Evolution and Creationism

[Valentin the II]

And you whant to tell me that they were all making up crazy theories to suport creationism?
I know that there are many religious scientists, but I doubt that they are all "fantics of christ".

[Søren]

And you whant to tell me that they were all making up crazy theories to suport creationism?
I know that there are many religious scientists, but I doubt that they are all "fantics of christ".

That depends what you mean by "fanatics of Christ".

For instance, Dr. Raymond Damandian is a young earth creationist, so if that is your definition of a "fanatic of Christ", then yes, I suppose I am telling you that.

[Sam]

I never tried to prove the whole bible was scientific truth, just parts that could be considered. And what points were demolished? I just found a source and posed an idea that hasn't been proven (prebiotic soup thing). And that verse was taken entirely out of context.

You didn't read who that last section of my post was directed at, did you?

My point was that correlation to various historical events does not make something a reliable source.

It's rather a pity that you, knowing relativly little about science, are trying to generally discredit anybody who believes in a view point you consider questionable from even being a scientist.

While, arguably, the creationist view point may well be fallacious, I am not arguing for it, particually - you are wholly wrong and unjustified to deliver such criticisms against people, some of whom are otherwise very good members of the scientific community. A more mature attitude to those who you disagree with is called for, I think.

Creation science was a laughably pathetic attempt to force biblical creationism into the classroom under the guise of science. I would love to debate some of those scientists if they truly think that creationism is a better theory, because I've been debating creationists for almost a year and have never seen a single argument which actually holds any water.

Labelling 'creation science' wrong is not an unfair act, they have been shown to be wrong many many times, under many different guises. Why the hell shouldn't we criticize it?

[Søren]

Creation science was a laughably pathetic attempt to force biblical creationism into the classroom under the guise of science.

I'm afraid that you probably don't know much about it; nor the people who believe in it then. That's certianly not the case.

I would love to debate some of those scientists if they truly think that creationism is a better theory, because I've been debating creationists for almost a year and have never seen a single argument which actually holds any water.

Perhaps you have not exactly been debating people very knowledgable on it, then.

Labelling 'creation science' wrong is not an unfair act, they have been shown to be wrong many many times, under many different guises. Why the hell shouldn't we criticize it?

I didn't say that.

If you read my post you will see that I was replying to a post in which The White Knight suggests that they shouldn't even be considered scientists.

[Shaun]

I'm afraid that you don't know much about it; nor the people who believe in it then. That's certianly not the case.

Well if you seem to know so much about creation science, then can you please give us a decent point on my it is a good theory?

[Søren]

Well if you seem to know so much about creation science, then can you please give us a decent point on my it is a good theory?

I certianly don't claim to know a great deal about it from an intellectually scientific point of view -- what I was doing, however, was pointing out a few things which you and Sam had said which were incorrect in regard to the history and philosophy behind creation science, something which I do know a little about.

[Shaun]

I certianly don't claim to know a great deal about it from an intellectually scientific point of view -- what I was doing, however, was pointing out a few things which you and Sam had said which were incorrect in regard to the history and philosophy behind creation science, something which I do know a little about.

Well i never really said anything about creationism, and i did disagree with The White Knights statement about scientists cannot be creationists or whatever, but you have to admit that for a scientist to just accept a theory, its fair enough if they have done some research, but to acpet without question does seem odd.

[Valentin the II]

For instance, Dr. Raymond Damandian is a young earth creationist, so if that is your definition of a "fanatic of Christ", then yes, I suppose I am telling you that.

Ah! But what does he do? If he is a geologyst, biologyst, etc.... than he is a scientist.
But if he is one of these wackos who twist the laws of science to fit their precious bible (the so called "creationist scientists") than I can hardly call him a scientist.

but you have to admit that for a scientist to just accept a theory, its fair enough if they have done some research, but to acpet without question does seem odd.

Half of the scientists in the world blindly folow theyr obsecuer theories, that doesnt proove anysing.

It seems that Im fighting on 2 fronts .

[Søren]

Ah! But what does he do? If he is a geologyst, biologyst, etc.... than he is a scientist.
But if he is one of these wackos who twist the laws of science to fit their precious bible (the so called "creationist scientists") than I can hardly call him a scientist.

If you'ld read mt previous post you would have seen that he most emphatically is a scientist :

Dr Raymond Damadian - invented Magnetic Resonance Imaging - received - the United States' National Medal of Technology - the Lemelson-MIT Lifetime Achievement Award for invention and innovation - was elected to the National Inventors Hall of Fame. (very, very few have achieved this)

Happy?

[Sam]

I'm afraid that you probably don't know much about it; nor the people who believe in it then. That's certianly not the case.

So, if I disagree with it, that means I don't know anything about it? Either that or it means I'm familiar enough with it to know that it's a crock. After all, if it weren't a crock, it would be in classrooms being taught as we speak, but the scientific community saw it for what it was and stamped it out, and then the legal system saw it for what it was and stamped it out. After being beaten down by the courts and the scientific community, they gave it a quick polish over, a new name (intelligent design), and tried again, only to fail again. So then they gave it a quick polish over yet again, a new name (critical analysis) yet again, and now they are trying yet again.

I don't have to know a damn thing about the people who believe in creation science to know that it is a religious theory. The religiosity of creation science shines through in it's criticisms and ideas (and in the fact that it's mostly just criticisms of evolution and biology, and not much actual alternative substance besides 'goddidit').

I took this quote from the main page of the Institute for Creation Research, the home of creation science; "will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4,5)." No, not religious at all. How wrong I was to assume it had religious roots.

If you honestly think that 'creation science' is actually a scientific theory, then let's go over the fine points of it, shall we? If it's the only thing that will convince you of how fraudulent it is, I'll do it gladly.

Perhaps you have not exactly been debating people very knowledgable on it, then.

They aren't knowledgable on evolution either, but they still trumpet it's failure from the rooftops.

I didn't say that.

If you read my post you will see that I was replying to a post in which The White Knight suggests that they shouldn't even be considered scientists.

To be honest, I don't understand how a scientist could believe that creation science is superior, it really isn't.

[Tom Paine]

I have heard that some scientists believe in tCreationism but for the purposes of their work accept evolution as fact. Its a rather interesting separation of faith and knowledge.

[Ahiga]

I have heard that some scientists believe in tCreationism but for the purposes of their work accept evolution as fact. Its a rather interesting separation of faith and knowledge.

How wonderful it would be if our politican's could manage the same willingness.

[Tom Paine]

How wonderful it would be if our politican's could manage the same willingness.

The difference between scientists and politicians is scientists know a fact when they see it, politicians see all as spin. But this is another matter; I think the separation in the minds of scientists lends credence to teaching evolution in science lessons and creationism in RE, as one is knowledge and the other is faith.

[Søren]

So, if I disagree with it, that means I don't know anything about it? Either that or it means I'm familiar enough with it to know that it's a crock. After all, if it weren't a crock, it would be in classrooms being taught as we speak, but the scientific community saw it for what it was and stamped it out, and then the legal system saw it for what it was and stamped it out. After being beaten down by the courts and the scientific community, they gave it a quick polish over, a new name (intelligent design), and tried again, only to fail again. So then they gave it a quick polish over yet again, a new name (critical analysis) yet again, and now they are trying yet again.

I don't have to know a damn thing about the people who believe in creation science to know that it is a religious theory. The religiosity of creation science shines through in it's criticisms and ideas (and in the fact that it's mostly just criticisms of evolution and biology, and not much actual alternative substance besides 'goddidit').

I took this quote from the main page of the Institute for Creation Research, the home of creation science; "will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4,5)." No, not religious at all. How wrong I was to assume it had religious roots.

If you honestly think that 'creation science' is actually a scientific theory, then let's go over the fine points of it, shall we? If it's the only thing that will convince you of how fraudulent it is, I'll do it gladly.

It is a scientific theory.

However, I never said that it has no religious roots. I was responding to your statement that :

Creation science was a laughably pathetic attempt to force biblical creationism into the classroom under the guise of science.

Because, indeed, it was not, Creation science is something that a minority of scientists believe is a tenable theory in accordance with the established laws (not laws per sé, but the general scientific method) of science. It's purpose is hardly just to do with introducing it in schools -- that is just a product of their conclusion.

The difference between scientists and politicians is scientists know a fact when they see it, politicians see all as spin. But this is another matter; I think the separation in the minds of scientists lends credence to teaching evolution in science lessons and creationism in RE, as one is knowledge and the other is faith.

That's a bit of an oversimplification. Many creationists would believe that it was scientifically true -- not just taking it on faith.

However, yes, I agree. So long as evolution is the accepted best theory by the scientific establishment it should (not necessarly by legal enforcement) be taught in ordinary state schools.

What should be done, IMO, is for them to alter the curriculum slightly to give more emphasis that evolution is not quite as much of a given fact as many textbooks make it out to be.

[KingOfTheIsles]

No, I am afraid it is not a scientific theory, as it is just criticism of another scientific theory, and the unsubstantiated claim that, if the other theory is wrong, Creationism must be right. Again, you seem confused over the word "theory". A scientific theory is not, as in colloquial use, just a guess. It must be backed up by empirical evidence, which has been observed through reproducable, scientific experimentation, and stand up to peer review and criticism. Now, here's the thing, it must be falsifiable.

Creationism is not. Ergo, it is a religious theory, not a scientific one, and so has no place in the science classroom. By all means, teach criticism of Evolution, but the insiduous religion-as-science should not be allowed to mislead pupils over the distinction between science and theology.

[Sam]

It is a scientific theory.

I was going to post an article from the Institute for Creation Research website here and go through it, but I just saw something which will save me all the effort.

A summary of the objections to creation science by mainstream scientists:

* Creation science is not falsifiable : Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. If God is a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, no claim about his existence can be supported or undermined by observation. Thus, creationism, the argument from design and other arguments for the existence of God a posteriori arguments. (See also the section on falsifiability below.)
* Creation science violates the principle of parsimony : Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Many explanations offered by creation science are more complex than alternative explanations. Parsimony favours explanations without redundant parts.
* Creation science is not empirically testable : Creationism posits the supernatural which by definition is beyond empirical natural testing, and thus conflicts with the practical use of methodological naturalism inherent in science.
* Creation science is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments : That creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments stems not from the theory itself, but from the phenomena that it tries to explain.
* Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creationism professes to adhere to an "absolute Truth", "the word of God", instead of a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data as well as any future data. It is often given as a justification for the naturalistic basis of science. In any practical sense of the concept, creation science is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.

Creation science's lack of adherence to the standards of the scientific method mean that it (and specifically creation science) cannot be said to be scientific in the way that the term "science" is conventionally understood and utilized.

Creation science is not a scientific theory, end of argument.

However, I never said that it has no religious roots. I was responding to your statement that :

Because, indeed, it was not, Creation science is something that a minority of scientists believe is a tenable theory in accordance with the established laws (not laws per sé, but the general scientific method) of science. It's purpose is hardly just to do with introducing it in schools -- that is just a product of their conclusion.

The supreme court ruled that it was, (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987):

In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms.

Fortunately the courts are required to thoroughly investigate both sides, and judge accordingly.
You admitted to not knowing much about creaton science, but you seem to think that because a few scientists think it is feasible, it is automatically made into a valid scientific theory. Not so.

That's a bit of an oversimplification. Many creationists would believe that it was scientifically true -- not just taking it on faith.

But that wouldn't make it scientifically true.