BF2S Forums God Help Us...Creationism To Be Taught In Northern Ireland?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

imortal wrote:

Braddock wrote:

I'm just asking for some evidence...any evidence...in support of the theory of creationism that stands up to the rigours of scientific scrutiny. Any such evidence would build the case for creationism to be considered as a scientific theory and not just a religious theory but I've never heard any. Why should creationism be given a pass on scientific scrutiny while all other fields of study follow the strict principles of science.

You're suggesting that creationism deserves to be taken seriously in scientific terms, why?

I do not think creationism is a science.  However, as long as evolution and the Big Bang are just theories, there is room for a competing theory.  However, I think it should not be taught as science, but as philosophy.

Evolution isn't a theory, it's fact.  Big bang would probably be most similar to creation theory in the sense that it attempts to explain how the world/universe were created.  Whereas Big Bang theory is presented as just that - a theory (albeit with a great amount of scientific and mathematical proof), creationism is put forth as a all-encompassing story of creation of the universe and life on earth (a universal truth if you believe in it) with literally NO scientific and mathematical proof.

Sure, creationism could be taught as simply another creation-myth story.  Big Bang is not a creation-myth story, it is an attempt using science and mathematics to trace universal history back to the moment after "the big bang".

Scientifically, Evolution and the Big Bang are only theories. In order to become a law, it has to be scientifically repeatable.  The two biggest, nastiesdt questions are how and why did the big bang start, and how and why did that first "spark of life" occur.  Scientists have used theroies on quantum physics the to point that they think they knew what was going on in the universe miliseconds after the big bang, but it is still only a theory.  A theory with widespread and popular support, but still only a theory.

Evolution is a bit trickier.  With the discovery of DNA and genes, it is possible to scientifically track species for genetic drift.  We can now scientifically prove how traits are inherited, and how traits change over time (i.e. evolve).  but none of that explains large jumps in the evolutionary process; the jump from single to multicellular bodies, develpment of specilized organs, the jump form water to land, why animals on islands nearly always evolve down to smaller versions of their continential cousins, and how it all got started in the first place.  Science can not definitavely answer these questions yet.  So, they are just theories.  Theories should be challenged in order to test their integrity. 

Nowhere did I say that creationism should replace any traditional science or current theories.  I did not even claim that creatioinism was a science.  All I said is that it should not be suppressed; it should be at least introduced in schools that others have a different viewpoint.  Hell, I never even said that I believed in it.

imortal wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

imortal wrote:

I do not think creationism is a science.  However, as long as evolution and the Big Bang are just theories, there is room for a competing theory.  However, I think it should not be taught as science, but as philosophy.

Evolution isn't a theory, it's fact.  Big bang would probably be most similar to creation theory in the sense that it attempts to explain how the world/universe were created.  Whereas Big Bang theory is presented as just that - a theory (albeit with a great amount of scientific and mathematical proof), creationism is put forth as a all-encompassing story of creation of the universe and life on earth (a universal truth if you believe in it) with literally NO scientific and mathematical proof.

Sure, creationism could be taught as simply another creation-myth story.  Big Bang is not a creation-myth story, it is an attempt using science and mathematics to trace universal history back to the moment after "the big bang".

Scientifically, Evolution and the Big Bang are only theories. In order to become a law, it has to be scientifically repeatable.  The two biggest, nastiesdt questions are how and why did the big bang start, and how and why did that first "spark of life" occur.  Scientists have used theroies on quantum physics the to point that they think they knew what was going on in the universe miliseconds after the big bang, but it is still only a theory.  A theory with widespread and popular support, but still only a theory.

Evolution is a bit trickier.  With the discovery of DNA and genes, it is possible to scientifically track species for genetic drift.  We can now scientifically prove how traits are inherited, and how traits change over time (i.e. evolve).  but none of that explains large jumps in the evolutionary process; the jump from single to multicellular bodies, develpment of specilized organs, the jump form water to land, why animals on islands nearly always evolve down to smaller versions of their continential cousins, and how it all got started in the first place.  Science can not definitavely answer these questions yet.  So, they are just theories.  Theories should be challenged in order to test their integrity. 

