Dismiss Notice

Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
  • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
  • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
  • Access to private conversations with other members.

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Damage Done by Creationism

Discussion in 'Exploring Christianity' started by ThinkFreeDom, Jul 5, 2012.

  1. ThinkFreeDom

    ThinkFreeDom Newbie

    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Seeker
    Not in science class. It is not science, it is belief. It does not fit the accepted criteria of a scientific theory, therefore it cannot be taught in a science class.

    What is more if we teach one creation belief, what justification would we have for not teaching them all? There are thousands out there, each one has its believers.
     
  2. Lux Aeterna

    Lux Aeterna Guest

    Given that it addresses the same subject as evolution (e.g. the origin of species) then it makes sense to cover it in a science classroom, although I could see it being covered in some other topic as well.

    I think that there should be community influence in what public schools teach. If public schools have a referendum and parents decide that they really want their children to learn about reincarnation, then the school should cover that. But like I said earlier, it need not be taught as absolute fact.
     
  3. Tomas de Torquemada

    Tomas de Torquemada New Member

    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Tenure kind of ensures that universities will employ has-beens. What scholarly output re biology has Dawkins produced in the last decade?


    Well, that is problematic. The issue of blind creation was settled during the albigensian crusade.


    What is absent from discussions on Torquemada is whether or not he was correct.
     
  4. Nails74

    Nails74 Regular Member

    Messages:
    339
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    Please define who are the "mainstream" and who are the "radicals"

    My faith is the foundation of my science as it is what allows me to be "scientific".

    When you step back, you will find that there is no "neutral position"...we each have our own presuppositions

    If you read the passage in context, Jesus is telling the disciples that as they spread the Gospel, they will face persecution and that they need to be wise but blameless in dealing with it

    Christianity, by definition, is exclusively true. If I can say that is is "only true for me", then it is not true at all.

    Ah...but, whether you realize it or not, you have one. As you consider yourself autonomous (a law unto yourself), you would be your own ultimate authority.
     
  5. ThinkFreeDom

    ThinkFreeDom Newbie

    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Seeker
    Again, mainstream would be the three largest groupings in Christianity. The Catholic Church, The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion, which together represent 1.4 billion people.

    I have stepped back and I have found there are neutral positions. I hold several.

    I have read the passage in context. You agree with me, it says 'wise'.

    Then you have decided that it is not true at all, because it is not true for me. It is not true for you either, you just don't know it yet.
    Ok, if your mindset requires an ultimate authority then yes, it is me and my innate human morality.
     
  6. ThinkFreeDom

    ThinkFreeDom Newbie

    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Seeker
    Ok you seem to be confused. I am not asking about obsolete psuedo-science. I am talking about today, what is accepted as the Standard Model of evolutionary teaching today. That is what the Creationist/ID movement is fighting against. They don't care about Catholic crusades, they care about what is being taught as science today.
     
  7. ThinkFreeDom

    ThinkFreeDom Newbie

    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Seeker
    In science classes they teach scientific theories.

    If they teach every belief that covers the same subject, but is not a scientific theory, they would be obliged to teach the creation myth of the Cherokee Native Americans, The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and every other creation myth out there. That is obviously not practical, so they quite rightly stick to scientific theories.
     
  8. Tomas de Torquemada

    Tomas de Torquemada New Member

    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Well, if what is being taught is obsolete pseudo-theology, I'm rather opposed to it, regardless of what class its being taught in.
     
  9. ThinkFreeDom

    ThinkFreeDom Newbie

    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Seeker
    You are a very confused sort of person.
     
  10. Lux Aeterna

    Lux Aeterna Guest

    I don't think it's that black and white: it's not like there's no middle ground between teaching one thing and teaching everything. Why not let parents have a say in what gets taught to their children?
     
  11. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis De profundis clamavi et exaudisti me.

    Messages:
    12,909
    Likes Received:
    380
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Lutheran
    A unique feature in the whole scheme of things is that the highly vocal side at many times and places has a proclivity of denying everyone else at the table the "Real Christian™" card. Not based on historic orthodoxy, but rather rooted in modern idiosyncratic definitions of Christianity. As such it's not always a matter of having a voice or it being heard, but that in popular consciousness it is marginalized.

