should creationists be allowed in science?

greenboy said:
Look what scientific people are saying about the scientific Method
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=educ_fac_pubs

Oh well....
Click to expand...
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?
 
Captain Kremmen said:
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?
Click to expand...
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".

Why would religious people feel they have to pontificate (or evangelicate) about science?
Click to expand...
Um, evangelise, surely.
Although evangelicate does have a nice ring to it.
 
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.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
Example of botanical problem
How do leaves take in oxygen?
Click to expand...
They put an ad in the local newsagents.

Example of moral problem.
"I am a University lecturer. Should I sleep with one of my students?"
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
steeven91 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
wellwisher said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Lol

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

wellwisher said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
synthesizer-patel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
greenboy said:
YOU are absolutely right, you can not apply the Scientific method to the theory of evolution...
Click to expand...

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:
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....

GeoffP said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Skeptical said:
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.
Click to expand...



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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top