Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 396 (439244)
12-07-2007 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dwise1
11-27-2007 2:39 PM


dwise1 writes:
Here is basically how science currently works. We observe the natural world and form hypotheses to try to explain what we observe. Then we test those hypotheses by using them to make predictions and then either conducting experiments or making further observations. Those hypotheses which prove correct are kept and subjected to further testing, while those that don't pan out are either examined for what's wrong with them and they either get discarded or a correction is attempted which is then subjected to further testing. Out of this process we develop a bundle of hypotheses which are used to develop a theory, a conceptual model of the natural phenomena in question and which describes our understanding of what that phenomena are and how they operate. That theory is used to make predictions and it is tested by how good those predictions are; thus the theory undergoes further testing and refinement and correcting. And that testing is not performed solely by the developers of the theory, but also by other members in the scientific community who have a vested interest in finding problems in that theory because they may be basing their own research on that theory -- if that theory turns out to be wrong, then they want to know that before they start their own research based on it.
Now, an extremely valuable by-product of all this hypothesis building and testing is questions. In science, the really interesting and valuable discoveries are the ones that raise new questions. Because questions help to direct our research. Because by realizing what we don't know and what we need to find out, we know what to look for and we have some idea of where to find it. Without those questions, science loses its direction and gets stuck.
(embolding mine)
VERY GOOD, Dwise1.
dwise1 writes:
Science cannot use supernaturalistic explanations, because they don't explain anything. We cannot observe the supernatural either directly or indirectly; we cannot even determine whether the supernatural even exists. Supernaturalistic explanations cannot be tested and hence cannot be evaluated nor discarded nor refined. They cannot produce predictions. They cannot be developed into a conceptual model that could even begin to attempt to descibe a natural phenomena nor how it works. And supernaturalistic explanations raise absolutely no questions and so provide absolutely no direction for further research. "Goddidit" explains nothing and closes all paths of investigation. Supernaturalistic explanations bring science to a grinding halt.
OOPS! This means no questions pertaining to higher intelligence than earthbound humans, no questions as to whether archeology supports an intelligence higher than humanity, no questions pertaining to the accuracy of the ancient Biblical record relative to archeology etc, no questions pertaining to evidence of supernatural ID, no questions pertaining to alternative hypotheses relative to ID interpretation of what is observed.
So perhaps mainline secularist science's aversion to asking questions is indeed missing out on valuable and new discoveries as per your statement.
Dwise1 writes:
In Message 245 I wrote:
And from what I understand of the Wedge Document, ID's goal is not really to "teach the controversy", but rather it is to eliminate evolution and to pervert science into their own image, effectively killing science as well.
But as it stands, secular science's goal is not really to 'teach the controversy', but rather it is to eliminate ID creationism and to pervert science into their own image, effectively killing science as well.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dwise1, posted 11-27-2007 2:39 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by bluescat48, posted 12-07-2007 11:08 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 78 by dwise1, posted 12-08-2007 2:11 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 79 by Granny Magda, posted 12-08-2007 5:48 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 84 by jar, posted 12-08-2007 10:45 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 99 by nator, posted 12-08-2007 8:01 PM Buzsaw has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 77 of 396 (439264)
12-07-2007 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Buzsaw
12-07-2007 9:33 PM


Dwise1 writes:
In Message 245 I wrote:
And from what I understand of the Wedge Document, ID's goal is not really to "teach the controversy", but rather it is to eliminate evolution and to pervert science into their own image, effectively killing science as well.
But as it stands, secular science's goal is not really to 'teach the controversy', but rather it is to eliminate ID creationism and to pervert science into their own image, effectively killing science as well.
Not to eliminate ID but to get the IDers to come up with a testable model to show that it is scientific.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2007 9:33 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 5:56 PM bluescat48 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 78 of 396 (439279)
12-08-2007 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Buzsaw
12-07-2007 9:33 PM