    For example, I've been informed on multiple occasions that I'm not "really" religious because I don't share in the peculiarities of popularly-perceived Christianity. Not by fellow Christians, but by those outside. Religiosity has become defined not about devotion, religious conviction, and religious application; but a standard of stereotypical behaviors and certain highly vocal and cacaphonous manifestations of religiosity. In other words I am not necessarily perceived as a Christian in the "standard" sense, since the perceptible standard has become highly contrived, and therefore whatever voice I may have may easily be marginalized or minimized as not representative or at least not particularly important.

    At least that is personal observation on my part, it may or may not be altogether accurate.

    -CryptoLutheran
     
  12. GrayAngel

    GrayAngel Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    13
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Deist
    A battle that faith can't win? How so? What is the common measurement of both by which we can claim that science has the better of? Is it the number of people who will trust one over the other? If so, I couldn't care less about something so trivial. My beliefs are not determined by the majority opinion.

    I personally see no problem with having faith and science together. The two cover entirely different subjects. Faith (in Christ) is centered on the Bible, which teaches us about spiritual, intangible matters like God, salvation, and the soul. Science is centered on the study of things that are tangible. Things that we can see, touch, hear, smell, or taste with our senses. There is not much room for overlap.

    Many people make the mistake of assuming that a literal view of the Creation story is the only way to believe in it. Just because something is figurative doesn't make it false. What's important is what the story was meant from the beginning to communicate to us.

    Was the creation story meant for the purpose of standing in the place of our scientific textbooks to tell us all the little details of how the universe came to be? I don't think so. In the context in which it was written, the enemy of Judaism was not science but pagan religion. According to pagans, there was a different god for everything. There was a god of the sun, a god of the water, a god of the earth, and so on. But what Genesis 1 tells us is that everything was created and sustained by a single God. It was not meant to tell us the order in which all of those things were created, or even how long it took for God to make those things.

    I believe in the Bible 100%. I believe that it (as it was originally written) is without error. But I do not believe that the Young Earth Creationists believe about the first chapter of Genesis.

    But hold on. I'm not a proponent of theistic evolution, either. I trust the Bible without question, but I find no reason to trust science so much. I have not substituted science for faith. Rather, I've purged the majority opinion out of my faith, which has led me to a middle-ground position on the subject. I do not believe that the age of the earth has any consequence on the validity of the Bible, and since the Bible does not explicitly say that evolution is true or false, it makes no difference to me whether we descended first from Adam and Eve or from some single-celled organism. Either way, we exist because God made us.
     
  13. Nails74

    Nails74 Regular Member

    Messages:
    339
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    Please explain how your position is neutral.

    The passage is talking about persecution...I think you are talking about wisdom in the sense of knowledge (as in "why can't you see that Science is right?"). If that is the case, let us use a verse that speaks to that kind of wisdom...

    The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and discipline. [Proverbs 1:7]

    Whether or not you believe something does not make it true or false.

    So if your morality is innate, you were born with it. Is everyone born with that same standard of morality?
     
  14. beastmaster

    beastmaster Newbie

    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Seeker
    This reply has just ruined my day and has officially made me lose faith in humanity.

    Creationism is a travesty based on a foundation of logical fallacies and pseudoscience. It is deliberately deceptive, ignorant or misrepresentative of established scientific theories and is aimed to undermine years of beneficial scientific development.



    Neil DeGrasse Tyson lays waste to scientific ignorance:
    Neil DeGrasse Tyson Destroys Bill O'Reilly - YouTube
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2012
  15. ThinkFreeDom

    ThinkFreeDom Newbie

    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Seeker
    I don't know what that sentence means
    Well, you can't defeat hard facts. Geocentrism, a solid firmament holding back 'the waters above', bats being birds and the existence of unicorns all proved to be embarrassing problems that required re-interpretations of parts of the bible, which in turn reduces credibility.

    The creation story of Genesis is just the lastest example, by stating that it is literal you are forcing people to chose between scientific facts and biblical 'facts' which have been knocked down, one-by-one as scientific knowledge has increased.

    Evolution is proven, with hard, testable evidence, there for all to try and disprove. It takes ignorance or denial to not accept it.

    Pushing Creationism as a scientific fact will result in intelligent, educated people losing respect for religious teaching and will ultimately weaken Christianity.

    Science teaches scientific theories, there is a strict set of criteria that allow a body of knowledge to be considered a theory. It has to make testable predictions, it has to be supported by repeated experiments and observation etc, as below:


    • It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
    • It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
    • It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.)
    • It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
    • It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations.

