Sasquatch Coffee


What Place Creationists?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on February 17th, 2007

It appears people are dying to argue or debate or yell at each other about evolutionism, creationism, and cryptozoology.

Therefore, as opposed to this discussion popping up, sort of off-topic, in other Cryptomundo blogs’ comment sections, let’s try this. Here are a couple simple questions: Does cryptozoology have room for creationists? Does cryptozoology have room for evolutionists?

In an evidence-based scientific model, does the philosophy or religion of the person gathering the evidence matter when the pursuit of new animals is concerned? When tracking down cryptids, whether the cryptozoologist is chasing Bigfoot, dinosaurs, or new species of rats, does it matter if she or he is a creationist, a evolutionist, or an agnostic?

Let me open up the comments’ section here for a discussion of this, as long as it can remain civil, not personalized, and intelligent.

Does it matter whom it might be or what your belief system is, if you can bring in the first Bigfoot?

About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.


141 Responses to “What Place Creationists?”

  1. Buzzardeater responds:

    I think ‘The Plan’ was for us to populate the universe.That is why the earth was so rich in diversity.Now that we have killed off the bulk of species it might be too late to wonder what God meant for us to do.

  2. LSUcrypto responds:

    To me it depends on how you mean creationist. A biblical literalist who thinks the creation happened exactly as described in Genesis probably has not place in cryptozoology. Someone who believes in a creation, but not a literal interpretation of Genesis probably could.

  3. silvereagle responds:

    There will be no first bigfoot brought in. The feds already brought in no.1 and no.2. There won’t be another one brought in. Anyone who thinks that there will be is a dreamer. The reasons are all paranormal. Which is well beyond the comprehension of most all flesh & blood bigfoot believers. The real question to be asked and answered, Does cryptozoology have room for biased cherry pickers of both research observations as well as historical fact?

  4. kittenz responds:

    I believe there is a God. I do not presume to know what kind of Presence that God is.

    I believe that the universe evolved and that the Earth and living things evolved within it.

    I believe that there must have been an selective advantage to spirituality for it to have evolved in humans, because it seems to be a part of every culture and every individual human, in some way. Even atheism is a kind of religion, really.

    I do not subscibe to the myth of creationism. I believe that the various myths of creationism arose through human beings’ attempts to understand their origins.

    That being said, I find it remarkable that the Bible, for instance, can be reconciled with what we know of evolution, in many ways. In my opinion that illustrates human beings’ glimpsing the processes of the evolution of the physical world before they had the sophistication to begin to understand them.

    Whether people consider themselves religious, agnostic, or atheist is intensely individual to each person, no matter how hard-line they may be about their particular belief, and no two people’s religious beliefs are exactly the same, for that reason.

    I really don’t think it matters what a zoologist’s or cryptozoologist’s religious beliefs are, as long as their objective is to further our collective knowledge of the creatures around us and they remained focused on that objective.

    Each of us is the sum of our own experiences, and we each see the world through the filter of those experiences. That does not have to interefere in the quest for knowledge.

  5. YourPTR! responds:

    I’m a young earth Creationist, I’m very interested in the subject of Cryptozoology and I don’t see a conflict of interest between the two subjects. Bigfoot for example, which appears to be no fossil evidence in favor of its existance, if it really does exist would “merely” be a new type of ape species that currently remains unknown to science and not some type of “missing link” between apes and humans. :)

  6. Rillo777 responds:

    Thank you for this opportunity, Loren.

    No, it shouldn’t matter what a person’s particular belief is. As far as any cryptid out there, finding one won’t prove evolution nor will it prove creation. DNA might not even be of any use. After all, Chimpanzees share 97% of our genes but they aren’t human.

    The biggest beaf we creationists have with evolutionists is that we are essentially told we are ignorant, superstitious morons because we cannot believe in evolution. They even deny that there are credited scientists that have rejected evolution.

    Frankly, I love to have intelligent discussions with evolutionists because it challenges me to know why I believe what I believe. I research and consider anything new I read on the topic.

    But the problem really is that evolution is a scientific theory, but evolutionism has become essentially a naturalistic religion, according to Michael Ruse who is a committed Darwinist. I believe he is right. It has become a rivalry of religious dogmas, complete with respective tenants and “proofs”.

    We can’t know what happened in prehistory we can only speculate. For every bit of “evidence” an evolutionist can show, a creationist can show equal “evidence” that seems to refute it.

    I’ve said before and I’ll say again: let’s work together to find these cryptids and then there will be plenty of time to speculate on whether they were created or they evolved. But even then I doubt that we’ll resolve the issue. So why get caught up in these arguments now? Let’s stay foused on the big picture and respect everyone’s personal beliefs.

  7. Scott C. responds:

    I’m a long-standing Cryptomundo reader, although this will be my first post.

    I’m glad that this topic was addressed, because lately there have been a couple of comments indicative of some tension in regards to this issue.

    To answer the question directly, no, neither one’s methods nor one’s success in the pursuit of cryptids will be shaped by such presuppositions. What will be shaped, however, is his interpretation of any results. Proof-positive of bigfoot, for instance, might be used by evolutionists to argue for a “missing link.” Proof-positive of mokele-mbembe, to give another instance, might be used by creationists to argue for a young earth.

    There is going to be foolishness from both camps- expect it. There are going to be creationists who haven’t done the homework that they should have on a particular photo. And there are going to be evolutionists who see a missing link when they look at a pig’s tooth (*cough cough). But don’t judge a position by the credibility that one of its representatives has in some other arena. What if a world-renowned cryptozoologist made the headlines by turning out to be a serial killer? Would you want cryptozoology to be judged by that person’s credibility as a citizen?

    Only the intellectually-lazy or the intentionally-blind would find no room for creationists like Bill Gibbons, etc., within cryptozoology. Btw, into who’s system do surviving prehistoric animals fit best, the evolutionists or the creationists?

  8. Leto responds:

    I’m an evolutionist and atheist and I love cryptozoology, evolution fits perfectly into cryptozoology. The fact that new species keep popping up, and that they’re related by common descent, is just further evidence that evolution is true.

  9. HOOSIERHUNTER responds:

    Long time reader and first time poster. Thanks for the opportunity.

    I am a believer in the literal word of the Bible. Young earth and six-day creation. I love cryptozoology. I don’t use it to expound my beliefs nor do I think it should be used that way. I don’t see how cryptozoology could be evidence of evolution either. I’m saddened that some feel that creationists can’t be included because of our beliefs. Sounds like profiling to me. I haven’t seen any creationists saying that about evolutionists in these posts. I do resent some of the negative things that have been said about creationists in some of the postings. Shouldn’t this be about intelligent discussion and not personal vendettas to prove or disprove one’s viewpoint?

  10. Scott C. responds:

    The fact that new species keep popping up, and that they’re related by common descent, is just further evidence that evolution is true.

    #1 Are you suggesting that new species are “popping up” by evolution? That the reason some animals were not previously known is that they recently evolved? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that that was not your point.

    #2 If your point had more to do with “common descent,” how do similarities among species point to common-descent and not to a common-creator?

    No one’s denying that all canines had a common origin, or that all bears had a common origin, etc. etc. But you’ll never prove common-descent within categories any broader than that, because “God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds–livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.’ And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”

  11. timi_hendrix responds:

    Yes, the believe or study in cryptozoology should not come create conflict with either creationists or evolutionists.

    I am a creationist but i also study cryptozoology.

    That was easy. No problem here.

  12. Doug responds:

    Hello everyone.

    I am a creationist and a fan of cryptozoology. I have no qualms with an evolutionist in their pursuit of unknown/unclassified animals, so I would hope to have their respect and we could respectfully disagree. One thing that we could agree on is there are still some unclassified animals running/flying/swimming around, so I hope that this would not be an issue to block our research into this phenomena.

    One of the reasons I prefer cryptomundo over a couple of other sites is that the people around here tend to stay focused on what it is we love instead of constantly beating each other over the head over what I consider side issues. I have seen some things said at other sites that were very negative and mean-spirited. This makes me glad I am here. Although I do not post often, I check in here almost daily and enjoy the articles and all the replies.

    I hope the fact that I am a creationist does not bother any of you, but if there is no place for me here I would gladly leave and go elsewhere, not wanting to cause problems for anyone.

    Good evening to you all.

  13. Rillo777 responds:

    Good point Scott C. (post #9) people forget that part about “according to their kinds”. For example, wild poodles never roamed the earth but they are still canines. People also forget the law of homeostasis (postulated by an evolutionist) that says that creatures resist change and cannot be changed beyond a certain point else they become sterile or revert to their original form. Mules are a good example of this. So are roses. And for all the bacteria who have become resistant to medication, they still remain the same bacteria. Likewise the simple virus. Quite frankly, if evolution were true I would expect less diversity in the world than the abundance we find. I still can’t find an evolutionist who can explain how the egg tooth of a lizard developed or how, against all the laws of probability, all of the necessary elements: the egg, the disposal of fetal waste, the tooth, and the necessary thickness of the shell for protection all came about independently just so the little lizard could be born.

  14. Alaska-boy responds:

    Does Cryptozoology have room for creationists AND evolutionists? It had better. The very concept of “hidden” animals requires an extremely open mind and a willingness to combine rigorous scientific methodology with a bit of old-fashioned faith.

    If, however, the purpose of one’s search for cryptids is to somehow “prove” creationistic or evolutionary theory, then I think that perhaps that individual has missed the point. The real joy of cryptozoology, (and the one that found me spending my childhood reading book after tedious book of marginal research and hoping to catch a glimpse of the Sasquatch or its footprints on every camping trip), is in pondering the marvelous and wonderful possiblities of the vast unknown that is life. Whether you believe that some higher intelligence created “kinds” of cryptids or that natural selection created them over eons of existence, it really doesn’t matter to me; just so long as we are here now and we can prove that “they” still are too. :)

    The question might as well be, “Does Cryptozoology have room for Democrats and Republicans?” A person’s paradigm and philosophy won’t matter to any of us investigators one way or another if they are the one who can finally find the conclusive evidence that we are all so eager to believe is out there.

  15. Leto responds:

    “Are you suggesting that new species are “popping up” by evolution? That the reason some animals were not previously known is that they recently evolved?”

    I’m suggesting that the reason that new species keep “popping up” is because of hybridization, dwarfism, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, and mutations. These are all processes of evolution.

    These new species didn’t appear out of nowhere, God or gods didn’t make them magically appear, they were the result of evolution.

  16. mrdark responds:

    I have no idea why this is a question. It’s like asking ‘do creationists study animals’ or ‘do evolutionists study animals’. Cryptozoology has absolutely no inherent supernatural or paranormal element that requires one to believe in the ‘mystical’ beginning of life (creation) vs. the ‘natural’ beginning of life (evolution). To me, anyone who suggests otherwise has no business calling themselves a cryptozoologist, which is why I’m puzzled: why is this question even being posed here? I’d think the answer is extremely obvious and logical, it’s the fact that you feel the need to pose the question that disturbs me. There’s a suggestion in it, one direction or the other, that could be nothing but negative to the ongoing communication here.

  17. Loren Coleman responds:

    Mrdark, thank you for your opinion on asking the questions, but I think you miss the point. I am merely trying to air this issue out, give it a one-time platform, and move on from it.

    It is troublesome that this “below the surface in-fighting” keeps cropping out, rather off-topic, in the comment sections of other blogs on cryptozoology.

    Mrdark’s logic may actually be close to mine.

    Evolutionists and creationists may say whatever they feel compelled to say here, and then let’s get back to the business of cryptozoology.

    Creationists/evolutionists/agnostists-oriented comments will be deleted elsewhere as “off-topic.”

  18. Leto responds:

    “wild poodles never roamed the earth but they are still canines”

    Of course they are canines, we bred them.

    “And for all the bacteria who have become resistant to medication, they still remain the same bacteria. Likewise the simple virus.”

    Not true, bacteria that have become resistant to medication have evolved, they’re no longer the same species. You should also give this a read, it’s about how a virus managed to evolve a harmless bacteria into a lethal pathogen:
    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15353570

    “Quite frankly, if evolution were true I would expect less diversity in the world than the abundance we find. I still can’t find an evolutionist who can explain how the egg tooth of a lizard developed or how, against all the laws of probability, all of the necessary elements: the egg, the disposal of fetal waste, the tooth, and the necessary thickness of the shell for protection all came about independently just so the little lizard could be born.”

    Are you suggesting that a god or gods are placing new species on our planet just for fun, and that this accounts for the large diversity of species?

    Are you suggesting that a god or gods designed a special egg tooth, eggs, and an eggshell of sufficient strength for protection just so a little lizard could be born?

    Your question would be akin to asking a creationist or any christian what color robe was Jesus wearing the day he died. Was it bright red as Matthew said it was, or was it purple as Mark and John said? Who put that robe on Jesus, was it Herod’s soldier as Luke said it was, or was it Pilate’s soldiers as Matthew, Mark, and John said?

    The fact that the evolutionist you have asked were unable to answer the question does not mean that evolution is a farce. Unlike religion, science doesn’t claim to know all the answers, in fact science is all about learning.

  19. cradossk responds:

    For example, wild poodles never roamed the earth but they are still canines – they did – they were wolves once, but selective breeding by humans have produced a vast variety of breeds of dog with such vastly different personalities, traits and characteristics, which don’t resemble each other to the point where they could be observed (by the naive) as a separate species, which of course they are not. We know all canines descended at one point in time or another from wolves (some breeds more recently than others, eg. Czechoslovakian wolfdog).

    Im more agnostic than atheistic, and am open minded to the idea of a god (or gods), but in my opinion, god(s) are a very unlikely phenomenon.

    My belief is that if crypto zoology wants to be accepted by science at large, quirky beliefs such as creationism must be left behind, and that one must enter the pursuit with a completely open mind, one without prejudice against the founding principle of modern biology (evolution).

    Evolution is backed up by mountains of evidence. Creationism is backed up by one ancient text, without any corroborating evidence, and with the strong probability of having being mistranslated throughout the ages (eg. Ancient Hebrew to ancient Greek, ancient Greek to Latin, Latin to archaic German, German to old English, old English to modern English (missing many, many steps in between, and not to mention the translators who might have taken some… poetic licence in their translations)

    You might be able to find the odd rogue scientist who believes a literal interpretation of the bible, but you would be hard pressed to find a true biologist who is even remotely religious (or if they are, certainly not a ‘creationist’).

    Science is the pursuit of knowledge, which a literal reading of the bible prevents since it already claims to have the answers. I’m not going to get personal, but if you were to truly take the bible literally, word for word, then you would be stoning your children if they were naughty, killing those who lifted a finger on the Sabbath, and using the natural constant of “pi” as 3 in pursuits of engineering (a big no no..).

    I guess, in cryptozoology atleast, you don’t need to be a scientist to actually bring in an unknown animal (a proficiency of trapping and firearms use might help however), but I would certainly hope that the person who examines the specimen IS a scientist, and ponders about the evolutionary process which produced this animal, what family of animals the specimen belongs to, how certain adaptations it displays have helped it to remain ‘hidden’ etc, so we get a full spectrum of ideas which can be explored by more scientists at a later date. If your local church pastor examined it, you might get an answer of “god put it here”, which does not satisfy my curiosity what so ever.

    I don’t believe that religion and science (in this case, cryptozoology) are incompatible per se, but a literal interpretation IS incompatible, as it looks in the face of evidence and flat out says “no, I don’t believe my eyes”, and for this reason, I put creationism in the same boat as the flat earth society, and holocaust denial.

    Just to add this, for some reason, it seems that only America is afflicted with the whole “evolution vs creation” debate. In Australia, I don’t know any aussies who believe the bible word for word. The only “creationist” I actually know, is an American. Even the church I used to attend, no one actually believed a literal interpretation of Genisis. To me, this is very strange that America, the country who has contributed so much to science, engineering, and related disciplines, has the highest rate of religiosity, to the point that religion is affecting the work of scientists.

