David, I think you mean Deism. Theism refers to the belief in God or gods.
As for creationism, if people are going to look to the Bible as the source of scientific fact, they might as well believe in geocentricism and asquareearth.
Yeah, I have that site already bookmarked. It’s a bit refreshing that they have lots of material, but the problem with that site is, is that they are (IMO) a disingenious. For example I don’t like the implication between evolution and Nazism.
I agree, and I’ve actually seen such an attitude of all-or-nothing. It’s a shame because in order to get people on their side they present their interpretation of the bible as the only interpretation. Slighty Hijack: What are the Marian Doctrines?
I agree. I’ve also found that simply stating something to the effect of “Jesus saves” holds very little water. I find that a little contradictory because generally these same people are very adament about not being able to get to heaven based on “works”. I could be making a bad analogy here, but that’s the way I think.
I’ve witnessed a few 180 degree turns, and I think the people are better for it. Unfortunately I was not involved in the turn, I witnessed the before and after from the individuals. The turns that I have seen all involved face-to-face discussion though, so I don’t think it translate as well on messageboards. I do know of one 90 degree turn, where the person accepts more about evolution but still requires a form of creationism to maintain their faith (a creationism that still says evolution is invalid that is).
The scientific method is not useful for explaining one-time events such as the origin of our universe: There can be no reproducibility. There is no variance in the data. It is impossible to invert a singular Hessian. One cannot conduct an experiment on a one-time event. None of the assumptions are fulfilled. You can draw the slope any way you like with a sample of one.
The only thing that can attempt to explain a one-time event is a theory, which, by definition is not a law or immutable truth. There is no scientific proof regarding the origin of the universe, despite what some may believe.
The best approach, IMHO, is to observe the body of evidence and make a decision based on what seems to best explain this unique event, realising that any two people may arrive at different conclusions when presented with ostensibly the same evidence, much like differences can be found among jurors at the same trial or witnessess to the same event.
As a Christian, I have no trouble believing both the Bible and evolution.
After all, when you read Genesis 1 from a scientist POV, it basically outlines the steps of evolution (planet - water/land - plants - sun/moon - fish/fowl - mammals/man)
A little jumbled but the idea is there. How else to you discribe it so that a bronze age person can understand?
Also I think that God has a wicked sense of humor (Hey! Look what happens when I do this!!) Hence, we get dinosaurs, mules, giraffes, and TV evangelists.
First of all, Lorenzo, let me say that while I disagree with you, I respect you, your right to your beliefs, and your courtesy and eloquence in discussing them.
A good question. Trouble is, I would claim that it applies far more to creationism than evolution. If you talked to a biologist who studies the process of evolution, asked her to explain how evolution works, and then asked “are you 100% certain that every single word you just said is precisely correct”, she would (if she were a remotely good and responsible scientist) admit that she was not certain. The theory of evolution, as it is understood today, is not set in stone. It is being continuously investigated, tested, and updated. (Which is not to say that there are not some scientists or evolution-believers who are close-minded assholes).
By contrast, creationists, stereotypically at least, believe in the inerrancy of the bible. Which means, by definition, there are tenets of their belief that can not ever possibly change even slightly.
Suppose that the truth of the matter is close to what evolutionists believe, but they are currently crucially wrong about 15% of things. I have no doubt that, eventually, they’ll get it right.
On the other hand, suppose that the truth of the matter is close to what creationists believe, but they are currently crucially wrong about 15% of things. Well, there they will stay, 15% away, forever.
**
This I must also respectfully disagree with. Suppose, for a moment, that the theory of evolution is fundamentally correct. If it continues to be studied and discussed for generations to come, and easy-to-understand clarifications are added to it, and eventually it is such a solid intellectual edifice that there are no remotely reasonable arguments against it… there will still be people who believe in creationism. As is their right.
**
Again, I must take issue. (I assume you’re discussing the Big Bang here, as opposed to evolution, given that evolution isn’t really a “one-time event”.) Suppose that you become a world authority in the fields of cosmology, astrophysics and quantum mechanics (assuming, of course, that you aren’t already ). After years of thought and research, you publish a new paper proposing a newly revamped quantum model of the Big Bang. Despite the fact that the Big Bang occurred only once, billions of years ago, there are still experiments that can be performed to verify your model of it. For instance, the Lorenzo Model might predict very specific things about levels of cosmic background radiation, neutrino flux capacitance, the weather on Pluto, or other such things. If your model correctly predicts what astronomers observe, that is very strong evidence that your model is correct. If it is correct and comprehensive (ie, answers all questions), then it will eventually find widespread acceptance.
Of course, it still doesn’t prove anything, in a mathematical sense. However accurate and useful a model the Lorenzo Model turns out to be, there’s no way to prove that God didn’t create the universe 4000 years ago with evidence of the Lorenzo Model built into it, or for that matter that God didn’t create the universe umpteen billion years ago, and set the Lorenzo Model in motion.
To sum up, I think it is definitely possible for science to meaningfully and rigorously investigate and model one-time happenings such as the big bang. And doing so in no way argues against the existence of God.
I think the “sample of one” issue is valid and a stopper pertaining to scientific experimentation but can’t really support it without breaking out the books.
On a whole, I’d say that the SDMB has much more civil and intellectual debates than other boards (and as you’ve read I’ve been to several). Maybe it’s the way the boards are set up and the interviening Mods, but I find open discussion here to be really a key quality of this board that other boards just don’t have.
I don’t think that MaxTheVool was constructing a syllogism, but rather was stating what the evidence shows about the position of Creation Science.
For example, the book Scientific Creationism from the Institute For Creation Research (ICR), El Cajon, CA says the following: “… it is precisely because Biblical revolution is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture.”
I think, then, that the point was that the ICR at least, starts with the Bible as absolutely true which means that “rightly interpreting” scientific facts results in reinterpreting them until they agree with the Bible. Therefore, if the ICR position is wrong in some aspects it will stay wrong in those same aspects. There is no self correcting mechanism when you insist that your answer must agree with a position that is stated as true in advance.