Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
generalgrog wrote: Not going to copy quote paste..Only want to point out the fallacy that believing in creationism "all of sudden" means you reject science. For example..I fully understand how radioisotope dating "in theory" is used to date rocks based on radioactive isotope decay. The assumption that uniformitarianism makes, is that the decay rates are the same now as they have always been in the past.
Whether or not one accepts that uniformitarian belief that radio isotope decay is constant, only because it is constant as we observe it now, has no bearing on current science, because we accept that currently the decay rates are constant now. It's only when we start talking millions of years that it becomes a factor. has absolutely no bearing on the present.
I.E I can still use that science in the present and going forward.
Its completely illogical and fallacious to make the claim that because someone does not accept certain uniformitarian beliefs in regards to certain scientific concepts that all of sudden that person will just become all numb brained.
That's like saying, if someone doesn't accept that .999999999999999999999 to the nth power = 1, all of a sudden forgets that 1+1 =2.
GG
The world used to be an illusion, but it became real at some point in the past. Please prove otherwise.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: So, if someone says, or believes that a god or divine being lit a cosmic match that set off the big bang, and started the chain reaction thus creating everything we know... they don't understand science at all??
Yes. Invoking supernatural causation runs contrary to everything science is and if you do it, you don't understand science.
I didn't realize that the evolutionary theories, or other current theories could devise a better way of suggesting the origins of all life and cosmos.
The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life but that doesn't mean the answer is god.
Certainly, there are people out there who will believe some messed up crap, but to say that ALL creationists don't understand science is quite wrong as well.
No it isn't. If you believe in creationism, you start with your answer and then twist facts to suit it. Science works the opposite ways, you look at facts and then use them establish theories. That is why the theory of evolution (and every other scientific theory) can change as we learn more. When you say you know the definite answer before you gather facts, you aren't using science. Go read Ken Ham's website to see what they say about things like the distance to stars, the size of the universe, paleontology, and just about every field of science.
Like Arthur Conan Doyle said, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
Hell, even actual scientists believe in various religious principles, and probably believe that somewhere, somehow a divine being or God "created" everything in some manner. They just don't hold that belief to their chest like a crying baby when they go to work.
That doesn't mean they use God as the answer to the question.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
generalgrog wrote: The assumption that uniformitarianism makes, is that the decay rates are the same now as they have always been in the past.
And if you actually understood science instead of just being able to recite trivia and use formulas someone else invented then you would understand why talking about variable decay rates is such an utterly ridiculous thing to do.
Whether or not one accepts that uniformitarian belief that radio isotope decay is constant, only because it is constant as we observe it now, has no bearing on current science, because we accept that currently the decay rates are constant now.
But that's not true at all. Belief that decay rates aren't constant has tremendous impact on current science because it demonstrates that you're willing to throw out any science that you personally disagree with for religious reasons. It tells me that your supposed professional qualifications as an engineer are a joke, because I have no reason to believe that you won't throw out some bit of aerospace engineering that violates your religion, cut safety margins because profit is more important than truth, etc.
I.E I can still use that science in the present and going forward.
Of course you can. But it's nothing more than cargo cult engineering. You can use the same procedures, but the foundation of your work is a hopeless mess.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Yep, I read that on Wiki (along with the more specialized geological usage). I am wondering if that is what GG means and if so what the basis of his critique of it is.
generalgrog wrote: Not going to copy quote paste..Only want to point out the fallacy that believing in creationism "all of sudden" means you reject science.
No, if you'd read closer you'd see it's not 'rejecting science' as in thinking bunsen burners and stuff are useless, but not respecting (or possibly not understanding) the way in which science works. And from there, ending up thinking that a handful of people with no peer reviewed work and no evidence can be seen as equal to the collective body of knowledge of thousands of specially trained experts.
Your reference of uniformitarianism is a classic example. It's dressed up in the trappings of science, and it even has a science kind of name. But the idea has no evidence behind it at all, it wasn't suggested by any kind of theory that might lead to alternating rates of decay, no changes in rates of decay have ever been observed, and after coming up with the theory exactly zero experiments have been made by the creationists to test their idea. That's not science. That's just making stuff up to try and pretend one's own particular brand of biblical interpretation doesn't contradict our scientific understanding of the world.
