Does this count as being intellectually dishonest??

Question

This was a response left by another member (no need to point fingers - Im sure you can recognize your own handiwork):

"When you realize that Genesis exactly agrees with science on the creation of the universe then ask yourself how did they get it so right, so many years ago."

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but 1) science doesnt even agree on the origins of the universe, and certainly doesnt state that it is "created" and 2) Genesis' account of the Creation has trees and man existing before the sun was created - how can you consider that "getting it so right, so many years ago?"

Isnt that being intellectually dishonest?

Answer 1

Look, I'm just trying to get through Curious George Goes to the Zoo, ok?

Answer 2

One mans floor is another man's ceiling. And by that I mean that you view the world, creation, science, et al, through a lense. If the facts that you recognize as such agree with your view of life the cosmos and everything, then, no, you're not being intellectually dishonest. If you blindly push aside what you in your gut believe to be credible, then yes, you are being so.
This guy that you quote is looking through a different lense. For every fact that you find, you'll have three or four that would seem to contradict it. In this internet age, there is soooo much info that it is difficult, at best, to distinguish between fact and bs.

In the same way that God cannot really be proven through objective analysis, it can be convincing through subjective experience. And THAT is something that is not debatable. Science should be kept to it's realm of attempting to explain OBSERVABLE behavior. Anything other than that is hypothesis and ego.

Answer 3

A bit, but not so terrible. It's the claim that Genesis "exactly" agrees with science that is over the top.

If they had left out the word "exactly", and instead said that Genesis "in so many ways agrees with current scientific thinking on the creation of the universe", or that the "general vision of creation in Genesis is very similar to the current scientific views on the origin and development of the universe", I think it would be a valid point. I don't know exactly what it proves, but it is a valid point.

As far as the word "creation," I think you are being a bit picky to jump on that. The point is no less valid, and no harder to understand, than if the writer had used a lot more words to say that the big bang, etc., theory is similar to the creation story.

And pointing out that science has its own internal disputes is just nitpicking. You know the writer was talking in general terms about the big bang, masses of mass forming into planets, planets calming down and oceans forming, and so on, not about the esoterica of theoretical physics.

Answer 4

Science and faith are two entirely independent ways of reaching a conclusion about the truth. By their very nature, science and faith are at odds in terms of how truth is determined. That's not to say that faith and science can't arrive at the same truth and is also not to say that either truth is inherently wrong. They are simply mutually incompatible.

Trying to mix the two is like mixing oil and water.. it doesn't work so well.. sure, you can do it, but eventually it falls apart.

I believe that while it may not be intellectually dishonest on the part of the person who is making such statements, it does appear to show some small amount of ignorance of either the faith or the science or both. Ignorance does not equal dishonesty.

Answer 5

I get so annoyed at the double standard others of other faiths profess when it comes to the beliefs Mormons hold and their own beliefs. We claim we receive a witness of truth by the Holy Ghost/Spirit and then they claim that it isn't and that we are being deceived. Then if you ask them how they know their beliefs are true outside of a question geared towards Mormons, they state that it was the Spirit that let them know. Then they claim that it is impossible for a man (ie. Joseph Smith) to have seen Jesus and yet Christ appeared to the Apostles, to Paul, to Stephan etc. Only that Joseph Smith claimed this in the 1820's not 200's or 500's. Joseph Smith was right about one thing any thing that appeals to faith or the Bible : the teachers of religion of the different sects understand ... scripture so differently... [end up] destroy[ing] all confidence in settling... an appeal to the Bible.

Answer 6

Ok, buddy ... I can't really address most of your question, but I do want to clarify one thing: light existed before the sun was created, according to Genesis 1:3; then plants were created. This is the reason why we believe that plant life could be sustained.

Answer 7

I don't really have an answer but I see that Suzanne said that light was created before the sun and I would like more information on that statement. Please. I've always been told that the planet was in darkness before the Sun or Son.

Answer 8

The "light" or sun is created in Genesis 1:16
Man was created in Genesis 1:26 so, I'm afraid you are incorrect as well, Socrates. Peace.

Answer 9

Boy, that person was off - the Bible and science have completely opposite views. Where has this person been living - under a rock?

Answer 10

Since when can something that's stated in the greatest piece of fiction ever written, be confused with anything which even remotely resembles an "intellectual" thought?

Answer 11

I prefer the term "mental midget." You'd have to have been homeschooled by a real fundamentalist in order to believe that science agrees with genesis. No offense to anybody, but most Christians admit science doesn't agree with the bible