Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Blasphemy in Science
MrPhy42
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 40 (147206)
10-04-2004 3:12 PM


There seems to be a major misconception among creationsts as to how true science works. The misconception itself seems to relate directly to how the creationist views the subject of truth.
Here are the basics. I have seen on this forum, among many others, where people say that the major difference between creationism and evolution in science is that creationists presuppose that God exists, and evolution in science presupposes that it does not. This is a major misconception in an of itself based mainly on the belief structure of the creationist.
To make the statement that the Bible is wrong in some way, or to suppose that there is an inerrant fallacy in the gospel is blasphemous. This is a given truth in the subject of faith itself. It is an essential part of their belief structure, and the assumption is then made that other systems must also contain such structures. This is where the misconception comes in. Science has no blasphemy. In fact, true science could not exist with such a concept.
To believe in a blasphemous statement would undermine everything that science is about. Creationists have a presupposed idea, and will do all that they can to prove it to be true. The exact opposite is true when it comes to true scientific study. One of the five standards of science (though existing throughout the study of true science, but directly established in legal fashion in the case of Arkansas act 590 in 1981) is that scientific theories and discoveries must be falsifiable. Research scientists do not start out with preconceived notions and then try to prove them. In fact, they develop theories, and try to disprove them. They scrutinize their own theories, and notions in order to see if it can be disproved.
Now this does not mean that scientists do not create theories, and try to prove them. Of course not. Yet, the theory must always give in to the evidence that disproves it. Still, that evidence itself must stand up to the same scrutiny.
With that said, how can it honestly be said that preconceived notions dictate both science and creationism?
This message has been edited by MrPhy42, 10-04-2004 03:06 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 10-04-2004 3:32 PM MrPhy42 has not replied
 Message 5 by coffee_addict, posted 10-04-2004 3:52 PM MrPhy42 has replied
 Message 19 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 3:31 PM MrPhy42 has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 40 (147208)
10-04-2004 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrPhy42
10-04-2004 3:12 PM


Title?
May I change the topic title to something more focussed.
"Blasphemy in Science" perhaps? It is necessary to keep topics focussed or they wander all over the place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrPhy42, posted 10-04-2004 3:12 PM MrPhy42 has not replied

  
MrPhy42
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 40 (147209)
10-04-2004 3:34 PM


Title
I would have no problem with that new title.

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 40 (147210)
10-04-2004 3:35 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 5 of 40 (147213)
10-04-2004 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrPhy42
10-04-2004 3:12 PM


Although your post is very very clear and concise, I highly doubt that it could break through the barriers that the creationist has built up around himself to defend against facts. Many of us have pointed out exactly what you said above many many many many times before, and yet we continue to see creationists making outrageous claims such as science is a religion and other nonsense.
For some reason, which I haven't been able to concieve yet, the creationist always has trouble understanding that science is driven by evidence not faith. Perhaps scientists sometimes already have preconcieved notions of what they should expect before having observed any phenomenon. However, when it comes to scientific theories, the data, experimental results and interpretations have already been scrutinized enough that any preconcieved notion regarding the theory is negligible. The evidence speaks for itself!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrPhy42, posted 10-04-2004 3:12 PM MrPhy42 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by MrPhy42, posted 10-04-2004 4:04 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
MrPhy42
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 40 (147218)
10-04-2004 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by coffee_addict
10-04-2004 3:52 PM


True...
The thing that these people don't seem to understand is that a scientific theory that has been disproved can often be as exciting as one that is proven. When a theory is put forth, and is disproved, we often learn just as much as we would have if it had been proven to be true.
Where as if a creationist has their idea challenged it is often met with anger, or simply ignored as if it had never happened. This is not how science works. We can see the false science in such organizations as the ICR and the CRS. They have a preconceived notion, and will set out to prove it by any means that they can.
The members of groups such as these are who are often being referred to when creationsts note that there are scientists in the field of biology. The problem is that these organizations and their members are dismissed from the scientific community by their very actions, and sets of rules.
For example the CRS (Creation Research Society) in their very own credo:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
While it is true contributing members of this group are required to have post graduate degrees, they must also sign an agreement that they believe the above list is true. This leave no room for objectivity in terms of research, this is not science, it is religion.
This message has been edited by MrPhy42, 10-04-2004 03:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by coffee_addict, posted 10-04-2004 3:52 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by MrPhy42, posted 10-04-2004 4:44 PM MrPhy42 has not replied

  
MrPhy42
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 40 (147226)
10-04-2004 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by MrPhy42
10-04-2004 4:04 PM


