|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/11/2007 8:37:39 PM | After listening to an avid ID protagonist on the BBC world service, I begin to see that ID is totally anti-science and therefore has absolutely NO place in a science class. The fundamental of ID seems to be faith which gives a person the option to believe/disbelieve whatever they feel to be true/false. Science at least attempts to provide some support for the views it espouses. And accepts that those views can still be wrong.
While ID seems to have been espoused as a 'back door' to God, it seems to me that science, by its search for universal laws which govern the universe, expects an underlying direction to the evolution of the universe determined by the laws it seeks to discover. | |
|
lkl
|
Joined: 6/6/2007
Msg: 3702 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/13/2007 11:51:52 AM | The problem I have with debates of this type are because of how the OP set up the criteria.
No biblical references can be used. This means that the main source to prove any of this subject matter is thrown out from the start. If you throw out all of Darwin's writings then proving evolution would have the same dilemma. After all, creation is based on the belief that there is a GOD. The Bible is the main source of evidence to support that. Evolution is based on the beliefs of Darwin and his writings are the main source of evidence to support it. So when you exclude the primary sourcebook of one side of an argument, you are automatically biasing the results to favor the other side. Nothing can be proven under such a condition. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/13/2007 1:08:07 PM | You might as well have nothing on your side if your main "source of proof" is the bible. lol. It doesn't really have any logical scientific arguements in it to argue against. It's all just stories and hearsay which is why religion is all about faith and not facts. Any time an arguement is put forth regarding religion the answer is always "because it says so in the bible" or "because god said so" which is hardly an answer since people wrote it a long time ago and people tend to exaggerate and twist stories around over time.
Elvis only died in 1977 and we already have Elvis followers who swear he's been seen and he's still alive, etc. I'm sure in 1000 years Elvis will have walked on water and performed miracles as well. It's the nature of legends and fables to become blown out of proportion over time which is why the bible doesn't make a good historical reference. Historians don't rely on the bible for reference very much because it isn't in synche with a lot of facts from that period in history. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/13/2007 3:18:36 PM | | Indeed. The Bible is NOT a source of fact or evidence. It is a source of unsubstantiated claims. Evolution does not need The Origin of Species as a source. That book was only the most prominant one to make similar observations and hypotheses. Since its writing, more-or-less Darwinian evolution has been HEAVILY substantiated scientifically, while most Lamarckian evolution of the same era has been discarded as unsubstantiated. Nothing metaphysical can be substantiated scientifically, which automatically rules out claims of God or creation in any scientific discussion. As a philosophical discussion, or one of faith, they can be fairly compared, but in a scientific framework, the supernatural has no leg to stand on. | |
|
mak68
|
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 3705 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/13/2007 4:42:02 PM | Indeed. The Bible is NOT a source of fact or evidence.
Quite true.
Evolution does not need The Origin of Species as a source. That book was only the most prominant one to make similar observations and hypotheses.
I will disagree only that for people who wish to know our origins, The Origin of Species is very much a source... But as to the observations and goings on of how life evolves.... No mere book is a source, there are many, but in regards to the book, you are VERY right. In respect to "The Origin of the Species", More people need to read it just to get a basic understanding... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/14/2007 11:12:17 AM | Ya I am always surpirsed by people who support or knock a book/subject that they do not understand.
Ah maybe you're knocking it because you don't understand?
I remember in High School having a real issue with what I was being taught about Relativity. It just made no sense. Then the summer before College I bought and Read Einstien on Relativity and suddenly it all made sense. I came to a great realization, My teaches didn't know what they were talking about. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/14/2007 11:21:19 AM | well I'm not gonna read 150 pages but are there any arguments in favor of creationism that haven't had the crapped kicked out of them yet? or how about an argument against evolution?
I'm guessing that any crumbs of intelligent debate have long been picked clean from this thread but ya never know. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/14/2007 9:25:23 PM | I'd say they should shut down this thread, but you know somebody would just start another one 4 hours later.
[Bingo/late™] | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/15/2007 9:03:20 AM | Well Rockondon, We have yet to see anything infavor of ID or Creation that could be called science.
And yes, many attacks on evolution. But that is too easy and not what the thread is after.
