Creationism does NOT belong in science.

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

  1. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    Source
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Warren Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    I'm still trying to figure out how you anti-creationists define creationism. Are you guys just against the hypothesis that the earth and universe are only 6.000-10,000 years old or are you opposed to anything that's not compatible with materialism? I posted the following on August 1 to get the ball rolling and no one responded:

    Here's a little scenario for everyone to ponder. A scientist suspects that non-intelligent processes may be insufficient to produce biological complexity. He wishes to follow-up his suspicion with an investigation using the scientific method. Two questions: Is he a creationist? Can what he is doing be called science?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. teerum Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    66
    Warren,

    I would attest that clearly he IS a creationist, although he might be using a back door to get his opinion in. To answer whether or not what he is doing is called science, I would respond by saying THAT question has no relevance in this regard. Calling it science would be a clever attempt to try and PROVE a creationist theory using the same parameters that a scientist would use. One could can call Anything science in that regard.

    I am personally reluctant to wedge myself into either corner for the purpose of this discussion, I have my own ideas on the topic and much chatter on this subject contains more mental masturbation than actual substance.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. fadingCaptain are you a robot? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,762
    Warren,
    If he is using the scientific method, it is science. He would have a hypothesis. If I were to believe that the moon is made of cheese it would be my moon is cheese hypothesis. I could begin a vigorous study using the scientic method. However, until I had evidence and facts to back up my claim it would remain a wacky hypothesis and never be taught in schools

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  8. Warren Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    Teerum>>I would attest that clearly he IS a creationist, although he might be using a back door to get his opinion in. To answer whether or not what he is doing is called science, I would respond by saying THAT question has no relevance in this regard. Calling it science would be a clever attempt to try and PROVE a creationist theory using the same parameters that a scientist would use. One could can call Anything science in that regard.<<

    Teerum,

    Thank you for your honest reply. I think it's important to note that the hostility of the scientific community towards creationism is more than just a disagreement over the age of the earth and the age of the universe. It goes even deeper than a difference of opinion over common ancestry. What we have here is a commitment of the scientific community to the blind watchmaker hypothesis. This hypothesis rejects the idea that any intelligent direction has occurred in the evolutionary process. If this were common knowledge there would be much more opposition to the teaching of evolution in the public schools than there is.

    About half of those that consider themselves Christians believe that God directed the evolutionary process in some way. But the evolutionary process that the anti-creationists are promoting is a non-intelligently directed at any level process. They should be up front about this when presenting their case before school boards. The Christian belief that God had something to do with origin of humans is not compatible with Darwinism.

    A Darwinist doesn't investigate to answer the question "did X evolve" but only looks to answer the question "how did X evolve" and "how are X, Y and Z related by evolution." A scientist that investigates to answer the question "did X evolve" is not doing science according to the Darwinists, thus there can be no scientific evidence against Darwinism.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2002
  9. teerum Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    66
    Warren,

    I believe that in order for the scientific community to successfully support this non-intelligence theory they have to make to many concessions and on the other hand, it may also be said that the creationist has a very convenient way out also. Neither side can actually provide enough information to prove the other wrong. However, I believe that in order to make an intelligent assessment we actually need to take a few steps back.

    Yes, we can say that evidence of fossilized microbes found on Mars is potential evidence that we as Human beings are also aliens that flew through space and landed on earth. I myself feel this is a great possibility. Clearly this is a great departure from Adam and Eve. However, even if the scientist reaches back to microbes flying through space, the mere process of the origin of life beginning like that is so incredible that the most astute scientist would not be able to explain HOW the process came to be. No matter how it is explained, it is a catch 22.

    I can go on and on, but I would like to say that I am very happy about the differences of these opinions, because without the scientist I am not sure the creationist would ever have the ability or desire to strive to really know the truth.....the answer lies within the convergence of both positions........
     
  10. lotuseatsvipers CloseMindedBob Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    340
    Your whole point is really missed on me.

    Yes there are diffent kinds of creationists, so what. What does that have to do with a someone wanting a line in highschool biology books saying one theory is that 'god created everything' (by the way that was in my 9th grade bio book, my teacher was a evangelists son and didnt even teach us evolution).

