|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Use of Science to Support Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BigMike Inactive Member |
This is my first post on this forum after reading extensively on it and I hope that I will be able to contribute to it in a constructive manner. So that all can judge for themselves any a priori dispositions I may have (which I strongly assert, without evidence or any reasonable sense of modesty, that I absolutely lack), I am an atheist, my educational background is in philosophy and comparative theology and I am employed as a programmer and network administrator.
It may be that what I am about to ask has been addressed many times and is so utterly repetitive and inane that I will be justly mocked for asking, but I shall cautiously proceed. My question is posed to those who attempt by use of science to support creationism of any kind, be it YEC, theistic evolution, or intelligent direction. How can the shifting standards of proof inherent in such a position be justified? To further elucidate my question, I offer the following. I am willing to defend any or all of my assertions upon request. It is my assertion that accepting the actions of a creator deity is a personal act of faith, not one of reason, logic or science. Using the discipline of science is by definition to naturalistically observe and test. These are two completely unrelated exercises, both certainly valid within their context, but still unrelated. The problem I see, the error in logic, occurs when by trying to scientifically defend an act of faith, the proponent of such a position must use different standards. The act of faith is considered quite sufficient evidence for some assertions (i.e. my personal concept of the deity exists) while the standards of science are used (and unfortunately often misused) for others. This strikes me as being highly inconsistent. So, to rephrase my question, how can supporters of scientific creationism account for this inconsistency or show that I am mistaken and no inconsistency exists? I look forward to any replies. {Added blank lines between paragraphs. BigMike had indented the paragraphs, but that doesn't show up when posted. - Adminnemooseus} {Original title "Asking for a clarification from Creationists" changed to "Use of Science to Support Creationism". - Adminnemooseus} [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-23-2004] [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-25-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobAliceEve Member (Idle past 5395 days) Posts: 107 From: Seattle, WA, USA Joined: |
Hi BigMike,
A hearty welcome. I hope you enjoy this group as much as I do. First, let me repeat your question in different words to see if you think I understand it. You may have asked "Do individuals who believe in God the Creator have any right to debate in a scientific forum." Some to most of the evolutionists here use "Rule 1" to automatically exclude any statement that includes "the supernatural". If a statement can pass rule 1 then it will surely be eliminated by "Rule 2" which requires the statement to take into account "the whole body of evidence". And because any scientific theory must be "falsifiable" no theory involving the supernatural can be introduced (I can't remember if falsifiable has it's own rule ) The above rules are part of a post to me by a member called quetzal. Lest I sound like a whiner, I actually agree with these rules in a scientific debate. At least three questions come to me out of the rules. First, is tToE scientific. Second, since it is being used by many to "refute" the existence of the supernatural should not the supernatural be considered in those cases. Finally, must the whole body of evidence be considered or just those facts that refute evolution? Let me clarify by saying that I have complete respect for those who simply do not believe in God but I have no respect for those who know better and are simply using Evolutionism as a cover - and I do not decide who is in which group and I care only because a bad attitude gives a bad taste to the debates. I do not like a bad attitude from Creationists, either and have told at least one so. Enough "background" and to my response to your question. Creationism in its pure form uses the seemingly few facts that refute Evolution. Since in its pure form it does not need to include the supernatural by reference, it is as valid a science as Evolutionism. In both cases the -ism is a respectful form. That there appears to be many versions of both tToE and tToC confuses the issue but the individuals I have debated seem content with Natural Selection. I have not yet debated a Creationist but plan to when I see bad logic there not pointed out by someone else (Evolutionists usually jump right on it). Creationists, I believe, have no general plan other than to hold, at least loosley, to Genesis 1 and 2, and tightly to the creation of Adam and Eve. The glue for Evolutionists seems to be the "apparent common ancestor". In summary, I assert that Creationism can be as scientific as Evolutionism and so Creationists have a right to debate in a forum related to EvC. Very best regards, Bob, Alice, and Eve
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Melchior Inactive Member |
quote: 1: If taken as a model which has been tested to be accurate so far, it is definitely scientific. 2: That is a philosophical question, really. I'd say that you can use it to refute *some* scenarios, but definitely not all. For example, if evolution is an accurate model, it can refute the scenario where a god creates animals in an order which is contradicted by our evidence. 3: Any theory which will 'take over' after ToE would have to both explain all the relevant evidence that ToE can currently explain correctly AND explain properly all the evidence where ToE has shown to be incorrect. Why would you ever want to downgrade, so to speak? A theory of creationism CAN contain a scientific part, but it would have to stand on it's own legs. It has to go through all the tests any other model would. And it is VITAL that the 'God bit' would be optional based on personal preference. [This message has been edited by Melchior, 04-25-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BigMike Inactive Member |
You have restated my question as "Do individuals who believe in God the Creator have any right to debate in a scientific forum." I must say that does not accurately reflect my position. First, anyone has the right to debate any position in an honest forum and I never meant to imply otherwise. Whether a deistic position can be effectively defended is another question.
