|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Testing Theories of Origins | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Well, there certainly is a lot to deal with here. I'll just take one little part.
Censorship Ideologues, who tend toward fear, often censor what they view as serious threats to their paradigms. The prohibition of valid theistic models for the origins and history of the universe, Earth, and life may be an indicator that those scientific models offer a more accurate and comprehensive explanation of nature’s record. One measure of RTB’s creation model might be the ongoing purposeful attempts to ignore or shut out its claims — not only from naturalists, young-earth creationists, or theistic evolutionists but rather from all three. The biggest problem with this is that nobody is trying to censor creationism. Creationists are free to publish all the books that they want (and they seem to want to publish a lot, because they do). They are free to go on lecture tours. They are free to go on the radio and television and preach the gospel of creationism to their hearts' content. They can even teach their religion in private schools. The one thing they cannot do is have it taught in public school science classes. But that restriction has nothing to do with censorship. It is only because creationism is a religion, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit states from promoting religions. Edited by subbie, : SubtitleRidicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
There is a strong effort to keep any criticism of evolution out of the scientific journals. No, there isn't. It is difficult to get creationist tracts into science journals, but that's just because they aren't scientific. However, a refusal to print unscientific apologetics in science journals is hardly the same thing as censorship.
What about the five minor tests discussed? You probably realize these tests, for the most part, have been used against creationism in the past. If they are valid tests, then they are valid for every scientific model, correct? Science is about finding accurate descriptions of the natural world. Scientific theories are evaluated by how well they do that. Your proposed "minor tests" have nothing to do with accuracy. Thus, they have nothing to do with evaluating whether something is scientific or not. Explanatory power and predictive success are simply tools to use to evaluate how accurate a particular description is. If a theory can explain what we see in the natural world and make predictions that are accurate, that is strong evidence supporting the theory. But they are not ends in and of themselves. I have no idea what you mean or what point you are making when you talk about these "minor tests" being "used against creationism."Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Censorship Criticism of young-earth creationism often starts with this and using the Scopes Trial as a prime example. When you try to censor a competing model, it shows fear that your paradigm is under attack. If you were really confident of your model, then you would allow the evidence to be brought forward and discussed. Science should be an open market place of ideas where the best ideas and models win because they have the best evidence, not because of censorship. Let's take this in small bites.
Criticism of young-earth creationism often starts with this and using the Scopes Trial as a prime example. Criticism is not the same thing as censorship. Surely you will agree with that. The Scopes trial was about keeping evolution of out public schools. But the fact that Tennessee was trying to keep evolution out says nothing whatsoever about whether evolution is a valuable scientific theory. All is says is that the Tennessee Legislature didn't want it in schools, regardless of its accuracy or inaccuracy.
When you try to censor a competing model, it shows fear that your paradigm is under attack. You keep saying that creationism is being censored. We keep pointing out to you that it's not being censored, it's just not getting into scientific publications because it's not scientific. Are you saying that a refusal to publish non-scientific ideas in science journals amounts to censorship? If so, I would refer you to The Princess Bride. ("I do not think that word means what you think it means.")
If you were really confident of your model, then you would allow the evidence to be brought forward and discussed. As I mentioned above, nobody is preventing creationists from bringing forward their ideas and discussing them. They are simply not getting into scientific publications because they are not science.
Science should be an open market place of ideas where the best ideas and models win because they have the best evidence, not because of censorship. Science is open to anyone to bring forward evidence and theories and submit them for discussion. Creationists have no evidence or theories.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Well, if you're going to ignore what I'm saying, I see no point in continuing.
Creationism isn't being censored. It's making no headway in scientific publications because it's not science.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
This is not so much as summation of the discussions in this thread as it is a restatement of what you said at the beginning of the thread while completely disregarding every objection that everyone in the thread had to what you said. As such, it is a marvelous encapsulation of creationism at its best.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
And I still don't know what the "RTB Model" is. Hugh Ross runs an apolgetics website called Reasons to Believe. I assume that's what RTB stands for.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024