Creationism does NOT belong in science.

quoting 5th Element:

I agree that in this day and age the scientific nation would, at least in the beginning would kick the religious nation's ass. Now the subjigation(spelling?) of the religious nation is not logical at all, so it would be destroyed, if assimilation were allowed it could possibly corrupt the scientific nation.

Now, What laws and morals would govern this scientific nation(if you would like, no god exists, and the religious nation never existed(the existence of it may corrupt the scientific nation))?

Now for the other side:

How could religion ever have come about if it had not been for science?(we would be wasting to much time hunting for food, not thinking about what happens in the afterlife(if it exists that is))

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

HarryKarry-

Funny you should mention this, because Freud had a little something to say on this......not exactly as you put it though.

Freud certainly regarded belief in God as an illusion that mature men and women should lay aside. The idea of God was not a lie but a device of the unconscious which needed to be decoded by psychology. A personal god was nothing more than an exalted father-figure: desire for such a deity sprang from infantile yearnings for a powerful, protective father, for justice and fairness and for life to go on forever. God is simply a projection of these desires, feared and worshipped by human beings out of an abiding sense of helplessness. Religion belonged to the infancy of the human race; it had been a necessary stage in the transition from childhood to maturity. It had promoted ethical values which were essential to society. Now that humanity had come of age, however, it should be left behind.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can educated yourself and entertain both. But you cannot logically agree with both.

As for as Creationism and Evolution co-existing.
Creationism (Religion), Evolution (Science)
Science will never drink from the same cup as religion, because religion has poisoned that cup.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Logic and Scientific philosphy will govern morals and values in this nation of science.

Please elaborate further on your final question. My apologies, I don't quite understand.

 

The final question is basically saying this:

Since, we used to be a hunter/gatherer society all we did was hunt and gather, although we may have had a religion, I am making the assumtion that at first all we did was hunt and gather and have no religion because we had no time for any thought other than survival. With advances in science we gained more time to think, thus in all probability religion came from this original thinking and the inability to explain the elements. This brings the question of how religion could have ever existed without science?

I do not believe that logic has any place governing a body of irrational creatures(irregardless of what anybody thinks they are not rational, they may entertain rational thoughts but in the end all humans are irrational). And I have not the slightest idea what scientific philosophy is(heard of philosophy, but not scientific philosophy, if you could give a quick(1-4 sentence) summary of it?), so I can not agrue it one way or the other.

(would scientific philosophy be in an encyclopedia?(decided I was tired of a lot of the bs that is on the internet) Also would creationism be in an encyclopedia?)

 

Thantos - You say that -" at first all we did was hunt and gather and have no religion because we had no time for any thought other than survival. With advances in science we gained more time to think".

Please don't fall for this nonsense. A quick glance into anthropology will show you that this is exactly back to front. Eg Marshall Sahlins "..hunters and gatherers work less than we do, the food quest is intermittent, leisure abundant, and there is a greater amount of sleep in the day time per capita per year than in any other condition of society". The idea that our lives are getting easier or more leisurely is simply ridiculous and no more than an urban fairy tale.

 

Thank you for educating me. (no sarcasm)

I have given up entertaining such ideas as creationism, they are obviously false, there is no evidence that there is a god(or all creating force). I have decided to use this more logical and scientific means to pick and choose the ideas that are true.

And where may I find a complete source for information regarding evolution?

 

Are some aspects of biotic reality better explained by teleological evolution rather than non-teleological evolution? Can evidence gathered via the scientific method help strengthen the inference that certain things in nature are intelligently designed? I believe the answer to both questions is yes.

 

Thantos-

A great site for information regarding evolution is www.talkorigins.org

 

11 months, 229 posts... This thread has been vibrant, I wish I could have been here from the beginning, harry's comment(first creationist) would have been fun to go off on...

