No. There’s absolutely no faith involved. It’s all based on empiricism: the careful and skeptical inquiry as to the evidence of the senses.
If you assert that my reliance on other people’s evidence shows that I have ‘faith’ in them, I will again disagree. I have confidence surely; scientists in general have demonstrated their trustworthiness. They aren’t perfect, but I’ve found them to be darn good.
If you assert that my reliance on empiricism constitutes ‘faith’, I again have to disagree. Empiricism has proven itself of value in my daily life, without fail, my whole rational life.
Science has never offered absolute certainty as to anything, and I don’t ask that. There is nothing in this world that I’m absolutely certain about, and that’s just fine with me. But there are a lot of things I’m pretty darned sure are true, and if you want me to change my belief* then you have to offer me evidence. If you don’t want me to change my belief, why are you talking to me?
*I’m using ‘belief’ as: to accept as true without regard as to the means of that acceptance.
Ok. Let’s agree that we’re on a fact finding mission here. We’re interested in truth. That’s what ‘science’ is all about, correct?
Not being trained in the discipline of scientific methodologies, all I can bring to this forumis an open and logical mind. Accordingly, I’ll leave my presuppositions and prejudices atthe door and make a sincere attempt look at this rationally.
It seems there are several (at least) possibilities. Here is a general list ranging from one extreme to the other:
Option 1) There is no creator. Never was. All the living organisms we see today arrived
through a process of abiogenisis. The primordial ooze was not alive and it took billions of years for life to spontaneously develop. Proponents of this theory claim ‘it had to happen sooner or later.’ This initial life form took a purely evolutionary course down through the ages resulting in us. So here we are. (A variation on this theme is panspermia-the theorythat life traveled here through space from another place in the universe, followed by the same evolutionary process).
The main problem here is obvious. Where did the initial ‘stuff’ come from? Was it created
in the big bang? What caused the big bang and what, if anything existed before? The answer may be unknowable. Another big problem: abiogenisis has not been replicated inthe laboratory. It’s my understanding that for science to be accepted, results must be
reproducible. Brick wall.
Option 2) There was a creator who initially set all this in motion, but then abandoned it. Became bored, was killed or died. Not omnipotent. Sort of a ‘sub-creator’. Perhaps brought the stuff from somewhere else. We’re still left with the nagging question “Where did this guy come from?” Brick wall.
Option 3) There was a creator who still exists today. The ultimate, omnipotent,
always-was-always-will-be-supreme-being. Set everything we know today in motion with
the last big bang, just one in an infinite series of big bangs. Each successive big bang
creates a whole new set of physical laws and lasts-who knows-billions of years. This
creator established the physical laws that all the universe must follow. Evolution through natural selection on this planet is a natural course of events. We all have awareness of the existence of this creator, but differ markedly on its/his/her nature.
Option 4) Some variation of option 3. The creator always was and always will be. But our scientists are right. The earth is several billion years old. However, we (humans) are not the progeny of apes. We were in fact created as humans and are not a component of the rest of the evolutionary process on this planet. David called this ‘theistic evolution’. This is the theory I am most comfortable with. I can reconcile it with both real science and faith.
Option 5) Genesis is literally true. The earth is only about 6000 years old. God literally created Adam & Eve. All the provable scientific data to the contrary cannot be rationally explained by proponents of this theory. But still, science is an evolving process. What is known today was unknown yesterday. Proof is not outside the realm of possibility sometime in the future.
I don’t think this is correct (the last line). It didn’t have to happen. Looking at it from the point of view of viewing all planets in the universe, then statistically the chances of it happening seem darned near 100%, but that’s still not the same thing.
I wouldn’t say these are really problems at all. There are theories now as to where the “stuff” came from, involving all sorts of quantum mechanical things. I can’t say if any of them are right, but that doesn’t make it a problem with the theory, or should I say “theories,” because the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution are all separate theories.
Again, you see “big problems” just because a gap in knowledge hasn’t been filled completely. There are a number of hypotheses on abiogenesis, and many people are working on them in the lab. One problem is that it’s hard to “create” life when life already exists. Also, again, abiogenesis is different than evolution. For all we know, life didn’t originate on Earth, but was transported here in meteors. But that doesn’t change the fact of evolution once that life got here.
I love the way you ignore any option you don’t like. Who says he became bored, was killed, died, wasn’t omnipotent, etc.? If a god created everything and let it go, that isn’t a brick wall – it’s a belief held by a number of people on this very message board, in fact. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s a “brick wall.”
I don’t even know where you’re going with this one. Little bangs? We all have awareness? What are you talking about and where did you come up with it?
Wrong. That’s not what I said. You are describing a variant of creationism – that man is special and was created as man.
Except that, by the scientific meaning of the word, it’s not a theory. It’s religion, just like all the other branches of creationism.
That’s great. When they have their evidence, they can provide it. I’m not holding my breath.
Not quite. This is definitely not what is generally known as theistic evolution, and you cannot reconcile it with real science. Plenty of evidence exists which indicates that we descended from a common ancestor with apes. Why do you accept all other findings of science, yet reject this one? It cannot be based on the evidence, so I must assume it simply makes you uncomfortable therefore you reject it.