    In my view evolution is NOT trying to deal with how things got here, but rather how stuff evolved into more complex beings. Yes they have their 'theories' about minerals and lightning and primordial soup, but that is just random guesses that are not science, but theories of that nature are right alongside theories of creation in the bio books ive seen.

    My big beef with creation is what the hell do they want to teach about it exactly? God created the world, the end.

    And I still say that trying to fit evolution into the bible is complete shit. Give me a break, it doesn't even hint to it, it just says 6 days. Seriously, how do you turn 6 days into millions and millions of years of evolution. silly.

    So if you say something of a creationist scientist who completely believes in evolution, but thinks the original form of life came from God, I say so the hell what. That is no different than a scientist thinking it came from some soup or rock or lightning bolt. Neither have proof, get my point.

    sorry I ramble too damn much sometimes.
     
  11. harrykarry Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    39
    people with small dicks have a tendency to ramble

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    sorry, cheep shot... but at least you're not a blithering morron like me...


    the open hostility of evolutionists who throw darwin on the table and say, "seeeeeeeeeeeeee, creationists are idiots" and the creationists who throw the bible on the table and say, "seeeeeeeeeee, you're all going to hell" make this whole black and white, wrong and right, only one can exist in a science class, narrow-mindedness, insanely sad.

    oops, i was rambling too.... thank god i don't have a dick.

    and i wasn't implying that you were going to hell... i put myself in that catagory before anyone but you do set me off. let's never get married.

    But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. — 2 Peter 3:8

    (and please don't start doing the math you literal science fools.)
     
  12. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,191
    And do not let this one fact escape your notice: that with the Scientist one creation tale is like a thousand creation tales, and a thousand creation tales like one creation tale. - Gen. Science 101
     
  13. Warren Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    Most critics of Neo Darwinism do not question “evolution”. They question that random mutation and natural selection is capable of creating complex biological structures and systems. In the past evolution was attributed to ‘DNA copying errors’ (random by common usage of the word) shaped into complex biological structures by ‘natural selection’. More recently Darwinists have claimed that ‘random’ has a different meaning in biology. In biology random supposedly only means ‘random with regard to fitness’. I congratulate Neo Darwinists upon finally realizing the implausibility of biological complexity being created by a truly random process such as ‘copying errors’ and ‘natural selection’. However, so far no one has specified exactly how biological complexity might actually be created. No one has explained what is non-random about the process. If biological structures are not created by random, blind, purposeless copying errors plus natural selection – then how are they created? (There is nothing for natural selection to select until a complex, rational, functioning biological structure is in existence.) Is life ‘self organized’? Intelligently self-organized? What would be the difference between intelligently self-organized and intelligently designed?

    Creative intelligence consists of the ability to make fallible choices. A computer, or any other mechanistic process, can only make the choices it is programmed to make. A computer won’t make mistakes, so long as the system is not corrupted, but neither is it capable of creativity. It can't make free falllible choices.

    I can think of three possible explanations of evolution:

    1. The theistic assumption that God guides nature’s creative processes.

    2. A creative intelligence innate in all living matter drives the process – a creative intelligence which might be viewed as a natural force such as gravity. However, unlike gravity, creative intelligence is neither measurable nor predictable.

    3. Novel Biological structures are the result of some unknown non-intelligent, mechanistic process - as yet to be specified by ‘science’.

    Does our present understanding allow us to impose any one of these possibilities upon society, and prohibit consideration of the others? If science is required to limit itself to mechanistic explanations, and life is not a mechanistic process, perhaps science can not explain life.
     
  14. Zero Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,355
    Just because science can not explain somethign does NOT mean that another theory gets free access to the empty slot.

    And the fact stands that creationism does NOt belong in science. It is mainly built around proselytizing and negating evolution. And creationism spouts random absolute truths and shoves them down your throat, "believe it or else". On the other hand, scientific theories are always open to disproof. The close mindedness lies in creationism.

    And harrykarry, the necessity for allowing new ideas in science does NOt apply to creationism. C is unscientific, that's why it does not belong.


    I might add that, according to philosopher Karl Popper, the defining characteristic of science is falsifiability.
     
