Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism
Percy
Member
Posts: 22621
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 61 of 142 (500907)
03-03-2009 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Kelly
03-02-2009 8:13 PM


Re: That modification has already occured
Kelly writes:
Until people here finally come to terms with what creation Science really is...
I'm afraid it is you that has to come to terms with what creation science really is.
Science's goal is to improve our understanding of the natural world, and in this it has succeeded in unprecedented fashion. In the western world we are surrounded by the contributions of science. Before you assert that "creation science" is really science, take a moment to consider that of all our modern scientific knowledge, none comes from "creation science". That's because it isn't science, it's religious apologetics.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 8:13 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 9:04 AM Percy has replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5582 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 62 of 142 (500912)
03-03-2009 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
03-03-2009 8:11 AM


I will simply repeat
Unless folks here are willing to lose their misinformed understanding of what they *think* creation science is and actually learn something about what it really is, I cannot have a normal debate with anyone.
To assume that knowledge can only be acquired "solely" on the assumption of naturalism is to beg the question altogether. Scientists are suppose to "search for truth" wherever that search leads. It is at least possible that creation could be the true explanation of origins, and it is thus both premature and bigoted for certain scientists to exclude it from the domain of science by mere definition.
Science is based on observation of facts and is directed at finding patterns of order in the observed data. There is nothing about true science that excludes the study of created objects and order.
Furthermore, evolution cannot be observed or tested in a scientific laboratory any more than creation. Evolution in the vertical sense--that is, "macroevolution," transmutation of one type of organism into a more complex type of organism--cannot be observed even if it is true, since it presumably requires immense spans of time. No instance of such macroevolution has ever been observed, in all recorded history, by any human being. Thus if creation is excluded from science because it cannot be observed in action, so must evolution be excluded on the same basis. Both the Creation Model and the Evolution Model are, at least potentially, true explanations of the scientific data related to origins, and so should be continually compared and evaluated in scientific studies related to origins.
Creation Science, therefore, is a perfectly valid area of scientific study. The Creation Model is as legitamate a scientific model as the Evolution Model
Creationists believe that both "scientific creationism" and "scientific evolutionism" should be taught in public schools., but not "religious creationism" or the humanistic and pantheistic implications of "religious evolutionism." (e.g., atheism, humanism, pantheism, liberal theology)
Nevertheless, evolutionism has been taught almost exclusively in the public schools for decades. This obviously unfair situation has been defended by saying that evolution is science. The fact is, however, that the Creation Model fits the real facts of science at least as well as the Evolution Model. At the very least, the two should be considered as equally valid scientific alternatives. The evidences and arguments, both pro and con, should all be presented in the schools, letting the students then make their own choices as to which model they believe best fits the available data. If evolution is really as scientific as evolutionists maintain, they would surely have nothing to fear from such a two-model approach. Creationists are perfectly willing to let the issue be decided on the basis of the scientific evidence alone, so why aren't the evolutionists?
In the creation model we would expect to see a great array of complex funtioning organisms, each with its own system of structures optimally designed to accomplish its purpose in creation. Different organisms would exibit an array of similarities, and differences--similar structures for similar funtions, different structures for different functions.
This is, of course, exactly what we do see. Everything in the world of living organisms correlates, naturally and easily, with a creation origin. Every creature is a marvel of creative design, and the endless variety and beauty of things, even at the submicroscopic level, is a continual testimony to the handiwork of their creator.
Evolution and creation are the only two comprehensive worldviews, defining diametrically opposing concepts concerning the origin and developement of all things. If evolution is true, there must be a universal principle operating in nature that brings organization to random systems and adds information to simple systems. Over the ages, if evolution is true, primeval particles have evolved into molecules and galaxies, inorganic chemicals have developed into living cells, and protozones have developed into human beings, so there must be some grand principle of increasing organization and complexity functioning in nature.
There is a wide-spread misunderstanding in the scientific community concerning just what "creation science" is. Many have considered it to be simply religion in disguise and have chosen to shun it altogether, even to the point of refusing to examine any scientific creationist writings. This situation is regrettable and exhibits a degree of closedmindedness quite alien to the spirit of true scientific inquiry.
For those who actually want to know what creation science really is, I recommend this book: "What is Creation Science" Morris/Parker. Until you are willing to learn something contrary to your own preconceived ideas about what you think it is, I have no direction here. I cannot debate with people who simply don't get it.
Dean H. Kenyon, Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University writes about this book that "Especially helpful are the authors' discussions of created order versus the order that arises from the inherent properties of matter operated on by time and chance, multivariate analysis of fossils, the punctuated equilibria theory, the concept of the "geologic column," and the vexing problem of evolution (in the vertical sense-macroevolution) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
He adds: "If after reading this book carefully and reflecting on its arguments one still prefers the evolutionary view, or still contends that the creationist view is religion and the evolutionary view is pure science, he should ask himself whether something other than the facts of nature is influencing his thinking about origins."
Remember that creationists are not denying microevolution. Micro-evolution is a fact. This has never been disputed by anyone who understands what micro-evolution is. We can clearly observe microevolution , natural selection etc. But we do not observe macroevolution.
I'll check back in a few weeks to see if anyone bothered to educate themselves as to what Creation Science really is. Only then can real debate ensue. I wasted an entire day here on this forum only to have to come to the realization that no one here has a realistic understanding of the truth about what a creationist is actually studying and why their study is every bit as much a scientific one--studying the very same earth and life forms that evolutionists study, using the very same scientific methods, data and evidence.
Goodbye for now.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 03-03-2009 8:11 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by lyx2no, posted 03-03-2009 10:09 AM Kelly has replied
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 03-03-2009 10:45 AM Kelly has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5582 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 63 of 142 (500914)
03-03-2009 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Taz
03-02-2009 8:53 PM


