Where does everyone stand in regards to...

[herenorthere]

I don't believe the Christian creation myth, but don't think creationists have any obligation to provide proof of creation.  That isn't what religion's about.  Religion isn't based on evidence and no one needs to prove their spiritual beliefs are "true".  But that's why creation isn't science and belongs nowhere near a science textbook.  Unless a religious studies book is riding next to a science book in the backpack.

 

[Bugweed]

Well Starman, You demand answers, and are not likely to get them.
No one wants to argue the point anymore, so let it rest. I think the thread has pretty much played itself out. I will wait another day before locking this topic up. Helluva Topic!!!!!

 

[Starman]

Quote[/b] (Bugweed @ Jan. 14 2005,9:25)]Well Starman, You demand answers, and are not likely to get them.
No one wants to argue the point anymore, so let it rest. I think the thread has pretty much played itself out. I will wait another day before locking this topic up. Helluva Topic!!!!!

We have asked those questions many times, if they got anwsered straight away, this thread wouldnt be going in circles.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (Bugweed @ Jan. 14 2005,9:25)]Well Starman, You demand answers, and are not likely to get them.
No one wants to argue the point anymore, so let it rest. I think the thread has pretty much played itself out. I will wait another day before locking this topic up. Helluva Topic!!!!!

Don't lock it yet bug, i'm going to get someone from the museum to post on here.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]don't think creationists have any obligation to provide proof of creation. That isn't what religion's about.

What gets to me is them saying evolution has no proof, that it doesn't make sense (of course, if you don't understand evolution it doesn't make sense!), and them trying to argue against it scientifically.
If you don't believe in evolution just say you don't believe it because you'd rather believe the bible than science and proof.

 

[Bugweed]

I hear you, AE. I will leave it up until Sunday night. Starman, the controversy surrounding the Evolution gig, would have ended up in circles anyway because of the make up of people themselves. If asked to voice an opinion, or a belief, everybody will. If their belief is under attack, they have a tendency to hold onto their belief system, like a security blanket. To change an opinion or belief is an incredibly hard thing to do. What is obvious proof to one group, is nothing at all to another. And so the battle raged---------------.
Just the same, this was a really good topic, and woke up a whole lotta folks. Thanks to all for the interesting links, and for giving me enough study material to last a long time. I can now form my own opinion, and not necessarily adopt someone else's. Alpha, AE, I will study both Intelligent Design, and Evolution Theory, and see what I come up. If you truly wish to be fair, study both theories, and then accept, reject, or combine, and see what interesting theories you can come up with yourself. Gotta go. Time to have fun!!!

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ] If you truly wish to be fair, study both theories

Intelligent design is neither a theory nor a hypothesis.
To believe in intelligent design (creationism) you must first believe in a holy book. I don't, so why the heck should I even consider it? There's plenty of proof of evolution so that's what I'm sticking to.

and I was thinking about the thing someone said about many cultures having some type of flood story... well, many cultures have myths of little people. Hawaiians, the ones in idonesia, leprichauns or however you spell it from ireland, dwarves from I have no clue where, etc...
many cultures also have myths of sea serpents, many others of vampires, bigfoot type of things, etc... so are they all true?

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Religion = faith in something you can't prove is real.

Whatever that might be depends on the religion.

 

[Est]

Quote[/b] ]Hawaiians, the ones in idonesia, leprichauns or however you spell it from ireland, dwarves from I have no clue where, etc..

Funny that you would say that because, here's a little evolutionary quirk for you, it's possible that there be some basis for truth.  The science behind it is explained fairly simple, first look at the geographical location of the 3 places you mentioned- notice something similar??  They're all fairly small, and have locations off of them that are even smaller -we have islands present in all 3 named cases-.  Why's that matter??  Well, the rule for living things on an island is if you're bigger than a rabbit, you get smaller, if you're smaller than a rabbit, you often get bigger -I mean that's what the evolutionary trend is, Foster's rule, right??...-.  In any case, I'm not saying magical little people exist, but your post is excellent proof of something that I wish people would have kept in mind when this thread was started:  none of us know it all.  Oh, and if my explanation's not enough proof for you here's some linkage to a related example: Homo floresiensis,  and another..., and a third.

Quote[/b] ]To believe in intelligent design (creationism) you must first believe in a holy book. I don't, so why the heck should I even consider it? There's plenty of proof of evolution so that's what I'm sticking to.

