Creation Science-- oppose or not?

[machine shop tom]

"How can you say it is not a theory?"

A true scientific theory can be scientifically tested. Creationism, since in invokes a non or supernatural component, cannot be tested.

"Hey, Bob, did you get the results of that deity test?"

"Sorry, Bill, I think the deity was resting that day. They can do that, you know."

Creationism can be couched as a theory, but not as a scientific theory. Therefore, it should not be brought up in a science class, except as an example of a non-scientific theory.

tom

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am not going to get involved in this debate, but I would love to hear some answers from some people.

If you do not believe in evolution, then please explain this:

1. How did the dinosaurs get here before man, if God created man first?

2. Explain the similarities between humans and chimps.

Again not really trying to get involved, nor am I saying anyone is wrong or not right. I would just like to hear what your thoughts are.

[Njaco]

A true scientific theory can be scientifically tested. Creationism, since in invokes a non or supernatural component, cannot be tested.

That can go both ways. I don't think exactly how large the Universe is can be tested to any 100% certanity.

Adler, I tend to believe that although the Bible says on day One God created the earth and heavens, that One day may have took eons. Time is very fluid when it comes to mans's perception. IMHO

[machine shop tom]

Here is a little clarification on what science says about 100% proof:

From this page:An Introduction to Science


"Now one can propose a solution or answer to the problem or question. In science, this suggested solution or answer is called a scientific hypothesis, and this is one of the most important steps a scientist can perform, because the proposed hypothesis must be stated in such a way that it is testable. A scientific hypothesis is an informed,testable, and predictive solution to a scientific problem that explains a natural phenomenon, process, or event. In critical thinking, as in science, your proposed answer or solution must be testable, otherwise it is essentially useless for further investigation. Most individuals--noncritical thinkers all--stop here, and are satisfied with their first answer or solution, but this lack of skepticism is a major roadblock to gaining reliable knowledge. While some of these early proposed answers may be true, most will be false, and further investigation will almost always be necessary to determine their validity.

Next, one must test the hypothesis before it is corroborated and given any real validity. There are two ways to do this. First, one can conduct an experiment. This is often presented in science textbooks as the only way to test hypotheses in science, but a little reflection will show that many natural problems are not amenable to experimentation, such as questions about stars, galaxies, mountain formation, the formation of the solar system, ancient evolutionary events, and so forth. The second way to test a hypothesis is to make further observations. Every hypothesis has consequences and makes certain predictions about the phenomenon or process under investigation. Using logic and empirical evidence, one can test the hypothesis by examining how successful the predictions are, that is, how well the predictions and consequences agree with new data, further insights, new patterns, and perhaps with models. The testability or predictiveness of a hypothesis is its most important characteristic. Only hypotheses involving natural processes, natural events, and natural laws can be tested; the supernatural cannot be tested, so it lies outside of science and its existence or nonexistence is irrelevant to science.

If the hypothesis fails the test, it must be rejected and either abandoned or modified. Most hypotheses are modified by scientists who don't like to simply throw out an idea they think is correct and in which they have already invested a great deal of time or effort. Nevertheless, a modified hypothesis must be tested again. If the hypothesis passes the further tests, it is considered to be a corroborated hypothesis, and can now be published. A corroborated hypothesis is one that has passed its tests, i.e., one whose predictions have been verified. Now other scientists test the hypothesis. If further corroborated by subsequent tests, it becomes highly corroborated and is now considered to be reliable knowledge. By the way, the technical name for this part of the scientific method is the "hypothetico-deductive method," so named because one deduces the results of the predictions of the hypothesis and tests these deductions. Inductive reasoning, the alternative to deductive reasoning, was used earlier to help formulate the hypothesis. Both of these types of reasoning are therefore used in science, and both must be used logically.
Scientists never claim that a hypothesis is "proved" in a strict sense (but sometimes this is quite legitimately claimed when using popular language), because proof is something found only in mathematics and logic, disciplines in which all logical parameters or constraints can be defined, and something that is not true in the natural world. Scientists prefer to use the word "corroborated" rather than "proved," but the meaning is essentially the same. A highly corroborated hypothesis becomes something else in addition to reliable knowledge--it becomes a scientific fact. A scientific fact is a highly corroborated hypothesis that has been so repeatedly tested and for which so much reliable evidence exists, that it would be perverse or irrational to deny it. This type of reliable knowledge is the closest that humans can come to the "truth" about the universe (I put the word "truth" in quotation marks because there are many different kinds of truth, such as logical truth, emotional truth, religious truth, legal truth, philosophical truth, etc.; it should be clear that this essay deals with scientific truth, which, while certainly not the sole truth, is nevertheless the best truth humans can possess about the natural world).

