Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate

Post Reply New Topic

The words 'creation' and 'science' shouldn't even be put next to each other. I remember reading Signature In The Cell, realizing it was loaded with all kinds of things that looked great but then on further inquiry I found out that there was some awful cherry-picking of facts regarding the four main aminos and their likelihoods of chaining or ways in which aminos can chain.

IMO Creationism, particularly old-world if we're going to take this seriously, is a philosophy not a science. If it reads science in God's will - well then - that's that. There's no alternative case to really be presented. To believe in God but to believe wholeheartedly in science isn't necessarily a contradiction, just that obviously in that case you're understanding of science will perpetually reshape you're understanding of who and what God is by your own beliefs. On the other hand though to try and monkey-wrench facts on the periphery or where they start to border on recondit for most people to make fictitious case though, that's incredibly dark - even darker when that flimsy theory thrown at school systems as the new carriculum. My advice to the ID people - do real research, keep doing real research, and don't bother trying to push this stuff down until you have a clear case. If you never come up with a clear case or keep trying because you keep coming to the same conclusions as atheist materialists, perhaps you're doggedness will pay off in other ways (likely not insofar as proving what you wanted to) but understand that unless and untill you have a clear case there is no Creation Science, perhaps creationist scientists, but the two are still worlds apart.

The scary fact of the matter is, plenty of other states use the text books used in Texas. Thank you American Taliban!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Quite. My point exactly.



Hardly. The Creation Science people predate the "Intelligent Design" deal, though of course it is consistent with their thing and may be an updated strategy for them. You can start here - though there is no need: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science



Which is by no means limited to Gould. We do not worry about Theoretical Physics impacting or being impacted by Theoretical Linguistics. It is no more reasonable to worry about Theoretical Physics impacting or being impacted by the science of Theology.

But that does not make a never you mind to the Maloverniki and fanatics of both kinds.

You got that right.

You mean maybe "young earth"? Or is "old world Creationism" something I just haven't heard about?"

I say AGAIN [as I tried to say to my brother, and as in that case with no real hope that it will penetrate] science cannot kill religion. Religion cannot kill science. Someone who thinks either is possible has no business practicing either. Maloverniki are dangerous fools - but they cannot harm what they most fear.

Old Earth Creationism is championed by Hugh Ross over at Reasons to Believe. They accept evidence of an old earth and just fight biology, paleontology, genetics, etc. They argue for a recent supernatural origin of man and, iirc, dismiss any near humans as animals who are unrelated to us.

Creationism seems to just reflect a cognitive incapacity to conceive of anything existing without the presence of mankind. Seems to me like it's another unfortunate byproduct of the human need to conceive of everything in a social capacity.

There really isn't much to debate. One is science, the other a neurological illusion.

Unless you want to go the "if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound" route and argue that, although things can be said to have happened before the birth of Humans, nothing actually 'existed' because it was not concieved of.

"I say AGAIN [as I tried to say to my brother, and as in that case with no real hope that it will penetrate] science cannot kill religion. Religion cannot kill science. Someone who thinks either is possible has no business practicing either."

I think you're right here. If anything is going to kill religion, it will be that religion no longer meets a psychological need that people have. In that case, it may be replaced by a new religion, or no religion. But science neither does, nor attempts to, kill religion.

Still, the original question remains. If what you say is true, then why should there be a debate? The only honest conclusion to such a debate will be that the two sides are coming from completely different methodological universes. More commonly, there will simply be a shouting match that doesn't result in a productive conversation for either side.

If there is to be a debate, it has to be about those more fundamental epistemological questions. Otherwise, I think people are wasting their time.

I've heard someone say that homonids were just manlike apes. Pretty racist, if I do say so myself.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The ideological dominance of biology by Lysenko in Soviet Russia is a prime example of how religion can kill sciences. Lysenko's insane anti-factual theories are a good example of a State religion taking violent action against truth based research.

Another example: The Church actively intervening in the researches of Galileo. The Church and State acted in concert and were inseperable in their interference with Galileo. Religion can be the enemy of science. It need not be, but it can be.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 22 Jul 2011, 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wrong. There is loads of evidence for creation, everything around you is evidence for creation. However, there is no empirical evidence that indicates creation over a godless universe.

I'm a believer in theistic evolution fwiw, so I was just pointing out your mistake rather than actively disagreeing.

Where is the Creator. Who is the Creator. And what evidence is there for it's existence?

ruveyn

"The ideological dominance of biology by Lysenko in Soviet Russia is a prime example of how religion can kill sciences. Lysenko's insane anti-factual theories are a good example of a State religion taking violent action against truth based research.

Another example: The Church actively intervening in the researches of Galileo. The Church and State acted in concert and were inseperable in their interference with Galileo. Religion can be the enemy of science. It need not be, but it can be."

I'm thinking that philologos was referring to the two being an ideological threat to one another. His point was that, in a free and open society, religion and science need not be seen as threats to one another. Of course, in the absence of freedom, both science and religion could be threatened if they oppose the ideological agenda of the ruling class.

False. Even in young earth creationism humans were created on the last day of creation prior to God resting on the seventh. Old earth creationists have man showing up at the end of billions of years.

Ugh... ok,, I guess I have to be considerably more careful in how I use descriptors, sounds like any type of phrasing you can use will have an absurd movement behind it that I had no intention of conjuring up.

I simply meant - speaking of people who perhaps believe in creationism but also believe that the universe is 13 billion or however many years old as science claim it is, whether they believe that God threw the dominoes or whether they believe that evolution was guided. In particular, for the sake of this conversation though, there are a lot of people out there who are a bit different than that even, ie. intelligent design people. That's the general area where I was going.