Rejection of modern science leads to....?

[disciple777]

What do you think the effects would be of science regressing to holding Creationism as true?

Before Darwin proposed Evolution, all Scientists strongly believed in Jesus Christ as the Creator of the universe. The Society valued life as Gift of God. Christian morals based on 10 commandments were upheld. Those who sought public offices ought to be strong believers in Christ. Crime rate was low. The schools taught real Science, Maths, History etc. Families were stable. We never put our parents in nursing homes. We took care of them. Thry nurtured and mentored us. Familes were very close. Individual rights wer protected.Constitutional rights were fully upheld.

Darwin transformed the world into a lawless, valueless mere place of existence where sexual freedom is a way to happiness. The result is: People do not believe in absolutes anymore. God does not exist. Man is God. Truth is not absolute. It can be different for different people and different situations. Life is only a piece of tissue only to be washed and drained. Our society today Protects the rights of the Criminals like (Tookey) and punishes the innocent unborn. School violence is very high. We need metal detectors and Police in every school. In those days when Bible was taught as a necessary reading in Literature and history, there was real learning. We raised responsible citizens. Teen age pregnancy was very very low. Today, we are lying about abortion. Abortion is no longer abortion. It is CHOICE. We want everyone to be given the same grades. We do not like competition in view of Self esteem. We reward laziness through welfare.

If Creation became the belief system, we will have a much better loving and caring society. God's order for the family and the nation will be reinforced.We will see more of god's Blessings (Deuteronomy 28:1-15)

 

[The Lady Kate]

Before Darwin proposed Evolution, all Scientists strongly believed in Jesus Christ as the Creator of the universe. The Society valued life as Gift of God. Christian morals based on 10 commandments were upheld. Those who sought public offices ought to be strong believers in Christ. Crime rate was low. The schools taught real Science, Maths, History etc. Families were stable. We never put our parents in nursing homes. We took care of them. Thry nurtured and mentored us. Familes were very close. Individual rights wer protected.Constitutional rights were fully upheld.

All scientists? Are you attempting to presume that the only advances made to science were by Christians? Aristotle, Pythagoras, Eratosthenes, Ibn Firnas, Bi Sheng, to name a few, might disagree with you.

Were you aware that it was the Chinese who invented paper, gunpowder, and the compass? Or that it was the Muslim world that developed banking, astronomy, algebra, and the modern postal system?

Perhaps you should learn more about the world before making such sweeping statements...

Darwin transformed the world into a lawless, valueless mere place of existence where sexual freedom is a way to happiness.

I had no idea Darwin was such a hippie. Free love and all that.

The result is: People do not believe in absolutes anymore.

Not so... you, clearly, have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

God does not exist. Man is God. Truth is not absolute. It can be different for different people and different situations. Life is only a piece of tissue only to be washed and drained. Our society today Protects the rights of the Criminals like (Tookey) and punishes the innocent unborn. School violence is very high. We need metal detectors and Police in every school. In those days when Bible was taught as a necessary reading in Literature and history, there was real learning. We raised responsible citizens. Teen age pregnancy was very very low. Today, we are lying about abortion. Abortion is no longer abortion. It is CHOICE. We want everyone to be given the same grades. We do not like competition in view of Self esteem. We reward laziness through welfare.

And Darwin is to blame for all of this? Where do you conjure up all this hate for a man you barely understand?

If Creation became the belief system, we will have a much better loving and caring society. God's order for the family and the nation will be reinforced.We will see more of god's Blessings (Deuteronomy 28:1-15)

Right.... the world before Darwin was clearly a paradise.

disciple... clearly you are very upset and bitter about the way of the world, but do you really think shifting all the blame on one man is the right approach?

When you try to uphold the faith with nonsense, it hurts all of our credibility.

 

[billwald]

Bottom line is that people who reject science will probably raise children who will be politically powerless and at the bottom of the food chain. They will join the various sects who proudly proclaim that they must be correct because everyone else distains them. The holy remnant.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Bottom line is that people who reject science will probably raise children who will be politically powerless and at the bottom of the food chain. They will join the various sects who proudly proclaim that they must be correct because everyone else distains them. The holy remnant.