Uh, Buz, please take a moment to think it through.
OOPS! This means no questions pertaining to higher intelligence than earthbound humans, no questions as to whether archeology supports an intelligence higher than humanity, no questions pertaining to the accuracy of the ancient Biblical record relative to archeology etc, no questions pertaining to evidence of supernatural ID, no questions pertaining to alternative hypotheses relative to ID interpretation of what is observed.
First, it is absolutely ridiculous to include "questions pertaining to the accuracy of the ancient Biblical record relative to archeology" in your list, since archeology has indeed been actively pursued at biblical sites and, I'm sure, is still being pursued.
Second, can you see what you wrote? You're taking issue with science not pursuing questions leading to attempting to research the supernatural. Hello? Just how do you expect science to deal with the supernatural?
You just brought us right back to the fundamental question I asked in the OP and that we have repeatedly posed to IDists and which those same IDists have dodged: just how exactly does ID expect science to test supernaturalistic explanations?
Since you want science to incorporate the supernatural, you must be prepared to answer that question.
So perhaps mainline secularist science's aversion to asking questions is indeed missing out on valuable and new discoveries as per your statement.
Science's aversion to asking supernaturalistic questions is for the very practical reason that science cannot use nor deal with the supernatural. If you disagree with that statement and want to claim that science can indeed deal with the supernatural, then kindly answer the OP question and explain just how that supernatural-based science is supposed to work. 77 messages and still no answer.
Dwise1 writes:
In Message 245 I wrote:
And from what I understand of the Wedge Document, ID's goal is not really to "teach the controversy", but rather it is to eliminate evolution and to pervert science into their own image, effectively killing science as well.
But as it stands, secular science's goal is not really to 'teach the controversy', but rather it is to eliminate ID creationism and to pervert science into their own image, effectively killing science as well.
That is for the very simple reason that science's goal is to discover how the natural universe works. Besides which, this "teach the controversy" nonsense is an ID PR invention meant to sway public opinion and to use as part of their PR campaign to get their nonsense included in the schools. And it is a direct descendent of the old creationist PR ploys and lies to get their "creation science" nonsense taught in the schools.
In short, there is no controversy. It's all a lie.
As further supported by the absense of any explanation of how ID's supernaturalistic science is supposed to work. Especially considering that they have a multi-million-dollar budget behind their plans to replace science with it. To replace a science which works extremely well now, but would not work after ID has sunk its claws into it.

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2007 9:33 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Percy, posted 12-08-2007 7:41 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 6:27 PM dwise1 has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 79 of 396 (439301)
12-08-2007 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Buzsaw
12-07-2007 9:33 PM


Hi Buzz,
Let's take an example...
I tell you that there is an angel of the Lord in my living room. Naturally, you are keen to witness this wonder, and come round to take a look. Unfortunately, when you look, you see nothing. I tell you this is because it is invisible. You grope around, trying to touch the angel; I tell you that it is intangible. This continues, with every means you suggest of detecting the angel being met with a supernatural explanation of how the angel dodges detection, using its magic powers.
The important point is this; if there really was an angel, there would be no way to differentiate that from a situation where there was no angel. You simply could not tell the difference.That is why science does not deal in the supernatural.
Of course, if the angel revealed itself, there might not be so much of a problem, but no angels are currently forthcoming, and the same can be said for proof of ID's alleged designer. He is a no show.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2007 9:33 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 6:38 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 6:41 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 80 of 396 (439310)
12-08-2007 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by dwise1
12-08-2007 2:11 AM


dwise1 writes:
First, it is absolutely ridiculous to include "questions pertaining to the accuracy of the ancient Biblical record relative to archeology" in your list, since archeology has indeed been actively pursued at biblical sites and, I'm sure, is still being pursued.
Incredibly actively pursued, in fact. My issue of Biblical Archaeological Review, which surveys the Biblical archaeology field at the layperson level, still arrives every month. The editor is Hershel Shanks, author of many books on topics like the Dead Sea scrolls.
Science's aversion to asking supernaturalistic questions is for the very practical reason that science cannot use nor deal with the supernatural. If you disagree with that statement and want to claim that science can indeed deal with the supernatural, then kindly answer the OP question and explain just how that supernatural-based science is supposed to work. 77 messages and still no answer.
I thought TheWay made a pretty good attempt back in Message 72, and I thought he was pretty clear about supernaturalism, too. The problem with supernaturalism is agreeing upon a definition. Is it anything that isn't natural, where natural is defined as anything that can have an effect on the natural universe, which means the supernatural can never be observed, either directly or indirectly? Or can supernatural effects be apparent in the natural world as violations of physical laws? I think a clear definition of supernatural is necessary to addressing the thread's topic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by dwise1, posted 12-08-2007 2:11 AM dwise1 has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 81 of 396 (439317)
12-08-2007 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
12-07-2007 6:16 PM


