First of all, a scientific theory is different than a law.
Secondly (and most importantly given what you are getting at), nobody cares if people want to believe in a literal Creation, whether the Creator was the so-called Judeo-Christian God several thousand years ago, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn last Thursday.
What people care about is that accurate science, not dogmatic theology, is taught in public schools.
Third of all, Most religious people reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific discoveries, evolution amongst them.
You mind helping me out with the distinction, provide some links, etc.? I thought a “law” was merely a succinct version of a theory, e.g., Newton’s Second Law can be expressed as F = m x a, instead of a doctoral dissertation’s worth of words. I have always gone under the assumption that a Scientific Law is no more permanent than a Scientific Theory–both are subject to change, revision, and even wholesale rejection. After all, science can’t prove anything; we let the mathematicians play with that Ball o’ Fun.
Because science makes no irrefutable claims, but only claims capable of contradiction (Hypotheses, Theories and Laws) it is able to develop logically towards a more certain description of reality (although this does nort exclude all error.) Even the original simple beliefs (axioms) are open to reinterpretation using the scientific method (what if?- experiment).
Because religion and other non-scientific systems of belief make irrefutable claims, they are never able to advance from the initial beliefs (axioms).
Oh, if only that were true. Sure, many people don’t care, thank goodness. But alas, some people do care a little too much, at least from my personal experience. No amount of “I don’t support the removal of Evolution from the schools, I don’t desire Creation to be taught in school” is sufficient for them. It just bugs some folks that anyone would believe in Creation, no matter how low-key and private they are about their beliefs.
That’s a slight hijack, and I’m just speaking from personal experience.
Science doesn’t care about religion. Science only cares about what it can directly observe. Religion, by defintion, deals with facets of life that can NOT be directly observed (this is a very bizarre and oft-misunderstood phenomena known as “faith”).
You’ve got it backwards, IMOSHO… it’s generally religion who views scientific views to be “attacks” on its own dogma. After all, if the Big Bang theory is correct (so the thinking goes), then that would mean that the universe/Earth/whatever wasn’t created in six days… so therefore, the science must be wrong. The saddest part is, however, that the scientific studies needn’t be incompatible with religious beliefs. After all, religion is chock-full of “parables” and “symbolism”… why must the Creationism as explained by Genesis be taken literally?
(Note: When I say “religion” in thie post, I’m generally referring to Christianity and Judaism).
Well, we went down that road before, yosemitebabe.
Nutshell: If someone posts here that they believe in a literal Creation and also accept the evidence, nobody would argue with them. In fact, please show me when this happened. I don’t think you can.
When people start saying “I believe this because…” and proceed to talk about bad science, yes, they will get called out. And well they should. We are here to fight ignorance, are we not?
To best prove this: Navigator (occassional poster here and friend from the LBMB and later Pizza Parlor days) and I had a nice dinner in person several months back. We spoke of religion, among many other things. He is a Creationist, but he has no quarrel with science. Guess how much the subject came up… It didn’t.
I don’t think that people are running up to you at church and saying, “You believe in a literal Creation?” with wild eyes and when you nod in the afirmative, they start calling you a moron.
But ages ago you started a “Why do you care?” thread and we hashed that one out then. My views have not changed, and I don’t think yours have either. Que sera sera…
I note that the thread title is “When will evo’s and creato’s learn?” (ghastly though those two diminuitives sound.)
Not only should evolutionists not tar and feather creationists as “loonies”, but creationists should allow evolutionists their own freedom of belief.
I had a friend in school once, a JW. She was quite earnest in her belief that the fossils found were made of porcelain. I left her alone with this, but she was quite vocal as to her surprise that I believed differently. We kept off the subject after a while – probably too disturbing for either of us.
You know some weird JW’s Icewolf. Of course I’m not quite certain there’s any other kind.
Just for the record though JW’s aren’t last-Thursdayists according to official church doctrine. They believe the Earth is billions of years old, have no problem with plate tectonics, accept that dinosaurs walked the Earth millions of years ago and that the fossil record is an accurate description of what lived when. They just believe that animals were created over a period of millennia, that man was the last animal created and that the first humans were made about 6000 ya.
Porcelain? I can see how that would freak you out.
