should creationists be allowed in science?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by steeven91, Jan 23, 2011.

  1. steeven91 Registered Member

    I have been reading a science book called HISTORICAL GEOLOGY, EVOLUTION OF EARTH AND LIFE THROUGH TIME. by Reed Wicander and James S. Monroe. i have seen this book in my old high school. Not one that was tought out of but in the library.

    this is not in the book, but listen to Carl Sagans thoughts. "Where did God come from. If we decide this is an unanswerable question, why dont we just save a step and include the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question. or, if we say God always existed, why not save a step and say the universe always existed"?
    first, i would just like to say, if scientists say, they will not allow the supernatural into science, why go and make truth claims about it. if scientists are saying you are not allowed to bring your religions into our schools to be tested as a possibility, then how do they get the right to make truth claims about those religions. they dont let the religions share answers and work with them and then tell everyone they have no answers, well maybe because they limmit creationists possibilities to examine? i know this sounds bias of me, ha, its just resentment. now resentments aside, i want to ask a few questions.
    "science must proceed without any appeal to beliefs or supernatural explanations, not because such beliefs or explanattions are necessarily untrue, but because we have no way to investigate them. for this reason science makes up no claim about the existence or nonexistence of a supernatural or spiritual realm".
    ok, i can understand that IF there is no way to investiigate the supernatural(wich is a diffrent topic but i am fully convinced you can study the supernatural, and it would be the same way as science finds a lot of there answers) then not to allow it into science. but even they themselves say that theres the possibility that those are not neccessarily untrue. therefore stands my question. if there is a possibility, that there might have been or is a supernatural process should it not always be allowed for examineing into science. lets say that there is a supernatural proccess that has occured. lets say that there was a God who created the universe. Would that not clash with evolutions theory of the begining? therefore should not the supernatural be examined? If you limmit every possibilty down to one does not mean that one is right. but if you limmit every possibility by lack of evidence then that one may be or at least the closest to being right. i dont belive that evolution can ever be right unless they examine the supernatural and prove the supernatural is not needed. and while the evolution theory is just a theory, and fact as some of you say, should it be taught in school it is right, or the closest to right? no, ist not more right then anything else because they just dont allow anything else. sorry for going out of order, but if evolution wants to be correct they have to honestly disprove all other possibilities. and if you say they have already disproved the supernatural i must disagree and they have in this geology book. look at the statement above. people say that science is not about finding all the truth. i have to disagree. why else would we study unless we want to find answers?
  2. keith1 Guest

    Yes, they will be allowed the year 15SD, but only as silent toilet attendants.
  3. steeven91 Registered Member

    did you not read what i wrote, the sad part is most of the scienctists you probably listen to lie to you :(
  4. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    The title of your thread is not what you discuss in your opening post.
    Your OP doesn't mention creationists at all.

    Creationists have the same right as anyone else to study science, but if they want to be respected as scientists they must use scientific methods, and understand the difference between religion and science.

    Take for example. A Miracle.
    In the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, Jesus fed a crowd of 5000 people with 5 loaves and two fishes.
    One shouldn't expect, as a religious person, that this event be scientifically explicable.
    It is the inability of people to explain the event in terms of human knowledge that makes it a miracle. Surely.
  5. dbnp48 Q.E.D. Registered Senior Member

    I agree. As long as they use scientific methods, scientists should be free to try to prove anything they want.
  6. spidergoat Bernie Sanders 2016 Valued Senior Member

    There is no rule that says the supernatural is not a legitimate area of scientific study.
  7. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    But it's supernatural. How can we infer natural laws from that which is beyond the ability of science to resolve?
  8. birch Valued Senior Member

    pragmatically, there is no reason for creationists to be involved in science. they contribute nothing except to say it can't be explained and that god is responsible.

    how is that contributing anything worthwhile except to say there are things that are still beyond our understanding or knowledge?
  9. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Creationists should take their stories of how everything came to be and let everyone know they are only using beliefs to prove their views not a scientific one. If they want to teach their point of view they should stick to the religions that they believe in to teach those views but not subject anyone in a public school that they are teaching true science.
  10. tantalus Registered Senior Member

    supernatural needs to be defined here

    as others have expressed, people who study science need to use scientific methods and their work is subject to critical analysis in the literature (all other scientists with expertise in the area), that is the main criteria.

    The op refers the need to study the supernatural. I would go along with spidergoat in that the supernatural is open to study, here I treat supernatural as something with no rational explaination thus far, the traditional definition of supernatural is something which is outside natural law and the observable universe, I wouldnt accept this to be true and would hold the view that things referred to as such are just things beyond our current understanding (which is most occurring phenomenon), but that doesnt mean they break the natural law, that is a purely anthropocentric perception.

    Many of these things can be known with time, perhaps some are just beyond us, that still doesnt mean they are supernatural, these phenomenon are independent of us and our understanding of them

    regarding creationists, there views have been considered and concluded defunct for rational and identified reasons, this doesnt proof that there isnt a god, only that the majority of scientists, with the use of the scientific method have concluded that the evidence does not support the precise explantions creationists put forward, independent if there is a god or not. So technically creationism is part of science as it has been considered by science and its methods.

    for me the op gives the impression that if creationists are ignored by scientists, so is the viewpoint/possibility that god exists and created the earth , that isnt what is being determined when creationism is stated as being wrong

    frankly time would be better spent understanding the exact mechanisms at which evolution occurs, it makes good sense if you ask me:)
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2011
  11. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Science is rooted in empiricism. That is, it is based on data collected using experiments and observations coming from reality.

    There are a number of topics that are not rooted in empricism, but in the figments of the human imagination. Religion is one of these, and various forms of supernatural concepts are others. Now, this does not prove these are incorrect, but the lack of empirical data makes them a lot less probable.

    Science does not, with very good cause, concern itself with those topics. If there are changes in our knowledge which permit us to study them empirically, they will then enter the realm of scientific study.
  12. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    allowed by who?

    The same body that allows (materialistic) scientists into religion?
  13. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    If we find out who allowed you into religion, then we could put forward to them the question should creationists be allowed in science.
  14. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    To LG

    Creationists are allowed in science. Sometimes they create a nuisance. Sometimes they do good work.
  15. cennar Registered Member

    yes come creationist get the hint... come into the light, I mean go away from the light, or some thing. Should science even be allowed to exist? I mean aside from medicine and industry and technology... What good is science when you have Faith. What good are scientists proving points when so many faith full people don't give a shit? (Because so many more actually care, regardless of there backgrounds or beliefs) Whats the point in denying evolutions obvious lies. I mean when they make movies the dinosours are fake, some one tell me, would they spend all that time and effort faking it if it wasn't going to grab your attention. I mean it's convincing nonsense. But that's why believers are important to science. If I was tricked by a science person, they must be good at there science spooky magic and fossil records from all over the world dating across billions of years and not the bibles more accurate thousands of years based on adding up all the ages of the people in the bible. That's accurate, because it was written down... and because it was written down it must have been important.
  16. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    let's get to the bottom of this ....
    allowed by who?
  17. Skeptical Registered Senior Member


    No permission is needed.

    I do science all the time without anyone allowing me.
    For example : I am in the process of planting new rain forest trees near my house. Because of the forest fire danger, I want to plant only very low flammability species. To determine this, I took samples of a number of species of trees and exposed them to the flame of a gas barbeque lighter, and rated how vigorously they burst into flame. Ranged from 'hot petrol' to 'damp cardboard'.

    This simple test process is scientific, and yields useful results. Even a creationist is allowed to do it.

    Even becoming a career scientist is "allowed" for creationists. All they have to do is go through university and graduate with a Ph.D. with honours in the relevent discipline and then look for a job, just like anyone else.
  18. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    You mean that in order to be allowed to do science, one has to fulfill prerequisites in order to be qualified or capable?
  19. Skeptical Registered Senior Member


    Please read what I have written before commenting on it. If you re-read my last post you will see me describing science that anyone can do.

    However, if you want someone to pay you to do science, you are going to need a qualification.
  20. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    I did

    I think we are coming closer to understanding this whole "allowing" business.

    Actually far from being something anyone can do, it seems quite specific, regardless whether one is talking about re-forestation or professional science as a career

Share This Page