Unfortunately, that doesn't equal "politically powerless." Never underestimate the power of the masses... or a mob.

 

[tamtam92]

And the attempt to show that one can take the Bible literally and be consistent with science has been and is a failure.

No it's not a failure. It's only that people are so indoctrinated with evolution that they just can't believe it can be another way.

But its not about believing God rather than human beings. It is about believing human beings...

I believed in Creation before i read books by creationnists. Genesis is part of the Bible, which i believe is God's word, thus must be true. Moreover, i can't take it metaphorically, for it would cause many more problems.
I've been taught evolution at school, but i couldn't be convinced - the way it was presented, it was quite a good explanation, but an unproved presupposition was made, which was : the way the world works today can explain the way it has worked before.
This is not stupid. But it can't be proven - no way - and one can take another conjecture as a basis - such as, God created a perfect world, but there has been the Fall, and the Flood, and such a catastrophy may have the consequences we observe today (fossils, rock layers...).

... who insist the creation accounts are to be understood literally over the revelation of God's creation itself. When God's creation says one thing and human interpreters of scripture (not scripture itself) say another thing, I agree, the humans are definitely wrong.

The issue is just about what the creation says. This is clear : it doesn't say 'evolution', it says 'fossils', 'death', 'dinosaurs', 'mutations', etc. Evolution is just an explanation given by men, just as creationnists try to explain these observations.

The problem is on which basis do you interpret what you see in the nature?

And yes, the creation accounts in the Bible are to be believed first and foremost, because they are in the Bible, which is the Word of God. And because it is true, it can't be contradictory with the revelation of creation in the nature.


The first time i read from creationnists, i was so happy to find people with common sense. I was so naive i thought no christian could read their books and still believe in evolution.

I wish you could examine the subject a bit further with prayer. You would understand that Creation is a far better way to explain our origins than evolution.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I wish you could examine the subject a bit further with prayer. You would understand that Creation is a far better way to explain our origins than evolution.

Don't you find it a bit patronizing to assume that we have not already done so?

 

[tamtam92]

Don't you find it a bit patronizing to assume that we have not already done so?

Using the expression 'a bit further', is assuming you've already looked into the subject isn't it? Of course you've studied the subject if you're in this forum.

I apologize if i don't make myself understood english isn't my mothertongue so i make mistakes.

 

[gluadys]

No it's not a failure. It's only that people are so indoctrinated with evolution that they just can't believe it can be another way.

I am willing to discuss specific examples if you wish. Can you present a creationist alternative to science which is not a scientific failure?

I believed in Creation before i read books by creationnists. Genesis is part of the Bible, which i believe is God's word, thus must be true.

Me too.

Moreover, i can't take it metaphorically, for it would cause many more problems.

And I can’t take it literally for the same reason.

but an unproved presupposition was made, which was : the way the world works today can explain the way it has worked before.

Scientists believe the world is reliable and consistent. Interestingly, this is a feature of the world the bible often points to. Do you think God made a world in which we can rely on the sun rising each day? A world in which we can trust that water runs downhill? A world in which carrot seeds produce carrots and chicken eggs hatch baby chicks?

If you believe this, why do you have a problem with the assumption that the way the world worked yesterday is consistent with the way it works today? Is that not a much more probable assumption than any alternative?

and one can take another conjecture as a basis - such as, God created a perfect world, but there has been the Fall, and the Flood, and such a catastrophy may have the consequences we observe today (fossils, rock layers...).

In science you have to test out your conjectures to see if they are consistent with observation. How would you suggest testing out this conjecture?

The issue is just about what the creation says. This is clear : it doesn't say 'evolution', it says 'fossils', 'death', 'dinosaurs', 'mutations', etc. Evolution is just an explanation given by men, just as creationnists try to explain these observations.

And it says ‘natural selection’ and ‘speciation’ and ‘common ancestry’ IOW ‘evolution’.

The problem is on which basis do you interpret what you see in the nature?

The one that is consistent with the facts of nature. After all, what comes from the hand of God cannot lie.

And yes, the creation accounts in the Bible are to be believed first and foremost, because they are in the Bible, which is the Word of God. And because it is true, it can't be contradictory with the revelation of creation in the nature.

