Geoff Botkin's EOY Letter: Semper Bullshit

[Whoosh]

I think that to some extent this conversation is getting confused by people not paying attention to detail.  For example, when FG says "most creationists", I think she is referring to the majority of creationists, not to "informed creationists" that are mentioned in the quote from CK.  I also am not sure what "a long time" is meant to mean.  I don't know about FG, but "my childhood" was mostly in the 1970s.  I have the feeling that some FJ members consider that to be "a long time ago" while others do not.  Finally, everyone needs to realize that the most common view in one country is not necessarily the most common view in other countries.  Much as I love the good old US of A, we are not that impressive in many areas.  Many if not most of the fundies discussed on FJ do adhere to the less-than-impressive beliefs often held here in the good old US of A.  Someone relatively young who was homeschooled in another country may not have heard what is actually happening currently or what has been true historically in terms of beliefs in the USA.

In terms of what Creationists in the USA believe over the past 30 or so years (which surely gives some clues as to past beliefs), I offer up the results of the Gallup polls on the topic from 1982 to 2014.  While CK may try to argue I am missing the point - I really am not.  I get it.  I know that the largest group in the graph represents people of markedly varying beliefs.  However, BASED ON MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I would agree with FG that "most Creationists" I have known or heard about in the USA have adapted their understanding and explanations of things across time to conform with scientific discovery without acknowledging doing so.  In other words, the beliefs that many creationists espoused in the 1970s are not consistent with scientific evidence of today.  People have adapted their views to conform with what is discovered over time.  In fact, there have been massive battles in the USA in terms of what is taught in public schools based on the disconnect between various beliefs on this topic.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

[formergothardite]

3 hours ago, CyborgKin said:

Odd, I've always heard that the idea of fixity of species that you describe there was a totally unbiblical idea that hasn't been held by anyone in a long time.

Actually I have a quote for that.

http://creation.com/genetic-engineers-unwind-species-barrier#r9

I'm curious which bunch of creationists you've encountered, as there are multiple different camps, with varying levels of thoughtfulness.  My bunch (CMI) has no shame in listing off 'arguments creationists should not use' http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use some which they may have used themselves in the past.  (They also have a corresponding article http://creation.com/arguments-evolutionists-should-not-use which kinda explains what they think evolution is/isn't)  I don't think they would be afraid to admit changing ideas based on scientific advances. They say as much here: http://creation.com/maintaining-creationist-integrity-response-to-kent-hovind

Maybe this is a more honest/clever bunch than yours.

Not sure what the absence or presence of God in scientific papers has to do with anything, and creationists (other than those like formergothardite's bunch) have no problem with natural selection.

Since you seem to have missed the point, I'll try to explain better.  Creationists (or at least CMI) love things like 'multiple phenotyoes from the same genotype due to different expression of transcription factors'.   They would say that a genetic structure that has multiple possible uses for the same sequence, with a switching system to determine what version is transcribed and expressed, based on external stimuli,  is harder to evolve (that is, it's much less likely for the entire system to arise unintentionally) than something conforming to 'one phenotype per genotype, one protein per gene'.  Because sequences that can be used in multiple ways are constrained more than sequences with a single use.

 

Whatever past creationists may have said, these ones have nothing against mutations, natural selection, adaptation, speciation, and all that observable stuff.  It's the ideas of 'all life has a common ancestor' and 'biological systems are strongly self organising and self improving, given a deep enough timescale' they have a problem with.  (Also they don't like chemical evolution, the idea that chemicals can and have spontaneously assembled into some kind of life (which is our ancestor).   Which is separate from biological evolution, but a related topic.)

In the 70's and early 80's the creationists that I was around, even "top" ones(I can't remember their names, but it was in books and stuff that we used) were against the idea of environmental adaption. This is something that has been discussed here on FJ multiple times and I'm hardly the only one who remembers this being a popular creationists teaching from that era. 

I didn't miss your point, I think you missed mine. I was pointing out that a lot of creationism has "evolved" to adapt more scientific beliefs. Most creationists don't want to admit this, though, even the ones that 30-40 years ago were spouting that environmental adaption was a lie from Satan, but now say it is true. 

Most creationists now days don't try and claim environmental adaption is a lie, I was just pointing out how things have changed in my life time. Granted, not all creationists believed like that during that period, but it was very popular belief during that time period in many creationist circles. 

 

 

[Sobeknofret]

Please, could someone PM me this wondrous letter? I'm having withdrawal symptoms over here!

[crawfishgirl]

48 minutes ago, Sobeknofret said:

Please, could someone PM me this wondrous letter? I'm having withdrawal symptoms over here!

I would appreciate that as well.

