Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 4:08 AM
39 online now:
(39 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Creationists Should Learn to Play the Game Called Science
Shubee
Junior Member (Idle past 3738 days)
Posts: 23
From: Richardson, TX
Joined: 04-30-2008


Message 1 of 47 (464867)
04-30-2008 12:16 PM


The most popular brand of creationism at the present time is called Intelligent Design. However, according to the currently accepted principles of science, Intelligent Design isn’t science. The winning argument in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al states the scientific consensus admirably: Science can only accept natural explanations, never supernatural ones.

quote:
This rigorous attachment to “natural” explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention. (1:63 (Miller); 5:29-31 (Pennock)). We are in agreement with Plaintiffs’ lead expert Dr. Miller, that from a practical perspective, attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a “science stopper.” (3:14-15 (Miller)). As Dr. Miller explained, once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force, a proposition that cannot be disproven, there is no reason to continue seeking natural explanations as we have our answer. Id.

ID is predicated on supernatural causation, as we previously explained and as various expert testimony revealed. (17:96 (Padian); 2:35-36 (Miller); 14:62 (Alters)). ID takes a natural phenomenon and, instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation, argues that the explanation is supernatural. (5:107 (Pennock)).

It is notable that defense experts’ own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267. First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich)).


This is a big problem. All mainstream creationists don’t want to play the very popular science game and insist on playing their own game. I believe that their attitude violates the wisdom of Scripture. There is a proverb that says,

quote:
Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Or you will also be like him.
Answer a fool as his folly deserves,
That he not be wise in his own eyes.
Proverbs 26:4-6 (New American Standard Bible)

Are there any scientifically trained creationists here who would like to consider an acceptable theory of creationism that obviously comports to the fundamental principles of science? My suggestion may seem heretical to theists but I do have a theory of origins that does not presuppose an Intelligent Designer.

Edited by Shubee, : No reason given.

Edited by Shubee, : for clarity

Edited by Shubee, : Added a link to an article that contains many references explaining why ID isn't science.

Edited by Shubee, : As per request.

Edited by Shubee, : As per request.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 04-30-2008 1:03 PM Shubee has responded
 Message 19 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 5:55 AM Shubee has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 47 (464872)
04-30-2008 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Shubee
04-30-2008 12:16 PM


Can you edit your post to include an example or two of how ID doesn't follow the rules of science? Please post a note when you're done.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Shubee, posted 04-30-2008 12:16 PM Shubee has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Shubee, posted 04-30-2008 2:03 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
Shubee
Junior Member (Idle past 3738 days)
Posts: 23
From: Richardson, TX
Joined: 04-30-2008


Message 3 of 47 (464878)
04-30-2008 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
04-30-2008 1:03 PM


How about this:
I made an edit: Added a link to an article that contains many references explaining why ID isn't science.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 04-30-2008 1:03 PM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Shubee, posted 04-30-2008 3:17 PM Shubee has not yet responded

  
Shubee
Junior Member (Idle past 3738 days)
Posts: 23
From: Richardson, TX
Joined: 04-30-2008


Message 4 of 47 (464882)
04-30-2008 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Shubee
04-30-2008 2:03 PM


Re: How about this:
I found a great summary statement that I will insert in the opening post after I get back from the dentist.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Shubee, posted 04-30-2008 2:03 PM Shubee has not yet responded

  
Shubee
Junior Member (Idle past 3738 days)
Posts: 23
From: Richardson, TX
Joined: 04-30-2008


Message 5 of 47 (464926)
05-01-2008 12:35 AM


I believe that the excerpt I selected from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al explains the principal complaint against ID. That is: Intelligent Design invokes a supernatural explanation whereas science, by definition, only permits natural, non-mystical explanations.
  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 6 of 47 (464946)
05-01-2008 9:15 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 3070 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 7 of 47 (464997)
05-01-2008 8:33 PM


Seems like a very logical and sound argument. ID is not science, and shouldn't ever be labeled as such.
  
munkeyhead
Junior Member (Idle past 3878 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 05-09-2008


Message 8 of 47 (465675)
05-09-2008 5:24 AM


There are many players and on each side of the coin. If there wasnt there wouldnt be this incredible fellowship between evolutionist and creationist! Look up Dr. Norman Geisler who plays very well. Science is fact proven by experimentation. I cant prove there is a god to an athiest no more then he can prove to me that I and a palm tree decended from the first irreducibly complex life without intelligent intervention. If matter cannot be created or destroyed then what exploded to make all we see? Remember even elements cannot be created or detsroyed. Where are the facts proven by experimentation showing where the elements came from to explode. Science? NO, just another theory that requires more faith to believe in then God. If you could prove it you would take all the fun away from this timeless debate.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2008 6:25 AM munkeyhead has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Granny Magda, posted 05-09-2008 9:32 AM munkeyhead has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 9 of 47 (465679)
05-09-2008 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by munkeyhead
05-09-2008 5:24 AM


munkyhead writes:

quote:
matter cannot be created or destroyed then what exploded to make all we see?

What does this have to do with evolution? You are conflating thermodynamics and cosmogenesis with biology.

Evolution can't tell us how the universe began or even how life began and it doesn't even try. Evolution is about what happens to life after it exists. Evolution doesn't care how the universe came into being because it is consistent with every method you care to name.

Are you saying that if god created the universe, then it is impossible for populations of organisms to change over time?

quote:
Remember even elements cannot be created or detsroyed.

Incorrect. Both fission and fusion are the conversion of elements from one into the other. In the first, a heavy element splits into two lighter ones. In the common uranium reaction, a single atom of uranium fissions into an atom of rubidium and an atom of cesium.

Fusion, on the other hand, combines atoms into new ones. It's how the sun works: Atoms of hydrogen are fused into helium.

quote:
Where are the facts proven by experimentation showing where the elements came from to explode.

That's what experiments like WMAP, COBE, and PLANCK come in. But again, you are confusing cosmogenesis with evolution. The universe could have come into being any way you wish, it would have no effect on the way life imperfectly replicates from generation to generation.

quote:
If you could prove it you would take all the fun away from this timeless debate.

So what would it take for you to claim it had been shown? Please help us out here by letting us know what sort of evidence you would need to see.

For example, why is the WMAP experiment insufficient? What would the results of the WMAP experiment had to have been in order for you to accept them?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by munkeyhead, posted 05-09-2008 5:24 AM munkeyhead has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 10 of 47 (465699)
05-09-2008 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by munkeyhead
05-09-2008 5:24 AM


Hello and welcome munkeyhead.

I cant prove there is a god to an athiest no more then he can prove to me that I and a palm tree decended from the first irreducibly complex life without intelligent intervention.

Two things to say here;

a) Scientists don't talk in terms of proof, that is the realm of mathematics. Scientists use evidence to draw conclusions that describe phenomena as accurately as possible. Scientific theories are never considered to be 100% unimpeachably correct. Such certainty is the preserve of religion.

b) No evolutionist has ever suggested that humans descended from palm trees. Honestly. Humans are not descended from palm trees. Animals and plants do indeed share common ancestry, but they parted company long, long before there was any such thing as a palm tree. Whoever told you that this is what the theory of evolution says was very wrong indeed and I recommend taking what they tell you with a pinch of salt in future. (Added by Edit; It has been pointed out to me that this isn't what you were saying. See below.)

Edited by Granny Magda, : Whoops!


Mutate and Survive
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by munkeyhead, posted 05-09-2008 5:24 AM munkeyhead has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Wounded King, posted 05-09-2008 9:52 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2171 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 11 of 47 (465701)
05-09-2008 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Granny Magda
05-09-2008 9:32 AM


No evolutionist has ever suggested that humans descended from palm trees.

I don't think that munkeyhead actually said that. They said that both they and a palm tree were descended from the same first form of life, not that they themselves were descended from palm trees.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Granny Magda, posted 05-09-2008 9:32 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Granny Magda, posted 05-09-2008 10:30 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 12 of 47 (465704)
05-09-2008 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Wounded King
05-09-2008 9:52 AM


Ah, you're quite right WK. Thanks for putting me right. I'm just a little too used to hearing such statements.

Apologies to munkeyhead. I hope you won't think I am being patronising, but people really do make claims like that. I just didn't read your post properly.


Mutate and Survive
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Wounded King, posted 05-09-2008 9:52 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by lyx2no, posted 05-09-2008 2:07 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2792 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 13 of 47 (465713)
05-09-2008 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Granny Magda
05-09-2008 10:30 AM


Descended from a Palm Tree
I am a Human and an evolutionist and I descended from palm trees. But that was when I was much younger and thinner. Now the palm trees just bow down to the ground till I let go then spring back up into their former upright position. I remain unmoved.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞

Ta-da ≠ QED


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Granny Magda, posted 05-09-2008 10:30 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Evo Diva, posted 06-25-2008 9:40 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
Evo Diva
Junior Member (Idle past 3831 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 14 of 47 (472934)
06-25-2008 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by lyx2no
05-09-2008 2:07 PM


Re: Descended from a Palm Tree
ID is a mutation from Creationism that popped up in hopes of making it sound like science in order to enact "fair play" laws that have been struck down over and over again. Natural selection will shut the codes once again and will not survive as a science. But as a philosophy or religious study that it belongs in, it could survive and multiply just fine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by lyx2no, posted 05-09-2008 2:07 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
SlightReturn
Junior Member (Idle past 3814 days)
Posts: 1
From: PA
Joined: 07-13-2008


Message 15 of 47 (475021)
07-13-2008 12:32 AM


Evolution isn't science either. Things proven by science are observable, testable and able to be repeated.

Most evidence for evolution come from radiometric dating which scientists assume to be accurate. Radiometric dating cannot be proven to be reliable. if youre test isn't reliable, how could the results be?

The fossil record as evidence is a joke.

The layers of the earth could just as easily prove a world wide flood.

Evolutionists just assume all these things are in spport of evolution. It's one big assumption based on many smaller assumptions. Evolution is not scientific in the slightest


Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 07-13-2008 12:38 AM SlightReturn has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Organicmachination, posted 07-13-2008 1:15 AM SlightReturn has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Brian, posted 07-13-2008 4:11 AM SlightReturn has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2008 8:13 AM SlightReturn has not yet responded

    
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019