Creation Science-- oppose or not?

[Oreo]

Here it is: I was taking up too much space on another thread with this debate, so I started a new one. I don't know whether anyone will follow the discussion here, but hopefully one or two people may have been interested enough to continue it. Here is my most recent post (repeated) to get the ball going:

Thanks, pb. So far I've listened to the first one "Only a theory" by Barbara Forrest. She made one good point I've made already-- if Creation Scientists don't believe evolution, then they ought not to call it a "theory". That is why I do not call it one, I call it a hypothesis. Speaking of Macroevolution, that is.

I now listened to the second one, Nick Matzke, "avoiding the supernatural". About that, I have to say that science does avoid the supernatural, by its very definition, and I never said otherwise. However, Science can not prove how the universe began, where matter came from, what energy really is, or how life began. I never said science could prove that God exists, or that He did any particular thing. Science can not prove origins, because we are not able to experiment with origins.

Now I listened to Ken Miller's first bit, Science and Religion. He had some good things to say and yes I agree with him that religion is outside of the scientific method (at least on the basic level), that you can not use science to investigate spirituality. However I do believe that scientific facts can help us better understand our religious beliefs, and that although there is no proof of many things in the Bible through science, there is much evidence to support it.

Now, on Miller's second bit, I disagreed with one thing particularly that he said-- namely that people who believe in Intelligent Design are not interested in finding scientific explanations for things, but simply say "that's how God designed it." I disagree-- I start with the premise, "I know God designed it" and then I work with the scientific method to see why God designed something a certain way. I don't think we ought to give up science because we believe in God. If anything, I believe true Creation Scientists have an excellent appreciation of nature because of their understanding that all things were designed by God to work together harmoniously.

Kevin Padian had nothing intelligent to add, just the same old dogma of the post-Darwinists-- even Darwin himself was not so emphatic or dogmatic.

Probably all you who believe we descended from apes react very negatively to organizations such as Answers in Genesis-- a group who believe the way I do, but are perhaps a little more aggressive in their approach than I am.

Anyway, in case you've never had the pleasure of visiting their website, here it is: Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

[Oreo]

Here is that link to Answers in Genesis:
Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

[Njaco]

I'm believing more in Intelligent design. I believe God created everything but time is very relative so those 6 days could have been 6 years or something similar. ID makes sense to me as it seems to bring the aspects of science and creationism together which is what I think actually happened.

[pbfoot]

Is there a supreme power out there yes , is it as we depict a supreme being no. Something out there is the originator of all that has come but as for being a God or a religious icon as we depict it no. Evolution is a fact in my mind and nothing will change
Am I a descenedant of an ape probably I believe it might be closer then I think looking at some of my family

[freebird]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Is there a supreme power out there yes ,
Am I a descenedant of an ape probably I believe it might be closer then I think looking at some of my family

Originally Posted by Njaco

I'm believing more in Intelligent design. I believe God created everything but time is very relative so those 6 days could have been 6 years or something similar. ID makes sense to me as it seems to bring the aspects of science and creationism together which is what I think actually happened.

I don't believe God and evolution are mutually exclusive.

I agree with Pb - evidence points to Darwin's theory & evolution being correct, however who or what started the process? Remember that God did not write the bible - it was written by man. So whatever "intelligent creator" is responsible may well have put in place the right conditions for evolution to succeeed. But not in 6 days.

I had an interesting debate last month with someone who was enthralled by Kent Hovind's DVD's trying to debunk evolution and to prove that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Anybody heard of Hovind before?

[magnocain]

Many of the things in evolution seem to make sense on a whole, but loose all sense when you examine them closely. What would a half-dinosaur half-bird that can't run well and can't fly?----die.

What do you do to a hypothesis that the original evidence has been prover wrong?

[Erich]

curious

why is this posted in politics ?

and why is this even being covered instead of making an intelligent topic covering aviation since it is a ww2 aircraft.net site ?

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by magnocain

Many of the things in evolution seem to make sense on a whole, but loose all sense when you examine them closely. What would a half-dinosaur half-bird that can't run well and can't fly?----die.

