Creationism does NOT belong in science.
- Thread starter Zero
- Start date
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Agreed, like evolution they should demonstrate some working models, if they can't it ain't science.
I can only throw in my agreement -
Creationism is based on religion. Religion should not be in schools. Creationism should not be in schools.
That was easy
.
Creationism is based on religion. Religion should not be in schools. Creationism should not be in schools.
That was easy
.Zero:
I am the veritable empress of debating creationists, once given the title:
"Xev Bellringer, who debates creationists until the squeal like Ned Beatty in "Deliverence""
It's bloody pointless though. They will never really open their minds.
However.........
Do you have a newsgroup reader? Try alt.talk.origens - http://www.talkorigins.org/
If not, either post in our religion forum - Tony1 might be up for a fight, and then there is Chosen.
Otherwise, there are a lot of Sciforummers here:
http://www.philosophyforums.com/read.php?TID=117
Have fun. It's part of how I cut my teeth on the 'net.
I am the veritable empress of debating creationists, once given the title:
"Xev Bellringer, who debates creationists until the squeal like Ned Beatty in "Deliverence""
It's bloody pointless though. They will never really open their minds.
However.........
Do you have a newsgroup reader? Try alt.talk.origens - http://www.talkorigins.org/
If not, either post in our religion forum - Tony1 might be up for a fight, and then there is Chosen.
Otherwise, there are a lot of Sciforummers here:
http://www.philosophyforums.com/read.php?TID=117
Have fun. It's part of how I cut my teeth on the 'net.
I have to agree with Mr. G and Xev. You are in the wrong place for a battle.
Almost all here will be on your side as creatism doesn't prove anything except how easy it is to jump over to religion when you go to talking proofs. Religion is based on faith, science is not.
Almost all here will be on your side as creatism doesn't prove anything except how easy it is to jump over to religion when you go to talking proofs. Religion is based on faith, science is not.
kmguru
Staff member
Zero:
I will attempt to take the side of creationist. I may fail. But it would be fun.
Just a premise. Extrapolate our technological progress for a billion years. I think only 10,000 years may be sufficient - but let us say, mankind in its new incarnation continued for a billion years developed science in genetics, physics, nano technology and so on...
It occurs to me that sometime in future we should be able to understand the initial condition of how universes form. We may be able to control creation of mini universes that are a bubble from our universe but independent. We may be able to accelate the time under this scenario and see for ourselves the formation of stars and planets and life as it is forming. Then the question is: did it hapen by iteself or we created it? (Creationism)
Not convinced. Consider this. Someone gives you a very large nth qbit quantum computer. You decide to play God and create a simulation of the universe and testing your bing bang theory. You let the computer run for six days while you are away on a trip. You come back and surprised to find that not only the computer created the stars but virtual life has formed on planets and these virtual entities are debating if a God has created them?
Is it science or creationism or both?
I will attempt to take the side of creationist. I may fail. But it would be fun.
Just a premise. Extrapolate our technological progress for a billion years. I think only 10,000 years may be sufficient - but let us say, mankind in its new incarnation continued for a billion years developed science in genetics, physics, nano technology and so on...
It occurs to me that sometime in future we should be able to understand the initial condition of how universes form. We may be able to control creation of mini universes that are a bubble from our universe but independent. We may be able to accelate the time under this scenario and see for ourselves the formation of stars and planets and life as it is forming. Then the question is: did it hapen by iteself or we created it? (Creationism)
Not convinced. Consider this. Someone gives you a very large nth qbit quantum computer. You decide to play God and create a simulation of the universe and testing your bing bang theory. You let the computer run for six days while you are away on a trip. You come back and surprised to find that not only the computer created the stars but virtual life has formed on planets and these virtual entities are debating if a God has created them?
Is it science or creationism or both?
I'l have to contemplate this deeply, but here are some immediate thoughts.
Did it happen by itself? Well, it is virtual, right? It's not real, no more than a virtual physics experiment. If we actually managed to pull off an experiment where we somehow plant some cells in an ideal planet and life springs up, well yeah. MAnkind would have created the life on that world (and therefore they are all our SLAVES!!! just kidding). But the thing is, the cells still have to evolve. Evolution and that whole theory is still needed to explain it. Even if you bring a big huge Noah's ark full of stuff, the whole artificial ecosystem is still going to evolve. The animals/plants with the traits that enable them to survive better will thrive (of course, there is no single best trait. Some areas might require different traits to survive there). Thus, the organisms with those traits and those genes will pass them on to their offspring. The whole passing on of genes will cause further evolution.
And one thing. Just because there is no perfect, good scientific theory for a specific slot (like the creation of life) does NOT mean that you can just stick another theory in there, such as creationism or intelligent design, without sufficient verification by concrete, measurable physical evidence.