[Marian the Librarian]

The Botkinettes have come out of seclusion to play their harps for us! Elizabeth has updated her public FB page with a link to a Soundcloud file of Christmas music. 

https://www.facebook.com/elizabeth.botkin.9?fref=ts

 

[formergothardite]

5 hours ago, Whoosh said:

I think that to some extent this conversation is getting confused by people not paying attention to detail.  For example, when FG says "most creationists", I think she is referring to the majority of creationists, not to "informed creationists" that are mentioned in the quote from CK.  I also am not sure what "a long time" is meant to mean.  I don't know about FG, but "my childhood" was mostly in the 1970s.  I have the feeling that some FJ members consider that to be "a long time ago" while others do not.

That is true. LOL

I always keep an eye out at thrift stores for Christian books from the 70's and 80's that discuss creationism. They are hard to find, though. I know that the original A Beka books were against what they considered "modern" science, which included things like environmental adaption. Pretty sure they have changed their science books since then, but I doubt that you could get them to admit that they have changed their beliefs to match scientific evidence. 

The reason I left my first comment in this thread is because it amazes me that so many creationists now just pretend that all the stuff taught in my childhood never happened or that people don't realize that many creationists in America have changed beliefs in the last couple of decades. They try to pretend that they have always believed in things like microevolution, while a lot of us clearly remember being told that was a lie from Satan. 

I like the Botkins harp music. I've gotten used to fundies sounding like the Rodrigues children that the harp was a pleasant surprise. 

[Sobeknofret]

That was some letter. I predicted in the thread for 2016 predictions that the girls are going to stay unmarried and serving daddy, and I feel like that's emphasized by the letter; there's barely any mention of them, and it's like they've been shelved so they can be mommy and daddy's helpers around the house.

However, I also got the strong impression that they were promoting Noah pretty hard. I'd be surprised if he's not the next Botkin to cleave and spawn, and I'd bet the wedding will be before the end of 2016.

[CyborgKin]

8 hours ago, Whoosh said:

Finally, everyone needs to realize that the most common view in one country is not necessarily the most common view in other countries.  Much as I love the good old US of A, we are not that impressive in many areas.  Many if not most of the fundies discussed on FJ do adhere to the less-than-impressive beliefs often held here in the good old US of A.  Someone relatively young who was homeschooled in another country may not have heard what is actually happening currently or what has been true historically in terms of beliefs in the USA.

In terms of what Creationists in the USA believe over the past 30 or so years (which surely gives some clues as to past beliefs), I offer up the results of the Gallup polls on the topic from 1982 to 2014.  While CK may try to argue I am missing the point - I really am not.  I get it.  I know that the largest group in the graph represents people of markedly varying beliefs.  However, BASED ON MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I would agree with FG that "most Creationists" I have known or heard about in the USA have adapted their understanding and explanations of things across time to conform with scientific discovery without acknowledging doing so.  In other words, the beliefs that many creationists espoused in the 1970s are not consistent with scientific evidence of today.  People have adapted their views to conform with what is discovered over time.  In fact, there have been massive battles in the USA in terms of what is taught in public schools based on the disconnect between various beliefs on this topic.

 

Thanks, you've made a point I thought I might need to make, which is that my experiences are shaped by not being a USAmerican.  I can believe what you both are saying about the creationists of the USA.  We can each only speak of what we've experienced, and we've had very different experiences.

7 hours ago, formergothardite said:

I didn't miss your point, I think you missed mine. I was pointing out that a lot of creationism has "evolved" to adapt more scientific beliefs. Most creationists don't want to admit this, though, even the ones that 30-40 years ago were spouting that environmental adaption was a lie from Satan, but now say it is true. 

Nah I was just saying that 'my lot' aren't so unwilling to admit the changes as yours (and they'd probably think of yours as ignirant and doing a lot of damage).  I agree with you that it's very dishonest for people to pretend they've always agreed with aspects of science which they ignorantly spoke against in the past.  (lol, it sounds like I'm arguing my creationists are better than yours :P)

In any case, I'd caution anyone arguing against creationists to make sure to be arguing against their current beliefs, or it will be as futile as creationists arguing that Darwin's knowledge of biology was limited, while ignoring all the modern neodarwinists.

[Whoosh]

18 minutes ago, CyborgKin said:

 

Thanks, you've made a point I thought I might need to make, which is that my experiences are shaped by not being a USAmerican.  I can believe what you both are saying about the creationists of the USA.  We can each only speak of what we've experienced, and we've had very different experiences.

