Evolution is NOT science: A challenge

Well I'm not a fellow Christian, eventhough Islam incorporates much of Christianity. I'm not inclined to doubt concepts such as creation, because it is too much work.It seems very risky to try to assimilate Christianity to evolution, because it can easily give credibility to racist conceptions of Christianity in the process. I think they better exist wide apart, for people who accept both.Where mystery typically enters into it, is with choice, when I arrive at a root cause. When something is a neccessary effect of what happened before, then that's not much of a mystery in my opinion.To make an argument you have to show that evolutionists don't deny or ignore creation in general. It is ok if they ignore biblical creation, much as it is ok for people to ignore the atheist, materialist, social darwinist ideology in evolutionist discourse.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think you're mindlessly using a preformatted debate script here, which doesn't actually address my argumentation.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The reason that evolutionists deny creation is the atheism, materialism, and social darwinism associated to the theory, evolution thereby becomes a part of those ideologies. In this sense it is a religion.Probably creation wouldn't be inconsistent with evolution. But you make no point with it, because evolutionists deny and or ignore creation.What do you think would happen if evolutionists openly supported the search for root causes, creation events where kinds of organism became a certainty to exist. The controversy would dissipate, because religion would have it's connection to creation within science, and would counterballance the atheism / materialism / social darwinism associated to evolution theory.It seems to me creation events strongly imply a spiritual realm, although if you just look at the start of a creation event, you see nothing. You must see nothing because a creation event can't be an effect of what went before.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well i did my best to keep it out of the thread by saying to ignore social darwinism, eventhough the thread is about evolution as a religion. But saying to ignore social darwinism leads the people here to say that social darwinism associated to evolution theory doesn't exist, so then I have to retort to that denial of reality.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The Germanic christian sect maybe? Creation is not evolution, they are different concepts, as discussed before in this thread.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think you fail to understand creation. It's not neccessarily true that the first ever singlecelled organism is a creation event which made the existence of plants later on a relative certainty. In turn the origin of the first single celled organism may be predetermined to happen within a timeframe from some point previous. Why do you not consciously understand a method which in all probability you practice in everyday life?You are evidently not inclined to support the facts of creation, only the facts of evolution, it is prejudicial. As a basic understanding of creation you should consider events where the outcome is not predetermined, such as choice. Your lack of basic understanding of creation is already evidence that evolutionists deny, and or ignore creation. Talk to an evolutionist about choice, things turning out one way or another, and 10 to 1 they conjure up a material cause which predetermined the outcome of the event, denying choice. Materialism of the gaps, so to speak.It's difficult to find evidence if or not evolutionists deny the fundamentalist christian story of creation, but accept creation in general. I certainly have never found any such acceptance of creation in general terms, on the contrary. I assume you're just being oppositional to say you have the impression that evolutionists accept creation in general, although I admit that an impression is soft evidence.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I will try to tell you about creation, but you will not comprehend anything about it unless you develop your own thoughts on the matter.The point of a creation event is that it's not a neccesary effect of what went before. Something new is introduced. If you choose between left or right, and you choose left, then by definition there can't be any material property which makes you choose left over right, unless it wasn't in fact a choice which side you chose. Material properties neccesitate a particular outcome, or make one outcome more likely then another, but choice is not a material property this way.Likewise if a rock falls to the ground and in the event it can bounce left or right, you can see that this is conceptually much the same as choice. I will not go into what the differences are between a choice, and the "outcome-determination" of a chance, I just want to note the basic similarity here, so to say that things are created without the presence of a material brain.Materialism can be wholy counterintuitive to creation, but this should not be a problem once you recognize that the number zero is just as much a part of math as the number one is, and math describes all the material. Creation is from nothing, materially speaking.The religious version of creationism says that there is something beyond or within choice, which is not material. The scientific version just notes what effects the creation event has.I think you can vaguely see how choice relates to intelligence, and how intelligence relates to beliefs about God. The association to religion is quite straightforward when considering creation.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