But, it is interesting that the creationists continued this topic for 11 months, when it is obvious that creationism is not science and only science is to be taught in a science classroom. And they know that, too, they just cannot grasp that religion is for religious school...
Ha ha, this is a fun thread, ignorant creationists...

www.skeptic.com

www.csicop.org

 

To be a Creationist in the old fashioned Christian sense does seem a bit Luddite these days. However intelligent design, teleology, and the idea that evolution is not an entirely mindless process are still (IMO) perfectly reasonable ideas (and, for what it's worth, perfectly scientific ones). Eg. Dolly the sheep, domestic cattle, the extinction of the Dodo, the extermination of native americans, rainforest tribes, aborigines etc. All of these have evolutionary consequences and none are explicable without ID or teleology.

 

So your question would be: Would religion ever exist w/o science?
What is the point of this question?
Science existed well before man, we only are starting to discover some of it.

Scientific Philosophy refers to philosophers who shows heavy scientific influence. This combination is considered very powerful and hard to argue against. If you've taking some philosphy classes you'll see it in some of the students and they seem to dominate.

 

I am interested in investigating whether or not life itself owes its origin to design through intelligent intervention. To help me do this, I look to examples other than life: things that are designed through intelligent intervention and things that are not designed through intelligent intervention. More specifically, I look to engineering on one hand, and physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, and astronomy on the other hand. Then, I simply ask into which of these hands is life a better fit. It is my position that life better fits in the class of things known to be designed through intelligent intervention.

(1) The study of life is much more like the study of engineering than any other field of science. This is clearly seen from the fact that teleological language and concepts are very important in biology and engineering, but essentially missing from the other fields of science. If life is designed, this makes much sense.

(2) Over the last few decades, the more we have learned about cell biology and molecular biology, the greater has grown the distance between chemistry and biology. Biological states are high information states and biological processes depend crucially on these high information states. Thus, in order for life to exist, we find such things as codes, sophisticated molecular machines, proof-reading of information, and quality control mechanisms. In the entire known non-living universe, such things are found only in artifacts and given that these things are at the very heart of life, the significance of the similarity is profound. In fact, note carefully the conclusions of physicist Paul Davies:

"If I am right that the key to biogenesis lies, not in chemistry, but with the formation of a particular logical and informational architecture, then the crucial step involved the creation of an information-processing system, employing software control. In chapter 4, I argue that this step was closely associated with the appearance of the genetic code. Bringing some of the language of computation to the problem, I have endeavored to throw light on the highly novel form of complexity that is found in the genes of living organisms. This peculiarity of biological complexity makes genes seem almost like impossible objects - yet they must have formed somehow. I have come to the conclusion that no familiar law of nature could produce such a structure from incoherent chemicals with the inevitability that some scientists assert. If life does form easily, and is common throughout the universe, then new physical principles must be at work."

Where in chemistry, astronomy, or geology do we find essential information-processing systems employing software control??

I maintain that (1) and (2) constitute a positive case for the design of life through intelligent intervention. While these reasons may be insufficient to prove design, or even generate a widespread consensus, they are sufficient for employing ID as a working hypothesis.

(3) Concerning abiogenesis, Paul Davies also writes:

"Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they admit that they are baffled."

At this point, we need to ask a question: Why are origin of life researchers baffled?

During the many decades since abiogenesis was proposed, scientific advance has progressed at an incredible rate. Yet research into abiogenesis stagnates. Why? Non-teleologists have faith that this is simply another gap to be filled with the same scientific cement used to uncover the genetic code and clone Dolly. But is it? The problem is that the very advances in science we have seen are not working to make abiogenesis more tractable, but instead, are highlighting (1) and (2) above. Thus I have an explanation for this bafflement - (1) and (2). That is, the same level of bafflement would exist if scientists insisted on explaining the origin of human artifacts without reference to intelligent intervention. In contrast, non-teleologists have no specific explanation for this atypical level of scientific bafflement.

Therefore, I maintain the failure of origin-of-life (OOL) research not only supports (1) and (2), but is explained by (1) and (2).