  20. Bob K. responds:

    I by no means subscribe to “molecules to man”. However, as other posters have already so eloquently stated, whether one is a Darwinist or a Creationist, its obvious that there are many in each camp who frequent this board, and ALL share an intense interest in Cryptozoology. Forget about trying to guess if one has a hidden agenda for doing so-or not. Truth is truth. Does Sasquatch exist? Does M’kele M’mbembe? The Molgolian Deathworm? There will not be a different answer for the creationist and the Darwinist. Now: are we going to to treat each other the way that Dr. Meldrum is treated by his colleagues? Because if we do, we are no better than they are. The Creation/Evolution debate continues-we all know that; but unless the rules of this board specifically forbids one camp or another from participating in this blog, I think a “creationists verboten” attitude(or a “Darwinists verboten” one for that matter)-just doesnt belong here. Bob Dylan once wrote, “We always did feel the same, we just saw it from a different point of view.” Given the general subject matter and scope of this blog, I think that we can all co-exist on these boards with that very attitude. Would calling for some common courtesy be that far out of the question?

  21. Rillo777 responds:

    cradossk:

    You said, “You’d be hard pressed to find a biologist who is remotely religious, (or if they, certainly not a creationist.)”

    Kenneth B. Cummings, Biologist, Ph.d, Harvard University comes to mind. I can also name several others if you like. Also Andrew A. Snelling, Geologist, Ph.d, Univ. of Sydney. Both creationists and literal Bible believers.

    It’s is exactly this kind of statement from evolutionists that bother creationist. Evolutionists need to do some research before they make such sweeping statements. They seem to assume that if you don’t believe in evolution you’re a moron and can’t possibly be a highly educated person. (Let alone have a doctorate.) By the way, poodles are canines as are all dogs and, incidently, wolves. Yes, they have been bred by humans for certain characteristics but no one has changed them from being canines. Homeostasis still applies and the species can only be bred so far before it becomes sterile.
    In reality such breeding attempts are a good evidence against evolution. The long attempts at breeding these dogs have resulted in inbreeding and occasional genetic mutations that have been malignant. When one develops workable gills or wings or the ability to speak and create tools, please let me know.

  22. Rillo777 responds:

    Loren:

    Just re-read your remarks above. I so agree with you. Why do we have to justify the possible existence of cryptids in terms of our personal beliefs? I appreciate this opportunity for us to get some things out, but we really need to stay focused on reports, follow-ups and finding these creatures, evolvers or whatever someone cares to think of them as. :)

  23. mystery_man responds:

    Well, I am going to try not to get too drawn into this debate, but a couple thoughts. I personally do not subscribe to creationism as some people here may know. I am actually known to get quite heated about it. But the fact of the matter is that there are some very intelligent, very qualified scientists out there that happen to be creationists. I was just reading recently about a Phd geologist who is a leading expert on the Earth’s crust, has written several well recieved papers on it, and guess what? He is a creationist. I have met biologists who are creationists as well and we have argued over it many a time. At first, I strongly thought this was counterintuitive, this idea of a creationist being a scientist. But I have softened my view on this. In the end, these are intelligent people and they have commited themselves to finding out how the worlds works no matter what their personal views are. I say that as long as their work is solid and follows scientific standards, than there is no reason why a creationist cannot be a scientist. They look at the evidence and deal with it without letting their personal views get in the way and this is what is important to me. If the research is being done in a responsible way, I don’t think it really matters what the scientists religious views are.

  24. HOOSIERHUNTER responds:

    Mr. Coleman,

    Maybe your next question should be, “Does Cryptozoology have room for scientists? Does Cryptozoology have room for amateurs?” It seems the debate as to whether Cryptozoology is a true science is as hotly debated as the evolution/creation one. You could have biologists, paleotologists, etc. debating with us amatuer enthusiasts about the existence of unknown animals. LOL.

  25. mystery_man responds:

    One thing I do think it is going to be hard to do is police the blogs for debates breaking out about this topic. A good deal of the articles and speculation on the origins of cryptids rely on people talking about evolution. If a creationist, which it appears there are a lot of on this blog put out a creationist theory, some evolutionists are going to call them out on that and voila, a debate. Can’t very well just allow mentions of evolution to be posted because then creationists feel left out and I think some creationists are going to want to express their own veiws when, say, Bigfoot’s biology gets brought up. You can’t really have any discussion on this topic coming up without evolution being mentioned at some point so it is going to be hard to make everybody happy, I feel. There is going to have to be some peaceful coexistence going on.

  26. Leto responds:

    Kenneth B. Cummings, Biologist, Ph.d, Harvard University comes to mind. I can also name several others if you like. Also Andrew A. Snelling, Geologist, Ph.d, Univ. of Sydney. Both creationists and literal Bible believers.

    I’m having a hard time finding any info at all about Kenneth B. Cummings’ credentials. I found a short abstract about him claiming that finches are a big problem for evolutionists, which I think is absolutely ridiculous and may explain why I’m having a hard time finding information about his credentials.

    Andrew A. Snelling is a Young Earth Creationist, these people believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. That alone should be enough to discount anything that comes out of his mouth, I mean who in their right mind would believe that the T.rex lived 6,000 years ago and that they co-existed with humans? But that’s not all, it turns out that there’s even more troubling facts about Andrew Snelling, I suggest giving this article a read, a detailed account about Andrew Snelling’s two-faced life.
    Just one more note: Neither Kenneth Cummings nor Andrew Snelling are notable enough to have an article about them on Wikipedia.

  27. DWA responds:

    Agree with mystery_man, particularly the last post.

    Stepping in when it goes over a line has worked here.

    That said: why can’t one believe in God AND subscribe to evolution? To me, if there’s any evidence of a God (and in the direct sense there isn’t), evolution is it.

  28. Tabitca responds:

    I have been an amateur cryptozoologist for over 30 years. I have no particular religious beliefs.

    The only belief you need is a belief in cryptids. It doesn’t matter where that comes from, what book, what religious text. It is the belief that will make research happen. It’s the belief in cryptozoology that sends you out to sit in wet cold places for hours watching for cryptids. I personally don’t care what else someone believes in if they are the first to bring proof of a cryptid, I just want to shake their hand.

    All this infighting does nothing to help the standing of cryptozoology in the scientific world and only divides us when we should be working together.

  29. Leto responds:

    DWA, are you saying that God created countless amount of stars, countless amounts of planets, and that he placed simple single-cell organisms on planet Earth so that he can watch it evolve into the wide diversity of life that we have today? If you believe that, do you think that God has only watched this planet and not done anything else?

    When humans go into outer-space, does God follow them to see what they’re doing? If humans were to colonize another planet, would he be watching both planets? What if billions of years in the future humans have colonized millions of planets, would he watch all million planets? If humans are wiped out by robots that they built themselves, would God continue watching the robots evolve? Would he ever get bored and create new creatures to battle the robots?

    See, the idea of God just doesn’t make sense when one really thinks about it. There’s just no purpose to it.

  30. Scott C. responds:

    Alright, first of all, I appreciate the spirit behind Loren’s method. Get this aired out and leave it alone since it isn’t essential to our common interest. However, mystery_man has a point: is this policy going to be consistently enforced? Will all reference to evolution be treated as all reference to creation? Or will Cryptomundo follow in the footsteps of the school-system’s double-standard?

    Secondly, I’ll agree with Leto on his last post- Theistic Evolution doesn’t make sense- it’s a compromise no matter which side you’re coming from. However, looking at that compromise and then concluding “See, the idea of God doesn’t make sense,” is apples and oranges.
    Also, I really appreciate mystery_man’s admission of intelligence and credibility on the part of many creationists. I don’t want to fall into mean-spirited name-calling, but I’ll repeat as kindly as possible that you’re either intellectually-lazy or intentionally-blind if you know nothing of credible creationists/creationism.

    Finally, I really need to take issue with Cradossk. His is the most disturbing post thus far. Open question here: has any Creationist on this blog ever denied evolutionists a place in cryptozoology? No, never. Has any evolutionist on this blog ever denied creationists a place in cryptozoology? Yes, twice on this thread thus far. This is the same double standard that plays out in the media all the time: political liberals can bash others all day long, and you’ll rarely hear about it; but the moment a conservative lifts a finger, everybody’s all over it.

    Now, Cradossk.

    “My belief is that if crypto zoology wants to be accepted by science at large, quirky beliefs such as creationism must be left behind, and that one must enter the pursuit with a completely open mind, one without prejudice against the founding principle of modern biology (evolution).”

    You’re not living in the real world if you brush off creationism as a “quirky belief.” It’s mainstream. But I’ll get back to that in a minute. More importantly, do you not see what you did? “open mind, one without prejudice against…evolution.” What if I said, “open mind, one without prejudice against creation.” Somehow, in the same sentence, you said both that we had to be open-minded and that we had to believe exactly like you. Amazing.

    “Evolution is backed up by mountains of evidence. Creationism is backed up by one ancient text…”

    Do your homework, you’re embarrassing yourself.

    “one ancient text, without any corroborating evidence, and with the strong probability of having being mistranslated throughout the ages (eg. Ancient Hebrew to ancient Greek, ancient Greek to Latin, Latin to archaic German, German to old English, old English to modern English”

    Go look up what historical document has more extant manuscript evidence than any other: The New Testament of the Bible, and the OT is very well accounted for as well. Specifically, we have over 5,000 extant mss. As for the strong probability of being mistranslated- if you found 5,000 copies of Moby Dick, dated to Melvill’s lifetime, and they all said the same thing, would you seriously doubt their accuracy? And as far as the OT, go research the Dead Sea scrolls. Finally, we don’t translate from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to German to English- when we want an English translation of the OT, we go directly to the Masoretic Text as corroborated by the Dead Sea scrolls. And as far as the NT, we have mss. dating to the 2nd century. All in the original Hebrew and Greek (and a small portion of Daniel in Aramaic).

    “Science is the pursuit of knowledge, which a literal reading of the bible prevents since it already claims to have the answers.”

    The scientific method, applied in the traditional sense, will never PROVE anything, no matter how helpful it may be. Let me clarify: science is, by definition, inductive. It looks for the generals behind the specifics. You set up an experiment, see a result, and repeat it many times. Good, you’ve proven that such-and-such a result CAN happen in association with such-and-such a condition. But can you prove that it will always do that, by running the experiment an infinite number of times? Can you prove that there’s no third variable, actually responsible for the causation of any given result, that you’re missing? Science will always be inductive, and induction can’t prove.

    “the pursuit of knowledge, which a literal reading of the bible prevents since it already claims to have the answers.”

    And you claim to have your answers. We all work off of presuppositions. Study the philosophy of Epistemology. I could ask you why you believe a certain thing. You’d give an answer. I’d ask why you believe that answer, you’d give me another answer, etc. That may go on for awhile, but it would not be infinite-regress, because eventually we’d arrive at the foundation of your thinking- your presuppositions. Let’s say that we eventually conclude that all your thinking hinges on the scientific method (it may or may not). How do you prove the scientific method? By the scientific method? Ok, then how do you prove that the scientific method that you used to prove the scientific method is correct? By the scientific method? ad infinitum, you get the point. Now we are in infinite-regress, because there’s nothing logically-prior to the foundation of your thinking. Why? because it’s a presupposition. Our presupposition is that God revealed propositional truth in the form of Scripture.

    “if you were to truly take the bible literally, word for word, then you would be stoning your children if they were naughty, killing those who lifted a finger on the Sabbath…”

    Only if I was a jew living under the Old Covenant before the death of Christ. God has chosen to interact with man through a progression of different covenants throughout history. The Old Covenant, which you quoted from, was in effect from the time of Moses until the death of Christ. The New Covenant was prophesied in Ezekiel and Jeremiah, taught by Christ, and expounded upon in the book of Hebrews.

    “but a literal interpretation IS incompatible, as it looks in the face of evidence and flat out says ‘no, I don’t believe my eyes”

    As was mentioned previously, explain the evolution of the separate elements of the lizard egg. If there was ever a time that any one of those elements did not exist, we would have no lizards today. Explain the evolution of all components of the bombardier beetle. If the hydrogen and hydroquinone evolved before the inhibitor, there would be no bombardier beetles…so explain why the inhibitor would have evolved first? The list could go on and on, but at the end of the day, you’ll still “look in the face of evidence and flat out says, no.”

    Let me conclude by saying that this is all way off the topic of cryptozoology, but anyone who wants to remind me of that can remind Cradossk first, because I’m only walking through doors he opened.

  31. deejay responds:

    There’s no proof for creation at all. Believing stories to be true that were written in ancient times is irrational in my opinion. Science provides hard evidence for evolution, creationists have no proof. Simple as that, its all stories written by man.

    I took a class in college called “Drugs and Society”. My teacher made a statement that actually provoked some Christian students to get up and leave. He said ” It’s interesting that most of the unbelievable stories in the bible were written at the same time when man first discovered hallucinogens (shrooms).”

  32. DWA responds:

    Leto: you need to slow down! :-D

    Never said anywhere in that post that I believe in God. I just find it really amusing that no one thinks God would work through evolution. Just for the sheer screaming hell of it.

    Just like you’ll try tequila shots with vodka chaser one night and 151 shots with a beer chaser the next, maybe he did five billion years of evolution here, a six-day Creation there, a six-month Creation out there…just ’cause he thought it would be cool to watch!

    You really seem to be limiting God. See, I’m not so sure God created Man in his image. It frequently seems like precisely the other way around.

    Read your first paragraph. Why wouldn’t God have done that?

    On three hundred billion trillion planets, in a trillion universes? Hmmm? Spinning it a little differently each time to watch what happened? And making more universes to pass the time while he was watching? And making more universes to pass the time while he was making those? And taking a few minutes every century or so to see what Homo sapiens was up to? OR WATCHING ALL OF IT, INTENTLY, AT THE SAME TIME?

    Now read your last paragraph. Why should God make “sense”? Does war make “sense”? Doesn’t it take one heck of a lot of temerity for us to presume that the human concept of “sense” – or any human concept for that matter – has anything to do with God? Maybe – and I think this may be true – “sense,” and human intelligence and spirituality for that matter, are just an evolutionary experiment, like the fangs of the sabertooth or the antlers of the Irish elk.

    Too much musing about God seems to want to put him in our sandbox, rather then us in his.

    In a recent debate in Time magazine, a scientist debated another scientist on the concept of God. The one who DIDN’T think you needed a God to explain the universe said, at the end, essentially this:

    If there is a God, he will be much bigger and much vaster and much more amazing that anything any theologian of any religion has yet imagined.

    I’ll go with that.

    What’s the purpose? That’s a HUMAN concept, Leto. Why not just think that God made us so he’d have an audience?

  33. kittenz responds:

    Leto said:

    “DWA, are you saying that God created countless amount of stars, countless amounts of planets, and that he placed simple single-cell organisms on planet Earth so that he can watch it evolve into the wide diversity of life that we have today? If you believe that, do you think that God has only watched this planet and not done anything else?”

    Leto, if God IS, and if by God one means an all-powerful Being or Presence, then God can do whatever God wants to do. Whether the the Earth is God’s Own project, or a happy (for us) accident, whether God watches the processes of evolution without interfering, or gives it a nudge once in awhile, is something that we cannot know. Whether God is watching other planets too is also impossible to know. We cannot know for sure IF God Is, much less WHAT God is. God may be a part of the human psyche instead of a separate, absolute consciousness. We cannot know; people who believe in God have to take it on faith that God exists. Their “proof” is whatever they see around them in the natural world that reinforces that faith. “Faith” is “belief without empirical proof“.