There is an abstract on page 100 that covers most of it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/16/2007 2:44:46 AM |
Thre seem to be 2 questions in the OP as Trewq pointed out on the previous page. 'S true! I seen 'em!
!) Where's the proof? (of creationism?). The two mosst common responses seem to be that creationism needs faith, not proof and attempts to discredit evolution with the somewhat dubious assumption that creationism must be the only alternative to replace it. Sadly, those are the most loudly given answers to the question. Honestly, however, Behe actually tries to provide what he would consider proof, at least of ID. The only real problem with it is, as he himself points out in his new book, it seems or is taken to seem that he's just throwing up his hands in resignation and arguing from incredulity and ignorance. Which, quite truthfully, whether he wants to recognise it or not, really is what he seems to be doing. Every other scientist whose work I've read comes across as saying something to the effect that there are unanswered questions regarding x mechanism or the origin of y system. The departure point is that "mainstream" science seems to want to use hypotheses that are testable, while Behe is perfectly content to allow an exemption for his own. It appears to be something along the lines that, should sufficient complexity somehow "prove" design, it vindicates the position that complexity requires a designer.
2) Should creationism be taught in school science classes? I have to totally disagree with the more common answer to this one, that of a "no" response. As I've pointed out before, it makes that much more sense to me to, as I was taught regarding Lamarckism, it might have been scientific (or not), but it was disproved. Either that, or, as part of a critical thinking and "what is science" portion of the science class curriculum, it should be pointed out as the pseudoscience it is, as a foil for what actually constitutes true scientific enquiry. Most assuredly, creationism and intelligent design hypotheses ought to be included, especially as means to point out what is and is not real science.
After listening to an avid ID protagonist on the BBC world service, I begin to see that ID is totally anti-science and therefore has absolutely NO place in a science class. Whereas, I'm forced to disagree. Certainly, ID should never be taught as a viable theory (not least because it's never been tested as a hypothesis and, basically, explains nothing about the world as we observe it), but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included as an example of how not to view scientific endeavour.
No biblical references can be used. This means that the main source to prove any of this subject matter is thrown out from the start. Biblical references do not constitute proof, especially not in a scientific sense. If creation is considered scientifically valid, it should be able to stand on empirical evidence, rather than anecdotal evidence from thousands of years ago, subsequently altered for political ends, and reinterpreted in the modern world as factual.
If you throw out all of Darwin's writings then proving evolution would have the same dilemma. Inaccurate, to say the least. To disregard Darwin would be to disregard the fundamental scientific hypothesis, yes, but there is plenty of subsequent research, experimentation, and corollary to support the essential theory. Beyond that, the scientific hypothesis is the point behind science education, along with the process of arriving at a theory with a hypothesis as the base. It might possibly be me, but I believe the question in the initial post could be reworded to ask for a scientifically legitimate hypothesis on the part of creationism, yes? What hypothesis is that?
After all, creation is based on the belief that there is a GOD. Not a hypothesis, this is an assertion of belief. Were it worded as a hypothesis, it would still fail to be scientific, since it's not testable. And, no, writings purportedly ascribed to the deity in question do not constitute evidence to that effect. Where's the science in my saying, "I'm God", if all I have to back it up is saying it again?
I came to a great realization, My teaches didn't know what they were talking about. ...Or, didn't know how to relate it to someone who didn't already "get" what they were talking about, possibly? I've had much the same experience, myself. One reason I read so much of the "counter-Darwinian" literature. I'm convinced there has to be some basis for belief beyond "the Bible says so", but I have yet to find anything to that effect. Truly frustrating, I must say.
I'm guessing that any crumbs of intelligent debate have long been picked clean from this thread but ya never know. Well, for a time, we were attempting the thought experiment to see if intelligent design truly could be legitmately inferred from the complexity of life, but that rather fell through. I'm up for discussing whatever new iteration comes of creationism, if only to see if it can be addressed scientifically, at all.
but you know somebody would just start another one 4 hours later.
[Bingo/late™] Well, it is a rather compelling topic...