When we have a world in which institutions go out and educate people with non-science like the above, then you get a diminishing of a respect for scientific establishment, and a reduced understanding of how actual, real science works. That has to affect the numbers of engineers and scientists in subsequent generations.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Manchu wrote: I would like to know more about what you mean by "uniformitarianism," GG.
The idea that the laws of science as we see them today are universal throughout time and the universe.
And, most importantly, the idea that rates of radioactive decay have not been constant so you can throw out all of those pesky dating methods that prove that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Needless to say this is utter nonsense, and the only reason to believe in variable decay rates is if you stubbornly refuse to let go of your young-earth creationist ideology no matter how one-sided the facts are.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life but that doesn't mean the answer is god.
No, but a scientist is able to believe that they personally believe the answer is God, and remain a good scientist. Bad science happens when a scientist rejects evidence or invents elaborate and entirely unfounded theories to explain away evidence, to continue believing in something like Young Earth Creationism.
In other words;
"I believe the big bang and all the scientific processes that followed it, such as evolution were designed and put in place by a creator God' is just fine. Carry on doing good science and learning about the world.
But "I think that rates of decay observed in radiocarbon dating have varied over time, I know of no evidence to support this, and have zero interest in actually testing this theory in any way, and have not even thought about life would have been massively different in a world where rates of decay were much faster, I just think it's possible because the alternative is to recognise that science says the world is much older than my religion states" is bad science.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Andrew1975 wrote: So you can't believe in God at all and still understand Science?
I know you're not asking me but I would say it's more like "God" can never be the answer to a scientific question.
I would agree with that, its a lazy answer. But looking at where I got that post from, I don't think thats what he meant.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
So, if someone says, or believes that a god or divine being lit a cosmic match that set off the big bang, and started the chain reaction thus creating everything we know... they don't understand science at all??
Yes. Invoking supernatural causation runs contrary to everything science is and if you do it, you don't understand science.
I can believe that God caused the big bang and still believe in science.
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
Andrew1975 wrote: I can believe that God caused the big bang and still believe in science.
Well, believe in most of science at least. You're still going against science when you propose the existence of a god without even the slightest evidence to support that belief, and deciding on an answer without any justification to move beyond "I don't know yet". You can put the two in separate little boxes in your mind and ignore the contradiction well enough to be a good scientist for all practical purposes, but it's still bad science.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
es. Invoking supernatural causation runs contrary to everything science is and if you do it, you don't understand science.
Really? So you can't believe in God at all and still understand Science? That's a pretty bold statement.
Manchu wrote: I know you're not asking me but I would say it's more like "God" can never be the answer to a scientific question.
What Manchu said.
You misunderstand what "invoking supernatural causation" is. What Ken Ham does is look at all the evidence that is contrary to what he believes and then says, "Nope, God did it." That is not good science. A similar thought is something like, "We know that the universe began 13.7 billion years go... but what started it? Well, we aren't sure so obviously God did it." That violates scientific understanding because even if the mechanics of something cannot be explained today, doesn't mean that it won't be explained tomorrow so there is no reason to assign a supernatural explanation. Any time the supernatural is determined to be the cause of a natural phenomena, it because unfalsifiable and untestable; those two things are the foundation upon which science is built on.
I would agree with that, its a lazy answer. But looking at where I got that post from, I don't think thats what he meant.
That's exactly what I meant. Explain how you see otherwise.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/04 07:31:40
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
sebster wrote: "I believe the big bang and all the scientific processes that followed it, such as evolution were designed and put in place by a creator God' is just fine.
Not really fine at all IMO. It's still an unjustified belief that needs to disappear. It's only useful as a temporary pragmatic compromise, since an otherwise reasonable person who believes in a "divine watchmaker" god is a lot better than a young-earth creationist who insists on throwing out large parts of modern science because it makes them unhappy to think about it. There are bigger issues to deal with than fighting the deists to the death, but being a low-priority problem isn't the same as being fine.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
sebster wrote: "I believe the big bang and all the scientific processes that followed it, such as evolution were designed and put in place by a creator God' is just fine.
Not really fine at all IMO. It's still an unjustified belief that needs to disappear. It's only useful as a temporary pragmatic compromise, since an otherwise reasonable person who believes in a "divine watchmaker" god is a lot better than a young-earth creationist who insists on throwing out large parts of modern science because it makes them unhappy to think about it. There are bigger issues to deal with than fighting the deists to the death, but being a low-priority problem isn't the same as being fine.