Not wanting to start off * yet another * creationism vs evolution debate on these boards, the problem, for creationists, is that a lot of scientific theory and evidence does point towards evolution. If the creationist does not want to accept the science, then she/he must at least find a way to explain it. Thus, what have been generally accepted scientific practices, eg carbon and other forms of dating, are called into question. This upsets the evolutionists because their beloved science is being called into question, and science upsets the creationists because their beloved religion is being called into question.
If you, for religious reasons, believe in creation, then of course you have to challenge generally accepted science. there is nothing wrong with doing that, that’s how science advances. Just ask Einstein (and if you do, let me know how you did it ;)). This is not necessarily ** bad science **, as ** Satan ** calls it, just an interpretation of science that doesn’t fit the established viewpoint, and therefore gets criticised. In many cases this is justified, in others people are shot down without fair consideration.
There have been endless dabates about creationism vs evolution on the board, and yet the issue goes nowhere. Creationists continue to believe in creation, and evolutionists continue to believe in evolution.
I would disagree. There is a difference between honestly challenging the established scientific viewpoint, and blindly spouting off sound bites because you don’t like the conclusions that science finds. How many times, just in the period that you’ve been on the board, have you read someone talking about the way the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution? How many times, again just in your experience, once it has been pointed out that the 2nd Law doesn’t work that way, has the original poster said ‘Oh, sorry, my mistake; I must have misunderstood’?
It isn’t really like there is anything new under the sun in the field of Creation “Science”. I don’t think Satan or anybody else could be considered out of line for labeling the current body of Creationis knowledge Bad Science (or Good Mythology, take your pick).
This upsets people who appreciate science for what it is.
There hasn’t been a single claim by a Creationist which has held up to scrutiny by mainstream scientists. Not a one. Go through the archives of this board when David B would start threads specifically designed for Creationists to show their evidence. Every trick in the book has been exposed as either honest mistakes or willful deceit.
And as has been said a million times, nothing about science can ever cause someone to question their faith, unless their faith is pretty damn weak in the first place. Because when you start to demand evidence of your faith - and falsified evidence at that - how strong can it be?
Why? Religion = faith. Science = evidence. Sounds like you’re mixing up the two ideas here just as they do.
No, shot down without fair consideration would be ignoring new evidence or concerns.
This shows the scientific response to common Creationist claims. How common are these claims? Well, back in my days at LBMB (A fundamentalist Christian haven), I could refute everything that was said in threads of 70+ posts with this one link. IN spite of this, the same complaints still come up.
As such, these claims are not ignored. They are answered quite well. Which is the very definition of “fair consideration,” don’t you think?
To constantly bring up items which have long been answered is not “peer review,” it is time-wasting folly.
I suggest that you read this link Buddika’s 300 Creationist Lies Index. It specifically takes on the claims of Dr. Kent Hovind. Dr. Hovind is often caught repeating the same lies in his public appearances and still sells video tapes which contain refuted material.
His so-called “$250,000 for proof or evidence of evolution” challenge shows his complete lack of understanding and respect for actual science.
He was caught making up a debate with a mainstream scientist who never even heard of Hovind. As such, it wsn’t too surprising that he “backed out,” as Hovind predicted he would. :rolleyes:
Finally, the whole point of science, as you say, is to continue to look for new data and evidence and that if the data collected shows that a hypothesis or even a theory is in doubt, the original ideas have to be modified or even thrown away entirely if the evidence doesn’t substantiate those ideas.
Simply put, ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE which contradicts their interpretation of the Bible is summarily dismissed. As in, Creation Scientists by the nature of their title alone will not modify or change their original hypotheses and will REJECT any evidence, no matter how accurate, that does so.
This most DEFINITLEY =/= good science. In fact, it’s pretty much =/= to science, period!
Sure! Just as long as the Creationists:
a) Stop trying to bring Creationism into the public schools.
b) Stop lying about scientific “facts.”
c) Stop spouting that one has to believe in a literal Creation to even be a Christian.
I guarantee you, if that happened, even the staunchest skeptics wouldn’t make a case against it and would be happy to live and let live.
That statement in and of itself does not speak to a literal seven day creation. It starts a BIG discussion on what does ‘day’ mean, and many creationists haggle over that one word. Putting ‘yom’ aside and looking only at the english word day, it can be used in many forms other than the literal 24 hour day.
