|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Science in Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14174dm Member (Idle past 1138 days) Posts: 161 From: Cincinnati OH Joined:
|
Creation Science is the attempt to put literalist Protestant Christian teaching back in public schools. The courts have ruled outright creationism to be teaching a specific religion and so inappropriate for public school.
That's why the big push to discredit old earth & evolution - to be able to proselytize in public schools and/or to protect specific religious beliefs from contradiction. Actually proving that creationism is scientific is not the point. What creationists don't seem to get or just don't care is that disproving old earth & evolution doesn't automatically prove creationism. Both could be wrong. I'm with Tangle on "Why the big fuss?" I think living up to "Love your neighbor" (Matthew 22:39) and "Do for the least" (Matthew 25:40) requires more than enough time & effort. I think that some of it comes from people who just HAVE to be right whether they are or not. The topic doesn't matter, just winning the argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
quote: Because they want their fairy tale taught in science classes, especially in public science classes, and they have learned through the years that that won't happen unless it's enough like science to fool a few judges. That's really all it boils down to.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
But the argument from design is about living things where it is most apparent, most intricate, many systems working together to produce and maintain life. Complexity way beyond mere intricacy. . . . No, evolution can't produce design, or even intricacy for that matter; design implies a Designer. It takes an intelligence to put living things together, the way it takes intelligence to produce an airplane. Wrong, demonstrably wrong. Complexity is anathema to design. I know that because, as an engineer, for 34 years I have worked professionally with design, both in creating designs and maintaining designs. Complexity in design is like a cancer. Instead, we seek elegance, which involves simplicity, which is unlike life. And modularity, which seeks to prevent everything in the design from being tightly intertwined, as life is tightly and intricately intertwined. And the ability to replace entire sections of the design with entirely new "pin-compatible" parts, unlike living organisms which just keep modifying what they had inherited. And the ability to take changes made in one line of products and implementing them in unrelated products, unlike how living organisms work. Complexity, including intricately intertwined complexity, is produced by evolution, not by intelligent design. We know that it is a product of evolution because that is what we observe happening in experiments where we perform design work using evolutionary processes. This is my response to a local YEC activist who tried to equate complexity with design:
quote:That creationist's response was to run away from the discussion, terrified. For that matter, a customary engineering practice is to take an existing design as a baseline and then modify it to perform a different function; in effect, we use an evolutionary approach create the new design. We copy and modify parts, then do it again and again and again. As we "evolve" ever more designs descended from that original baseline, they become ever more complex until they reach a point where it's almost impossible to maintain them anymore. Either we can no longer understand what they are doing or why or else so many interdependencies have developed that you cannot change any part of the design without causing highly undesirable side effects. That's what evolution does. As YEC geologist Dr. Kurt Wise (no relation to me) has said (quoted indirectly by science writer Robert Schadewald):
quote: Come to think of it, you should send your ideas about geology to Dr. Wise. He is so staunchly YEC that he was a YEC before attending college and remained a YEC as he earned his PhD Geology from Harvard, where he also studied under Steven Jay Gould, and he continues to be staunchly YEC. He is also a stickler for the truth and for practicing science honestly and truthfully. So if you send your ideas about geology to him for evaluation, his rejection of them will not be because of any OE bias, but rather because of their own merits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
All they need to say is that it's God's work and he can do anything. It's what they believe why try for more? It's almost as if it isn't a good enough explanation even for them. I suppose one way to look at this thread is that on proponent is claiming that saying God can do anything is science, while the other proponent is claiming that essentially the term science is meaningless and therefore whatever he claims is science. You say you are with Faith on this? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Hi Tangle.