 No one's trying to force you to believe anything, just go on believing what you do.  Furthermore, it was stated above, that people can make their belief be whatever they want it to be -an excellent point-; not everyone who thinks that God exists, or believes in intelligent design, or whatever is quite so quacky as you've tried to make them out to be.

Oh, and to finish up, I'm not trying to be a troll or last-minute flamebait, I know that no one claimed to know it all, but let's face it, taking something out of the bible and trying to scientifically analyze it and some of the posting that went on... There's simply too much for us to encompass, so why argue it and try to change people's oppinion? I say respect and inform- I don't think that there was anybody here who was an expert on both sides, anyway.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Science & Technology at Scientific American.com: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense -- Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] ]Creationists commonly argue that their position is not only scientific, but even that it is more scientific than evolution. That is a pretty dramatic claim, especially since it has been established that evolution is very scientific, and it deserves closer consideration. Let's first list the basic criteria necessary for a theory to qualify as scientific:

• Consistent (internally and externally)
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
• Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
• Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
• Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
• Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
• Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

If creationism is to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then creationism simply cannot be treated as scientific in any sense of the word.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] ]Is creationism logically consistent?
Actually, on this one creationism doesn't do too badly. I think it can be reasonably argued that creationism is usually internally consistent and logical within the framework in which it operates. There are some logical holes that could be poked in the "theory" of creationism and there are contradictions at times, but those are relatively minor compared to other glaring problems.

The major problem with its logical consistency is that creationism has no defined boundaries. What this means is that there is no clear way to say that any particular piece of data is relevant or not to the task verifying or falsifying creationism theory. When you deal with the non-understood supernatural, anything is possible, and in practice the consequence of this is that no tests for creationism can really be said to matter.

Is creationism parsimonious?
No. Creationism fails the test of Occam's razor because adding supernatural entities to the equation when they are not strictly necessary to explain events violates the principle of parsimony. This principle is important because it is so easy for extraneous ideas to slip into theories, ultimately confusing the issue. The simplest explanation may not always be the most accurate explanation, but it is preferable unless very good reasons are offered.

Unfortunately, such reasons are not forthcoming in creationism when it comes to the inclusion of God and miraculous, divine intervention into events in the world. Creationists use these as explanations for why the world is the way it is, but the only reason they provide for thinking this is the case is the Bible, and a religious text cannot be used as the basis for scientific conclusions.

Is creationism useful?
The characteristic of "useful" in science means that a theory is able to explain and describe natural phenomena. Unfortunately, creationism is not really able to explain and describe events in nature. For example, creationism cannot explain why genetic changes are somehow limited to microevolution within species and are prevented from becoming macroevolution.

Even more interesting is the question of Flood Geology, one area where creationists try to argue that they are able to explain the data. According to creationists, we would expect to see the particular fossil order we find based upon the order in which animals would have been killed by the Flood. This isn't an unreasonable explanation, except for one thing: it violates creationists' own premise that unless you can empirically observe and test something, it isn't science. Because of this, creationists have to dismiss their own "explanation" as "shameful speculation," to use the words of creationists George McCready Price.

Is creationism empirically testable? No, creationism is not empirically testable. This stems from the fact that creationism violates a basic premise of science, naturalism. Because creationism relies on supernatural entities, not only is it not testable, it is not even describable. Creationism provides no model that can be used for making predictions, it provides no scientific problems for scientists to work on, it does not provide a paradigm for solving other problems unless you consider "God did it" to be a satisfactory explanation for everything.

Because we can only test that which is part of the natural world, a theory that specifies non-natural phenomena can not be tested. There is no way to empirically verify or falsify creationism. Even prominent creationists like Henry Morris and Duane Gish (who pretty much created scientific creationism) admit this in creationist literature. In Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, Morris, while discussing catastrophism and the Noachic flood, says:

We cannot verify this experimentally, of course, any more than any of the various other theories of catastrophism [e.g. Velikovsky], but we do not need experimental verification; God has recorded it in His Word, and that should be sufficient.

Even more revealing, Duane Gish in Evolution? The Fossils Say No! writes:

We do not know how the Creator created, [or] what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.

So, even leading creationists basically admit that creationism is not testable and clearly state that biblical revelation is the source (and "verification") of their ideas.

Is creationism correctable?
No. Creationism professes to be the absolute Truth, not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. When you believe that you already have the Truth, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The only real changes which have occurred in the creationist movement is to try and push the biblical arguments further and further into the background in order to make creationism look more and more scientific.

