Creationism does NOT belong in science.

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Zero, Jun 24, 2002.

  1. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    Fair enough - but I'm not giving up on ultimate answers yet.

    As for the regression -

    "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. "
    This does not solve the problem.

    "2. The ETI that seeded life on earth owes its origin to some divine intervention at some point in its history."
    This does, but at the cost of positing some divine entity that bothers for some reason to create this universe. I agree that conciousness may be fundamental to existence but can't agree with Gods creating it all on purpose, Still, you could be right.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. JoojooSpaceape Burn in hell Hippies Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    498
    Veyr... Very nice, I applaud
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Warren Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    Hi JooJooSpaceape,

    Define creationism.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Chiasma Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    New to this chat

    Warning, I have not read any of the post in this, but wanted to comment of creationism and science. I am a christian, and I beleive that creationism should NOT be in a science classroom. Why? Because it is not science. What defines science? Science is something that can be tested. You test, come up with a hypothesis, and you test that hypothesis. collect data, and verify, or come up with a new hypothesis, etc... You can't do that with the theory of creationism. You either believe it, or you don't. Even God doesn't want it to be tested. And I quote "don't test thy god." (somewhere in the bible, but I forget where at the moment).

    Creationism can be taught in schools. No problem. It is a philosophy that can be argued untill you turn blue in the face, but it boils down to a belief. You either believe or you don't. So, It can be taught in a philosophy class, but not a science classroom.

    Evolution on the other hand, has been tested, and can be tested using archeology, genetics, molecular biology, looking at plants, viruses, bacteria, etc... There are endless account of test on the evlutionary idea.

    Alot of this may have already been mentioned, so I am sorry If it is redundent off of someone elses post.
     
  8. DefSkeptic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    242
    Chiasma-

    On behalf of all the scientific minded people thank you for that response. I'm glad you understand the issue and are a christian at the same time.
     
  9. Warren Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    Chiasma,

    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.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2003
  10. Chiasma Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    I don't know why you pointed me out on this one, but I agree with you.




    As for the last sentence, just to warn you, this is a growing number of creationist that are using the agrument of design. saying that since the system is complicated, it must have been created by a higher power. I think this argument is failing in so many areas. It boils down to this though. We do research and do see how things work together. We do see a design. That is science. How did that disign get put into place. By nature or by GOD? That is philosophy. We see the fruits of evolution and evolutionist say, see that is it. It is the accumulation of favorable mutations. Creationist always counter that god is all powerful and can use the force of evolution to do his bidding. You see, it is and endless argument.

    All in all, I totally agree with what you have posted
     
  11. Warren Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    Chiasma<< As for the last sentence, just to warn you, there is a growing number of creationists that are using the argument of design, saying that since the system is complicated, it must have been created by a higher power.>>

    Let me make sure two points are very clear.

    First, the argument that "X is impossible to evolve, therefore it must have been designed" isn't an argument employed by ID theorists. Creationists may use that type of argument but ID scientists don't. In fact, the ID approach does not detract from science, but has the ability to add to it. ID'ers have already demonstrated their ability to predict various biotic phenomena such as proofreading during transcription, degradosome mechanisms, and chaperone component distributions. I maintain that the ID approach would probably have predicted the existence of things like molecular machines long before they were discovered. The ID approach helped some scientists interpret cell biology such that the role of simple diffusion was found to be minor. Read some debates between scientists who are ID advocates and scientists who are non-teleologists and you will see how these disputes show that teleological views do make predictions about how things are and how things work, which in turn, can spark research. For example, consider the most recent "virete" hypothesis and the types of tests being proposed to go along with this hypothesis. Teleological thinking has successfully guided research in the past and it is being found useful in the present. I suspect it will become even more useful in the future. What currently hinders ID are two things: our vague understanding of the cell and our "primitive" ability to design

    Secondly, I do not expect non-teleologists to abandon their non-teleological approach. On the contrary, I encourage them to continue on with the status quo. My point is that non-teleologists don't have a compelling justification that everyone should be adopting their approach. There is good reason to be skeptical of non-teleological causes behind the origin of life and good reason to suspect design behind the origin of life. The ambiguities of history allow plenty of room for alternative viewpoints. Attempts to squelch other viewpoints betray only a deeply felt insecurity about one's own explanation.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2003
  12. Chiasma Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    Again

    1) don't take what I say out of context. I also said that that argument has many failings

    2) I have no idea what a ID theorist is, nor do I know where that topic even came from. I have never accused them of anything anyway, especially scince I've never hear do them before now.