What do you do to a hypothesis that the original evidence has been prover wrong?

sory folks it came to my mind, i was great fan of the show when i was 5 !

-----------------------------------------

reirich, agree with you, its not politics. but the discussion about teaching that instead darwins evolutionary theory, well i gess is politics !

im against to teach creation theory in schools. in brazil theres some "new-pentecostal" protestant believer teachers that teached creation theory in a public school. i dont know if they where fired, but i think the creationism have no scientific bases. its more a belief. its a free world you can believe what you want, but you have to learn what science proved.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Erich

curious

why is this posted in politics ?

and why is this even being covered instead of making an intelligent topic covering aviation since it is a ww2 aircraft.net site ?

I guess people started to debate it on another thread....

Originally Posted by magnocain

Many of the things in evolution seem to make sense on a whole, but loose all sense when you examine them closely. What would a half-dinosaur half-bird that can't run well and can't fly?----die.

What do you do to a hypothesis that the original evidence has been prover wrong?

What part of evolution do you think does not make sense?

[evangilder]

Your religion or faith is a very personal matter. Opening this up to discussion or debate is not in the best interest of this site, which is about WWII and aviation.

I have always believed that their are things that are best kept out of discussions amongst friends; religion, politics and money. We have been pretty liberal with the political discussion, regardless of our political leanings on this site. Most other aviation discussion boards do not allow political discourse at all.

That being said, I think religion should be kept to one's self.

[Oreo]

Originally Posted by evangilder

Your religion or faith is a very personal matter. Opening this up to discussion or debate is not in the best interest of this site, which is about WWII and aviation.

I have always believed that their are things that are best kept out of discussions amongst friends; religion, politics and money. We have been pretty liberal with the political discussion, regardless of our political leanings on this site. Most other aviation discussion boards do not allow political discourse at all.

That being said, I think religion should be kept to one's self.

Well, I guess you could move us to the "off-topic" area. . . . I'm not trying to start trouble, Mod's. This came up in the global warming thread, since to some of us the two ideas are intertwined, and a non-moderator member kindly suggested we take the discussion to a thread of its own so that's where I went with it. . . .

If you believe we must shut it down, then ok. We've had some pretty good discussions here so far, especially over the last few days on the Global Warming thread, and I believe it is has been a healthy discussion maintaining respect for the individuals. I leave it in your hands and I will say nothing more until you give us the final word.
Respectfully, Jim "Oreo"

[Oreo]

Originally Posted by Erich

curious

why is this posted in politics ?

and why is this even being covered instead of making an intelligent topic covering aviation since it is a ww2 aircraft.net site ?

See post above

[Marcel]

I agree with you Oreo that it's been a nice discussion sofar and I enjoyed it very much. We've shown that it's very well possible to discuss this in a polite and respectful manner But maybe the mods are right. This is a sensitive subject and while we have been very civilised while discussing it, there'll probably be a nuttcase to spoil the fun.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Marcel

This is a sensitive subject and while we have been very civilised while discussing it, there'll probably be a nuttcase to spoil the fun.

No nut-case here I hope!

I think if we are debating the "politics" of it rather than religeous beliefs, it should be OK. {for now? }

One thing to remember, Darwin's theory does not prove or disprove the idea of a creator or of "intelligent design". There are some school districts that have fired teachers for even suggesting the possibility of "Intelligent Design". This is clearly wrong.

I would say that it would be correct to teach that the majority of scientists agree that 'Evolution" is the most logical explanation, but that there is also a theory of "Intelligent Design' that some people believe.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by freebird

I would say that it would be correct to teach that the majority of scientists agree that 'Evolution" is the most logical explanation, but that there is also a theory of "Intelligent Design' that some people believe.

In this case they would have to teach every other religious "theories" like what they believe in the Church of Scientology or the gang of weirdos following Rael's thoughts.

No. I think there is no God. You wanna know what happened ? Two words : Big-Bang.