PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Is science a religion?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
subbie

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All right, I admit it.  The title of my topic is deliberately provocative and, perhaps, misleading.  But I have a question I've been seriously pondering for the past month or so, and I'd really like to discuss it, so I had to get your attention.

As the evolution/creationism trial in Dover progressed, I read most of the testimony from the science experts that the plaintiffs presented to show that creationism/I.D. is not scientific.  Now, I've studied creos and their workings for more than 20 years, and I know full well that they are full of hooey.  But part of the plaintiffs' case got me to wondering.

Science, as they defined it, is the search for naturalistic explanations of the things we see in the world around us.  (I'm paraphrasing here, and leaving a lot of stuff out that isn't relevant to my topic.)  My question is, why must we define science to include only naturalistic explanations?

My own personal conception of science has been that it is the process of gaining as accurate an understanding of what goes on in the real world as we possibly can.  I do firmly believe that naturalistic processes can account for all our experiences.  I do not believe it's necessary to conjure up supernatural causes acting in the world today for purposes of explaining our experiences.  I don't believe in UFOs, psi, astrology, gods, newage (rhymes with sewage) nonsense, tarot, ghosts, etc.

But I do not believe in these things because I haven't seen evidence strong enough to convince me that such things exist.  It seems that the experts in Dover would dismiss even an investigation into whether such phenomena occur, and what their causes might be, as outside the realm of science, because it would not be a "naturalistic" explanation.

Is there any compelling reason to exclude the supernatural from the scope of scientific inquiry?


-------
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 07:43 AM on February 24, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, yes.  By the very definition "supernatural", it cannot be tested or "confirmed" in a laboratory.  I'm not saying that it is not "possible" to witness the supernatural (although I haven't done it), but by the same token, I would need to have supernatural powers to replicate and study it.  I don't.  Therefore I cannot study it in the scientific realm.  That is why supernatural can be surmised, but not included in science.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:58 AM on February 24, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But I do not believe in these things because I haven't seen evidence strong enough to convince me that such things exist.  It seems that the experts in Dover would dismiss even an investigation into whether such phenomena occur, and what their causes might be, as outside the realm of science, because it would not be a "naturalistic" explanation.


That's not true. The scientific community is eagerly a scientific study that would actually come up with something in respect to the existence of a supernatural being.

But, of course, that's why the Intelligent Design/Creationist movement is a load of steaming poo. There is no ID'ist or Creationist willing to make any scientific investigations. Their actions only comprise of gaining publicity. You won't find any published scientific reports on the existence of a deity.




-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 09:40 AM on February 24, 2006 | IP
subbie

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EMyers, I would argue that laboratory testing and confirmation is not necessary for something to be scientific.

Much, or even most, of comology is not subject to laboratory testing.  We cannot recreate the big bang.  There's no way to even simulate a black hole in a laboratory setting.  Yet these are legitimate areas of scientific inquiry.

As I see it, the essence of scientific inquiry is as follows:

1) gather information through observation
2) build a hypothesis based on the information
3) develop predictions based on the hypothesis
4) test the predictions by futher observations
5) refine the hypothesis as needed and repeat.

Now, oftentimes, the information is gathered through laboratory experimentation, but it's by no means necessary.  The only thing that is really required is that others be able to repeat the observations to confirm them.

If our observations should happen to be of evidence of a supernatural event, what is there about the nature of the supernatural that would preclude it from scientific inquiry?

EntwickeInCollin, based on the testimony presented in the Dover case, the supernatural is not even a legitimate subject for scientific investigation.  Experts testified that the working definition of science as accepted by the scientific community today includes only naturalistic explanations.  My question is, if my description of scientific investigation above is accurate, why can that method not be applied to the supernatural?  Or, perhaps you disagree with my description.  If so, please explain how you differ.


-------
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 10:18 AM on February 24, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, yes.  By the very definition "supernatural", it cannot be tested or "confirmed" in a laboratory.


I think what EMyers is trying to say, is that it cannot be tested (leave out any mention about a laboratory).

Evolution can be tested; Intelligent Design, even if it is the correct explanation, cannot. You cannot put a specie through a series of tests that would determine if it is designed, while you can see if a specie lines up with the scientific predictions offered by the Theory of Evolution.

EMyers, I would argue that laboratory testing and confirmation is not necessary for something to be scientific.

Much, or even most, of comology is not subject to laboratory testing.  We cannot recreate the big bang.  There's no way to even simulate a black hole in a laboratory setting.  Yet these are legitimate areas of scientific inquiry.


Mathematical equations are the tests in the case of cosmology, and the scientific predictions offered by specific cosmological theories pass the tests.

If our observations should happen to be of evidence of a supernatural event, what is there about the nature of the supernatural that would preclude it from scientific inquiry?


Observation of a supernatural event is subjective, and cannot be scientifically measured. For measuring distance, we have a unit called the Meter. For measuring mass, we have the unit called the Gram. For measuring quantities of atoms, we have the unit called the Mole.

...there is no unit of measurement for Intelligent Design. You cannot say "This organism was this much designed."

EntwickeInCollin, based on the testimony presented in the Dover case, the supernatural is not even a legitimate subject for scientific investigation.


According to the definition of science, that's correct. But scientists still get a giggle out of requesting a way to make ID a legitimate subject. My favorite kicker, which I've probably cliched by now, is "Find a way to scientifically test, validate and measure the supernatural, and I'll be the first to congradulate you on your Nobel Prize."


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:09 PM on February 24, 2006 | IP
subbie

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps this topic might have been better suited to a more general science thread, since I didn't mean the topic to relate specifically to I.D.  But my musings were based on the testimony of the experts in the Dover case, so this is where I started it.

Let me say at the outset, I firmly believe that evolution is as well-established and well-supported by the evidence we see as any other scientific theory.  Moreover, I see I.D. as nothing more than a (slightly) more sophisticated elucidation of creationism, which itself is nothing than a set of misguided criticisms of evolution with no real idea or principle of its own (except that the bible is right and the rest of you must be wrong).

That being said, I'm going to venture out onto some thin ice, just to see where my ideas take me.

You say, "...there is no unit of measurement for Intelligent Design. You cannot say 'This organism was this much designed.' "

Why not?

Certainly, I would never in fact say anything of that sort based on the evidence discovered thus far, because there is no evidence demonstrating that organisms were designed at all.  Imagine, however, that the evidence were different.  Imagine that organisms showed some signs of descent with modification, but also displayed charateristcs that could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be attributed to evolution.  Suppose there were species that showed no common characteristics with any other species, but had several different "breeds" (for lack of a better word).

Could science not investigate such a world, and come to reasonably confident conclusions through the scientific method?  And, further suppose that in fact, life on the world had developed, in part, through the interference of an outside agency.  Surely you can imagine that a supernatural being, such as god, exists, and that it could exist and influence the world outside of the normal laws that we are bound by.  Many wonderful science fiction stories have been based on such a premise.

Why would the fact that the agency acted outside of our known laws prohibit us from 1) concluding that such an agency existed and was involved, at some level, in the creation or development of life and 2) at least trying to determine how the agency did what it did by examing the evidence left for us to see?

I guess the point that I am trying to make, and to tie it into creationism specifically, is that I do not reject creationism simply because of the fact that it invokes god.  (Let's not mince words, even though some creos try to hide behind double-talk, we all know that's what they are saying, and why they believe it.)  I reject creationism because there's simply no evidence that a creator, certainly no evidence that an intelligent creator, had anything to do with it.  However, if the evidence were different, if the evidence was that a creator was involved, I don't see any reason why science couldn't investigate that as well.


