Creationism does NOT belong in science.

Both are theories

Creation is just as good of a theory as evolution. They both have evidence that supports the theories but both have visual evidence which some faithless people need.
Evolution: There is no explanation to how the first of the very first dirt particles even formed. How was the matter created? Sure eventually in the evolution theory you might try to explain that the sand drew together heated up then exploded or whatever but there is nothing to show how the first matter was created.

Creation: we really on God who you cannot physically see as result of human relationship withering do to our lack of faith ect. In Genisis God talked with Adam, and Moses occasionally talked with God in forms and then he sent his son Jesus to talk to us and now its all in the form of prayer.

Both have flaws in the physical evidence category but both are theories until proven. The only thing is if God proves right then those that dont believe will pay a price. If evolution is right then we go into the dirt and continue leading a meaningless life

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dating the earth

Arent all speculations on dating animals humans ect based on evolution. If evolution is wrong the earth could very likely be 6000 years old. Also there is a constitutional right to teach any form of the science of the earth's begining as long as it brings insite to the learning of the children and allows them to grasp scientific understanding. Maybe 1987 court case in state maybe, then 7 years earlier federally. Dates may be wrong but cases did happen. So until there is a law I can teach students creation and the ACLU has nada.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Both are theories

i shall add one important thing to James his remark:

creation is not a scientific theory, because it doen't provoke any scientific questions.

 

I am not a creationist, but 6 days relative to the creator could be 15 billion years relative to us.

but really, how hard is it to accept (if you are a creationist) that the big bang is the spark of creation and evolution (15 billion years to us) is 6 days to god.

More on big bang: if heaven exists and god exists, obviously they don’t exist in our cosmos because that would suggest that god created himself and heaven. God must exist in a completely realm. Before man was created time didn’t exist relative to man, but only to god. When man was created, the earth had already existed for 6 days relative to god, which could be 15 billion years to man. Please open your mind a little (Christians), I know you aren’t used to using your imagination because you think everything you need to know is in the bible. But the bible does not explain relativity, so (time) could be relatively different through out the bible.

 

dunno...it just sounds superfluous

 

here is the group that christions fall into
Aliens
bigfoot
jesus christ
elvis prestly is still alive
gohsts



this does not mean i dont believe these things exist, it just shows the christions that they fall into the group of people that are concidered by society to be wackows

mormons are the most humorest religion though, kind of like canadians.

 

Sorry to butt in so late, and I haven't read all the posts but...

Just wanted to say that while it seems inarguable that Creationism in its Christian form is not a scientific hypothesis this does not in itself make it false. Perhaps someone may one day reframe Creationism in a form that makes specific predictions about the natural world. I hasten to add that I am not a Creationist in the Christian sense.

The trouble with the science/religion debate is that it can fool us into forgetting that they may both have various degrees of truth and falsity within them. For example because one only gets the chance to vote Republican or Democrat, Labour or Conservative, it is easy to forget that there are an infinity of alternative political approaches, (a fact politicians are desperate to make us forget), some of which are distinct from either of them, and some of which contain elements of both.

 

this reminds me of a very very small section in the gen. bio book i tutor from. it lists possible unproven origins of life: organic evolution, primitive cells from other planets (yet doesn't suppose how they came about on the other planets) or divine origin (does not limit to judeo-christian god). otherwise it's a fantastic book but it makes one wonder.

 

the problem with creationism is that it isn't a scientific theory since it doesn't pose any scientific questions.

it is just there because people can't accept that they are an integral part of nature, instead of some special divine creation.

 

Agree with the first sentence, although that might change, but the second is only sometimes true.

 

yep...sometimes it is true, sometimes it is true...uhh...why would you want to believe in creationism other than because you think humans are a special creation, king of the hill, the top species etc.?

I can't think of any reason at the moment. Are there other reasons to believe in creationism?

 

WEll the mountains of proof of course. It's written in the Bible... and... um...