    3) This thread is about creationism in science. Not ID theorist, or anything else like that, but creationism. Creationsism doesn't belong in science. They are two different intities. Science is based on imperical observation and data collecting and using that to think of new theories and hypothesis on how "things" work. Creationism is a belief, pure and simple. Now you can theorise all you want, but it boils down to a belief.

    <I>The ambiguities of history allow plenty of room for alternative viewpoints. Attempts to squelch other viewpoints betray only a deeply felt insecurity about one's own explanation.</I>

    4) Uhhh, where did that come from?? No one should abondon anything. I really think that people can learn from one another. It called having an opean mind. There maybe some hear in this world that may try that, but I am not one of those. Nor am I even trying to advocate it.

    <I>There is good reason to be skeptical of non-teleological causes behind the origin of life and good reason to suspect design behind the origin of life.</I>

    But none of that is based in science. It is not based on imperical interpelated data. It is based on theories and extrapolations. Right or wrong, it is not science. I am not saying that it can or can not help science, I am just saying it is not science, which is what this thread is about.

    Lets not lose track. We are not trying to prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural being or GOD. We are saying that if there is a GOD, does his account of the creation of the world as according to the book of genesis be taught in science? I say No. Not because I don't beleive (because I do believe) or because I want to squalch the view of others. Thats has nothing to do with it. It has to do with what science is. It can be talked all you want in philosophy classes, scientific philosophy type class if you want to tie it with science. But it should not be taught in science. Religion and theology can, if you want to try, to help guide science, but again, it is not a science!! It has little place because it does not fit the definition of science.

    And also, we actually know alot about the cell and how it works. We don't know everything and we may never know everything, but we sure know alot. Right now the biggest mystery is in molecular genetics. How genes interact, chromatin modeling, etc.. and how all of it plays together to diferentiate a cell. The cell itself, has alot known about it.
     
  13. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    A more interesting question is to ask what should be taught in a high school class on the origins and development of life. Does one treat this like a comparative religion class and teach all the different approaches?

    BTW although the creationist argument is not scientific that is not to say that it is not based on empirical evidence.

    My personal theory is one of ongoing unintelligent creation (UD) - but I won't bore you.

    Warren - as you say teleology is banned from evolutionary theory when it comes to origins. Is it allowed at all in the day to day activities of species, or is everything we do an accident? Or IOW is ANY teleology allowed anywhere in scientific theorising, (outside semi-sciences like psychology)?
     
  14. Warren Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    Chiasma<< This thread is about creationism in science. Not ID theorist, or anything else like that, but creationism. Creationsism doesn't belong in science. They are two different intities. Science is based on imperical observation and data collecting and using that to think of new theories and hypothesis on how "things" work. Creationism is a belief, pure and simple. Now you can theorise all you want, but it boils down to a belief. >>

    I already stated many times before that the Biblical account of creation doesn't belong in science class, however, most critics of creationism lump ID in with creationism and even refer to it as ID creationism. See my post on page 10 of this thread. Most critics of creationism are equally opposed to ID. The reason? They labor under the mistaken notion that teleology and the scientific method are incompatible. This is dead wrong and I'm on this thread to challenge that viewpoint.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2003
  15. Warren Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    Canute<< Warren - as you say teleology is banned from evolutionary theory when it comes to origins. Is it allowed at all in the day to day activities of species, or is everything we do an accident? Or IOW is ANY teleology allowed anywhere in scientific theorising, (outside semi-sciences like psychology)?>>

    Science is concerned with finding the best non-teleological explanation. As biologist Scott Todd puts it, "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

    Or as Christian DeDuve puts it: "An important rule in reconstructing the earliest events in life's history is to assume that they proceeded without the benefit of foresight. Every step must be accounted for in terms of antecedent and concomitant events. Each must stand on it's own and cannot be viewed as a preparation for things to come. Any hint of teleology must be avoided."

    Francis Crick noted, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.”

    Now I agree that science can't investigate the supernatural, however, I do think the scientific method {the process of hypothesizing, predicting, and testing} can help us determine if the origin of life is better explained by blind watchmaking or by bioengineering.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2003
  16. Warren Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    Warren<< There is good reason to be skeptical of non-teleological causes behind the origin of life and good reason to suspect design behind the origin of life. >>

    Chiasma<< But none of that is based in science. It is not based on imperical interpelated data. It is based on theories and extrapolations. Right or wrong, it is not science. I am not saying that it can or can not help science, I am just saying it is not science, which is what this thread is about. >>

    Warren<< You are wrong. Reasons for skepticism concerning a non-teleological origin of life and reasons to suspect intelligent design behind the origin of life are based on the interpretation of empirical data using logic and the scientific method. Perhaps you don't know the difference between teleology and theology. >>
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2003
  17. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Issues

    Before Creationsim or Intelligent Design can ever be considered as science there are some very key issues which must be resolved.

    1 - Did God create everything from nothing? He had to otherwise he would not be the original creator.

    2 - That said where was Gods workplace before he created time-space.?

    3 - That understood where was God before there was time-space?

    4 - Without time-space and by what means did God create himself before anything existed.

    To me the very concepts of Creationism and Intelligent Design are irrational dead ends.

    Now I do see natural law mathematically show that "Something" can come from "Nothing".

    0---------->(+n)+(-n). If zero or "Nothingness" is bifurcated into two opposites you have two "Somethings" from "Nothing" yet conservation is maintained.
     
  18. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    Seems to me that EVERYBODY is basing their theories on the interpretation of emprical data (although some do it more honestly than others). Each have their own theories and extrapolations, some are scientific and some not.

    I'm surprised that you argue that it is scientific to suppose that ID lies behind the origin of life, In that case whose ID was it, and how can one have ID without teleology.

    You didn't quite answer my precious question. I know that teleology is not supposed to have anything to do with origins (ontology if you like). But is it allowable anywhere at all in science in your opinion?
     
  19. Warren Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    Canute<< You didn't quite answer my previous question. I know that teleology is not supposed to have anything to do with origins (ontology if you like). But is it allowable anywhere at all in science in your opinion?>>

    Yes.
     
  20. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    Um, any idea where. I thought it was taboo everywhere.
     
  21. Warren Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    Canute<< Um, any idea where. I thought it was taboo everywhere.>>

    Teleology is considered taboo in science by many scientists, however, that's not my position. For instance, biology is built around teleological concepts and language.
     
  22. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    Uhm.. that sounds ridiculous to me. The very nature of any anaylsis is to attempt to discern usefull paterns and relationships of things to other things in nature. You say "the effort to detect designt in nature?". That seems misleading and subtly defensive of deism IMO. Have I misunderstood?
    I'm sorry, but this assertion seems unwarrented from my knowledge and experience regarding scientists. Maybe you have some kind of corroborating evidence, or are you just promoting the "effort to detect design in nature"? Do you have more compelling evidence?
     
  23. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    Well, it basically IS creationism there Warren, not necessarily in the biblical sense, but in the sense of adoption of the assumption of some "creator"... at least in, it is the "scientific" endeavor as to search for "design" in nature as you've mentioned. The PROBLEM with that entire premise.. WARREN, is that it's basically that same as attempting to logically prove or disprove the existence of the designer... it's impossible. If I create a splatter painting and present it to you without you knowing I created it.. prove to me that it was designed or wasn't designed. It's not possible... the only person that can take credit for the design is the person who designed it "yeah, I did it". Unless you can actually somehow commune with the designer, your quest for evidence of design is moot.
    I think it is for the reason I described above. You can find all kinds of "scientific evidence" for "intelligent design" but design is evidence of will, and will cannot be scientifically verified.
    No, you're dead wrong.. but it'll be interesting to hear your comments about what I've said.
     

Share This Page