Re: Bump for Beretta or any other ID-ist
your task becomes one of persuading them that an intelligent designer is not only an acceptable explanation, it is the best explanation supported by the evidence.
The fossil record shows sudden appearance of complex invertebrates in the Cambrian.No signs of invertebrates leading up to this sudden appearance.Fish appear just as suddenly fully formed -all different kinds -no half fish, half invertebrate to be found.Reptiles, also sudden.Birds -archeopteryx has fully formed feathers despite being the supposed first bird. Nothing showing how they formed bit by bit.Other fully modern looking birds have apparently been found at the same level.To change from a reptile to a bird means acquiring the genetic information for feathers as well as converting from solid bones to hollow bones, changing circulatory system completely and so many other systems its just not funny or feasible IMHO.
Where are all these intermediates that must have existed to get reptiles with scales to birds with feathers? Surely the most important links that really show us that these hectic transition took place can't all be missing? I want the half winged ones with solid bones that survived well and led to the next fully formed step that we can actually find. Where does the genetic info come from for these astounding jumps? One or two mutations (even if mutation had creative power of the magnitude envisaged buy evolutionists)would surely not lead to fully formed wing information, bone change information, circulation information and so on.
Evolutionists seem so fond of depicting creationists/ID proponents as lying, deceiving, conspiratorial fools but unfortunately to us what evolutionists believe makes far less sense to us then what we believe.We truelly believe our supernatural creator model with fully formed kinds with loads of genetic variability available to begin with is so incredibly obvious. No jokes, no lies, no conspiracy -just plain logic unfettered by evolutionary indoctrination.
given that only 1% of the scientific community is convinced by the ID answer
..and numbers increasing all the time as more scientists get the point of what the real argument is without becoming defensive and suspicious of alterior motives that truelly don't exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 12-07-2007 6:16 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 12-08-2007 10:36 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 12-08-2007 10:41 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 85 by reiverix, posted 12-08-2007 11:24 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 86 by bluescat48, posted 12-08-2007 12:02 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 100 by nator, posted 12-08-2007 8:03 PM Beretta has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 82 of 396 (439335)
12-08-2007 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Beretta
12-08-2007 9:19 AM


Re: Bump for Beretta or any other ID-ist
Hi Beretta,
Most of what you say speaks more to your misunderstanding of evolution than to anything else. If evolution indeed held that organisms had to make do for millennia with half-formed limbs and organs before evolution finally completed its course then scientists everywhere would feel a need for a more likely explanation.
But evolution proposes nothing so ridiculous. All species are fully formed all the time. All species are also transitional, with the exception of those that go extinct.
Beretta writes:
Evolutionists seem so fond of depicting creationists/ID proponents as lying, deceiving, conspiratorial fools but unfortunately to us what evolutionists believe makes far less sense to us then what we believe.
The characterizations of creationists as "lying, deceiving and conspiratorial" have nothing to do with what they believe and everything to do with what they do, for example, telling school boards that there is a scientific controversy over creationism when there isn't. Evolutionists don't march into Christian churches claiming there's a religious controversy over Genesis that should be taught in Sunday school, and they certainly don't lobby religious publishers to de-emphasize treatments of Genesis while presenting the religious evidence for evolution. But creationists spend much time and effort trying to get their religious beliefs taught in public school science classrooms by falsely claiming they are science, and it is this for which creationists are criticized. No one would really care what creationists believed if they could keep their beliefs to themselves.
Beretta writes:
given that only 1% of the scientific community is convinced by the ID answer
..and numbers increasing all the time as more scientists get the point of what the real argument is without becoming defensive and suspicious of alterior motives that truelly don't exist.
It has been the mantra of creationists ever since Henry Morris founded the modern creationist movement back in the 1950's that more and more scientists are becoming convinced of the bankruptcy of evolution and the truth of creationism, yet after all these decades creationism remains what it has always been, a religious belief accepted as science by less than 1% of scientists, most of whom are creationists themselves. The claim that creationism is making inroads into the scientific community is one of the lies evolutionists have in mind when they characterize creationists as liars.
As I said to Way, you have to convince the scientific community that the designer even exists before you can begin convincing them of his involvement in the changes in life over time, but the actual topic of this thread concerns how one conducts supernatural-based science. Judging by the responses so far in this thread, supernatural-based science involves making uninformed criticisms of evolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Beretta, posted 12-08-2007 9:19 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by dwise1, posted 12-08-2007 12:29 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 115 by Beretta, posted 12-09-2007 1:17 AM Percy has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 83 of 396 (439337)
12-08-2007 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Beretta
12-08-2007 9:19 AM