 

The trouble is that we have polarised this argument into Christian Creationism versus post-Christian science. It is more interesting than that. I agree that Creationism as I think you define it makes no sense. But there are other ways of looking at it . (Sorry got to rush off without expanding). I'll try to get back on this).

 

To teach something based solely on it being popular belief sounds like a great way stunt any future learning. The basis of religion is faith. Dare i call it BLIND FAITH....as it is well regarded as not able to be proven false, as 2000 years of good arguments for why religion has no basis in fact has helped believers come up with some "divine-loophoile" for everything.

There is a translation of the "holy word" to defend every possible scenerio. This is why you will find incredible similarities between the definitions of faith, and gullibility. To believe wholeheartedly with need for tangible evidence or substantial proof.

Religion is a society controll system not a spec of science involved. I dont recall learning the "..let there be..." theory in physics. This is because there is no reason to research something so incredibly fairy tale.

Religion belongs in politics classes if anywhere associated with education at all. I dont personally believe it does belond anywhere in a school, since it is a creation that thrives best where there isn't excessive education. Ignorance is fuel for its fire. I am not saying that to believe makes one ignorant....only that it can spread fastest when higher intellect isnt around to question it. The 75% number above seems pretty foolish to me either way, as it is your "tradition"...or perpetuated ignorance that keeps that number statistically possible. Not half of that number attends the normal services that are associated with one's only chance for eternal happiness. This may be partly due to the fact that IQ's have steadily risen as the centuries pass.

Again , Religion is a social control system...one that weakens every year, as the concept of eternal damnation no longer merits behaving "like a good christian"

Religion doesnt belong in a science class, nor in any school that strives to EDUCATE.
(maybe in a fictional liturature class.)
Its a great read with lots of fun twists!:bugeye:

 

This is an excellent point. If people where to accept this fact, that
behavior control system which religion is would fail. Our action would lose their "divine" meaning to know we are just a ripple, and it seems pretty likely judging from the length of the total timeline of evolution that we are not the final stage of it.

OMG...that would mean, running over those people crossing the street might not really be the end of an orderly universe?...
"thank god for eternal damnation!!!"..
keeps them crossing safely.
...just a social control system, and profitable business. Preists are one of the few people with a roof over there heads, and food in there stomachs that dont actual produce anything tangible, or provide a needed service.

I was raised catholic, did all the sacraments...etc. But damn this brain for recognizing what is manmade...not divine

 

Excellent post 3finger

Hey guys, have I been here long enough to "welcome" someone to sciforums?

Aaah fuck it,
3finger, welcome to sciforums!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

hey... that made me feel like a big man

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same


John G. West, Jr.
Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology
December 1, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recent news accounts about controversies over evolution in Ohio and Georgia have contained references to the scientific theory of "intelligent design." Some advocates of Darwinian evolution try to conflate "intelligent design" (ID) with "creationism," sometimes using the term "intelligent design creationism." (1) In fact, intelligent design is quite different from "creationism," as even some of its critics have acknowledged. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to identify ID with creationism? According to Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." (2) In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of those who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

In reality, there are a variety of reasons why ID should not be confused with creationism:

1. "Intelligent Design Creationism" is a pejorative term coined by some Darwinists to attack intelligent design; it is not a neutral label of the intelligent design movement.

Scientists and scholars supportive of intelligent design do not describe themselves as "intelligent design creationists." Indeed, intelligent design scholars do not regard intelligent design theory as a form of creationism. Therefore to employ the term "intelligent design creationism" is inaccurate, inappropriate, and tendentious, especially on the part of scholars and journalists who are striving to be fair. "Intelligent design creationism" is not a neutral description of intelligent design theory. It is a polemical label created for rhetorical purposes. "Intelligent design" is the proper neutral description of the theory.

2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts.

Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)

3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism.

The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM’s "refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God" and noted that "philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group." Indeed, according to AIG, "many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation…." (4) Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing "the Biblical method," concluding that "Design is not enough!" (5) Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism.

4. Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program.

Intelligent design theory may hold implications for fields outside of science such as theology, ethics, and philosophy. But such implications are distinct from intelligent design as a scientific research program. In this matter intelligent design theory is no different than the theory of evolution. Leading Darwinists routinely try to draw out theological and cultural implications from the theory of evolution. Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, for example, claims that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (6) Harvard’s E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts. (7) Other Darwinists try to elicit positive implications for religion from Darwin’s theory. The pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has organized a "Faith Network" to promote the study of evolution in churches. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, acknowledges that the purpose of the group’s "clergy outreach program" is "to try to encourage members of the practicing clergy to address the issue of Evolution in Sunday schools and adult Bible classes" and to get church members to talk about "the theological implications of evolution." (8) The NCSE’s "Faith Network Director" even claims that "Darwin’s theory of evolution…has, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God." (9) If Darwinists have the right to explore the cultural and theological implications of Darwin’s theory without disqualifying Darwinism as science, then ID-inspired discussions in the social sciences and the humanities clearly do not disqualify design as a scientific theory.

5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: "Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it's just creationism in disguise. If so it's a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us." (10)

Whatever problems the theory of intelligent design may have, it should be allowed to rise or fall on its own merits, not on the merits of some other theory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) For a particularly egregious example of use of this term, see Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, edited by Robert T. Pinnock (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001).
(2) Richard Ostling, AP Writer, March 14, 2002.
(3) For good introductions to intelligent design theory, see Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996); Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Stephen Meyer, Science & Evidence For Design in the Universe (Ignatius, 2000); William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman and Littlefield, 2002); and Unlocking the Mystery of Life video documentary (Illustra Media, 2002).
(4) Carl Wieland, "AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement," August 30, 2002, available at http://www.answersingenesis.org.
(5) Henry M. Morris, "Design is not Enough!", Institute for Creation Research, July 1999, available at: http://www.icr.org/.
(6) Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1996), 6.
(7) E.O. Wilson, Consilience (New York: Vintage Books, 1998).
(8) Eugenie Scott, interview with ColdWater Media, September 2002. Courtesy of ColdWater Media.
(9) Phina Borgeson, "Introduction to the Congregational Study Guide for Evolution," National Center for Science Education, 2001, available at www.ncseweb.org.
(10) Robert Wright, Time, March 11, 2002.

 

3finger - If you think faith is such a bad thing read some Popper, who makes the perfectly obvious point that we depend on faith for everything we believe we know. That doesn't make Creationism right, but it's not faith that's the problem. To dispense with faith is to dispense with knowledge.

Your second post makies the common mistake of assuming that deists make up God to make themselves more important. Certainly the Christian God bestows on humanity a central place in the cosmos if one assumes He exists. You could understand it if He was invented by people who otherwise found no meaning in their lives. But there are always two meanings to things.

It is equally undertstandable that people who know that they are clearly nothing but a totally insignificant being would naturally believe that there was something much greater than themselves in the world, for how else could they be ‘insignificant’ except by comparison. Thus it is their very humbleness that gives rise to their idea of God, and their respect for what ‘He’, whoever you take ‘He’ to be in this case, created. It could be said that this attribute of God, that He makes us seem so unimportant, is precisely what makes self-important physicalists avoid the idea.

Thus anyone who is of the general opinion that our ancestors created God for the sake of their own self-importance, or who think that people deny physicalism simply because they are afraid of becoming unimportant, are wrong. Or at least as likely to be wrong as right, which is much the same thing. The only evidence for it is that it is possibly true.

Warren - However Intelligent Design (by which I take it you mean Planned Intelligent Design) and (intentional) Christian Creationism are not the only ways in which creation and design might be hypothesised as being due to consciousness.

It might be unintelligently designed and unintentionaly created, much like modern society for instance, which is clearly designed and created by intelligence but which one could argue is of a most unintelligent design and is mostly quite unintended.

 

try www.beliefnet.com
click on discussions.