Creation Science-- oppose or not?

[Njaco]

I personally really haven't made up my mind yet, but I can perfectly believe in God and accept evolution at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.

I agree 100% and I guess thats the point I'm trying to make. It seems to me that alot of scientists are absoloutely concrete in their theroems and opinions with no room for "outside the box' (thats what I meant by that reference) thinking.

I'm not going to defend ID or the people behind it but its premise - to me on a personal level - is acceptable. And I'll be d*mned if I'm gonna pressure someone else to believe it. Its personal and should stay that way.

Never said so. But I'm afraid I don't get your point? Because science was wrong in case of x everything else is just as good?

No, just that science isn't correct all the time even when its taught in schools as the truth.

Since every Religion has its own version of looking at these things how can you possibly show them all possibilities?

I can't possibly show them all the possibilities but I do want them to question things and make up their own mind. I want them to think. Thats all. And not everything in the schools are on the up and up or 'revisionist History' wouldn't be in our lexicon.

But I can guide them to think. I may seem like a lost soul but I was born a RC and went to Catholic school, then 6 years as a Northern baptist, then 2 years as a fledgling memeber of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, then married in a Methodist church and attended for 10 years. In between I studied Tao and Yoga and was a very short member of a Southern Baptist church. Even attended some JW meetings. Its confusing but I stick to the Bible but with an open mind and recognize the failings of the human interpetation of religions. But I also accept what science does and sometimes inerested in how the two concieve things. But I am in no way a warrior for either side.

[machine shop tom]

Originally Posted by Njaco

Great post Bearcat and Triad.

"Quote:
Intellligent design, by it's own definition, does not follow the criteria of what constitutes a scientific theory. Therefore, in cannot be presented in a way that compares it to evolution because it is comparing a belief system to a true scientific theory."


There is no room for thinking outside the box? Is there no room for other experiments and thought? How many years did it take science with its theorems to finally figure out the wrong head was on that Brontosaurus? And are we sure its still the right one?

Science has faults regardless of how rigid it is. Search for the truth? Sounds like a religion.

What is wrong with the two being together? I would think that science proving religion would be a greater coup for the scientific community that this hard-headed denial.

The idea of thinking of "outside the box" does not apply here. We are talking about applying the rules of science to decide what belongs in a science class. ID is not a scientific theory so it doesn't belong in SCIENCE class for the same reason we don't teach bee-keeping in math class. ID belongs in a class that addresses philosophy or mythology or religion

The two do not belong together simply because they follow different disciplines.

It is not about hard-headed denial. It's about common sense as it applies to a belief system that cannot be tested by all the concepts of science by it's own definition.

As far as the bronto head (I haven't heard about that one) is concerned, scientists found out they were wrong by using the tenets of science. Had ID proponents been in the same situation, they would have chalked it up as the "will of god (or whatever)".


tom

[magnocain]

Since every Religion has its own version of looking at these things how can you possibly show them all possibilities?

Since this thread is about ID, I believe that is what would be taught. The only problem would be with the people in the minority who would be "offended" by it. I an offended that it is not taught in schools. I have no desire to defend other religious beliefs.

Evolution hasn't yet been able to make life. The famous Urey/Miller Experiment only created some chemicals which can possibly make amino acids, which even if they did wouldn't make life, only used in it.

Darwin himself didn't believe in evolution, at least not what it has become today.

And there was a dog that wanted to eat fish. So it decided one day "I want to be able to swim well" so it turned into a whale.

[Marcel]

ID is a hypothesis. Evolution is a theory based on well established prove. That is, the principle of it. We see it in our daily life, species evolving because of environmental pressure. Evolution is nothing more than that. I know all about it as I'm a molecular biologist, working with vegetables. Evolution is what we use to enhance our crops. But evolution creating life is never proved.

It's just as much a hypothesis as ID is. It hypothesises that life began because of quite a number of random events during the last 4.5 billion years. Seeing the complexity of our genome it is quite incomprehensible. But then again, 4.5 billion years is an incomprehensible amount of time. And still, if you see how neat it all comes together, this long sting of 4 molecules, tied together, coding a complex machine like a human, plant or mamal, one can start wondering if it is really possible that this was put together randomly.
While I study the code of life on a daily basis, I cannot give any answers. But remember this, not believing in ID and fanaticly arguing against it makes you as much religious as the ones that believe in ID. You're a believer in the religion called science. There's no prove that life began with evolution, so it is just a believe. Just like ID. They can both be true. I'm not religious, but I try to keep an open mind.I believe in evolution, but haven't decided on the creation of life jet.