Is creationism progressive?
This is somewhat open to interpretation. In a sense it could be considered progressive since you can now say "God did it" to explain all previous data as well as any previously unexplainable data. However, this renders the idea of progressive growth of scientific ideas meaningless (another good reason for science being naturalistic). In any practical sense of the concept, creationism is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.

Given its dismal performance in meeting the criteria for scientific theories, it should be quite clear that creationism is not a scientific theory. The U.S. courts, thankfully, have been unanimous in recognizing this fact. This is further made evident when we consider its methodology.

Does creationism follow the scientific method? No. First, the hypothesis/solution is not based on analysis and observation of the empirical world - rather, it comes directly from the Bible. Moreover, as there is no way to test the theory, creationism cannot follow the scientific method because testing is a fundamental component of the method.

 

[Est]

Quote[/b] ]... then creationism simply cannot be treated as scientific in any sense of the word. ...

THEN STOP TRYING TO ARGUE AGAINST IT SCIENTIFICALLY. PLEASE!

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] ]Intelligent Design is the most recent form of creationism to develop, but its roots go back much further. Fundamentally speaking, Intelligent Design is based upon the idea that the existence of God could be deduced from the existence of intricate design in the universe, a view popularized by William Paley's famous Watchmaker Analogy in his 1802 book Natural Theology.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (Est @ Jan. 15 2005,2:29)]

Quote[/b] ]... then creationism simply cannot be treated as scientific in any sense of the word. ...

THEN STOP TRYING TO ARGUE AGAINST IT SCIENTIFICALLY. PLEASE!

Why'd you ignore the rest? Never did it say that it's not scientific or that it can't be argued with science. Creationism was just being analyzed.

 

[Est]

Quote[/b] ]Is creationism progressive?
This is somewhat open to interpretation. In a sense it could be considered progressive since you can now say "God did it" to explain all previous data as well as any previously unexplainable data. However, this renders the idea of progressive growth of scientific ideas meaningless (another good reason for science being naturalistic). In any practical sense of the concept, creationism is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Intelligent Design is the most recent form of creationism to develop, but its roots go back much further. Fundamentally speaking, Intelligent Design is based upon the idea that the existence of God could be deduced from the existence of intricate design in the universe, a view popularized by William Paley's famous Watchmaker Analogy in his 1802 book Natural Theology.

Umm, arf??  Contradiction?  Make up your mind- is it not progressive or is Intelligent design not more recent than original views??

 

[Est]

Quote[/b] ]Why'd you ignore the rest? Never did it say that it's not scientific or that it can't be argued with science. Creationism was just being analyzed.

Oh sorry, I just tend to find "... then creationism simply cannot be treated as scientific in any sense of the word. ..." to be a fairly absolute statement. Furthermore, am I missing something or does it not STATE that creationism is not scientific in any sense of the word?

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (Est @ Jan. 15 2005,2:40)]

Quote[/b] ]Why'd you ignore the rest? Never did it say that it's not scientific or that it can't be argued with science. Creationism was just being analyzed.

Oh sorry, I just tend to find "... then creationism simply cannot be treated as scientific in any sense of the word. ..." to be a fairly absolute statement. Furthermore, am I missing something or does it not STATE that creationism is not scientific in any sense of the word?

Read it carefully. Is the answer to every question a "no"?

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (Est @ Jan. 15 2005,2:37)]

Quote[/b] ]Is creationism progressive?
This is somewhat open to interpretation. In a sense it could be considered progressive since you can now say "God did it" to explain all previous data as well as any previously unexplainable data. However, this renders the idea of progressive growth of scientific ideas meaningless (another good reason for science being naturalistic). In any practical sense of the concept, creationism is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Intelligent Design is the most recent form of creationism to develop, but its roots go back much further. Fundamentally speaking, Intelligent Design is based upon the idea that the existence of God could be deduced from the existence of intricate design in the universe, a view popularized by William Paley's famous Watchmaker Analogy in his 1802 book Natural Theology.

Umm, arf?? Contradiction? Make up your mind- is it not progressive or is Intelligent design not more recent than original views??

Intelligent Design is a different kind of creationism, don't compare the two.

 

[Est]

Quote[/b] ]Intelligent Design is a different kind of creationism, don't compare the two.

Aye but we can in the sense that we can say that Creationism is developmental.  I'm not comparing the two in any other sense.  You're telling me Intelligent Design is a newer form or Creationism, thus meaning that Creationism is dynamic while telling me that it's static.  I'm not comparing them as beliefs or anything else.