-------
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 2:32 PM on February 24, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationism is no more a science than evolutionism is.  They are theories based on evidence.  Intelligent Design is a collection of evidence that points to the absences of randomness (word?) in existence.  Creationism is also not a religion.  Christianity is a religion.  Catholocism is a religion.  Islam is a religion.  Judaism is a religion.  Shinto(ism?) is a religion.  I think you get my point.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 3:04 PM on February 24, 2006 | IP
subbie

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If your point is that evolution is not scientific, you're wrong.  Theories are based on evidence, and there are mountains of evidence to support the theory of evolution.  I don't really know what you mean by "evolutionism."

Creationism is not religion, but it is a religious belief.  I.D. is not a collection of evidence.  It's a collection of ad hoc and wrong-headed claims about supposed failures of the theory of evolution, proffered by people of a particular religious persuasion in an effort to attack a scientific theory that they believe is at odds with their religion.


-------
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 3:16 PM on February 24, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

evolutionism (noun) - A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin. (see dictionary)

Does that help?

Intelligent Design (noun) - a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance (also found in dictionary)

Hope I cleared that up for you.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:08 PM on February 24, 2006 | IP
subbie

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here's the problem with the dictionary definitions.  Each of them uses the word theory, without explaining exactly how the word is being used.  Perhaps what Stephen J. Gould said about the matter will enlighten you:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981


Found here.  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

So, is creationism a "theory?"  Certainly not in the sense that it presents a coherent and unifying principle that explains phenomena observed in the real world.  It doesn't explain anything.  It simply says, "god did it.  we don't know how.  we can never know how.  end of story."  Not really much of a theory.  And it's certainly not based on evidence, other than the bible.

The term "evolution" (I've never heard a scientist use the term "evolutionism) refers to both the fact that organisms on this planet exhibit descent with modfication, as well as the complex set of scientific principles that attempt to describe how descent with modification works.  If all you meant to say when you used the word "evolutionism" was the scientific idea of descent with modification, okay, I understand that.  In that event, my previous post still stands.


-------
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 4:37 PM on February 24, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


So, is creationism a "theory?"  Certainly not in the sense that it presents a coherent and unifying principle that explains phenomena observed in the real world.  It doesn't explain anything.  It simply says, "god did it.  we don't know how.  we can never know how.  end of story."


Precisely the same case with ID. The only noticeable difference is how the two ideas are presented.

You say, "...there is no unit of measurement for Intelligent Design. You cannot say 'This organism was this much designed.' "

Why not?


Once again, the burden of proof is one the ID'ers to show how you can test and falsify Intelligent Design, not mine.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:36 PM on February 24, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Can someone explain to me why people are always doubting that I'm saying exactly what I'm saying?  If I used the term evolutionism, then I meant evolutionism.  If I use theory, I mean theory.  I don't get why I need to keep posting the dictionary definition of words to explain the very words I'm using.  What is the point of posting Gould's dissertation that fact is not absolute certainty?  What does that possibly prove for you or against anything I was saying?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:19 PM on February 24, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know if you're arguing against me, but in any case, the dictionary does not provide the correct definition, or at least the complete one. Creationism is a theory; Evolution is a Scientific Theory.

I'm trying to be careful, because I'd be wondering how in the world you didn't know this already, or you're obviously not talking about what I'm getting at. However, assuming you are:

Creationism is not a Scientific Theory; Evolution is.

Evolution is not the same theory that happens to be synonymous with speculation, assumption, and supposition; Creationism is.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:36 PM on February 24, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry Entwicke, not at you.  You already know that I don't believe Creationism is science any more than I think Evolutionism is religion.  I mean people who keep saying things like "I don't know what you mean by ___..." when I meant ___ by ___ :P  Just venting.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:21 PM on February 24, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution has an edge in ability to present evidence that supports it's claim, because the claim is easier to prove. It is impossible to absolutely prove a Creator made anything. Essentially the debate should be: Do things appear created or evolved(by Darwinian processes)?

Also both sides are on the same playing field in regards of evidential(<-- help EMyers) powers. Neither side can or has made an absolute law like in a math based field like physics.

No science is not a religion. I think the idea of automatically excluding an answer for every problem, like naturalistic science does,  is short sighted. Instead, make criteria that can infer Creation.
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 11:13 PM on February 24, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Also both sides are on the same playing field in regards of evidential(<-- help EMyers) powers. Neither side can or has made an absolute law like in a math based field like physics.


Gravity is not a Law--not because it is lacking in 'evidential powers', but because it's not a fact; rather an explanation. Same with Evolution.

I think the idea of automatically excluding an answer for every problem, like naturalistic science does,  is short sighted. Instead, make criteria that can infer Creation.


There is no such thing as non-naturalistic science, and that's what this whole debate comes down to. It is not about who is right or wrong, but the definition of science itself. The ID'ers want to change the definition of science. Worse yet, they want their new definition taught in a high school science class, where people would actually start to fall for it, and that is why they are so dangerous.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 2/24/2006 at 11:22 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:18 PM on February 24, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll agree with Entwicke that the average IDer is trying to push Creationism in the door.  I, on the other hand, simply want all facts (as close as Science will claim) presented regardless of which theory they support.  The problem is that most teachers (and I'm not attacking teachers here, there job is hard enough as it is) will find it hard to present the evidence without presenting the assumption.  (Hope that made sense.  Seems unwieldy to me, but it's late.  Don't you guys ever sleep?)


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:30 AM on February 25, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gravity is not a Law--not because it is lacking in 'evidential powers', but because it's not a fact; rather an explanation. Same with Evolution.

It's ashame they call it the Law of Gravity. It's a fact, the math works.

There is no such thing as non-naturalistic science, and that's what this whole debate comes down to. It is not about who is right or wrong, but the definition of science itself.

Another odd statement, "there's no such thing as non naturalistic science", the fact "natural" is in front of science tell you something. How about science? Both sides can have ideas based on the scientific method.


The ID'ers want to change the definition of science. Worse yet, they want their new definition taught in a high school science class, where people would actually start to fall for it, and that is why they are so dangerous.

Another odd statement, "there's no such thing as non naturalistic science"(dogma), the fact "natural" is in front of science tells you something. How about just science? Both sides can have ideas based on the scientific method.
It is fair to present both sides without depresenting (<--word check)/presenting God.

 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 02:01 AM on February 25, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's ashame they call it the Law of Gravity. It's a fact, the math works.


It's a Theory, not a Law. Stop before you hurt yourself.

And for the record, the math works in Electro Magnetic Theory, as well as Atomic Theory.

Another odd statement, "there's no such thing as non naturalistic science"(dogma), the fact "natural" is in front of science tells you something. How about just science? Both sides can have ideas based on the scientific method.
It is fair to present both sides without depresenting


There's only one side: Evolution. The "depresenting" is when you pretend the scientific community is in war over a controversy, when it really isn't.

As to your former note: there's no such thing as supernatural science until someone shows it's actually possible. That hasn't happened yet. It defies the very definition of science. Science involves what you can taste, smell, hear, see, touch, or measure. The ID'ists have not yet invented a unit in which you can measure any kind of design.

So far, it's all be subjective "Well, it's just so complex, and because scientists don't have an observable explanation for it [now], clearly, the only choice is supernatural means."

If you believe there can exist such a thing as Supernatural Science, prove it, and explain how it's possible.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 02:29 AM on February 25, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I hope you're not going to tell me a bogus exception but why isn't graviy a law? Do not bring up relativity, please.

First you deny it's possible something is created outside the system, which is true for basically everything you've ever seen or now of. Now, the opposition is rationalized away. . . it doesn't exist. . ..  ID is not a tree in the forrest. . .  I hope not= ).

IDist do have methods. Supernatural science would involve the criteria already created by IDist for inferring something as IDed. Logically the field only covers major ID specific areas in all the scientific disciplines.