I don't think that anyone here has much of an objection to someone believing that goddidit. But the OP claimed creationism is science - and for that, we need to get all semantic on their ass !Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
NoNukes writes: You say you are with Faith on this? Only when she finally throws in her cards and reveals her hand and says stuff like "if it contradicts the bible, then it's wrong" and "design needs a designer and that's the end of it". They're just statements of belief. I can understandand accept those sorts of statements.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Vimesey writes: But the OP claimed creationism is science - and for that, we need to get all semantic on their ass ! But don't you ever grow tired of the hopelessness of arguing with seriously deluded people who will never be convinced by anything? If Apollo appeared in front of Faith and introduced his father Zeus, mother Leto, and sister Artemis whilst healing her poor sight, she'd find an utterly spurious argument against.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
subbie & 1471dm writes: Because they want their fairy tale taught in science classes, especially in public science classes, and they have learned through the years that that won't happen unless it's enough like science to fool a few judges. I suppose. It's just not an issue outside the USA - it's a very long lost fight. Even in the US it seems to be a settled legal issue now, every time it pops up it's kicked down pretty easily.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
But don't you ever grow tired of the hopelessness of arguing with seriously deluded people who will never be convinced by anything? No. They're not the only ones reading this thread. Right now there are 290 visitors on this site. We know many of them are searchbots and indexbots but at least some are real bots here with interest to learn something. Can't leave them thinking both Dawn and M'Lady Faith are anything more than loonies with really stupid ideas about the reality of the world around us. They deserve better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
AZ writes: No. They're not the only ones reading this thread. Right now there are 290 visitors on this site. We know many of them are searchbots and indexbots but at least some are real bots here with interest to learn something. Can't leave them thinking both Dawn and M'Lady Faith are anything more than loonies with really stupid ideas about the reality of the world around us. They deserve better. In that case EVC should shut down and we should argue our case on the creationist sites where they actually live rather than arguing repetitive nonsense with Faith and, if we're lucky, one other loonie for the benefit of a few robots.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There isn't any more to the design argument than "design requires a designer." Design is easy to spot, it's just denial that says it's not.
And again, there is no evidence that design could be the result of evolution, just assertion based on belief in the ToE, nothing more than that. And if you want to go on to argue Irreducible Complexity, the claim that it could have evolved just because there are lots of different versions in nature of, say, the eye, all totally unrelated to each other, you're really fooling yourself. But the design argument isn't my own argument. It's the main argument on this thread so I chimed in, and there's really nothing more to say than design is obvious, easy to spot, and design implies a designer. I prefer YEC arguments myself, especially my own, something to sink your teeth into.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But don't you ever grow tired of the hopelessness of arguing with seriously deluded people who will never be convinced by anything? Gosh I sure do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But the design argument isn't my own argument. It's the main argument on this thread so I chimed in, and there's really nothing more to say than design is obvious, easy to spot, and design implies a designer. One of those obvious things, like the fact that the Earth is flat and stationary, and that the sky is a solid firmament, and that the stars are smaller than the Earth, and that the Moon is a light ... Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Of course what you repeat here is standard creationism; evolution is just as unscientific as Creationism. The problem for your canard is that the evolution is supported by lots of evidence and that you are targeting on an aspect of evolution that is supported by direct evidence. Even microevolution involves small amounts of intricate design accomplished by nature all supported by direct and indirect evidence. As I've said a number of times, microevolution is the designed system for the variation of a Species, it's a design itself, and as a design it had to have had a designer. There is no evolution beyond microevolution. As most creationists put it, you run out of information. I like to say you run out of genetic material. Same thing. Either way nature can't evolve anything beyond the genome of the Kind. You can get specialized breeds of the Species/Kind and that's the end of it.
Even those cited exceptions that you admit being unable to dismiss of mutations that result in curly dog/cat ears, or humans gaining persistent lactose intolerance, or bacteria gaining the ability to create nylon are all direct evidence of intricacies produced in living things without an intelligent designer. ABE: Ah yes, moving too fast here. These are most likely those extremely rare mistakes in replication that do something beneficial or at least not deleterious, or perhaps the recovery of a former variation by the same accidental process, mutations being, after all, just a rearrangement of the parts of a gene. The nylon-eating bacteria, however, lost a lot of other functions to make that possible, not exactly a good thing for the organism. And it's all on the level of microevolution anyway. /ABE It's the system of microevolution that's designed, the plane itself, variations that occur within that system are like the plane that functions as designed without further human input to its working parts.
Complaining that such things are not macroevolution does not prevent those things from being evidence that some features only look designed but aren't. Once the heart and the circulatory system are functioning in a healthy body they work naturally without further input. That's all you're talking about, the working of a healthy system. But the system itself was obviously designed, and design requires intelligence to put it together in the first place, a designer. Edited by Faith, : fix quote code Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
... mutations being, after all, just a rearrangement of the parts of a gene ... All this time talking about genetics and you don't know any better than that? Maybe you should have listened instead of talking. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024