Jump to content

Creationism Is Not Science


Guest Net Eng
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Net Eng

Ran across this today.

 

Creationism is not Science

 

 

Here in the U.S., there is a huge debate in school boards and courtrooms as to whether or not creationism/creationscience/intelligent design (yes, they are all the same thing), should be taught in science class. Creationism is a ideology. It is based on a religious view that ignores new evidence. Science, on the other hand is a processby which evidence is evaluated and conclusions are held only as long as the evidence supports them. So, even at the most basic level, science and creationism are two completely separate ways of thinking about the world.

 

Science is taught in schools because it it a powerful tool in exploring the world. Again, let me stress that science is not a set of conclusions, but a process. Science does, however, recognize that some ideas are better than others at explaining the available data. For example, the germ theory of disease best explains how some illness is transferred between different people. In fact, there is so much data to support this theory that it is accepted as the scientific consensus. These are the ideas we teach in a science class, ideas well supported by evidence. By and large, I don't think anyone objects to teaching science in schools, except when it contradicts their own ideology.

 

Just to be clear, I am not going to address the creationist arguments like flood geology and irreducible complexity here. I think that has been done exceptionally well all over the Internet, including at Talkorigins.org (which is a site I highly recommend). I just want to explain why their ideas are not science.

 

First of all, falsifiability isa basic requirement of a scientific idea. I have written about this before, but to recap: for an idea to be scientifically legitimate,there has to be a way to prove it false. Religious ideas, like creationism, are designed so that no matter what is observed, belief can be maintained. This alone is enough reason why creationism, in any of its various forms, can not be considered a scientific idea.

 

Second, creationism is not a single belief. Creationists (although intelligent design proponents will sometimes leave this out) often argue that creationism should be taught side-by-side with evolution;giving both sides equal time. This assumes that there is one form of creationism, when in reality there are as many different forms of creationism as there are religions. This was comicality pointed out ina letter to the Kansas School Board of Education. This letter says that alternative views of creation should be taught, including the belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.This is what started the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if you were wondering. If you want to teach creationism, you have to decide which one.

 

The reason I write this today is because of a recent article in the Telegraph. This article suggests that a more accurate translation of the Judeo-Christian bible reads "In the beginning, God separated the Heaven and the Earth," not "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth." This brings up a huge point. One of the major differences between science and religion is that science always adjuststo new evidence. I would however, be shocked if die-hard creationists even give this new evidence a passing glance. Their beliefs are more important than the evidence that may contradict them, and this isjustified through faith.

 

My goal is not to impose my beliefs on anyone else. Science is a strict and rigorous process. For any idea to pass as scientific,you have to build a scientifically valid hypothesis, and then come up with the evidence. Creationists have tried to skip this step. They are trying to use pressure on school boards and lawsuits to push their way into the science class. Science class is not for teaching ideologies.It is for exactly what the name implies: teaching science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Net Eng, sorry I haven’t been in touch my man. I hope things are well with you.

 

I agree creationism is not science and that it shouldn’t be taught as if were a scientifically valid thing. I think most here would agree.

 

I am ashamed that we here in the U.S. seem to be the only developed nation that can’t accept this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reminded of Bill O'Reilly's interview with Richard Dawkins where he accused Dawkins of being a fascist because he didn't want to let creationists have equal time to explain that "god created the universe and all life."

 

Creationism is not science. Intelligent Design Theory is not science. These are just attempts by theists to sound intelligent in a world where they are more and more becoming outdated and irrelevant. Any inclusion of these notions in a science classroom will harm our children and our country intellectually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Net Eng

Hey Net Eng, sorry I haven’t been in touch my man. I hope things are well with you.

 

I agree creationism is not science and that it shouldn’t be taught as if were a scientifically valid thing. I think most here would agree.

 

I am ashamed that we here in the U.S. seem to be the only developed nation that can’t accept this.

 

Oh sure, you don't call and don't write!! I want a divorce!! ...er wait I thought this was a PM!! :HaHa:

 

The line between what is science and what is not has been blurred significantly and I would say the the lack of education in the sciences is to blame.