Nowhere did I say that creationism should replace any traditional science or current theories.  I did not even claim that creatioinism was a science.  All I said is that it should not be suppressed; it should be at least introduced in schools that others have a different viewpoint.  Hell, I never even said that I believed in it.

This is true.  The more abstract parts of science are theory and are open to being improved with further analysis and observations.  This is what renders science more practical than religion.  Religion is bound by tradition, and it takes a lot more effort to change its assumptions.  What happens more often is that a new religion is created from an old one, rather than actually changing the old one.

Science, like religion, has been somewhat corrupted by politics, but in its purest form, science is a methodology for rationally analyzing how the world works through the use of empirical evidence.  So, what makes evolution and the Big Bang more logical than creationism are the evidence and the mathematical basis.

Of course, science evolves over time, which means that, ironically, the concept of evolution will evolve in its own right as will the concept of the Big Bang.  We may move on to different theories if given future contradictory evidence.

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm just saying that, if we recognize rational skepticism to be the more evolved viewpoint, then shouldn't we promote it whenever we get the chance?

You can promote it all you want, as long as you allow for the possibility of being wrong, and admit that there at least IS another viewpoint.

Sure... that works.  I don't claim to know anything more about a supposed god than anyone else.  I simply must stress that the burden of proof is on belief, not disbelief.

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

You can promote it all you want, as long as you allow for the possibility of being wrong, and admit that there at least IS another viewpoint.

Sure... that works.  I don't claim to know anything more about a supposed god than anyone else.  I simply must stress that the burden of proof is on belief, not disbelief.

And I do not disagree.  However, they have a way around it.  Faith is belief without that very proof.  You can either accept it or not.  For you, you need proof and evidence; obviously, these religions are not for you.  For some, it is all they need to attain peace of mind about their place in the universe.  "Different strokes for different folks" and all of that.  If people need a religion to explain how they fit into the universe and how it all came to be, I am willing to let them have it, as long as it does not affect me.  It seems too many people in here are yelling to ban all forms of religion; that is just as strong a move in the opposite direction, do you not find?

Well yeah...  anyone who wants to ban religion OR turn us into a theocracy is an idiot.

I just find that choosing a religion is an arbitrary process due to the lack of evidence.  How does one pick one over another without any rational basis for the decision?

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-08-10 12:11:41)

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

And I do not disagree.  However, they have a way around it.  Faith is belief without that very proof.  You can either accept it or not.  For you, you need proof and evidence; obviously, these religions are not for you.  For some, it is all they need to attain peace of mind about their place in the universe.  "Different strokes for different folks" and all of that.  If people need a religion to explain how they fit into the universe and how it all came to be, I am willing to let them have it, as long as it does not affect me.  It seems too many people in here are yelling to ban all forms of religion; that is just as strong a move in the opposite direction, do you not find?

Well yeah...  anyone who wants to ban religion OR turn us into a theocracy is an idiot.

I just find that choosing a religion is an arbitrary process due to the lack of evidence.  How does one pick one over another without any rational basis for the decision?

I could ask my wife, to be honest.  In one aspect, it is in the way you were raised to believe, and how how your childhood affectd your adult development (conform or rebel).  In another, each of the faiths are different in focus and direction; granted, once you boil down to christianity, the differences are really minor.  So, you either go with what you were raised with, or lean toward a faith that either "speaks" to you (makes you sit and think more), or that aligns better with the views you already posess (though this may be more of a self-reinforcing element, validation what you already hold as 'true').   My wife goes because she likes the music, and likes the meditative process that goes along with prayer.  Not to mention that churches are a society of like-minded people you can look to for support or advice in times of need.

