There were a few interesting threads recently on evolution/creationism. Some posters seem to have argued it would be fair to have creationism taught at schools. (See Abadon's thread).
Interestingly, despite being an inherently religoius/metaphysical view (In my opinion), creationism seems to be predominantly concerned with the rebuttal of evolution. To that purpose, it takes on the appearances of a "scientific" view which is at least as verifiable/falsifiable as evolution (if not more so).
If we forget about evolution for a while, what is the coherent scientific message that creationists have to tell the world? Remember that if it's to be "scientific", then it has to be reasonably coherent, and meaningful.
What would you begin with when trying to put together a "scientific-creationism" class in highschool? The order of creation? The possible role of cherubs in engineering the amoeba?
Or is it like imagining satanism without christianity? :)
(Sorry if I'm flogging a dead horse).
Pole
What do creationsts have to offer?
by Pole 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Pole
-
tetrapod.sapien
hey pole,
i think that many people think it is a dead horse, but i don't. i think it is just as important as any doctrinal discussion here on the board. it helps people become better people. it helps lurkers.
of course, creationism is brain garbage. and i think that Qcmbr, in that other recent thread that you replied to, had the workings of what a creationism-science class outline would be like. basically nothing. a lot of air whooshing around.
cheers, -
Satanus
Besides the little bit in genesis, christians that get into that add a tremendous amount of theory in an attempt to make it make sense. Other christians turn much of it into analagy. Both methods fall flat at the first whif of scientific method.
S
-
EvilForce
I believe that creationists tend to disprove evolution more than prove their own theories....because guess what? YOU CAN'T PROVE WHAT AIN'T THERE.
So as someone else on the board wrote: if a couple of scientists disagree slightly with the circum. of the Earth then I'm free to dismiss both of them and think the world is flat. Similarly, creationists want to poke a hole in a certain evolutionary theory and then say...see it's false therefore creation is right. So by default creation then is supposed to be the choice.
Part of the other issue though is that a creationist's entire existence is based around a belief on God... if they are to accept evolution then they must also dismiss their spiritual and religious ideas. If part of a scientist's evolutionary theory is later proved to be different it is simply added to the knowledge base of evolution and life continues on it's merry way without the life altering idea of "Where is my God?"
For a creationist to let go of this grip is hard because they would then need to battle their own preconceived ideas on "Why are we here", "What happens at death", etc.... It would shake them to the core. Hence, having faith is easier than looking at evidence to the contrary with an open mind, for they can only move so far mentally before the house of cards collapses.
Am I rambling on and on???? Sorry. -
hooberus
If we forget about evolution for a while, what is the coherent scientific message that creationists have to tell the world? Remember that if it's to be "scientific", then it has to be reasonably coherent, and meaningful.
If persons are really interested in the coherent scientific message that creationists have to tell the world then I recommend the following publications:
"The Biotic Message" by Walter ReMine (the book provides a theory of creation as well as a thorough examination of evolution).-technical http://www1.minn.net/~science/about.htm
"Creation Facts of Life" by Dr. Gary Parker -general available from http://www.answersingenesis.org
-
Qcmbr
In the search for truth it is wise to consider all possible options. I will repeat this again and kill this horse some more.
Mankind is a creator - the technology is in daily use now. We are already experimenting on the creation of environments in isolated bubbles and the day will come when we may be able to prepare other planets for colonisation. Looking at how that can be done is viable science. Looking at how it may have been done here is viable science. I have listed loads of scientific things that could be looked for. I don't see why scientists must adhere to one strict dogma (and many on this board seem to suggest quite strongly that evolution points clearly to NO intelligent design when it says nothing of the sort - it explains mechanistic processes) - current evolutionary theory is making just as many stories - hypothetical scenarios - and looking for evidence for them as creationists are accused of doing. One scenario that evolution actually suggests (universe has existed for billions of years and life could just as easily have evolved on other planets long before we got it, that intelligence could well have superceded our 'evolutionary' state and could well have done work on this planet) is that we are not alone. Scientific thought does best when it can freely look at all scenarios and stop sorting them by dogma - creationism does not require the God of any particular religion (that part can be kept for RE and Church) but it can recognise the existence of intellignece other than our own.