  15. Warren Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    Zero>>Just because science can not explain somethign does NOT mean that another theory gets free access to the empty slot.

    And the fact stands that creationism does NOt belong in science. <<

    Depends on how you define creationism and how you define science. You are obviously confusing intelligent design with a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis. They are not the same.
    And you seem to equate science with materialism. One can use the scientific method without subscibing to the philosophy of materialism. And ID is every bit as falsifiable as Darwinism.

    The materialist belief that a blind watchmaker turned microbes into magpies, maple trees and musicians doesn't require any evidence because a blind watchmaker is a logical deduction from materialism. If a critic finds the current blind watchmaker inadequate to explain everything that's occurred in natural history, his only permissible move within science is to suggest a better blind watchmaker. That a competent blind watchmaker may not exist at all and that certain aspects of biotic reality may be better explained by a seeing watchmaker is not a logical possibility. Thus, most scientists don't investigate to determine IF life evolved, they only search for ways life DID evolve. Now, why should it be surprising to materialists that non-materialists remain skeptical of the current blind watchmaker hypothesis and feel that evidence for a seeing watchmaker may not be getting a fair hearing?


    Richard Dawkins, author of the book The Blind Watchmaker, doesn't say that biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having evolved. Instead he says, "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." If nature looks this way to an atheist like Dawkins then what's wrong with a non-materialist having a suspicion that biological things that exhibit machine-like complexity look designed because they are designed? In particular those things for which there is no evidence they evolved solely through non-intelligent processes. And what is wrong with following up on this suspicion with an investigation employing the scientific method?
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2002
  16. harrykarry Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    39
    zero, the "empty slot" was created while you were still in diapers and god was removed from schools. yes, we used to be able to sing christmas carrols such as silent night and away in the manger at school. that was way back when we bowed our heads and silently prayed right after the pledge of allegiance....

    the "empty slot" was quickly filled by materialists who have much invested in claiming to NOT be a religion. (or they too would be booted out the door, [by themselves]).

    but i'll again contradict myself by saying that unlike grocery stores.... i don't believe the mind has just so much shelf space. in fact, data isn't even hardly taught anymore. more important is the skill of collecting data and to include creationism and evolution as subjects to be researched with information on how to do so is not a threat to any "slot."

    it's too bad that the whole "slot" mentality was encouraged by fundamentalists..... then adopted by evolutionists and other bad people (just kidding, really)...

    the best thing we could do for our kids is include them all and teach them how to come to their own conclusions. obviously, it would be WAYYYYYYYYY more interesting for them.
     
  17. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    I have been out of this thread for a while. I hope, I did not miss anything. My understanding is that "Creationist" view is basically Christian view. That leaves more than half of the world population for a competing religious view too.

    Another monkey wrench....
     
  18. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    964
    Darwinism is the genisis story of seccular humanism and many other non-theist points of view. That in itself is the real issue. Evolution on it's own, as a biological theory about our origins and the way life has come about on this planet has reached far beyond it's original meaning as a biological theory.

    Who we are as people - what ethics we decide upon, and what values we teach to our children have much to do with the philosophy and beliefs we instill about what is the nature of human beings. Evolution clearly states that we are a byproduct of millions of years of random chance and accidents. Their is in all reality, NOTHING special about human beings. We are nothing more than upwright walking primates with the ability to think.

    If one is to accept their is a divine creator, then one is brought into the idea that MAYBE their is a purpose to the world as a whole. You look upon your fellow man as differnt from the animals we evolved from and something else entirely. You wonder WHY do I exist?

    The issue with Darwinism / Creationism is a clash of values, morals, and beliefs which has little to do with science in itself and more to do with the instilling of ethics. Many Christians feel (correctly) that the teaching of Evolution in the classroom leaves their children more susceptable to accepting non-theist beliefs. However, to say that the teaching of non-theist ideas philosophies in school without teaching theist philosophies as well is fair because one is science and the other is not is not a valaid argument.

    In Colleges, their are whole schollarly courses on Islam, Christianity, Judism, Hinduism, and many other world religions. Teaching religion in High School in the same mannor would not be unbenificiary.
     