Agreed. And that is why it is incorrect to interpret it as a literal account, since that forces a disagreement between the revelation of God’s Word in creation with the revelation of God’s Word in scripture.

I wish you could examine the subject a bit further with prayer. You would understand that Creation is a far better way to explain our origins than evolution.

This is a false dichotomy. Actually, I believe in both. It is not Creation that I reject. It is a particular interpretation of the biblical accounts of creation.

 

[tamtam92]

I am willing to discuss specific examples if you wish. Can you present a creationist alternative to science which is not a scientific failure?

An alternative to 'science'???? What??? maybe you wanted to say an alternative to evolution theory? I'm alright with science. Anyway, i guess you'll find bits of this alternative in my answer.

Scientists believe the world is reliable and consistent. Interestingly, this is a feature of the world the bible often points to. Do you think God made a world in which we can rely on the sun rising each day? A world in which we can trust that water runs downhill? A world in which carrot seeds produce carrots and chicken eggs hatch baby chicks?

If you believe this, why do you have a problem with the assumption that the way the world worked yesterday is consistent with the way it works today? Is that not a much more probable assumption than any alternative?

I think i can consider myself as a scientist (even if i'm more like an engineer)... so i have no problem with science. And yes, it would be probable that the world could have worked the same way since the beginning.

The problem is, it doesn't get along with the biblical account of Genesis. And moreover, it seems (i'm no geologist) that the way fossils are found can be explained by a catastrophe - and i think it's the way evolutionnists explain it too, only with several catastrophes. It could well be something like the Global Flood of the Bible. Even in evolution theory, many things point towards catastrophical events.

In science you have to test out your conjectures to see if they are consistent with observation. How would you suggest testing out this conjecture?

None of the two conjectures can be tested. Can you test yours? I can't test mine. I would have to get back in the past. But i have the Biblical account of the Beginning, which tells me there has been a catastrophe.

And it says ‘natural selection’ [ok] and ‘speciation’ [...ok] and ‘common ancestry’ [no]IOW ‘evolution’.

'common ancestry' is already an interpretation of the facts. Nothing is proved. It's only a guess, that was made because there are similarities in ADN & the way living beings work. Another explanation can be that God created us all with same systems (which is normal if you think we live in a common ecological system).

I remember playing with mutations when i was in high school. We had two kinds of proteins, which had similarities, and we had to show how one could have evloved to the other. I have to say these proteins had totally different properties. This is how it worked basically:

protein (a) xOIXoZKxO
-> (b) xOIXZoKxO
-> (c) xOIxZoKxO
-> (d) xOIxZoOxO
-> (e) xOIxZOOxO

I had much fun, but frankly, i hope evolutionnists don't really believe this can be possible.
First: nothing proves that intermediates (b), (c), (d) are sustainable.
Second: it just looks like a sort of labyrinth, or a game, but not like a scientific, testable explanation.
The only fact is that there are similarities between the two codes.

You know, i'm studying digital signal processing... and generally, when you have a switch between to bits in a code, or a bit that changes, or disappear, it doesn't create new information. All we try to do is to minimize such errors. And moreover, the error is spread along the communication chain, and all the way, there are more and more errors, and the information is more and more difficult to get. The message doesn't take a new meaning. It tends towards noise.

It works the same way with mutations. Each time you change a bit of code, you lose some information. So it's impossible to change a unicellular being into a thinking human being.

The answer of the evolutionnist will be: yes it's impossible, but not with billion years.

If you compute the probability, i think even billion years would not be enough.

... that forces a disagreement between the revelation of God’s Word in creation with the revelation of God’s Word in scripture.

...that forces a disagreement between the interpretation of the revelation of God’s Word in creation by a lot of scientists but not all with the revelation of God’s Word in scripture.

My big problem is that i feel most of the evolutionnist scientist are not honest with this, because they don't want to acknowledge the existence of God.
Each time i read an article about this issue (i mean in secular press), i just get more persuaded that evolution is fantasy.

 

[gluadys]

An alternative to 'science'???? What??? maybe you wanted to say an alternative to evolution theory? I'm alright with science. Anyway, i guess you'll find bits of this alternative in my answer.