My question is a much narrower one. What I am asking is how a position that is only believable by an act of faith can be defended by a system that uses a completely different paradigm? How can the creationist reasonably try to use the standards of science (which are valid in their context) for part of their position and then use faith (also valid in it’s context) for other parts? In any case, at this time I feel that before we can further address my main question, we must address a point you have raised. First, for clarity I will define my terms: Science is that body of theory arrived at by the classical method of observation, hypothesis and testing, and subject to verifiability, repeatability and falsification. Creationism is the belief that at some point, some intelligence engaged in some act of creation that resulted in the world as we see it today. Faith is the act of believing as fact a thing that is not provable by human knowledge or science. Supernatural refers to any event or entity whose existence is inexplicable by human knowledge or science. I am aware that a necessary corollary to these definitions is that a supernatural thing is believable only by faith, but I believe that to be reasonable. Please feel free to take issue with my definitions. We must agree on what we are discussing to have an effective exchange. On the presumption that my definitions will be accepted and subject to being challenged, I proceed. My original question, which I may have been unclear on, is perhaps best stated as follows. I argue: 1. Belief in creationism is a question of faith.2. Science does not address questions of faith. 3. Therefore, science does not address creationism. The challenge was concerning how creationists respond to this line of reasoning. You have responded quite properly by questioning my first assertion. In your response, you state in reference to creationism, Since in its pure form it does not need to include the supernatural by reference, it is as valid a science as Evolutionism. From context, you are claiming that it is possible to remove the supernatural from creationism, thus removing the need for an act of faith. That would successfully counter my argument by voiding my first assertion but I am afraid I must take issue. Specifically, I maintain that creationism does include the supernatural. I also note as a side issue that a corollary to your statement is that if creationism does include the supernatural, then it would not be science. I assert that for creationism to be true there must be a creator and an act of creation. Without them, creationism has nothing to say. They are essential to the concept. That act of creation, be it a single act of creating a clockwork universe or a series of smaller, directing interventions, cannot be explained or understood unless one takes the position that through science or human knowledge man can come to know the nature of god. I believe that such an idea runs directly contrary to all commonly accepted concepts of creator deities. Therefore, the act of creation is supernatural and acceptance that it occurred is an act of faith. To restate my current argument concisely, made in support of my first assertion: 1. Creationism inherently implies both a creator and an act of creation.2. Science cannot explain the creator or his actions. 3. Therefore, science cannot explain creationism. 4. Therefore, creationism is supernatural. 5. Therefore, by definition, accepting creationism requires an act of faith. I look forward to any responses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4145 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hello BobAliceEve:
I read the first post by BigMike twice and still cannot see how you warped his question about the scientific validity of creationism into a question on whether or not people who believe in God can debate in a scientific forum.but alasI’ll let BigMike deal with that. I do, however, have a few questions and statements of my own for you. You say the following:
BobAliceEve writes: Which begs the question: what do you mean by any statement? For example, if you were to make a statement such as: In scientific endeavors, one cannot invoke the supernatural as an explanation of observed facts, I (and I’d be willing to bet most evolutionary biologists as well) would not automatically exclude that statement. Quite the opposite. Some to most of the evolutionists here use "Rule 1" to automatically exclude any statement that includes "the supernatural". Rule #2, you state:
BobAliceEve writes: Ok, I’ll ask. And this is bad because? I mean really, what a horrible conceptrequiring the theory to address all the evidence. Man oh man, scientists sure are a picky bunch. ...requires the statement to take into account "the whole body of evidence". And the 3rd rule, according to you:
BobAliceEve writes: Again I ask. This is bad because? ...because any scientific theory must be "falsifiable" no theory involving the supernatural can be introduced... You then go on to ask three of your own questions.