We have yet to see anything infavor of ID or Creation that could be called science. Hey, man, I tried. Work with me, here!  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/16/2007 1:35:35 PM | | lkl: I can actually see evidence of dinosaurs. I know they existed. We know they must be millions of years old. There's evidence. We have already proven the christian bible wrong with this one fact. So what else in the Bible must be wrong? Can a creationist offer any evidence for the messed up biblical time line? No, because it's just one big gigantic fabrication. I know being a baptist from down south you're probably too brainwashed in the doctrine to look outside the box (I know because I was a Baptist in a box at one time before I grew up) but I thought I'd try to add a little sanity in here. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/17/2007 6:54:03 AM | In these posts is a wealth of information. From theory to science, from theological ethics to psychology. I can be a slow reader, but an hour and a half to skim of the surface of these posts is a lot of reading for a single question.
I'd like to keep my reply a bit simple, and address the idea of Creation Science being taught in school.
When one says the words Creation Science, it conjures up and image of a very recent venture. A group of Christians who took on the mission of providing scientific proof that a creator exists --- but --- here's a question for everyone. Do they seek to prove the existence of an entity or entities with intelligence and power so great that they created this entire universe and all that exists for it's natural continuance? Or do they seed to prove the existence of a Christian God and thereby providing evidence that would uphold their beliefs of faith as based through Biblical mythology?
There is already a science that seeks to prove a unified theory, whose objective would be to seek the knowledge that the question "Was there a creator/'s?" begs an answer to. This was the devotion to which Einstein gave his ending attention to, that others have picked up.
Do we teach this in schools - yes. Due to the intensity of knowledge and logic needed to venture into this topic, it's teaching comes in doses with the maturity of the student. It is not a mandatory subject and it is quite logically, prep courses college that present this information. It is in college that a person, through their chosen course of study, learns more.
To teach creation science in lower education may be a valid request, but the conditions are not to be dictated by Christianity or by any other single religious source. It has in the past been taught as mythology. Those ancient stories and manuscripts found and passed on that show the belief systems of many different societies of the course of man's written history. Should Christianity be included in these studies - absolutely, right next to all the other major mythologies of the world.
Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain that I use the word mythology, to differentiate between religion (as an organized group of people adhering to particular dogmatic dictates) and faith (which a personal belief based on the written records at hand and a subjective rendering that leads to one's beliefs).
You see, we are not at a point where Christianity has enough scientific evidence for support to make it a theory. In fact there is no more proof or evidence that the Christian god is beyond the myth of any other god, goddess or creator belief.
Therefor, teach it in the schools, for what it is. Let the future students who have been given this information determine if any part of it can lead to science and theory. For it is not so at this point. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/17/2007 5:31:55 PM | | Well as far as Intelligent Design v/s Evolution, they're not direction opposed. It could be as simple as God designed evolution as the mechanism by which to achieve what he wanted. I'm personally not a Christian, but that doesn't sound like it's beyond the realm of possibility. Similar to the BB Theory v/s Creation. The Big Bang could simply be the mechanism that God used to create everything. Alot of people still tend to think of God in terms of "magic" but perhaps it's time to start thinking of him in terms of science instead. Perhaps God sets things in motion so he doesn't have to sit around and manipulate every single minute detail. I mean he as a master plan for goodness sakes. Things fell out of whack so he developed this long drawn out mechanism in order to do what. Get everything back to the way it was before Adam and Eve sinned. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/17/2007 6:52:15 PM |
Well as far as Intelligent Design v/s Evolution, they're not direction opposed. It could be as simple as God designed evolution as the mechanism by which to achieve what he wanted. I'm personally not a Christian, but that doesn't sound like it's beyond the realm of possibility. Similar to the BB Theory v/s Creation. The Big Bang could simply be the mechanism that God used to create everything. Alot of people still tend to think of God in terms of "magic" but perhaps it's time to start thinking of him in terms of science instead. Perhaps God sets things in motion so he doesn't have to sit around and manipulate every single minute detail. I mean he as a master plan for goodness sakes. Things fell out of whack so he developed this long drawn out mechanism in order to do what. Get everything back to the way it was before Adam and Eve sinned.