Nah I was just saying that 'my lot' aren't so unwilling to admit the changes as yours (and they'd probably think of yours as ignirant and doing a lot of damage).  I agree with you that it's very dishonest for people to pretend they've always agreed with aspects of science which they ignorantly spoke against in the past.  (lol, it sounds like I'm arguing my creationists are better than yours :P)

In any case, I'd caution anyone arguing against creationists to make sure to be arguing against their current beliefs, or it will be as futile as creationists arguing that Darwin's knowledge of biology was limited, while ignoring all the modern neodarwinists.

I agree that any debate with creationists needs to focus on current beliefs and views.  At the same time, I can't really see any group of creationists successfully pretending the past didn't happen.  I don't know the history of all these debates globally, but the Bible was written thousands of years ago.  Creationist beliefs are based on those stories.  As time passes and the belief no longer fit with what we have learned, that creationist story is tweaked to fit what is known at the time.  It would be nice if those people could say "we believe in the inerrant word of the Bible, but we understood/read it WRONG.  We were WRONG about how things work.  Here is our new theory based on adding information from recent discoveries to our current reading of that old inerrant text, the Bible."

Question for you - where do you think the beliefs of "your lot" originated from when they founded the early version of CMI in the late 1970s?

 

ETA - I want to note this is not really a criticism of creationist theories as much as how (in my experience) they are presented.  In the world of scientific theory, the general practice is (supposed to be) that ideas and theories once thought correct based on our knowledge at that time are cast aside when proven false and everyone acknowledges that we got it wrong.

[older than allosaurs]

Luckily, the Wilson clan will be along to set us on creationism in a few months. The Grace Agenda conference in April, featuring Doug Wilson, Gordon Wilson, and Nate Wilson, will explain how the earth was created in 6 literal days, 6,000 years ago, and why that matters. And it's free!!

Here's the money quote from the promo at graceagenda.com--and I believe I recognize that too-familiar writing style:

The question of creation versus evolution is a foundational question. If Christians give away the store on this, they are not just giving away the store — they have relinquished all the foundational patents, the manufacturing plants, the delivery trucks, the loading docks, and the entire chain of stores. Certain issues are related directly to every other issue. The issue of how our world got here and when it did is one of those issues.
This year’s Grace Agenda will seek to inspire Christians to gratitude for the fact of their creation, and equip them to discuss it with those who are unpersuaded of young earth creation.

 

[older than allosaurs]

I find I keep thinking about the quote above. Really??? Not just creationism but young earth creationism is foundational to to Christianity? You give it up and the whole building comes down?

An entire ethos of belief and behavior falls apart if some scribes got the science wrong a couple thousand years ago? That seems like a fairly major admission of shaky premise for a major world religion. What if Noah's ark was 35 cubits long instead of 30 (or whatever)? Would that bring out the demolition squad as well?

I can grasp that a believer may be committed to the idea that God set the universe in motion. Beyond that it just mystifies me that anyone could be that worried, in a religious sense, about the details that followed. Certainly my own awe at the intricate processes of evolution is not diminished by changes in the scientific consensus about a particular adaptation or relationship between species.

 

[Whoosh]

2 minutes ago, older than allosaurs said:

I find I keep thinking about the quote above. Really??? Not just creationism but young earth creationism is foundational to to Christianity? You give it up and the whole building comes down?

An entire ethos of belief and behavior falls apart if some scribes got the science wrong a couple thousand years ago? That seems like a fairly major admission of shaky premise for a major world religion. What if Noah's ark was 35 cubits long instead of 30 (or whatever)? Would that bring out the demolition squad as well?

I can grasp that a believer may be committed to the idea that God set the universe in motion. Beyond that it just mystifies me that anyone could be that worried, in a religious sense, about the details that followed. Certainly my own awe at the intricate processes of evolution is not diminished by changes in the scientific consensus about a particular adaptation or relationship between species.

 

I have been thinking about that quote since you posted it.  This is likely just how I see it as a non-believer, but to me that reads as if he is saying "so, we know now that this isn't true, but if we admit it - we lose".  That's not faith, that is some crazed and deranged investment in the culture wars or something.  But like I said, I am probably reading it wrong.

I totally agree with you Allosaurus that it clearly is an odd, odd view of things no matter how you read it.

[older than allosaurs]

Since this is Doug Wilson we are talking about, my guess is that he knows perfectly well YEC is bogus, but his power over his followers depends on getting them to believe six impossible things before breakfast. Christianity can continue just fine along with evolution; Doug's little kingdom, maybe not so much. The minute critical thinking starts seeping in, it's all over.

[CyborgKin]

8 hours ago, Whoosh said:

 It would be nice if those people could say "we believe in the inerrant word of the Bible, but we understood/read it WRONG.  We were WRONG about how things work.  Here is our new theory based on adding information from recent discoveries to our current reading of that old inerrant text, the Bible."