 

I wish the fuck parents in this country would support science and math more. Be less interesting in the fucking football score and turn on the Discovery Channel or History Channel (Mythbusters or The Universe, yeah I know most of programming on these channels suck but ya gotta start somewhere!!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply put, Creationism and ID only have one purpose: to satisfy theology. End of story.

 

 

I doubt there is an atheist or even agnostic Creationist or ID scientist on the planet.

 

 

Case closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creationism is not science...it's magic. *poof*

recycling_-_magician.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory of evolution is not true. Still no proof whatsoever about it. I'm not a Christian but I believe in God and I seriously feel that children should not learn about evolution unless they are learning how silly the idea is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory of evolution is not true. Still no proof whatsoever about it. I'm not a Christian but I believe in God and I seriously feel that children should not learn about evolution unless they are learning how silly the idea is

 

I mean, it's not like we have an remarkably complete fossil record, DNA, the support of Geology, Biology, observation of it occurring today. I mean, it's not like Biology wouldn't work without it. I mean, it's not 'the framework the entire field is based' on or anything.

 

It's not like we don't practically apply it in Agriculture, medicine, genetics, computer science, engineering, and a myriad of other fields.

 

It's not like it's an accurate predictive model that is more and more supported by new evidence on a regular basis.

 

It's not like it's the conclusion that all of the evidence conclusively points towards.

 

I mean, it's just a Theory. It's not like Theories are based on evidence, observation, testing and verification, independent verification, peer review, and don't contradict any existing evidence.

 

Oh! Wait! It is in fact -all of these things-.

 

Evolution is not a belief, it's a fact.

 

Are you trolling or something? You can't be serious.

 

What do you suggest we teach them then, if not the facts based on the evidence, and verified using the process of the -Scientific Method- in -Science class-, then what?

 

Evolution is more proven than Gravity. We know how it works, why it works, we can trace it's origin to modern organisms, we have evidence for it, past evidence in the fossil record, DNA evidence, and it can be observed today, practically applied, and used as a predictive model.

 

We use it to our advantage in agriculture all the time, as well as medicine, and genetics. Computer Science uses it's principals as well, as well as engineering. Every year new car models are based on slight improvements of the last year's model.

 

We have no idea how gravity works, why it works, what causes it, or anything more than how it effects things really.

 

Since we don't know much about it, you wouldn't mind stepping off a building then? After all, it's just a theory after all.

 

What exactly do you expect us to teach in Science class then?

 

If Evolution isn't true, then that pretty much disrupts the whole program. Because the methods used to explain it are the -exact same methods- used for every other theory and idea taught in the class. It's the same process that lead to atomic theory, the discovery of electricity, thermodynamics, and any other scientific principal that exists.

 

They are all based on the exact same methodology. So if the method used to discover Evolution is faulty, then all that other stuff must also be thrown out.

 

Biology is entirely based on the framework of evolution. The entire field does not work without it.

 

What do you expect us to do then?

 

I've got no problem with teaching ID/CreationScience/creationism in School. Put it in philosophy class where it belongs. It doesn't belong in Science classrooms. It's got no relation to the process or methodology, and does not belong there. Evolution is entirely based on exactly that, and it's right where it belongs.

 

Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. It's based on the methodology, and has been proven using it just like every other principal. Personal ideologies have no say or place in that. Your personal beliefs are not a part of the process, and they shouldn't be.

 

If you really disagree with it so much, prove it wrong, get it verified and peer reviewed, and then we'll talk about whether or not it belongs. Otherwise, you're just bitching about what you don't understand. That's not a problem on Science's end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory of evolution is not true. Still no proof whatsoever about it. I'm not a Christian but I believe in God and I seriously feel that children should not learn about evolution unless they are learning how silly the idea is

What a stellar intellect you must have Urban Monk to have arrived at such conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory of evolution is not true. Still no proof whatsoever about it. I'm not a Christian but I believe in God and I seriously feel that children should not learn about evolution unless they are learning how silly the idea is

What a stellar intellect you must have Urban Monk to have arrived at such conclusions.

 

Ok smart guy, so where is your written records from the "pre-historic" past to prove your evolution fantasy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory of evolution is not true. Still no proof whatsoever about it.

