Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism/ID as Science
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 76 of 249 (289830)
02-23-2006 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by 2ice_baked_taters
02-23-2006 11:33 AM


As opposed to confusing men with dirt???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 02-23-2006 11:33 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 02-23-2006 5:35 PM ramoss has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 77 of 249 (289864)
02-23-2006 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ramoss
02-23-2006 1:59 PM


As opposed to confusing men with dirt???
I am not sure exactly what your implication is by that comment.
Since it was a response to me, am I to take it that you assume I take that view? If so I see nothing I have said to lead you to think so. I see the above in a metaphorical sense perhaps but not in a literal.
Or
Was it a knee-jerk reaction using a singled out response that you may have your own underlying issue with. You could have chosen one of many others.
I will respect you, if you respect me. Unthinking comments of that nature serve no good purpose on these forums. IMHO

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ramoss, posted 02-23-2006 1:59 PM ramoss has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 78 of 249 (291341)
03-01-2006 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Monk
08-17-2005 9:52 AM


Re: Creationism cannot displace evolution
No you are wrong. Creationists would like to have this be taught. But, this will never happen. What their main concern is that in the absence of any valid evidence, this is being forced as a FACT. Some of the most brilliant scientists demand evidence, scrutinize facts very intensively before making any judgement on every other issue. When it comes to EVOLUTION, they treat this as a Holy Cow with all reverence in spite of the holes and missing evidence. Why is this prejudice only for Evolution and nothing else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Monk, posted 08-17-2005 9:52 AM Monk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by subbie, posted 03-01-2006 9:59 PM inkorrekt has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 79 of 249 (291343)
03-01-2006 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by inkorrekt
03-01-2006 9:37 PM


Re: Creationism cannot displace evolution
Please describe for me exactly what "FACT" you believe is being taught in schools about evolution that you object to.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by inkorrekt, posted 03-01-2006 9:37 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by inkorrekt, posted 06-29-2006 11:00 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 80 of 249 (327641)
06-29-2006 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by subbie
03-01-2006 9:59 PM


Re: Creationism cannot displace evolution
In the school text books on science, evolution is marked as facts. In one of the states, the school board adopted a policy to put a sticker to the effect that Evolution is only a theory which is yet to be verified.This has becomea national news and was being fiercely debated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by subbie, posted 03-01-2006 9:59 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by nwr, posted 06-29-2006 11:41 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 91 by ramoss, posted 06-30-2006 4:28 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 81 of 249 (327651)
06-29-2006 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by inkorrekt
06-29-2006 11:00 PM


Re: Creationism cannot displace evolution
This is a common creationist charge, based on their misunderstanding of the meaning of "theory" in science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by inkorrekt, posted 06-29-2006 11:00 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 82 of 249 (327654)
06-30-2006 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Athansor
08-16-2005 11:55 PM


Obviously creationism gets largely misrepresented by die-hard religious fanatics. The science gets lost to faith and faith isn't science.
Thought I'd chime in on some of your comments... Actually all belief is faith (see quote below). The question is, who can present the most coherent interpretaion of the evidence?
At the extremes of the debate, it gets a little fuzzy. Eventually, philosophy comes into play as a method of interpreting the evidence because the facts are easily interpreted through different worldviews. For example, dissagreements as to what 'information is' become essential to the discussion. These are philosophical disagreements and many keep the subject strictly on the emperical as a way to evade other issues that are considered less 'scientific.
I believe creationism is definately science. But the assumed philosophical framework of contemporary science would disagree. Even pinning that down proves difficult, as many 'ontological naturalists', call themselves 'methodological'. There's more than enough dishonesty to go around...
As for all science being faith, listen to Paul Davies, theoretical physicist / Australian Centre for Astrobiology:
”The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way.
Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it.
But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ”theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview.
That doesn’t mean you have to buy into the religion, or buy into the theology, but it is very, very significant in historical terms; that that is where it comes from and that scientists today, unshakably retain that worldview, as an act of faith. You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.’
That is not a quote from a book. Instead, you can actually watch him say this by viewing 'The Privilaged Planet'; a DVD documentary available from many sources online. His quote is in the bonus material as question #1.
Don't let these boys here at EvC bother you Athansor. If you do, they will win every time. It's that kind of unreasonable resistance that leads very intelligent creationists to get impatient and prideful, and offer less than credible offerings. This debate is not a matter of proof, but of honesty. In that sense, it is very personal and individual. Long suffering is the path. Patience, and a realization that we do not change hearts. That is God's job. I've learned that lesson the hard way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Athansor, posted 08-16-2005 11:55 PM Athansor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by nwr, posted 06-30-2006 1:17 AM Rob has replied
 Message 113 by inkorrekt, posted 07-08-2006 1:57 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 83 of 249 (327657)
06-30-2006 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by 2ice_baked_taters
02-20-2006 1:19 AM