    Leto said:

    See, the idea of God just doesn’t make sense when one really thinks about it. There’s just no purpose to it.

    Believing in God or some higher power does not have to “make sense”. Neither should one let their faith interfere with their understanding of the natural world. There must be a “purpose” or reason for spiritual beliefs to have evolved in humans. Whether that “purpose” is so that we can deal with our self-awareness, or whether it evolved specifically so that we can worship God or gods, is a matter of personal belief and is unprovable either way. I see no reason that a zoologist or a cryptozoologist can’t have their own beliefs and still practice good science. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

    Scott C. said:

    Btw, into who’s system do surviving prehistoric animals fit best, the evolutionists or the creationists?

    Those people who believe that some prehistoric species’ survival to this day indicates that they somehow did not evolve to fill a niche show a lack of knowledge and understanding of evolution. Most species existing today, including us, were once “prehistoric” species. That some animals, once thought by us to be extinct and known only from fossils, are found to still be living on earth today fits perfectly into the fact of evolution. It simply means that some members of that species were isolated in a pocket environment to which they were well suited, and that we only recently found thenm there. Or that they were sufficiently adaptable to changing conditions as to be able to survive under those conditions and we recently found them. The survival of species once thought extinct offers further proof, rather than any sort of disproof, that evolution occurs. The fact that we only recently “discovered” them is an indication of our imperfect knowledge of the world, and the fact that we have not explored every squre foot of it yet. Of course, literal creationists can say that those species survived unchanged because God wills their survival. But if one believes in God, whether one is a creationist or an evolutionist, then EVERYTHING that exists, survives because God wills its survival.

    Rillo777 said:

    By the way, poodles are canines as are all dogs and, incidently, wolves. Yes, they have been bred by humans for certain characteristics but no one has changed them from being canines. Homeostasis still applies and the species can only be bred so far before it becomes sterile.

    Evolution in most cases is not about animals slowly over many many centuries turning into something else. Natural selection DOES favor equilibrium. Speciation occurs when some type of environmental change forces animals to adapt to it. When favorable mutations, major or minor, occur that allow the individuals with the mutations to produce more offspring which in turn survive to breed and exploit the new environmental conditions, new and diverse species can develop fairly rapidly. At least 90% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct, mostly through natural pracesses.

    Canines evolved from animals that were general small carnivores called miacids, as did all the other Carnivora. There is no specific point at which we can say “There’s the first true canid”, because the fossil record is incomplete and fossils of mammalian carnivores are rare. But we can trace the evolution of anatomical features that define the animals we call canines through other species of “not-canines”, to the point where the animals branched into the dog and bear families and from there into the Canidae as the family exists today. That miacids themselves were very successful is beyond question. The genets and mongoose of today resemble them so closely that they were once thought to be surviving miacids, although that view has fallen out of favor.

    As to hybridization necessarily leading to “dead ends”, that is not the case. In closely related species such as domestic animals and their immediate wild ancestors, hybridization occurs regularly in some parts of the world, and the resulting offspring are usually fertile. In less closely related animals such as lions and tigers (or horses and donkeys), the first-generation male offspring are usually sterile, but not always, and many of the first generation females are fertile. If those fertile females mate with a male of either parent species, the resulting female offspring, and some of the males, are usually fertile. By the fourth or fifth generation most animals of both sexes are fertile. In small, isolated populations this hybridization can lead to speciation. I personally know of and have seen a female mule that is fertile. She produced a filly when she was accidentally bred to a stallion (she was penned with him because everybody “knows” that mules are sterile), and she later produced a colt (or jack?) when bred to a jack donkey. I don’t know what eventually happened to that mule’s offspring, but I have no reason to doubt that they were fertile too. This is known to happen in plants as well, in fact more often than in animals, so I don’t know where your reference to roses fits in.

    Leto said:

    I’m suggesting that the reason that new species keep “popping up” is because of hybridization, dwarfism, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, and mutations. These are all processes of evolution.

    Leto, I agree wholeheartedly. But that does not disprove the existence of a higher power.

    Thank you, Loren, for airing this topic. This is something I have pondered literally all my life. An early interest in science raised troubling questions for me, having grown up in an intensely traditionally religious family, in an intensely fundamentalist region of the country. I have come to a conclusion that works for me. I don’t expect it works for everybody, and I don’t view creationists as being any less intelligent because of their beliefs.

    DWA said:

    why can’t one believe in God AND subscribe to evolution? To me, if there’s any evidence of a God (and in the direct sense there isn’t), evolution is it.

    My feelings exactly, DWA. I view the evolution of life on earth as a beautiful expression of the infinite Mind of God.

  34. kittenz responds:

    I read something once, I forget where, that said “Man created God in his own image”.

    I believe that the only way the human mind can grasp the concept of a God is as a projection of itself. That’s more of a reflection of human limitations than of any limitation of God.

  35. joppa responds:

    I can’t be a strict anything, seven day creationist or evolutionist, there are too many wonders, too many mysteries, too many anomalies to be amazed by. That’s why I come here, to be amazed and to appreciate the wonder and mystery of it all.

  36. j0sh1500 responds:

    I agree with Mrdark’s logic on this debate. Besides we all have a love of cryptozoology, and taking sides based on your beliefs has no point as a whole.

    We all are after the same thing, now we may have different reasons for studying this, but basically we all love the idea of hidden creatures, so we just need to put our religious differences aside and look at that common ground that we do have.

    Look at the other areas of science, this debate on evolution vs. creationism is getting ugly and it takes the fun out of studying science. So, why don’t we set the example and work together and show everyone else that it doesn’t matter what your beliefs are, what matters is that you love what you do.

    I mean c’mon, what do you want to be thought of in cryptozoology? An evolutionist? A creationist? Or as a cryptozoologist?

    Personally i want to be thought of as a cryptozoologist, with out the restrictions for my beliefs stopping me from looking at what is in front of me and finding the best possible answer for what it is and why it’s here.

    Just my thoughts on this.

  37. mystery_man responds:

    I was just on here, writing a long, drawn out post and Kittenz and DWA hit most of my points so I won’t post it. DWA and Kittenz, great posts!

  38. mystery_man responds:

    And Kittenz, wow, good explainations on evolution. Accurate and well thought out. Nicely done! I have found some creationists that have a suprising lack of understanding on how evolution works, so thank you for clearing up some points.

  39. Doug Higley responds:

    What we believe may not be true.

    What is true we may not believe.

    So what?

    What is, is. It is or it isn’t despite what is believed.

    Bigfoot is or isn’t.

    Starting with an agenda to fit ones perception of the facts, seems pretty silly. Are you out to discover Bigfoot or convert him to a belief system?

    And who will be discovering who? If Bigfoot is out there he’s already discovered us and didn’t like what he saw.

    If. If only exists in our minds. If he is in the woods, he knows it. Does he need to know the mechanics of his existence in order to ‘be’?

    Are you a Cryptozoologist, a Detective, or an apologist for whatever belief system you have come to convince yourself exists.

    Belief in anything is no more than the sum of what it has taken to convince you.

    It takes some more than others to arrive at a belief system.

    Again, so what.

    Bigfoot is there or he is not.

    He is an imaginary friend or not.

    If you believe that it’s all so complex there must have been a God to create it, then Bigfoot is still there or not to be found.

    If you believe that because it’s all so complex then any God would also have to have been created and back to reverse infinity to an initial ‘spark’, well, then Bigfoot is still there or not.

    Let’s find Bigfoot. Or not.

    The belief systems can kick in when AFTER we have looked everywhere there is to look and he still hasn’t shown up, then it’s a matter of belief.

    So grab your bootstraps and let’s hit the woods.

  40. Nachzehrer responds:

    If an investigator does a good job, carries out proper interviews and collects evidence in a reliable orderly way, I don’t think it matters.

    And if they come out of the woods with a bigfoot tied to their bumper and make it available for proper scientific study, I wouldn’t care if they were flat-Earth, Marxist disco-dancers who think Queen Elizabeth is a shape-shifting lizard.

  41. shumway10973 responds:

    To me, a creationist, there is more room for the creation belief than conventional evolution. I say this because the evolution taught to us in school denies the possibility of the crypto creatures. In the creationist belief (I am talking christianity here) God is all powerful, and can do whatever He desires. So, in that respect, he also could have created aliens, shadow creatures, shape shifters, etc… Also, because of my background here, I have been able to see the evidence for what it is. I do not feel threatened in anyway if the evidence seems to point the other way. I say that because I know of (off top of my head) 3 different places where the evolutionists covered up the evidence. If you go to see the cave paintings in Europe (which you have to be something of a scientist to do) you will find that the pics we grew up looking at in text books and national geographics are not complete. I have a friend that got to go in and he found a wall painting of men hunting down a dinosaur. Then you have the footprints down in Potete, Texas. You know, the ones with men walking next to dinosaur footprints? I actually heard an evolutionist say that the ground must have softened up again for the man to leave footprints next to the dinosaur. A geologist (colleague of this man) almost had a heart attack hearing this and then explained to the evolutionist that it is extremely rare, if not impossible, for the ground to do that. He said for those prints to be like that, they would have had to be walking side by side. Oh, the geologist was an evolutionist too. Ok, to put it plainly, I can open my eyes and mind to the endless crypto and paranormal possibilities because all of them can fit with my creationist belief. Now, let’s all be careful to lump everyone into these two categories. I know of creationists who are so narrow minded that I wouldn’t be surprised if they question man’s existence. And there are some evolutionists out there where evolution is their religion. So, I say, as long as there are open minds, a willingness to talk and listen to eyewitnesses and then people willing to go look, personal beliefs should aide anyone to find the truth.

  42. mystery_man responds:

    Shumway- I don’t see at all how evolution denies crypto creatures as we approach them on this site. Cryptids are just regular creatures, they just have not been discovered yet. I don’t follow how not being discovered yet means that evolution denies them. It doesn’t make any sense.

  43. dogu4 responds:

    When I encounter someone who is an avowed biblical literalist using scriptural interpretation to explain how it is in the world of science, I usually nod; knowing that their views are already fairly well set and that nothing I or anyone else can say will likely change it. I’d rather spend my time investigating subjects which interest me with an open mind and enjoy the wealth of really gratifying knowledge that’s out there if we will only allow ourselves the opportunity to engage it. My indulgence in what I prefer to call “speculative biology” integrates my love of science and nature (despite my inherent short-comings when it comes to math…(I suck at it, I suspect due to marginal dyslexia) and my lifelong pursuit of art and worldly experience.

    Athieism is currently on the rampage and attacking traditional religious belief with a vehemence that probably goes a little over the top, offending people. Of course the offended defenders of their faith have never had much of a problem offending those of us who don’t share their ecclesiastical views…for that matter they havent had much problem burning ‘em at the stake, historically and metaphorically speaking. Paybacks are hell…which is why the literalists would be wise to pay more attention to ecclesiastes rather than genesis.

    I agree fully with kittenz up in the early posts on this subject. I believe that we’re genetically instinctively directed to ponder our condition, especially the unexplainable and we do gain an advantage by having a more comprehensive view of our world so we can behave with our awarenesses helping us to make sense of the changes which threaten us. If a local volcano blows it’s top, it is an advantage to a population such as ours which so clearly is evolutionarily adapted to live as a group, to stick together and so it will interpret it the same way and to move together to avoid the threat and survive as a population intact with its acquired culture. It matters not one whit whether the volcano is caused by some supernatural being or not, but those who have this instinctive ability to form some kind of understanding about the mysteries that surround us, they will survive and this behavioral potential would be passed on too.

    Similarly, if there were a divine entity who has planned all this out, but “decided” to use the mechanism of “natural selection”, how would we know unless this divine entity gave us some irrefutable evidence of its existence…and so far, I havent seen it, and that which is offered by religionists has failed to convince me, and the widely-presumed-to-be omnipotent has yet to show me any un-ambiguous proof…like why can’t the all-powerful restore the functioning limbs for amputees?

  44. Loren Coleman responds:

    Scott C. wrote:

    Alright, first of all, I appreciate the spirit behind Loren’s method. Get this aired out and leave it alone since it isn’t essential to our common interest. However, mystery_man has a point: is this policy going to be consistently enforced?

    Okay, look, I don’t haunt the screen here, although it may look that way. LOL.

    I am committed and responsive to the cryptozoological interests of all comers, and try to be fair. But I have my limits and gaps like everyone else. Take for example, the recent photoshopped Triceratops posting, which I uploaded lightheartedly and educationally, as news. I did not enjoy the direction of the personalized attacks in some of the comments there and thus I did moderate and end up deleting a few comments. But I decided to encourage the evolutionists, the creationists, and those interested in that debate to come here instead. To focus, to be civil, to be intellectual. And then get back to cryptozoology.

    However, I am only human, and therefore, only humanly available to haunt the moderation pages. As I have said repeatedly, not all “moderations,” even on my blogs, are all mine, but may be from an invisible editor or a robot. While I am committed to keeping Cryptomundo within the parameters of my vision of cryptozoology (as outlined in my books, articles and here), I sometimes do let some comment sections go wild. Sometimes, I do pull in others that I feel should be kept more scientific or humorous or popular cultural. I would get bored with having a standard that is without flexibility, including one that misses the fact I make mistakes, do have occasional bouts of inattention, or am away on roadtrips.

    Know what I mean?

    So far, not one deletion of any messages has occurred here. That’s what I had hoped for, an exchange centered that would be nicely focussed.

    It is obvious from the number of comments, needless to say, that people wanted to talk about this issue in relationship to cryptozoology, and so be it.

    I’m for the results of cryptozoology, if done with respect and humanely, including within the context of the presentation of this blog.

  45. mystery_man responds:

    I also feel that the “all powerful being who can make anything happen” is kind of playing the trump card. By that rationale, we cannot believe anything we see at all or even trust mathematics because God can do whatever he likes at any time. This to me is a kind of cop out. It makes no attempt to learn about how the natural world works, or gather the needed evidence for us to understand it but rather neatly places everything under the “because God wishes it to be” umbrella. It is an unprovable theory because God is omnipotent. It requires no hard data and allows evidence or data that creationists don’t like to be flatly dismissed because, well, God can do whatever he likes. If this is the case, then all research is a bit pointless because it can change at any time according to God’s will.

    I think in science, there is a lot of room for theories to be disproven when new evidence comes up. Not so from what I’ve seen with some creationists (not all). Their theory is true no matter what anyone says, there is no room for change. Science can take new data and change its ideas based on this. The world was thought to be flat until it was proven to be round and so on. Theories are open to change. Even the theory of relativity could be challenged if there was the data to back it up. That is the beauty of the scientific method.

    Science also has the tendency to admit it doesn’t know all the answers. There is a willingness to admit that the answer may not be clear. That is why experiments are done and why scientists are out trying hard to figure out how the world works. Not everything is known about, say, the Big bang theory and scientists can admit that and go about trying to get to the bottom of it. They can take a natural phenomena and say “I wonder what is going on there? Hmmm, Let’s do some research and find out.” A lot of creationists on the other hand, and again I don’t say all, simply refuse to admit that they may be wrong. They have all the answers. Some of my ideas have been refuted even when they were based on common scientific knowledge. Whereas a scientist sees holes in the fossil record and strives to understand why because they don’t know, some creationists take that as concrete proof against evolution without any consideration otherwise. This is not, in my opinion, the best way to really get down to how our universe works.

    This is why I feel that the research has to hold to certain standards. There has to be a willingness for ones theories to be testable and they have to be based on hard data that is open to being disproven. Scientists do not have the luxury of ascribing anything to an all powerful deity. They have to show how and why something is feasible. I feel one cannot go into any research feeling that they know how the earth works already. I think as long as there is an open mind to the evidence presented, a willingness to concede a theory does not hold water, and an unbiased attention to facts presented, then in the end it does not matter what religion one is in a scientific field.