Re: True...
A good example of true science was seen publicly when Stephen Hawking was faced with new evidence about black holes. He had originally stated that nothing in any form could ever escape the natural forces of a black hole. He was wrong. New evidence shows that it may be possible. Was his reaction to say it was wrong, and to fight to prove his earlier theory? Of course not. This new data is now incorporated, and research continues.
This would not be possible for creationist theories, as to deny preconceived notions that are based on scripture would be blasphemy. This is the very nature of why religion and science are two totaly different things.
This message has been edited by MrPhy42, 10-04-2004 03:44 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by MrPhy42, posted 10-04-2004 4:04 PM MrPhy42 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by coffee_addict, posted 10-04-2004 6:05 PM MrPhy42 has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 8 of 40 (147255)
10-04-2004 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by MrPhy42
10-04-2004 4:44 PM


Re: True...
Actually, I remember someone somewhere on these boards criticizing science because of the event that Hawking admitted his theory was wrong. I can't remember who this person was, but he claimed that science can't be trusted because it changes all the time. Since Hawking is one of the leading theoretical physicists of our time and he admitted to being wrong on something, the person concluded that science is a bad way of approaching truth. I believe he also claimed that because christian dogma is consistent for all times, it must therefore be regarded as somehow higher than science.
I think it was also whatever that asked the question somewhere along the line of "what's the point of pursuing science if it changes from day to day?"
Personally, I found this amusing. Don't know why I didn't respond to him.
By the way, welcome!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by MrPhy42, posted 10-04-2004 4:44 PM MrPhy42 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Amlodhi, posted 10-04-2004 7:47 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 40 (147281)
10-04-2004 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by coffee_addict
10-04-2004 6:05 PM


Re: True...
quote:
Originally posted by Lam
. . . criticizing science because of the event that Hawking admitted his theory was wrong.
If you can't change your mind, how do you know you have one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by coffee_addict, posted 10-04-2004 6:05 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by MrPhy42, posted 10-04-2004 9:01 PM Amlodhi has not replied

  
MrPhy42
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 40 (147303)
10-04-2004 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Amlodhi
10-04-2004 7:47 PM


Re: True...
See there is a flaw in that. They say the gospel has always been true, but the fact is, none of it is known to be true. I could write a book and ad a few givins like saying the sky is blue, that does not make the whole thing infalable truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Amlodhi, posted 10-04-2004 7:47 PM Amlodhi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 10-04-2004 9:45 PM MrPhy42 has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 11 of 40 (147313)
10-04-2004 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by MrPhy42
10-04-2004 9:01 PM


Re: True...
The Gospel is true - even you know it, this is why you fight against it so.
If it's not true - let it pass, why should it bother you. Do you fear that people might love their enemy or something? *bizarro*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by MrPhy42, posted 10-04-2004 9:01 PM MrPhy42 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by MrPhy42, posted 10-04-2004 10:02 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 13 by Asgara, posted 10-04-2004 10:03 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 17 by coffee_addict, posted 10-04-2004 10:28 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
MrPhy42
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 40 (147318)
10-04-2004 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
10-04-2004 9:45 PM


Re: True...
"The Gospel is true - even you know it, this is why you fight against it so."
That mentality would imply that all that I do not agree with must be true by the very fact that I do not agree with it. Hmmmmm...
As for not letting it bother me? If it had no effect on my life, I would be able to. Still that is not true. The general missunderstanding of what true science is by the creationists does affect me. I have children in school, who's curriculum is partly decided by people who don'tunderstand the subjectmatter. So it does effect me. It puts mythology in the science class, and silences the science. If thiswere not true, I would have no problem with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 10-04-2004 9:45 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 13 of 40 (147319)
10-04-2004 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
10-04-2004 9:45 PM


Re: True...
Mike darlin', you're being disingenuous again. You know darn well why people don't let it pass around here. And it isn't fear of it being right.
Maybe when you live in a country where a very vocal minority is trying to teach their religion in science class and pass laws based on their minority view point you'll finally understand.

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 10-04-2004 9:45 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 10-04-2004 10:08 PM Asgara has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 14 of 40 (147321)
10-04-2004 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Asgara
10-04-2004 10:03 PM


Re: True...
Mike darlin', you're being disingenuous again. You know darn well why people don't let it pass around here. And it isn't fear of it being right.
Well, I can see why you might be upset about creationism, but the Gospel? I can't understand how the Gospel has any say in the science class.
I mean, creationism - yeah, I understand that, but honestly, I'm surprised if you think this is the same thing as the Gospel.
What do you mean by disingenuousagain? Are you secretly against me?
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-04-2004 09:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Asgara, posted 10-04-2004 10:03 PM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by MrPhy42, posted 10-04-2004 10:16 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
MrPhy42
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 40 (147326)
10-04-2004 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
10-04-2004 10:08 PM


Re: True...
Creationism was born of the gospel. You know... one begat another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 10-04-2004 10:08 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by mike the wiz, posted 10-04-2004 10:19 PM MrPhy42 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