Science does not deal with intent or meaning ...only the physical details. Nothing of science has ever implied intent or purpose.
The minute it does it is no longer science but becomes religion.
I'm afraid your wrong about that 2ice... you may wish to read the quote from Davies in the preceeding message (#82).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 02-20-2006 1:19 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 84 of 249 (327658)
06-30-2006 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Rob
06-30-2006 12:43 AM


I believe creationism is definately science. But the assumed philosophical framework of contemporary science would disagree.
Your mistake.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the assumed philosophical framework of contemporary science." However science, as we know it today, came into existence because of its adoption of empirical methodologies. These are what distinguished it from philosophy. Creationism is quite clearly not science, because it is not based on these empirical methodologies.
As for all science being faith, listen to Paul Davies, theoretical physicist / Australian Centre for Astrobiology:
You have posted that elsewhere. However, it is just the opinion of one scientist. It is not, in any sense, a defining characterization of science. Paul Davies might well be deeply religious, and may prefer to describe science in a manner that he can integrate into his religious views. But he does not speak for all scientists, and scientists would not all agree with him.
That is not a quote from a book. Instead, you can actually watch him say this by viewing 'The Privilaged Planet'; a DVD documentary available from many sources online. His quote is in the bonus material as question #1.
Quite so. It is not part of a peer reviewed scientific paper. It is not something that has been peer reviewed by philosophers of science. Rather, it is a marketing blurb that is being used in the selling of religion. It carries exactly as much weight in science as do the statements Dawkin's makes promoting atheism. That is to say, it carries no weight at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Rob, posted 06-30-2006 12:43 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Rob, posted 06-30-2006 1:54 AM nwr has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 85 of 249 (327665)
06-30-2006 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by nwr
06-30-2006 1:17 AM