BobAliceEve writes: I assume the question here is if the ToE is scientific. The answer is yes. There, that one was easy. At least three questions come to me out of the rules. First, is tToE scientific. I assume your second question is:
BobAliceEve writes: Well, first off, the ToE is NOT being used to refute the existence of God. But ignoring that, let’s look at the question as a whole. When you first read it, it seems like a thought provoking question. But if you read it S L O W L Y you see that it really is asking nothing of value. How can you consider that supernatural if you’re excluding the supernatural? So the answer to your second question is simple. No, we should not consider the supernatural in scientific endeavors (actually, by definition, we cannot include the supernatural in scientific endeavors). Second, since it is being used by many to "refute" the existence of the supernatural should not the supernatural be considered in those cases. You go on to say:
BobAliceEve writes: Let me ask you a question or two. First, what do you mean by saying those who know better and are simply using evolution as a cover? What does this meanthose who know better? I’m confused here. Are you saying you have no respect for individuals that accept the ToE but also believe in God? Second, if you don’t decide who is in which group, then how do you know who you do not respect? You say you have no respect for those that use evolution as a cover, but then go on to say that you don’t decide who does and who does not use evolution as a cover. Help me out here. Who does make the decision for you as to who you will and will not respect? Let me clarify by saying that I have complete respect for those who simply do not believe in God but I have no respect for those who know better and are simply using Evolutionism as a cover - and I do not decide who is in which group and I care only because a bad attitude gives a bad taste to the debates.In other words, let me ask you two questions. 1) Do you have respect for me? 2) Why or why not? Then you say:
BobAliceEve writes: Please, give me one fact that refutes the Theory of Evolution. Creationism in its pure form uses the seemingly few facts that refute Evolution. Which is followed by:
BobAliceEve writes: Its pure form? As valid as the Theory of Evolution? Pa Leez. Care to back this up? You could start by answering this question: What is the pure form of creationism? Since in its pure form it does not need to include the supernatural by reference, it is as valid a science as Evolutionism. Next we get:
BobAliceEve writes: Wrong. There is one Theory of Evolution, and there are NO Theories of Creationism. That there appears to be many versions of both tToE and tToC confuses the issue... And you finish with:
BobAliceEve writes: You cannot simple assert the creationism can be as scientific as the Theory of Evolution and let it go at that. Wishing it to be so, does not make it so. I guess your first step would be to define what you mean by scientific. In doing that, you will go a long way towards addressing the original question asked by BigMike, which, as I read it, asks creationists if they can defend their position based solely on its scientific merits. In summary, I assert that Creationism can be as scientific as Evolutionism and so Creationists have a right to debate in a forum related to EvC.As for your right to debate in this forum, no one ever said you couldn’t. All we ask is that you back up your claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobAliceEve Member (Idle past 5395 days) Posts: 107 From: Seattle, WA, USA Joined: |
Hi Melchior,
Your post is great. I understood everything except the part about downgrading. For question 1, I understand your response to be general and, while tToE appears to pass all the rules of science today, I think it can and will be proven false with some very simple evidence. I think there are "magicians" on each side of the question. This statement is subjective on my part and requires no response from you unless you see something objective in it. For question 2, I am in complete agreement with your response as stated. For question 3, I don't think tToE will be replaced with another theory; but (only) with a visit from the Creator. This, too, is a subjective statement... And your final statement was perfect IMHO. I hope we have several opportunities to interact. It has been a pleasure to meet you. Bob, Alice, and Eve
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobAliceEve Member (Idle past 5395 days) Posts: 107 From: Seattle, WA, USA Joined: |
Hi BigMike,
Your definitions are accepted. Your writing is excellent. A question similar to yours was asked by FliesOnly as follows:
Its pure form? As valid as the Theory of Evolution? Pa Leez. Care to back this up? You could start by answering this question: What is the pure form of creationism? If I may phrase your (plural) question to: "Because Creationism has an element of supernatural is it not all scientifically indefensible including any scientific portion." I think we are debating the defensability of Creationism? I originally stated the question as "debating the right to debate" to set an extreme boundary to request clarification. The Creator and His act of creation can not be used in a scientific discussion until He is 1) observable by anyone and 2) shows those who will look how He did it. However, this should not automatically exclude any scientific evidence of the act. For example, if the age of something on the earth could be shown to be 12,000 years - possibly the atmosphere. Or if it could be shown, as Darwin stated, that any individual transition was impossible - possibly the elbow. Or if something could be shown as having the only possibility of its earthly existence to be supernatural - such as 38 trillion barrels of oil in one oil field. There are many other possible artifacts of creation which could be listed. I have listed some favorites which I think deserve attention in spite of the fact that they would be the result of the supernatural act of creation. Very best regards,Bob, Alice, and Eve
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
BAE
I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying in this paragraph...