I certainly hope that I'm willing to do that when necessary.  Actually, in this year, I've discovered (along with my family, happily) quite a few beliefs that I've long assumed the Bible taught, but that don't seem to be in the Bible.  (For example, I'm now realising I took a fair bit of Revelation far too literally, when it's pretty clearly metaphorical.  Also the order of events in the nativity story as written doesn't fit what I thought it was for years :P)  I hope more people realise that it's okay to change their beliefs and understandings of the Bible. It's called growth!

 

8 hours ago, Whoosh said:

Question for you - where do you think the beliefs of "your lot" originated from when they founded the early version of CMI in the late 1970s?

Well Carl Wieland got his start from reading Whitcomb and Morris's The Genesis Flood.  And I expect he'd be willing to admit that things have changed a lot in the 50+ years since they wrote that. I doubt I'll get the chance to ask him myself though, since he retired at the start of the year.

8 hours ago, Whoosh said:

ETA - I want to note this is not really a criticism of creationist theories as much as how (in my experience) they are presented.  In the world of scientific theory, the general practice is (supposed to be) that ideas and theories once thought correct based on our knowledge at that time are cast aside when proven false and everyone acknowledges that we got it wrong.

"My bunch" like to point out that this is how science works (or should work), actually.  Though that's more to warn people about basing doctrines and interpretations of scripture on the latest scientific idea which would easily end up discarded next month.

Doctrines clearly stated in Scripture are non-negotiable, and everything beyond that is up to our best efforts at discovering the truth, but we shouldn't get too attached to any ideas since we could find out that we got it wrong.  That's not to say that we should ignore science altogether or doubt anything that's been clearly observed.  But we shouldn't tie our hope for salvation to the latest theory of how quantum gravity might work any more than people should stake their lives on the Standard Model being the Final Truth of what subatomic particles really are.  (Though whatever we discover, we can expect what we already know to be true in most cases, like how Newtonian physics is still useful for matters of everyday life... well except that now most people use GPS which has to correct for relativistic time dilation...)

Uh, what I'm trying to say is: yeah, I agree.  People should be more thoughtful in what truths they hold onto and which they realise aren't so important and should be replaced, and should also be more honest about having held wrong views in the past.

6 hours ago, older than allosaurs said:

Luckily, the Wilson clan will be along to set us on creationism in a few months.

I see your few months, and raise you next week!  The Creation SuperCamp 2016 starts next Monday, and runs until Friday, featuring 15 speakers from 3 countries. http://creation.com/conferences/creation2016/schedule.php

But it's not free.  Though it is less than 3 hours from my place of residence, which is much closer than the previous couple.

3 hours ago, older than allosaurs said:

An entire ethos of belief and behavior falls apart if some scribes got the science wrong a couple thousand years ago? That seems like a fairly major admission of shaky premise for a major world religion.

My lot have recently come up with: http://creation.com/biblical-age-of-the-earth

Quote

Accounting for all presently known relevant details and assuming the Babylonian Captivity began in 587 or 586 BC, we can say with confidence that the Bible places limits on the year of creation between 5665 and 3822 BC.

So that's actually quite a bit of leeway.  I think '6,000 years ago' is just lazy shorthand.

3 hours ago, older than allosaurs said:

What if Noah's ark was 35 cubits long instead of 30 (or whatever)? Would that bring out the demolition squad as well?

Historically there were a lot of differing versions of cubits too, so different people have interpreted it as 17.5, 17.6, 18, 19.8, 20.6 or 24 modern inches for various reasons...  So 35 of one cubit is 25 of another.

 

2 hours ago, older than allosaurs said:

Christianity can continue just fine along with evolution;

The CMI bunch say: http://creation.com/do-i-have-to-believe-in-a-literal-creation-to-be-a-christian

Quote

Do you have to believe in a literal Creation to be a Christian? The short answer is ‘No’. The long answer is ‘No, but …’.

They even say of a founder: 

Quote

founding chairman, the late Prof. John Rendle-Short, said he was a saved theistic evolutionist for 40 years before becoming a creationist

So they kinda agree, but also kinda don't.  Or rather, they say creationists can believe evolution, but they shouldn't and it's better if they don't, and there isn't any good reason why they should.

They also see evolution as generally being an enemy of Christianity:

Quote

The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity

- Frank Zindler

 

Maybe we should ask to get this discussion moved into its own thread.  I'd like to comment on the latest Botkin 'news' but I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet.

[berga]

Agreed. This discussion should be in its own thread. 

[AmazonGrace]

The harp was nice