Well, evolution is a scientific theory. And creationists don’t have difficulty only with evolution, but also with geology and physics, so “science” is the correct term.

And yes, it would be probable that the world could have worked the same way since the beginning.

Good. That makes it a good working hypothesis for science.

The problem is, it doesn't get along with the biblical account of Genesis.

Only if one considers the biblical account to be a literal description of how creation happened.

And moreover, it seems (i'm no geologist) that the way fossils are found can be explained by a catastrophe - and i think it's the way evolutionnists explain it too, only with several catastrophes.

There are all sorts of catastrophes which account for the existence of some fossils, ranging from very local (a mammoth buried by a mudslide in a river valley) some more wide spread. There is no credible evidence of a single global catastrophe that created all the fossils at once.

None of the two conjectures can be tested. Can you test yours? I can't test mine. I would have to get back in the past.

No you don’t have to get into the past. What you have to do is determine logically what evidence of the past event would exist in the present. Then see if it does exist in the present.

Yes, you can test evolution. That is what makes it science.

You cannot test for the fall, but you can test for a global flood.

But i have the Biblical account of the Beginning, which tells me there has been a catastrophe.

If you interpret the biblical account of the catastrophe as a literally global flood.

'common ancestry' is already an interpretation of the facts.

Are you suggesting there is no such thing as genetic inheritance?

Another explanation can be that God created us all with same systems (which is normal if you think we live in a common ecological system).

But that explanation leaves a lot of observations unexplained. And in any case it is not a scientific explanation.

I had much fun, but frankly, i hope evolutionnists don't really believe this can be possible.

It would be closer to the mark to say we know it is possible.

First: nothing proves that intermediates (b), (c), (d) are sustainable.

In your exercise, no. But in real life, natural selection takes care of that.

Second: it just looks like a sort of labyrinth, or a game, but not like a scientific, testable explanation.

The usual analogy is to a bush. And it is testable. Check out some information on cytochrome c and how it can be used to test relationships.

The only fact is that there are similarities between the two codes.

No, that is not the only fact.

You know, i'm studying digital signal processing... and generally, when you have a switch between to bits in a code, or a bit that changes, or disappear, it doesn't create new information. All we try to do is to minimize such errors. And moreover, the error is spread along the communication chain, and all the way, there are more and more errors, and the information is more and more difficult to get. The message doesn't take a new meaning. It tends towards noise.

This is one of my favorite topics. Basically you need to understand the difference between engineering and biology.

It works the same way with mutations. Each time you change a bit of code, you lose some information. So it's impossible to change a unicellular being into a thinking human being.

If you are applying Shannon theory, yes. But the basic assumption of Shannon theory (that there is a correct message to be transmitted) doesn’t apply in biology.

...that forces a disagreement between the interpretation of the revelation of God’s Word in creation by a lot of scientists but not all with the revelation of God’s Word in scripture.

My big problem is that i feel most of the evolutionnist scientist are not honest with this, because they don't want to acknowledge the existence of God.
Each time i read an article about this issue (i mean in secular press), i just get more persuaded that evolution is fantasy.

Well I feel it is the creationist who is being dishonest here. You reworded my statement, but you did not reword it accurately. It should read:

…that forces a disagreement between the interpretation of the revelation of God’s Word in creation by a lot of scientists and an interpretation of the revelation of God’s word [/i] by some theologians.

Sure scientists interpret creation, and they also use means to double-check their interpretations against nature itself. But every reader of scripture is an interpreter of scripture. There is no direct communication of God’s Word in scripture to the reader, because the reader necessarily interprets what s/he reads.

So both aspects of revelation (natural and scriptural) are known to us only as they are interpreted to us—either on our own or via those who have expertise (scientists, theologians). It is not the natural and scriptural revelations which conflict with each other but the human misinterpretations of both.

Please don’t claim that your interpretation of scripture is God’s Word.

 

[shernren]

Hi tamtam! It's interesting to have somebody here who actually might know how to talk about "information".

But before that:

An alternative to 'science'???? What??? maybe you wanted to say an alternative to evolution theory? I'm alright with science. Anyway, i guess you'll find bits of this alternative in my answer.