You have posted that elsewhere. However, it is just the opinion of one scientist. It is not, in any sense, a defining characterization of science.
Actually yes it is. And any honest individual can see that when hearing Davies quote, irrespective of whatever proclamations you wish to lob against it. It is a powerful point and that is why it is so disturbing to you.
But he does not speak for all scientists, and scientists would not all agree with him.
Thanks for that enlightenment... No Duh! I suppose you would like to see them all in lock-step?
It is not part of a peer reviewed scientific paper. It is not something that has been peer reviewed by philosophers of science. Rather, it is a marketing blurb that is being used in the selling of religion. It carries exactly as much weight in science as do the statements Dawkin's makes promoting atheism. That is to say, it carries no weight at all.
Now don't cry... You are as predictable as Mon, Tues, Wed, Thurs, Fri, Sat... (notice I left out Sunday).
The truth is not determined by convention nwr... That is why Winston Churchill said, 'Democracy is the worst form of government; except for all the others.' The average joe could care less if something is peer reviewed. We don't trust people just becasue they have a title. We listen to what they say...
The truth speaks for itself, and rings loudly with those who seek it. It does not need your support. You need it's support, lest you fall down,
Paul Davies might well be deeply religious, and may prefer to describe science in a manner that he can integrate into his religious views.
For the record, Paul Davies is not known to be, or support, the Christian apologist. He states plainly in another place in the documentary, that you don't have to buy into the theology, but that science has originated as 'theo' because it begins with assumptions that cannot be proven. Open-shut case... Science is faith! He is simply an honest scientist. Which means he will likely become a christian.
If he is already, then he is as yet unwilling to face the ridicule of those in the field who eagerly 'crucify' the truth and it's reflectors! Or, it may be he is far wiser than us bold resistance fighters. If so, I applaud his attack as he keeps you totally off-gaurd by not admitting his faith. A tactic ussually left to naturalists who pretend to be unbiased.
Anyone who holds an opinion is not unbiased!
Don't forget that science 'of the day back' in 'BC'(whenever?), thought the earth to be supported on the back of a tortoise! At the roughly the same time, the Torah (Bible/Old Testament) was showing the earth to hang upon nothing! The only difference, as is the case today, is that many scientists look for any evidence to deny the moral implications of theology. And in the market for scientific ideas, evolution sells because people don't want to know the truth. I have seen that for myself when attempting to share the information. Many of them believe me when I explain the implications and offer a free copy of the DvD, but they don't want to think about it 'right now'...
What is the truth??? We are sinners. And as a result are lost to our imaginations in a search to escape the truth...
That goes for creationists too! But we should all know better.
It was nice to talk to you again 'nwr'...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by nwr, posted 06-30-2006 1:17 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by cavediver, posted 06-30-2006 4:40 AM Rob has replied
 Message 87 by nwr, posted 06-30-2006 8:54 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 89 by jar, posted 06-30-2006 10:09 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 94 by Discreet Label, posted 06-30-2006 9:11 PM Rob has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 86 of 249 (327680)
06-30-2006 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Rob
06-30-2006 1:54 AM


Ok, I'm beginning to regret defending you now... not much humility here to see
nwr writes:
It is not, in any sense, a defining characterization of science
Actually yes it is
Rob, how do you know? You are not a scientist. Yet you are here making global proclamations as if God is feeeding you His lines directly. Preach The Gospel and defend it, but leave out this crap please.
I'm a scientist, I'm also a Christian, and I also happen to know Davies... and he's talking crap - not for the first time.
quote:
You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.’
  —Paul Davies
Great, a good point. I concur 100%. As do most of those scientists with whom I have discussed this very matter.
quote:
If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it.
  —Paul Davies
Also true, if somewhat obvious.
quote:
But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings
  —Paul Davies
Absolute rubbish. It is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of the fact that science WORKS!!! The universe daily demonstrates its ordered nature, its intelligibility everytime you switch on your PC to take part at EvC. Everytime you get in your truck and drive. Everytime you (or your wife) cooks a meal. No faith is required becasue the universe keeps reminding us how understandable it is. We have evidence. That is how science is constructed. It is the antithesis of faith. We only move forward in science when we see that something works.
That the universe is understandable is a mystery; but if it wasn't understandable, we wouldn't be worrying about it. We'd be worrying about how to ward off the next sabre-tooth tiger...
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Rob, posted 06-30-2006 1:54 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Rob, posted 06-30-2006 9:50 AM cavediver has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 87 of 249 (327704)
06-30-2006 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Rob
06-30-2006 1:54 AM


The truth is not determined by convention nwr...
A great deal of truth is determined by convention, particularly if one includes measurements conducted in accordance with measuring conventions.
You might not like to admit it, but even Biblical truth is established by convention - in this case, the conventions that decide which ancient texts are to be included as part of the canon.
The average joe could care less if something is peer reviewed.
The average joe does not get to define "science."
The truth speaks for itself, and rings loudly with those who seek it.
Then there is obviously no reason for you to be posting here
Don't forget that science 'of the day back' in 'BC'(whenever?), thought the earth to be supported on the back of a tortoise!
No, there was no science at that time. There was philosophy, which included natural philosophy. But the methodology that we know as science was not an institutionalized practice at that time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Rob, posted 06-30-2006 1:54 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 88 of 249 (327724)
06-30-2006 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by cavediver
06-30-2006 4:40 AM