  19. lotuseatsvipers CloseMindedBob Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    340
    Do away with the Math and Science CRAP, ITS RELIGIOUS STUDIES TIME

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Actually I took a new testament course my 9th grade year at a public high school, just a little peep into how a grew up and why I am so messed up.
     
  20. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    964
    If I may pose the question: what does teaching Evolution in the classroom have to offer young minds? It's nice to know, but it's not applicable for everyday like Math will be. By contrast, courses in religious beliefs would offer people a tool to understanding other cultures beliefs, and thus an invalueble tool in world politics and world history. The whole situation in the Middle-East for example, becomes much easier to grasp if you understand the religious teachings of both the Jews and Islamics.

    You've failed to make a case that teaching religious beliefs has less value than Evolution.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2002
  21. lotuseatsvipers CloseMindedBob Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    340
    sensative are we? If you'll notice I didn't exactly construct an argument, I was being lighthearted...

    But yes I completely believe that teaching science is a much more constructive use of time than teaching religion. I could honostly care less if you disagree with that. You want to change my mind, you construct an argument saying they are both equally necessary and perhaps I'll respond.
     
  22. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    964
    I gave you a good reason. Even if you don't agree with what religious people believe, knowing what they believe would give you a tremendous asset in understanding where they are comming from. I do not believe in non-theism, but I learn about it so I can understand why they think the way they do. For those same reasons, religion ought to be in classrooms. The knowledge is an incredible tool in understanding world politics, or the guy just down the street.

    To an extent, we already do this in schools. When we learn about the Egyptian Pyramids in Gaza, we learn some smatterings about the religion the Egyptians practiced to help students understand WHY the Pyramids were built. We teach whole units about Greek Mythology and about Christianity to some extent when we talk about the Roman Empire.

    If we were to teach courses in Islam (and some schools have begun to already!) then the actions and motivations of Osama Bin Laden become clearer to us. If we were to talk about Christianity in the same open-minded by distanced manor, then the "religous right" would be more understandable. If we were to teach our students about Judism, we would understand why Israel acts the way it does.

    When we teach Evolution in classrooms, do we teach it in the mannor of "YOU MUST BELIEVE."? The truth is that we don't. We teach it in the mannor "This is what the scientific community's concensus is." That is the nature of science. Fossil Bird Expert Larry Martin said it best. "It's probably a bad thing in science when everyone can agree on something. If you look historically, some of the most horrible mistakes generally had wide agreement." Remember also that in science, the word "Fact" is defined as a general concensus, not absolute truth.

    Religion should be taught the same way in classrooms - as a scholarly study of the beliefs of other people. Jeff Horner, a noted Paleontoligest said it best. "If you ask someone what they think happened, that's not nessassarily what happened. That's what they think happened." In other words, you do not HAVE to teach Religion in the classroom as "gospel truth".
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2002
  23. Antimode Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    I do believe there never was an argument about the usefullness of teaching religion. Teaching about all major religions is most probably very good indeed, since they are an important part of our world, and fundamental for so many individuals.

    The debate is about teaching creationism as a science. And if I'm allowed to give my opinion, that would be quite negative. This since creationism is not a scientific theory, and thus would be all together in the wrong place. It should be in religion class together with Hindu and Buddhist world creation ideas as well.

    Warren, I recommend you read through the article which had its address quouted at the top of this thread. Science does in fact not stand baffled at all by the randomness problem in evolution, but have detailed those processes much closer during the last years.

    As a final argument, I would like to make the following example: I could right now come up with my very own religion. It would say that everything, the world, the universe and so on, was all created yesterday by an impossible to detect allmighty force. It was created so that it in every way will indicate to have existed for a lot longer, and people were created with falsified memories of times past. Nothing existed before this.

    Seems perfect, right? Impossible to disprove, and it even happens to explain everything I would ever find strange about the world.

    But it still just doesn't seem to quite cut it, does it? It just doesn't seem likely. And no matter how much strange things I find about my other theories, it never ever makes my first theory any more likely.

    That is fundamental in science. If there is no way to show something and no things or occurences which would disprove it, there is no reason to try to present is as a scientific theory, as science cannot do anything with it. It just doesn't belong.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2002

Share This Page