Sure have this personal belief, but this is seriously not a scientific theory. There is no way to prove or disprove it at all. It just adds another level of unnecesary complication. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/17/2007 7:08:56 PM | | God as science? I seriously think I'm a sane person living in a looney bin with this topic. God is an idea created by man. It's a little far fetched of an idea for a rational human being to actually take seriously. I guess eons of brainwashing and passing down the same fairy tales can make people accept any irrational idea. I think this planet needs to get a grip on this obsession and need for a deity(s). To me it's the same as fighting with someone over the fact that there's a Santa or an Easter Bunny except openly believing in them would get you locked up. Go figure. This whole topic is such a joke and there has definitely been way too much valuable mental energy wasted on it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/17/2007 9:29:40 PM | First it is impossable for me to read 149 pages of debates on this subject. I have read many. Evolution IS the man made theory. There is nothing in evolution that has proved to me or many people that in science that a divine creator did not make what we have today. Darwin had a microscope and he himself stated that if the single cell was more complex then just a single cell there had to be a devine creator. With all the technology we have today and all the ears listening to the skys. There is not a peep out there to be heard. The big bang has been proven wrong on many levels. If there was a big bang, motion does not stop in a vacum. And this planet has not changed much as long as we have knowledge of it. Carbon 14 accuracy is only limited to 10,000 years. Then it errors dramaticly. All life on this planet needs other forms of life to survive. The flowers and the bee. Which came first the chicken or the egg. When apollo 11 was to land on the moon the scientists where worried that the ship would sink in 180 feet of dust which was calculated by the scientists based on the age of the moon which they believed. It was only 6" of dust. Man is not God and God has proven without a doubt that he is. The steps of creation in the bible states and the scientists agree with the same format of the start of life. Man made traditions does not disprove God. Also look at our time we live in now and see that it is what the Bible has said would be and has come with the many more earth quakes, floods, famines and wars. Also that the word shall be preached through out the world and it is almost done. If the bible was a myth it would have died long ago. And also no country in history has ever returned after 2000 years . But the one and only one mentioned in the Bible. History through archioligy has proven each year that proves the Bible stories true. No book on earth has survived over 3000 years intact and states the same message as we found in the dead sea scrolls. So all you evoluionists you can not sway the faithfull and if evolution is not proven with out the shadow of a doubt that evolution is and has been proven the truth then why would we teach the evolution myth to our children.
Read the OP - Do not hijack the topic/moderator | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/18/2007 12:53:23 AM |
First it is impossable for me to read 149 pages of debates on this subject. I did. 'Course, I can't stop reading, and this is a particularly cool subject, anyway, but the posts since I was last here are disheartening, to say the least. Particularly this one ^. But, first...
I'd like to keep my reply a bit simple, and address the idea of Creation Science being taught in school. Which, as far as I can tell, is arguably the point, yes?
Do they seek to prove the existence of an entity or entities with intelligence and power so great that they created this entire universe and all that exists for it's natural continuance? Or do they seed to prove the existence of a Christian God and thereby providing evidence that would uphold their beliefs of faith as based through Biblical mythology? Yes and yes. Those are, ostensibly, the stated goals of both the Creation Science and its subsequent illegitimate (ignoring for the moment that CS wasn't legitimate, itself, lol) offspring, Intelligent Design.
Thing about CS, science in general, "unification theory", or what-have-you, is that it's all about finding out where stuff came from. Questions like, "what are the causal links?" and "if X causes Y, what causes Z?" are legitimately scientific, for the simple reason that nobody claims to know for sure, at least not right off. That's where hypotheses come in. Tentative explanations, you see? They get tested, the ones that don't measure up get tossed, and the ones that actually explain what folks're looking at stick around until something more applicable comes along. That's science. Groovy stuff, man.
I got no clue about this "unification" gig, myself, but I can see it as something where all the guys in lab-coats are getting together and noticing how the stuff they've got fits together. Dice, if it works. If not, they themselves realise the necessity to toss the crappy hypotheses and try to come up with new ones. I'll trust 'em to do that, myself. Otherwise, someone else'll come along and point out where they're off. Again, that's science. Gotta love it!
Then, you get to CS, which isn't science. Not even slightly, sad to say. Thing is, whether or not one can dress it up as lab-coat-worthy, the hypothesis -- that there's an invisible, unobservable, omnipotent creator "out there" somewhere, doing apparently nothing at this point -- can't be tested. Hence, we got no science there. It's a faith-based position that there even exists anything. Cool beans, you wanna believe it, that's on you. Just can't call it science and try to teach it to kids as such.
