Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism/ID as Science
Athansor
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 249 (233906)
08-16-2005 11:55 PM


I'd like to preface this by saying that I'm not a creationist. I say that particularly to make sure it's not a school of thought that I'm attempting to get creationism more credibility, I'm not. This topic exists to answer one question I've been debating with a friend. Is Creationism Science?
Obviously creationism gets largely misrepresented by die-hard religious fanatics. The science gets lost to faith and faith isn't science. Intelligent Design is more appropriately represented as science most of the time, but even then too often people use faith and unfounded evidence as supporting facts for it, which skews the viewers outlook.
I don't want to get into the validity of creationism supporting evidence I'd just like to know if Creationism and/or Inteligent Design is Science. I believe it is because it is a theory with supporting evidence and only other theories disprove it. There are no facts to my understanding that disprove it or it wouldn't be finding its way into schools.
My belief is that it's science, albeit a bad theory.
My counter argument's belief is that it's not science at all as it doesn't have enough supporting evidence, testing, and results showing it as acceptable. I was under the impression that "amount" of supporting evidence wasn't as relevant as their being any though.
Look forward to viewing responses, thank you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by BuckeyeChris, posted 08-17-2005 12:12 AM Athansor has not replied
 Message 6 by FliesOnly, posted 08-17-2005 8:02 AM Athansor has replied
 Message 15 by Rahvin, posted 08-17-2005 2:34 PM Athansor has not replied
 Message 17 by coffee_addict, posted 08-17-2005 3:02 PM Athansor has not replied
 Message 64 by jbob77, posted 01-25-2006 1:57 AM Athansor has not replied
 Message 82 by Rob, posted 06-30-2006 12:43 AM Athansor has not replied
 Message 121 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-15-2006 8:10 PM Athansor has not replied
 Message 168 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-29-2006 11:51 PM Athansor has not replied

  
Athansor
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 249 (233984)
08-17-2005 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by FliesOnly
08-17-2005 8:02 AM


I was lumping things together.
I've always lumped intelligent design in with creationism, so I guess it's two seperate issues. I could easily see creationism labeled as unscientific after checking some more resources. I did have a page that was all about supporting evidence for creationism but can't seem to find it now. (Tons of references to ring-dating/etc).
Most of what I've read these days lumps creationism and Intelligent Design into one category, but after reading about 300 pages in 6 more articles tonight it seems very important to seperate these 2 things and that certainly makes me wrong about creationism.
Intelligent Design has supporting evidence in large clumps, and they aren't just ambigous quotes from religious text. Yale recognizes the theory of intelligent design as science, so I suppose to break down the original post.
Creationism: No
Intelligent Design: Yes?
Then again, thats a topic for debate too! A lot of people consider ID pseudo-science based on metaphysical assumptions.
As for supporting evidence on Intelligent Design:
Questia
www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp
"Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation."
I don't mind being wrong on both counts honestly, ignorance is curable and all that.
FliesOnly: Thanks much for the constructive reply.
edited long url to fix page width - The Queen
This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 08-17-2005 09:12 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by FliesOnly, posted 08-17-2005 8:02 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Parasomnium, posted 08-17-2005 9:26 AM Athansor has not replied
 Message 14 by Theodoric, posted 08-17-2005 2:07 PM Athansor has not replied
 Message 16 by FliesOnly, posted 08-17-2005 2:53 PM Athansor has not replied

  
Athansor
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 249 (233995)
08-17-2005 9:32 AM


Quote
Was quoting a page. If you read the thread I'm not trying to validate or invalidate Intelligent Design. I personally don't believe in creationism or Intelligent Design, I see flaws -everywhere- with both of them. I was simply trying to find out if either were considered science by literal definition.

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Parasomnium, posted 08-17-2005 9:43 AM Athansor has replied

  
Athansor
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 249 (234001)
08-17-2005 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Parasomnium
08-17-2005 9:43 AM


Re: Quote
"but I think, in the interest of furthering it in this thread, you should have spotted it yourself."
Agreed, my apologies. On the subject of twisted logic, I read through so much of that just to find supporting evidence that actually has any real relation to the topic at all that I think my eyes are still bleeding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Parasomnium, posted 08-17-2005 9:43 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 08-17-2005 10:57 AM Athansor 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