Re: Bump for Beretta or any other ID-ist
You really need to keep up to date with the real facts. We have been finding predecessors to the Cambrian Explosions - some in the Ediacaran fauna others preserved in the Doushantuo Formation
The rest of your points are equally badly-informed - or worse. The transitional Seymouria between amphibians and reptiles is hardly a new discovery ! And how could you have missed the discovery that feathers evolved on dinosaurs ?
Instead of relying on creationist sites why don't you actually try and find the real facts. Because you have been deceived.
quote:
Evolutionists seem so fond of depicting creationists/ID proponents as lying, deceiving, conspiratorial fools
Really, we'd rather not. It's forced on us by creationist dishonesty. Heard about this new film coming up, "Expelled" ? It's not only part of the big ID conspiracy to depict themselves as a persecuted minority (although they can't even come up with ONE good case !) - they also got interviews by pretending to produce a quite different film.
quote:
We truelly believe our supernatural creator model with fully formed kinds with loads of genetic variability available to begin with is so incredibly obvious. No jokes, no lies, no conspiracy -just plain logic unfettered by evolutionary indoctrination.
If it's so obvious, then why are creationists hiding all the evidence of transitional fossils from you ? I've given just a few examples that they're trying to deny, but there are lots more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Beretta, posted 12-08-2007 9:19 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Beretta, posted 12-09-2007 4:05 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 84 of 396 (439340)
12-08-2007 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Buzsaw
12-07-2007 9:33 PM


Let's see.
OOPS! This means no questions pertaining to higher intelligence than earthbound humans, no questions as to whether archeology supports an intelligence higher than humanity, no questions pertaining to the accuracy of the ancient Biblical record relative to archeology etc, no questions pertaining to evidence of supernatural ID, no questions pertaining to alternative hypotheses relative to ID interpretation of what is observed.
No, it means that when you actually present evidence that there is some higher intelligence that evidence will be examined. But first you need to place that higher intelligence on the lab table to be examined.
It means that archaeological evidence will be examined, but archeology, being the product of man, can never support something other than man. Do you even know what archeology is?
The accuracy of the ancient Biblical record relative to archeology etc is constantly being examined.
When evidence is presented related to the supernatural, then questions pertaining to evidence of supernatural ID will be examined. But first you must place the Designer on the lab table to be examined.
Alternative hypotheses relative to ID interpretation of what is observed will be examined when a model is presented, something no Biblical Christian or ID or Creationist supporter has ever done.
But as it stands, secular science's goal is not really to 'teach the controversy', but rather it is to eliminate ID creationism and to pervert science into their own image, effectively killing science as well.
Well, there is no "controversy" and until Creation Scientists do what they have NEVER done, place a model that explains what is seen on the floor to be examined, there can be no controversy.
Biblical Creationism AKA ID is simply a joke, a farce, a fraud and nothing but another way to get gullible people to part with their money to make the snake oil salesmen rich.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2007 9:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied

reiverix
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 85 of 396 (439349)
12-08-2007 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Beretta
12-08-2007 9:19 AM


Re: Bump for Beretta or any other ID-ist
In addition to PaulK's list, the evolution of whales is quite interesting.
Don't you find it the least bit embarassing that the only thing you can come up with is (PRATT) attacks on evolution? You paint an ugly picture of scientists but maybe you should look at your own tactics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Beretta, posted 12-08-2007 9:19 AM Beretta has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 86 of 396 (439351)
12-08-2007 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Beretta
12-08-2007 9:19 AM


Re: Bump for Beretta or any other ID-ist
Percy
given that only 1% of the scientific community is convinced by the ID answer
..and numbers increasing all the time as more scientists get the point of what the real argument is without becoming defensive and suspicious of alterior motives that truelly don't exist.
Proof?
Edited by bluescat48, : correction

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Beretta, posted 12-08-2007 9:19 AM Beretta has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 87 of 396 (439359)
12-08-2007 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Percy
12-08-2007 10:36 AM


Re: Bump for Beretta or any other ID-ist
The characterizations of creationists as "lying, deceiving and conspiratorial" have nothing to do with what they believe and everything to do with what they do, for example, telling school boards that there is a scientific controversy over creationism when there isn't. Evolutionists don't march into Christian churches claiming there's a religious controversy over Genesis that should be taught in Sunday school, and they certainly don't lobby religious publishers to de-emphasize treatments of Genesis while presenting the religious evidence for evolution. But creationists spend much time and effort trying to get their religious beliefs taught in public school science classrooms by falsely claiming they are science, and it is this for which creationists are criticized. No one would really care what creationists believed if they could keep their beliefs to themselves.
{my emphasis}
Or, I would add, if they cannot keep their beliefs to themselves (which would not be very reasonable to require them to do), then no one would really care what creationists believe if they could be honest about it! And not be such flaming hypocrites.
Yes, hypocrites. Because while they lie incessently in order to push to have their religious beliefs taught in the schools as science, they also preach about absolute moral standards. "Absolute" standards that they not only violate at will, but do so with great zeal. And pursue such violations of their own "absolute" moral standards because they are inspired by their religion to do so.
Since they apparently haven't actually read the Bible (as evidenced by their apparently complete ignorance of what it depicts to be Jesus' opinion of hypocrites), let me quote from Matthew, Chapter 7:
quote:
7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
That is the Matthew 7:20 test. Creationists amply demonstrate that their religion fails that test.
While that fact seems completely lost on creationists, it is not at all lost on the rest of us.
Creationists and most of their Christian brethren are the best argument and evidence against Christianity. Again, not merely because of their miserable example of what kind of people and misconduct their religion produces, but mainly because their religion inspires and causes such hypocritical misconduct. As I quote Conrad Hyers (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html#HYERS, creationism is one of the single greatest contributors to the spread of atheism. I know that in my case, I could never even consider becoming a Christian, because the very thought is so morally repugnant.
Actually, he didn't single out creationism, but rather wrote:
quote:
It may be true that scientism and evolutionism (not science and evolution) are among the causes of atheism and materialism. It is at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth and flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism and materialism. Many scientists and intellectuals have simply taken the literalists at their word and rejected biblical materials as being superseded or contradicted by modern science.
In that last sentence, we see that creationism has achieved something that science never could: it provides proof against God. Science cannot and would not address the question of the existence of God, because it cannot deal with questions of the supernatural. Science could not prove or disprove God even if it wanted to.
But creationism teaches that if its claims are false, then God does not exist. And its claims are indeed false, therefore creationism proves that God does not exist. And it does so without even breaking a sweat.
Of course, some Christians will protest this, pointing out that fundamentalists aren't "true Christians". And they would definitely have a point there. But I personally feel that fundamentalists do indeed represent what Christians truly are. At least what Christians are truly like when not restrained by morality.
Edited by dwise1, : expanded the ending

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 12-08-2007 10:36 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 396 (439401)
12-08-2007 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by bluescat48
12-07-2007 11:08 PM


bluescat48 writes:
Not to eliminate ID but to get the IDers to come up with a testable model to show that it is scientific.
IDers are effectively eliminated. They cannot now even ask the questions, let alone discuss models in most schools.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by bluescat48, posted 12-07-2007 11:08 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 12-08-2007 6:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 90 by Chiroptera, posted 12-08-2007 6:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 94 by jar, posted 12-08-2007 6:38 PM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 89 of 396 (439404)
12-08-2007 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Buzsaw
12-08-2007 5:56 PM


quote:
Ders are effectively eliminated. They cannot now even ask the questions, let alone discuss models in most schools.
IDer's are supposed to do the science BEFORE getting their ideas into schools like everyone else. They only way they could be "effectively eliminated" by that is if they can't do the science because their ideas are not scientific. (Which is true, I suppose)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 5:56 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 396 (439405)
12-08-2007 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Buzsaw
12-08-2007 5:56 PM


They cannot now even ask the questions....
Well, speaking from experience as a teacher, I can confidently say that there really is such a thing as a stupid question.
I'm just sayin', is all.

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2007 5:56 PM Buzsaw 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