Two people come up with the exact same theory, run the exact same experiments, study the exact same things, come to the exact same conclusion, publish the exact same papers, go through the exact same peer review.
One of them is Christian and one of them isn't.
One of them is a bad scientist and one of them isn't.
es. Invoking supernatural causation runs contrary to everything science is and if you do it, you don't understand science.
Really? So you can't believe in God at all and still understand Science? That's a pretty bold statement.
Manchu wrote: I know you're not asking me but I would say it's more like "God" can never be the answer to a scientific question.
What Manchu said.
You misunderstand what "invoking supernatural causation" is. What Ken Ham does is look at all the evidence that is contrary to what he believes and then says, "Nope, God did it." That is not good science. A similar thought is something like, "We know that the universe began 13.7 billion years go... but what started it? Well, we aren't sure so obviously God did it." That violates scientific understanding because even if the mechanics of something cannot be explained today, doesn't mean that won't be explained tomorrow so there is no reason to assign a supernatural explanation.
I would agree with that, its a lazy answer. But looking at where I got that post from, I don't think thats what he meant.
That's exactly what I meant. Explain how you see otherwise.
So, if someone says, or believes that a god or divine being lit a cosmic match that set off the big bang, and started the chain reaction thus creating everything we know... they don't understand science at all??
Yes
This. Just because he believes that a divine being lit a cosmic match, does not invalidate any scientific explanation. You can have science and faith that God moves in that science.
Well, believe in most of science at least. You're still going against science when you propose the existence of a god without even the slightest evidence to support that belief, and deciding on an answer without any justification to move beyond "I don't know yet". You can put the two in separate little boxes in your mind and ignore the contradiction well enough to be a good scientist for all practical purposes, but it's still bad science.
Now you are being just as rigid as the creationists. Maybe even worse. They reject science based on religious beliefs. You are however rejecting scientists based on their own religious beliefs. There are plenty of great scientists that believe in one religion or the other. Great science rarely comes from people with closed minds.
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
es. Invoking supernatural causation runs contrary to everything science is and if you do it, you don't understand science.
Really? So you can't believe in God at all and still understand Science? That's a pretty bold statement.
Manchu wrote: I know you're not asking me but I would say it's more like "God" can never be the answer to a scientific question.
What Manchu said.
You misunderstand what "invoking supernatural causation" is. What Ken Ham does is look at all the evidence that is contrary to what he believes and then says, "Nope, God did it." That is not good science. A similar thought is something like, "We know that the universe began 13.7 billion years go... but what started it? Well, we aren't sure so obviously God did it." That violates scientific understanding because even if the mechanics of something cannot be explained today, doesn't mean that won't be explained tomorrow so there is no reason to assign a supernatural explanation.
I would agree with that, its a lazy answer. But looking at where I got that post from, I don't think thats what he meant.
That's exactly what I meant. Explain how you see otherwise.
So, if someone says, or believes that a god or divine being lit a cosmic match that set off the big bang, and started the chain reaction thus creating everything we know... they don't understand science at all??
Yes
This. Just because he believes that a divine being lit a cosmic match, does not invalidate any scientific explanation. You can have science and faith that God moves in that science.
The only time a religious faith causes bad science is the moment you stop looking for more scientific understanding because of it.
Peregrine wrote: Not really fine at all IMO. It's still an unjustified belief that needs to disappear. It's only useful as a temporary pragmatic compromise, since an otherwise reasonable person who believes in a "divine watchmaker" god is a lot better than a young-earth creationist who insists on throwing out large parts of modern science because it makes them unhappy to think about it. There are bigger issues to deal with than fighting the deists to the death, but being a low-priority problem isn't the same as being fine.
It is only a temporary pragmatic compromise if you believe that at some point we'll actually reach a conclusion to exactly how the big bang formed, and how whatever circumstances caused that formed, and so on down the rabbit hole until we've got a complete understanding of the entire history of the material universe. Which seems unlikely.
And as long as such a thing doesn't exist, then it simply doesn't impact on the science performed by people who believe the original point of origin was a deliberate creation by some supernatural entity.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
d-usa wrote: Two people come up with the exact same theory, run the exact same experiments, study the exact same things, come to the exact same conclusion, publish the exact same papers, go through the exact same peer review.