This mindless ranting about faith, religion, the Big Bang and such has been very entertaining, but I have one small question.
What is the scientific evidence that supports Creationism?
Is there something in your religion that forbids you to answer this? Is there a passage in the Bible that says it’s a sin to discuss this? Maybe some sort of mass hypnosis that stops you from even seeing the question?
Or maybe, just maybe, there is no evidence.
Incidentally, your failure to answer my earlier response to your argument from first cause is particularly serious given your last post. You seem to feel that the problem of “where did God come from” is only a problem if God (whatever that word means) is not taking an active role in the universe. What is this thing you call God, and where did it come from? And how on earth is belief in it supported by science? You seem to be positing that the need for a causeless cause implies some sort of sentient entity who is continually interested in human affairs, which seems like a lot of stew from very little meat to me. Do you believe that electrons are sentient? That gravity consciously intervenes in human history?
Bzzzzzt! The dark ages were the result of the failure of the organizing institution of the Roman Empire in the face of massive, disruptive migrations of people from western Asia. The basic civil infrastructure of western Europe crumpled in the face of that onslaught. In region held by the Eastern Roman Empire, (a Christian bastion), science and engineering proceeded at about the same rate that it had previously proceeded during the pagan Roman Republic and Empire. The one organizing institution that remained viable in western Europe was the Christian Church. As a defensive measure, it created the monasteries and convents as havens from the general chaos of the outside world. A great deal of science (in the form of agricultural development) was nurtured and bloomed in the monastic environment. The use of water mills and windmills developed during the middle ages at a time when the Church forbade slavery. (Wind- and water-powered toys and novelties were known to the ancient world, but the general prevalence of slavery seems to have reduced the interest in applying the principles to actual labor.)
Ironically, slavery was re-introduced as a concept at about the time that the hold of the Church on the thoughts of Europe were being broken. Astronomy was also extended under the protection and cooperation of the Church. Copernicus and Kepler were both given funds and shelter by the Church and Galileo was enthusiastically supported by several groups within the Church until he decided to launch personal attacks on people for not bowing down to his insights–including those that contained errors.
Members of the Church have, indeed, opposed scientific and engineering developments on far too many occasions. The “dark ages,” however, were not the fault of religion, or of Christianity in particular, which actually supplied the only light available at the time.
As far as I recall, Islam is a religious movement. It was from Islam that Europe acquired much (most?) of the basic mathematics that has led to our current level of scientific development.
I will not foolishly claim that religion has been uniformly supportive of scientific advancements. The opposite claim is equally erroneous.
[/hijack]
Well, there is a link, which always comes up. Where did the ooze come from which links the biology with the physics? How do evolutionists explain the ooze = big bang. How is the big bang explained? There is physics for it but they are very questionable. Given that there is no real explanation all camps are left out in the cold. The answer, which is valid for all camps, is God. Strict Evolutionists have no problem with a prime mover that set off the big bang. The are no attributes for the prime mover though. So an evolutionist can have faith in God, a belief in God but there are no attributes. Any evolutionist who denies this much of a God is without real justification. But why bother to deny this God, defense or denial is beyond reason.
So where does that leave a holy believer in God? For a rational person its evolution. For anything else it’s a structure you impose of your free will. If its based in reality then science helps to straighten out exactly what God set in motion. For a rational person there’s not much around except evolution.
I bring this up as denial of faith or belief is carried to the extreme by some evolutionists without merit, at least for the faith and belief I’ve described. I’m seeing in these debates God Vs no God, which polarizes the debate when there is actually room on both sides for limited agreement, which might help some.
The problem is, when you “answer” a question by saying “God did it,” you really aren’t saying anything meaningful.
Whether you are a believer or not, if you’re interested in understanding a phenomenon in a rational manner, the God answer doesn’t help any. It doesn’t allow you to make predictions. It doesn’t allow you to generalize seemingly different phenomena, nor does it allow you to find a subtle distinction that separates two seemingly similar phenomena.
Rationally speaking, “God did it” is just meaningless noise.
Are they linked somehow? Yes. But the Big Bang is not part of evolutionary theory. Nor is abiogenesis. They stand alone. Attacking the Big Bang and claiming to be attacking evolution is simply and totally wrong. It is, however, an old creationist trick. They especially like to use it in debates. When a creationist debater goes up against a biologist, he attacks astronomy and physics. When he goes up against a physicist, he attacks biology. Pretty cool trick, eh? Makes for good debating technique, but lousy science.
“God” is not a valid scientific answer. It’s like the old Gary Larson cartoon, where the scientist has laid out some equations on the blackboard with “And then a miracle occurred” in the middle. God may be fine for philosophy, but not in the scientific realm. “I don’t know” is the valid scientific answer. Filling the empty spaces with “God” is not.
And many do. But that doesn’t make it part of the science.
First: I haven’t “emerged from the woodwork.” I’ve been here since the beginning of this particular board and have engaged in creation/evolution discussions from the onset.
Second: Where is the ridicule? Or perhaps you merely see the description of facts as riducule. (That would be an actual observation by me of you. Take it as ridicule if you want; it’s not. It’s merely an observation.)
Then you evidently flunked Reading & Comprehension. Upon even a cursory reading of that “cute little quiz,” one can readily see that I DID NOT TAKE IT! I indicated that the questions are irrelevant in this discussion.
I read it. Actually, I wasn’t all that impressed. Creationists are demanding that “creation science” be taught in the public schools as science. It’s not science. But since they’re claiming it is, let’s see some scientific evidence of it. And I don’t mean cmkeller’s ludicrous assertion that a million people saw some miracle in the Old Testament therefore the whole book is true. I mean evidence.
Can’t see as how it would hurt…or help. Again, what is the evidence that “creation science” is, in fact, science?
I’m actually a bit disappointed he answered the questions, but his answers were, in fact, sterling. But his beliefs and mine and anyone else’s other than the creationists’ are irrelevant in this discussion as the original question was, and remains, WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT CREATION SCIENCE IS SCIENCE?
I respect that theory, but now I would like to see that proof.
~tomndebb
Ouch, that hurt, but I concede–for the most part.
I stated that since I basically had no time to write a comprehensive post. I did not mean it as an absolute in the least.
Maybe my history is bad, but I distincly remeber a period of time where science was generally held as Heresy.
~trout1
I’m gonna use your logic to answer this one–or rather lack of logic
“The big bang occured just cause.”
If you need an explaintion of this, which I highly doubt, but since some might here it is. You say that GOD is valid for all, but where did GOD come from? Oh that’s right, he just was. Ok, same logic with big bang–cept we have some questionable, but plausable theories on it.
uhh and this is revelent how?
-bored2001
oh yea, I almost forgot,
~adam
That quote and comment was meant for imfamus, not you. I screwed up the UBB quote code.
slythe, I know you won’t be terribly surprised to find out that Intelligent Design, at least, isn’t even claimed by its proponents to be a theory, and so (surprise ;)) there’s no specific position taken that can be characterized as the ‘Intelligent Design Theory’.
The initial link that CalifBoomer provided, which was a paean to the Intelligent Design ‘Theory’, has the following quote from Phillip Johnson:
In other words, Intelligent Design is a dodge, a non-theory, a political device that gives a number of different stripes of Christian anti-evolutionists a bit of common cover.
Newsflash, Adam, CalifBoomer, and any other creationists in the discussion: back in the mid-19th century, not only was the previous explanation of origins (‘special creation’, IIRC) thoroughly shredded, but also an alternative theory, the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution, was put into play that stood up to extensive attempts at debunking. That’s how the evolutionists got the ball.
Now that they’ve got the ball, how do you get it back? The same way they got it to begin with: thoroughly shred the existing theory - evolution - and put up a convincing theory of your own that stands up to a generation or two of debunkers.
But as Johnson himself admits, Intelligent Design isn’t a theory at all. And the viability of young-earth creationism was dismissed well before evolution came along; special creation, the explanation of origins that evolution replaced, had itself replaced young-earth creation.
So there’s nothing to put up against evolution. The creationists not only don’t have the ball, but they have no mechanism for getting it back. Until someone comes up with a bona-fide creationist theory that is subject to falsification, that’s the way it will continue to be.
Enough of voting for the lesser of evils - vote Cthulhu 2000!
CalifBoomer - if you’re going to attempt to insult people here, recycling Spiro Agnew’s golden oldies isn’t going to impress anyone. You’ve got to do better than that, in this crowd!
Oh, they care about other audiences, too. School boards, local citizens, politicians, and anybody else who’ll listen. They’d love to have a chance to convince a judge, but they blew that already when the judges had the nerve to ask about the science. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Monty! You successfully managed to embed a quote within a quote! Every time I try that, the inner quote directive is ignored. How did you manage this fantastic feat?! And how can I do it too?!!
Right not a lot of meaning to a God who’s without attributes - just a term. For me the referent is the current theory behind the big bang but should that become know then my term will have to slide to question the events responsible that new theory. So I don’t see it as meaningless noise (but it’s not very far from it). I see it, God the term, as about equal to current theory of events behind the big bang. So God is in this sense the events that are currently just about impossible to speculate about. Such a mild referent is in no way limiting to speculation about the beaming brilliance of His light ->> which currently is the events which define the big bang. Semantics Dad that’s about it.
Davidb
Right, but I did not do that, but the link is always made in these types of discussions and I’m sure you know why. Can an evolutionist say the ooze happened? “He” doesn’t actually have to be an evolutionist. A person could say the ooze happened as a result of the big bang. So no evolutionist needed here - the ooze happens and then we can count alleles with the evolutionists and keep the big bang separate.
Humm - for the “I don’t know” Vs God - I don’t see a lot of problems here with both things being so vague. Again God (from above) does not preclude scientific inquiry. At this level of abstraction its senseless bickering.
Monty: You read talk.origins and you weren’t impressed. I worship that site. And don’t associate me with Kansas. I didn’t say anything that warranted that low blow.
Bored2001: Again I think our positions are different by vague semantics.
