Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564

    New heading; Creation

    In this science section on the forum, we have a section for Evolution and a section for General Science, but we do no have a section we can call Creation, or Creation Science. Creation Science is a term that is often being used, so why not have a section of science devoted to it.

    Maybe the section on Evolution ought to be renamed Evolution Science.


    We have two opposite camps that can both use the same scientific tools and use the same evidence to support their case.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    In this science section on the forum, we have a section for Evolution and a section for General Science, but we do no have a section we can call Creation, or Creation Science. Creation Science is a term that is often being used, so why not have a section of science devoted to it.

    Maybe the section on Evolution ought to be renamed Evolution Science.


    We have two opposite camps that can both use the same scientific tools and use the same evidence to support their case.
    Good morning David,

    I'm really glad you are taking an interest in how to improve the forum. I think there is enough interest in Creationism to warrant creating a new section, but I cannot call it "Creation Science" because there is no such thing. Creationism is a religious doctrine, not a scientific discipline. This fact has been established in a variety of court cases. For example, the judge in the Dover case ruled that Intelligent Design is a not science.

    If you think I am wrong on this point, then please feel free to present evidence that Creationism is a science. If your evidence is valid, I will create the section with that title. It really should be very simple. All you need to do is present a scientific theory produced by "creation scientists" that has been empirically tested and verified by the evidence.

    Thanks!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Good morning David,

    I'm really glad you are taking an interest in how to improve the forum. I think there is enough interest in Creationism to warrant creating a new section, but I cannot call it "Creation Science" because there is no such thing. Creationism is a religious doctrine, not a scientific discipline. This fact has been established in a variety of court cases. For example, the judge in the Dover case ruled that Intelligent Design is a not science.

    If you think I am wrong on this point, then please feel free to present evidence that Creationism is a science. If your evidence is valid, I will create the section with that title. It really should be very simple. All you need to do is present a scientific theory produced by "creation scientists" that has been empirically tested and verified by the evidence.

    Thanks!

    Richard
    Hello Richard

    I am only using term that you and others might have quoted in passing. As I said, the same science/evidence is used or rejected in the support of Evolution or Creation. There are the same areas in science which are unknown to both Evolutionists and Creationists. Therefore, maybe just a section with the heading; 'Creation' will do. That will put Evolution alongside Creation under the heading of science. A subject such as Intelligent Design, is not confined to Christianity and should be included under science, but since the argument is rejected by Evolutionists, the subject is going to appear under Creation.

    BTW, I have watched the video you have posted the link to in another thread and I do not agree with the speaker's comment at the end when he says that only intelligent people would not believe in God or Creation. This is the problem for Evolutionists, who cannot accept that some of the brightest minds do not accept Evolution. Dr. David Berlinski, as far as I have ascertained, does not believe in God, nor does he hold that Evolution is proven, yet he is intelligent and was a molecular scientist before branching out into Philosophy and Mathematics.


    It is not true that all Creationists do not understand science. It could be said of scientists that one scientist does not understand the scientific field of another. I wonder whether all scientists understand the pure mathematics that supports their science. It does seem one-sided that pure mathematics should be used for proving things that are not testable by the scientific method. Pure mathematics is like speaking in a foreign language to those listening and expecting them to understand. It might be laborious, but these complex mathematical equations that are formulated to explain science must be explained is simple terms for anyone to understand. God's message does not require a high IQ to be able to understand it.

    Lets see what posts are created under the heading of 'Creation' to bring relevant arguments for it in one place and give it the same prominence on the forum as subjects under the heading of Evolution.

    All the best
    David
    Last edited by David M; 08-25-2014 at 11:24 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard

    I am only using term that you and others might have quoted in passing. As I said, the same science/evidence is used or rejected in the support of Evolution or Creation. There are the same areas in science which are unknown to both Evolutionists and Creationists. Therefore, maybe just a section with the heading; 'Creation' will do. That will put Evolution alongside Creation under the heading of science. A subject such as Intelligent Design, is not confined to Christianity and should be included under science, but since the argument is rejected by Evolutionists, the subject is going to appear under Creation.
    Good morning David,

    As explained in my previous post, it is impossible to "put Evolution alongside Creation under the heading of science" because "Creation" is not science. Indeed, it is antithetical to science. The same goes for "Intelligent Design" which was determined to be creationism, a religious doctrine rather than science, in a 135 page judgment in the Dover case.

    Your assertion that Creationists use "the same science/evidence" is not true. Scientists use the evidence to develop and test scientific theories. Creationists do not create scientific theories. They abuse the evidence and pit science against itself in their vain effort to make room for their religious dogmas.