My previous statements imply I'm not for supernatural science as the supernatural can not be proven like something that's easily accessible. I don't think it's okay to call natural science, science, when they're clearly different terms.

Darwin stated if it's not my theory it's a creationist(ID) one. What's so evil about being fair? Oh no, kids may believe the world is so complex it was created.

 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 02:26 AM on February 26, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I hope you're not going to tell me a bogus exception but why isn't graviy a law? Do not bring up relativity, please.


Like the Theory of Evolution and Atomic Theory, Gravity is not a fact, but an explanation of facts. The fact of Gravity is that matter is attracted to other matter, and the greater the mass, the greater the attraction, so long as polar and magnetic properties are left out. The Theory of Gravity explains those facts.

Atomic Theory explains the facts of the properties of atoms.

The Theory of Evolution explains the facts of change over time. The only "theoretical" portion of Evolution is the why, being Natural Selection. It's already a known fact that the Earth is over 4.5 billion years old and that it started with very primitive life, and that over the generations and time periods, life gradually changed. Natural Selection is the only testable theory that explains such things. We observe Natural Selection take place all the time, from grass that grows around a copper mine slowly becoming copper-tolerant, to viruses and bacteria that evolve into diseases with entirely different properties within just days.

First you deny it's possible something is created outside the system


Huh? When I did deny that? If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, I never said Intelligent Design was impossible. I'm saying it cannot be scientifically verified. Even if a supernatural deity did design everyone's body, science wouldn't be the ultimate test.

IDist do have methods. Supernatural science would involve the criteria already created by IDist for inferring something as IDed.


Here's the problem: That's changing the definition of science. Science is the study of our world's natural properties. If you were to change the definition to encompass supernatural properties, Alchemy, Astrology, Neurology, and Magic would all be valid scientific studies.

Logically the field only covers major ID specific areas in all the scientific disciplines.


There's already a field for this. It's called Philosphy.


My previous statements imply I'm not for supernatural science as the supernatural can not be proven like something that's easily accessible. I don't think it's okay to call natural science, science, when they're clearly different terms.


They certainly are not.

Science

1a.) The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena:
1b.) Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
1c.) Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

Darwin stated if it's not my theory it's a creationist(ID) one. What's so evil about being fair?


Science isn't about being fair. I don't think it's fair that the H5N1 Flu virus evolves faster than our vaccines for it come out, but that's life.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:22 AM on February 26, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1) Have to agree with Entwicke on this one.  Science can only deal with what it can observe.   Some of what it observes may be inexplicable outside the realm of the supernatural, but the supernatural itself cannot be tested.

2) Shouldn't the forum be called "Creationism vs Evolutionism"?  Creationism is the belief in Creation.  Evolutionism is the belief in Evolution.   You wouldn't call it Creation vs Evolutionism would you?  Just a question.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:32 PM on February 26, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 10:22 AM on February 26, 2006 :
Like the Theory of Evolution and Atomic Theory, Gravity is not a fact, but an explanation of facts. The fact of Gravity is that matter is attracted to other matter, and the greater the mass, the greater the attraction, so long as polar and magnetic properties are left out. The Theory of Gravity explains those facts.

Atomic Theory explains the facts of the properties of atoms.

The Theory of Evolution explains the facts of change over time. The only "theoretical" portion of Evolution is the why, being Natural Selection. It's already a known fact that the Earth is over 4.5 billion years old and that it started with very primitive life, and that over the generations and time periods, life gradually changed. Natural Selection is the only testable theory that explains such things. We observe Natural Selection take place all the time, from grass that grows around a copper mine slowly becoming copper-tolerant, to viruses and bacteria that evolve into diseases with entirely different properties within just days.

It's also called the Universal Law of Gravitation. Basically we have different takes on it. The comparison is math vs nonmath based, whatever you want to call them. They say math is the language of science. Side note: I've done the math for the three math based theories, so I'm aware they're math based.


Huh? When I did deny that? If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, I never said Intelligent Design was impossible. I'm saying it cannot be scientifically verified. Even if a supernatural deity did design everyone's body, science wouldn't be the ultimate test.

My apologies if I took what you said out of context, "There's only one side:Evolution". I agree it can not be scientifically verified tangibly, unless God is verified creating something which let's face it, would never be accepted.


Here's the problem: That's changing the definition of science. Science is the study of our world's natural properties. If you were to change the definition to encompass supernatural properties, Alchemy, Astrology, Neurology, and Magic would all be valid scientific studies.

The dictionary definition provides proof of my opinion. I changed my mind about doing that earlier. The definition you accept is a definition and I'm aware of that but it's not the only definition. Neurology is the only one I could live with, the others, *shivers*.


There's already a field for this. It's called Philosphy.

I like the response. The same is said of evolution. Neither is math based and they both have philosophy tied in. Many philosophers write books for both sides, I've noticed more for evolution.



My previous statements imply I'm not for supernatural science as the supernatural can not be proven like something that's easily accessible. I don't think it's okay to call natural science, science, when they're clearly different terms.


Science isn't about being fair. I don't think it's fair that the H5N1 Flu virus evolves faster than our vaccines for it come out, but that's life.

I agree it's not about being fair(but objective) but let's not rule out possibilities since it's not impossible. They are some very intelligent convinced people on both sides, that says something. Also, changing science is the last thing I want to do. The power of the scientific method is not limited to the natural. No, it has the power to decrypt a few fingerprints of a supernatural creator to probalistically reveal his presence.  



 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 11:37 PM on February 26, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree it's not about being fair(but objective) but let's not rule out possibilities since it's not impossible. They are some very intelligent convinced people on both sides, that says something. Also, changing science is the last thing I want to do. The power of the scientific method is not limited to the natural. No, it has the power to decrypt a few fingerprints of a supernatural creator to probalistically reveal his presence.  


The burden is fully on your shoulders to show how.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 08:32 AM on February 27, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Milken at 11:37 PM on February 26, 2006 :I agree it's not about being fair(but objective) but let's not rule out possibilities since it's not impossible. They are some very intelligent convinced people on both sides, that says something. Also, changing science is the last thing I want to do. The power of the scientific method is not limited to the natural. No, it has the power to decrypt a few fingerprints of a supernatural creator to probalistically reveal his presence.  

why do people always misinterpret what naturalism is?

"Naturalism is any of several philosophical stances, typically those descended from materialism and pragmatism, that do not distinguish between the supernatural and the natural. Naturalism does not claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural necessarily do not exist or are wrong, but insists that they are not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses, and that both supernatural and natural phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods." from wikipedia.  i believe this.

it is impossible to observe anything in any way that does not have a physical effect on this universe.  anything that does not have a physical effect on this universe does not exist.  there is simply no way around this.  even if there is an entity that is outside of our universe, any act on our universe would tie it to the physical and it could therefore be possible to observe it, even though it is not a part of our universe.  anything that has an effect on our universe is able to be observed.

the power of any observational method is limited to the natural, or the physical.

 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 10:39 AM on February 28, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

RoyLennigan: Read the posts I have above. I agree that you can not 100% prove a supernatural creator. I actually didn't type what I meant in your quote, although it's mentioned elsewhere.  The sentence should be written " The power of the scientific method using natural means, may infer a supernatural explanation". I'm not going back to the definition of science either.

RoyL says:
why do people always misinterpret what naturalism is?

"Naturalism is any of several philosophical stances,

I say:
Thank you. . .

Entwick: The burden is on the shoulders of science. I won't argue much on burden of proof because not taking responsibility for what you believe is a sign of a quiter and eventually a loser.

 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 1:41 PM on February 28, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Milken at 1:41 PM on February 28, 2006 :
RoyLennigan: Read the posts I have above. I agree that you can not 100% prove a supernatural creator. I actually didn't type what I meant in your quote, although it's mentioned elsewhere.  The sentence should be written " The power of the scientific method using natural means, may infer a supernatural explanation". I'm not going back to the definition of science either.

rather than it being supernatural, it would just be another natural force, because there is no distinction between the two if they both act on our universe.  they both cause physical changes and they both have physical signs of their presence.

Quote from Milken at 1:41 PM on February 28, 2006 :RoyL says:
why do people always misinterpret what naturalism is?

"Naturalism is any of several philosophical stances,

I say:
Thank you. . .

the point is that naturalism generally does not mean that god does not exist, or that what people call the supernatural is fake.  it means that all of that is no different than natural forces, which theists often seem to find difficult to comprehend.

Quote from Milken at 1:41 PM on February 28, 2006 :Entwick: The burden is on the shoulders of science. I won't argue much on burden of proof because not taking responsibility for what you believe is a sign of a quiter and eventually a loser.

the burden of proving whether [what we call] the supernatural exists or not is on those who believe that it does exist.  but there is also a burden on those who don't believe in its existence to disprove it.  science requires this balance.


 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 4:25 PM on February 28, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the burden of proving whether [what we call] the supernatural exists or not is on those who believe that it does exist.  but there is also a burden on those who don't believe in its existence to disprove it.  science requires this balance.


This is irrelevant to what I was asking. I want to know how science can investigate non-natural properties, not whether or not a deity exists.

Further, there are exceptions to your explanation of naturalism. To begin with, the definition of supernatural also includes anything that is not bound to natural laws. If God can break the laws of nature, then either He is a natural being and, actually, we have not yet found a single property of our universe that constitutes a law, or He is supernatural.

The deity described in the Bible has the ability to make changes in our world without leaving any fingerprints of any kind.

For example, the Biblical deity could, hypothetically, write a paper. Midway through writing it out, He decides to scratch the current idea, and suddenly the words that He just wrote are no longer there. Not only that, but the paper appears as if it has never been written on before, whatsoever. There is not a single atom of lead anywhere to be seen on the paper. The indents in the paper made by his pencil are gone. The memory of a grasshopper flying by has been altered so that it does not recall seeing anyone out of the corner of its eye. Essentially, God hasn't even touched his pencil with the paper, as far as science goes; and scientifically, we would never be able to prove otherwise. God successfully altered the matter in our universe without leaving behind one single atom of evidence.

Likewise, God could just as easily write a paper and make it appear as if it was in fact written by a man. He could write it so that the handwriting matches that of the man, and He could alter the memory of every living thing on earth to be compatable with the man writing the paper. To be safe, He also changes the physical state of all matter to indicate that the man wrote the paper.  God just cheated science once more. No matter what scientific study you utilize, you would never be able to find any evidence that God wrote the paper, because there is no evidence that God wrote the paper, even though He did.

The same thing applies to every single action that God has ever been recorded to have done in every single holy book we know of. Let's say Man A rapes the woman and kills her. Well, if Man B's DNA is found in her 'area,' and Man B's fingerprints are everywhere, and Man B is seen on the video camera outside the apartment, and evidence of Man A is nowhere to be found, who is the jury going to convict?

Let's say God makes the universe and designs every single organism to date. Well, if Natural Selection's fingerprints are everywhere, and God's fingerprints are nowhere to be seen, there's only one viable scientific answer, and even though it's wrong, it's still the correct scientific conclusion.




-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:41 PM on February 28, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From a scientific standpoint, I concur.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:27 PM on February 28, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EntwickelnCollin , thank you for clarifying my basic understanding of natural science as well as reminding me.

As for the major theme, I definitely agree. That's why theistic evolution is possible because God as defined by the bible could do it.

I thought I corrected it but, my statement was not to investigate non natural properties. The idea was to investigate the natural and infer it to a supernatural cause.

Religion always makes a statement about something, and by doing so it's saying another religion is false. Religion excludes possibilities. The tenets of a particular belief are always authoratative, even if it contradictions traditional reason. All this can be said of science if two possible sides are not heard.

 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 04:36 AM on March 1, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Religion always makes a statement about something, and by doing so it's saying another religion is false. Religion excludes possibilities. The tenets of a particular belief are always authoratative, even if it contradictions traditional reason. All this can be said of science if two possible sides are not heard.


As it stands, to introduce Intelligent Design into a science classroom would be to teach students about an issue that is not scientific. Go beyond simple inference, and actually show how Intelligent Design makes testable predictions, and it would be more worthy of the science classroom. Until then, it's stuck in Philosophy.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:37 AM on March 1, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know about you but these two threads are running into one.

Do you think science is a religion minus God? Do you think it has some notable similarities?
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 2:53 PM on March 1, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you think science is a religion minus God? Do you think it has some notable similarities?


No.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:24 PM on March 1, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The biggest reason to exclude the supernatural from science is because of the severe bias an unobjective nature of natural religion I mean science.

What about paleontology, it's subjective and is part of the evidence for evolution. Both sides use the same areas of science to draw conclusions, any conclusion is valid for natural science unless it involves the supernatural, because inherently, natural science does not believe in the supernatural. The first working definition of science was by Francis Bacon, Darwin changed it to one that excluded the supernatural, why, his own belief in an unsupernatural world.
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 04:30 AM on March 2, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What about paleontology, it's subjective and is part of the evidence for evolution. Both sides use the same areas of science to draw conclusions, any conclusion is valid for natural science unless it involves the supernatural


Well, duhr.

because inherently, natural science does not believe in the supernatural.


Science is secular, not atheistic. There’s a very fine line between the two. Science neither believes nor disbelieves in the supernatural.

The first working definition of science was by Francis Bacon, Darwin changed it to one that excluded the supernatural, why, his own belief in an unsupernatural world.


Darwin did not exclude a creator. He showed how it’s possible that a creator was not involved, however. Seriously... drop this one. If you want to argue the truth of a god, science is not the place to do it. There's a whole world of wonderful ideas, literature, and politics out there under the name of Philosophy, which in many people's minds has an equal bearing on truth.

As well, this is your second attempt to say Darwin didn’t believe in God. The fact is, no one knows. His beliefs are unclear at best, but seeing as how he belonged to a Church...


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/2/2006 at 10:04 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:47 AM on March 2, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Milken at 04:30 AM on March 2, 2006 :
The biggest reason to exclude the supernatural from science is because of the severe bias an unobjective nature of natural religion I mean science.

What about paleontology, it's subjective and is part of the evidence for evolution. Both sides use the same areas of science to draw conclusions, any conclusion is valid for natural science unless it involves the supernatural, because inherently, natural science does not believe in the supernatural. The first working definition of science was by Francis Bacon, Darwin changed it to one that excluded the supernatural, why, his own belief in an unsupernatural world.


its not that natural science does not believe in the supernatural.  just that we are not able to observe the supernatural and science only deals with what can be observed (by anyone).
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 08:30 AM on March 2, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 07:47 AM on March 2, 2006 :
What about paleontology, it's subjective and is part of the evidence for evolution. Both sides use the same areas of science to draw conclusions, any conclusion is valid for natural science unless it involves the supernatural


Well, duhr.

because inherently, natural science does not believe in the supernatural.


Science is secular, not atheistic. There’s a very fine line between the two. Science neither believes nor disbelieves in the supernatural.

The first working definition of science was by Francis Bacon, Darwin changed it to one that excluded the supernatural, why, his own belief in an unsupernatural world.


Darwin did not exclude a creator. He showed how it’s possible that a creator was not involved, however. Seriously... drop this one. If you want to argue the truth of a god, science is not the place to do it. There's a whole world of wonderful ideas, literature, and politics out there under the name of Philosophy, which in many people's minds has an equal bearing on truth.