Yes, creationists need an alternative to practically every area of science. They need alternatives to:

- general and special relativity. Like it or not, an observable universe 6,000 years old simply can't look like ours unless you tamper immensely with gravity and light.
- stellar cosmology. Unless they adopt a "created mature" untestable hypothesis, fraught with questionable theology instead, they cannot account for immensely aged phenomena like certain types of supernovae.
- "Solar-System material physics". I don't know if there is a technical term for this but basically they have to show what natural coincidence could cause the solar system to look a lot older than a few billion years, based on isotopic study of meteorite samples.
- Geology. Obviously.
- Evolution. Again, obviously.
- Quantum physics. Because there needs to be major alteration of the standard theories to support any kind of "fast-burning radioactivity" they hypothesize by which 6,000 years or less of radiodecay can produce radiodates of millions or billions of years that corroborate between varying elements (not to mention with non-radiodate methods).

On every scale of existence from the cosmic to the subatomic there appears to be difficulty for the scientific creationist position.

You know, i'm studying digital signal processing... and generally, when you have a switch between to bits in a code, or a bit that changes, or disappear, it doesn't create new information. All we try to do is to minimize such errors. And moreover, the error is spread along the communication chain, and all the way, there are more and more errors, and the information is more and more difficult to get. The message doesn't take a new meaning. It tends towards noise.

Maybe you haven't studied biology, but in genetics there is only one kind of "noise": a genetic sequence that is not expressed. A genetic sequence that is expressed will always produce some kind of protein. Maybe non-functional, maybe better-functional, but there will be some sort of protein produced by a given code. It just isn't the same as in engineering, like gluadys said. In digital signal processing, if you start out with:

Evolution sucks.

and end with:

werion;gkl fhioe.

that's a failure because the person on the other end can't do anything with the nonsense that came out. But in genetic-expression systems every possible "codon" (sequence of three genetic bases) encodes an amino acid. In English, if a message "ape" is garbled into "wtr" information is lost because there is no idea corresponding to that symbol. But in genetics if a message "AAG" is garbled into say "ACG" there would still be information because the new sequence would still correspond to an "idea" - an amino acid.

In Shannon theory how would you define information? Is there an equivalent biological formulation for it?

 

[gluadys]

You know, i'm studying digital signal processing... and generally, when you have a switch between to bits in a code, or a bit that changes, or disappear, it doesn't create new information. All we try to do is to minimize such errors. And moreover, the error is spread along the communication chain, and all the way, there are more and more errors, and the information is more and more difficult to get. The message doesn't take a new meaning. It tends towards noise.

It works the same way with mutations. Each time you change a bit of code, you lose some information. So it's impossible to change a unicellular being into a thinking human being.

The answer of the evolutionnist will be: yes it's impossible, but not with billion years.

If you compute the probability, i think even billion years would not be enough.

Although it is blowing my own horn, I suggest you read this essay of mine. Then we can discuss information in biology.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=13748361#post13748361

 

[imind]

2 timothy 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:...

where in the above does it say that it is to be used as a science book? or anything resembling it?

 

[tamtam92]

thinking...

 

[tamtam92]

Although it is blowing my own horn, I suggest you read this essay of mine. Then we can discuss information in biology.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=13748361#post13748361

Hello again,
I read your essay, it was very interesting, and it refreshed what i knew about genetics (i had learned it 5 or 6 years ago, so i had forgotten a lot of it).
I was astonished to see how you oppose K-C theory to Shannon theory. I'll have to look more into it, because i didn't see it that way (but now i'm much more into emotions theory and neurons and less into information theory, so i don't know when i'll have time to look upon this).

I know you're waiting for scientific creationnist theories & all, but i'm sorry, i'm only a 21-year old girl, i can't build a theory for you. All i know is that there's a few people trying to build a creationnist model. As any scientific model at its beginnings, it still has some weaknesses, but i think the basis are sound. Most of it is based on unanimously accepted scientific knowledge, such as General Relativity.

Also, i'd like you to notice that creationnist geologists use the same datation methods as evolutionnists. Only they interpret it differently.

