail in the coffin that humans evolved from apes. 5)

Miller notes that gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans have 48 chromosomes, a combination of 24 from each parent. Humans have 46 chromosomes, or 23 chromosomes from each parent. Miller points that from this finding that we can make a prediction based on the theory of evolution and if that theory is incorrect, we could powerfully deduce that the theory has significant problems. Scientists know that the kind of genes spread amongst the chromosomes are not really organized by high levels of importance to mostly insignificant. Each chromosome has life necessary genes that if the chromosome somehow disappeared when producing an offspring, it would kill the offspring. The theory that can be investigated is thus obvious; an animal (let's us a chimpanzee) that had 48 chromosomes could have fused two chromosomes together. If the theory of evolution was correct that humans descend from chimpanzees, we would predict that we can see evidence of chromosomal fusion in the human genome. Not only that, but the fused chromosome in man would correspond to two specific chromosomes in chimps. Indeed, this is exactly what they found ( Score another one for evolution.

But do you know what the most interesting thing about the video, despite the slam dunk proof of evolution? In the end of the lecture, Ken Miller mentions that he is a Christian and that he believes in a Designer (i.e. God). So here is a distinguished professor of geology laying out the evidence for evolution and he admits to being a believer in God. That is what frightens the MOST out of materialistic scientists who don't want to debate, the fact that there are millions of Christian scientists out there who incredibly hold both positions. What is represented behind the scientism of Richard Dawkins and the like is a moral movement to remove God from any and all equation. The idea of YECs is paltry in comparison of intelligent Christians who accept evolution and God as well. It will be harder to accomplish this goal if they give the Flexitarian position the right to see daylight. A dumb enemy is better than a smart emeny, so we aren't going to debate YECs because we can keep them as our “enemy” instead of facing the enemies best forces; intelligent spiritual people.

Science actually has to fight in multiple dimensions, as it were. John Hagelin is one of the world's most decorated physicists in his mathematical field. He accepts evolution, but like the Christians he can still see a Creator creating the evolution. Hagelin could be considered coming from the New Thought Movement (as opposed to the New Age movement) with his focus on teaching Transcendental Medition to the world, being its lead spokesperson. Here is a scientist who the materialistic, atheist scientists fear above all else.

They wish to ridicule and ignore the craziest of arugments not because they are afraid of those arguments by the ridiculous other side. No, they are afraid of the the Flexitarian third position which accepts anywhere from half to 99% of evolutions claims. The only thing they fully dispute is the creation of life from inorganic material to organic life. The further you go on the spectrum towards accepting evolution, and you still hold a belief in god, the more scared the materialist scientists get. Because while they hold an opinion that the farthest out of the spectrum is too silly to debate, they are concerned someone in the middle could make a case for God, which is something many in the field of science are fully committed to eradicating from human thought.

What's Missing

There is something missing from the zeitgeist of materialist science, and it is a fact that they point out to YECs about the age of the Earth all the time. The passage of time on the planet takes a long time to occur. Not only that, but humanity's timeframe on the planet is famously a blink of an eye in terms of the Earth's true age. In a digital age where information flows faster than light, scientists (particularly the materialistic ones) were sure that the flow of information would lead to their victory in the debate of evolution. In America at least, it most assuredly has not. This author posits that if they do indeed have all the evidence they need and their theory is true, time will tell. Give it time and allow more and more evidence to pile up, so that one day, just like the geocentric model, almost everyone will be able to throw out those theories on bad evidence.

The passage of truth, particularly when it bumps into the thousands year old behemoth of religious beliefs, is going to take time. A better approach to encouraging science literacy would be to of course debate and share communication with YECs. It would also benefit them to debate the Theistic Evolutionist position, if only for one MEGA reason. The main difference between a Theistic Evolutionist and a YEC is how they read the Bible. YECs read the Bible with as literal translation as can be, while Theistic Evolutionists read the Bible mostly metaphorically, especially as it pertains to scientific matters.

One could disagree with this entire article, but this last point is the most salient. Materialistic scientists face a battle against people who want to read a book over 2000 years old for the ultimate truth about the history of our world. The simplist way to convert those YEC is to team up with the people in the middle who hold Flexitarian positions, such as the Theistic Evolutionists. You can still disagree with them all you want about the position of a god creating the whole universe. But at least appeal to the rational Christians to have a bigger podium so they can influence the group you are apparently afraid to debate. The masses are not likely to make a radical conversion to atheist scientism once evolution is proven to the extent of, let us say, heliocentrism. No, considering their families tend to be all Christian and their culture is Christian, a more intelligent approach would be to encourage the widespread shift from YEC to Theistic Evolution by promoting the Theistic Evolutionist when you can.

Once we get all of the YEC in a flexitarian position closer to Theistic Evolution, then we will worry about the debate of God. The first goal should be to encourage this migration from literal Bible reading to mixing the literal with reason to understand some things in metaphor. Particularly speaking…books older than 2,000 years old describing something (i.e. history) where we can use our own tools to find the answer. Atheist science currently would rather keep the YECs around.

I only hope they can see their mistake.

Science in Society politics philosophy Religion

QR Code
QR Code a_flexitarian_opinion_on_the_real_fear_of_atheist_scientists_like_richard_dawkins (generated for current page)

Advertise with Anonymous Ads