As well, this is your second attempt to say Darwin didn’t believe in God. The fact is, no one knows. His beliefs are unclear at best, but seeing as how he belonged to a Church...


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/2/2006 at 10:04 AM).


I said "inherently",  a poll would easily prove me correct. Way to edit my post in a weird way = ) lol. We don't know if D converted on his death bed.

I think science isn't religion although we have different definitions. You'll read my response to D didn't believe in God in the other thread. We might as well finish this in the teaching ID thread since neither believes science is religion.

 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 04:32 AM on March 3, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If any of you are interested, I have a link to a Creation Science Evangelist who talks about this subject all over the country. www.drdino.com

I would seriously recommend going there. There are so Christians willing to get into Science, and this is one of them. There are some seminars of his for download there, I would strongly suggest getting them and watching them.

---

I do agree with one thing here. Creationists should not try to get Evolution out and their ideas in. I think That sort of thing should be removed, but I'm not trying to get my view in there.

I don't want Evolutionism taken out of Public Schools, I just want the lies of Evolution taken out of public school textbooks. A theory that crumbly should not be taught publicly like it was a fact

The only real reason Evolution is in Public Schools is because that view is taxed supported. Mostly, I believe its still there because it's a way to try and say how the universe got here without a supernatural being, such as God. I can gaurantee you that you may talk of Buddha and other such religions, but if you talk of Christianity, you will be told to shut up because it violates seperation of church and state.

In reality, I think they don't want to think that there is a God out there, outside his creation, that controls this universe. Because then, he can also make laws concerning what is right or wrong. (And Creationism is targeted about this issue EVERYTIME) Nobody likes a religion or view like that in schools because it chaps their hide. That is my view on this subject, based on the lies of evolution and the controversies surrounding it.

I admit Creationism is not scientific, but Evolutionist do not budge at all. They're the ones asking for their view to be taught in public schools, not us.

Intelligent design is hardly a religious implication, considering how complex everything is around us. I find it normal that someone would encourage that to be taught, rather than a theory that takes leaps of faith saying all kinds of animals had ancestors differnet to their kind.

[i]


-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 1:07 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Prototype at 1:07 PM on March 20, 2006 :
If any of you are interested, I have a link to a Creation Science Evangelist who talks about this subject all over the country. www.drdino.com

I would seriously recommend going there. There are so Christians willing to get into Science, and this is one of them. There are some seminars of his for download there, I would strongly suggest getting them and watching them.

---

I do agree with one thing here. Creationists should not try to get Evolution out and their ideas in. I think That sort of thing should be removed, but I'm not trying to get my view in there.

I don't want Evolutionism taken out of Public Schools, I just want the lies of Evolution taken out of public school textbooks. A theory that crumbly should not be taught publicly like it was a fact

The only real reason Evolution is in Public Schools is because that view is taxed supported. Mostly, I believe its still there because it's a way to try and say how the universe got here without a supernatural being, such as God. I can gaurantee you that you may talk of Buddha and other such religions, but if you talk of Christianity, you will be told to shut up because it violates seperation of church and state.

In reality, I think they don't want to think that there is a God out there, outside his creation, that controls this universe. Because then, he can also make laws concerning what is right or wrong. (And Creationism is targeted about this issue EVERYTIME) Nobody likes a religion or view like that in schools because it chaps their hide. That is my view on this subject, based on the lies of evolution and the controversies surrounding it.

I admit Creationism is not scientific, but Evolutionist do not budge at all. They're the ones asking for their view to be taught in public schools, not us.

Intelligent design is hardly a religious implication, considering how complex everything is around us. I find it normal that someone would encourage that to be taught, rather than a theory that takes leaps of faith saying all kinds of animals had ancestors differnet to their kind.

[i]



the reason evolution is taught in schools is because it is supported by scientific fact, and no other opposing theory has done as good a job of this as evolution.  it is easier to accept by those who have beliefs solely in things they can experience physically, instead of emotionally.  when ID has scientific studies and institutions devoted to scientifically observing the universe because of physical evidence of an intelligent creator, then they can teach it in a science classroom.  until then it stays in theology.

and i guarentee you if you start talking about buddha or allah in a science classroom they will tell you to be quiet and save those views for theology class, its not like science tries to single out christianity.  the problem here is that christianity often disagrees (very openly) with scientific theories and scientists try to defend themselves (sometimes excessively); the whole thing becomes a back and forth argument instead of one side defending and the other attacking.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 1:24 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

FACT: EVOLUTION SAYS A BIG EXPLOSION CREATED EVERYTHING.

FACT: THERE IS NO WAY TO OBSERVE, TEST OR PROVE THIS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

That is one of many mistakes.

It says that life came from rocks. Non-organic material can never do that, yet evolution teaches that as if it were true. Another flaw.

It teachs that an explosion caused everything to be as it is. That is ridiculous, as explosions are destructive and never organize anything. How could an explosion cause anything as complex as humans to come into being; especially without any living stuff at all?

Evolution tries to explain the origin of the universe; and yet, it is possible to teach scientific facts without bringing evolution in. The fact that evolution tries to give an idea for the origin of everything without God is the main reason it is tax supported.

Are you saying that a theory like this stands well? If so, answer these questions.

1. If E is true, where did everything come from? Explain this in a scientific way.

2. If E is true, how did the blind chance of an explosion create this world of ours?

3. If E is true, how did rocks come to life when you never see that happening today?


-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 2:00 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

FACT: EVOLUTION SAYS A BIG EXPLOSION CREATED EVERYTHING.

No it doesn't.

FACT: THERE IS NO WAY TO OBSERVE, TEST OR PROVE THIS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR
FORM.


Totally wrong.

It says that life came from rocks. Non-organic material can never do that, yet evolution teaches that as if it were true. Another flaw.

You really don't know what you're talking about, evolution doesn't say that at all, it says NOTHING about how life arose, that's abiogenesis.  And the evidence found so far says organic matter CAN come from inorganic matter.

It teachs that an explosion caused everything to be as it is. That is ridiculous, as explosions are destructive and never organize anything. How could an explosion cause anything as complex as humans to come into being; especially without any living stuff
at all?


Evolution says nothing about the Big Bang, that's astrophysics.  And the Big Bang wasn't an explosion.  It's obvious you need a real education in just about everything dealing with science.

Evolution tries to explain the origin of the universe

Nope, not even close, the theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of the universe.

The fact that evolution tries to give an idea for the origin of everything without God is the main reason it is tax supported.

Every branch of science is agnostic in respect to God, why aren't you ranting about chemistry or physics?

Please, every point you make is an error, learn what you're talking about before you try to debate here...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:28 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It does so. The Big Bang theory suggests either nothing exploded and created everything, or that all the matter in the universe was condensed in an area smaller than a period that spun and spun until it blew up. That is what is taught.

Tell me how a Big Bang explosion could throw everything together in such a complex way. Especially through blind chance.

The evolution theory does teach it. I'll give you an example. This is what I've seen evolutionists bring up.

The earth was a large molten mass of rock and it rained on the rocks for millions of years, turning it to soup. After these millions of years, a life form arose out of this organic soup.

You have to consider, how did this thing survive? How did it find anything to eat, or marry? It had to be nurtured to a certain level to do any of these things anyway, if it had nothing organic besides itself, how did it survive?

Could you please give me an instance where life arose from non-living material naturally.

Evolution's first concepts literally hang on the Big Bang. How can you say that evolution doesn't say anything about science? That is untrue.

Evolution does try to explain the origin of the universe. The Big Bang theory is the one thing that fits right in.

What was the Big Bang anyway, if not an explosion like I've been taught?

Since when did Chemistry or Physics become agnostic to God? I'm afraid I don't understand you.




-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 4:26 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It does so. The Big Bang theory suggests either nothing exploded and created everything, or that all the matter in the universe was condensed in an area smaller than a period that spun and spun until it blew up. That is what is taught.

The theory of evolution says nothing about the Big Bang!  The theory of evolution only explains the diversity of life on earth, that's it.

Tell me how a Big Bang explosion could throw everything together in such a complex way. Especially through blind chance.

The Big Bang was NOT an explosion and blind chance had nothing to do with it.

The evolution theory does teach it.

No it doesn't.  How can you debate when you don't even know what the theory of evolution is?!?!

The earth was a large molten mass of rock and it rained on the rocks for millions of years, turning it to soup. After these millions of years, a life form arose out of this organic soup.

This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution!

You have to consider, how did this thing survive? How did it find anything to eat, or marry? It had to be nurtured to a certain level to do any of these things anyway, if it had nothing organic besides itself, how did it survive?

Of course, this is about abiogenesis, not evolution, but you're questions are easily answered.  We find organisms that eat raw minerals even today, so that's not a problem, there where plenty of minerals on the primitive earth.  And we also see how they reproduce, since there are trillions of microorganisms that reproduce asexually, no need for them to "marry".  There, that was simple to answer.

Could you please give me an instance where life arose from non-living material naturally.

On earth, 3.8 billion years ago.  True, we don't know the exact pathway life took but it's evident that it did arise from inorganic materials.  We see that organic compounds arise quite easily in nature, so it's no stretch to say life arose from non life.  Experiments in abiogenesis support this and nothing has falsified it.  Now show us evidence of life ever having arose through supernatural means....

Evolution's first concepts literally hang on the Big Bang. How can you say that evolution doesn't say anything about science? That is untrue.

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang!  Whether it happened or not, the evidence in biology overwhelmingly supports evolution.  They are 2 seperate and distinct fields of science that have no bearing on each other.  And I never said evolution had nothing to do with science...

Evolution does try to explain the origin of the universe.

No it doesn't. The theory of evolution only explains biological diversity.

What was the Big Bang anyway, if not an explosion like I've been taught?

It was a rapid expansion of space-time, not an explosion.  If that's what you were taught, you were taught wrong.

Since when did Chemistry or Physics become agnostic to God? I'm afraid I don't understand you.

Since the scientific method was formulated.  All science is agnostic, it neither denies God's existance nor supports it.  Any explaination that relies on the supernatural automatically disqualifies itself of being  scientific because the supernatural can not be tested, experimented on or consistantly observed.  Chemistry, physics, geology, biology, in fact, any and all branches of science must operate under the mandate that the supernatural doesn't apply.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 7:02 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


I don't want Evolutionism taken out of Public Schools, I just want the lies of Evolution taken out of public school textbooks. A theory that crumbly should not be taught publicly like it was a fact


A scientific theory is merely a testable conclusion built on facts. The fact is that we evolved. The theory is in how we evolved, which asserts Natural Selection.

The only real reason Evolution is in Public Schools is because that view is taxed supported. Mostly, I believe its still there because it's a way to try and say how the universe got here without a supernatural being, such as God.


There are innumerable evolutionists who believe in God. I don’t understand what you mean about “taxed supported,” however. If you mean to say the majority of people in the United States who pay taxes accept evolution, you would be incorrect. The majority, in fact, disbelieves evolution entirely. But that is no reason to remove evolution from the curriculum. I don’t know if it was this forum or CreationTalk, but we had this discussion, and seeing as how the majority of the American public does not know squat about biology, they have no credibility in deciding what and what does not constitute biological science. Likewise, tactics for fighting fires are left up to the men in uniform, not the ordinary citizens who don’t know how to best fight fires.

I can gaurantee you that you may talk of Buddha and other such religions, but if you talk of Christianity, you will be told to shut up because it violates seperation of church and state.


That always depends on the teacher, and most teachers, religious themselves, would not ever say such a thing to a student. For two reasons:

1.) Students have a legal right to talk about their religion in school. Teachers simply don’t have a right to talk about their own religion, unless it’s of course part of a school board-accepted lesson regarding religion.

2.) It’s religious harassment. If a teacher ever tells someone to “shut up” about their religion, and you feel offended, contact your school administration, and if necessary, file a report.

In reality, I think they don't want to think that there is a God out there, outside his creation, that controls this universe.


This issue has nothing to do with personal beliefs. Religion can’t be part of a science lesson because religion isn’t science, while evolution is. You’re free to talk about religion all you want in a philosophy or religion class, however.

Because then, he can also make laws concerning what is right or wrong. (And Creationism is targeted about this issue EVERYTIME) Nobody likes a religion or view like that in schools because it chaps their hide.


That’s simply not true. From one angle or another, religion was discussed almost routinely in my latest literature class’s seminars, and I attend a public high school.

Intelligent design is hardly a religious implication, considering how complex everything is around us.


It’s religious because you’re starting with the conclusion that everything is too complex to have arisen out of naturalistic phenomena, a viewpoint that must be accepted purely through faith.

I find it normal that someone would encourage that to be taught, rather than a theory that takes leaps of faith saying all kinds of animals had ancestors differnet to their kind.


It’s by no means a leap in faith when all the evidence is considered. On the contrary, given DNA’s current behavior, it’s inconceivable to believe the earth’s billions of species could go on throughout the years without evolving.

FACT: EVOLUTION SAYS A BIG EXPLOSION CREATED EVERYTHING.


Wrong. Just wrong. Before you try to rebut, rest assured that you’re wrong. The Big Bang is part of a study of Astronomy called Cosmology, which has nothing to do with Biology.

FACT: THERE IS NO WAY TO OBSERVE, TEST OR PROVE THIS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.


There is in fact a way to observe evidence for explosions in space. The science of Chemistry goes a long way in that respect. On the other hand, there’s no such thing as “proof” in science. Lastly, you can indeed test the properties of matter that would compel it to explode. Atomic Theory is a good start on that one.

It says that life came from rocks.


No it doesn’t. Life came from a combination of sugars, nitrogen, nucleic acids, lipids, and oxygen.

Non-organic material can never do that, yet evolution teaches that as if it were true. Another flaw.


You’re incorrect on two counts this time. First of all, the materials I listed above are all organic. Second, the beginning is not predicted, measured, nor explained by evolution. You’re thinking of the Theory of Abiogenesis.

It teachs that an explosion caused everything to be as it is. That is ridiculous, as explosions are destructive and never organize anything. How could an explosion cause anything as complex as humans to come into being; especially without any living stuff at all?


Once again, you’re wrong twice. Evolution does not teach that at all. You’re confusing Earth Science with Life Science.

Secondly, explosions do indeed organize materials. For example, combustion reactions between hydrocarbons and oxygen yield carbon dioxide and hydrogen. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not any simpler of a molecular compound than, say, methane (CH4), the hydrocarbon.


But the big bang wasn’t a combustion between several different compounds or elements. At the time of the big bang, most of the universe’s energy was not yet condensed into matter, and the small amounts of matter that did exist were not organized into atoms. No, the organization that appeared as a result of the Big Bang was nuclear fusion—which is, by the way, observable and testable.

Evolution tries to explain the origin of the universe; and yet, it is possible to teach scientific facts without bringing evolution in.


Of course it’s possible! We know it’s possible because we do it all the time without bringing evolution in! That’s the whole point you happen to be missing here.

The fact that evolution tries to give an idea for the origin of everything without God is the main reason it is tax supported.


Objection to speculation, Your Honor.

1. If E is true, where did everything come from? Explain this in a scientific way.


It was always here. The matter and energy in our universe has no beginning, complying quite nicely with the Laws of Conservation. Even so, let’s say God put the first life on the planet. This does not deny Natural Selection the means to completely reshape the initial life God provided.

2. If E is true, how did the blind chance of an explosion create this world of ours?


We’ve already established that the two are completely unrelated, so I won’t get into that.

3. If E is true, how did rocks come to life when you never see that happening today?


The materials in rocks and the materials in organic compounds are completely different, save for carbon and usually oxides.

It does so. The Big Bang theory suggests either nothing exploded and created everything, or that all the matter in the universe was condensed in an area smaller than a period that spun and spun until it blew up. That is what is taught.


Now explain where evolution is taught to come in on all that…

Tell me how a Big Bang explosion could throw everything together in such a complex way. Especially through blind chance.


It was certainly not through blind chance. The properties of our universe—among them gravity and electromagnetism—dictated the process from beginning to end. When it happens again, the universe will come out looking pretty much the same as it did this time around.

Alleged claim of an evolutionist:The earth was a large molten mass of rock and it rained on the rocks for millions of years, turning it to soup. After these millions of years, a life form arose out of this organic soup.

You have to consider, how did this thing survive? How did it find anything to eat, or marry? It had to be nurtured to a certain level to do any of these things anyway, if it had nothing organic besides itself, how did it survive?


1.) There was much more than just one microorganism. There would have been hundreds of billions.

2.) Prokaryotic bacteria, earth’s presumed first life, were and still are to this day, a-sexual. They wouldn’t need mates to “marry.”

3.) We find prokaryotic bacteria living in extremely hostile environments, including the boiling springs in Yellowstone National Park.

4.) It fed off of the other organic compounds in the water beside it, mostly glucose sugar.

Could you please give me an instance where life arose from non-living material naturally.


Most certainly. Volcanic springs in the ocean, as well as hot springs and geysers seen all over the world. You see that yellow, green or blue foam on the surface? Often times it’s a collection of prokaryotes.

Evolution's first concepts literally hang on the Big Bang.


No they don’t. There are tens of thousands of religious scientists who believe their god created the first life, and evolution took over.

How can you say that evolution doesn't say anything about science? That is untrue.


Evolution doesn’t say anything about some other sciences, like Astronomy or Physics, though evolution is used to assist various other sciences like Geology, Psychology, as well as other biological fields like Zoology and Taxonomy.

Evolution does try to explain the origin of the universe. The Big Bang theory is the one thing that fits right in.


::slams face into the table:: No it does not!

Since when did Chemistry or Physics become agnostic to God? I'm afraid I don't understand you.


Chemistry and Physics by default are agnostic to God, though it is important to note that they are not atheistic, and neither is evolution.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:28 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps you are correct in the amount of life surviving in the enviorenment. But there is one thing incorrect about what you said. Organisms can survive in extreme conditions that would be lethal to the majority of living animals.

Consider Extremophiles. They can live and thrive in incredibly high or incredibly low temperatures. Many different kinds can do that. That doesn't mean the ice or the lava the live close to or live inside made them.

I think you misunderstood me about the mention of Christianity in Public Schools. If you try to teach it in say... Science class, you would be asked to stop. Evolution, to me, still takes much faith and belief. So I don't think that should be included.

Also, I am not talking about the parts of evolution that talk about biological things or naturalism only. I'm talking about the theory as a whole. I'm surprised more of you keep trying to say that evolution says nothing about the Big Bang. If you study the evolution theory deeper than the naturalism to the astrophysical views it has, you will see that not only does it hinge itself on the Big Bang, but also uses it to explain the origin of life itself. That touches the naturalism of the theory as well, and is not totally excludable from the subject.

As for people who believe in God and also believe that evolution took over, I can't say anything about them. Their religion being different could contradict their beliefs in many ways, but I don't believe they are right anymore than the evolutionist.

Perhaps supernatural things cannot be supported. But Scientists, indeed, many of the earlier scientists did not believe that science should be understood or ideas constructed without God's intervention. They believed that God made the world and that he set things into such a way that he wanted men to seek them out and to study them.

Guess what? They operated under that reasoning and many of them happened to have an incredible understanding of their studies. They were very wise men who discovered atoms and their different miniscule parts. They studied the stars and their bodies and movements and found many facts.

Evolution does not do this. Men seemed to come to better understanding of Science back then when they coupled their beliefs with God. This motivation is what drove them to discover these unbelievable complex beings and facts. I've never seen a man say the same of evolution. I believe that the idea of God being behind everything we see today is much more productive than the theory of evolution is.

Wouldn't you agree that something like this would be better to teach in a classroom than that?

That's all I can write now, it is extremely late. Good night for now.






-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 01:00 AM on March 21, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps you are correct in the amount of life surviving in the enviorenment. But there is one thing incorrect about what you said. Organisms can survive in extreme conditions that would be lethal to the majority of living animals.


That in no way differs from what I said. After populations got washed into the cooled oceans, diversity exploded. Life was no longer constricted to boiling pools of fresh water.

Consider Extremophiles. They can live and thrive in incredibly high or incredibly low temperatures. Many different kinds can do that. That doesn't mean the ice or the lava the live close to or live inside made them.


I never said that…

I think you misunderstood me about the mention of Christianity in Public Schools. If you try to teach it in say... Science class, you would be asked to stop. Evolution, to me, still takes much faith and belief. So I don't think that should be included.


Explain which part of evolution disqualifies it as a Scientific Theory—the kind of scientific theory that Gravity constitutes.

Also, I am not talking about the parts of evolution that talk about biological things or naturalism only. I'm talking about the theory as a whole. I'm surprised more of you keep trying to say that evolution says nothing about the Big Bang. If you study the evolution theory deeper than the naturalism to the astrophysical views it has, you will see that not only does it hinge itself on the Big Bang, but also uses it to explain the origin of life itself.


No, it does not. Evolution is the change of life over time, not the start of life, nor anything to do with pre-existing conditions that could have given rise to life. Those are completely different scientific theories.

Guess what? They operated under that reasoning and many of them happened to have an incredible understanding of their studies. They were very wise men who discovered atoms and their different miniscule parts. They studied the stars and their bodies and movements and found many facts.


Chemistry, starting with the discovery of atoms, was the very study that separated our current technique of scientific inquiry from the philosophical, un-testable methods of the Greeks. Philosophy is not an inferior study of the Truth, but it is different from Science, and it’s key to understand this.

Evolution does not do this. Men seemed to come to better understanding of Science back then when they coupled their beliefs with God.


How? Did Newton’s belief in a higher power affect, whatsoever, his findings on Gravity? Certainly not. What about Mendeleev, the inventor of our accepted form of the Table of Atomic Elements? He mentioned nothing about God in his reports. Neither did Dalton, the inventor of general Atomic Theory. How about Galileo, or perhaps Socrates? Er, no, not Socrates. He clearly wasn’t inspired by God, considering he was executed for being an atheist and all…

This motivation is what drove them to discover these unbelievable complex beings and facts.


I’m stuck with Plato as the only ‘scientist’—though he was much more a philosopher—as the only well-known person who even half-fits your criteria. It’s nonetheless ironic to note, however, that Christians were the first to discover what would later be called Natural Selection.

I've never seen a man say the same of evolution. I believe that the idea of God being behind everything we see today is much more productive than the theory of evolution is.


In what way? It promotes a lack of responsibility and work ethic. We’re not going to save ourselves from the evolving H5N1 flu virus. If we stand around and wait for a strand to run circles around our medicines, there won’t be anything stopping it.

Wouldn't you agree that something like this would be better to teach in a classroom than that?


If you’re still talking about a science classroom, then absolutely not. The whole idea of religion inspiring science isn’t even a conclusion drawn from evidence. It’s just your opinion.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 01:25 AM on March 21, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Men seemed to come to better understanding of Science back then when they coupled their beliefs with God. This motivation is what drove them to discover these unbelievable complex beings and facts. I've never seen a man say the same of evolution. I believe that the idea of God being behind everything we see today is much more productive than the theory of evolution is.

Every time men have used God as an explaination for science, they have been wrong.  Substituting God for science is and has always been a horrible idea
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:05 AM on March 21, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I won't rebute everything you've said simply because I want to make a list of some of the greatest scientists who used God as their motivation and tool for their explorations into the natural order of the world.

Extracts from "Christian Men of Science"

  "The vastness, beauty, orderliness, of the heavenly bodies; the excellent structure of animals and plants; and the other phenomena of nature justly induce an intelligent and unprejudiced observer to conclude a supremely powerful, just, and good author."

This is none other than Robert Boyle himself, the Father of Chemistry. His belief in an intelligent designer of the creations he explored aided him to find most of the methods used today in studying chemistry, how to seperate an acid from its base, and he laid the foundation for the study of unknown substances, solubilities, fumes and flame tests.

---

This is from Lord Kelvin

"I do not say that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies creative power. Science positively affirms creation power. Science makes every one feel a miracle in himself. It is not in dead matter that we live and move and have our being, but in the creating and directive Power which science compells us to accept as an article of belief....Do not be afraid of being free-thinkers If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to believe in God, which is the foundation of all Religion. You will find science not antagonistic, but helful to Religion."

This man knew the power of an intelligent creator behind his invention of the Siphon recorder and his contribution to Thermodynamics. He, among many other scientists of his time, understood the complexity of everything around him. He was asked if he believed that the grass and flowers surrounding him had come into being with only chemical forces. (I.E., without life)

This is what he said. "No, no more than I could believe that a book of botany describing them grew by mere chemical forces."

He knew that if you found a book of chemicals lying around in the woods that you would automatically conclude that somebody wrote it. Considering how complex our own bodies are, it would be even more ridiculous to assume that we got here through pure chance than the fact that we were designed.

---

If you want more, I can bring up more. But the facts are these.

These men believed in God.

They studied and operated on the belief that everything around them was created by an intelligent creator. That belief including that they would find an orderly world existing between all the life and movement of the life around them. You know what they found? Order. The knowledge of Chemistry, the Law of Gravity, atoms and many other chemical scientists were encouraged by this belief.

If you are told evolution is science and not just a theory, you can't use the way evolution teaches life came about and expect to find order. You won't find the inspiration to find new scientifc secrets with that sort of belief.

This is why Creationism is more productive than Evolution. Nobody will search for science in the same way they did because many are operation under the theory that evolution is a fact.

And now, they aren't even aloud to encourage researching evolution in schools for the "theory" that it is. It's no wonder or dumb thing that they'd encourage this sort of thing to be in a science class room, is it?


-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 10:51 AM on March 21, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I won't rebute everything you've said simply because I want to make a list of some of the greatest scientists who used God as their motivation and tool for their explorations into the natural order of the world.


From Woodrow.org:

Among the many contenders for the title of "Father of Modern Chemistry" is Robert Boyle (January 25, 1627 - December 30, 1691). Boyle was the first prominent scientist to perform controlled experiments and to publish his work with elaborate details concerning procedure, apparatus and observations.

Boyle was a religious man, as was everyone of his time, Prototype… but his religion did not influence his ability to conduct study of chemistry. Show me where in his scientific findings it mentioned a supernatural deity. Simply his opinion on the matter of whether or not a god exists is not nearly enough to show that this belief has aided his scientific studies. Where in your source does it say he used God as a tool for his studies?

This is from Lord Kelvin

"I do not say that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies creative power. Science positively affirms creation power. Science makes every one feel a miracle in himself. It is not in dead matter that we live and move and have our being, but in the creating and directive Power which science compells us to accept as an article of belief....Do not be afraid of being free-thinkers If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to believe in God, which is the foundation of all Religion. You will find science not antagonistic, but helful to Religion."


That is, once again, Kelvin’s opinion. You still need to show how he could not have succeeded as he did without belief in a god. I never disputed that certain scientists were religious. Darwin himself was Christian.

This man knew the power of an intelligent creator behind his invention of the Siphon recorder and his contribution to Thermodynamics. He, among many other scientists of his time, understood the complexity of everything around him. He was asked if he believed that the grass and flowers surrounding him had come into being with only chemical forces. (I.E., without life)

This is what he said. "No, no more than I could believe that a book of botany describing them grew by mere chemical forces."


Pleeease don’t recite this PRATT too!

He knew that if you found a book of chemicals lying around in the woods that you would automatically conclude that somebody wrote it.


That’s because it’s a book, not a form of life! We know books are written by people, because we watch people write books. We do not, on the other hand, watch life be created, and it's purely circular reasoning to say that because life exists, that it must have been created, when we have no evidence of the creator to begin with. If we didn't know that people write books, it might actually be logical in some cases to conclude that the book was not created.

Considering how complex our own bodies are, it would be even more ridiculous to assume that we got here through pure chance than the fact that we were designed.


Human beings have more than four trillion cells. Of course it’s ridiculous to assume that we got here through chance. It was the properties of DNA that took us from prokaryotic bacteria to homo sapiens, not arbitrariness.

These men believed in God.


Tens of thousands of evolutionists around the globe believe in God as well.

They studied and operated on the belief that everything around them was created by an intelligent creator. You know what they found? Order. The knowledge of Chemistry, the Law of Gravity, atoms and many other chemical scientists were encouraged by this belief.


Your premise from the beginning of this point has been that their religion enabled them to conduct science in a superior manner to secular science. Encouragement from religion is found in all walks of life. It often times moves people to believe they can take on the impossible, whether or not they’re correct in believing so. But merely being encouraged by a belief does not actually enable anyone to conduct science in a superior fashion. There are equally-famous and successful scientists who did not believe themselves to be inspired by the divine, among them Einstein, and the father of rhetoric himself, Socrates. If religion was beneficial to scientific inquiry, show how that is. The subjective opinions of scientists over their objective studies are hardly relevant in this issue. What you’re doing is akin to me citing a bunch of scientists who claim evolution is true, because they believe it to be so.

If you are told evolution is science and not just a theory, you can't use the way evolution teaches life came about and expect to find order.


We can and have.

You won't find the inspiration to find new scientifc secrets with that sort of belief.


Nonsense. Scientists continue to find new “secrets” every day.

This is why Creationism is more productive than Evolution. Nobody will search for science in the same way they did because many are operation under the theory that evolution is a fact.


That’s your assertion. Back it up with more than additional assertions from other scientists.

And now, they aren't even aloud to encourage researching evolution in schools for the "theory" that it is. It's no wonder or dumb thing that they'd encourage this sort of thing to be in a science class room, is it?


Students are always encouraged to research everything they learn! My 10th grade biology teacher even let me do a research project on the controversy of evolution and present it to the class.


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/21/2006 at 12:12 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:08 PM on March 21, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I did not say that their beliefs in God "enabled" them to study science. I said it "motivated them" to search for scientific mysteries; In an orderly fashion as well.

The confusion of Evolution already being a fact of science instead of a theory is too hap-hazard to encourage that sort of study. Intelligent design clearly has, and yet people are already so quick to remove even a sticker from the books encouraging this sort of belief. I'm sure you already know about these occurences.

Not all scientists believe evolution. I don't think those who combine evolution with God are any more correct than the scientists are, and simply because many believe it doesn't make it correct. I could challenge many people who believed that 2+2=5 and I would be correct; regardless of the larger number of those who thought it was true. I don't believe most scientists believe evolution, and frankly I don't care. The majority can be wrong.


-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 9:18 PM on March 21, 2006 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.