Creation Science-- oppose or not?

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by Maestro

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 ?

they had more sons than cain and abel. they had a third son called seth, and both cain and seth mariage two of their sisters.

[Aussie1001]

How do you percieve "god" maybe some highly intelligent race that created us as part of a science experiment and we are inside a little test tube ? perhaps. Personally i believe we were created in a fashion such as this. The big bang seems a little obscure as to the origes of all this "stuff" and it enourmouns compression. Having said that it is obvious that some explosion of mammoth proportions did occur a set amount of time ago. On the other hand we have an equally obscure account of how someone woke up oneday and decided to create life hmmmm. However why does this mean we have to abide by his rules in a book. When you read a kids version of the bible and it tells you that if you dont believe then you are gonna burn ? doesnt that seem a bit extreme i mean at the time i was 11. The ten commandments are good stuff if we lived by them then the world would basically be perfect.
Again with the bible i think that we are partly overlooking the fact that the bilbe (new testermant) was written over a huge time scale and it was designe to impress differn't people at differn't imes. i.e the romans.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by JugBR

they had more sons than cain and abel. they had a third son called seth, and both cain and seth mariage two of their sisters.

That is my point. The church (any kind of religion here, not just christianity) condemns this kind of practice but there is an example of it in its own history.

[machine shop tom]

"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."

Peoples and Pandas is a known creationist propaganda book. It would take too much class time to debunk a it than what it would be worth in terms of teaching real science. It would be worthwhile as a term paper or something of that sort.



"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."

Again, in the case of creationism, it is not a scientific theory. It is not the province of science to prove or not prove non-scientific theories. Being belief systems, they belong in the realm of philosophy. Again, from the same source (italics mine):

"....The final step of the scientific method is to construct, support, or cast doubt on a scientific theory. A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. Scientific theories explain nature by unifying many once-unrelated facts or corroborated hypotheses; they are the strongest and most truthful explanations of how the universe, nature, and life came to be, how they work, what they are made of, and what will become of them. Since humans are living organisms and are part of the universe, science explains all of these things about ourselves.
These scientific theories--such as the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, evolution, genetics, plate tectonics, and big bang cosmology--are the most reliable, most rigorous, and most comprehensive form of knowledge that humans possess. Thus, it is important for every educated person to understand where scientific knowledge comes from, and how to emulate this method of gaining knowledge. Scientific knowledge comes from the practice of scientific thinking--using the scientific method--and this mode of discovering and validating knowledge can be duplicated and achieved by anyone who practices critical thinking...."

Inserting a possibly capricous, biased creator of any sort (why does it have to be a Christian deity? It could just a easily be a giant spaghetti monster, or even Satan) simply makes it easy to describe a heretofore unexplainable occurrence or observance as a miracle or divine intervention. Relying on something like that would take any semblance of science and turn in into pseudoscience.

tom

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

That is my point. The church (any kind of religion here, not just christianity) condemns this kind of practice but there is an example of it in its own history.

i understand your point, but the ancient people didnt considered the marriage between brothers or cousins like a imoral thing. and bible directly dont condemns that behavior.

for example in ancient rome was normal a brother marriage his sister to family keep their wealth among them.

this kind of pratice was very used in ancient monarchys when the strategical and political scenario required.

today, we know that this kind of union could generate childrens with genetical diseases. so its accepted by everybody thats a kind unhelthy pratice then our moral today is against that.

but i agree with you that the churchs(not the religions) sometimes make things that goes against their rules.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I hear what you are saying...

I just like to point out that there are innacuracies on both sides. Atleast science can be proven.

Again dont take me wrong. Like I said, my ideas on the subject is that God created the world and let evolution take care of the rest.

Unfortunatly evolution is not doing so well right now because the gene pool is getting thinner and thinner, just look at the youth of today...

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I hear what you are saying...

I just like to point out that there are innacuracies on both sides. Atleast science can be proven.

Again dont take me wrong. Like I said, my ideas on the subject is that God created the world and let evolution take care of the rest.

Unfortunatly evolution is not doing so well right now because the gene pool is getting thinner and thinner, just look at the youth of today...

i believe god is a programmer, he wrote and compiled the program to create the universe, he gave the values for variables and created then all laws of phisycs, biology, chemistry... etc. wich make possible the life also.

i think religion dont need to prove anything, because is a matter of belief. religion is not science, its not relegated to the scientific process of theory and pratice.

but also, science should not be taken as an religion, because science is not static, is dynamic. so, theres always a new discover, that changes our thinking about some subject. like when discovered earth wasnt the center of universe, or when the theory of big bang wasnt accepted, so religion should no be taken as a religion, because science is allways changing.

[Njaco]

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.