But it's not the same. One of them is dividing the world into two separate boxes: things that science deals with, and special things that their religion has the final say on. And that's a fundamental problem with their belief system. It might not cause any career problems for them as long as they stay in an area where their religion box isn't relevant, but do you really think the two hypothetical scientists are going to come to the same conclusion if they both encounter something that contradicts Christian ideology? How confident are you that the religious scientist won't put other beliefs, potentially ones that are more relevant to their work, into their own special boxes now that they've established the precedent that it's ok to declare something to be true for no better reason than your own strong desire to believe in it?
One of them is Christian and one of them isn't.
One of them is a bad scientist and one of them isn't.
But that's not what I said. It's not necessarily a case of good vs. bad. Obviously the young-earth creationist's competence is in serious doubt, but the "divine watchmaker" scientist could still be a good scientist. But they could be a better scientist if they didn't have the foundations of their scientific work compromised by religious belief.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: It is only a temporary pragmatic compromise if you believe that at some point we'll actually reach a conclusion to exactly how the big bang formed, and how whatever circumstances caused that formed, and so on down the rabbit hole until we've got a complete understanding of the entire history of the material universe. Which seems unlikely.
I don't see why a final answer is required. It's perfectly acceptable to say "we don't know yet", and the religious scientist who concludes "god did it" is still making an unjustified claim that should be criticized. It's just a small enough problem that it's not worth putting much effort into fixing it right now, when there are much bigger problems (like young-earth creationists) and the "divine watchmaker" scientist is still a useful ally in dealing with them.
And as long as such a thing doesn't exist, then it simply doesn't impact on the science performed by people who believe the original point of origin was a deliberate creation by some supernatural entity.
It's still an impact, because concluding "god did it" when the only rational answer is "we don't know yet" requires a fundamental worldview in which it's ok to arbitrarily declare things to be true and wall them off in their own special section of belief where the usual rules of evidence and argument do not apply, and where "I really want to believe in this" is considered an acceptable reason. It might not be as bad as the young-earth creationists, but it's still not an ideal situation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/04 09:04:15
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Andrew1975 wrote: This. Just because he believes that a divine being lit a cosmic match, does not invalidate any scientific explanation. You can have science and faith that God moves in that science.
You still don't understand what "invoking supernatural causation" means. If someone asks you, "What caused the Big Bang?" and your answer is, "God did it," that is invoking supernatural causation. In science, the supernatural can never be the explanation of a natural phenomena. Whether you believe in god is irrelevant to defining natural mechanics; science is secular and anything with supernatural explanations is dismissed pseudoscience, like creationism.
You believe a divine being "lit the cosmic match?" Fine. That still has no part in a scientific explanation of the mechanics of the universe so there is no need to even discuss it.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
In fact if anything the study of creationism has enhanced my understanding of science.
I have studied creationism as well, that is how I came to understand that it not an actual science. If you hold a belief in young-Earth creationism (or any creationism) you do not understand science. At all.
So, if someone says, or believes that a god or divine being lit a cosmic match that set off the big bang, and started the chain reaction thus creating everything we know... they don't understand science at all?? I didn't realize that the evolutionary theories, or other current theories could devise a better way of suggesting the origins of all life and cosmos.
Certainly, there are people out there who will believe some messed up crap, but to say that ALL creationists don't understand science is quite wrong as well. Hell, even actual scientists believe in various religious principles, and probably believe that somewhere, somehow a divine being or God "created" everything in some manner. They just don't hold that belief to their chest like a crying baby when they go to work.
A bearded guy lit a match is the explanation of how life and the universe came to being, really? Is that creationism in a nutshell?
A Dark Angel fell on a watcher in the Dark Shroud silently chanted Vengance on the Fallen Angels to never be Unforgiven
To be fair, if nothing existed yet then it would be awkward to shave.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
But it's not the same. One of them is dividing the world into two separate boxes: things that science deals with, and special things that their religion has the final say on. And that's a fundamental problem with their belief system.
Not true. It is totally possible to be religious and still hold scientific explanations above what some book written by total strangers centuries ago wrote. Most reasonable Catholics see the creation story as a"How the leopard got his spots story". It would be impossible for so much science to come from India and Asia if they rooted their science in religious dogma also. It was an explanation necessary at the time, I've never seen an explanation in any religion that says, here is quantum mechanics; God did that. People at the time just didn't have access to that knowledge, nor would have understood it if such knowledge was given. Now that would have been a miracle.