  46. mystery_man responds:

    One more thing, I also don’t see how a belief in evolution neccesarily rules out other types of Fortean phenomena, as Shumway said. I am a science teacher, yet I believe in the possibility of a lot of different phenomena without the belief in creationism. I believe that these phenomena are capable of being explained in a scientific way. I think that in the end, these things can be studied and we can learn how they work within the framework of the natural world. Evolution does not necesarily deny the possibility of various phenomena. But we do have to go out and find out how they work in a scientific fashion.

  47. Leto responds:

    “What’s the purpose? That’s a HUMAN concept, Leto. Why not just think that God made us so he’d have an audience?”

    God, gods, and religion are human concepts as well. Why would a God need an audience? Being a Creationist is incredibly simple, for them the answer to everything is simply “Because God wishes it so”.

    “Leto, I agree wholeheartedly. But that does not disprove the existence of a higher power.”

    Nor does it prove the existence of a higher power, in fact religion offers no proof at all, simply believing in God is not proof. Some religious people are trying to “unite” with science, I say that’s an attempt to not be left behind, I say there’s no room for religion in science. Religion is simply incompatible with science. Religion says “I have the answers”, science says “I don’t have the answers but I’m willing to learn by exploring the enviroment”. Whereas religion is afraid of change, science embraces change.

    “I view the evolution of life on earth as a beautiful expression of the infinite Mind of God.”

    See, clearly religious people are trying desperately not to be left behind. Whereas in the past they were simply evolution deniers, now there are some religious groups who are beginning to accept evolution. So what do these new religious groups do to maintain their faith? They simply say “evolution is true because God wishes it so”. Ah, if only the answer to everything were really that simple.

  48. DWA responds:

    Leto says: “God, gods, and religion are human concepts as well. Why would a God need an audience? Being a Creationist is incredibly simple, for them the answer to everything is simply “Because God wishes it so”.

    Well, there you go being human again.

    Because something (like God) is a human concept doesn’t mean it can’t exist outside of us. “Bear” is a human concept. But the animal, sans all the names and attributes we bestow upon it, exists outside of us.

    Why would God need an audience? He needs nothing. He might want one though. You ever ask him?

    Being a creationist is (in my view) incredibly simple.

    So is being an evolutionist who believes in a God.

    Or doesn’t.

  49. sundevit responds:

    To make it quick: I fully support cradossk’s and the other evolutionist’s perspective in this discussion.

    Evolutionalism is science. Science is about finding the truth through constant research, shaping theories by adapting them to newest knowledge.

    Therefore evolutionalism is a representation of our current understanding of the world.

    Creationalism works the other way around. It’s not about finding the truth, but about defending a posit given truth from science by pre-selected evidence — to give one of the world’s religious communities more credibilty.

    To me the first approach feels a lot more sophisticated, honest and noble to me.

  50. Leto responds:

    “Because something (like God) is a human concept doesn’t mean it can’t exist outside of us. “Bear” is a human concept. But the animal, sans all the names and attributes we bestow upon it, exists outside of us.”

    No offense but that analogy makes no sense. We can see, touch, and smell bears, you can’t do that with concepts such as God or gods.

    “Why would God need an audience? He needs nothing. He might want one though. You ever ask him?”

    Why would God ever want one if God needs nothing?

    “Being a creationist is (in my view) incredibly simple. So is being an evolutionist who believes in a God. Or doesn’t.”

    Being a creationist is simple, and being a religious person who accepts evolution is simple (like I said earlier all they do is say “evolution is true because God wishes it so”) , but being a true evolutionist is not simple, they actually do science.

  51. Karl responds:

    Wow Loren, look what you started.

    My two cents: Cryptozoology is neither a science or a religion; it’s a convention.

    Everyone wears their favorite blobsquatch costume, and comment on how real each other looks.

    Many people try to give substance to that which remains insubstantial, and then attach personal beliefs to it.

    What do they accomplish?

    Thank you Loren. I have to say, I really enjoyed reading the entertaining responses to this topic.

  52. DWA responds:

    Whoa. Lots to respond to here.

    You say: “No offense but that analogy makes no sense. We can see, touch, and smell bears, you can’t do that with concepts such as God or gods.”

    Of course it makes sense! I’m sure you’re not saying that without us to see, touch and smell them, bears wouldn’t exist. If we couldn’t sense a God, that wouldn’t make God non-existent. Our senses are beside the point; God exists outside of evidence. (Or not.)

    You say: “Why would God ever want one if God needs nothing?”

    Same reason I’d like to have a beer sometime today.
    If you’re talking about a supreme intelligence, you must presume SOME kind of motivation, or why bother?

    You say: “Being a creationist is simple, and being a religious person who accepts evolution is simple (like I said earlier all they do is say “evolution is true because God wishes it so”) , but being a true evolutionist is not simple, they actually do science.”

    Being a true evolutionist is VERY simple. (And BTW, a true evolutionist, who’s a scientist, can believe in God. There are many of those. Just wanted to make sure that got in there.) Show me how it’s complex. You don’t have to understand, in detail, the precise mechanisms by which evolution operates in order to consider it a reasonable explanation of what you see. I probably understand it better than most laymen. But I’m no scientist. It just seems to explain what I see better than six-days does.

    Too many people equate “religion” with God. So they think one has to believe in the religious concepts of God. Religion is a human concept. If God exists, he exists outside of it. I just consider it highly amusing that so many people are apparently incapable of conceving of evolution as the product of a supreme intelligence. It makes for a lot of unnecessary – and silly – discussion.

    He could have done it in six days or in however many days are in five billion years. He’s GOD ferpetesake. Let him have some FUN.

  53. larrykat responds:

    But we HAVE seen bears and empirical evidence proves they exist. Your refutation does not follow. I am surprised at all the superstition among the posters on a site like this. I suppose one could argue that visitors here have “faith” in the existence of bigfoot, so it’s not surprising many would have “faith” in the existence of some kind of “god” with even less proof. However, it still dismays me. The human race is and will continue to be beset by huge problems going forward, and clear thinking and logic are the only ways they will be overcome. Remember, nothing fails like prayer.

  54. CryptoInformant responds:

    I say that evolution is not a matter of religion, but rather of science, and, if a creationist could indeed be classified as someone who believes in a creation, but not the way it happens in the Bible, then you can group me with them.

  55. Scott C. responds:

    Ha ha, you’re right DWA, there certainly is a lot to respond to. Too much, actually; so I won’t try. What I will do is hit some major themes in hopes of clarifying the position of Biblical Christianity.

    First of all, the reason that we creationists often see cryptozoology as more compatible with our scheme than with the evolutionists’ is that it’s easier to believe that a group of sauropods, for instance, survived the rest of their species by a few thousand years than by a few million years. Does that prove anything? No. Is that the reason we’re creationists? No. It’s just food for thought.

    Secondly, in the Christian worldview, God IS limited by something- His own nature. The informed Christian does not believe that God can do just anything. He believes that God can do just anything compatible with His nature. Could God be illogical? No, because God is logical.

    Thirdly, Christians are open to correction on anything not clearly taught in Scripture. This has obviously been a area of major misunderstanding. To say that Creationists believe that “they have all the answers” is way too sweeping a statement. More accurately, we have the answers to those things which are addressed by Scripture, and we have those answers only to the extent that they are addressed in Scripture. So do you- just pick up a Bible. I think we’re open to anything compatible with Biblical absolutes. The Bible is not a history book, but where it speaks to history, it speaks accurately. The Bible is not a science book, but where it speaks to science, it speaks accurately. etc. etc.

    Christians will go with science anywhere that doesn’t contradict Scripture. Einstein proves relativity? Fine, we go with relativity. No problem here- no Scripture is contradicted.

    I also think it’s important for me to repeat something that I posted ealier: we all work off of presuppositions, scientists included. Don’t pretend that creationists do and evolutionists don’t. If I asked you why you believe a certain thing, you’d give an answer. I would then ask you why you believe that answer, and you’d give me another answer, and so on. That would go on for awhile, but it would not be infinite-regress, because eventually we’d arrive at the foundation of your thinking- your presuppositions. Let’s say that we eventually conclude that the scientific method is your presupposition- all your thinking hinges on it. How do you prove the scientific method? By the scientific method? Ok, then how do you prove that the scientific method that you used to prove the scientific method is correct? By the scientific method again? ad infinitum- you get the point. Now we ARE in infinite-regress, because there’s nothing logically-prior to the your presupposition. The creationist/Christian presupposition is that God revealed propositional truth in the form of Scripture.

    Finally, to those who are discussing the very existence of God, I’ll just tell you that that discussion is WAY beyond the scope of this blog.

    Unfortunately, many Christians try to prove Christianity through history, science, archeology….or even cryptozoology. But those things don’t PROVE anything, just like science can’t ultimately prove anything (see my ealier post for that). The real purpose of our arguments in those fields is to make an “ad hominem”: to demonstrate that even IF our presupposition was the same as the evolutionists’, it would still point to creationism.

    The real proof of the existence of God is in the impossibility of the contrary as it relates to such transcendentals as logic, morality, etc. Which, as I said, is way beyond the scope of this blog.

  56. Scott C. responds:

    Larrykat said:

    “But we HAVE seen bears and empirical evidence proves they exist.”

    How do you prove that empirical evidence is an accurate measure of truth? By empirical evidence? Ok, how do you prove that the empirical evidence that you used to prove that empirical evidence is an accurate measure of truth is an accurate measure of truth? By empirical evidence again? ad infinitum.

    Can you even define “evidence”? How do you prove that your definition of evidence is the correct definition of evidence? Do you have evidence for that? If so, how do you prove that evidence? We could go all day. The point is that you can’t prove anything for sure because you can’t even prove the presuppositons off of which you work.

    “If evidence is empirical, it is also inductive, and if it is inductive, then for you to prove your principle, you must use it to verify every possible proposition conceivable by an omnicient mind in order to assert it without fallacy. But if you cannot show that your principle is correct by your own principle, then how can you verify any proposition by the same principle? Thus your principle destroys itself by generating a viciously circular logical loop.” -Vincent Cheung, “Ultimate Questions”

  57. kittenz responds:

    Leto, I can’t see, feel, or touch a Black Hole, either, but I don’t take that as an indication that they cannot exist.

    I make a diiference between being spiritual and being religious. I am in no way religious, but I consider myself to be a spiritual person. I did not say “Evolution is true because God wishes it so”. What I said is that science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

    You choose not to believe in God, apparently with a fervor that rivals some people’s belief in same. You have a right to believe whatever you choose. That does not make your point of view more or less valid than anyone else’s. DWA is right; you are only being human.

    If you know anything about science at all, you know that you can’t prove a negative. If other people have had experiences that lead them to believe in a higher power, who are you to say that their experiences are invalid? You cannot prove that there is no God. You can only harbor that belief. Aetheism is just another kind of religious belief. We humans have developed a plethora of those.

  58. DWA responds:

    Larrykat: my response to you is similar to kittenz’s response to Leto. But let’s go anyway.

    I see a lot of superstitious belief in science here. That is, I see a lot of truly fervid belief that science solves everything and if science can’t explain it, it can’t be possible. Science is a great thing, but it’s human just like the humans that practice it.

    There’s also a lot of feverish disbelief in God among people who consider themselves rational. If you believe God doesn’t exist, you are, by definition, making an illogical reach, no less illogical than the one you accuse believers in God of making.

    The huge problems of the human race won’t all be solved by rational thinking. In fact they are much more likely to be solved by faith in human nature.

    Which means, to me: equally unlikely to be solved by either one, at least alone.

    Nothing’s failed like science, so far. For all the great things it has done for us, it’s pretty close to making the world a most unpleasant place, if not an impossible one, to inhabit.

  59. Rillo777 responds:

    I wholeheartedly agree with what some of the evolutionists have said in that we need to apply scientific method to our approach of cryptids. Absolutely! If I, for example, brought in the first bigfoot, I would want a whole team of scientists studying it and I wouldn’t care what their beliefs were. Creationism is a world view of how things came to be. So is evolution. Beyond that, we still both need to study, document and apply generally approved methods to our examination of cryptozoology. No argument here and I’d be happy to do it with any hardcore evolutionist. All I ask is that we have mutual respect even if we completely disagree on our views.

    As far as policing these posts for references to creation, evolution, and so forth. I agree that I don’t see how that is possible. But I would say that I won’t attack someone who postulates the evolutionary side and ask that I don’t be attacked if I disagree with it. Personally, I’m not trying to prove creationism or God or anything else here and I’ll be happy to hold my tongue if we can just get on with examining the evidence for cryptids and not get caught up in what is basically a side issue at the moment. We’ve all vented and hopefully come to the intelligent decision to agree to disagree peacefully.

    By the way, as a creationist, I do enjoy the intelligent insights from the evolutionists. And they are right about the need for scientific protocols. The methods are sound even if we disagree on biological origins. And we all want to know the truth of these creatures.

  60. DWA responds:

    ScottC: maybe a much shorter way to look at what you’re saying in your last post is ‘je pense, donc je suis.’

    Your existence is really the only yardstick you have by which to judge anything. What’s behind your existence? Heck, all this could be a movie inside your head.

    In what universe is it inconceivable that God could work via evolution? By what rules must science be wrong if there is a God, and God nonexistent if science is right?

    Science works fine. For what it works for. (It’s like a hammer that way. OK, a bit more versatile. But the point is the same.) To presume science to be the governor of all that is, and to presume God to be nonexistent because he exists (if he does) outside of science, is to be no more logical than primitive cultures are when they sacrifice maidens to Xoxolotl.

  61. UKCryptid responds:

    I love cryptozoology. I love science. I 100% completely accept evolution as the done thing, the only ‘method’ to get me where I am now that makes sense to me. I often actually have trouble understanding why everyone has a problem with the other theories. My girlfriend lives by the bible whereas i’ve no idea on most of the contents, she believes that god created everything 6000 years ago etc, but we get along just fine and dandy. I’ve heard creationists say that things are too complex to be forced by evolution alone, but what on earth is simple about evolution? God could well have created earth and everything associated with it, but it still doesn’t stop science being extremely important to us all. If we abandon science and live solely by religion, we’re in deep deep trouble.

  62. UKCryptid responds:

    On another note, I’m quite saddened that a few people here seem to have taken this topic to heart so easily, this is where one of the main problems is, people can’t just take in the fact that other people believe something different, something that makes more sense to them.

  63. Grant responds:

    Maybe I’m using the adjective much, much too loosely, but I always think of Creationism (and other religious ideas) as actually BEING “Fortean” in some sense of the word, just by being at odds with “established” science, and by being a sort of thorn in its side. And to some degree, a lot of debunkers have actually PUT the two things (religion and “forteana”) together, as targets. In spite of all the warnings about the “Religious Right Wing” (not that I DISbelieve in such a thing) having so much power, religion has ALSO become such a “boogie-man” nowadays, because it’s supposedly going to rot the mind of anyone who remotely believes in it. And that’s exactly what paranormal beliefs are accused of. So, even though it doesn’t really answer the question, again, I’ve always thought of the two things as being “in the same boat.” And, again, I always think of both things as being a sort of “gadfly” for the “Establishment.” (In this case, the scientific one.)

  64. Loren Coleman responds:

    Shill writes:

    Not that long ago, Loren (and the other editors) abstained from allowing off topic debates and commentary in response to posts, claiming that the blog was to disseminate news, it was not a message board. I respected that view and would suggest they might return to that format (but I suspect that the looser rules have generated an upsurge in return viewers to the site?)

    Besides perhaps the incorrect use of “abstained from allowing” as opposed to “reinforcing the disallowing of off-topic” comments, I think the point, once again, of this blog is being lost on shill.

    I suggest anyone who doesn’t get it merely look up the gathering of comments to see that I have addressed this issue already.