And besides, the whole theory about creationism. There is no way you can disprove the existence of a god, or a superior intelligent life form. Creationism is always true!!
But so is the rest of religion. The Koran, the Bible, the whole schmeer. It is all totally, irrefutably true. That is why we do not call it "science", we call it religion. And creationism is also a part of religion. The defining trait of a scientific theory is that it HAS to be disprovable with physical evidence. This was defined by the philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930's (I think).
For example, the theory of relativity. If we saw something moving faster than the speed of light, if we were able to verify that speed, then the whole theory of relativity would come crashing down. It is disprovable, if you only have the evidence. So is evolution. If some super intelligent space aliens came and told us that they 'made' us, the life on earth and that they had manipulated all of our genes to make us evolve, then...if they gave us concrete evidence, there you go. Same thing with the theory of evolution. They are disprovable, this is known as falsifiability. That's why they are scientific theories. And of course, we have NOT found any evidence lke this. They adequately explain the phenomena of the natural world. That's why they became theories in the first place.
Any thoughts on that?
Did it happen by itself? Well, it is virtual, right? It's not real, no more than a virtual physics experiment. If we actually managed to pull off an experiment where we somehow plant some cells in an ideal planet and life springs up, well yeah. MAnkind would have created the life on that world (and therefore they are all our SLAVES!!!
just kidding). But the thing is, the cells still have to evolve. Evolution and that whole theory is still needed to explain it. Even if you bring a big huge Noah's ark full of stuff, the whole artificial ecosystem is still going to evolve. The animals/plants with the traits that enable them to survive better will thrive (of course, there is no single best trait. Some areas might require different traits to survive there). Thus, the organisms with those traits and those genes will pass them on to their offspring. The whole passing on of genes will cause further evolution.And one thing. Just because there is no perfect, good scientific theory for a specific slot (like the creation of life) does NOT mean that you can just stick another theory in there, such as creationism or intelligent design, without sufficient verification by concrete, measurable physical evidence.
And besides, the whole theory about creationism. There is no way you can disprove the existence of a god, or a superior intelligent life form. Creationism is always true!!
But so is the rest of religion. The Koran, the Bible, the whole schmeer. It is all totally, irrefutably true. That is why we do not call it "science", we call it religion. And creationism is also a part of religion. The defining trait of a scientific theory is that it HAS to be disprovable with physical evidence. This was defined by the philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930's (I think).
For example, the theory of relativity. If we saw something moving faster than the speed of light, if we were able to verify that speed, then the whole theory of relativity would come crashing down. It is disprovable, if you only have the evidence. So is evolution. If some super intelligent space aliens came and told us that they 'made' us, the life on earth and that they had manipulated all of our genes to make us evolve, then...if they gave us concrete evidence, there you go. Same thing with the theory of evolution. They are disprovable, this is known as falsifiability. That's why they are scientific theories. And of course, we have NOT found any evidence lke this. They adequately explain the phenomena of the natural world. That's why they became theories in the first place.
Any thoughts on that?
I doubt, Zero, that your aliens vere also genetically modified. atlest they needed to evolve
kmguru, I agree you.
I saw this good movie, btw. Don't remember how was it called. There was that one company made such a computer and even could send people in tht world. But later our hero discovered that their own world was a simulation.
kmguru, I agree you.
I saw this good movie, btw. Don't remember how was it called. There was that one company made such a computer and even could send people in tht world. But later our hero discovered that their own world was a simulation.
Last edited:
The Faith of Creationsim.
Creationists base their entire argument on trying to discredit evolution. Because there is no positive evidence for creationism, the typical creationist must have faith in the following eight things:
1) It is necessary to have complete physical evidence to totally explain every single aspect of the natural evolution of life in order for evolution to be accepted as true.
2) Any gap in knowledge means the evidence doesn't exist and will never be discovered. Gaps automatically mean a non-evolutionary entity or force was at work.
3) The non-evolutionary entity or force responsible for life is supernatural in nature (as opposed to, say, extraterrestrial).
4) It is possible for supernatural entities or forces to exist.
5) It is possible for supernatural entities or forces to interact with the natural world.
6) It is possible for supernatural entities or forces to interrupt or violate the observed regularities ("laws") of nature.
7) The supernatural entity or force responsible for life is a god or gods.
8) In particular, it is the Judeo-Christian god of the Bible.
Creationism is obviously a faith-based religion and should not be taught in public school science classrooms.
Creationists base their entire argument on trying to discredit evolution. Because there is no positive evidence for creationism, the typical creationist must have faith in the following eight things:
1) It is necessary to have complete physical evidence to totally explain every single aspect of the natural evolution of life in order for evolution to be accepted as true.
2) Any gap in knowledge means the evidence doesn't exist and will never be discovered. Gaps automatically mean a non-evolutionary entity or force was at work.