If you don't see how creation relates to choice then you must also fail to see how creation relates to intelligence, let alone information. You basicly have no clue about creation, I think this is a fair assessment. It's evidence that evolutionists in effect surpress knowledge of creation. I think I have demonstrated my point clear enough. How can you ask for evidence when you fail to understand the concept even? Anyway, you can be assured that not many people will go tracing back to the point where it became a relative certainty that plants would appear, because of evolutionists denying, and ignoring creation this way. Your cries about fact, and evidence are meaningless since you are ignoring and denying the facts of creation. Evolution is just a science of appearances, it is deceptive for this reason.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Perhaps you can tell us about creation. Since you don't deny or ignore creation, as you would have me believe, this should be easy for you.Maybe you should think about what a trial judge does for instanc3e in determening guilt or innocense. If a person's act was forced for instance by bad uprbringing or something, then what the person did was not, or less, his chosen act, but more the effect of circumstances. The origin of the act lay outside the suspect.The point is, you have to do this kind of thing every day in normal life, trace back origins to root causes. I think we can say that the knowledge of creationist about creation is much deeper then evolutionists, even if the biblestory is not factually correct, even if their knowledge is not much systemized. They know more about creation then you, and this knowledge is the knowledge that generally matters most in life.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It went left, it went right, either way there is no difference to science. No spirit in evidence that chose, whether it is a rock falling left or right, or a human being choosing to vote liberal or conservative. There was no material property that forced the outcome.There may be no evidence of any spirit within choice, but you are held to believe by society in general that not all choices are the same, and that you can make one choice or another. You are held to believe that where there is no material property determining an outcome in the usual sense, then still something determines the outcome, things are chosen.That way creation gives credibility to religion generally. I don't think it is needed to mention God within science, because the intellectual climate of opinion surrounding creation is enough to be conducive to belief in God.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think you are misinformed. Uncertainty is part of modern science.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well no I would not care to explain after some evolutionists have said they know well about creation. I prefer you to display your knowledge of creation to see if it is true or not that evolutionists deny and or ignore creation.I challenge any of the evolutionists to describe an event where things can turn out one way or another. I say none of you can do it. You can't discuss such an event without accidently putting up a material cause which denies that in fact it was an event which could turn out one way or another, but that it was in stead an event where the outcome was predetermined with no possibility of it turning out another way. Eventhough I spell it out for you, you will fail. Write in irate large letters you can, joke and be dismissive of creation in respect to the facts of evolution you can, but to describe an event going one way or another and be decided you all can't. I've seen this happen before, so you shouldn't think it is so easy even when you know what to avoid.And to be fair, maybe a creationist should answer that challenge also, to see if the creationist can.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think you are making a mistake. God was more excluded in the sense of Kant's dualism and the like. There is nature and there is the supernatural which has primacy over the natural. It was not excluded in the sense that there was no spiritual dimension to reality, rather it was said that generally statements about the spiritual dimension are valuejudgemets, and not statements of fact. So I would say that science followed the ideal to separate valuejudgements from statements of fact, but is not in denial of the spritiual dimension where values apply, or in denial that values, and that sort of thing in general, have relevance to the course of nature. It owed much of it's success to that discipline of separating statement of fact from valuejudgements. Later materialists, and especially evolutionists it seems, conflated natural and supernatural into one, which caused the ideological onslaught on traditional religions in general of all kinds of pseudoscience where the line between statement of fact and valuejudgement was very blurry. So not only is God excluded, but love and hate, valuejudgements, are also excluded from science.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But your point has been refuted. It is not true that the acceptance of evolution by Christianists is not problematical in general according to those Christians. I rather think I've convincingly shown, that creation is a distinct principle from evolution, but legitimate within science, and that evolutionists deny and or ignore creation, based on the atheism, materialism associated to evolution theory, and not on any evidence.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I have that example from someone else who said that the outcome was an uncertainty according to current science, and not very complex so that science can't calculate the outcome.Anyway... who are you? You decided to have a bacon role is it. Are you a material being? If that is so, then does a rock also decide to go left or right when it bounces?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu