Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Sarawak
Member (Idle past 5477 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 31 of 207 (501877)
03-08-2009 11:43 AM


Kelly:
I spent a lot of time reading the other thread, the precursor to this one. And there is the usual list of people purporting to support Creation Science. Now, among those I see the name, Louis Pasteur. I know you've said you are not really conversant about science, but I ask that you remove Pasteur's name. Anyone who has read his work, as I have (OK my French is non-existent, but good translations abound) knows you are using him. I presume it's the usual Creationist blabber about how "Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation". But again, if you would actually read his work you would know that he did not disprove spontaneous generation. Indeed, no one could disprove it since the number of possibilities for testing approaches huge numbers. What he did was prove, for the prior observations of "spontaneous generation", that the results were due to bacteria in air, and nothing else. I know this because I am supposed to know the beginnings of my science (and I do) and that Pasteur was a great mind.
And just because a person professes a belief in a God does not make them a Creation Scientist. Before Darwin there was no other choice - so toss them off your list. Then there was a transition period where the Theory of Evolution slowly got acceptance in the scientific community, simply because it offered an explanation that made sense in all biological fields. During that transition there were a number who clung to Creationism. Today the number of authentic biologists who are Creationists is minuscule, not because there are Evolution Police, but because the theory is successful in describing the origin of species.
Hoping and praying that Creation "Science" will be accepted by scientists is a delusion. I appreciate your efforts in what must feel like alien territory here, but perhaps you should examine your own beliefs. Many people keep their faith and support evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Kelly, posted 03-08-2009 4:15 PM Sarawak has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 32 of 207 (501911)
03-08-2009 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Admin
03-07-2009 5:23 PM


Lol, seriously.
Well that doesn't work for me because I like to respond to everyone who bothered to reply to me and then- I'm off. I can't sit at my computer and wait fifteen minutes between every reply; I do have a life, ya know. Tell me how I can condense one response to many into one reply and I would gladly do it that way. I am not too sure that I like the sort of censorship that goes on here. I am used to posting at forums that just move along as conversation does, no need to look back and count the replies. That just seems so silly to me. I never saw a forum where threads got closed, and gosh, how many moderators are here?? We can't say certain words or make relevant points if the word needed to do so is evolution in a creation thread and conversely, creation in an evolution thread? That is too much to put up with. I am not sure that I can handle myself well, here. This isn't because I don't like to follow rules, but because it breaks the natural flow of conversation and makes this board feel more like a "resource center" or something.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Admin, posted 03-07-2009 5:23 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by AdminModulous, posted 03-08-2009 3:47 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 35 by AdminNosy, posted 03-08-2009 4:37 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 38 by Admin, posted 03-08-2009 6:35 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 44 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-08-2009 11:07 PM Kelly has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 33 of 207 (501915)
03-08-2009 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Kelly
03-08-2009 3:21 PM


Answers
There are four currently active moderators on this board. Admin aka Percy, Admin Moose, Admin Nosy, and myself.
You can use the reply textbox to add all the responding points you want to respond to in one go. When a debate is many-on-one, this is often the best way to avoid endless repetition.
The only posts we delete are spam posts. The rest are usually left intact with the occasional post being hidden.
If you do not like having a moderated debate you are in the wrong place. With all due respect: Go somewhere which has a format more suited to your tastes. Alternatively, you can learn to operate within the rules and the moderators won't have to keep interrupting things.
You can use the word evolution in this thread. However, it is about the merits of creation, not the demerits of evolution. There are threads dedicated to criticizing evolution.
I hope that helps. Do not reply to this post. If you wish to discuss it further email one of the moderators.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Kelly, posted 03-08-2009 3:21 PM Kelly has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 34 of 207 (501917)
03-08-2009 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Sarawak
03-08-2009 11:43 AM


The point of my list
Was not to prove that these were all creation scientists per sey, but to show that real science existed long before evolutionary scientists were in practice.
Even today, there are many scientists who perform the so-called real science using all of our scientific methods and data who do not accept evolution in the vertical sense as a good explanation of what we find through these studies.
The scientic method, its appraoch, equipment and data do not belong exclusively to those who seek to find evidence of slow evolution.
Creationists have every right to these things and have every right to disagree with evolutionists without having to hear that they are just practicing religion.
Science is science no matter who is performing it, no matter what they are hoping to prove or find.
You might think you can justify shunning creationists work on the basis that it is religion in disguise, but that is simply not the case. The sooner people finally grasp what Creation Science really is, the sooner we can all move on from this tired old song and dance.
Creation Science isn't going anywhere. The sooner evolutionists accept that and get used to it, the better for everyone. Maybe once evolution finally embraces the challenges it faces from oppsing viewpoints some real scientific study/comparison can begin.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Sarawak, posted 03-08-2009 11:43 AM Sarawak has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 03-08-2009 4:51 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 37 by Granny Magda, posted 03-08-2009 5:01 PM Kelly has replied

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


Message 35 of 207 (501921)
03-08-2009 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Kelly
03-08-2009 3:21 PM


Taking Time
The point, Kelly, was for you to take your time and think through what you are posting. You can reply to a particular point made by several posters duplicating each other and, if you think it through, finish it off.
It is better to make one thought out post every hour or 2 than to post 10 replies an hour that aren't making any progress.
If people are pointing out to you that there are unanswered questions you can take the time to try to figure out why they think you haven't answered and then post a reply to see if you can satisfy them. That would be making good use of the thinking time.
You think 15 minutes between posts is too long. I'd suggest that is much too short for what is needed.
The moderation is attempting to keep a focus on a topic. That is difficult by the very nature of the discussions of course but we try anyway.
No one said you can't use particular words. That is another example of your misunderstanding. But it does not support creation science to talk about evolutionary biology other than to contrast them.
For example, you might say that evolutionary biology suggests a specific pattern in the genes of more or less distantly related (by time or geography or morphology) animals but creation science suggests a different pattern. You don't then need to discuss the evolutionary biology reasons for it's suggestion of a pattern. You only have to explain why you can derive the creation science pattern from it's model of the development of animals.
It is your lack of such discussion connecting an articulated CS model to predicted patterns that is stopping the threads from progressing. It appears you haven't yet grasped just what is involved.
If you wish to discuss the patterns of evolutionary biology then there is a thread for that and you can bring it up there. The patterns in genes might even make a good new thread all of it's own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Kelly, posted 03-08-2009 3:21 PM Kelly has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 36 of 207 (501924)
03-08-2009 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Kelly
03-08-2009 4:15 PM


Re: The point of my list
The scientic method, its appraoch, equipment and data do not belong exclusively to those who seek to find evidence of slow evolution.
Creationists have every right to these things and have every right to disagree with evolutionists without having to hear that they are just practicing religion.
Creationists have no right to alter the scientific method and still claim to be doing science, but we see that all the time.
Creationists have no right to just ignore any evidence that contradicts their a priori beliefs. But we see that all the time. The RATE study is a classic example; spending somewhere over a million dollars of creationist money, several creationists with scientific training addressed the problem of decay constants. Their results confirmed what science has claimed, but they refused to accept their own results.
Science is science no matter who is performing it, no matter what they are hoping to prove or find.
Only if you follow the scientific method. Behe, on the witness stand at Dover, admitted that his definition of science was sufficiently broad so as to include astrology. He had to have a definition this broad so as to include intelligent design, so he just stretched the normal definition of science all out of shape just to suit his religious beliefs. That is not science, but creation "scientists" do this sort of thing all the time.
Don't you ever wonder just how scientific creation "science" really is when it comes up only with answers that support the biblical account of creation? Or do you prefer your science to come out just as your religious beliefs dictate no matter what? Again, that is not science, but creation "scientists" do this sort of thing all the time.
You might think you can justify shunning creationists work on the basis that it is religion in disguise, but that is simply not the case. The sooner people finally grasp what Creation Science really is, the sooner we can all move on from this tired old song and dance.
We have a good grasp of what creation "science" really is--and its not science. This has been determined both by scientists (who are the arbiters of what is and what is not science) and by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Science follows the scientific method. That means it works from evidence to theory (explanation). It doesn't start with a conclusion (biblical inerrancy) and force the data to conform to that conclusion. As an example, science doesn't calibrate the radiocarbon curve by use of the "global flood" to force radiocarbon dates to support a young earth. Creation "science" does, and I have seen this on several creationist websites.
Now creation "scientists" can do whatever they want. But unless they follow the scientific method they have no business calling it science.
Creation Science isn't going anywhere. The sooner evolutionists accept that and get used to it, the better for everyone. Maybe once evolution finally embraces the challenges it faces from oppsing viewpoints some real scientific study/comparison can begin.
That will only be possible if creationists bring evidence; so far they have avoided evidence like the plague. They have to because scientific evidence fails to support their religious beliefs. That is why they are trying to force creationism into the schools disguised as creation "science" and subsequently as intelligent design. If they had scientific evidence they wouldn't have to try to stack school boards with creationists to get their religious beliefs into the schools, and run PR factories such as the Discovery Institute--staffed with lawyers and PR flacks.
But there is one thing upon which we can all agree: creation "science" isn't going anywhere.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Kelly, posted 03-08-2009 4:15 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Kelly, posted 03-09-2009 9:57 AM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 37 of 207 (501926)
03-08-2009 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Kelly
03-08-2009 4:15 PM


Re: The point of my list
quote:
Was not to prove that these were all creation scientists per sey, but to show that real science existed long before evolutionary scientists were in practice.
No-one is disputing that, but it is worth noting that pre-Twentieth Century science was a somewhat different beast to the modern form. Certainly pre-Darwin biology was very different indeed. Since the main distinction between creation science and mainstream science (or "science" as I like to call it ) is the approach to evolution, it is unreasonable to label pre-Darwin scientists as "creation scientist" or otherwise. The label simply makes no sense. For them, there was no dichotomy. The term "creation science" was not coined until the mid-Twentieth Century.
In calling someone like Newton a creation scientist you are putting words in his mouth. We cannot say what Newton would think if he were alive today. We don't know what he would make of creation science. Trying to claim him as your own is unreasonable. Newton had no more opinion on the theory of evolution than he did on string theory.
quote:
Even today, there are many scientists who perform the so-called real science using all of our scientific methods and data who do not accept evolution in the vertical sense as a good explanation of what we find through these studies.
There are many scientist for whom evolution is not relevant to their work. A nuclear physicist, for example, need not concern himself with evolution one way or the other.
When it comes to biology however, the overwhelming majority of experts favour evolution. There are not "many" creationist biologists, at least not in comparison to the many evolutionists.
quote:
The scientic method, its appraoch, equipment and data do not belong exclusively to those who seek to find evidence of slow evolution.
Creationists have every right to these things and have every right to disagree with evolutionists without having to hear that they are just practicing religion.
I agree that the scientific method is for everyone. Please bear in mind that people are not objecting to CS because it is misusing the scientific method, but because it does not use the scientific method at all. Where are the peer-reviewed CS studies? I have asked you for these so many times that I have lost count. When are you going to provide us with a quality CS paper?
As for religion, CS would not be accused of being religious if it were not for the fact that its practitioners are always religious fundamentalists. It would not be accused of being religious if it were not for the constant efforts of CS groups to push Bible stories as if they were science.
You keep pushing What is Creation Science and yet that book is written by two evangelical Christians, who are both members of openly religious pressure groups (AiG and IRC). What do you expect people to think?
quote:
The sooner people finally grasp what Creation Science really is, the sooner we can all move on from this tired old song and dance.
The sooner you show us some creation science, the sooner you will be able to show us its real merits.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Kelly, posted 03-08-2009 4:15 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Kelly, posted 03-08-2009 8:37 PM Granny Magda has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 38 of 207 (501937)
03-08-2009 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Kelly
03-08-2009 3:21 PM


Re: Lol, seriously.
Kelly writes:
Well that doesn't work for me because I like to respond to everyone who bothered to reply to me and then- I'm off.
You posted 102 messages in four days and complained the whole time, and now you've succeeded in attracting the attention of all four moderators in this thread.
EvC is a moderated debate board, the goal being to produce higher quality discussion than is usually the case at Internet discussion boards. This style of discussion isn't for everyone. If it isn't to your liking then simply find another discussion board.
But if you remain here then you'll continue to attract moderator attention unless you begin following the Forum Guidelines that you agreed to when you joined. If heeding moderator feedback concerning the Forum Guidelines "doesn't work for you" then you won't be here much longer.
So for the last time I'm requesting that you:
  1. Keep your focus on the topic.
  2. Address issues that are raised.
  3. Support your positions with evidence and argument.
  4. Avoid personalizing the discussion.
  5. Follow moderator requests
Please, no replies to this message.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Kelly, posted 03-08-2009 3:21 PM Kelly has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 39 of 207 (501947)
03-08-2009 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Granny Magda
03-08-2009 5:01 PM


I think it makes sense
I think it makes sense that those who adhere to creation science would be Christians by the majority. That does not mean that the science is a study of religion or of the Bible.
I am trying to show that creationists use the same scientific methods and study the same data in the same way as evolutionists do. Creationistrs are involved in every aspect of science as scientists.
Creation Science has nothing to do with religion or the Bible. The book I am recommending was written by two scientists who happen to be Christians. In fact, Gary Parker was a staunch evolutionist, with a doctorate in biology, who eventually abandoned those views on evolution later on in his life. Henry Morris has a doctorate from the University of Minnesota where he majored in hydraulics and hydrology and minored in geology and mathmatics.
They practice real science. There is nothing about true science, by-the-way, that excludes the study of created objects and order as opposed to evolved objects and order--if order is even possible under that theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Granny Magda, posted 03-08-2009 5:01 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 03-08-2009 8:47 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 43 by Granny Magda, posted 03-08-2009 10:35 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 46 by Blue Jay, posted 03-09-2009 2:15 AM Kelly has replied
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2009 4:29 AM Kelly has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 40 of 207 (501950)
03-08-2009 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Kelly
03-08-2009 8:37 PM


Re: I think it makes sense
Hi Kelly,
Kelly writes:
I think it makes sense that those who adhere to creation science would be Christians by the majority.
Actually anyone that does not believe the universe is eternal in existence believes in creation science.
The universe has always existed or it came into existence.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Kelly, posted 03-08-2009 8:37 PM Kelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by NosyNed, posted 03-08-2009 9:27 PM ICANT has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 41 of 207 (501953)
03-08-2009 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by ICANT
03-08-2009 8:47 PM


defining terms
Actually anyone that does not believe the universe is eternal in existence believes in creation science.
Equivocating this way only makes discussion meaningless or impossible. You know there is a widely accepted meaning to "creation science". It does not include those who believe there is a natural cause of the formation of what we call the universe.
In fact, it doesn't include the vast majority of Christians either. If you want to use the term as you are using it then you are pretty much alone and no one will know what you are talking about.
If you use CS as you are then what do we call the fundamentalists who want the Bible taught in public schools and are willing to lie to get by constitutional limits?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 03-08-2009 8:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by ICANT, posted 03-08-2009 10:05 PM NosyNed has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 42 of 207 (501957)
03-08-2009 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by NosyNed
03-08-2009 9:27 PM


Re: defining terms
Hi Ned,
NoseyNed writes:
If you use CS as you are then what do we call the fundamentalists who want the Bible taught in public schools and are willing to lie to get by constitutional limits?
Most of what you call fundamentalists I would call false prophets.
Now as far as those who want the Bible taught in public schools I would probably call them idiots.
If they belong to a True New Testament Church they need to teach the Bible in their churches instead of substituting their worldly programs.
I have never advocated the Bible be taught in public schools.
The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ is the only institution that has the authority to preach, or teach the Word of God.
Secular man is not qualified to teach God's Word.
End of rant.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by NosyNed, posted 03-08-2009 9:27 PM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 43 of 207 (501960)
03-08-2009 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Kelly
03-08-2009 8:37 PM


Re: I think it makes sense
quote:
I think it makes sense that those who adhere to creation science would be Christians by the majority. That does not mean that the science is a study of religion or of the Bible.
The mere fact of someone's Christianity does not make them a creation scientistTM. Take Ken Miller for example. A practising Catholic, Miller is a respected scientist and staunch opponent of creationism/creation science.
You seem to be trying to suggest that is, in a sense, no such thing as creation science, only science done by creationists. In actual fact, creation science is quite distinct from what most people think of as science.
quote:
I am trying to show that creationists use the same scientific methods and study the same data in the same way as evolutionists do.
Well why don't you then? Show us the studies!
quote:
Creation Science has nothing to do with religion or the Bible.
Did you not notice when dwise1 posted this;
Here from a creationist source, Henry Morris' own Institute for Creation Research (ICR), is a table that they published for the purpose of showing that the "Scientific Creation Model" is totally different from the "Biblical Creation Model". Instead, their lawyer, Wendell Bird, only succeeded in demonstrating that they are identical and that the "scientific" "model" was taken from the biblical one:
THE TWO CREATION MODELS OF WENDELL R. BIRDAs Taken From the December 1978 Issue of Acts & Facts
Scientific Creation Model: Biblical Creation Model:
I. Special creation of the universe and earth (by a Creator), on the basis of scientific evidence. Divine creation of the heaven, stars, and earth by God, on the basis of Genesis.
II. Application of the entropy law to produce deterioration in the earth and life, on the basis of scientific evidence. Application of the curse, pronounced by God after Adam's fall, to produce deterioration in the earth and life, on the basis of Genesis.
III. Special creation of life (by a Creator), on the basis of scientific evidence. Divine creation of plant and animal life, Adam the first man, and Eve from Adam's side by God, on the basis of Genesis.
IV. Fixity of original plant and animal kinds, on the basis of scientific evidence. Fixity of original plant and animal kinds, determined by God, on the basis of Genesis.
V. Distinct ancestry of man and apes, on the basis of scientific evidence. Distinct ancestry of Adam and apes, on the basis of Genesis.
VI. Explanation of much of the earth's geology by a worldwide deluge, on the basis of scientific evidence. Explanation of the earth's geology by a world-wide flood in which only Noah, his family, and animal pairs were preserved in an ark, on the basis of Genesis.
VII. Relatively recent origin of the earth and living kinds (in comparison with several billion years), on the basis of scientific evidence. Approximately six thousand year time span since creation of the earth, life, and Adam, on the basis of Genesis.
{Thanks to dwise1 for that, I hope you don't mind my cribbing!}
If creation science and the Bible are not related, they're uncannily similar. Add to this the fact that creation scientists are always fundamentalists and the picture becomes quite clear.
If I am wrong, perhaps you would care to back up your earlier assertion that "there are many creationists who do not have a religion or specific belief in any God?". I have named a Christian evolutionist and I can name many more. Can you name these non-religious creation scientists? Perhaps you can point me to a non-religious creation science organisation?
quote:
The book I am recommending was written by two scientists who happen to be Christians. In fact, Gary Parker was a staunch evolutionist, with a doctorate in biology, who eventually abandoned those views on evolution later on in his life. Henry Morris has a doctorate from the University of Minnesota where he majored in hydraulics and hydrology and minored in geology and mathmatics.
They practice real science.
Henry Morris is no scientist. He knows nothing about biology and has no right whatsoever to claim any authority on the subject of evolution. I am not terribly familiar with Parker, but I would be very surprised to see any actual scientific works from him that specifically deal with creation.
If I am wrong, show me the studies.
There is also an important distinction to be made here. I have no doubt that there are creationists who have done good scientific work in areas that do not touch evolution, but when they do deal with this kind of subject matter (also topics such as the age of the Earth or the Flood), they don't publish through regular scientific channels. They go straight to a public forum on websites and in popular books, instead of approaching peer-reviewed journals. Why are they so shy of peer-review? Simple; they know that they will get trashed if they peddle their dubious wares in front of experts who actually know the subject. Much better to go direct to the faithful.
quote:
There is nothing about true science, by-the-way, that excludes the study of created objects and order as opposed to evolved objects
I quite agree. There is nothing to exclude the scientific method from studying created objects. So why the need for creation science at all? Why not just call it "science"?
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Kelly, posted 03-08-2009 8:37 PM Kelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 03-08-2009 11:07 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 44 of 207 (501962)
03-08-2009 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Kelly
03-08-2009 3:21 PM


Re: Lol, seriously.
it breaks the natural flow of conversation and makes this board feel more like a "resource center" or something.
I think you have hit the nail directly on the head with the "resource center" thing. In my estimation that is precisely the point. Anyone conversant with the scientific method would consider that high praise. A discussion about science that just follows the natural flow of conversation, doesn't use precise definitions, doesn't follow through on claims, and allows endless changing of the subject (google "gish gallop"), leads to the kind of misapprehensions about science that you have brought with you. Your arguments show every evidence of never having been subjected to any kind of organized critical analysis.
What you call creation "science" is the result of following just the approach you seem to want to take. It is a mile wide and an inch deep. You unwittingly illustrate this in your biographical sketch of Morris. He is an hydraulic engineer. Why would he be expected to have any insight into evolutionary biology, paleontology, thermodynamics, and all the other disciplines he approaches in his book? I know a few biologists, and I cannot imagine any one of them having the hubris to write a book about hydraulic engineering. And if they were so foolish, and their books were methodically dissected, line by line, by real engineers, (as Morris' books have been shredded by many specialists in the various fields he misrepresents) I cannot imagine why anyone would take them seriously.
You keep saying that we don't understand scientific creationism, yet you make statements like
The book I am recommending was written by two scientists who happen to be Christians.
Yet Morris states: "All ICR staff members adhere to a Statement of Faith in the form of two documents:
"Tenets of Scientific Creationism, " and "Tenets of Biblical Creationism." (see Impact No. 85)"
These documents simply, utterly, and unequivocally remove him from the realm of science. He, and other members of ICR clearly state that their conclusion is foregone, and that they do not believe that any evidence (science, remember) can change that conclusion.
At this site:
The Institute for Creation Research
he elaborates:

"It all seems to us to hinge on one overriding question. Do we really believe the Bible to be God's inerrant Word or not? If the Bible is really the Word of our Creator God, then--by definition--it must be inerrant and authoritative on every subject with which it deals. This assumption leads clearly to the conviction that the creation took place in six literal days several thousand years ago. We believe this simply because God said so and said it quite plainly! And then we find also that this revealed fact will fit all the facts of science much better than the long-age evolutionary scenario does.
It is no good to say, as one evangelical leader said recently: "Well, I believe that God could create in six days or six billion years--it makes no difference." Yes it does, because it has to do with God's truthfulness! It is not a matter of what God could do. The question is what God says that He did! And what He said in writing was this, recorded with His own finger on a table of stone: "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day"
So this is the problem. You claim that we don't understand scientific creationism. Yet you refer to Morris as a scientist first and a Christian second when his organization's pledge, and his own writings, confirm that that is a falsehood. You reaffirm, as you have with every post, that you are utterly ignorant of this subject and of the personalities whose lies have misled you. This is not new ground for anyone here. I would estimate that I have read something like 50 or more books on this subject alone, in addition to having received my university science education at Christian institutions. Go to Amazon, order up Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism by Philip Kitcher or The Counter-Creationism Handbook by Mark Isaak. Learn something about the subject you are embracing and the men you are believing.
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Kelly, posted 03-08-2009 3:21 PM Kelly has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 45 of 207 (501964)
03-08-2009 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Granny Magda
03-08-2009 10:35 PM


Re: I think it makes sense
I quite agree. There is nothing to exclude the scientific method from studying created objects. So why the need for creation science at all? Why not just call it "science"?
They can't just call it science. Science requires evidence, and they have none.
That's why they try to assume the mantle of science by using the term "creation science." They crave the respect accorded to science, but they have no way of achieving it honestly.
They can't use the scientific method--they avoid that, and scientific evidence, like the plague. Both produce the wrong results! And they know it!
Its quite clear, creation "science" is religious apologetics dishonestly masquerading as science in an attempt to sneak back into the public schools. It is precisely the opposite of science.
Kelly's posts on this thread have served to reinforce this.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Granny Magda, posted 03-08-2009 10:35 PM Granny Magda 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