You still don't understand what "invoking supernatural causation" means. If someone asks you, "What caused the Big Bang?" and your answer is, "God did it," that is invoking supernatural causation. In science, the supernatural can never be the explanation of a natural phenomena. Whether you believe in god is irrelevant to defining natural mechanics; science is secular and anything with supernatural explanations is dismissed pseudoscience, like creationism.
No, I understand. You seam to not understand that just because God may have caused the big bang, doesn't mean there is also no scientific explanation. If their only explanation is that God did it, well your argument stands; Most religious scientists don't work that way.
Science does not have to be either or. People can completly understand the physical world of science completely, and still believe that the spiritual world plays a role in that.
But they could be a better scientist if they didn't have the foundations of their scientific work compromised by religious belief.
I've also seen scientists that were better at their job because the have spirituality. Your argument holds water only if they allow their beliefs to interfere with their science, in which case they probably would have been weeded out by the legitimate scientific community in the first place.
don't see why a final answer is required. It's perfectly acceptable to say "we don't know yet", and the religious scientist who concludes "god did it" is still making an unjustified claim that should be criticized. It's just a small enough problem that it's not worth putting much effort into fixing it right now, when there are much bigger problems (like young-earth creationists) and the "divine watchmaker" scientist is still a useful ally in dealing with them.
What good modern scientist has ever said "God did it" and just quit there, or refused the results of data because his religion said something else should be there. Sure that happened a long time ago when they feared the church, but not now. I assure you no real scientist in Korea really believes that Kim Jong makes the world go around either. Any scientist that allows religions beliefs (well any beliefs or preconceptions really, there is plenty of scientific dogma too by the way) to affect their work is obviously not good, whether they are trying to prove Gods influence, or disprove his existence.....it shouldn't even be a serious scientific consideration.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/04 15:15:20
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
sebster wrote: "I believe the big bang and all the scientific processes that followed it, such as evolution were designed and put in place by a creator God' is just fine.
Not really fine at all IMO. It's still an unjustified belief that needs to disappear.
I kind of agree. This God of the Gaps stuff is bad for religion and science.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bishop F Gantry wrote: A bearded guy lit a match is the explanation of how life and the universe came to being, really? Is that creationism in a nutshell?
Not really. Creationism is an ideology about how we should investigate the natural world rather than just a set of conclusions about it. This is easy to miss because creationism starts with certain conclusions (e.g., the Earth is only thousands of years old) and then contemplates how they can be demonstrated. But its not solely a set of conclusions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/04 15:36:39
I think we need to make sure we get the terminology correct here, or we're going to be arguing past each other rather than with.
Someone who believes in deep time, the four forces of the universe, and that dinosaurs lived 65+M years ago but that God pressed the start button is a creationist, but realistic, so let's call them realistic creationists.
Someone who believes the world is 6K years old, was made in 6 days, and that dinosaurs are either bones buried by Satan to trick people or lived with humans and died in the flood (except for that Raptor who Jesus rode around), is a Young Earth Creationist.
There is literally a universe of difference between the two, and lumping them together causes problems in this debate. I for example, believe in the former, think the latter has been proven false, and don't particularly like being lumped in with the latter since that implies an ignorance of the world/universe around me and the science behind it (insofar as humanity understands the universe).
"Realistic creationist" is a terrible, purely rhetorical term.
I understand not wanting to be lumped in with people who believe the earth (and possibly the universe) is only 6000 years old. But as long as you engage in the methodology of creationism ("God pressed the start button" is a scientifically meaningless sentiment) then doing so is accurate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/04 16:31:08
Manchu wrote: "Realistic creationist" is a terrible, purely rhetorical term.
I understand not wanting to be lumped in with people who believe the earth (and possibly the universe) is only 6000 years old. But as long as you engage in the methodology of creationism ("God pressed the start button" is a scientifically meaningless sentiment) then doing so is accurate.
It's technically correct, but is also totally failing to distinguish between the two, and distinguishing between the two is crucial for this debate.
To draw an analogy, it's basically the same as lumping moderate democrats with radical communists, and just saying "well, they're both leftists, so we're calling them all leftists."
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts