should creationists be allowed in science?

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

  1. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    I don't like arguments that direct me elsewhere.
    Please argue your points here.
    Without me looking off the site, could you tell me if the scientific people in the article accept the scientific method as valid?

    Personally, I'm quite happy with science and religion being separate, like music and billiards.
    Why would religious people feel they have to pontificate (or evangelicate) about science?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    It's actually a couple of Education professors, and, eventually, they do end up sticking with the scientific method as a form of education. It doesn't do anything for Greenboy's (and what an appropriate user name, I've seen few posters come across as so green) "point".

    Um, evangelise, surely.
    Although evangelicate does have a nice ring to it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Example of botanical problem
    How do leaves take in oxygen?

    Example of moral problem.
    "I am a University lecturer. Should I sleep with one of my students?"

    Science will probably solve the first, but is out of depth in the second.
    Visa Versa religion.

    Some graduates, despite being well educated, are using their God given brains to try to bamboozle people into accepting that the world is only a few thousand years old. They disgrace their own intellect for money.
    In effect they are whores.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    They put an ad in the local newsagents.

    Is she up for it? Has she got big tits?
    Why only one of your students? Is it a bad year for hotties?
    Or do you mean "one at a time"?

    Yep. Science has it easy, there's fewer questions.
     
  8. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    You could do with a bit of religious instruction, probably.
    I know what you mean though. In theory

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    Nah, RE students are all flat-chested speccy swots.
     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Mind the speculification.
     
  11. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    According to science, a scientific theory should be able to make predictions. Yet, evolutionary theory cannot make predictions. This means that evolutionary theory does not qualify as a scientific theory.

    It is called a theory, via a word game, but not via the strict criteria of science. This semantic smoke and mirrors, may be why evolution is the only "theory" that is challenged and requires censor. Evolution needs an upgrade, so it can make predictions and earn the title of a science theory. This will allow it to get beyond the insecure pretensions that need censor.
     
  12. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    I didn't read all your bla bla bla . It gave Me a head ache even thing about the implications , but peoples your god is your child. God comes from the future. People just are not very bright. That was the Christ message. " The Least of Me get it. No super natural thing going on here . Your Child looks up to you like you are God !!! Simple , Understand . You should look at your Child as god and return what is given to you . God lives in the future and that god is your child
     
  13. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    liberty university was founded by an Imam called Jerry Falwell

    Its little more than a diploma mill - as it's ranked as a tier 4 university - the lowest ranking it is possible for a university to reach in the USA.

    basically whatever course you attend, you only ever have to read one book.
     
  14. Mircea Registered Member

    Messages:
    70
    That will never happen. You will never be able to make predictions with Evolution, because it is totally random and chaotic.

    You will never, meaning "at no time ever" be able to predict which gene will mutate, nor will you be able to predict whether that mutation will be benevolent, benign or malevolent, nor will you be able to predict whether the offspring with the mutated gene will be able to pass it on to the next generation (ie suppose the offspring is human, then there's no way you could even know the child will be struck and killed by a lorry whilst crossing Kilburn High Road at the age of 8 years and thus never reproduce).

    Worse than that, while you might believe the mutation to be benevolent, nature, through the process of Natural Selection, might ultimately deem the mutation to be benign, and no benefit is derived.

    That's simply the nature of some theories. Given 6.29e10+23 Plutonium 239 atoms, predict which will undergo alpha decay. You can't. Not now, not ever.

    Given 100 Plutonium 239 atoms predict which will undergo alpha decay. You can't even do that.

    Given 10 kg of Plutonium and an initiator, predict which atoms will undergo neutron fission? Fragment fission? Spontaneous fission? You can 't do that either.

    Some things you'll just have to accept as fact or reality and live with it, and not have the ability ever to make precise predictions, or even generic predictions.

    No one has ever seen a Pu-239 atom fission, so we don't know exactly step-by-step what happens or what events take place, we just know it happens. Same with Evolution. We don't know step-by-step what happens and never will, we just know it happens.
     
  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Actually, you can certainly make predictions in evolution; changes in phenotypic means, the source of genotype-phenotype correlations, the trajectory of change in gene frequency.
     
  16. greenboy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    263
    Lol

    YOU are absolutely right, you can not apply the Scientific method to the theory of evolution...

     
  17. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Check the Wikipedia article on Liberty University. Apparently the rating system has been collapsed and it is now ranked as Tier 2 simply because that's the lowest rank there is.

    A good measure of a university's quality is the accomplishments of its alumni, and the article gives what appears to be a truly exhaustive list of Liberty alums who are in any way notable. There are a couple of dozen professional athletes, a dozen or so entertainers (including Terry Fator, the best ventriloquist alive), a handful of very minor journalists, and the predictable batch of evangelists.

    No notable scientists, engineers, historians, economists or other academicians. No notable authors, diplomats, business or political leaders. For an institution of "higher learning" with 60,000 students (including online) that is an embarrassing vacuum of success.

    In other words, Liberty University is a joke. One of its primary purposes of existence is to provide a source of papers with ostensible academic authenticity, which can be cited as respectable source material in arguments by evolution denialists.

    Such as you've witnessed here, on this thread. This is intellectual dishonesty raised to the level of an art form.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2011
  18. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    And how did you come to that mistaken conclusion?

    Setting up an experiment to prove or disprove evolution is difficult because of the speed at which it occurs.

    Fortunately, nature herself set up valid experiments, millions of years ago, and we can observe the results.
    The experiments are remote islands, where we see divergences in evolution from the mainland.
    We always see this with remote islands which have great geological age.

    The other explanation for it could be that God, having made a remote place, decided to play about by having a whole different set of creatures on it.
    And also, decided that these creatures should look as though they had a common ancestor to the creatures on the mainland.
    If evolution is false, God is making a damn good job of making it look as though it was true, don't you think?
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2011
  19. greenboy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    263
    wow

    AMazing how you are brainwahed by the media here is something for you to read
    In 1996, the Free Press published a book by Lehigh University biochemist and intelligent design advocate Michael Behe called Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. The book's central thesis is that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex" at the molecular level. Behe gives the following definition of irreducible complexity:

    By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. (p. 39)


    and explained evolution very basic I believe in a green form....
    Behe uses the mousetrap as an illustrative example of this concept. A mousetrap consists of five interacting pieces—the base, the catch, the spring, the hammer and the hold-down bar. All of these must be in place for the mousetrap to work, as the removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Likewise, he asserts that biological systems require multiple parts working together in order to function. Intelligent design advocates claim that natural selection could not create from scratch those systems for which science is currently unable to find a viable evolutionary pathway of successive, slight modifications, because the selectable function is only present when all parts are assembled. This guy is a Doctor in Biochemistry.. FYI. A Doctor in BIOCHEMISTRY is telling us Evolution can not work because when something is altered in a molecular level affects the whole system....THE WHOLE SYSTEM If you change the molecular structure of a gene the gene his function stops.... a gene ergo a protein ergo a function.....
    basic very basic....

     
  20. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    On Michael Behe
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

    I quote :
    "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by many members of the scientific community, and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design."

    In other words, no matter what his credentials in biochemistry, on evolution he is just another crackpot.

    Evolution is a scientific theory. The word 'theory' in science is quite different to the same word as used in everyday English. In science, the word 'theory' imparts respect, because it is an idea that has been repeatedly tested, and survived that testing process.

    This theory can make predictions. It has done so. Those predictions have been tested and found to be correct. In order to speed the process sufficiently that results can be achieved in one human lifetime, this work is done on rapidly reproducing bacteria, or other fast breeders.

    Opposition to evolution as a principle is inevitably restricted to religious nutters. I challenge any anti-evolutionist to name me a single, Ph.D. level biologist who is a religious non believer, who opposes this principle. Inevitably, qualified opponents of evolution turn out to be religious zealots.

    Or to put that another way, opposing evolution is totally non scientific.
     
  21. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Behe is a tool. What he doesn't realize is that things can evolve for one purpose and be commandeered for another by evolution. Parts that were necessary for the previous purpose can disappear. He has not been able to show one example of an irreducibly complex structure in biology.

    Furthermore, your evocation of Behe's credentials is meaningless. Scientific truth isn't determined by authority (like in the Church) but by evidence and argument.
     
  22. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    Hey Greenboy - what did you think of the statement on evolution from the Botanical Society of America I posted in the last thread you abandoned?
     
  23. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256


    I've actually met two of these people.

    A Geologist of U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff
    and a woman Emory University Atlanta Georgia

    Only arrogance presumes creditably is everything is everything though.
     

Share This Page