No proof?

 

What about the C-vitamin gene, and retro-viruses? What about ring species, how are they explained without evolution? Or actually observed genetic change in hermetically sealed colonies of fruit flies? Or how about mathematical models implemented as computer software which replicate the basic principles? How about that genetic algorithms are used, for real, today, even in network hubs for Internet, games, or computer viruses? It works. It has been observed. Isolated rats on an island 500 years after they were introduced have new genetic makeup compared to their ancestors. Undeniable proof.

 

I'm not a Christian but I believe in God and I seriously feel that children should not learn about evolution unless they are learning how silly the idea is

Eh. I think the children should learn that it is not silly ,and people who deny it are uninformed. I think we should have classes in how to best mock those who are evolution deniers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Ok smart guy, so where is your written records from the "pre-historic" past to prove your evolution fantasy?

 

:lmao:

 

Okay, has anybody else had enough idiocy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok smart guy, so where is your written records from the "pre-historic" past to prove your evolution fantasy?

It's unfortunate that most DNA doesn't survive through the ages. But there are cases where DNA has been compared from two different branches, which are supposed to be the exact same, and they are proven to have different codes. It's hard to deny the real and actual observations.

 

You know that Evolution is a theory that started to develop long before Darwin. So we're talking about perhaps 200 years of researchers, scientists, and extremely smart people looking into this. It's only in the last 10-20 years it has been questioned, and mostly by the fundamentalist religious people who consider Evolution a threat to their belief and existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory of evolution is not true. Still no proof whatsoever about it. I'm not a Christian but I believe in God and I seriously feel that children should not learn about evolution unless they are learning how silly the idea is

What a stellar intellect you must have Urban Monk to have arrived at such conclusions.

 

Ok smart guy, so where is your written records from the "pre-historic" past to prove your evolution fantasy?

You mean something like THE FOSSIL RECORD?!? Goddamn, I wasn't going to respond to this thread, but sweet jebus that is really stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory of evolution is not true. Still no proof whatsoever about it.

No proof?

 

What about the C-vitamin gene, and retro-viruses? What about ring species, how are they explained without evolution? Or actually observed genetic change in hermetically sealed colonies of fruit flies? Or how about mathematical models implemented as computer software which replicate the basic principles? How about that genetic algorithms are used, for real, today, even in network hubs for Internet, games, or computer viruses? It works. It has been observed. Isolated rats on an island 500 years after they were introduced have new genetic makeup compared to their ancestors. Undeniable proof.

 

I'm not a Christian but I believe in God and I seriously feel that children should not learn about evolution unless they are learning how silly the idea is

Eh. I think the children should learn that it is not silly ,and people who deny it are uninformed. I think we should have classes in how to best mock those who are evolution deniers.

 

But u still didn't prove that we came from gorilla creatures and u didn't prove that there was no God

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But u still didn't prove that we came from gorilla creatures and u didn't prove that there was no God

U need 2 read more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is essentially a form of Methodological Naturalism and Creationism is essentially a form of Teleology. The two are at opposite ends and thus diametrically opposed.

 

So not only is Creationism not Science, it is indeed the opposite of Science. It is everything Science is against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gorilla creatures ? We came from big hairy gorillas ?

 

 

(looks down at groin) *sigh*

 

 

IF ONLY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gorilla creatures ? We came from big hairy gorillas ?

 

 

(looks down at groin) *sigh*

 

 

IF ONLY

Maybe it is proof, because gorillas' have tiny penises. :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Love Dog

The theory of evolution is not true. Still no proof whatsoever about it. I'm not a Christian but I believe in God and I seriously feel that children should not learn about evolution unless they are learning how silly the idea is

 

"Theory" doesn't mean that it is "theoretical". As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

 

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

 

If you believe in god you probably believe that man was made in god's image. Which version of man was made in god's image? Neanderthal, hominid, which basic model of man looked like god? It must have been a version that couldn't talk, only grunt and barely able to walk upright. Or do you think perhaps that god evolved into a modern version of man as man himself evolved?

