Science and Religion: Creationism/Evolution Thread

#352
#352
volinbham said:
So you would view atheists and believers in a creator as equally relying on faith? or at least equally unscientific?
Click to expand...

I don't know if a lack of a belief can be unscientific if the positive aspect of the belief is unscientific as well. And, I wouldn't say that atheists have/use faith (as mentioned above). I don't have faith because if the evidence shifted at all my belief would shift accordingly. I have tentative acceptance.

The best you will get is that atheism and theism are, ontologically speaking, not a huge margin apart in philosophical legitimacy. But, I still think that, from my experience with the arguments, that atheism is more plausible. And, atheism is much more plausible than Christianity as a particular form of theism.
 
#353
#353
turambar85 said:
Really? You have never heard of ... creation science? :)

And, yes...I know that definition. Substance of things hoped for and what not.
Click to expand...

I have heard you call it that. I said that Christians do not call it that.
There is a ton of "evidence of things not seen" in this world to justify a creator.
 
#354
#354
T-TownVol said:
I have heard you call it that. I said that Christians do not call it that.
There is a ton of "evidence of things not seen" in this world to justify a creator.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is not my term man. That is the term as defined by the believers in the idea. I just borrowed it.
 
#355
#355
turambar85 said:
Actually, that is not my term man. That is the term as defined by the believers in the idea. I just borrowed it.
Click to expand...

I do not believe you are correct on that.
Maybe the ones that want it taught in the schools, so they tagged it as a science to try and pass it.
 
#356
#356
volinbham said:
It seems to me that science uber alles advocates actively seek to show that a creator doesn't/didn't exist which is anti-scientific in and of itself. They should be truly agnostic on the issue to be true to scientific inquiry.
Click to expand...

One of the best statements made today. :good!:
 
#357
#357
Also, a lack of knowledge, or an argument from ignorance, doesn't point as evidence towards a particular entity or theory. You need positive evidence for that.

I wish Christians would abandon natural theology and just let god remain faith. Evidence is parasitic on faith anyway...
 
#358
#358
turambar85 said:
I don't know if a lack of a belief can be unscientific if the positive aspect of the belief is unscientific as well. And, I wouldn't say that atheists have/use faith (as mentioned above). I don't have faith because if the evidence shifted at all my belief would shift accordingly. I have tentative acceptance.

The best you will get is that atheism and theism are, ontologically speaking, not a huge margin apart in philosophical legitimacy. But, I still think that, from my experience with the arguments, that atheism is more plausible. And, atheism is much more plausible than Christianity as a particular form of theism.
Click to expand...

Excluding a reason a priori which atheism does is not consistent with scientific inquiry and will inevitably lead to a biased view of evidence. Stating that something doesn't exist is equivalent to stating it does.

To me only the true agnostic can claim scientific purity in examining and interpreting evidence RE: creation forces. However, given my view of the potential limitations of scientific inquiry I still doubt that such tools are sufficient to get to the truth. Of course, I could be wrong.
 
#359
#359
T-TownVol said:
I do not believe you are correct on that.
Maybe the ones that want it taught in the schools, so they tagged it as a science to try and pass it.
Click to expand...

All mainstream creationists who try to promote creationism as an alternative to evolution consider it creation science. That is who I am referring to, and that is a large group of people.
 
#360
#360
turambar85 said:
Also, a lack of knowledge, or an argument from ignorance, doesn't point as evidence towards a particular entity or theory. You need positive evidence for that.

You've fallen back on scientific inquiry tenets here. I'm suggesting that what counts as "evidence" to a believer may be different than that which a skeptic would accept.

In the end it is an argument with no answer but saying that evidence such as a "knowing" or shared cultural connections are not evidence is limiting evidence to the notion of scientific inquiry.

I wish Christians would abandon natural theology and just let god remain faith. Evidence is parasitic on faith anyway...
Click to expand...

I guess it comes down to the over weighting of "evidence" as defined by science vs. other indicators. I understand the allure of reverting to scientific evidence as the best information but I'm not sold on the idea for questions such as creation. When you discard anything that doesn't fit scientific inquiry you stack the deck.
 