    Cryptomundo, as a blog is not a chatroom and not a forum that encourages or supports these kinds of debates – usually. However, as noted, the energy and distractions within the comment sections were getting out-of-hand. Therefore, a decision was made to turn over this one comment platform to people who wish to comment on this issue, via a civil exchange.

    Frankly, cryptozoology is a separate issue to me.

  65. sschaper responds:

    I happen to be a Bible-believing creationist. But I find searching for reported, but uncatalogued animals fascinating. I once contributed to a paper submitted to the IAU. Science is fascinating, discovering things is fascinating.

    Neither creationists nor evolutionists who are attracted to cryptozoology are going to be typical for their ‘factions’.

    There are times and places where I will try to argue for a creation paradigm. I think it is scientifically plausible. This isn’t one of those times and places.

    We are united in a quest to catalog and study animals before they are rendered extinct.

    Can’t we get along on this quest that we agree about??

  66. kittenz responds:

    I love science, especially the natural sciences. I love puzzles, and the natural world is like a vast puzzle. Deciphering the past and continuing evolution of life is part of that puzzle. I really don’t understand how anyone can study, really study, life and not realize that evolution is the only answer that makes any sense.

    If people choose to overlook the obvious, and believe in creationism, well, that is their privilege. I’ve explored some kind of off-the-wall beliefs in my time, too. At different times in my life I have been an atheist, an agnostic, even a (sort-of) pagan. I have, at times, believed that psychic powers exist, and for a long time I was an enthusiastic, if tongue-in-cheek, astrologer. (But Virgos don’t believe in horoscopes so I dropped that. Lol.) I have allowed my mind to wander over a wide range of topics and I’ve explored many beliefs, many of which seem really silly to me now. I’ve finally making peace with myself as a sort of nature worshipper. Personal experiences have instilled in me a belief that there is a higher power which, for lack of a more appropriate word, I call God. Never have I seen or learned anything that changed my views on the evolution of life.

    But cryptozoology is a separate issue to me as well. I don’t think that a person’s religious beliefs matter, when it comes to having an enthusiasm for cryptozoology. As Tabitca so aptly put it, “The only belief you need is a belief in cryptids“.

  67. Remus responds:

    Wow Loren! This sure brought ‘em out of the woodwork.
    My opinion? I don’t believe in belief. I either know or I don’t know. (Mostly I don’t know ;-))
    I do however choose to err on the side of God. Why? Simply because choosing to believe that it’s all some kind of purposeless accident would make me sad. And I KNOW I don’t like to feel sad!

  68. kamoeba responds:

    I was hoping that this topic would never turn up here.

  69. Leto responds:

    “I can’t see, feel, or touch a Black Hole, either, but I don’t take that as an indication that they cannot exist.”

    That analogy doesn’t work either because scientists can and have detected black holes.

  70. cradossk responds:

    Scott C said “explain the evolution of the separate elements of the lizard egg. If there was ever a time that any one of those elements did not exist, we would have no lizards today. Explain the evolution of all components of the bombardier beetle

    Now Scott C. thats the whole point: we don’t know how these things work, but we are not content to simply lie down and say “god” formed the mechanisms of lizard eggs, or god created the all the components of the bombardier beetle. We try and find ancestral species in the fossil record, hypothesize on these things, “How did creature x evolve to creature y?” , “what evolutionary steps were taken?”. There are many arguments for “irreducible complexity”, but when a biologist actually takes a look at them, they don’t normally say “oh, who knows! god must have done it (unless they belong to the discovery institute :P) . They analyze and think… they wonder… they are not content with the designer argument.

    Have a look at a video (I think its on google video or youtube) called “Ken Miller on Intelligent Design”. He is able to articulate the argument much better than I’ll ever be able to (he is a practicing catholic by the way).

    Im not trying to argue against peoples religious beliefs, but when they contradict evidence is when i come into the frey :P

    St Augustine sums it up quite nicely..

    It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

    Anyways, i guess to sum up: Religion good, if taken in context of the scripture, and not a literal reading of it. It does matter what one believes, but what one does, which makes their contributions to any field worthy.

    Sorry for going off topic slightly Loren :)

  71. cradossk responds:

    ‘Isnt it enough to see a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?” – Douglas Adams

  72. kittenz responds:

    Well, actually, some fairies in the garden would be really neat. AND cryptid :).

  73. mystery_man responds:

    Well, this has become more of a discussion on philosophy of religion rather than anything else. I also see people ignoring previous posts to just bark out their own opinion on the issue so it seems this has transcended what it was originally planned to be, which is a discussion on this issue.

    Me being someone who studied biology and zoology, am not a philosopher. But let me make it totally clear that I never God does not exist. As a matter of fact, I do not beleive science and God to be mutually exclusive. I find nothing about evolution that refutes the existence of God. Who is to say that God did not make evolution happen? That it was not God that gave that first spark of life that started the whole thing? Me, I don’t know. But I’d be willing to find out why without automatically assuming it was the work of God. Would it not be a sweeping, presumptuous statement to pretend to know whether God started evolution or not?

    Second of all, who is to say that God didn’t give this world its set of natural rules that we should figure out for ourselves? If God did create the universe, then he has obviously imbued it with its own sets of rules, its own mechanisms and laws that govern it, and that is what science is trying to figure out. All phenomena would be based on these rules, so if you want to find the purpose to even supernatural phenomena, you would be able to find out excactly what is causing it if you understood its physical laws. Something is only a “phenomena” until its workings are understood. Evolution does not contradict any of this.

    So I do hope the creationists here do not go down the dangerous road of accusing dedicated evolutionists of not beleiving in God. For some out there, God does not always equate to creationism. Same goes for religions other than Christianity. A belief in God can still have a place for evolution.

  74. cradossk responds:

    Kittenz: haha, good point. :P

  75. kittenz responds:

    Leto, scientists have detected objects that they believe to be black holes, but by inference only; no one has directly observed a black hole.

    (BTW I do believe that black holes exist; they make sense in keeping with the of relativity. The point is that to accept the existence of black holes requires a certain amount of faith in the existence of an object that cannot be directly observed.)

    I don’t have a quarrel with you, Leto. I’m a lifelong evolutionist who loves science and knowlege for its own sake. But just because you do not believe in the existence of a God, does not mean that God cannot exist. You choose not to believe in a deity and that is your right.

    In some ways, God could be thought of as the ultimate cryptid: millions of people, for reasons as varied as the people themselves, accept the existence of a higher power, and have encountered what they perceive to be evidence of its existence, but no hard evidence exists. Millions of others are just as sincere in their belief that because such a power cannot be quantified, it cannot exist.

    There is no way to prove which view (if either) is “right” or “wrong”. It comes down to which belief is right for the individual person.

  76. Leto responds:

    “The point is that to accept the existence of black holes requires a certain amount of faith in the existence of an object that cannot be directly observed.”

    No faith involved, black holes are as real and observable as gravity. Take for example the photo from Hubble of the huge jet of electrons and particles from galaxy M87. The jet is coming from a black hole in the center of that galaxy.

    Here’s a website that details four methods of detecting black holes:

  77. lamarkable responds:

    My own personal research indicates that neither evolutionists nor creationists have a sufficiently keen grasp on what is going on. It is not so much an either\or proposition so in a broad sense there’s certainly room for both. Gog and Magog are a particularly interesting very old, traditional analogy that offers perhaps an insights into a species held back if you will from direct contact in competition for food resources. Perhaps this is about to change.
    As far as evolution is concerned, its scope is too small and does not take into account that it in of itself planetary evolution is prone to larger forces beyond itself that it directly responds to. It’s not a neat separation that one supposes outside of the fact it makes it more digestible.

  78. kurcab responds:

    Do not ever ask this question again. Seriously I can stand in a room full of UFO’logists and bigfoot hunters and think them quite sane; that is until someone brings up religion.

  79. kittenz responds:

    The accepted methods for detecting black holes still rely on indirect obervation. The jet from M87 is presumed to be a black hole because it seems to fit our theories of how a black hole “should” behave.

    I’m not trying to refute the statement that the jet electrons and particles from M87. On the contrary, I have long believed that the centers of most galaxies must contain black holes, and that quasars must be the results of massive black holes.

    That does not change the fact that black holes cannot be directly observed, but must be inferred from the behavior of the material around them. Believing in the existence of black holes requires a sort of faith in the existence of something that cannot be directly verified.

    I can understand the viewpoint of those people who say that the “laws of physics”, rather than any god, regulate the universe. Ok, I’ll buy that. Why is that so? Because matter and energy behave and interact according to specific rules. Of course they do. So, who wrote the rulebook?

    You see what I mean? Where did it all originate? I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to suppose that an intelligence of some sort was involved.

  80. Loren Coleman responds:

    Do cryptids live in black holes?

    This is drifting, to say the least.

    Does it really matter what anyone “believes,” if one is well-trained in zoological, anthropological, and other investigative and chronicling techniques for the establishment of new or previously thought extinct species?

    Isn’t that the bottomline, regarding cryptozoology?

  81. kittenz responds:

    That’s true, Loren. I agree 100%.

    But this HAS been interesting!

  82. Loren Coleman responds:

    Yes, very interesting, and obviously people who are here want to talk about some of the questions I asked way up top – or the feelings that they kicked off inside of you all.

    I’m happy about that and my comments are not placed here to stop the debate. I just am always full of more questions. It’s my nature. :-)

  83. Scott C. responds:

    This particular thread has probably come near to running it’s course. Everyone is pretty firmly entrenched in their faith (be it rooted in God or rooted in science), which is exactly what should be expected. Someone said that it had become more philosophical than scientific- precisley. These kinds of conversations will always become philosophical, because no matter how helpful science is (and it is), it is inadequate to answer life’s most pressing questions. It is, itself, only a philosophy.

    Thirty years ago, most thinkers suggested that modernism was being completely replaced by post-modernism. As rampant as post-modernism is, this thread has demonstrated what a hold modernism still has. I wish that people would find both reason and significance in the truth- a relationship with Jesus Christ. But they will not, so they must choose between the two: reason in science or significance in mysticism.

    I think that I’m bowing out at this point. I hope that it will not be inappropriate for me to conclude with a recommendation for those who are sincerely willing to wrestle with these things- the writings of Francis Shaeffer (esp. his Trilogy) and Greg Bahnsen. If you are finding Christianity so foolish, please suspend judgment until after reading these.

    To finally return to the point of all this, I’ll repeat what I started with: one’s faith will not determine his methods or success in cryptozoology. Some very good statements have been made to this effect- I especially liked when someone said that he didn’t care if whoever brought in the first bigfoot believed that the queen was a shape-shifting lizard :-) And there’s a very real sense in which I agree. As someone else said, the only thing you need to believe in to be a cryptozoologist is cryptids.

  84. DWA responds:

    I had a couple more questions.

    1) I thought this was about creationism vs. evolution. How did God get into it? God could work in those or any of – well an infinite number of other ways. Wasn’t this talk just about the mechanism, and leave God out of it?

    2) Am I the only one who thinks it’s amusing that religion and God are inextricably linked, like God needs our permission to exist?

    3) Who else here thinks cryptids are one of God’s ways of showing us we ain’t so damn smart?

  85. Rillo777 responds:

    I agree DWA. We aren’t so smart. Maybe God put cryptids and everything else here just so we’d talk about it.

    By the way, concerning some points Kittenz mentioned: I (as a creationist) have no problem with the Big Bang. I know many do. Personally, I see no problem with it as long as there was a Big Banger! :)

  86. kittenz responds:

    lol DWA,

    In order to have creationism you have to have a Creator.

  87. Aaronious responds:

    A good scientist, either creationist or evolutionist, will not let their personal beliefs interfere with their observations. They will form their hypothesis and null hypothesis, they will run their experiments/make observations, and see if their hypothesis is disproved or not. If it is not, they will continue to gather data. A hypothesis is NEVER proven, only disproven or refined.

    That is “good” science, and personal beliefs should have no baring on the matter – except perhaps when the hypothesis is first formed.
    Cryptozoology is just another science, and should be treated appropriately.

    As for me, I do not for a second believe in the bible, but I do hope there is something more than just our flesh and blood.

    Evolution, in the simplest definition, is gene frequency in a population. When selective pressures change, gene frequencies may change to match the new situation. This happens EVERY SINGLE TIME crops are sprayed with insecticides. A new population results, usually with a slightly more resistant population, due to resistant gene frequency increasing in the population. That is evolution, and it is irrefutable. This also supports punctuated equilibrium.

    Thanks,
    Aaron Spriggs

  88. dogu4 responds:

    Excellent aaronious, and anything but erroneous.

    Punctuated equillibrium…in multi-variable systems, predictability becomes increasingly elusive and catastrophic events trump all else. What did you think of S.J.Gould’s explanation in “It’s a Wonderful Life…examining the Burgess Shales”.

  89. things-in-the-woods responds:

    Of course there is a place in cryptozoology for creationists. There is a place here for everyone.

    The fact that creationists are clearly deluded in their worldview (and it is not so much the overwhelming and apparent evidence for evolution by natural selection that disproves their belief for me- it is more that the whole idea of a god falters on the ‘problem of suffering’; i.e. why would an all-powerful god allow innocent infants to suffer and die, if being all-powerful it could have made it otherwise?) should not be used to exclude them from the discussion.

    However, when this worldview comes to impinge directly on the practice of cryptozoology (i.e., in proposing human/dinosaur co-existence in the face of ALL evidence), then we do have a problem, in that they impact on the credibility of our endeavour.

    Still, even then, they shouldn’t be excluded. Rather, where their theories are clearly contrary to all scientific evidence and method and all probability or logic, we should criticise them for that, and explain why and where they go wrong.

    So yes, there is and should be, of course, room for everyone here, whatever their beliefs. However, where those beliefs directly impinge on the questions of cryptozoology then they must be open to having their beliefs attacked (and mustn’t confuse having their views attacked for being excluded).

    As such, while I think it would be rather tiresome and tangential to keep having debates about creationism vs evolution (or atheism vs belief in the supernatural), we shouldn’t completely ban such discussions from this site.

  90. Mnynames responds:

    Well, I regret to see that I’ve come into this discussion a bit late, particularly as I’m with Mystery Man in being one to not let creationist statements go unchallenged here (I may also be the one who started the thread over on the fake trike posting…woops), but Kittens, Mystery Man, Cradossk, and others have said much the same as I would have, so I will try not to reiterate. Instead, I’ll try to get this discussion a little bit more back on topic, via the original questions asked, after presenting a bit of my own perspective.

    My personal viewpoints, as most people’s are, I suspect, are complicated. Ultimately, I feel that religion and spirituality are mutually exclusive terms, just as religion and science are, and would count myself as favouring the latter categories in both cases. I find the religion of fundamentalists, be they Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists or what have you, as being little more than the idolatrous worship of their own genocidal hatred of the “other” (Whatever that given other may be in their belief system). The fundamentalists have given themselves over to an incomplete system created by man and thus just as flawed. Others, however, use religion as a springboard to transcend such limited concepts, and approach foreign ideas with wonder and an open, but reasoning mind. Ultimately, though, my beliefs are irrelevant, and I mention them only because others have taken the time to voice theirs, and to give some foundation as to where I am coming from. I know that many fundamentalists would lump evolutionists and secular humanists (I count myself as a member of both) as just as hateful, and I will not say that there have not been some hard feelings among them. Millennia of persecution and genocide can do that. I will, however, say that I know of not one of them that has ever advocated the abrogation of the inherent rights of the fundamentalists, nor wished death, torture, or eternal damnation upon them. The same cannot be said of the opposite, and I believe that to be telling.