 

Canute<< To be a Creationist in the old fashioned Christian sense does seem a bit Luddite these days. However intelligent design, teleology, and the idea that evolution is not an entirely mindless process are still (IMO) perfectly reasonable ideas (and, for what it's worth, perfectly scientific ones). Eg. Dolly the sheep, domestic cattle, the extinction of the Dodo, the extermination of native americans, rainforest tribes, aborigines etc. All of these have evolutionary consequences and none are explicable without ID or teleology.>>

Very insightful. Evolution is best viewed as a series of historical events and not a physical law like gravity. This means that evolution, unlike gravity, entails much contingency. Thus, the analogy of evolution to a law of nature breaks down in the most significant manner, as evolution is wide-open to intelligent intervention. Even beings as modestly intelligent as we have been able to intervene on evolution through artificial breeding and genetic engineering.

Evolution is exposed and vulnerable to intelligent intervention. Therefore, evidence for common descent isn't evidence for Darwinian evolution. All this evidence can be cleared from the table. The evidence the Darwinist needs is evidence of non-teleological mechanisms of evolution at work. I think much of the data from natural history can be re-interpreted in light of teleological evolution.

 

Warren - fantastic stuff. IMHO you've said something very important, or at least I have learnt something that seems to me to be of importance. 'Evolution' is not a category of deterministic law, such as 'gravity' or the 'laws of complexity'. Evolutionary theory is an historical and statistical narrative shot with a wide angle lens in soft focus, it is an explantion, it does not explain WHY anything happens, why things do what they do, it just explains the consequences of what things did. In other words the unfolding of evolution must be driven by something other than evolution itself, for evolution cannot be both the result of biological behaviour and at the same time its cause. Evolution, as you say, is not some law that in some strange way causes things to happen. Individual actions and behaviour (whether purposeful, intended, accidental, oer entirely mindless) cause evolution, and not the other way around. Also you must be right when you suggest that the the actual unfolding of the evolutionary story, of what happens from moment to moment, must be infinitely sensitive to the consequences of intelligent or conscious actions and interventions. I hadn't looked at it like that before.

I realise now that this has been supported by others. Eg. Nobel Laureate H.J.Muller,who said - 'purpose is not imported into nature, and need not be puzzled over as a strange or divine something else that gets inside and makes life go...it is simply implicit in the fact of biological organisation, and it is to be studued rather than admired or "explained" '. And also G.G. Simpson - 'The Purposer is each and every individual organism, from the inception of life, which struggles and strove to make the best of its limited opportunities.'

This would seem to suggest that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is just a rather mechanical/statistical way of looking at an infinity of moment by moment individually conscious acts that were all done by individual entities completely on purpose but with all sorts of accidental consequences. This would be a turn up. It makes sense to me.

 

Hi Canute,

You make some good points.

Here is some further clarification of where I'm coming from. My position includes a tentative inference to ID behind the original cells that were deposited on this earth. I don't rule out further instances of intelligent intervention, but I have not really looked into things such as the origin of multicellularity, body plans, etc. My position, however, allows me to think about evolution in a different light. That is, if indeed life was designed, there is no a priori reason to exclude ID as a possible mechanism behind some later aspect of evolution. The genie is out of the bottle and thus the privileged status of the blind watchmaker in evolution no longer exists. The blind watchmaker explanation must now compete against intelligent watchmaker models - that is the significance of ID behind the origin of life.

I am not anti-evolution but I am skeptical that non-teleological evolution is behind the origin of biological complexity. For me, design at the origin of life changes the entire ball game with regards to evolution. If life was designed, there is no longer any reason to grant the blind watchmaker mechanism a default position when interpreting the data for later evolution.

Currently the ID hypothesis is that life on this planet was designed and evolution followed. However, a teleological cause at the base opens doors for thinking about evolution through a teleological filter, as there is no reason to exclude intelligent intervention. Thus, I am faced with five sub-hypotheses:

1. Every major evolutionary change was a consequence of intelligent intervention.

2. Key evolutionary changes were due to intelligent intervention.

3. Evolution was front-loaded such that its unfolding was channeled.

4. Evolution was designed such that it could acquire new information over time.

5. Permutations of 2, 3, and 4.

I'm skeptical of #1, but intrigued by 2-5 (keep in mind, however, that non-teleologists are unable to process such hypotheses).