It is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of the fact that science WORKS!!! The universe daily demonstrates its ordered nature, its intelligibility everytime you switch on your PC to take part at EvC. Everytime you get in your truck and drive. Everytime you (or your wife) cooks a meal. No faith is required becasue the universe keeps reminding us how understandable it is. We have evidence. That is how science is constructed. It is the antithesis of faith. We only move forward in science when we see that something works.
Yes, I understand. Order is the ruling power, not chaos! But is that belief ultimately proveable? Is this universe absolute in anything less than a metaphysical sense? I think not! For at one time (that is to say, before time) it did not exist. And in that way, it was actually more absolute that it could ever be with imperfect beings like ourselves running rampant by our own whims.
It seems to me that within a naturalist framework, and within time (as we are) that the predictability of order falls short of the proof that contemporary science assumes to imply. It's determinist assumption is accepted, and as such, has a form of Godliness, yet it denies that power.
Although the quantum seems (to me) to show how elusive determinsm is, at the same time it points to a determinism that is far more concrete within the infinite nature of God.
Perhaps you could say these things better than I. It sounds like you know what I mean and I appriciate your support and kind words. Perhaps I am attempting to say it from a sophomoric level of understanding. As C.S. Lewis said, 'I am doing the best I can.'
I am sorry about the pride. It never seems to die. There are a couple folks here that I continue to allow to get under my skin. I take responsibility for that.
It's a good thing that I am not God, for my justice fails miserably. God says 'an eye for an eye', and in so doing is far more merciful and patient that I. In my corrupted heart, I naturally think, 'an eye for an ear-ring'. I must forgive them instead because they do not know...
The opposition seems to have no respect for the implications (philosophically) of their worldviews. I worry too much that the fear and hostility they engender may scare off the truth seeker who may conclude that the persecution is warranted. But I recognise that this is self defeating to my own belief. As I eluded to in a previous post, the truth rings loud and clear to those who hear it. And ultimatley, the the trial of our faith is more treasured than gold and silver, and is tried by fire. So, we need these detractors.
I just have a hard time letting go of my 'good name'. And that is the most self-defeating of all, considering what it is I preach.
I think you understand. With God's help, I will endeavor to do better in the future...
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by cavediver, posted 06-30-2006 4:40 AM cavediver has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 89 of 249 (327730)
06-30-2006 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Rob
06-30-2006 1:54 AM


Davies is WRONG.
First, there is not a faith that there will be order, rather the conclusion from observations is that there is order.
IMHO that is an important point.
There really are two points of view. One is to start with the conclusion and then find support for it. The other though says that regardless of the expected result, the conclusion MUST follow from the evidence.
The really important contribution of science is that it says the conclusion cannot be counter to the evidence.
This is and has been the difference between the ID or Biblical Creationist movement and Science since the beginning.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Rob, posted 06-30-2006 1:54 AM Rob has not replied

  
threepennybit
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 249 (327790)
06-30-2006 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Rahvin
08-17-2005 2:34 PM


I would like to take the creationist vs science debate off on a slighty different tack. I hope this is the right place to do that.
The expression of truth is dependent on the available vocabulary.
By today's standards, the people who first wrote down the words of the Bible had to work with a limited set of words and concepts.
If these writers had had access to the word 'gravity' they might have avoided placing the Earth at the centre of the Solar System, whilst 'radioactivity' could have led them to a more realistic appreciation of its age. The word 'genome' in their vocabulary would have enabled them to describe more effectively the development of life on Earth.
Truth does not change. But our ability to describe it does change as, led by science, human knowledge and its vocabulary continue to increase.
Thus the Biblical description of Creation was limited by the then available vocabulary. We are not so limited, and so it is valid to describe our view of Creation using today's vocabulary. No doubt this view will change with time, as human knowledge continues to evolve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Rahvin, posted 08-17-2005 2:34 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024