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
​

I don't think we should be too confident in men of science, especially when they talk about God. And when talking about evolution, these men often have this in mind: if they have evloved, then they're free from God. This is why so much of them are profoundly attached to evolution, and don't want to open their eyes on its holes.

And yet, talking with atheists, i found they are able to take evolution, not as a 'fact', but as a 'scientific model' (which can therefore be abandonned if new discoveries are made).

You know, i'm very astonished. I see hints about evolution almost everywhere i read, and in a lot of my classes too. When i read your posts, i find some very interesting information, which can let me wondering. But never, never have i the smallest doubt about my beliefs. This is something i can hardly understand myself.

Why is it so? I guess that's because i have a plain, naive, unsophisticated, genuine faith in God and in the veracity of the Bible. My faith doesn't depend on what science says.

Thus, each time i read something which is said to be 'because of evolution', or 'because we need it for our survival', i just think that's 'because my God put it there, because He thought it was good for us', or something like that. And i find that evolution isn't necessary to explain everything, and can't explain everything. And even when others are astonished about this or that, because they see it from an evolutionnary point of view, i can see the Hand of God.

My faith doesn't depend on what science says. Rather, my understanding of science is deeply influenced by my faith.

I had much more to say, but i just can say it all now, the words don't come.

--edit
I might be long to answer next, i'm very busy at the moment

 

[gluadys]

Hello again,
I read your essay, it was very interesting, and it refreshed what i knew about genetics (i had learned it 5 or 6 years ago, so i had forgotten a lot of it).
I was astonished to see how you oppose K-C theory to Shannon theory. I'll have to look more into it, because i didn't see it that way (but now i'm much more into emotions theory and neurons and less into information theory, so i don't know when i'll have time to look upon this).

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

It is not so much a matter of opposing K-C and Shannon. In fact they harmonize quite nicely. It is a matter of showing that they approach the matter of information from different starting points and with different goals. So one cannot always assume that they use the vocabulary of information theory in the same way.

Also, i'd like you to notice that creationnist geologists use the same datation methods as evolutionnists.

That actually is not true. They can only get different results by ignoring some of the data or by using unsupported hypotheses.

I don't think we should be too confident in men of science, especially when they talk about God.

Well, we should never conclude that when scientists talk about theology, that they have come to a scientific conclusion. Both the theology of the atheist and the theology of the Christian is outside of science.

And when talking about evolution, these men often have this in mind: if they have evloved, then they're free from God. This is why so much of them are profoundly attached to evolution, and don't want to open their eyes on its holes.

I think you are making a lot of assumptions about motivations you cannot possibly be aware of. In any case, the motivations are irrelevant. No matter how strong a scientist's emotional attachment to evolution might be, that doesn't make it scientifically valid. Motivation doesn't cut it as evidence.

And yet, talking with atheists, i found they are able to take evolution, not as a 'fact', but as a 'scientific model' (which can therefore be abandonned if new discoveries are made).

Well, in that they are no different than Buddhist, agnostic, Jewish, Shinto or Christian scientists. Facts are what theories explain. We have the fact that evolution happens (direct observation of the process and its mechanisms) and a theory (aka scientific model) to explain how it happens. And the theory is always open to being changed by new evidence.

But never, never have i the smallest doubt about my beliefs.

Same here. It has never occurred to me to doubt my Christian faith.

My faith doesn't depend on what science says.

Again, same here. It seems that when it comes to faith, we have a lot in common.

Thus, each time i read something which is said to be 'because of evolution', or 'because we need it for our survival', i just think that's 'because my God put it there, because He thought it was good for us', or something like that.

And maybe the way God put it there was through evolution.

And i find that evolution isn't necessary to explain everything, and can't explain everything.

And no one in science claims it does. There are other fields of science besides biology, and other theories which explain things that evolution cannot explain. Even in biology, evolution does not explain the origin of life, only how life evolved and diversified into all the species we see today.

And even when others are astonished about this or that, because they see it from an evolutionnary point of view, i can see the Hand of God.

I see the Hand of God in all of nature, including evolution. Holding an evolutionary view does not require becoming blind to God and his works. Evolution is not an alternative to God, but a tool God designed to accomplish his will.