    I think the best place for a discussion on Creationism would be in the religious section, since it is nothing but a religious doctrine. But I'm still open to any suggestions you may have.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    God's message does not require a high IQ to be able to understand it.
    "God's message" is literally incoherent. You, of all people, should know this because you reject many of the central doctrines of traditional Christianity, such as the Trinity, eternal life in heaven, judgment in hell, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Lets see what posts are created under the heading of 'Creation' to bring relevant arguments for it in one place and give it the same prominence on the forum as subjects under the heading of Evolution.
    Again, there is no equivalence between the science of evolution and the religion of creationism, so I don't really know where to put it. I'll give it some thought and hopefully by the end of today I'll have figured it out.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    155
    This is just an a review of my current thoughts on the topic in context of my current worldview.... this could change upon evaluation of any new or pertinent information on the subject.

    In my opinion Evolution is Science. Intelligent design is a belief in a designer. At one time i agreed that Intelligent Design should be taught as a "alternative" to Evolution. I now realize that such thought is possibly counterproductive, rather i think that Evolution should be embraced as Science that will either point to intelligent design or it will not. The whole point of science to to find the Truth "from the bottom up." If a designer is the source at the top of origins then the pursuit of Science it interpreted correctly, rationally, logically will eventually validate and provide support for one said designer. If there is no designer then it will not.
    I do not discredit "a top down investigation" of the objective truth of Reality. That starts with huge assumptions at the top to cascade down to find the implications of such thoughts. This Method however is not Science per se, even though all science is conceived and driven by top down ideas. The top down method definitely warrants much more investigation as a "What IF.." investigation.
    Based only on my personal beliefs Evolution IS the Science of Creation.... or Creation Science. There are many "Interpretations" of the current body of knowledge provided to us by Evolution. Some of them are correct and some of them are not. Evolution as a whole has many Gaps which is understandable since it is a "bottom up" methodology. I applaud the use of Science to try to fill in those Gaps. I also applaud the use of Religion or Philosophy to fill in those gaps.
    In many ways "Beliefs" are the direction we search and "Science" is the search itself in our quest for objective Truth which is God(or should be). I plan on starting a whole new thread dedicated to discussing this particular idea. The main assertion being that ALL of us operate from a belief in god(worldview) based on subjectivity. The problem is that when we are Given evidence or proof of GOD that is contradictory to our god, a vast majority of the time we automatically reject GOD based on out idolatry to our little god. I will try to explain this more fully in the new thread, along with evidence for this.

    In short we would all do well to AFFIRM that God is the "Same yesterday, today, and forever.", while also realizing that our our subjective experience called god should never be so ABSOLUTE. Otherwise we are guilty of idolatry.

    God is Absolute, our perception of Him should Never be.

    With Utter devotion to Love and Truth,
    Matthjar

    Of course this is just my current interpretation of Evolutionary data.... which could change and is not absolute. On my scales of interpretation Evolution has increased the need for a Creator and not diminished it. I respect the interpretation of others that view the data from a different context and try to understand why they interpret it the way that they do. The more our subjective interpretation is aligned with the objective truth the clearer picture or revelation of the actual truth we will understand and perceive.
    Last edited by Matthjar; 08-26-2014 at 01:01 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    In my opinion Evolution is Science. Intelligent design is a belief in a designer. At one time i agreed that Intelligent Design should be taught as a "alternative" to Evolution. I now realize that such thought is possibly counterproductive, rather i think that Evolution should be embraced as Science that will either point to intelligent design or it will not. The whole point of science to to find the Truth "from the bottom up." If a designer is the source at the top of origins then the pursuit of Science it interpreted correctly, rationally, logically will eventually validate and provide support for one said designer. If there is no designer then it will not.
    That's a very good point. It is possible that science could imply a designer. For example, if science advances to a point where we have a complete knowledge of natural law and we see something that we know could not be the product of natural law, it would be rational to conclude that it was designed. Of course, it would be absurd to conclude that something was designed if we are simply ignorant of the natural laws governing the phenomenon. That's why its so very foolish for creationists to assert "God did it" whenever they find something that science cannot yet explain. Science is very young. We've only known about things like General Relativity and DNA for less than a hundred years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    I do not discredit "a top down investigation" of the objective truth of Reality. That starts with huge assumptions at the top to cascade down to find the implications of such thoughts. This Method however is not Science per se, even though all science is conceived and driven by top down ideas. The top down method definitely warrants much more investigation as a "What IF.." investigation.
    Your categories of "bottom up" and "top down" are very useful. "Top down investigations" can lead to authentic insights, but really they only unfold what was implicit in the "huge assumptions" that you mentioned. And they are useless to establish the existence of things unknown, such as God, though that is how Christian apologists like William Lane Craig typically use them. He can prove God exists in just three simple steps through his silly-gism! Yeah, right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    Based only on my personal beliefs Evolution IS the Science of Creation.... or Creation Science.
    I'm sorry my friend, but I think that's a horrible use of language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    There are many "Interpretations" of the current body of knowledge provided to us by Evolution. Some of them are correct and some of them are not. Evolution as a whole has many Gaps which is understandable since it is a "bottom up" methodology. I applaud the use of Science to try to fill in those Gaps. I also applaud the use of Religion or Philosophy to fill in those gaps.
    But note: as science fills those gaps, knowledge displaces religion and philosophy which are based on ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    In many ways "Beliefs" are the direction we search and "Science" is the search itself in our quest for objective Truth which is God(or should be).
    That doesn't make sense to me. "Beliefs" are just things that we think are true. If they are justified by evidence, then they are "knowledge" (which epistemologists like to define as "justified true belief."

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    I plan on starting a whole new thread dedicated to discussing this particular idea. The main assertion being that ALL of us operate from a belief in god(worldview) based on subjectivity. The problem is that when we are Given evidence or proof of GOD that is contradictory to our god, a vast majority of the time we automatically reject GOD based on out idolatry to our little god. I will try to explain this more fully in the new thread, along with evidence for this.
    What makes you think everyone "operates from a belief in god"? I don't. And why do you say it is "subjective"? Do you deny the existence of objective knowledge?

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    In short we would all do well to AFFIRM that God is the "Same yesterday, today, and forever.", while also realizing that our our subjective experience called god should never be so ABSOLUTE. Otherwise we are guilty of idolatry.
    Why would anyone affirm that? The Bible is full of stories of God acting in history - the flood, the exodus, pillars of fire, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. He doesn't do anything like that in this modern age. So he's certainly "not the same" as he was back then, even if we assume he exists (which would be foolish, since he is presented in such primitive terms).

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    God is Absolute, our perception of Him should Never be.
    All you are really saying is that you think your concept that you call "God" is "absolute." If anything is subjective, that's it, because it's all in your head, literally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    Of course this is just my current interpretation of Evolutionary data.... which could change and is not absolute.
    Yes, data can change as more research is done. And your ideas about God can change too, so they are not "absolute."

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    On my scales of interpretation Evolution has increased the need for a Creator and not diminished it.
    How so?

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    I respect the interpretation of others that view the data from a different context and try to understand why they interpret it the way that they do. The more our subjective interpretation is aligned with the objective truth the clearer picture or revelation of the actual truth we will understand and perceive.
    I'm not sure that you have a solid grasp of the meaning of "objective." As you will recall, I define it in my article called The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality. It would be interesting to know if you agree with that definition, and if not, how you would define it.

    Great chatting!

    Shine on!



    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Good morning David,

    As explained in my previous post, it is impossible to "put Evolution alongside Creation under the heading of science" because "Creation" is not science. Indeed, it is antithetical to science. The same goes for "Intelligent Design" which was determined to be creationism, a religious doctrine rather than science, in a 135 page judgment in the Dover case.

    Your assertion that Creationists use "the same science/evidence" is not true. Scientists use the evidence to develop and test scientific theories. Creationists do not create scientific theories. They abuse the evidence and pit science against itself in their vain effort to make room for their religious dogmas.

    I think the best place for a discussion on Creationism would be in the religious section, since it is nothing but a religious doctrine. But I'm still open to any suggestions you may have.


    "God's message" is literally incoherent. You, of all people, should know this because you reject many of the central doctrines of traditional Christianity, such as the Trinity, eternal life in heaven, judgment in hell, etc.


    Again, there is no equivalence between the science of evolution and the religion of creationism, so I don't really know where to put it. I'll give it some thought and hopefully by the end of today I'll have figured it out.

    Richard
    Hello Richard

    I appreciate the point that Creation is not strictly science and is not a theory in the way that Evolution is. To some, Evolution is taught as if it is religion. The more I think about this, the more I think the heading 'Evolution' should be taken out of the science section on the forum.

    Evolution and Creation could both be put in 'General Discussion' section and maybe under the separate heading of 'Origins'. In my mind there can only be two possible origins, which are either Creation or Evolution. I do not allow for a third possibility that there is a God and that humans have evolved, or that God can be used to fill in the gaps associated with Evolution. If that idea is suggested, then it can be discussed under Creation or Evolution.

    The lesser alternative is to put Creation and Evolution in the Philosophy section under the sub-heading; Origins. When you look at the title of the posts already in the section of Evolution those posts appear to have general titles and not specific towards Evolution, even though the content of each post might have a connection with Evolution.

    An alternative could be to rename the to the heading of 'Evolution' and give it the name; 'Science of life'.

    In summary, there should be a section with sub-sections for both 'Evolution' and 'Creation', or the heading of Evolution should be renamed. Evolution and Creation should be given equal status if we are to have the heading of 'Evolution' present on the forum.

    All the best
    David

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •