|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism/ID as Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
Well, I still don't really see the point but you don't seem to be arguing anything critical anyway so its hard to get worked up about it.
Take care. No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4782 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
Ooook! writes: Then I see no reason to bring Bert into the Theory of Glass(ToG). Yes, but isn't there a point where you do you have reason? Seems to me that 'someone did it' is not inherently unscientific. You can bring in a 'someone' if one is needed, like how there's no problem bringing one in to explain how this glass got on my desk. So, Creationism/ID could, at some point, be scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5843 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
Hello again,
Sorry for the late reply, procrastination and all that.
DominionSeraph writes: Seems to me that 'someone did it' is not inherently unscientific. You can bring in a 'someone' if one is needed, like how there's no problem bringing one in to explain how this glass got on my desk. So, Creationism/ID could, at some point, be scientific. I would say that 'someone did it' is not an unscientific statement but it isn't specifically scientific either. As I said before: it should always be followed up with some (answerable) questions. 'How?' is a good place to start, maybe accompanied by 'Who?' or even 'Why are you so sure?'. If someone is unwilling and/or unable to present satisfactory answers to this kind of question or at least suggest tests for them then they are being unscientific. Whether people are discussing 'designers', 'Bert the glass bringer', or the magical universal energy 'Oooomph' they have to keep chasing answers to remain within the realms of science. It is the method that is scientific, not the statements made: a concept that IDers and other creation 'scientists' seem to have trouble grasping. It is enough for them to point at the Bacterial Flagellum, use some scientific sounding equations and jargon to declare there must have been a creator and then leave it there. I can see no evidence to suggest that this will ever change; it's a faith-based position, not a science-led one. In addition to this there have been numerous instances of tests that have been failed many times over, especially for a young earth. Universal common descent and the age of the earth are the examples that spring to mind immediately. The evidence for evolution won't go away. In order for creationism to become a science, in my opinion, it has to scientifically answer the biggest question of all "Why would God make it look otherwise?".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jbob77 Inactive Junior Member |
In my mind (this is an opinion only) ID is not a science. This is because ID relies upon inferences and holes in evolutionary science as the tiers of its foundation. The concept of something being too complex to be thought of as being able to evolve to me proves nothing. It is surely difficult for me to picture how certain rotor motors on flagellum evolved with such precision, as it is for most people, but perhaps it is also hard for most people as well as myself to take into account the sheer numbers of years that could have been devoted to the construction of such a rotor.
Regardless of my opinion ID has been approached as a watered down form of Creation Science in the Dover Trial, and in my mind will continue to be approached as such until such facts may or may not arise to prove and/or disprove the theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bwade226 Inactive Member |
ID may not be a science yet, mostly because it relies mostly on faith. Faith is something that isn't science, can't be proven, but most people acknowledge that it is still there. It is true most of the evidence towards ID is holes in evolution, but is this wrong? Just because it isn't direct evidence for ID doesn't mean it shouldnt be used. Lastly, will evidence for ID come about? Most people don't think there will be, because it relies solely on faith. This might mean you will be waiting a long time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
It is true most of the evidence towards ID is holes in evolution, but is this wrong? Just because it isn't direct evidence for ID doesn't mean it shouldnt be used. Gaps or holes in any one theory can never be used as positive evidence for any other theory, competing or otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tanzanos Inactive Member |
I am dumbfounded by the fact that You Americans are seriously debating this issue. The rest of the planet has no problems with evolution and are happy with their respective religions. What is it about Americans that makes them so religiously fanatic as to actually persevere into enforcing a religious idea into their school’s curriculum?
For a Nation that sent man to the moon you sure are trying hard to go to the middle ages! Creationism (a.k.a. ID) is not Science. It is a religious belief.Evolution is science. Supported by almost all the scientists worldwide (most of them religious people who see no conflict with God and evolution). What next? Will you be debating on whether to legalise public burnings of witches? America wake up. This planet has many problems and science is the only tool we have to solve them. Mighty is the sword that draws blood! Mightier is the Pen that draws ink! Mightiest is the tongue that draws ears! (Yiannis Mantheakis)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
We're glad you decided to join us and look forward to learning from you. At the end of this message you'll find some links to threads that may make your stay here more enjoyable.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
I agree with you on this, the fact is that people are afraid of science and science advancement, whether from all those monster movies of science turning things into monsters or movies depicting the cold-heartedness of the sciece-based goverment control of humanity. it has all led people to believe that science is evil, wrong, and does nothing but lead us down a path to nothingness
with religion - mostly fundamentalism, people form a shell agenst the idea that the world isn't build by a loving-yet-jealous god
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Creationism is not science. It implies intent and purpose.
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. Science must be kept free from Religion because religion creates meaning and purpose and morals and guilt all sorts of other messy things that the tool we call science is not capable of dealing with. However....it is human to be devisive. And I see many using science as thier religion. If one uses science as a way to argue the lack of a divine being or to deny an afterlife one has slid right into religion. Science is not a belief system. It is a way to examine and understand the "physical" environment. It is best suited to do this. Science will never define the spiritual. To ask it to is folly. That is simply not its nature. When both sides of the issue realize this there will no longer be an issue. This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-20-2006 01:25 AM This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-20-2006 10:33 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Science does not deal with intent or meaning ...only the physical details. Nothing of science has ever implied intent or purpose.
What about psychology, and perhaps other social sciences?The minute it does it is no longer science but becomes religion. Okay, perhaps this would take us off topic. I'm just suggesting that your statement might be a little too broad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
I posted twice by accident...see below
This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-20-2006 02:18 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
We have to realize that these social sciences must treat an individual as an object to be examined and cannot and do not acknowledge the existance of self. "Self" in this context is only a concept.
If we accept that we are merely a concept then we do not exist. It is inherantly dehumanizing. We must inherantly have faith in our existance or we cease to exist. For me or anyone else to comunicate in any meaningful human way we must have faith and believe our own and each others existance. That is a fundimental truth. As such to be human is to have faith. This does not in any way imply religion. It is more basic. Religion attempts to bring meaning to this fundimental truth. Something science cannot ever do. I appolgise for how far from the tree this appears to have fallen. I do believe it is behind the underlying reason for the topic. Oh yes....and again...creationism is not science
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
My point was simply that psychology does investigate intentionality, although IMO they have not yet successfully accounted for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Yes...I understand. This is why science will continually mistake apples for oranges.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024