I take my cue from God's Word, not man's word.
Scripture reveals that faith is weak when there is no evidence and grows stronger with more proof. The only reason it is faith is because our proof is not material. We can't prove it with concrete facts. Our facts are spiritual in nature. We don't just believe in God because we hope it is true based on nothing but wishful thinking. Our hope in God is based in reason and it is not a hope like the rest of the world sees hope. It is sure and it is convicted by God's Word and His truth. Fulfilled prophecy cements our faith. Without that, we would be just as lost as the rest of the world is. But instead, we *know*, not wish, that God is true.
You may want to talk about blind faith, but blind faith has nothing to do with Christian faith. In fact, I would add that your faith in the concept of macroevolution is what is truly blind because you have no confirmation of it besides your wishful thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Taz, posted 03-02-2009 8:53 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2009 10:17 AM Kelly has replied
 Message 79 by Taz, posted 03-03-2009 3:30 PM Kelly has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4802 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 64 of 142 (500917)
03-03-2009 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Kelly
03-03-2009 9:04 AM


Re: I will simply repeat
Unless folks here are willing to lose their misinformed understanding of what they *think* creation science is and actually learn something about what it really is, I cannot have a normal debate with anyone.
I started a thread so that you might relieve me of my misconceptions about CS. You've been a no show in any practical fashion. You must also realize that repitition isn't one of the better forms of debate.
You've stated that CS is a real, honest-to-goodness science, with evidence, hypotheses and experiments. All you need do to support that point is list evidence, hypotheses and experiments. No wiley rhetoric required.
Redefining science to suit is not valid. If I redefine science as "heads or tails", I can make a whole lot of things scientific that currently are concidered iffy.
I'll check back in a few weeks to see if anyone bothered to educate themselves as to what Creation Science really is. Only then can real debate ensue. I wasted an entire day here on this forum only to have to come to the realization that no one here has a realistic understanding of the truth about what a creationist is actually studying and why their study is every bit as much a scientific one--studying the very same earth and life forms that evolutionists study, using the very same scientific methods, data and evidence.
You're going to find that if you're not going to put in the effor to make your own point no one is going to make it for you. Furthermore, I take the above post as strong evidence, lending a high degree of certainty, that I know what CS really is. Just what I thought it was: Much ado about nothing.
Fail.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 9:04 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 10:37 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2563 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 65 of 142 (500919)
03-03-2009 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Kelly
03-03-2009 9:25 AM


Re: I take my cue from God's Word, not man's word.
Kelly writes:
You may want to talk about blind faith, but blind faith has nothing to do with Christian faith. In fact, I would add that your faith in the concept of macroevolution is what is truly blind because you have no confirmation of it besides your wishful thinking.
Are you sure that that last sentence isn't just part of your faith?
I know that this topic is about the best approaches to fundamentalism, so let's try one out.
In your experience, Kelly, would you agree that the events of the past can leave their mark on the present? Because if so, your suggestion that our view that macroevolution has happened relies on faith could well be wrong, couldn't it?
So, could Archaeologists digging in a field find out that a battle had taken place in that field many centuries before? If they found a lot of weapons and battered shields, and some bones which clearly bore scars inflicted by those weapons, and the remains of chariots etc., would they require faith to come to the conclusion that a battle had taken place? Surely, they're reading the evidence very well.
So, if we dig around, and find evidence in the ground that could only be explained by macroevolution (and we do), and we look at molecular evidence from the bodies of living creatures, and see evidence that can only be explained by macroevolution (and we do), then we can hardly be described as requiring faith in order to know that macroevolution has happened on this plant, and happened big time, can we?
But now there's a problem. The evidence conflicts with some of the worlds religious faiths, but not others. All these faiths are heartfelt, and the followers of the many religions believe firmly in them. Yet we know that many of the beliefs contradict each other, so that some of these religions must logically be false.
Don't you think, Kelly, as there must be false religions in the world, that those which conflict with the scientific evidence we have are the most likely candidates?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 9:25 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 10:34 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5582 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 66 of 142 (500920)
03-03-2009 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by bluegenes
03-03-2009 10:17 AM