There are many such scientific facts: the existence of gravity as a property of all matter, the past and present evolution of all living organisms, the presence of nucleic acids in all life, the motion of continents and giant tectonic plates on Earth, the expansion of the universe following a giant explosion, and so forth. Many scientific facts violate common sense and the beliefs of ancient philosophies and religions, so many people persist in denying them, but they thereby indulge in irrationality and perversity. Many other areas of human thought and philosophy, and many other knowledge systems (methods of gaining knowledge), exist that claim to have factual knowledge about the world. Some even claim that their facts are absolutely or ultimately true, something science would never claim. But their "facts" are not reliable knowledge, because--while they might fortuitously be true--they have not been justified by a reliable method. If such unreliable "facts" are true--and I certainly don't maintain that all such knowledge claims are false--we can never be sure that they are true, as we can with scientific facts."

Sorry if it is a bit lengthy.

This particular part is important (italics mine):

"Another name for empirical evidence is natural evidence: the evidence found in nature. Naturalism is the philosophy that says that "Reality and existence (i.e. the universe, cosmos, or nature) can be described and explained solely in terms of natural evidence, natural processes, and natural laws." This is exactly what science tries to do. Another popular definition of naturalism is that "The universe exists as science says it does." This definition emphasizes the strong link between science and natural evidence and law, and it reveals that our best understanding of material reality and existence is ultimately based on philosophy. This is not bad, however, for, whether naturalism is ultimately true or not, science and naturalism reject the concept of ultimate or absolute truth in favor of a concept of proximate reliable truth that is far more successful and intellectually satisfying than the alternative, the philosophy of supernaturalism. The supernatural, if it exists, cannot be examined or tested by science, so it is irrelevant to science. It is impossible to possess reliable knowledge about the supernatural by the use of scientific and critical thinking. Individuals who claim to have knowledge about the supernatural do not possess this knowledge by the use of critical thinking, but by other methods of knowing."

That is why Creationism cannot be called a science or scientific theory. The basic tenets of Creationism hinges on a non-naturally explained influence. That takes it out of the realm of science.

tom

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I am not going to get involved in this debate, but I would love to hear some answers from some people.

If you do not believe in evolution, then please explain this:

1. How did the dinosaurs get here before man, if God created man first?

2. Explain the similarities between humans and chimps.

Again not really trying to get involved, nor am I saying anyone is wrong or not right. I would just like to hear what your thoughts are.

Good points. Plus :

3. If God created animals a day and water the next one (if I remember well) how did the fish survive ?

4. If Adam and Eve are the first humans created by God, and they had two children (two boys), how did the Human race survive extinction ?

[freebird]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

I believe if you check it out a bit the book People and Pandas the book for intelligent design was a fraud as it was originally abook on creationism but was edited to remove that word and replace it with Intelligent design

What is fraudulent about it? If someone wrote the book and changed the title & the word "creation" fine, that does not invalidate the book, nor make it a fraud. Has anyone examined the content of the book? Does it make false claims? Is there fraudulent data?

Originally Posted by machine shop tom

"How can you say it is not a theory?"

A true scientific theory can be scientifically tested. Creationism, since in invokes a non or supernatural component, cannot be tested.

Creationism can be couched as a theory, but not as a scientific theory. Therefore, it should not be brought up in a science class, except as an example of a non-scientific theory.

tom

Well you said "theory" which it is. Scientific it is not, I agree. What about the origin of the Big Bang? What was the nature of the matter before the Big Bang? Did time exist before the Big bang? How did all of the matter in the Universe come to be compressed in a point infinitely small? None of these questions can be "tested" because it involves events before the creation of the Universe, yet cosmologists study and propose theories that AS YET we have no way of examining or validating. Since it involve events "beyond nature" you could even argue that it was a "Supernatural" event, i.e. before time or this reality existed.

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I am not going to get involved in this debate, but I would love to hear some answers from some people.

If you do not believe in evolution, then please explain this:

1. How did the dinosaurs get here before man, if God created man first?

2. Explain the similarities between humans and chimps.

Again not really trying to get involved, nor am I saying anyone is wrong or not right. I would just like to hear what your thoughts are.

Adler, I am not arguing against evolution, which I belive is the best theory to explain life via the fossil records. I do not believe in the literal 6 day creation. My point is that Evolution neither proves the existence of a "Divine Creator" who is responsible for "creation". In school I was taught that God does not exist, and that creation was the result of pure random chance. This is not a proven fact, yet it was presented as such to me. {And I p****d off my teachers by asking how they might do so... - they don't like questions they can't answer!}


When you boil "Creation" down to the very basic question, there are 2 options. 1.) Creation is the result of a random occurance, or 2.) Creation is the deliberate result of a "creator" {i.e. Intelligent Design"} There is nothing in "Evolution" that would preclude it from being the result of a "creator"

There are many teachers, some of whom are athiest, who want to teach that the former is fact, when in fact it has not been proven. They also want to deny students the ability to see any other alternative hypothesis.

I would think that a REALLY GOOD teacher, who is trying to teach scientific method, if they believe that the book "People & Pandas" is a flawed theory, THEN PROVE IT. if it makes false claims, point them out. Uses flawed data - show why it's wrong.

Tom you forgot to mention another important part of scientific method - proving that alternate hypothesis do not work. Don't ban or restrict access to alternate theories to "prove" that your theory is best, just show why the other theory will not work.

