Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
126 online now:
caffeine, Heathen, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 122 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,028 Year: 2,776/23,288 Month: 967/1,809 Week: 86/313 Day: 3/39 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Creationism Science?
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4096 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 9 of 27 (8839)
04-23-2002 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jet
03-15-2002 4:10 PM


quote:

Some observations on your post. First, debaters on the evo side do not limit themselves to the scientific arena. They like to claim that they do but exactly the opposite is true. True science is often abandoned to maintain the evolutionist argument.

JM: If you are referring to these discussion boards and the popular literature, I agree. Evolutionists do not limit themselves to science, but at least they can move back and forth between philosophy AND science. Creationists, on the other hand, are stuck with philosophy and religion.

quote:

Those who deny this either are not paying attention, or are willing trying to mislead someone. Also, I have long contended that all evolutionists, at least all that I have been exposed to, are indeed creationists. They may or may not be willing to be classified as IDers, but as far as being creationists, there is no doubt. For most, abiogenesis is the creator, and with the acceptance of a creator you are automatically qualified as a creationists.

JM: Actually, I'd love to see the data on this claim. As an evolutionist (I hate the term, but let's play with your rules), I cannot scientifically say how life got started. I think it's an interesting problem and issue, but irrelevant as to the discussion of what happened once life arrived. As to your claim that abiogenesis may be the 'creator', I quite agree. I think we mean very different things when we use the word 'creator'. My idea of abiogenesis is that it was unguided except for the physical and chemical laws that make the Universe what it is. I anticipate your next question, "Who or what made the laws?". Again, there are no definite scientific answers, but if there are conjectures, and if the conjectures are to be scientific, then they must exclude the supernatural.

quote:

And as to supernatural, you seem to have some neo-understanding of the term. Supernatural events can indeed be observed with the senses. Their observance does not negate the fact that they are supernatural. A comet streaking across the sky is not a supernatural event. It is viewed with the eyes, and noted as an observable event. It may be regarded as spectacular, but not supernautral.

However, a comet streaking across the sky, and then by the power of Almighty God, is made to stop in its place, remain motionless for a time, then descend to the earth, resting on the surface of the oceans for a period of time, then again ascending into the outer heavens and then finally made to go backwards along the same course from which it came, this is completely supernatural, even though it also is observable.


JM: It would indeed probably be observable, but the assumption of an almighty God is religious and not scientific. A scientist could only try to explain such an observation using naturalistic means. You see this as a fault. You say, why can't science consider the supernatural? The answer is simply because that is not how science is done. If we call on the supernatural at every tough puzzle, we end up like Behe who advocates quitting science when the answers are tough!

quote:

To somehow claim that this observance is not supernatural but rather is now a "natural" occurance simply because it has been observed, it to have a skewed and erroneous understanding of the term "supernatural" in the extreme sense.

JM: Not true. THe scientist may, as a philosopher, consider the event supernatural. As a scientist, he/she must try to explain it using natural means. If that is not possible, it becomes an anomaly that, no doubt, will lead to a religious sect of the 'stoppable comet'. You fault science for not considering the supernatural, but I ask when should science quit and attribute the unexplainable to the supernatural? Quitting means scientific inquiry stops! As a scientist, I find the notion of 'unexplainable' completely ridiculous. I may not be able to explain something using natural means, but I will try my best.

[QUOTE]
Were this phenomenom a repeatable occurance with no outside interference from the Almighty, then yes, I would agree it is within the realm of natural.(It would also require a rewrite of the laws of physics). The very act of intervention by the Almighty, denying and negating the natural laws of time, space, motion, gravity, physics, etc. demands its' classification as a supernatural, though observable, event. When the natural laws are superceded by a supernatural being, that my friend, "IS" completely supernatural, observed or not.[/B][/QUOTE]

JM: No, a scientist would only view it as 'currently unexplainable'.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jet, posted 03-15-2002 4:10 PM Jet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Jet, posted 06-10-2002 8:01 AM Joe Meert has responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4096 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 13 of 27 (11260)
06-10-2002 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Jet
06-10-2002 8:01 AM


then how about this question:

when should science quit and attribute the unexplainable to the supernatural?

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Jet, posted 06-10-2002 8:01 AM Jet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Jet, posted 06-11-2002 5:23 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020