 

Warren,

the question of intelligent design is open to debate but no evolutionist would agree that. they would be too happy to take up occam's razor to eliminate ID. this i noticed at several discussions. whenever ID is proposed they tend to ask how and why. i generally agree with you in that ruling out ID is not in the best interest of evolution studies.

what exactly you mean by intelligent intervention in those sub-hypotheses..?

 

Hi Everneo,

Evolutionists that are non-teleologists are going to object to ID, however, it's not the data from natural history that is driving their objections but rather their materialistic presuppositions.

My particular ID hypothesis is a modest extension of Crick/Orgel's hypothesis of directed panspermy. But there is nothing in the biological data that would distinguish a natural intelligence from a supernatural intelligence. I have asked various ID critics to help me with such a criterion of distinction and, after two years, no one has offered a thing. This indicates I am right - there is nothing in biology that would make this distinction. Thus, following the lead of logic I have always been consistent in noting and accepting that I can only infer a human-like intelligence. To step further and identify this intelligence would require that I invoke factors extrinsic to the approach I take. I realize that the typical anti-ID mindset is unable to process this logic and instead perceives it as part of a "plot or agenda." It's all a function of the stereotypes that shape their thinking.

As for Occam's razor, one problem I have with using the razor at this level is that if ID were in fact behind the origin of life the razor would tell us otherwise. There is no way to actually test the razor itself. All that can be said is that it has proven to a be a good rule of thumb but who knows if it can successfully distinguish between teleological and non-teleological causes at the origin of life?

Occam's razor basically means that one does not multiply entities unnecessarily, however, current abiogenesis explanations invoke thousands of HYPES { hypothetical postulated entities} in the form of imaginary, ill-defined precursors to the cell, unobserved simple sloppy entities with imaginary functions, evolving via imaginary selective advantages, and existing in imaginary environments.

 

The problem with the razor is that we judge new and half-formed (thus ill-understood and unsimplified) theories against those that we have been refining for years. Thus all alternative (to orthodox) theories are discriminated against when Occam is invoked early on to dismiss new ideas. Also, as you say, Occam does not tell us anything about which theories are right and which wrong.

On your list -

1. Every major evolutionary change was a consequence of intelligent intervention.
Agree - as long as you don't mean the evolutionary change was the intended effect of these interventions/actions. (All our actions affect evolution but we don't intend this).

2. Key evolutionary changes were due to intelligent intervention.
This is included in 1. and redundant.

3. Evolution was front-loaded such that its unfolding was channeled.
This is the bit I do not agree with (assuming you mean 'purposefully' front loaded).

4. Evolution was designed such that it could acquire new information over time.
I cannot see any way in which it makes sense to say that evolution was designed. As you say - evolution is just what happens for other reasons. I don't think you mean this.

IMO the trouble with saying that life originated off-planet is that it leaves the same old regression - it must have originated somewhere - and we might as well assume it was here.

 

Canute<< IMO the trouble with saying that life originated off-planet is that it leaves the same old regression - it must have originated somewhere - and we might as well assume it was here.>>

I disagree. Crick/Orgel's hypothesis of directed panspermy was developed precisely bcause the evidence doesn't support abiogenesis on this planet. Besides, regression is only a problem if one is trying to come up with explanations that point to an Ultimate Answer. We humans all have this desire, but the desire is mostly emotive and not rational. Is there really a rational reason to expect that we humans have the intellectual and experiential ability to come up with The Ultimate Answer?

From the Christian Theistic perspective, we would not have that sort of regression problem since the Christian God is proposed as infinite and absolute and not of material subtance that began to exist.

If one is so concerned, the regression problem is also eliminated under at least two explanations that do not equate the intelligence in ID with God:

1. Abiogenesis did occur on another planet (where unlike earth conditions were favorable for it), intelligence evolved there, and this intelligence seeded earth with life.

2. The ETI that seeded life on earth owes its origin to some divine intervention at some point in its history.