    Regardless, if cryptozoology is a science, or hopes to be considered so, it must work within a scientific framework. Therefore, we must hold it up to scientific scrutiny, and that means that these blogs here on Cryptomundo must discuss how these cryptids fit into currently-accepted biological and evolutionary theories. To say we can’t talk about evolution pretty much removes CZ from the biological sciences entirely, and we would have very little to discuss. As the minority viewpoint, creationists must surely realize this, it is an unavoidable reality, but it shouldn’t come to them as any sort of surprise when they enter any sort of discussion about science. For better or worse, they should expect it, indeed, should have encountered such resistance before. I see no real way around this, and I DO have sympathy for the discomfort they must feel.

    What we must realize here, is that we are a community here on Cryptomundo, and the functionality and usefulness of any community is only as good as its ability to coexist with itself. Others have said it in this thread as well, this would be no different than if we were talking about Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, Pagans and Christians, or Atkins Dieters and Vegans, for that matter. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, some more than others, perhaps, but we also have an inherent equality as posters, as people here. We may disagree, but there should be no place for unjustified recriminations, threats, or slander in this, or any other society. Will it happen? Sure, one need only look at the broader society in which we live to see evidence of that. But the Cryptomundo society is smaller, and better able, I should hope, of reaching a consensus civility. That it remains a community in which science and established scientific principles will be discussed is something that I think cannot be changed. But neither does that means that we cannot hear challenges to those principles.

    Essentially, this is precisely how science works, regardless of any consensus viewpoint. In fact, creationists and ID proponants have done a great service towards science in general and evolutionary theory in particular, by pointing out difficult areas of study, things not fully understood such as eye teeth, bombadier beetles, and the locomotary mechanisms of bacteria and such. These areas were little studied prior to their being pointed out, and now we have a very good understanding of the way the chemical defenses of bombadier beetles and flagella of bacteria evolved, complete with evidence for median steps and partially adapted mechanisms (As for eye teeth, I have not read any ebate on the matter, so as such am unable to comment). We have decent working models, I won’t go so far as to say they’re in any way definitive, of the natural steps of pre-biotic materials to form primitive cell walls and other cellular structures, partly because creationists called out for a plausible explanation. Science is all the better for it, and I welcome debate, even if it can be tiresome to hear the same things over and over again. I’m sure creationists can sympathize with that just as easily as I.

    Lastly, aside from the scientific foundation of our area of study, CZ, Loren is quite right in saying that this is off-topic. The quest is what drives us, regardless of our ideological motivations. So long as we approach it honestly, and reasonably, what does it matter from whence our zeal originates? Loren said-

    “Does it really matter what anyone “believes,” if one is well-trained in zoological, anthropological, and other investigative and chronicling techniques for the establishment of new or previously thought extinct species?

    Isn’t that the bottomline, regarding cryptozoology?”

    I believe it is. I believe that equally applies to science…and to life for that matter. Thanks to everyone for your time, patience, and discretion in these discussions.

  91. Scott C. responds:

    I know, I know, I said that I was bowing out…and essentially I am :-) I don’t intend to be actively engaged in any more debate (though that’s not a promise)…but I did think it was important to just clear up some misinformation. I know that this may be considered off-topic, but only because I’m correcting some things that were no less off-topic.

    First of all:

    “I find the religion of fundamentalists, be they Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists or what have you, as being little more than the idolatrous worship of their own genocidal hatred of the “other” (Whatever that given other may be in their belief system).”

    I can’t speak for any faith but my own, but Christ’s disciples don’t (shouldn’t) hate anybody! Especially genocidally (sp?). If this is a reference to what the Catholic church is guilty of…well…take that up with the Catholic church. But evangelical Christianity is not guilty of this sort of thing. And even IF professing evangelicals were or had been, that doesn’t prove anything about their faith. And if this is a reference to sharing our faith (calling others to worship Christ), that is anything but hate- it is love, whether you can see it for that or not. If you knew that a cheeseburger from a particular restaurant was poisoned, what would be more loving than warning someone who was about to order one? It would be totally unloving to NOT warn them. They may say, “Hey, what right do you have to tell me what to do?!? I’ll eat what I want!” But thier criticism would be a small price to pay for doing what you could to keep them from danger.

    Here’s another:

    “The fact that creationists are clearly deluded in their worldview …the whole idea of a god falters on the ‘problem of suffering’; i.e. why would an all-powerful god allow innocent infants to suffer and die, if being all-powerful it could have made it otherwise?”

    This is the oldest bologna in the book. First of all, if you don’t believe in God, then your worldview can’t logically account for such a thing as morality, responsibility, or love- so what right do you have to accuse anyone in those areas? On the basis of morality you deny the existence of the only One who can account for it.

    Secondly, even if I let you borrow the concept of morality from my worldview, your argument does not syllogistically necessitate your conclusion. All that I have to do to demonstrate that is to provide an example of your argument leading to a different conclusion:

    1. The Christian God is all-powerful, and all-loving.
    2. If He is all-powerful, then He is able to end all evil.
    3. If He is all-loving, then He wants to end all evil.
    4. But evil still exists.
    5. Therefore, God has a good purpose for evil.

    or:

    1. The Christian God is all-powerful, and all-loving.
    2. If He is all-powerful, then He is able to end all evil.
    3. If He is all-loving, then He wants to end all evil.
    4. But evil still exists.
    5. Therefore, God will eventually destroy evil.

    Etc. etc. Once again, your professed faith does not determine whether or not you can be a great cryptozoologist. But if misinformation about a particular worldview is being publicly spread here, then I have a right to publicly correct it.

  92. Leto responds:

    “This is the oldest bologna in the book. First of all, if you don’t believe in God, then your worldview can’t logically account for such a thing as morality, responsibility, or love- so what right do you have to accuse anyone in those areas? On the basis of morality you deny the existence of the only One who can account for it.”

    I know you were responding to someone else, but I want to point out that the human brain accounts for things such as morality, responsibility, and love. Damage the areas of the brains accountable for those three things and that human will no longer have morals, responsibility, or even the ability to love.

  93. cradossk responds:

    “This is the oldest bologna in the book. First of all, if you don’t believe in God, then your worldview can’t logically account for such a thing as morality, responsibility, or love- so what right do you have to accuse anyone in those areas? On the basis of morality you deny the existence of the only One who can account for it.” – just to say, other species of “heathen” animals also display what we would call “morality”, “responsibility”, and even perhaps something akin to “love”

    Wolf packs have a pecking order within them, correct? It would be ‘immoral’ for a beta or lower male to try and mate with the alpha female. If he does, and is caught by the alpha male, he will be punished for his insubordination. It is the beta males ‘responsibility’ to not to attempt to mate with a female higher than him.

    Monkey (in particular, chimpanzees) also have a pecking order, more or less akin to our own. These chimps will display affection to one another, will sort out differences, will take on different responsibilities within the group (eg. one chimp might be scout, one might be looking after the younger ones, one might be lookout for predators, etc). They also have a morality. A chimp might know that its “immoral” from a group perspective to (its all about sex :P) mate with a higher ranking female (or mate with a female at all), and if the dominant male catches him, they will be kicked out, punished another way, or killed.

    Wolves and apes (and other social creatures) can do all this without believing in god! Those heathen animals seem to have broken your logic Scott :P

    I know you will probably respond in kind with something along the lines of how we have a higher morality, and more sophisticated type of love and responsibility, and we do, but we are also a more sophisticated animal, and with the high level of communication we have developed…. we really do need to have evolved these things :P

  94. kittenz responds:

    Well, craddosk, we can’t really know whether animals have any kind of “religious” beliefs. Certainly dogs seem to have something that is very akin to religious worship of their people. It could be that we are their “gods”, or it could be that they just know how to play us. We can’t really know, because we can’t live inside their minds.

    And what about animals like elephants and apes, which have very long lifespans and seem to grieve for their family and friends when they are separated distance or death? I don’t think it’s too far-fetched to suppose that they may have some ideas of an afterlife.

    I believe that humans, and possible some other species, evolved religious feelings as a way to allow them to cope with and understand their self-awareness.

  95. peterbernard responds:

    Oh I definitely see creationism as having an important role in cryptozoology, since most of both have more in common with Barnum than science, haha.

  96. cradossk responds:

    Sorry Kittenz, I should have clarified. I was suggesting that in the absence of religious belief (more specifically, an organized judo-christian like religious belief), non-human animals still seem to display various traits such as love, loyalty, responsibility, etc. without needing to be told from an ancient religious text. They are more than capable of deciding for themselves what is right and wrong (or being taught in infancy by their elders).

    Now I’m not saying that dogs, wolves, monkeys, etc. don’t display traits of religious worship (which is interesting in itself, isn’t it :P) but they (probably) don’t have the mental capacity, or the capacity for abstract thought, to ‘believe’ in god, or Jesus, or Mohammad, or Buddha, or Odin, or any of the ‘human’ gods / deities which we as a species so confidently put our faith.

    I agree with you that religious belief (or an early form of it) is probably an evolutionary adaptation to help our ancestors cope with the (gift?/curse?) of self-awareness, group coherency and harmony, etc and it has been fine tuned over the millennia to resemble what it does today.

  97. Mnynames responds:

    Thank you Leto, morality and love operate quite independently of any belief system. I am not immoral if I don’t believe in anyone’s particularly espoused deity, nor am I moral if I do. Indeed, those who choose to be moral have my respect far more than those who feel compelled to be moral through the threat of some kind of divine retribution. I don’t think such coersion is necessary. If you treat people bad, you feel bad. conversely, if you treat people good, you feel good. That seems to be a basic biological fact, even if the science behind it is somewhat poorly understood at present. Pity the principle behind it seems equally misunderstood by so many people today.

    My take on the whole thing is that any God who would condemn me for living a moral life just because I ignored him and never grovelled before his feet is someone with some major insecurity issues. Any God who would condemn me for trying to openly understand the world in which I lived just because I drew some logical conclusions he didn’t like is narrow-minded. Any God that would punish me for truly loving anyone, be they male or female, is one whose own affections must be quite small. None of them is a God of love, or of mercy. They are Gods of hate, and even if they did exist, upon pain of eternal torture, I would NEVER worship such cruel beings.

    I tried to keep my post as broad as possible, but nevertheless seem to have been singled out as targeting a set group of people. I am patently not. The history of the world has been fraught with genocide, and generally at the hands of religious extremists, or fundamentalists, as I’ve employed the term. No one group has ever cornered the market in extremism or genocide, although perhaps not for lack of trying. These would include the Romans (Both Pagan and Christian), Mongols (Secular, really, since they didn’t much care what religion you were, so long as you weren’t them, and they had many), Europeans (Catholic and Protestant), Arabs (Muslim), Indians and Asians (Hindus, and Buddhists, among others), Soviets (Atheists), and Nazis (a true mix of Protestant, Catholic, Secular, and Pagan), just to mention a few. My point was that fundamentalists of EVERY stripe profess and in many cases seek to enforce intolerance. Intolerance is merely indoctrinated hate, and the first step towards genocide. Some leave it at that, to be sure, while others talk big but with empty words. Still others leave it up to their deities to punish their percieved enemies. But if you don’t think that there are still people out there perfectly willing to take matters into their own hands, who think they know the mind of their God and seek to enforce his will and kill for their beliefs (Not just Catholics or Muslims, but Protestants, Pagans, and Buddhists too, I really defy you to find a religion with a large population without its extremists) then I can only assume that you haven’t taken a good look around you at the world in which you live. African-Americans have been dragged to death in Texas. Gay men strung up on fenceposts and beaten to death in the midwest. Christians shot for the statements of their religious figures in the Middle East. Women raped and men killed in Darfur because they’re Animists. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of a foreign head of state. So has Osama bin Laden. You think either of them preaches love? The rhetoric of intolerance breeds nothing but hate. Hate fosters violence. Violence begets murder. Murder begets genocide (Forgive me if I sound like Yoda here, but it is no less true).

    People should not forget that it was not too many centuries ago that every single one of us on this thread would likely have been imprisoned for the statements we’ve made here, possibly even sentenced to death. “Free thinkers” were once the persecuted “other”, and we could be again (Indeed, already are in many parts of the world). It likely won’t return that way over night, but centuries hence, perhaps sooner, it wouldn’t be too hard to imagine a time when the open exchange of ideas is once again forbidden.

    May the time never return when you can have the flesh scraped from your bones with seashells or be burned at the stake just because you think differently (That would include creationists too). If the Torquemada’s and Adolf Hitler’s of the world continue to shout from the rooftops, let’s at least ensure that they leave the Hypatia’s and Giordano Bruno’s of the world to speak their peace, in peace, as well. In the words of one of my spiritual leaders, “All you need is love.”

  98. Mnynames responds:

    BTW, I commend you, Loren, for making the risky decision to open this thread for discussion. We just might all be able to agree on that, if nothing else, :0)

  99. dogu4 responds:

    Does anyone know if this crazy kind of discussion goes on in other cultures? Are there fundamentalists in Japan trying to keep shinto ideology as a valid concept for their students who will be going on to create the next century’s biotechnology? Are the medical students at the University of Peshwar being taught to consider some alternative islamic backed idea of biology? Is the future quantum computer designer in Mumbai giving serious thought to using the next generation of telescopes so he can search for Noah’s Ark? Where’s the Flying Spaghetti Monster when we need it?

  100. cradossk responds:

    I know there is a strong anti-science movement in several middle eastern countries at the moment (Saudi Arabia in particular), and its against the law there to promote anything that contradicts the Koran. In Turkey, whilst the situation there is a bit better, there seems to be several leading clerics and teachers using the evangelical American style “teach the controversy” tactics against evolutionary teachings… (i think they are strongly allied with some of the American groups even).

    Being from a largely ‘godless’ country (Australia.. theres plenty of religion here, but its a more.. ‘liberal’ view of it :P), this sort of thing is scoffed at here, and the only groups trying to attack evolution, or science in general are quickly shot down by everyone else for being ‘silly’ (im not trying to be insulting btw.. thats just the general consensus).

    As stated before, the only person I actually know who believes the genesis story to be true is an American.

    I know in Europe, its a similar story to here.
    I dont know about anywhere else sorry (such as asia, africa, mind you, i’ve heard alot of Zimbabweans are just as religious and anti-evolution as America, if not more).

    From my understanding of this particular argument however, this brand of “anti-evolution” campaigning (at least in the western world) seems to be isolated almost completely to the US.

  101. Rillo777 responds:

    I Just wish we could all respect each others beliefs. I may have been one of those on the Civil War Dino thread who precipitated this discussion. I was a little ticked off about a comment that creationists use “lies to promote lies” (if I have the quote right). And I fired off a rather hot-headed creationist response. My apologies to those posters who were the brunt of that. Loren wisely removed my response.

    As far a future blogs go, I personally promise not to argue with evolutionists if they use what I certainly agree is the modern prevailing scientific model (evolution). However, I will ask questions and ask that I and my beliefs not be attacked if I disagree with them. I appreciate the commitment evolutionists have to rigorous scientific methods and do wish that many creationists would adhere to that as well. To simply say “God said it and that settles it”, or those who take the attitude that we don’t need to know anything more than “God created it” are not doing us, or God, any favors. We have been given inquiring minds and a thirst for knowledge. We have to have some good methodology for finding the answers. The first step, it seems to me, is to say “I don’t know but I want to find out.” And we need to start with a mind free from philosophical prejudice (as far as it is possible for us to do so.)

    Creation can’t be proved through science and I would argue neither can evolution. The evidence is open to interpretation based on your preconceived notions. But let us work together and not attack each other, even indirectly. That’s all I ask.

  102. Loren Coleman responds:

    One hundred comments in a little over 48 hours. You folks are truly amazing.

  103. Bob K. responds:

    Heres a very informative blog; it cuts through the fog very nicely. Enjoy.

  104. kittenz responds:

    dogu4 said:

    Does anyone know if this crazy kind of discussion goes on in other cultures?