#361
#361
Turambar... I saw some of your earlier posts "apologizing" for your style of debate, and even a reference to disagreements with the wife. I admire you for at least offering this admission, and if you don't mind a little constructive feedback, perhaps the illustration below may be of some value. I've noticed that when you are truly passionate about something, your arguments themselves become statements of absolutes... which by definition then are no longer open to argument. It seems to be your (perhaps subconscious) way of saying I am 100% correct so don't challenge me. In retrospect, I don't think you really believe, as an example, that all creationists can't answer a single question, and always have to be on the attack. People who are trying to "encourage" open dialogue should avoid using definitives such as always, never, entire, every, etc. Just some food for thought...

turambar85 said:
This thread beautifully shows the problem. Creationists don't have any argument other than the "god of the gaps" BS. They cannot think of a single positive argument. They can't answer a single question. They always have to be on the attack, looking for any slip or gap that they can "wedge" their doctrine into. 12 pages, and only evolution has seen arguments on its behalf. I have even explicitly asked simple questions multiple times and either been ignored, or said to be devious and full of gobbledygook....

This is why debating creationists is bad for evolutionary biologists. The same disingenuous anti-academic ploy is used the entire time, every time. They never have to answer anything, and anything not currently known by science proves god did it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#363
#363
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Turambar... I saw some of your earlier posts "apologizing" for your style of debate, and even a reference to disagreements with the wife. I admire you for at least offering this admission, and if you don't mind a little constructive feedback, perhaps the illustration below may be of some value. I've noticed that when you are truly passionate about something, your arguments themselves become statements of absolutes... which by definition then are no longer open to argument. It seems to be your (perhaps subconscious) way of saying I am 100% correct so don't challenge me. In retrospect, I don't think you really believe, as an example, that all creationists can't answer a single question, and always have to be on the attack. People who are trying to "encourage" open dialogue should avoid using definitives such as always, never, entire, every, etc. Just some food for thought...
Click to expand...

Yeah, you are absolutely right. I have a bad habit of doing that. I become a sensationalist when agitated. If I don't like the stagnation of the argument, I have a tendency to say strong things to, I guess, elicit a response. It is only an internet habit of mine, though. It is easy to ignore the person behind the monitor on boards; I never do this in person.

So, the apology is sincere, I am just careless at best, hypocritical at worst. Never insincere!
 
#364
#364
rjd970 said:
It's God, that logic and common sense stuff doesn't apply. Just chalk it up to faith and move on.
Click to expand...

Or you could look for other explanations. Granted I am not a scientist but I can certainly use what I've learned from science to find possible explanations.
 
Last edited:
#365
#365
volinbham said:
It seems to me that science uber alles advocates actively seek to show that a creator doesn't/didn't exist which is anti-scientific in and of itself. They should be truly agnostic on the issue to be true to scientific inquiry.
Click to expand...

But where does it stop? It is the end of the road once you say a creator is responsible. Besides, you've said yourself that the notion of a creator isn't scientific at all, so why should scientists be agnostic on the issue?

But whatever the case, I think scientists do acknowledge a "creator" of some sort. The "creator" is plugged into theories and called unknown forces and comsological unexplainables. Afterall, given the roughly 200,000 years of human existence on this earth, we are really only about 500 years into getting the answers to these great unknowns. For all practical puproses, our knowledge is still in its infancy. And to just say it is an intelligent creator because we can't see a foreseeable solution is premature.
 
#366
#366
rjd970 said:
But where does it stop? It is the end of the road once you say a creator is responsible. Besides, you've said yourself that the notion of a creator isn't scientific at all, so why should scientists be agnostic on the issue?

But whatever the case, I think scientists do acknowledge a "creator" of some sort. The "creator" is plugged into theories and called unknown forces and comsological unexplainables. Afterall, given the roughly 200,000 years of human existence on this earth, we are really only about 500 years into getting the answers to these great unknowns. For all practical puproses, our knowledge is still in its infancy. And to just say it is an intelligent creator because we can't see a foreseeable solution is premature.
Click to expand...

and who is to say that these processes are not part of a design of an intricate system (which you cannot argue earth is not an intricate system) put together by a creator?
 