 

There is plenty of evidence for evolution, whereas there is absolutely none for creation, this is why so many people accept evolution as reality. Creation is fairy tale stuff, even the RC church believes in evolution and they are very, very conservative.

 

It's only people with very primitive and shallow thought processes who can actually believe in creation, or those who can see opportunity for wealth creation by believing(or pretending)in it.

 

If I could get a World tour flying 1st class, staying in 5-star hotels, lecturing to audiences who hang on my every word and donate their money to my cause, I, too, would "believe" in creation! I would also believe in flying pink elephants to get that sort of lifestyle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory of evolution is not true. Still no proof whatsoever about it. I'm not a Christian but I believe in God and I seriously feel that children should not learn about evolution unless they are learning how silly the idea is

 

"Theory" doesn't mean that it is "theoretical". As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

 

 

A theory is a theory, don't try to sugar coat it. No observation, experimentation, or reasoning can prove that people were gorilla creatures millions of years ago. What u discover today, can't necessarily prove what happened millions of years ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory of evolution is not true. Still no proof whatsoever about it. I'm not a Christian but I believe in God and I seriously feel that children should not learn about evolution unless they are learning how silly the idea is

 

"Theory" doesn't mean that it is "theoretical". As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

 

 

A theory is a theory, don't try to sugar coat it. No observation, experimentation, or reasoning can prove that people were gorilla creatures millions of years ago. What u discover today, can't necessarily prove what happened millions of years ago

:lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A theory is a theory, don't try to sugar coat it. No observation, experimentation, or reasoning can prove that people were gorilla creatures millions of years ago. What u discover today, can't necessarily prove what happened millions of years ago

 

I think he's yanking our chain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Wayne Buchanan

Well, this is fun.

 

Creationism is certainly theology. There is no doubt about that. Ok, deep breath, no veins have exploded in anyone's head yet...

 

My main point is not the progression of life. The fossil record exists. One can make a case for or against evolution with it. It is not complete, but should we expect it to be even if evolution is true. Not really. We can see possible connections between different species as we go further and further back in the fossil record. However, the different explosions of life within it do not lend themselves to the idea of a slow progression of evolving organisms. Anyway, enough of that.

 

What I want to touch on is the origin. I would contend that life spontaneously forming is not science any more than God causing it to exist. Neither idea can be proved, but both (if one accepts an old world creation) fit right in with life progressing on this planet as the fossil record shows. However, I think God creating it fits better with the explosions of life seen in the fossil record. Either way, one must have faith in whichever theory they have chosen. Did the 250 proteins necessary for minimum life function happen to move into the perfectly correct sequence randomly or did God arrange them? Dr. Doug Axe, a molecular biologist (cool name huh?) estimate the chances of this randomly happening are "roughly one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion." God seems much more probable than that.

 

I also want to touch on this:

 

"The reason I write this today is because of a recent article in the Telegraph. This article suggests that a more accurate translation of the Judeo-Christian bible reads "In the beginning, God separated the Heaven and the Earth," not "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth." This brings up a huge point. One of the major differences between science and religion is that science always adjuststo new evidence. I would however, be shocked if die-hard creationists even give this new evidence a passing glance. Their beliefs are more important than the evidence that may contradict them, and this is justified through faith."

 

Ok, translation does not work like science. There is not really newly revealed evidence like there is in science. Depending on the language, there are multiple ways of translating some words. For instance, in English, one could translate heavens to mean the sky, the cosmos or space beyond our atmosphere, or the heaven in which God lives. Any one of these translations will do. All are known to the translator just like the possibilities of translating בָּרָא created or separated. This is not new evidence. This has already been known. However, it is also possible to tell which translation is correct by the context of the sentence, paragraph, and book as well as the way the word is used in other places. In this case, created is a much better translation. Separated is a possibility too, but it is not very likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A theory is a theory, don't try to sugar coat it. No observation, experimentation, or reasoning can prove that people were gorilla creatures millions of years ago. What u discover today, can't necessarily prove what happened millions of years ago

 

I think he's yanking our chain.

I'm not so sure Taph. He's made a number of posts that make me think he's a sheep in wolves clothing... not very informed, but then what sheep are? :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.