I have no problem with science hypothesing on the developement of life but when schools teach that it is the only theory on the origin of life, then I have a problem. How can you teach to be objective and free-thinking when only one side is presented? Teaching Darwinism and ID without being preachy I think would allow students to think more independantly.

I have no problem with science. I have a problem with the exorcising of ID or whatever from the schools. Its funny but 100 years ago it was the other way around.

Like I said, I have no problem with science but I see too many things daily that science just can't explain. Why is a sunset so beautiful? What makes a raindrop so attractive? What is the spark that actually allows me to live, that keeps all my organisms running, moving, doing what they do? I think its very cold to suppose I'm just an semi-efficent machine that will someday wear down. There has to be more.

[machine shop tom]

Originally Posted by Njaco

I have no problem with science hypothesing on the developement of life but when schools teach that it is the only theory on the origin of life, then I have a problem. How can you teach to be objective and free-thinking when only one side is presented? Teaching Darwinism and ID without being preachy I think would allow students to think more independantly.

I have no problem with science. I have a problem with the exorcising of ID or whatever from the schools. Its funny but 100 years ago it was the other way around.

Like I said, I have no problem with science but I see too many things daily that science just can't explain. Why is a sunset so beautiful? What makes a raindrop so attractive? What is the spark that actually allows me to live, that keeps all my organisms running, moving, doing what they do? I think its very cold to suppose I'm just an semi-efficent machine that will someday wear down. There has to be more.

I also have no problem with teaching ID in schools. As long as it is not introduced in a science class. It is better off being in a mythology or religion class.

"Why is a sunset so beautiful? What makes a raindrop so attractive? What is the spark that actually allows me to live, that keeps all my organisms running, moving, doing what they do? I think its very cold to suppose I'm just an semi-efficent machine that will someday wear down. There has to be more."

These thought are what make us human. Each of us has a different interpretation and meaning for these kinds of things. There are no right or wrong ways to think about them. But the why of things is not the bailiwick of science. The how is.

[Njaco]

Oh, I understand that it is perception. There are so many amazing things that go on that I don't see science explaining how.

[HoHun]

Hi Njaco,

>I have no problem with science hypothesing on the developement of life but when schools teach that it is the only theory on the origin of life, then I have a problem.

I don't think religion counts as a scientific theory on the origin of life. The religious "theory" cannot be proven scientifically like evolution can because such a proof would be equivalent to a proof of the existence of god - which has been elusive for at least 2000 years.

However, vice-versa it's not a proof of the non-existence of god that evolution matches all of the scientific evidence found up to now.

To see evolution as contrary to religion requires the belief that the text of the bible is not symbolic, but very specifical verbatim truth. This might be considered a slightly "naive" view by European standards.

Whatever one chooses to religiously believe in on the origin of life though, it's not on the same meta-level as a (by today, bullet-proof) scientific theory such as evolution.

"Creation Science" was mainstream science in the 19th century - defended by some of the best scientific minds of the era against a minority of outsiders - but it didn't hold water, so it was discarded in the course of normal scientific progress, and now it's dead and buried.

From that position, it seems unlikely that the "science" in "Creation Science" is anything else but wishful thinking - you might as well reject the theory of relativity and demand that aether theory should be taught as equivalent alternative because something in the bible says so.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by The Basket

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.

For those of you who have studied philosophy and religion, that comment by Basket is THE true discussion that needs to be had. It's not about scientific proofs, theorems, corrolaries, evolution, creationism, spontaneous combustion, atheism nor solopsism.

What is the fundamental question is why mankind alone seeks purpose and reason for existence. Only having answered that question can you delve into the specifics of the origin of life. For without having answered the first, the questions are hollow and are not anchored in the only reality that mankind can embrace. Purpose for existence leads to behavior and morality. Absence purpose, any behavior can be justified.

[syscom3]

I bet life was created when some alien threw out his candy bar into the "proto-seas" present on our planet aeons ago.

And this was during a "pit stop" for the female members of the crew.

[machine shop tom]

Originally Posted by syscom3

I bet life was created when some alien threw out his candy bar into the "proto-seas" present on our planet aeons ago.

And this was during a "pit stop" for the female members of the crew.

Plus, the male members had to stop and consult a map, after being told by the female members they were lost.........


tom

[magnocain]

Purpose for existence leads to behavior and morality. Absence purpose, any behavior can be justified.

Agreed. That goes along with "if it feels good, why shouldn't I do it?"

they had more sons than cain and abel. they had a third son called seth, and both cain and seth mariage two of their sisters.
That is my point.

The church (any kind of religion here, not just christianity) condemns this kind of practice but there is an example of it in its own history.

They didn't have anyone else. That is one of those circumstances where the meaning of the rules (even if they haven't been made yet) is followed rather than it to the letter.

Plus, the male members had to stop and consult a map, after being told by the female members they were lost.........

::