#367
#367
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
and who is to say that these processes are not part of a design of an intricate system (which you cannot argue earth is not an intricate system) put together by a creator?
Click to expand...

Who's to say this whole thing isn't part of some simulation run on a massive alien supercomputer? Should we be agnostic to that idea too?
 
#369
#369
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
im a very creative person and i can do that "what if" game all day.

Im just wondering why we are finding proof for the bible through archeology it seems more and more.

FOXNews.com - Israeli Archaeologist Digs Up Proof for Bible
Click to expand...

Probably because there are some legitimate historical facts in the Bible. Jerusalem is a very real place, and it is very old, etc.

This says absolutely nothing about the validity of a metaphysical creator though.
 
#370
#370
rjd970 said:
Who's to say this whole thing isn't part of some simulation run on a massive alien supercomputer? Should we be agnostic to that idea too?
Click to expand...

Who stands for more to lose and more to gain? I'm wrong, my world goes black and I'm buried in the dirt. Your wrong and you spend eternity in hell
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#371
#371
rjd970 said:
But where does it stop? It is the end of the road once you say a creator is responsible. Besides, you've said yourself that the notion of a creator isn't scientific at all, so why should scientists be agnostic on the issue?

At this point the notion of a creator doesn't rely on science. That doesn't mean that it is not potentially discoverable via science.

You can't start the scientific inquiry out by saying "okay, we know there was no sentient entity behind all this so let's explain all that we see by other means"

My point about the notion of a creator not being science is that currently it is not science so it shouldn't be taught as such. Because I believe science MAY have explanatory limits, I don't discard the notion simply because it doesn't fit the falsification criteria.

But whatever the case, I think scientists do acknowledge a "creator" of some sort. The "creator" is plugged into theories and called unknown forces and comsological unexplainables. Afterall, given the roughly 200,000 years of human existence on this earth, we are really only about 500 years into getting the answers to these great unknowns. For all practical puproses, our knowledge is still in its infancy. And to just say it is an intelligent creator because we can't see a foreseeable solution is premature.
Click to expand...

To say it's not is likewise premature - that is my point. If one is an atheist or approaches scientific inquiry with a mindset that seeks to find the "natural" causes for creation then they are not being truly objective in their science. This is why some who believe in a creator (like myself) don't see evolution as inconsistent with the notion of a creator. However, those that use evolution as a proof or indicator there isn't a creator have prematurely ruled out potential creative mechanisms.
 
Last edited:
#373
#373
rjd970 said:
Probably because there are some legitimate historical facts in the Bible. Jerusalem is a very real place, and it is very old, etc.

This says absolutely nothing about the validity of a metaphysical creator though.
Click to expand...

Just that the people that lived during this time were deranged and wrote some pretty good fiction
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#374
#374
It doesnt have to be some kind of divine miracle for it to be proof of a creator.

Its like the guy that was a survior in the water on a sunken boat. He prayed to be rescues, and three boats came by and he told them that he was ok that God was going to deliver him.
Well he drowns and is standing at the pearly gates. He asks God, i prayed, why didnt you rescue me?
God replied, i did, 3 times.
 
#375
#375
volinbham said:
To say it's not is likewise premature - that is my point. If one is an atheist or approaches scientific inquiry with a mindset that seeks to find the "natural" causes for creation then they are not being truly objective in their science. This is why some who believe in a creator (like myself) don't see evolution as inconsistent with the notion of a creator. However, those that use evolution as a proof or indicator there isn't a creator have prematurely ruled out potential creative mechanisms.
Click to expand...

Curious. But, science as a disciple is necessarily committed to methodological naturalism. Science, as defined by its method and tools, cannot even attempt to seek supernatural causes. It may be that science will 'peter out' and simply be unable to find a natural cause for 'creation', but that is not a failure in objectivity, but is simply a result of the methods being unable to attain truth in that domain.

Similarly, it would be absurd to say something like "any theologian who doesn't use natural causation and scientific understanding in her attempts to define and God is not being objective." Of course she is! She is, at worst, guilty of tunnel-vision. Of limiting herself to one disciple, or to one attempt at seeing the world. But, that isn't a reasonable criticism; practicality demands it. We need specialists, and a scientist must do a scientists job - as should a theologian.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top