I find closed thinking 'brain garbage' -
tetrapod.sapien
:that evolution points clearly to NO intelligent design when it says nothing of the sort - it explains mechanistic processes
you practically just proved my point here. evolution explains how life came to be so diverse. ID presumes that life was kick started by something. that's all! evolution doesn't even address what caused the big bang, or if there is a god or not. ID does that. how can they know? did zeus tell them?
have you ever heard of the 'god of the gaps'? the theory of evolution does not need a god or designer to explain how things diversified. it's already been shown to do that by itself. there aren't even any little, tiny, tiny, tiny gaps for god to fill in. even irreducible complexity is no longer a gap for god to hang out in. there is no evidence of a medling god, therefore the ToE does not address the existence of such a god. you can't keep trying to force him into gaps that you create, becuase they are not gaps in the ToE, they are gaps in your mind.
:In the search for truth it is wise to consider all possible options.
did you even read my post in your last thread where i quoted from "What is True?" by Richard Dawkins?
do you "consider all possible options" in searching for truth regarding how many helixes DNA has? do you await a new truth that says it is a triple helix instead of a double helix? how about the speed of light? do you consider all possible options that the speed of light is not a set thing? but await further truth on the matter? no you don't, because they don't upset your worldview. -
Pole
hooberus,
If persons are really interested in the coherent scientific message that creationists have to tell the world then I recommend the following publications:
from the first link:
http://www1.minn.net/~science/about.htm
Half the book dismantles evolutionary illusions, such as:
The other half of the book is more controversial. The book doesn't just take shots at evolution, it actively proposes a scientifically testable creation theory to take its place. The new theory overturns Darwin's and Gould's arguments about "imperfect" designs, and most notably, the evolutionist's central argument ? the nested pattern of life.
Looks like half of the time is spent on dismantling evolution. And the other half is about things such as "overturning evolutionist's central argument". Still largely about dismantling evolution. Here is what seems to be different to me:
The central claims of the theory are simple and plausible: Life was reasonably designed for survival, and to convey a message that tells where life came from. The message can be described in two parts:
- Life was designed to look like the product of a single designer.
- Life was designed to resist all other explanations.
In other words, evolutionary theory helped shape the pattern of life ? with a reverse impact. Life was intricately designed to resist all evolutionary explanations, not just Darwin's or Lamarck's.
This looks like a bit of a joke, although it may just be the wording of the review that makes it look like it. Does it mean God/Creator took great care to disprove Darwin and Lamarck? Does that mean all evolutionists are utterly dishonest? Does that mean God predicted "apostasy" from when he started making the first virus? (BTW, I wonder what "biotic message" viruses were supposed to convey). Is there no easier way to resist all evolutionary explanations (or rather their philosophical implications)?
Anyway, I'll be happy to comment on one of your installements when you are finished with refuting evolution and start conveying "the biotic message". Shall we start with:
"What is the real biotic message of the Ebola virus?"
Metaphysics confused with physics again.
Q,
(and many on this board seem to suggest quite strongly that evolution points clearly to NO intelligent design when it says nothing of the sort - it explains mechanistic processes
I don't think that is the case. I don't waste my time proving beyond doubt that there is no Higher Intelligence just because evolution seems largely plausible. There is no scientific theology of evolution. The problem is that there seems to be no science of creation.
Scientific thought does best when it can freely look at all scenarios and stop sorting them by dogma - creationism does not require the God of any particular religion (that part can be kept for RE and Church) but it can recognise the existence of intellignece other than our own.
I guess some people have problems with partly agreeing with a person who seems to be plain wrong. Do you recognise the existence of intelligence other than our own by refuting bits and pieces of evolution?
Or can anybody please explain the biotic message of the mosquito?
Pole of the "having a hard time with gnats" class
-
El blanko
You could always take a listen to this guy:
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
I'm sure he would be willing to thrash this out with you.
-
EvilForce
I've heard the controversy surrounding this guy...supposed degree from a "degree mill" for a couple of bucks you get a degree...also tax problems....
PENSACOLA
IRS plans inquiry of theme park operator
IRS agents raid the home and businesses of 'Dr. Dino,' who runs a creationist theme park and museum, to investigate possible tax violations.
PENSACOLA - (AP) -- Internal Revenue Service agents are investigating a man who runs a creationist theme park and museum here, saying he owes taxes on proceeds of more than $1 million.
IRS agents raided the homes and businesses of Kent Hovind, 51. Calling himself ''Dr. Dino,'' Hovind argues against evolution and for a biblical view of creation in travels around the world, on the Internet, videos and in literature.