But that ain’t what we’re talking about…
The dark one continued…
I guess there are some that would dismiss any and all data that is contrary, and then start putting a box around God, and making him nice and small to fit into their lifes. There are others that might say, yes I see how you could come to that conclusion, but I feel this way. Not because the evidence is wrong, but because the evidence can tell two stories. Additionally, the evidence that a believer has in the scriptures is tossed out by the skeptic, summarily dismissed. I think I see a True Scotsman in their somewhere.
I’m not a creation scientist, nor do I play one on TV. But there are some naturalists that REJECT any evidence that doesn’t fit into a materialistic paradigm. Doesn’t it cut both ways?
Well I agree with that. The statement doesn’t say that the Holy Scriptures should be designated a High School Science text book. I think that they expect that science and an interpretation of the scriptures should square if they both are true.
We shouldn’t get into arguments that the Bible says Pi equals 3, but that is three is close enough to 3.145… to warrant a good enough estimate to make a nice shaped bowl about 2800 years ago.
OH Jesus! (Just an expression, not an invocation for a higher power/being to intervene on my behalf.)
The human race was created in a genetics laboratory by a highly advanced alien race about a quarter of a million years ago. They actually created several variants of the same species. They then dumped us on this planet and have sat back to observe and takes notes ever since.
Every now and then, they come down and collect a few samples for examination, sometimes returning them, sometimes not, for ineffable alien reasons.
During the reign of the Pharaohs, the alien version of PETA tried to interfere and “free” us lab animals from the evil clutches of the alien scientists, but have since abandoned their quest. Hence the pyramids.
I wasn’t actually thinking of that sort of scenario - I am sure you are correct, though.
Sure, when someone says “I believe this BECAUSE” - and then goes on to rattle on about the “because” - they’re asking for a debate. But if they say (when asked, usually) “Uh, actually I kinda believe this, no, don’t really want to discuss it, I don’t generally enjoy getting into such discussions” then I expect that such a person should be left alone. Why not? They aren’t initiating a debate, they aren’t explaining the because, or trying to refute the “other side’s” point of view. They just have a belief, and they figure it’s their own damned business.
No, not in real life generally. But on message boards, it’s not that uncommon. I can think of another message board I used to frequent, where that exact thing happened, more than once.
No, my views have not changed. I stay away from the Creation/Evolution threads because I have no desire to go into it. And I have NO idea why anyone would “care” what the hell I believe, anyway. (By the way, have you ever noticed that I have never been too specific about what I believe, exactly? That’s how careful I am about it all!)
I think the Nutshell for me is: No matter what you believe, for some people, the “believing” is enough to make them “care”. No matter how low key you are, no matter how unobtrusive you are, no matter that you have no desire or intent to influence society or public policy - they will still CARE anyway. And perhaps even pester you about it. Not all, but some, will still frigging care.
My point exactly. I am of course referring to creationists who want to reconcile science with their religion, which many, but not all, do.
Agreed, although there is nothing wrong with showing, or trying to show, that your faith doesn’t necessarily fly in the faith of science. It is seen as a valuable witnessing tool.
No, I’m not. Many people believe that the two are not necessarily irreconcilable, and that science can actually back up aspects of their faith. Why should there not be evidence that someone’s faith is based on something concrete? Religion is not all unprovable beliefs, although, there will always be an element of unprovable belief of course, otherwise it wouldn’t be religion.
I wasn’t getting at you here, Satan, just using a phrase you had used. As long as the claims are always given fair consideration - agreed. It has long been a criticism of scientists, by creationists amongst others, that they are blind to anything that doesn’t fit the status quo - the same criticism that is made of creationists ignoring anything that doesn’t fit the Bible. I am not criticising anyone in particular for this, nor referring to this board, in case you think I am! I have found that any new argument introduced on this board is given proper consideration and respect.
Unless there is new ‘evidence’ or theory - agreed. The creationist will not accept the fact that their claim has been answered, but unless they have a new angle, there is little point in re-raising an issue that the scientific community has dealt with. BTW, I didn’t mention this at all!
Again - agreed.