These are all good points.  I suppose if I were to pick a religion, I'd go for Buddhism because it's abstract and focuses less on the afterlife and more on how to live this life.  Still, the reason why I'm not a Buddhist is because religion seems to be putting a lot of trust in a shot in the dark.  That's a bit too risky for my tastes.

But yeah, I can see where you're coming from on this.

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well yeah...  anyone who wants to ban religion OR turn us into a theocracy is an idiot.

I just find that choosing a religion is an arbitrary process due to the lack of evidence.  How does one pick one over another without any rational basis for the decision?

I could ask my wife, to be honest.  In one aspect, it is in the way you were raised to believe, and how how your childhood affectd your adult development (conform or rebel).  In another, each of the faiths are different in focus and direction; granted, once you boil down to christianity, the differences are really minor.  So, you either go with what you were raised with, or lean toward a faith that either "speaks" to you (makes you sit and think more), or that aligns better with the views you already posess (though this may be more of a self-reinforcing element, validation what you already hold as 'true').   My wife goes because she likes the music, and likes the meditative process that goes along with prayer.  Not to mention that churches are a society of like-minded people you can look to for support or advice in times of need.

These are all good points.  I suppose if I were to pick a religion, I'd go for Buddhism because it's abstract and focuses less on the afterlife and more on how to live this life.  Still, the reason why I'm not a Buddhist is because religion seems to be putting a lot of trust in a shot in the dark.  That's a bit too risky for my tastes.

But yeah, I can see where you're coming from on this.

This is true.  Notice also that eastern religions tend to focus on the individual (inner strength, enlightenment etc) where as in the west we tend to farm off the credit and responsibility to a third party (God).

I think the best argument a theist has for his/her belief is that existance is not nescesarily restricted to the five senses.  I mean, I assume when you say you want proof Turquoise you mean you want to ''see'' it yes?

Martyn

Bell wrote:

I think the best argument a theist has for his/her belief is that existance is not nescesarily restricted to the five senses.  I mean, I assume when you say you want proof Turquoise you mean you want to ''see'' it yes?

Martyn

Proof and evidence is important in this context because the politician in question in the OP is campaigning to have a religious based belief system taught as scientific reality in a science class even though the theory lacks any of the evidence or data usually expected when trying to prove a scientific theory. My point is that until it can come up with the evidence or data it should stay in the fairy tales religion class.

imortal wrote:

Evolution is a bit trickier.  With the discovery of DNA and genes, it is possible to scientifically track species for genetic drift.  We can now scientifically prove how traits are inherited, and how traits change over time (i.e. evolve).  but none of that explains large jumps in the evolutionary process; the jump from single to multicellular bodies, develpment of specilized organs, the jump form water to land, why animals on islands nearly always evolve down to smaller versions of their continential cousins, and how it all got started in the first place.  Science can not definitavely answer these questions yet.  So, they are just theories.  Theories should be challenged in order to test their integrity.

Evolution is fact.  We (scientists, humans) don't need to explain gaps in evolutionary processes to show evolution is truth/fact/reality.  An evolutionary theory of the origin of life is not the same thing as evolution.

imortal wrote:

Nowhere did I say that creationism should replace any traditional science or current theories.  I did not even claim that creatioinism was a science.  All I said is that it should not be suppressed; it should be at least introduced in schools that others have a different viewpoint.  Hell, I never even said that I believed in it.

I never implied any of those things, either.  I don't think it should be offered as "another viewpoint" just as much as the idea of a Sun God, God of Sea and a Goddess of Love should be offered as other viewpoints.  It should remain as a creation-myth story, an idea, a concept that explains more about a cultures creation and life,than an alternate explanation for life on earth.

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

So we agree that evolution is fact?  Great.

Creationism falls down as soon as you look at the fossil record.

Creationism falls down as soon as you look at the Galapagos Islands.

Creationism falls down as soon as you look at what happens when humans start selectively breeding animals.

I could go on. Why anyone thinks the idea holds any sway is unbelievable.

And don't get me started on Intelligent Design.

heretics!