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 living cryptozoologist. 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. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
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.
One hundred comments in a little over 48 hours. You folks are truly amazing.
Heres a very informative blog; it cuts through the fog very nicely. Enjoy.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Hey mystery_man- didn’t feel singled out- just recognised myself in some of what you said…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 😉 )
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.
“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.
I find it truly amazing that after my post far above was decidedly ‘The Last Word’ on this subject, the posts continued regardless. 🙂
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. 😉
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.
“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.
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. 😀
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.”
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?
Sorry Don Coleman, I did not mean to be “disrespectful to the family” by going slightly off topic. 😛
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 😛
Id like to say thank you Loren for allowing this discussion to go ahead and that I have really enjoyed myself.
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.
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 🙂
“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.
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… 🙂
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.”
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.
Cryptozoology and creationism meet at this post:
The Ceratopsian Dinosaur and the Elephant in Ancient South America?