And what other scientific theories are out there? What other “theory” has as much scientific validity as evolution?
But the topic is creationism, not “the existence of God”. The question was about the origin of the human species–did humans evolve from other primates? Acceptance of human evolution can be combined with various religious beliefs or philosophical systems, from atheistic humanism to theistic evolution.
NoClue: Scientific Theory doesn’t mean what you appear to think it means.
I feel we must have different ideas on just what “creationism” is.
I define it as beliefe in the literal word of Genesis, that the Earth and all life was made in six days.
To me, this is ludicrous. But, some believe it.
Obviously, I believe in God and in Creation. Though I accept the world view that accepted sciences have shown us, this doesn’t mean I have to accept all theories. Even Evolution comes down to your beliefe in it, not in proof. For, in the argument of Creation (not creationISM) Vs Evolution, there is not any absolute proof. At least, not yet.
I’ll take your points into consideration and maybe be back with more.
Is there absolute proof for anything? I would wager that you can not absolute proof that I exist. The best we have is science and scientific theories.
Creationism, BTW also includes ID.
Educate me. I am interested. (this is not sarcasm)
Here’s a good snippet:
"1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty–above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution–or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter–they are not expressing reservations about its truth."
Continue reading at:
To be honest, at this point I don’t know what NoClueBoy is talking about when he talks about “creation”. What we’re talking about here is the fact that the human species is descended from non-human animals. This has no direct connection with questions of the origin of the Universe; and acceptance of the fact of human evolution may or may not be combined with the religious belief that this process is guided by God.
There is no “absolute proof” of anything in science. There is no “absolute proof” that Mars has two moons or that water consists of “molecules” made up of “atoms” of “hydrogen” and “oxygen”. There are things for which there is overwhelming evidence. There is overwhelming evidence that human beings are descended from other, non-human primates, and that primates generally have branched off from other mammals–you’re related to chimpanzees or cats or zebras or pandas, in essentially the same way you’re related to your second cousins, only more distantly.
Well, I just reread Polycarp’s post. And I think I might have to back off my stance. Because he makes an excellent point: Evolution theory can be worked with, whether I believe in God or not.
Gotta love The Dope.
No Clue Boy: See my post above.
Or consider the following: the best way to win at any card game is to get up from your chair, walk around and look at the other players’ hands.
The object of doing science is to see what the evidence available in the natural world is and then determine what “rules” would lead to that evidence being what it is.
It is entirely plausible that God, being omnipotent, may very well have stopped the Earth’s rotation during the battle recorded in Joshua 10, arranged for the suspension of the law of angular momentum, caused the rest of Earth’s peoples to not realize that something remarkable had happened at that point in time, etc. It’s much more likely that the account has the aspect of legend, with miraculous events ascribed well after the fact to an actual event without them.
When you’re working within a discipline, you work by the rules of that discipline. It’s quite possible that God may have miraculously and subtly caused each and every instance of speciation known to biology. But it’s not data that can be gained from the natural world that He presumably created – so it’s invalid as a biological theory.
And the bottom-line question here is not whether the student is prepared to give by rote back the answers taught as dogma, but those who can “truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to [the] question: How do you think the human species originated?” (two quotes from original article juxtaposed)
I am a small-c creationist; I believe that God created the universe, the earth, life, and humanity, in accordance with His Divine Plan. But I believe that He left evidence of how He did this in nature, and that scientists have been discovering His techniques and creating theories that explain the data they have discovered, under concepts like the Big Bang, evolution, etc.
If “Scientific Creationism” were a valid scientific theory, then it would provide an alternative framework in which to understand that data. But everything I’ve seen come out of it has been special pleading, selectively sifting through the evidence of science in an effort to bolster a concept that is nothing more than an attempt to prove valid the human theory that the first few chapters of Genesis are a literal account of what they purport to record.
Does creationism have ANY validity whatsoever? Someone, please explain basic creationism to me. Are there actually people out there that believe humans have been around since the dawn of time (the earth)? Where did we come from? Mind you, not life, but humans.
I’m ignorant here. If you don’t accept that man evolved from the apes, what is the alternative. Man has existed for millions of years? Maybe humans were whooshed into existence some 10,000 years ago?
I just can’t believe there are any informed people out there who actually believe that the earth was created in, literally, 6 days.
Thank you, Poly. I learn everyday.
Jayrot, many people (maybe even some here) believe in literal creationism. I am not one of them. Do a web search of Creationism and you’ll be surprised by how much thought has gone into some people’s explanation of it.
ME B, I wasn’t trying to confuse. I was attempting to explain my view. I still don’t think that the OP’s professor was being open minded himself, but IANABS.
(Actually, my not too well presented views closely follow Poly’s. In my mind anyways. I just don’t quite have the debate gift)
Shhhh man!!
do you want to get busted?
This is exactly their view and if you don’t believe me, I have plenty of websites/messageboards to prove it:D .
From the story, the only thing the professor was asking about was about the scientific facts regarding the origin of the human species. What does being “open minded” mean in such a context?
Like Meatros said. At the risk of doing a little special promotion (since I’m on staff there), let me link to the Pizza Parlor’s “Order Here First” forum, where debates of this sort are common (on an even playing field). A typical thread is this one on “the taxonomy of Biblical ‘kinds’”.
So, I learn that I could indeed discuss the “science” of human origin without having to describe my theological views.
Now you tell me! :smack:
FWIW, I think BuckyBoy and MeatyMan have helped center my view on this OP.
But, you ARE going to Hell. :Dr not. Another thread? :dubious:
Is this discrimination? Yes, by definition. Is this illegal discrimination? Don’t think so. Is the professor an ass? Sounds like it to me. Does the student have a case? Nope.
I think there would be valid instances in which the teacher could deny a recommendation based on the student believing in Creationism. If the student is applying for a position researching evolution, there’s an obvious issue there. But what if the student just wants an internship doing medical research? Or wants to be a doctor? Is it impossible for a Creationist to be a good doctor? Of course not, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous, as is the professor’s blanket refusal to grant any Creationist a recommendation, regardless of how good the student is, and what the recommendation is for.
MEBuckner, your analogies are all off. A better one would be: Would you give a recommendation to an astronomy student applying for an internship studying the planets in our solar system if he was skeptical about the Big Bang? My answer is: sure. The Big Bang is pretty widely accepted, but has little to do with the current orbits of the planets 'round these parts. Similarly, evolution is pretty much a given in the scientific community, but it has nothing to do with how to perform a heart transplant, or how to build a better vaccine.
This professor has an obvious issue with Creationists, and wants to make a political statement - no more, no less. It’s unfortunate that some perfectly good students may be caught in the crossfire, but hopefully they have other teachers who are more open-minded. Ultimately, though, it’s the professor’s right to be an ass, and the University’s right to support him.
Jeff
Exactly so. A Christian doesn’t sit down in Physics class for an exam and answer the question “Identify that forces that are acting upon this object” by writing out all the forces and then saying “but only if God allows them to, and subject to his will to change them at any time, and subject also to the divine force which is not predictable.” He might believe that, but he shouldn’t write it. You won’t get very far in physics by giving that answer.
If this case is as cut and dry as it looks in the papers, i think the prof should write a letter of recommendation…one that blasts the kid, pointing out his quick jump to legal action over invisible prejudices, not being a team player, and inability to grasp simple concepts.
If ever a time for God to come down and tell someone “Hey, stupid, WHAT do you think you are doing?” it is now…