This is exactly what creation science is about...
We want to compare the two models--evolution and creation to see which model better fits the evidence we find through archaeological digs etc.
The problem is in the interpretation of these finds--the evidence. You simply want to declare that the evidence supports macroevolution. But this is where the debate is. Creationists believe that the evidence supports sudden creation and not long slow development from one species into another. So....let the study begin and stop refusing to allow alternative interpretations of the evidence.
I'll check back to see if anyone bothered to read the book that I recommended. Without an agreed upon starting point--that is, without us being on the same page about what Creation Science is in the first place, debate is impossible.
"What is Creation Science?" Morris/Parker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2009 10:17 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5582 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 67 of 142 (500921)
03-03-2009 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by lyx2no
03-03-2009 10:09 AM


Closedmindedness
Your remark:
"I know what CS really is. Just what I thought it was: Much ado about nothing."
That remark shows me that you do "not" know what Creation Science is--and worse, that you are too closedminded to ever be able to see what it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by lyx2no, posted 03-03-2009 10:09 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22621
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 68 of 142 (500923)
03-03-2009 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Kelly
03-03-2009 9:04 AM


Re: I will simply repeat
Hi Kelly,
You still haven't come to terms with what "creation science" really is. I again ask you to consider how "creation science" could possibly be considered any effective form of science if it's never contributed to our scientific knowledge in any way.
You're probably equivocating (confusing two or more different meanings of the same word) when you say, "Scientists are suppose to 'search for truth'". Scientists *are* seeking what is true about universe, but they aren't seeking "truth" in any spiritual or religious sense.
Furthermore, evolution cannot be observed or tested in a scientific laboratory any more than creation.
So if we were successful in helping you understand how scientific investigation is not restricted to the lab nor to evidence that was created before our very eyes, would that change your opinion?
he fact is, however, that the Creation Model fits the real facts of science at least as well as the Evolution Model. At the very least, the two should be considered as equally valid scientific alternatives.
The reality is that scientists prefer the evolutionary model by about 100 to 1. The way theories become accepted is by presenting evidence and argument sufficient to persuade a significant subset of scientists from the relevant fields. Obviously creation "science"
has been unable to do this. Why do you think creation "science" should receive special treatment?
Over the ages, if evolution is true, primeval particles have evolved into molecules and galaxies, inorganic chemicals have developed into living cells, and protozones have developed into human beings, so there must be some grand principle of increasing organization and complexity functioning in nature.
You're expressing doubt that natural physical laws are sufficient for what we observe in nature. If we helped you understand how the argument from incredulity, the approach you're taking here, is invalid, would that help you change your opinion?
There is a wide-spread misunderstanding in the scientific community concerning just what "creation science" is. Many have considered it to be simply religion in disguise and have chosen to shun it altogether, even to the point of refusing to examine any scientific creationist writings. This situation is regrettable and exhibits a degree of closedmindedness quite alien to the spirit of true scientific inquiry.
We examine creationist writings here all the time. They're notable for their high content level of religious apologetics.
I cannot debate with people who simply don't get it.
I hope the translation isn't, "If you're not going to just accept what I say without argument, then I'm done with you."
I'll check back in a few weeks to see if anyone bothered to educate themselves as to what Creation Science really is.
Setting yourself up as judge and jury, eh?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 9:04 AM Kelly has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22621
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 69 of 142 (500924)
03-03-2009 10:54 AM


General Comment on the Discussion
To everyone,
I submit that given the course discussion has taken thus far that we have not yet identified any "best" approaches for dealing with fundamentalism, and that we're not really focusing very well on the topic. It makes it tough to have a contributor here who is actually trying to argue specific creation/evolution issues, but they are not the topic of this thread. We should be asking him questions about his viewpoints, perspectives and mindset.
It does seem to me that Kelly's reconciliation of his religion with science comes from an unconscious but at least somewhat purposeful misunderstanding of the nature of science, as is clear from his criticism of naturalism and his lack of understanding of how theories become accepted. This is very typical of fundamentalists, and we should be exploring how best to deal with this mindset.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 11:12 AM Percy has replied
 Message 84 by kbertsche, posted 03-03-2009 4:50 PM Percy has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5582 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 70 of 142 (500927)
03-03-2009 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Percy
03-03-2009 10:54 AM