    My guess is that anywhere there are groups of people, there are discussions that go something like this, although there are quite a few places where it would be impolitic or even suicidal to publicly voice opinions that differ from those of the ruling class or the prevailing religious leaders.

    I’m happy to be alive during a time and in a place where discussions of this nature are possible.

  105. things-in-the-woods responds:

    Ok, I know this is going way off point (i.e., it has nothing to do with cryptozoology) but I’ve just got to respond to Scott C.

    Scott says
    “This is the oldest bologna in the book. First of all, if you don’t believe in God, then your worldview can’t logically account for such a thing as morality, responsibility, or love- so what right do you have to accuse anyone in those areas? On the basis of morality you deny the existence of the only One who can account for it.”

    Firstly, as many people have pointed out, morality is not the sole preserve of religion. To have an ethical or moral code by which to lead ones life does not require that one believes it is a lore passed down by god. There are several other alternatives. One; it could be passed down from another human being (for instance, one could adopt the moral code of non-violence espoused by Gandhi without believing it to be the word of god). Two; one could THINK IT OUT FOR ONESELF (I know this concept is by defintion alien to those simply accept the truth of religious texts).

    It is not just insulting, but entirely bizarre, to effectively claim that atheists do not, and cannot, have any morality. That’ll be why I typically punch people as I walk down the street and steal the food from out of their babies mouths…

    Scott also says;
    “Secondly, even if I let you borrow the concept of morality from my worldview, your argument does not syllogistically necessitate your conclusion. All that I have to do to demonstrate that is to provide an example of your argument leading to a different conclusion:

    1. The Christian God is all-powerful, and all-loving.
    2. If He is all-powerful, then He is able to end all evil.
    3. If He is all-loving, then He wants to end all evil.
    4. But evil still exists.
    5. Therefore, God has a good purpose for evil.

    or:

    1. The Christian God is all-powerful, and all-loving.
    2. If He is all-powerful, then He is able to end all evil.
    3. If He is all-loving, then He wants to end all evil.
    4. But evil still exists.
    5. Therefore, God will eventually destroy evil.”

    It is hard to know how to respond to this. Firstly, Scott seems to quite simply miss the central point; if god is all-powerful and all-loving (and is the creator, as presumably Scott believes him to be), then it is not a question of him wanting to DESTROY or END all evil, but a question of the fact that he must have CREATED evil, or at least a world in which evil was possible, in the first place. But if he did that he is either not all-powerful or not all-loving. Quite simply, if god was all-powerful (note that this means he could do ANYTHING) then he need not have created evil or the possibility of evil. But evil exists. Therefore god is either not all-powerful or not all-loving.

    If god is all powerful, he could have reached the same ends by different means. As evil and suffering exist he either chose not to do so (in which case he is not just not all-loving, but i venture to suggest, actively evil himself), or was incapable of doing so (in which case he is not all powerful).

    The response that god ‘has a good purpose for evil and suffering’ makes me more mad than anything else religious people say to me. Quite why such a god should be seen as such a great source of the moral code when he CHOOSES to create a world in which children starve to death, contract diseases that cripple them and leave them in constant agonizing pain, in which promising, loving, good adults in the prime of their lives are cut down by cancer and heart attacks, and car crashes, is beyond me.

    Beings who choose to cause such things to happen are not paragons of virtue, but are sick, twisted and probably mad, even (especially?) if they are doing it for some claimed ‘higher cause’.

    And when it is answered that there was no other way that the world could possibly be (which, of course, completely ignores the very omnipotence claimed for god), I am reminded of a (very serious) poem by the British comedian Spike Milligan which goes something like this;

    When god asks me, ‘why have I sinned?’
    I will answer, ‘why did you make me this way?’
    And if god says, ‘my tools were blunt’
    I will ask him, ‘then why did you make so many of me..?’

    (And we might also note the saying ‘a bad workman blames his tools’ has some application here.)

    I am willing to accept the possibility that a creator god of some kind exists, but only if you are willing to admit that any such god must either be evil or a bumbling idiot. In which case, god is neither a good source for a moral code, nor a worthy object of devotion and praise.

    Now lets get back to the cryptozoology.

  106. dogu4 responds:

    Well, of course, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and a few other countries that we hold-up as examples of “how to have your nation look like a dummy”; countries who are still emerging from the dark ages, still attempting to control their populations’ thinking this way, and we really do ourselves no service in highlighting our good side with the dim bulb from those sad examples of backward thinking. We’re all appreciative of our freedom here (something which, as we are sometimes reminded, will disappear if we fail to use it and protect it), but really. I’m curious. Are there any other developed nations, the nations that are educating our future doctors, engineers, and bio-technologists, which are having this debate in their public forums; where actual power-wielding policy makers are currently trying to permanently afix religious ideas into science?

    I once had translated for me some text from a class-book for a college geology curriculum from Sweden which dated back to the early 1900s, not all that long ago, and the opening chapter related in a serious and straightforward account of how Odin emerged from the darkness of the cold lifeless sea and proceded to walk the surface, naming the features which are seen today. In fairness, the brief chapter ended and the text then went on to deal with geology as it was understood in what was then the modern context, and I think that that’s how we could do it here; call it the “santa solution” in which we recognize these non-scientific, barely relevant, and culturally expected stories (maybe we should even celebrate “creation” with a literal bible holiday, maybe on April 1st every year (beware: the “liberal’s War on April Fools Day”.), and then get on with focusing our attention on giving ourselves the benefit of objective understanding of the world we’re trying to make habitable and secure for us and the future generations.

    It’s great we have this discussion, really, but we want to get beyond the morass which has crept up to our ankles, and while it doesn’t actually prevent us from walking in the direction of progress, it does make us wobble off-balanced, and jeopardizes our ability to carry the legacy of knowledge that we’ve been accumulating over our history, and implies we’re not beyond the possibility of falling back into the mud again if the superstitious can impose their standards of “objective” truth. Does our freedom of speech guarantee that the fanatic’s cry of “stone the blasphemer” must be heard too?

  107. dogu4 responds:

    Bob K…that link to creation safari cuts through the fog alright. Who’d a thunk you could cut fog with a nicely designed set of blinders? But I do indeed see a lot more clearly now and thanks for identifying yet another tar pit of turgid thinking.

  108. mystery_man responds:

    I know some might be waiting for me to launch my own salvo of ideas but I’ve pretty much said what I need to say. I can’t believe how this debate has taken off. I agree when Kittenz said this has remained mostly civil. Some people have gotten a tad testy (I’ve tried not too, I really have!), but mostly people are being fairly well behaved. The posters at Cryptomundo continue to amaze me. On some other blogs, this discussion could have turned into a free for all disaster. I am really surprised how mush it has held together, although it has gotten off topic quite a lot and some people seem to be trying to turn this into a God vs. No God debate rather than what it was originally intended to be.

  109. things-in-the-woods responds:

    Hey mystery_man.

    I know that several of those last comments apply to me. I confess- i have gone off subject, and probably got a little more worked up and been more sharp than i usually am. Still, I hope no-one has taken offence (my comments concern people’s beliefs, not necessarily people in themselves- for the record, my mother is christian- albeit of the quiet, private, non-evangelical CofE kind- and I have great respect for her, and believe that much of the moral guidance by which she lives comes from her christian faith), and i really don’t want this to be a god vs no god discussion (its just kind of hard to avoid it).

    I would also like to say that once again i am also impressed by the measured, reasonable and civilised terms in which this debate has been conducted by all sides (and apologies again if i have strained that)- it just proves once again that cryptomundo is a great site, and its contributors some of the best on the web.

    Now, did we win that webby? And if not, why not?

  110. dogu4 responds:

    Just as a sidenote: today is the 300th Anniversary of Carl Linnaeus’ birth. His introduction of his improved bi-nomial system in taxonomy is really the first step towards bringing the study of life into the realm of science; making it possible to study life in a systematic way as opposed to just collecting anecdotal information while under the sway of classical natural philosophers. Think about where our understanding of biology was back in the 18th century and from time immemorial before that, and how much it’s advanced; from just being a kind of observational approach (lookin’ at slimey and icky stuff) to where we’re anticipating the integration of living tissue with quantum computing electronic devices. If science were a form of religion, and I suppose since humans are genetically hard wired to think about mysterious stuff in mysterious ways, we sort of think of science in a similar reverential way, then guys like good old Linnaeus would deserve a cannonization as his contribution to the tree of knowledge, one method by which many realists judge the value of humans’ lives, has undeniably led to a greater appreciation for all of creation (and I use that in the secular sense of the word). So, in the mean time I hope we all get a chance to go outside and enjoy some of it while engaging our damnably curious minds with some scientific reality.

  111. mystery_man responds:

    Things-in-the woods, I wasn’t necessarily singling you out! Sorry if you thought that. You and some of the others who, like me, hold to evolution as the way the world works have said a lot of things that I myself wanted to write myself actually. I am dedicated to zoology and biology and my whole mode of working and thinking is based on what I feel to be the fact of evolution. I am not particularly religious, but neither do I think religion exludes evolution and I am willing to accept that a creationist can be a scientist if their research methods are sound. That being said, I do have strong thoughts on this subject and I can get quite heated in these kinds of debates but I try to keep a level head. Quite a few times as I read this debate, I have typed out long, rambling posts that I deemed just a bit too venomous and I erased them without posting them. I think people like you, DWA, Kittenz, Mnynames, and others who value a scientific approach have made a lot of good points whether or not you got off the topic or not. :) And I don’t think you have gotten too out of line at all. I’m even impressed with creationists like Rillo777, who shows a remarkably open mind about these things. This topic just naturally gets people heated and the topic can change and go off on tangents in this kind of environment, so I guess it is kind of to be expected to a degree. I had to throw in my two cents before about this turning into a God vs. No God issue because I don’t feel God is neccessarily inextricably linked to creationism and I know people who are biologists, believe in God, yet also believe in evolution. For me belief in God is a seperate issue from evolution vs. creationism so in that sense I thought that aspect of the debate got a little carried away. For the most part, though, I commend everyone for basically holding it together here. Well done.

  112. things-in-the-woods responds:

    Hey mystery_man- didn’t feel singled out- just recognised myself in some of what you said…

  113. DWA responds:

    kittenz: true, creationism requires a Creator.

    And I’m not even sure one needs to capitalize that.

    But as we’ve discussed, many of us don’t feel evolution needs NOT to have one.

  114. Loren Coleman responds:

    To continue and reinforce the congratulations heard here, you all might be interested to know that not one comment has had to be deleted, edited, or moderated. (The robotic software may have placed a posting on a side branch of the internet railroad due to a flagged word, a link, or some such slowing it getting here, but then it was found in limbo and approved for posting.)

    On many levels, I find this remarkable. People have had much to say, and my hope now is that we can get back to what I see as pure cryptozoology.

    Thank you all for remaining civil, intelligent, and insightful.

  115. Bob K. responds:

    Hey, dogu4-”pit of turgid thinking”-thats a new, high sounding elitist insult from a Darwinist! Bravo! But hey-I’m just here to say that, I’ve seen the error of my ways-no, I’ve seen the light! I actually believe that a chip of rock magically transformed into you and I. I REALLY believe in dinosaurs to birds, mice to bats, ungulate to whale-yes! I’m a true believer! Well, almost. I just need ONE thing. Now obviously, there were thousands-no, tens of thousands-er, hundreds of thousands of minute changes and mutations that occourred one after the other in order to acheive all these climbs up the evolutionary ladder. Now, I’m not asking for thousands, or even A thousand;heck ,or even a hundred; just show me 50 points in this mutation series, via 50 fossils, clearly showing this transformation(oh say, mouse to bat), and I’ll become a disciple of Darwin. You know, sort of like the horse series. You-DO remember the horse series, dont you? Good! I’ll check back.

  116. DWA responds:

    Didn’t mean to stop there. Whoops!

    aaaaaanyway, if the argument is How The Earth Got Made, it really doesn’t have to be who, just HOW.

    things-in-the-woods: I’m not sure that God really needs to be AGAINST suffering, even if he IS all-good. Once again NOT ARGUING THERE IS A GOD, which I don’t have the evidence to do one way or the other, I think it’s conceivable that God made a world – a universe – with suffering, death and destruction, i.e., an imperfect one, for one reason.

    HE FIGURED THAT PERFECTION GETS BORING AFTER A WHILE.

    The universe, the temporary Physical Plane of Existence, could be the Ultimate Thrill Ride. You really CAN die. And get pretty messed up along the way. But

    (1) boy do you really appreciate the beauty that way and

    (2) when you’re done, you REALLY appreciate perfection.

    And consider the possibility that all the pain of the universe might be just a pinprick considering the reward we get for appreciating the ride. In other words – and if you are observing this from the dank of a prison cell or from the endless pain of abject poverty or physical deformity or cancer or I could go on an on it might be a little tough, if only at the moment – imperfection might be God’s counter-intuitive way of making the whole shebang more exciting, more FUN.

    And when someone gets the evidence for that, ring me.

  117. DWA responds:

    Bob K:

    We might have to agree that one of the Rules of Engagement here would be: don’t make me parse MY thinking out for YOU in too much detail, and YOU don’t have to parse YOUR thinking out for ME in too much detail.

    Of course, lines about turgid thought pits invite the invitation, do they not?

    (BTW: bats are more closely related to primates than they are to mice. From a purely evolutionary point of view. And promise not to make me tease THAT one out of the fossil record. ;-) )

  118. things-in-the-woods responds:

    Hey DWA,

    I know you are kind of playing devils advocate (perhaps the wrong turn of phrase here…), but really the idea that god made a world full of suffering cos otherwise it would be boring, is just a version of the ‘my tools were blunt’ defence.

    What I am trying to do is get christians et al to take seriously their claim that god is all-powerful as well as all-loving. If all powerful, god could have made things so that perfection wasn’t boring (e.g. could have made us beings that didn’t get bored by perfection). Afterall he apparently got to set things up from the beginning, he was not constrained by the facts of what happens to be the case in this universe.

    And to be quite honest, suggesting that relief from boredom offsets the painful death of young children would be at best trite.

  119. Bob K. responds:

    “Parse my thinking”? I think my request was plain enough, wasnt it? Theres no need to dance around the issue, now, is there? I mean, after all, the fossil record must be simply BURSTING with clear examples which the millions of mutations necessary for Darwinian evolution to occur must have produced, right? Just produce the fossils which clearly demonstrate this-OK, 50 is too many-how about 40?(Sigh), look, I’ll give you a headstart-how about the lamprey? (Oh wait , someone found one that is 360 million years old-still a lamprey),uhh, hey, what about the Okapi? Surely, on its way to becoming a gir…oh, yeah..well, the coela-no,no…the stingray? The bee? The tuatara? What about the trilobite ? Surely, the lowly trilobite can demonstrate such a progression. HMMMMMmmmmmmmnnnnnn……Well, anyway, its down to just 40 now. I’ll check back.

  120. Doug Higley responds:

    I find it truly amazing that after my post far above was decidedly ‘The Last Word’ on this subject, the posts continued regardless. :-)

  121. DWA responds:

    Bob K,

    Well, OK. But now you have a LOT of explaining to do.

    Of which why God would want any part of anything so screwed up as our Earth – or why he’d want to punish us eternally for just being what he made us to be – would be only the tip of the iceberg.

    Besides which, the fossil record’s being continuous would be so against the odds as to postulate a wholly different universe were it to be the case. That what there is seems to fit the way it does is saying quite a lot, to me.

    (Lampreys: a simple design that has stood the test of time. Modern apes: didn’t fail to become human; succeeded in becoming modern apes. Etc.)

    Just playing, er, God’s advocate. ;-)

  122. DWA responds:

    things-in-the-woods:

    “Trite” is a human concept. Let’s not limit God. ;-)

    You know there always is the possibility the guy’s a total SOB. With good taste in colors. Which would have me trembling far more than Jefferson did reflecting God was just.