    The Biblical Creation story does not fit these criteria. It is not a scientific theory therefore it can't be taught in science classes, period.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2012
  16. ThinkFreeDom

    ThinkFreeDom Newbie

    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Seeker
    Why would everyone be the same? Would the fact that each person has a slightly different sense of balance prove that it is not innate? What is your point?

    If your theory that God is the only source of morality is true then it should hold that Christian societies are moral and non-christian societies are not, is that right? Or at least more moral.

    Secular societies often have much stronger moral codes than Christian ones. The Democratic Republic of Congo is one of the most Christian nations on earth, Sweden is one of the most secular. Where would you rather live?

    Of course you are going to say they are not 'true' Christians, or that there are other factors at play, but the fact is that Christianity, as the term is generally accepted, has been proven not to prevent immoral behaviour. A lack of Christian belief has been proven not to cause immoral behaviour.

    This is very strong evidence that morality has nothing to do with belief in a particular god.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2012
  17. ThinkFreeDom

    ThinkFreeDom Newbie

    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Seeker
    My position on what?
    That is exactly my point. If you want to believe something for which there is no credible evidence, that is fine, but that does not give you the right to force others to accept your assertion. If you want Creationism to be taught as a scientific theory, in science class, you have to develop it into a scientific theory and find some scientific evidence to support your theory. That is how science works.
     
  18. Cuddles222

    Cuddles222 Newbie

    Messages:
    831
    Likes Received:
    3
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    Naturalistic Evolution is not a scientific theory, it is a Philosophy. The same with Creationism/ID. Both are still Philosophies.
     
  19. ThinkFreeDom

    ThinkFreeDom Newbie

    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Seeker
    No, Evolution by Natural Selection is accepted as a scientific theory, as it fits the all the criteria required to do so.

    A 'philisophy' couldn't make falsifiable scientific predictions, nor is it supported by physical evidence.

    Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that it is not a theory?
     
  20. food4thought

    food4thought Loving truth

    Messages:
    1,494
    Likes Received:
    18
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Calvary-Chapel
    I have no issue with creation science in general... it is simply Bible believing scientists trying to apply the scientific method to various accounts in the Bible. They create hypothesis' about how these events might have happened in the natural world while still allowing for supernatural intervention by God, and then look at the data and submit the hypothesis for peer review to see how well that hypothesis holds up. They often times fail, and many of their theories are shown to be invalid, yet are held onto long after that... seems to be pretty similar to what happens in "normal" science. Any science is a process of discovery, and that is where the problem comes in. Still, to expect these ideas to be taught in pubilc schools when none of their theories are accepted by mainstream science, which categorically rejects supernaturalism, is controversial to say the least. If the ID crowd could clean up their details, I think that would be a good general alternative to trying to explore every major creation story. I think the FACT that a majority of Americans currently reject evolution theory is reason enough to achknowledge the discussion in the classroom, and ID is currently the best proposal for how to do so without multiplying creation stories. JMO.

    As for how this debate affects Christians in general... For a Christian, we accept the Biblical record as true. Whether that is literally true history, sacred myth, or somewhere in between is a matter of debate in the church as a whole. For those who hold one or the other extreme views, or something close to them, any science applied to the Biblical record becomes a problem...

    For the strong literalist, any accepted theory that contradicts a literal understanding of the account would damage their faith in the Bible's authority, and is thus loudly rejected regardless of supporting evidence. For these types, I would counsel patience and willingness to examine these theories in detail before denouncing them. Straw man arguments really annoy those who know the real position held, and Christians should be well aware of this fact considering all the popular mischaracterizations of the Christian faith. Creation science has a role to play in introducing them to scientific concepts in a way that doesn't shake their core beliefs.

    For those who look upon the accounts as myth or exagerated stories based in truth, trying to apply science to something that didn't happen as described is laughable, so the whole idea of creation science is ridiculed, and the theories of any science has no real bearing on their faith... these people tend to readilly accept science's verdicts regarding reality. For these types I would counsel caution in putting too much stock into any theory, as history has shown theories to be disproven far more often than they hold up over time. For these types the ID crowd presents some compelling arguments for the existence of a Creator without trying to defend the literal Bible history... but creation science can at times offer some eye opening revelations regarding the Bible for them, if they're willing to listen.

    I fall somewhere in between the two extremes, and really don't have a set view on this, so I generally stay out of these discussions these days... I'll probably regret involving myself in this one as well :doh:
     
Loading...