You simply reinforce my point that you need to discover
"What is Creation Science?" Morris/Parker
Creation Science does not address religion or God or Holy Scriptures of any kind. Many evolutionists say that, since creation requires a creator, whose work of creation cannot be observed or tested in a scientific laboratory, that that very fact removes it from the domain of science. But evolution cannot be observed or tested in a scientific laboratory any more than creation. Evolution in the vertical sense--that is, "macroevolution," since it presumably requires immense spans of time. No instance of such macroevolution has ever been observed, in all recorded history, by any human being.
True science is based on observation of facts and is directed at finding patterns of order in the observed data.
This does not mean, however, that the "origin results" the evidence in the world.., cannot be observed and tested. That is, we can define two "models" of origins, and then make comparative predictions as to what our observations should find if evolution is true, and conversely, what we should find if creation is true. The model that enables us to do the best job of predicting things which we then find to be true on observation is the model most likely to be true, even though we cannot prove it to be true by actual scientific repetition.
According to the evolution model, the origin and developement of all things can be explained in terms of continuing natural laws and processes operating in a contained universe. The basis for the creation model is that at least some things must be attributed to completed supernatural processes in an open universe. These are really the only two possibilities.
Please try to find out more about what this science is really about so that discussion can proceed.
By-the-way, how many men do you actually know with the name Kelly? I am not a he.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 03-03-2009 10:54 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by subbie, posted 03-03-2009 11:42 AM Kelly has not replied
 Message 72 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2009 2:12 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 03-03-2009 2:32 PM Kelly has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1341 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 71 of 142 (500933)
03-03-2009 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Kelly
03-03-2009 11:12 AM


Re: You simply reinforce my point that you need to discover
quote:
The model that enables us to do the best job of predicting things which we then find to be true on observation is the model most likely to be true, even though we cannot prove it to be true by actual scientific repetition.
The ToE allowed scientists to predict where they would find a particular transitional fossil, Tiktaalik.
Please name one new discovery that came from creationism.
quote:
By-the-way, how many men do you actually know with the name Kelly? I am not a he.
My father-in-law is named Kelly. However, I recognize that there are also many women named Kelly, including my niece. For what it's worth, for some reason I assumed you were a woman.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 11:12 AM Kelly has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2563 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 72 of 142 (500936)
03-03-2009 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Kelly
03-03-2009 11:12 AM


Re: You simply reinforce my point that you need to discover
Kelly writes:
Creation Science does not address religion or God or Holy Scriptures of any kind.
So, if creation science has a theory in relation to the origin of species, what is/are the mechanisms of that theory?
An example to help you:
Some naturalistic mechanisms involved the theory of evolution are mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and gene transfer. All of these can be observed to exist in the laboratory and the wild.
So, what mechanisms does creation science propose, considering your statement above that no God is involved, and how can we observe them?
In relation to the topic, what do you think are the best approaches to deal with fundamentalism, as a matter of interest?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 11:12 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 2:27 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5582 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 73 of 142 (500940)
03-03-2009 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by bluegenes
03-03-2009 2:12 PM


Microevolution is supported in the creation model and we expect to see such things as natural selection and mutation within species--but never can these things lead to a new species--something that cannot be observed but only hypothesized. Creation Science does not address the cause of origins any more than evolution does. It is not a study of the creator--but of the created.
I really think it is to your advantage to actually understand what creation science is.
Also., I do not think that fundamentalism is something that has to be dealt with. It would be better to just understand it.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2009 2:12 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-03-2009 2:34 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 77 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-03-2009 3:14 PM Kelly has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22621
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 74 of 142 (500942)
03-03-2009 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Kelly
03-03-2009 11:12 AM


Re: You simply reinforce my point that you need to discover
Hi Kelly,
Creation science is not the topic of this thread. The title of this thread is Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism. If you check out the [forum=-5] forum you'll find threads closer to what you want to discuss. Or you can propose a new topic over at [forum=-25].
You believe that supernaturalism should be a part of science. What approach should we take toward convincing you that science should focus on the natural, which means that which can be detected in some way by our senses?
Sorry to call you a "he", but I do know a couple males with the first name of Kelly, and I also know several people with the last name of Kelly, and not all from the same family, either. It's a common name in this region of New England with its large ethnic Irish population. About the name Kelly Wikipedia says, "Kelly, and variants, was originally only a surname. With transferred use, Kelly become a popular masculine given name also..." You might want to study up on your own name. Anyway, there's no way I could know whether you're male or female or using a first name or last name, and in cases of insufficient information I always default to he. But thanks for the info, and now I know!!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 11:12 AM Kelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2009 2:45 PM Percy has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 142 (500943)
03-03-2009 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Kelly
03-03-2009 2:27 PM


I really think it is to your advantage to actually understand what creation science is.
You're the one who doesn't know what Creation Science actually is.
The book you suggested, "What is Creation Science" only attacks evolutionist ideas and does not offer any positive evidence of creation. That is not really science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 2:27 PM Kelly 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