As I stated, in order to accept creationism, and reconcile it with science, many (you might say all) aspects of science must be challenged, if a person wishes to remain true to a faith which stresses the infallibilty of the Bible. Science must always take second place to religion for him. If science is contrary to the Bible, then it ** will ** be summarily dismissed, in the sense that it will be viewed as incorrect - I would hope that it is not simply ignored by this group, however. To retain credibilty, a creationist scientist (!) must be able to explain the science in a way consistent with his faith. All I said was that challenging accepted tenents of science is not ** necessarily ** a bad thing, provided, as you have pointed out, Satan, that it’s not the same old arguments which have already been addressed.
Thanks for the links - I don’t think we’re actually disagreeing on anything here, Satan! I’m not advocating either side here, even if it seems like that, I’m just trying to explain how the creationists see things, and why the two sides will probably never meet!
I wasn’t referring to the boards in my earlier post, and never said I was, as I didn’t think the OP was resricted to the boards, although perhaps I should have made that clear. My point, as stated above, was simply that challenging accepted tenents of science is not ** necessarily ** a bad thing.
I am not advocating any particular point of view here, just trying to explain why the two camps will never agree, which was the point of the OP.
It does as far as the IRC is concerned. After all, their whole organization’s job is to somehow show that Creationism has scientific evidence to back it up, and/or Evolution does not have enough to back it up. Check out their website if you doubt me, but with a name Institute of Creation Research, it seems the proof is right there. A notable quote:
These are not the words of a dispassioned scientist out to find evidence. These are the words of someone with an agenda. The fact is, and you can see it as well as anyone, that Science does not allow for this type of agenda. No matter how biased a researcher might be, if the evidence does not match the hypothesis, the hypothesis must be changed or even scrapped. Do you honestly see this man (and his organization) doing this?
Maybe some people can then modify their hypothesis, in this case coming to a different interpretation of the Bible that presupposes the gathering of evidence, but many cannot. And even if some are somewhat flexible, the fact is that the Bible is fine as a personal matter of faith, but it does NOT belong - even as a starting point - in a science lab and/or a public school for reasons you know very well.
You’ve seen these people at work. Yes, I personally have asked them why they feel the need to limit God, someone they claim to be limitless. Unfortunately, they have a plank in their eyes.
That is a common Creationist ploy, but the fact is that there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence from almost every scientific discipline which points to an ancient universe that started with the Big Bang, abiogenesis kicked life into being and evolution got us on this planet where we are today.
While there are some competing ideas with the Big Band (the String Theory has some support), and scientists think that abiogenesis might have happened elsewhere and came to our planet in a meteor or it may have happened here. Natural selection and evolution itself is not debated at all, though some nuances might be.
The point is that even if people are interpreting some evidence wrong, the vast majority of it points to the same thing, and only the details are at issue.
And no amount of evidence points to a “young earth” which a vast number of Creationists subscribe to. Period. And as you know, a large amount of the supposeed evidence of these folks attempts to prove just that!
The Bible is not a science text. A believer can believe anything they wish. I’ve mentioned that, others have mentioned that. But to inject something which cannot be tested and is ONLY a belief into science… Well, there’s no evidence! If there’s no evidence, it cannot be admitted.
I would like to see citations of scientists rejecting out of hand evidence simply because the evidence does not support their hypothesis.
Then why do Creationists want Creationism taught “as a competing theory?” That is saying nothing BUT the Bible is a science textbook, because ultimately, that is the ONLY EVIDENCE of Creationism, and that is not evidence that science recognizes.
False dilemma, my friend.
One is evidence, the other is faith. You don’t corroborate evidence with faith because true faith doesn’t need it, want it, nor should care about it.
And scientific findings cannot be sullied by faith because then “Last-Thrsdayism” is another “competing theory” that needs to be taught, as well as the various other Creation Myths from Aztecs to Native Americans and everything else.
Hey, I never said the Bible should be used as a science text or mathematical aid. But the fact is if someone is going to be a literalist and go so far as to dismiss a mountain of scientific research because of their belief that the Bible is literally word-for-word factual and inerrant, then they have to exmplain how literally pi=3.
Can I reply reasonably to this so-called problem? Sure I can, just as you did. But once someone takes the tact of a Creationist, I don’t think that’s not good enough. Because at that point, they are trying to have it both ways, I think.