I've been reading Miller's Only a Theory and came to a sticking point.

Miller dissects the Evolution/ID conflict in the US and shows how, over and over, the IDers have been shown to be wrong and yet they still refuse to abandon their anti-science stance. While reading in BG's Fanaticism v. Faith thread, I saw where he states that a fanatic might lie where a religious person wouldn't and that this left me in a quandry. Are <-5> and Nano and the other anti-evolution posters (and Behe and Dembski and other ID proponents) fanatics?

If a fanatic is willing to go against their professed beliefs in truth and advance what have been shown again and again to be untruths, are these people fanatics? Or are they fanatics for being willing to accept the untruths as presented by Behe, et al, even after they have been shown to be untruths?

It would seem that the only (only) "evidence" that these people need to cast aside the mountians of real evidence produced by science is contained in Genesis and no matter how much evidence accumulates in opposition to Genesis, it is NEVER enough!!

“It would seem that the only (only) "evidence" that these people need to cast aside the mountians of real evidence produced by science is contained in Genesis and no matter how much evidence accumulates in opposition to Genesis, it is NEVER enough!!”

>>That’s exactly correct: no amount of evidence will ever be enough. If necessary elaborate apologetics will be crafted to discount the evidence and support the preferred alternative (E.g., “God deliberately created the universe so it would look millions of years older than the 6000 years it really is, complete with light already in transit from distant stars, to test our faith “ or “The devil ran around creating and buying fake fossils to lead us astray”) but most often inconvenient evidence will simply be ignored (e.g., “There are no transitional fossils”).

Henry Morris epitomized this tendency when he wrote “No geological difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture." (bold for emphasis)

I don't think that any of them rise(descend) to the level of 'fanatic' as defined in the thread in question, since all we have are their words, not their actions nor justifications thereof. (although we do have claimed actions and justifications, which may be enough?)

I would posit that they are well on their way however...and none of them have IMO met the definition of 'person of faith'.

They're probably all somewhere in the middle, just like most of the rest of us.

Many people,like myself, realize that science is in it's infancy and that it will someday catchup to the Bible.

and you know what?

If people can be convinced not to study science... because scientists are ungodly... because there's somehow this vast perfect controlling ungodly conspiracy in empirical evidence... More will believe.........

Sigh.

When religion tried to monopolize science it didn't work. The world was proven to be not flat. The earth was proven to revolve around the sun.... And, hell.... religion was really organized and all-pervasive back then.

How can they realisitically thing that this hypothetical 'scientific conspiracy' is that much better organized, and in control?

Faith is impervious to evidence and logic and that includes the basic law of contradiction. Furthermore, the thing that so few seem to grasp is that this fact of faith being impervious to evidence and logic is what makes it so dangerous. The superstitious crap held in the minds of astrologers is fundamentally the same as, and equally as troublesome, the superstitious crap held in the minds of the Branch-Davidians.

I am not aware of the (your) definition of either "person of faith" or "fanatic" but I don't see how the definition can be limited to acts and exclude speech. Many fanatics only indulge in speech and avoid acts so that they may avoid jail time. As to being "persons of faith," I am generally willing to take people's word for that. (Well, from your post, it might be that you define "persons of faith" as being the equivalent of saints but I think that that is much too high a bar.)

JGC:

>>That’s exactly correct: no amount of evidence will ever be enough. If necessary elaborate apologetics will be crafted to discount the evidence and support the preferred alternative (E.g., “God deliberately created the universe so it would look millions of years older than the 6000 years it really is, complete with light already in transit from distant stars, to test our faith “ or “The devil ran around creating and buying fake fossils to lead us astray”) but most often inconvenient evidence will simply be ignored (e.g., “There are no transitional fossils”).

I think it's more subtle than that...no amount of complex evidence will ever be accepted. Something simple like "the world is round" is easy to understand and easy to prove. It would require far more complex apologetics than the evidence so thus the interpretation of the scripture is changed.

Something complex like millions of fossils that show minute changes over millions of years, coupled with examinations of trace dna, etc... is something that is far too complex to understand. So thus an easier explaination of 'nope, they don't exist' vs trying to understand that there isn't one "transitional fossil" but many many of them all showing different transitions over time, etc...

Same thing goes for abiogenesis, origin of the universe, etc... it is far easier to define away the unknown "God did it" than to go through a rather painstaking process over hundreds or thousands of years to try and find answers we may or may not like once we find.

What made god? Nothing god always existed.

Why can god exist without cause and not anything else? Cuz god said so

See..simplicity at its finest. Couple that with repetition and reinforcement since birth and there you have it

Would it matter if a person didn't believe in evolution, or believed in the Stork theory or that it was Turtles All THe Way Down ?

Not to me, and there are millions of people oever the world - mostly uneducated, in isolated tribes etc - who have truly silly creation myths and I wouldn't consider any of them to be fanatics.

It is not what someone believes, or how sincerely they believe it, or how irrational the belief is - it is what someone INSISTS that OTHERS believe that is the mark of the fanatic.

IN the case of evolution, if you talk to these people long enough you will find that their worldview is that if children are not taught that they were created by Jehovah and Adam and Eve and Snake etc they will have no moral compass - if you don't believe that then there is no absolute standard of morality.

So for them the highest value is inculcating their religion into others and any obstacle to that is fair game.

Nanotech:

Many people,like myself, realize that science is in it's infancy and that it will someday catchup to the Bible.

Sure, as long as you keep changing the meaning of it when shown to be wrong. You know like that whole part about the earth being flat and unmoving, the heavens being attached to that holding back the waters, etc... those kinda things.

Just change the word for ring to sphere and claim that's what they really meant. Oh just a lil creative license, wasn't literal there...etc...

Show me some proof.

Your putting your fingers in your ears and saying, "That's not good enough for me!" just sounds childish (and, frankly, given that you aren't a child, either nuts or simple minded).

Or are you just lying?

SoreLoser:

I am not aware of the (your) definition of either "person of faith" or "fanatic" but I don't see how the definition can be limited to acts and exclude speech. Many fanatics only indulge in speech and avoid acts so that they may avoid jail time. As to being "persons of faith," I am generally willing to take people's word for that. (Well, from your post, it might be that you define "persons of faith" as being the equivalent of saints but I think that that is much too high a bar.)

Then they aren't fanatics, just loudmouths without the courage of their convictions. They talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

A person of faith needn't be a saint, and in fact if what they have faith in is unsavory may be quite the opposite. Again the grammar is too imprecise since we could if we so chose denote anyone with any faith in anything as such, but that's not where I was heading.

tiponeill:

It is not what someone believes, or how sincerely they believe it, or how irrational the belief is - it is what someone INSISTS that OTHERS believe that is the mark of the fanatic.

I meant to respond to you in the other thread, where you made a similar point.

I agree, although I would take it one step further to include a willingness to take any action to further said insistence, something you implied in your last sentence in the post above.

"I agree, although I would take it one step further to include a willingness to take any action to further said insistence."

How about the additional caveat of 'or would incite or demand that others who really believe should take that action for them'