Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
If there were a scientific support for an idea, then there is little need for faith. If so, why would creationist suggest that it take faith to support the idea of evolution?
The answer to that is quite simple.
The reason creationist suggest it is because to the average creationist Hovind is a Doctor and not a con man.
When you have zero knowledge of science everything seems like magic, and when people explain things to you that are beyond your realm of understanding it all sounds fake.
When you have zero knowledge of science everything seems like magic, and when people explain things to you that are beyond your realm of understanding it all sounds fake.
If evolution were true, it would give a fundamental challenge to any religion. No other mystique could match its influence.
My remarks had to do with the logic and equivocation of making everything on equal footing. For example, if you're going to use that logic to teach creationism in the science classrooms along with evolution, then astrology should be taught in the astronomy classroom as equally valid, alchemy should be taught in the chemistry classroom as equally valid, and so on.
And, science doesn't get involved or decide what is "true". "Truth" is something only the religious get mixed up with.
If your "science" seeks only to confirm what you already believe must be true, then it is not "science."
By the way, I still don't know which 50% of the TOE is not based on science. Care to enlighten me?
OK, it is a theory. That is fine with me. But to any single scientist, s/he is still working on the model level.
My science is not used to "confirm" the truth I believe, but is to support it. That is what all the science can do. In the work of science, one must have some sort of faith in mind. Otherwise, the research would be meaningless and could not last.
I could not, because I don't know enough. However, I can point to the place where you can see something: Check ANY research article on evolution and read the conclusion. You will find something like: something still needs to be studied more ... That is where the 50% unsupported stuff lies.
a) I think your definition of "religious belief" is likely very broad.
b) I think you just gave up a lot more ground than you realized. After all, common descent is an applied science. Yes, even chimps and humans sharing ancestry is an applied science.
No. it is not an applied science. Get rid of that information, we lose nothing.
No. it is not an applied science. Get rid of that information, we lose nothing.
*shrug* If that's what you need to believe, then so be it. I'm through trying to discuss modern biology with creationists because I've realized that you guys just don't care about it. If you did, you wouldn't even make statements like the above.
Science marches on...
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
May I ask what modern biology has to do with the Creation Week?
No you may not.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
OK, it is a theory. That is fine with me. But to any single scientist, s/he is still working on the model level.
I think I agree with this.
Originally Posted by juvenissun
My science is not used to "confirm" the truth I believe, but is to support it. That is what all the science can do. In the work of science, one must have some sort of faith in mind. Otherwise, the research would be meaningless and could not last.
This is all wrong. If you try to "fit" the data and observations into preconceived conclusion, all you will ever do is confirm or "support" it. This means everything is dependent on your preconceived conclusion. If that is wrong, then the "support" is all smoke and mirrors. I can find data to support any conclusion you would like to think up. Cherry-picking through the evidence to find only evidence that supports a hypothesis or theory is easy. The key is, can we find evidence that falsifies the hypothesis or theory in question? This is how real science is done.
1. Observe
2. Form Hypothesis
3. Make prediction based on hypothesis
4. Collect data to confirm or falsify the prediction based on the hypothesis
Creationists never do this.
Originally Posted by juvenissun
I could not, because I don't know enough. However, I can point to the place where you can see something: Check ANY research article on evolution and read the conclusion. You will find something like: something still needs to be studied more ... That is where the 50% unsupported stuff lies.
LOL! Check any research article on any field of science and you will find that "something needs to be studied more." The more answers we get, the more questions we come up with. This is the very nature of science. This is how we learn. This is why creationism teaches us Nothing.
__________________ “The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." -Bishop John Shelby Spong
"It is not the obligation of the State to reconcile various faiths with reality. Do it yourself." -Atomweaver
"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."
- Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)
This is all wrong. If you try to "fit" the data and observations into preconceived conclusion, all you will ever do is confirm or "support" it. This means everything is dependent on your preconceived conclusion.
You can NOT fit data into your belief if the data do not fit. This is logic, not faith. If the data say things different from your model, then your understanding just have to turn with the data. This is science. Otherwise, you may just give up before trying. On the other hand, if there is a possibility to fit the data into your model (through some manipulations), then it might just fit, like it or not.
The problem is on the interpretation of data. It can go either way in many cases. This illustrates how little we know and this is why we need faith in addition to science.
Linear Mode
