|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith Science - Logically Indefensible | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
"Creationist Science" is an oxymoron. It is logically impossible.
If someone has faith then they have 100% certainty If they have 100% certanty in something then anything that opposes that must logically be false no matter what the evidence to the contrary. Therefore any person of faith is logically unable to objectively analyse any theory or evidence that directly opposes their faith based position. Science requires that objective conclusions be able to be made from physical evidence. Therefore "Creationist Science" is impossible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What a silly idea. Faith is in God, in Christ, and in his written word. Creationists -- YECs anyway -- have certain facts from that word that are foundational, that we will not compromise, although perhaps we could be shown a better way of reading them, and on those points, yes, nothing can oppose them. But that does not mean we know how any of it played out beyond those few facts, and what we don't know is the substance of science, which is 99% unchallenged by YECs.
I would also state the YEC position that the ToE is simply not in itself science. It wraps itself around plenty of science; plenty of science submits itself to the ToE and is supposed to support it. But the ToE, and the old earth time frame that goes along with it, are not really science in themselves. They are imaginative constructs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Therefore any person of faith is logically unable to objectively analyse any theory or evidence that directly opposes their faith based position. You paint with too broad a brush. Or, perhaps, your word choice could have been better. Most scientists are in fact people of faith. Most scientists have no problem, however, reconciling their faith with the facts that science has uncovered. Faith in a supreme being does not by itself disqualify one from being able to objectively evaluate evidence and come to rational conclusions about that evidence. Certainly there are people, Faith being one of them, who do not have that capacity, whose faith blinds them to anything that contradicts what they think the bible says. Fortunately, those people are a minority. Unfortunately, they seem to be able to make noise far out of proportion to their numbers. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3626 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
You mean to say the idea is a 'contradiction in terms' or 'logical contradiction.' You are asserting its invalidity on the basis of fatal self-contradiction.
'Oxymoron' does not mean this. The term refers to a paradoxical-sounding label for something that really does exist. The label sounds self-contradictory but it works. Everyone knows what it means. home officelive recording passive aggression church home (not to be confused with a 'home church') love bomb working vacation jumbo shrimp Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
military intelligence
female logic Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
"Creationist Science" is an oxymoron. It is logically impossible.
Most of what is called "creationist science" is not science at all. The world that we live in might be such that creationist science is impossible. But it is not logically impossible. It is logically possible that prayer could be the best way of gaining scientific insight, and it is logically possible that such insight would always turn out to be correct, as shown by scientific experimentation. In a world where that happened, the monateries would be the centers of scientific research. This is not what happens in our world. But it is not logically impossible. Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
It is logically possible that prayer could be the best way of gaining scientific insight, and it is logically possible that such insight would always turn out to be correct, as shown by scientific experimentation. Well, as long as we're picking nits, I would submit that it's not even logically impossible for someone to be a creation scientist. It is certainly possible for someone to hypothesize that there is scientific evidence to support creationism and use the scientific method to try to find such evidence. Based on everything we know, they would not find any such evidence if they truly followed the scientific method, but simply getting a null result would not mean that they are not being scientific. After a certain amount of null results, they may have to admit that the hypothesis was wrong, but there is nothing logically impossible about scientifically searching for evidence of creation. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4521 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
well in fact "Creationist Science" would be the science of how god created everything ... so as long as you can get god to pop down to the labs and show you what he did so you can take some readings and get some data , work out the theory of how god maniuplates what ever to make everything , runs some test on those theroies and refine them , publish them , get the wider scientic community to confirm your findiings , run a few models to see how it all works .. compare the current everything to the theory and models , run a few creations in the lab .. you could come up with the laws governing creation .....hey presto "Creationist Science" ...
no biggy ....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
How can the scientific method in any way that anybody understands it - (creating hypotheses based on physical evidence and then verifying or refuting these hypotheses by searching for more physical evidence incl experimentation?) - can possibly be undertaken by anyone who has absolute certainty (i.e. faith) in the conclusions of any evidence relating to their area of faith before, or even irrespective of, any evidence??
Creationists are an obvious target but the same applies to any faith position that relates to the physical world incl faith based 100% certainty in evolution. Creationists would argue that evolution is faith based position which it is not and I am happy to debate that point. However what is indisputable is that creationism is a faith based position.What I would also argue is indesputable is that evidence based investigation (i.e. science) is impossible if you have 100% absolute certainty regarding the conclusions of any physical evidence before you even have it. "Creationist Science" or any other faith based search for objective truth is impossible (whether that makes it oxymoronic or not.......)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Nonsense. Speaking only for Biblical young earth creationism, we simply start with some facts we have in the Bible. They are no less facts for their being in the Bible. There is nothing unscientific about beginning with known facts, and nothing that keeps you from applying scientific method to all observations from that point. And there wouldn't have been much in the way of empirical science at all in the West if it hadn't been for Christianity.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
There is nothing unscientific about beginning with known facts, They're not known facts. If they are name them. Facts are verifiable, under objective scientific rules. What you really mean, is that you begin with a dogma. The bible is a fact, what's in it is claims. Two very different things.
And there wouldn't have been much in the way of empirical science at all in the West if it hadn't been for Christianity. This is what's called a vacuous truth/statement. It's a statement that only works because it won't happen. Like saying, "If I were a millionaire, ofcourse I'd give all of my money to charity". But what a cheek anyway! It was the Christians who came against people like Galileo! The fact that we can't ever go back in time because there's only one history, allowing your statement to be vacuously consistent, doesn't mean much. You still have to prove the absurd assertion. I can't see any connection, so it just doesn't follow, rendering it a non-sequitur Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
You are practically proving my point for me.
Your "facts" are faith based beliefs. To reverse your claim. They have no more claim to being facts for their being in the Bible! Your faith based beliefs preclude you from drawing any conclusions based on the physical evidence that oppose your "known facts" no matter what evidence there may be. Objectivity of any sort is impossible. Any evidence must logically prove what you "know" to be true. Therefore you are not investigating nature at all. You are looking only to verify what you believe to be the truth. That is not science. For the scientific method to apply there has to be the option for the data to refute the theory! Do scientists ever do this form of "bad science"? Yes they do sometimes. BUT I would argue they get found out pretty quickly! The key point is that in the case of any faith based position (e.g. creationism) it is logically impossible to follow the scientific method in any meaningful way. "Creationist Science" is impossible. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The other big thing is that Science holds every conclusion as tentative.
Creation Science is only possible when the Creation Scientists hold God tentatively. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Well said Jar. You cannot have tentative faith!!!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024