3) The non-evolutionary entity or force responsible for life is supernatural in nature (as opposed to, say, extraterrestrial).
4) It is possible for supernatural entities or forces to exist.
5) It is possible for supernatural entities or forces to interact with the natural world.
6) It is possible for supernatural entities or forces to interrupt or violate the observed regularities ("laws") of nature.
7) The supernatural entity or force responsible for life is a god or gods.
8) In particular, it is the Judeo-Christian god of the Bible.
Creationism is obviously a faith-based religion and should not be taught in public school science classrooms.
Personally, I think it's prima facie evident that Creationism is not science.
However, I'm more concerned with the idea that someone of obvious intelligence is on these boards looking to do 'battle'. Debate is a good thing, but, more often than not on these boards, people are too ready to 'prove' that their point of view is right, regardless of what anyone says. Positive debate should be a dialectic, not a battle.
However, I'm more concerned with the idea that someone of obvious intelligence is on these boards looking to do 'battle'. Debate is a good thing, but, more often than not on these boards, people are too ready to 'prove' that their point of view is right, regardless of what anyone says. Positive debate should be a dialectic, not a battle.
harrykarry
Registered Senior Member
should creationism be taught in the science class?
YES!!!
here's one reason. truth.
maybe creationism isn't truth to you but with over 3/4ths of americans claiming some form of christianity it becomes truth to a lot of little children in sunday school. remember memorizing what god created on day one and two....
when schools stick their head in the sand and ignore 3/4 of american's truth then they are ignoring a truth that is out there in many people's minds.
here's another reason. tradition.
you know, the same reason there are christmas trees in school lobbies at christmas time...
no, not scientific, but yes, tradition.
personally i believe that creationism and evolution could be one in the same but there are so many people that want everything clear-cut and catagorized. the creationist want to do battle, the evolutionists want to do battle. what if god's day is different than our day? who knows? are you god? maybe 7 days to god is how long it took everything to evolve.
YES!!!
here's one reason. truth.
maybe creationism isn't truth to you but with over 3/4ths of americans claiming some form of christianity it becomes truth to a lot of little children in sunday school. remember memorizing what god created on day one and two....
when schools stick their head in the sand and ignore 3/4 of american's truth then they are ignoring a truth that is out there in many people's minds.
here's another reason. tradition.
you know, the same reason there are christmas trees in school lobbies at christmas time...
no, not scientific, but yes, tradition.
personally i believe that creationism and evolution could be one in the same but there are so many people that want everything clear-cut and catagorized. the creationist want to do battle, the evolutionists want to do battle. what if god's day is different than our day? who knows? are you god? maybe 7 days to god is how long it took everything to evolve.
glaucon,
You are right that it should not have been termed "battle". That debate, while it can degrade into such a state, should not in essence be anything other than the stating of opposing views and examples plus rebuttals. The context of the inital post lead me to that thought.
Welcome to sciforums, harrykarry.
I would take issue with the teaching of creationism in schools. What do they teach? That it is in support of the religious right? In otherwords that it would not be there if it were not for them getting government to demand equal time. That is hardly any proof of anything but successful lobbying. I have seen very little evidence to support our teaching and wasting what I consider valuable time on such a subject of so little worth, IMO.
You are right that it should not have been termed "battle". That debate, while it can degrade into such a state, should not in essence be anything other than the stating of opposing views and examples plus rebuttals. The context of the inital post lead me to that thought.
Welcome to sciforums, harrykarry.
I would take issue with the teaching of creationism in schools. What do they teach? That it is in support of the religious right? In otherwords that it would not be there if it were not for them getting government to demand equal time. That is hardly any proof of anything but successful lobbying. I have seen very little evidence to support our teaching and wasting what I consider valuable time on such a subject of so little worth, IMO.
harrykarry
Registered Senior Member
i'm not opposed to kids not having to memorize what day god created the sea or the sky... i'm opposed to colleges with an agenda insistant on spewing out science teachers determined to prove to children that creationism and evolution are two completely different things and that the "accurate, self-righteous, i-have-the-facts-to-prove-it" scientist has all the answers in the universe so ergo religion is something fuzzy that you can believe if you want to but it has no relevance regarding the fermament.
i know that the religious right throw out the same horrid attitude but just because science THINKS it knows it all doesn't mean we should throw away everything that can't be proved.
it goes back to this silly little theory of mine, all things in moderation (accept drinking and sex, of course.)
and i hate the religion of intellectualism that is being taught by those science teachers. we have all the answers. we don't need god. how apropos.
i know that the religious right throw out the same horrid attitude but just because science THINKS it knows it all doesn't mean we should throw away everything that can't be proved.
it goes back to this silly little theory of mine, all things in moderation (accept drinking and sex, of course.)
and i hate the religion of intellectualism that is being taught by those science teachers. we have all the answers. we don't need god. how apropos.