    And who has ruled out that the sucker’s tools WERE blunt? I just know I wouldn’t want to take it on.

  123. Leto responds:

    “I think it’s conceivable that God made a world – a universe – with suffering, death and destruction, i.e., an imperfect one, for one reason. HE FIGURED THAT PERFECTION GETS BORING AFTER A WHILE.”

    “The phrase “he figured” suggests that God is not all-knowing. Also, true perfection never gets boring, if it ever became boring it wouldn’t be perfect in the first place.

  124. DWA responds:

    Leto:

    Note that I also suggested that God may not be all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful, or even perfect. If there is one.

    The biggest problem people have in assessing this topic is being unable to detach themselves from being human; they can’t suspend that disbelief even for a second. And they make all these presumptions (e.g., perfection) for something they don’t have any evidence for, and hence know nothing about.

    The phrase “he figured” suggests nothing about God. *I* said it. (like I said; we can’t detach ourselves from our man-centric pov even for a second. How the heck do I know what God does? The best I can do is use totally human concepts to try to get close. (and probably fail.)

    Don’t think perfection would be boring? I see much evidence, every day, of one thing relevant to that supposition, if nothing else: no matter how much people have, they still find things to complain about. If one would only think about it – and we don’t – “nothing to do” gets about as close to perfection as the human condition allows.

    And what do we do?

    We COMPLAIN ABOUT IT.

    And here we are trying to get into God’s head. As someone who wouldn’t know about God’s existence one way or another and would like to get back on topic, here’s what I think: God would have more fun with evolution than he’d have with six-days.

    If fun doesn’t motivate God? NOW we should worry. :-D

  125. Scott C. responds:

    I will not argue with someone outside my worldview about things not fully understood by those within it. I won’t be so arrogant as to claim to understand why God does everything He does. But I know that He does have reasons, and I know that everything He does is consistent with His nature.

    No finite human is in a position to claim that anything God does is not in keeping with His love. The glory of justice, the sweetness of mercy, the wonder of grace- these would all be meaningless if there had not been sin. And pointing a finger a God is only a way of avoiding the truth that nobody wants to face- that each and every one of us is responsible for our own sin.

    I know that I’m a sinner and deserve His wrath, and that if I spend my entire life in total misery and then go to be with Him, it is far better than I deserve.

    Btw (not that I have to mention this), most Christians, including myself, believe that anyone who dies in infancy goes immediatly to be with Him in heaven. As a matter of fact, that sounded so appealing to Job, that he wished that for scenario for himself (Job ch. 3).

    Having said all that, I’ll still insist that any appeal you make to morality is borrowed from my worldview. I’m not saying that you have no morality, I’m just saying that your worldview can’t account for it. Of course you have morality: because you’re created in the image of God (though you won’t admit it), and you have a sense of right and wrong (though you can’t account for it). Nor am I saying that animals don’t display behavior that you interpret as morality (though I do not interpret it that way)- but that is only evading the point:

    Even if evolution could account for moral BEHAVIOR (which you have not demonstrated), it could never account for morality ITSELF: ie, absolute rightness/wrongness. What you’re talking about are social-conventions and chemical-responses- so please say “social-conventions” and “chemical-responses,” but don’t hijack the word “morality” which means absolute rightness/wrongness. I’m not responsible to social-conventions or to chemical responses that evolution has brought us to. Why should I obey them? Why shouldn’t I murder if I can get away with it? Is Evolution a person who will judge me if I buck its system? My God is. Is Evolution a person who’s perfect character I should reflect? My God is. I’m not responsible to evolution. Even if it could account for social conventions and chemical responses, it could never account for absolute rightness/wrongness. And if your worldview can’t account for that, on what grounds do you say that God “should” or “should not” do anything? I’ll repeat: on the basis of morality you deny the existence of the only One who can account for it.

    You can’t argue against Christianity without borrowing its concepts. It’s similar to the relativist who says, “There are no absolutes.” He just made an absolute statement! Or the agnostic who says, “You can’t know anything.” Really? Do you KNOW that? Or the humanistic anthropologist who says, “Since morality is not absolute, we should not critique the morality of other cultures.” “Should not”?!? “Should not” would have no meaning if morality was not absolute.

    It’s like taking a deep breath of air so that you can vocalize the statement, “There is no air.”

  126. Loren Coleman responds:

    I promise to be careful about using the phrase “Godfather of Cryptozoology” in my future writings, if people can get back to talking a little about cryptozoology, in some fashion, in this comments section.
    :-)

    Has this been helpful to have this time and space to discuss this issue at Cryptomundo? Will it help you all understand each others’ points of view, and merely talk about cryptids and related cz topics in the future?

    Are people feeling respectful of each other as this winds down?

  127. cradossk responds:

    Sorry Don Coleman, I did not mean to be “disrespectful to the family” by going slightly off topic. :P

    I do think this has been an insightful, enjoyable debate. I don’t think in any of my previous comments on other topics have I ever argued against creationism, or talked about evolution (unless relevant to the topic)

    For me, certainly i will try to keep my “creation bashing” to a minimum in the future, and try and stick to the topic at hand :P

    Id like to say thank you Loren for allowing this discussion to go ahead and that I have really enjoyed myself.

  128. Bob K. responds:

    Ditto, “Crad”-frankly, this was a good move, Loren. It allowed the simmering passions on both sides of the fence to vent. On my part, I was reacting to a fair number of unprovoked attacks on Creationists and Creationism which appeared from time to time through the months on this blog, and figured it was finally time for me to speak up, and I have done so. There are PLENTY of other websites/blogs where one can go to and debate and immerse oneself in that particular topic. Personally, I always viewed Cryptomundo to be a place where objective assessments and constructive comments re our favorite Cryptids could be shared, compared and discussed without rancor. Im certainly willing to do my best to keep it that way. Can we possibly agree on this? Bob.

  129. kittenz responds:

    Well, the animals are here, whether they evolved in response to environmental pressures or were deliberately created.

    So now it’s up to the cryptozoologists to go out and find them.

    Then we can all fall to arguing again about how they got here :)

  130. Leto responds:

    “Having said all that, I’ll still insist that any appeal you make to morality is borrowed from my worldview. I’m not saying that you have no morality, I’m just saying that your worldview can’t account for it. Of course you have morality: because you’re created in the image of God (though you won’t admit it), and you have a sense of right and wrong (though you can’t account for it).”

    Christianity wasn’t the first attempt to come up with “morality”, a distinction between wrong and right. Confucious’s Confucianism taught the distinction between wrong and right, no God or gods involved in his teachings. In Taoism, which originated around the same time, a distinction is made between wrong and right, and there is not deity worship. Buddhism, also originating around the same time, is not a theistic-based religion, and it makes a distinction between wrong and right. If anything, Christianity borrowed from these earlier religions, not the other way around.

    You probably believe that if God didn’t exist, there would be no morality, that everything would be permitted. That wasn’t the case millions of years ago for our early hominids, and it’s still not the case today. Plenty of people who don’t believe in God still make judgements of right and wrong.

    I believe that fear of punishment and hope of reward, and even love of God, are not the right motives for morality. If you think it’s wrong to kill, cheat, or steal, you should want to avoid doing such things because they are bad things to do to the victims, not just because you fear the consequences for yourself, or because you don’t want to offend your Creator.

    Did you know that in Japan, if you lose your wallet chances are very good that you will find it at the Lost & Found with nothing taken from it? Did you also know that Japan is mostly atheistisc? God didn’t make them be moral, they are being moral just because it is the right thing to do, because it is the way you would want others to treat you.

  131. things-in-the-woods responds:

    Wow Scott- for someone who says they won’t argue with someone who is so completely outside of your worldview you sure do give a mighty fine impression of someone doing just that… ;)

    However, I do pretty much agree with you that we are probably not going to change each others minds- i think we are probably pretty much arguing past each other here (and if that isn’t a good reason to let this debate drop now and get back to the cryptids i dont know what is).

    Having said that, i can’t resist a couple of parting shots;

    You say;

    “I won’t be so arrogant as to claim to understand why God does everything He does. But I know that He does have reasons, and I know that everything He does is consistent with His nature.”

    Anyone else see a contradiction to claiming not to know why someone does something but also claiming to know that the reasons for their acting are of a certain kind? If you don’t know why someone does something, that logically rules out you being able to confidently assert that they are acting in accordance with any principle.If you suggest that everything god does must be, by defintion, in accordance with his nature, and also assert that his nature just is all loving, then your argument is fundamentally circular.

    The circularity of this statement, and the way in which it enables the believer to incorporate any case into their worldview is typical of faith based belief (i.e., it is not amenable to any kind of evidential assessment). Note that this strategy is also apparent in the claim that the only reason we can make moral decisions is because we made able to do so by god.

    Secondly- once again you refuse to take seriously your own claim that god is all powerful. Let me try again: IF GOD IS ALL POWERFUL THEN HE COULD DO ANYTHING. HE COULD, FOR INSTANCE, MAKE IT THAT FULFILMENT DID NOT REQUIRE A BACKGROUND OF SIN AND SUFFERING.
    (Incidently, if god can make it that new born infants ‘go straight to glory’ when they die, then why can’t he do that for everyone? Clearly in at least some cases he manages to grant spiritual ecstacy or whatever without it requiring it to be preceeded by sin and suffering. why then condemn some to such a life of suffering?)

    Incidentally DWA, if believers are willing to admit to the fact that their god might be not omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent (or perhaps, not the creator), then this might get round the problems of suffering and evil. However, a whole load of new problems arise if the concept of god is so changed. And, in any case, it is very rare to meet a believer (especially a creationsit believer- given that, by defintion, they are literalist fundamentalists) who is willing to retreat from this position, rather than obfuscating with the ‘God moves in mysterious ways’ evasion.

    alright- thats it, no more posts from me unless its about sasquatch… :)

  132. kittenz responds:

    things-in-the-woods,

    By definition a creationist must be a believer in a Creator, but I don’t think they are all “literalist fundamentalists”. Plenty of them believe in the concept of a Creator but reject the concept that the world and all the life on it was literally created in six days.

  133. DWA responds:

    Well, Loren, can’t promise that this won’t resurface in other threads.

    But I don’t notice myself changing my opinion of anyone’s qualifications to talk about cryptozoology.

    After all, crypto is the tip of the iceberg of what we don’t know. Another thing we can never know is everything behind another’s beliefs – and sometimes we have no way of knowing which one of us is right. It would be impossible, I think, and probably not desirable, for any two of us to share all the same interests. And those angles leaven our discussions, bring out the richness of the topic, and allow all of us to learn. It’s just like Meldrum analyzing tracks, Fahrenbach analyzing sighting reports, and the TBRC going looking in the field.

    You need all of it. And it looks as if all of it’s here.

    On with the search.

  134. mystery_man responds:

    I think in the end, people within the same religion are never going to entirely agree on what their particular scripture says. And other religions are always going to think that they are the “right” one. The word of God gets interpreted many ways. And in science, scientists are always going to debate amongst themselves as well. There are wildly varying veiws even within the same discipline of science. Even evolutionists like me cannot always agree on certain things. The finer points of this theory or that theory are going to be in dispute and this kind of questioning and searching for the truth is good whether you are religious or not. Everybody is not always going to agree whether it is a research experiment or a religious congregation. The important thing I think for all of us to do is to keep our eyes on the prize. I feel most of the posters here are very intelligent whether they are creationists or not, and although I do not agree with creationism, I do not find people to be less intelligent for holding that worldview. We have a lot of potential to figure things out. It’s time I feel to start focusing on what brought all of us to this site to begin with. We should be not squabbling amongst ourselves but looking out into that great unknown where Bigfoot lurks, where chupacabras feed, and where fantastic winged things soar.

  135. civilizedtheist responds:

    How do these debates become arguments as to the essential nature of God?

    There are three options:

    #1. You believe there is a creator.
    #2. You believe there is no creator.
    #3. You profess not to know whether there is a creator or not.

    If you are #1 then you probably believe evolution is a planned process. This is perfectly feasible of a creator exists.

    If you are #2 then you probably believe evolution is an unplanned process. This is perfectly feasible if a creator doesn’t exist.

    If you are #3 then you probably don’t profess to know whether or not evolution is a planned process.

    The whole point being that no one has proven that God does or doesn’t exist, and therefore no one can claim that evolution is or is not a guided process, and to do so is entirely unscientific and not based on any evidence whatsoever. It doesn’t matter whether or not you think the Bible contradicts itself, or if any Creationist believes God created morality. Naturally if God created all things then God is responsible for morality, whether morality existed before humans discovered monotheism or not.

    Incidentally, I am a theist who does not believe in sin or a moral God.

  136. Loren Coleman responds:

    Okay, 140 comments or so later, the flexibility was allowed in regards to discussing whether there is room for creationists and evolutionists within cryptozoology.

    The reflective and simple answer is, I hear you, yes, of course.

    The other purpose of this moment was to serve as a safe and intelligent forum for this debate, while having everyone remaining friends and colleagues, if not lovers. This has been successful.

    Now we need your opinion back within the mainstream of Cryptomundo. For example, can a positive and yet skeptical approach (click here) to Bigfoot investigations include throwing out various “Holy Grail” photos of well-known tracks? What do you think of the Russian photo and various new bits of footage that Craig has posted?

    Thank you for your opinions here. Now, feel welcome, with this off your chest, to return to more specific cryptozoologically topics. In the northern hemisphere, the calendar creeps along and warm weather (with its associated higher numbers of sightings) is around the corner.

    We have to get back on point, because there is a lot to discuss, everyday.

    Thank you.

  137. sschaper responds:

    People. This is not the place to argue origins models.

    The question was: are those who hold to a creation model for origins allowed to participate in cryptozoology and commentary on cryptozoology on cryptomundo.

    My response, which I reiterate, is that of course we are. This isn’t the place for origins debate, this is a place for news about cryptids.

    Can’t we work together in this field without trying to exclude people based on what they think is true in another field?

  138. Time213 responds:

    Personally, I do believe in the biblical account of creation because the apostles and Yeshua ascribed to the biblical account of creation as being accurate. I must take this on faith simply because I was not yet in existence “in the beginning”; and therefore, cannot make any scientific testable hypothesis because of an inablity to witness creation.

    However; regardless of ones personal views of creationism or evolutionism, cryptozoology must be available to everyone and anyone who wishes to search out (whether through lore, legend, historical reference, or field work) these hidden animals simply to allow for a better understanding and appreciation for the vast differences in animal life that exist in our world.

    Excluding any person from study based on their personal beliefs would be like telling religious villagers who know of cryptids existing in close proximity to their communities that they aren’t allowed to take part in the world around them.

  139. shumway10973 responds:

    Loren, thankyou for opening this up once more. I know you were kind of forced to by that “pterodactyl” video put up today. I didn’t get back here to see what others had said. Let me use a better word for the evolutionary thought I was talking about–conventional evolutionary thought. These are the people that make fun of us for just looking at this site. Loren, I’m sure you know the people I’m talking about. You have probably had to defend your thoughts to a few. I am able and will to work along side anyone with an evolutionary background, as long as they are open minded, and willing to admit that they and those who came before haven’t found all the answers, because I will admit, “I don’t know all the answers.”

  140. Loren Coleman responds:

    I have no idea what “shumway” is talking about, as I wasn’t “forced” to do anything. The comments reactivate when people send in comments. The pterodactyl blog is not mine. That was posted by Craig, and he is responsible for it. I do not approve my fellow bloggers’ blogs, and they don’t approve mine.

  141. valst responds:

    Cryptozoology and creationism meet at this post:

    The Ceratopsian Dinosaur and the Elephant in Ancient South America?



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

mmcm

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot The Artwork of Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.