[The Basket]

I will mix aviation with creation.

Was the F-22 Raptor the first heavier than air flying machine? Nope...why not? Because it is far too complicated. So start basic.

I think God is still around because the concept of our lives having no meaning and that our existence is pure chance is too much.

[pbfoot]

Freebird I'll reply with once again with Tiktaalik rosae and compare it to "Intelligent" Design

[HoHun]

Hi Freebird,

>No problem then, if someone offers a theory of "intelligent Design", let science prove it true or untrue.

If it's science, there is an established process to get your theory proven and accepted and, in the end, taught as science in classrooms.

If someone tags a label "science" to something that did not go through the established process (or, in this case, was weeded out in the 19th century when still supported by some of the world's leading scientists) and then tries to leap-frog right into the classrooms - well, obviously his goal is not scientific progress but political indoctrination.

There seems to be some confusion in this discussion about what evolution actually is, by the way - it's not a theory of the origin of life, but a theory of the development of life.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I am not going to get involved in this debate, but I would love to hear some answers from some people.

If you do not believe in evolution, then please explain this:

1. How did the dinosaurs get here before man, if God created man first?

2. Explain the similarities between humans and chimps.

Again not really trying to get involved, nor am I saying anyone is wrong or not right. I would just like to hear what your thoughts are.

herr adler, if you pay attemption in the books of genesis, youll see that the story tells that god created man after created all plants and animals.

i dont know about other christian churchs, but catholics today do interpret the genesis and the revelations more like a parable full of meanings. for example, the genesis is a form to say to ancient people who lived 3000 years ago that god is behind all things in universe and he is the powerfull force that made everything happends.

would you explain the big bang theory for a goat shepard in palestine 3000 years ago ? so, its all figurative in the book of genesis. like womens made by mens ribs and the tree of science for the good and for the evil... all stories have a message behinds.

curiosity: the ancient books are shared by christian, jewish and muslim religion. our god is the same. also jewish and muslin considers jesus an important prophet.

well about men and chimps: lets remember we are not descendent of chimps, but the "hominidians"(we an our ancestors) are descendent of australopithecus, chimps are our "distant cousins" in the evolutionary tree.

well... but... anyway...




sorry folks... couldnt control myself...

ps: im for evolutionary theory besides it have some holes.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Next question.

God created Adam and Eve, right? They had som kids, right? I guess they decided to test the theory of inscest then right?

Again I am just trying to hear people opinions on the matter, that is is.

My own theory is that God created the earth and then left evolution to take care of the rest.

[HoHun]

Hi Jugbr,

>i dont know about other christian churchs, but catholics today do interpret the genesis and the revelations more like a parable full of meanings.

As far as I can tell, this also applies to protestants in Europe. It's my impression that the modern rejection of evolution is a local US American phenomenon.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Jugbr,

>i dont know about other christian churchs, but catholics today do interpret the genesis and the revelations more like a parable full of meanings.

As far as I can tell, this also applies to protestants in Europe. It's my impression that the modern rejection of evolution is a local US American phenomenon.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

hi henning, in brazil we have some cases of rejection of evolutionary theory.

theres a public school in northest wheres one history teacher was teaching the creation theory for kids. it generated a great controversy among the society. since brazil havent a good public education system, i gess more cases of that could still hapening.

i think the issue in usa is more directed for the "religious belt" of the country and not usa as a whole. i saw once in tv a documentary that shows a create theory´s "paleontology" museum.

so, was quite funny, just like flinstones, the exibit shows kids riding triceratops...

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Next question.

God created Adam and Eve, right? They had som kids, right? I guess they decided to test the theory of inscest then right?

Again I am just trying to hear people opinions on the matter, that is is.

My own theory is that God created the earth and then left evolution to take care of the rest.

the story tells that after adan and eve, ate the fruit of the tree of science for the good and for the evil, god drive them out of eden.

so they arrived to earth, wheres they had sons and daughters and the sons marriage the daughters.

its not quite strange for ancient people marriages among brothers and sisters.

a curious thing is that have been proved by science that the homo sapiens(we) was developed by a small group of individuals. we all have a mother in common, our "eve". the line of homo sapiens started by this ancient woaman and we are all descendents of her.

they came to that conclusion, studing the mitochondrion´s dna, i gess...

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by JugBR

the story tells that after adan and eve, ate the fruit of the tree of science for the good and for the evil, god drive them out of eden.

so they arrived to earth, wheres they had sons and daughters and the sons marriage the daughters.

its not quite strange for ancient people marriages among brothers and sisters.

a curious thing is that have been proved by science that the homo sapiens(we) was developed by a small group of individuals. we all have a mother in common, our "eve". the line of homo sapiens started by this ancient woaman and we are all descendents of her.

they came to that conclusion, studing the mitochondrion´s dna, i gess...

Wait a minute, if I remember well my religion class, Adam and Eve had only two childrens... And both were boys ! So who bore the child for the next generation ?