[KrazyKraut]

Originally Posted by magnocain

And there was a dog that wanted to eat fish. So it decided one day "I want to be able to swim well" so it turned into a whale.

One of the typical attempts of ID advocates to try to make evolution look stupid. Totally absurd and has nothing to do with evolution.

But evolution creating life is never proved.

Of course not because it's never been part of the theory in the first place. Evolution explains how species evolve over the generations, not why life started in the first place. The origin of life is a necessary precursor to evolution, but it's not in the scope of evolution theory.

It's just as much a hypothesis as ID is.

It's not. We had that at least three times now. In science a hypothesis is a part of a theory. The theory of evolution has several hypotheses. ID isn't a scientific theory.

And still, if you see how neat it all comes together, this long sting of 4 molecules, tied together, coding a complex machine like a human, plant or mamal, one can start wondering if it is really possible that this was put together randomly.

This is also wrong: Evolution is not random. The mutations involved are random, the process of natural selection is not random. The opposite to be exact.

[Marcel]

Evolution is proven and not random, you're right and as I said, I see evolution as the engine behind the creation of life's diversity. That's not random.

But where is the environmental pressure of creating life? That's random! Your assumption that evolution is the basis of creating life is not founded on scientific evidence, but just a believe, like creationism.

[magnocain]

One of the typical attempts of ID advocates to try to make evolution look stupid. Totally absurd and has nothing to do with evolution.

When most evolutionists talk about animals evolving, it does sound like the creature made a conscious choice. Listen to some documentaries. It is actually quite funny.

Of course not because it's never been part of the theory in the first place. Evolution explains how species evolve over the generations, not why life started in the first place. The origin of life is a necessary precursor to evolution, but it's not in the scope of evolution theory.

So then you admit that God created the world(universe)?

[machine shop tom]

"And there was a dog that wanted to eat fish. So it decided one day "I want to be able to swim well" so it turned into a whale."

This simple-minded jab is actually much more accurate that what one might think. Except the time frame is millions of years short.

tom

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by magnocain

When most evolutionists talk about animals evolving, it does sound like the creature made a conscious choice. Listen to some documentaries. It is actually quite funny.

You misunderstand. Evolution is based upon the fact that variation is there within species and is created all the time, randomly. Most of the mutations do nothing or are negative, cancer is an example where mutation negatively affects life. Some are positive only in special circumstances and will be passed in generations among a small part of the population, unnoticed. If environmental circumstances are thus that the ones with the mutation have an advantage over the original wildtype, these mutated organisms will thrive better, so gradually replacing the old variety. This is not ridiculous as it happens all the time, all over the world. I think one has a hard time disproving evolution itself. You however decide if you believe this is a intelligent designed process or not.

[magnocain]

I know what it is supposed to be, but is is humorous when stated (sometimes) like the animal decided to evolve.

[KrazyKraut]

Originally Posted by magnocain

So then you admit that God created the world(universe)?

"The Boncos did NOT win the Super Bowl."

"So then you admit that the Mavericks won the NBA playoffs?"

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by magnocain

I know what it is supposed to be, but is is humorous when stated (sometimes) like the animal decided to evolve.

No serious scientist will put it that way. That's only popular science speaking in those docu's then.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by KrazyKraut

"The Boncos did NOT win the Super Bowl."

"So then you admit that the Mavericks won the NBA playoffs?"

But what is your believe then, who or what made life to be created in the first place?

[magnocain]

"The Boncos did NOT win the Super Bowl."

"So then you admit that the Mavericks won the NBA playoffs?"

I know what you mean, but life had to come from somewhere.

No serious scientist will put it that way. That's only popular science speaking in those docu's then.

History channel.

BTW it is funny that we are counter posting each other so rapidly. It is a record for me.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by magnocain

History channel.

Ah, I should be careful basing any judgements on that info