Message 8 of 8 04-29-2004 07:02 AM However, this should not automatically exclude any scientific evidence of the act. For example, if the age of something on the earth could be shown to be 12,000 years - possibly the atmosphere. Or if it could be shown, as Darwin stated, that any individual transition was impossible - possibly the elbow. Or if something could be shown as having the only possibility of its earthly existence to be supernatural - such as 38 trillion barrels of oil in one oil field. Are you saying that if something can be shown to be 12,000 years old it is proof of Creation? Are you saying that it is impossible to have an elbow arise in any manner other than Creation? And is supernatural intervention the only way that you can get large oil fields? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
Yes it would be proof if the earth was that young. Creationists have plenty of it confirming the Bible. Its not a fact that the earth is billions of yrs old. Its fact for Evolutionists but not general science. Although the theory of Evolution has completely taken over mainstream science.
This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-06-2004 08:56 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
It would be helpful if you would use the Little Red Reply Button at the bottom of the specific post that you are replying too.
Some people get email notifications if someone replies to their post. This is only triggered if you use the LLRB. In addtion it makes it easy to jump to the post you are replying to. If you disagree with the dating of the earth there is a complete forum for that: Dates and Dating
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: If the Genesis account were literally accurate, then EVERYTHING would have to be 6,000-12,000 years old. Falsifying evidence is important as well. It is not a fact that the Earth is billions of years old, but every piece of evidence on the Earth fits with the theory. The evidence does not fit an Earth that is 12,000 years old. This is how science is done, the search for supporting AND falsifying evidence. The fact that creationists focus just on supporting evidence removes them from the field of science.
quote: The age of the earth is part of geology, not biology of which evolution is a part of. Evolution has taken over science just like other supported theories, like heliocentrism, the Germ Theory of Disease, Special Relativity, and other theories that are supported and NOT FALSIFIED. The fact that young earth creationism is no longer part of science is that it was falsified by the evidence. Until you can explain the falsifying evidence, your long list of supporting evidence means squat. Again, this is how science is done. If you think young earth creationism should be part of science, then you must deal with the complete list of evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
The evidence for a old earth is not as overwhelming as it looks. Especially when Creationists find overwhelming evidence for a young earth. There both based on assumptions. For example : 5 layers means 5 million yrs thats just a theory. There is no way to date the age of the earth It cant be proven with a dating method or observing the present just and idea of what may have happened. Luckily for us Creationists we are basing it on a book of God who says he was there when it happened!...The evidence cant be all that bad since Creationists are standing just as tall against todays Evolutionists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
almeyda writes: The evidence for a old earth is not as overwhelming as it looks. Especially when Creationists find overwhelming evidence for a young earth. There both based on assumptions. For example : 5 layers means 5 million yrs thats just a theory. There is no way to date the age of the earth It cant be proven with a dating method or observing the present just and idea of what may have happened. Luckily for us Creationists we are basing it on a book of God who says he was there when it happened!...The evidence cant be all that bad since Creationists are standing just as tall against todays Evolutionists. I'm a little irritated by your rampaging from thread to thread asserting that creationists have overwhelming evidence for a young Earth and that evolutionists have poor evidence for an old Earth. Please go to this thread for explanations on scientific dating methods. You really need to take a break and read through this thread before you make more unsupported assertions. I've been going easy on you and not demand from you explanations and evidence for your young earth assertions, but my patience has dried out. The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The evidence for a old earth is not as overwhelming as it looks. Actually, it really is and you can, if you are willing, find more than ample evidence that it is so on your own.
The evidence cant be all that bad since Creationists are standing just as tall against todays Evolutionists. Actually, there is little evidence that is not laughably silly in support of a young earth. There is even less evidence supporting a young universe and you can check that out for yourself through direct observation. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024