Corollary to that -- or, maybe pursuant, or some junk -- is, you got guys wanna say, "there is proof. It's all in this book, you see." "Well, prove the book." "But, it proves itself." Sure, right on. Carry on, man.
Still. Not. Science.
To teach creation science in lower education may be a valid request... How so? You pointed out the necessity of taking the relative maturity of the students into account for teaching what I assume you meant to be science in general (although I'm a touch unclear regarding that portion of the post). So, how does one argue that grade-school, or even secondary school children can be taught, as science, something that doesn't conform to the baseline standard for science? Would it not be better to teach them the scientific method and how and why a given proposition even counts as scientific, rather than proposing an untestable possibility and calling it science?
'Course, I may have missed something. Subsequently, you're pointing to it as the mythology it is and advocating teaching it as such. Dice, there. Just no need to be cross-pollinating, you know?
Well as far as Intelligent Design v/s Evolution, they're not direction opposed. Truer words... And, that's the point of the OP, they're not diametrically opposites, they don't even address the same sphere (unless one wants to try and force-fit the square peg of religious doctrine into the round hole of science), so what's the point in trying? If (gargantuan "if") there can be a scientific basis for "proving" the existence of a god, much less a specific one, how can it be done? I'm curious about this one, myself, and if you'll check it out, I've tried. Found it didn't work, walked on. Guess I just don't have the stake in it some folks feel they do.
This whole topic is such a joke and there has definitely been way too much valuable mental energy wasted on it. Feral disagrees. Actually, with the whole post. Particularly about Santa and the Bunny. Grr. 
Evolution IS the man made theory. Now, we get back to the really troubling part. Here's an idea, just a thought: They're BOTH "man-made theories". What with, man being the one who coined all the terms, phrases, and frames of reference. Distinction being, one of them leaves room for doubt, as might possibly be considered rational in some portions of the universe...
There is nothing in evolution that has proved to me or many people that in science that a divine creator did not make what we have today. Yeah... and? Nothing in science precludes my gods, either, so what's the point? Point is, nothing in science supports the assertion that any gods exist. Ta-dah!
Darwin had a microscope and he himself stated that if the single cell was more complex then just a single cell there had to be a devine creator. Cite, please?
With all the technology we have today and all the ears listening to the skys. There is not a peep out there to be heard. Arguably, more lack of scientific evidence for deity. Your point?
Okay, oops. I was mistaken, here. Thought you were trying to argue for scientific evidence of creation, but you're just doing the "I'm going to quote 'well-known' (read: inaccurate, but highly publicised) problems with evolutionary theory" gig. Carry on.
Man is not God and God has proven without a doubt that he is. Okay, we're getting warmer. In what scientific publication has "God" made these findings known?
The steps of creation in the bible states and the scientists agree with the same format of the start of life. Science has conclusively proven that the sun was created after light? Never saw that journal. Cite, please?
Again, as regards this last post, I honestly don't know why I'm leaving what response I've made. But, I'm gonna. Point is, you've given no evidence and only sketchy, dubious, and out-right falsified crap to support your point, a point that wasn't even aimed at the OP, just at pointing out why you think a legitimate scientific theory should be discredited as myth in lieu of something that actually better fits that nomenclature.
Some folks had some interesting things to say, but the thread's been around a while, so a lot of it's "rehashing". Not a bad thing, since most folks (as is evidenced here) only read the first and las couple pages to get a summary. Meantime, I'm sure Trewq, and I know I myself, would appreciate some valid, substantive argumentation in favour of a possible scientific (or even logical -- I'm not that exacting) means of "proving" the existence of a supernatural creator of the universe.
Meantime, we got science, and among other things, it's made it possible for us to even have this conversation. I say we don't try to hamstring it too much, eh?
Remember, folks: The future depends on YOU! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/18/2007 7:50:52 AM | 17, Please need we go through all this evolution bashing again.
I do not care about Evolution or whether it has holes.
What we would like to know is about the science of creation (ID).
And as to complexity being a sign of design. Please......
That is saying I don't know the answer so I'll pull one out of my hat.
It may be too complex for us to understand Today, But I am sure as we learn more we will come up with the answer.
Which is one of the problems with the pull an answer out of a hat group. They would have us accept their rabbit and stop looking further.
Yea, the Wright bothers should have realized that if God had meant man to fly we would have been born with jet engines and they should have just kept to their bicycles.
Oh wait if god had meant us to have wheels.....
You want to know more about natual complexity look into Chaos Theory, very interesting stuff..
And I do have a problem with Your Author's "Translation"...
claimed that natural selection chose life forms ......natural processes to selectively have chosen clumps of CHOSE... CHOSEN ?????
There was no Choice made, that in itself shows a lack of understanding or a deliberate distraction.
But yes....
We must follow the argument wherever it leads.
Whether it proves or disproves one's Theory or Beliefs. But I think that is what scares some. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/18/2007 8:58:57 AM | Ugh. I don't think it is physically possible to express my revulsion that this thread continues. After half a dozen pages of the same tired pro-religious rhetoric and the same garbage non-answer responses, ANYBODY would get weary.
I'll make this simple.
Creationism: everything has always existed as it does right now.
Evolution: Everything changes over time, and continues to do so.
How life began has NOTHING to do with Evolution. Evolution, as a theory, doesn't give a shit how life started living, it only explains how life changed around once it got started. If you want to believe in Intelligent Design, fine: Evolution does not counter it.
The problem here in this tired old debate has always been the same: science is self-correcting, religion is not. Religion is steadfast, science is not.
The fact is, the world is, has, and always will be, changing. To those who are adamantly against evolution, I can only suggest this:
Don't evolve. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/18/2007 9:14:58 AM |
(George Gilder, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute,
quoted in "Biocosm," Wired, October 2004, p. 160). Evolution Takes a Major Hit! So, yeah. Other than the fact that Mr. Gilder is (putatively) a technologist who just happens to be acting as though he's a knowledgeable biologist (i.e., effectively talking out his @$$), and the equally important fact that he's a member of the Discovery Institute, which is a self-proclaimed haven and rallying point for religiopolitical ideologues who want to discredit science in general (reference the "Wedge" Document), there are at least one or two things to be said about his actual quote. However, this guy does it much better than I could, so:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/the_sanctimonious_bombast_of_george_gilder/ Next we have:
One of the most respected atheists and philosophers of our time raised the hackles of committed evolutionists. Eighty-one year old Antony Flew stunned “hard core” atheists by admitting that the genetic structure of all life, DNA, could hardly have evolved on its own. 'Course, this is a quote of someone paraphrasing a quote from the man. Let's see what else there is, shall we? These came from "Antony Flew Considers God ...Sort Of", by Richard Carrier (funny, didn't you reference him?):
The fact of the matter is: Flew hasn't really decided what to believe. Oh, but he is a deist/theist!
But he is increasingly persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs, nor does it provide any postmortem salvation. He says he has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a distant, impersonal "prime mover." It might not even be conscious, but a mere force. So, effectively, there had to be an intelligence, but it didn't necessarily have to be, oh, intelligent...? The Prime Mover argument is just as consistent with the deterministic arguments from the Big Bang that form the Anthropic Principle as Pastafarianism, honestly. And, this is the totality of the argument? No, wait! There's more!
In formal terms, he regards the existence of this minimal God as a hypothesis that, at present, is perhaps the best explanation for why a universe exists that can produce complex life. More, that is, to support the Anthropic Principle. Tautology, anyone?
Flew's tentative, mechanistic Deism is not based on any logical proofs, but solely on physical, scientific evidence, or the lack thereof, and is therefore subject to change with more information--and he confesses he has not been able to keep up with the relevant literature in science and theology, which means we should no longer treat him as an expert on this subject Ah, but here's the kicker, yes? Dude expressly points out that he's got no argument, other than the argument from incredulity that keeps Behe and the rest of the Discovery Institute pumping out books that are, at best, laughable in their conclusions (although, I gotta say, Edge of Evolution at least tries to be fair in presenting the known science). Getting back to the post:
After acknowledging Flew’s former stature as a “renowned atheist,” Carrier took a shot at Flew by stating: “Theists would do well to drop the example of Flew.” Yeah, so we find out why this gets quoted (in context):
As Flew admitted to me, and to Stuart Wavell of the London Times, and Duncan Crary of the Humanist Network News, he has not made any effort to check up on the current state of things in any relevant field... ...Flew has thus abandoned the very standards of inquiry that led the rest of us to atheism. It would seem the only way to God is to jettison responsible scholarship. And, after claiming he's too old to "engage in controversy":
...This would appear to be his excuse for everything: he won't investigate the evidence because it's too hard. Yet he will declare beliefs in the absence of proper inquiry. Theists would do well to drop the example of Flew. Because his willfully sloppy scholarship can only help to make belief look ridiculous. Hmm, "willfully sloppy scholarship"? Isn't that the motto of the Discovery Institute?
Might want to read the whole gig:
http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369 Oh, yeah, just one more -- this time a direct quote from Mr. Flew hisownself:
"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms." (private interview with Antony Flew, Dec 2004) And another, from later on:
I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction. Well, wouldja look at that? Multiple updates to the article certainly seem to suggest that Flew is not so much losing his philosophical stance as he is losing either his memory or his mind.
But, here's the point (from the OP):
So I ask where is the proof?
Where is the beef?
Show me the money?
Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School?
What possible good does one atheist reconsidering agnosticism do for creation as a scientific theory? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/18/2007 10:45:25 AM | I paused here to reply to '17 again'.
I think it's important to know that the vast majority of people, have made many of the same mistakes to come to your conclusions. We often look at the surface of information, the kind of information that is disseminated from lower level text books, created to 'touch' on topics of science. On many occasions I have been corrected for making the same mistakes. If you delve deeper into the sciences you are surfing, such as paliontology, archeology, physics, quantum physics and particle physics, you would be less likely to draw the same conclusions.
Darwin had a microscope and he himself stated that if the single cell was more complex then just a single cell there had to be a devine creator.
Just want to point out a mistake in your logic. In this quote you give Darwin a great deal more credit than he seems to have given himself.
Such a statement, if actually made in this context, makes it sound that Darwin thought, himself so great a mind, that if he could not know or figure something out, than surely it must be attributed to a divine creator. How easily you accept this statement, giving Darwin not only credit for being such a superior mind, yet condemn the theories of the great mind you have paid such a high compliment to. However, when grasping at straws, people often make such contradictory statements.
Man made traditions does not disprove God. Also look at our time we live in now and see that it is what the Bible has said would be and has come with the many more earth quakes, floods, famines and wars. Also that the word shall be preached through out the world and it is almost done.
What you read and how you interpret is no different than what others have been seeing and believing for over a thousand years. People die, waiting and watching and thinking THEY are the ones to be witness to the end. But no one has lived long enough yet to see it.
No book on earth has survived over 3000 years intact and states the same message as we found in the dead sea scrolls.
There are many errors within this one sentence and they are not subjective. I'm sure you have a capable mind, and obviously, you have access to a computer. Use it - research the history of the Bible. It's change is numerous, and the greatest changes of all, have come down through interpretation, through word additions and deletions, definition alterations, and all this, JUST since the book as we know it, exists today, just since the advent of the printing press, and mass production. The death of Jesus does not even correlate with your 3,000 year mark. Hence Christianity and the individual manuscripts of Christianity have not existed as long as you think.
Finally, I would urge those who address this kind of topic to guard against the biggest mistake, using science when it suits your purpose. For if a carbon date supports your belief, it's used as an accepted source of confirmation. When archeology, dates ruins based on earth layers, and fossils and comparisons of other known sites where carbon dating and fossils were found, it is accepted. Yet, it is the same science that has given us our current evolution theory. And more that evolutions theory exercises a far greater realm of sciences to prove it's generalizations and it's possibilities. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/18/2007 11:10:10 AM | Hi Feral, I'd like to respond to your question.
To teach creation science in lower education may be a valid request...
How so? You pointed out the necessity of taking the relative maturity of the students into account for teaching what I assume you meant to be science in general (although I'm a touch unclear regarding that portion of the post). So, how does one argue that grade-school, or even secondary school children can be taught, as science, something that doesn't conform to the baseline standard for science? Would it not be better to teach them the scientific method and how and why a given proposition even counts as scientific, rather than proposing an untestable possibility and calling it science?
'Course, I may have missed something. Subsequently, you're pointing to it as the mythology it is and advocating teaching it as such. Dice, there. Just no need to be cross-pollinating, you know?
My point was not that Creation Science be taught to be a science, as it has no scientific validity. However, in the course of teaching about "world religions" or perhaps "mythology", at some point the Genesis story would be bound to come up. This would be a good time to introduce to students (let's say of high school age) the fact that there are those who are attempting to formulate a theory, based on the scientific, that creation by an outside force or entity/s is more factual than evolution.
OF COURSE, as far as teaching about religions in the schools, if it comes down to a battle versus peace, I'm all for teaching grade school kids 'mythology' as they tend to be more like fairy tales (only because they are not functioning religions). And then in middle school change the course to "world religions". Like every other subject taught in these years, it would simply serve as information to broaden the knowledge that this world is not all like Christian America.
I believe we have been bottle fed the American idealism and have been blinded by life within the borders of these United States. We need to teach much more diversification in our schools, and if adding a chapter in a book, called world religions, is about the challenge of Creation Scientists - than I say have at it. The more we expose our kids to , the more freedom of thought they will have, and more tolerant of others they will be. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/18/2007 11:54:34 AM | Well hello there pilgrims, i'm back again.
I think I shall stat with that nasty case of Flew. Other than the excelent job of debunking the hype around his mythical convesion to god that has already been done for me, there are two other little point I wish to make.
Firstly Flew is a Philospher, his degrea is in language humanities, for the less informed, that means the way we use language. He has also publicly denied any conversion on his part.
Secondly I would like to pick on this little little paraphrasing...
Since it is claimed that natural selection chose life forms that were more effective at reproducing and surviving, it would be a total contradiction for the same natural processes to selectively have chosen clumps of chemicals that can’t reproduce themselves. Everyone knows that natural selection could not impact the non-living, such as rocks, chemicals, or computers.
REALLY? because if you read the creationist arguments in here then you might get a diffrent view!
But the fact of the matter is that the primciples of natural selection can be appled to just about anything. For example the principle of selection through competion is an excelent model of how buissness grow and compete with each other.
Aditionally selection through enviromental agents can also be applied to chemicals. For example, if you are mixxing chemicals in an oxygen rich lab enviroment then you will get very few chemicals that are suseptable to REDOX reactions and those you do get will be unstable. Thus the enviroment has sellected for a certain make of chemicals. Oh and gues what, an oxygen rich atmophere is what the primordial earth had, thus it is only comon sense that the only mollecules that were created abundantly in the early atmoshphere were resistant to attack from oxygen, just like the majority of the chemicals that make up the living cell. Despite there being plenty of chemicals that the cell could have been made from, it is composed of a few set pollymers that all have similar properties as these were probably the only ones abundant in the enviroment.
claimed that natural selection chose life forms ......natural processes to selectively have chosen clumps of
CHOSE... CHOSEN ????? There was no Choice made, that in itself shows a lack of understanding or a deliberate distraction.
Thank you, save me having to do it myself.
And finnally...
A flower can not see the colors it has to attract a young lady of interest or the smell it uses.
So what dose this prove?
Oh and as a side note, flowers can actualy see, they are covered in cells containg chloroplasts, a light sensative organel. It setainly may not be the same type of vision as we have but they have an sense of the surounding light, and what else can you call that but vission.
A flower can not sense a bee as helping them procreate.
It dose not need to though, it meerly needs to produce pollen. I am fairly sure that the women in here are not aware of the number of sperm traveling around in thier woumb tubes, because they do not need to be aware of it, so long as the sperm do thier job.
A fruit did not design its self to be eaten and have aroma so some man can just spit out the seed and life goes on for the plant.
Quite right, that would be nautes job. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 7/18/2007 4:12:31 PM | Aparently this fourm is one sided. When views of someone of faith or called a creationist has a there views removed. Its ok in this fourm for my beliefs to be called a myth. And all the other coments I have seen about people who believe in creation. Why even have this question in this fourm. If it can not be discussed on both sides.
I was very carefull not to go to scripture. But express views on the other side of this fence.
enjoy your debate on the issue amongest those that agree with you. | |
|
|
| Page 149 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
