Creationism - good or bad?

[Mallon]

lol strangely i would say that a lot of my professors were so aggressive about atheism i might call it an agenda or a mission.

What would they say to you? Did you report them?

i don't think that there is a secret organization out there trying to convert everybody to atheism (if that even makes sense), you're right, that sounds to me like fundamentalists trying to scare people into their position. but i think academics attracts a certain kind of personality and that such people can become a little carried away in their thoughts, especially about God.

No doubt. Academia can be an intimidating world, full of big egos. Evolution doesn't make atheists that way, though. Atheism does. Fundies who think otherwise are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[busterdog]

You still don't get it. We know enough to know when tornadoes can happen and when they can't. We can take data from each occurrence and add it to an overall view that will eventually lead us to know how to better predict them. If God, or any other supernatural being, is responsible for them, then that being is doing it in a way that is consistent, predictable and testable. In other words, it is a natural process.

We are separating two forces here, calling them "natural" and "supernatural". The first we can discover, predict and count on. The second is offered by God as God decides, and CANNOT be predicted. If every time someone prayed for a peanut one would appear in their hand, that would be a natural process. Conversely, if a tornado appeared out of a clear sky out of the wrong weather conditions exactly once, that would be supernatural.

You YEC's downplay the natural. You think that calling anything "natural" takes away from the glory of God. The question is, why?

Nonsense. No one predicts tornados in Connecticut except maybe hours before. You have a very narrow window. Even in Oklahoma, the window for prediction is very small.

You think you understand something because you have some sense that tornados will happen to some degree of probability (pretty slight over extended period of time). The fact is you don't know when or where they will occur. All you can do is suppose that the difference is made up by "nature". "Nature" is a construct of men. It is a "modeling" that rarely ever works long term. It is intended to glorify men, instead of God. It is intended by men as a way to pretend to understand something that God completely understands, yet it has no predictive content, except in tightly defined samples. In many ways it is associted with randomness, which is another human construct that can't be proven to exist.

 

[crawfish]

Nonsense. No one predicts tornados in Connecticut except maybe hours before. You have a very narrow window. Even in Oklahoma, the window for prediction is very small.

You think you understand something because you have some sense that tornados will happen to some degree of probability (pretty slight over extended period of time). The fact is you don't know when or where they will occur. All you can do is suppose that the difference is made up by "nature". "Nature" is a construct of men. It is a "modeling" that rarely ever works long term. It is intended to glorify men, instead of God. It is intended by men as a way to pretend to understand something that God completely understands, yet it has no predictive content, except in tightly defined samples. In many ways it is associted with randomness, which is another human construct that can't be proven to exist.

Alright: here's a better example.

Consider the probe sent to Pluto. Consider the sheer distance between earth and Pluto; consider that, if you launch the probe even a fraction of a percentage in the wrong direction you will miss it by millions of miles. Thus, we have to have an incredible understanding of nature - of gravity, physics, astronomy - to be able to pull it off. If that information was not dependable we could NEVER make it there. But, we are well on our way. We could even derive the mathematics to use Jupiter's gravity as a slingshot to increase the probe's speed.

As we gain knowledge of nature, it gives more and more glory to God. We not only know what He did, but gain some insight into how He did it. When you deny the power of natural law, and our ability to use its predictive behavior to our advantage, you are denying God's good works.

So, again: why is something less glorifying of God when it is seen as "natural"?

 

[Snowbunny]

What would they say to you? Did you report them?

lol oh heavens no it was nothing intimidating or out of the ordinary at all... it was just that they challenged me a lot about religion outside of class... friendly scholarly discussion, that's all.

No doubt. Academia can be an intimidating world, full of big egos. Evolution doesn't make atheists that way, though. Atheism does. Fundies who think otherwise are barking up the wrong tree.

si, i don't think i see the same passion about evolution from scientists that i see with religious people when they talk about creationism... on the other hand atheists sometimes argue rather vehemently with that same zeal when it comes to evolution when its in the course of an argument about their belief in the lack of Gods existance... to some degree i have to almost differenciate the agnostics, who don't believe in religion but are open to the idea God may exist, non theists who in my mind are just people who don't believe in God, and the actual atheists who are like an evangelizing religion...

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Calminian]

This is not about if Creationism is right or wrong, but if it's good or bad for society and Christianity.

Creationism, especially YEC, teaches a world view that is in contradiction with mainstream science in order to fit to the Creationist's interpretation of the Bible. Even if you don't believe in Creationism, you need to admit that it could have some positive effects:

Positive:

- It might lead people to Christianity who otherwise reject religion because they think it contradicts the laws of nature.
- In describing alternative world views, it promotes an open mind and reminds to always question even well established scientific theories.
- Creationist attempts to let their world view look as 'scientific' as possible, such as the Creation museum, can rise an overall interest in science.

Negative:

- It might scare people away from Christianity because it gives the impression that Christianity is for the uneducated who don't know much about modern science.
- It establishes the supernatural in the world view and thus promotes superstition.
- Homeschooling children in a sole Creationist world view leaves them uneducated in important fields of biology, geology and astronomy.

What do you think?

I think it's overwhelmingly positive. Kid's smarter than we give them credit for. They understand the implications of theism and problems with believing in a world that came about without a Creator. They also wonder how they got here, and a miracle of God makes the most sense to them. Take that away, and only negatives will follow.

 

[juvenissun]

Nor does it make Christianity more correct than Islam.

But we're talking about a body of empirical evidence, not a popularity contest. Evolutionary theory isn't right because it's accepted by all the scientists. It's accepted by all the scientists because it's right.

To young minds, it IS a popularity contest. In college and up, the amount of "evidence" may count. But to young minds, 10 evidences are a lot. Your teacher SHOULD also give you 10 "so called" evidences of creationism. But he did not. This seriously hindered your spiritual welfare.

You should modify your description by using % like what I did. It is definitely not "all" scientists believed in evolution. You are either deliberately exaggerate it, or you are not scientific enough.

 

[artybloke]

Your teacher SHOULD also give you 10 "so called" evidences of creationism.

As there isn't even one piece of evidence in favour of your materialist, scientistic interpretation of scripture (just a lot of lies, misquotes, distortions of facts and bad science (not to mention bad theology)), what would be the point?

 

[Paul365]

Nonsense. No one predicts tornados in Connecticut except maybe hours before. You have a very narrow window. Even in Oklahoma, the window for prediction is very small.

You think you understand something because you have some sense that tornados will happen to some degree of probability (pretty slight over extended period of time). The fact is you don't know when or where they will occur. All you can do is suppose that the difference is made up by "nature". "Nature" is a construct of men. It is a "modeling" that rarely ever works long term. It is intended to glorify men, instead of God. It is intended by men as a way to pretend to understand something that God completely understands, yet it has no predictive content, except in tightly defined samples. In many ways it is associted with randomness, which is another human construct that can't be proven to exist.

I think there are two problems here. The first one is that you're confusing knowledge with determinism. We know the laws of nature that cause tornadoes, but that does not mean we can predict any tornado years in advance. One of the nature laws says 'nature is not deterministic', so we can only deal with probabilities here. Even if nature were deterministic, we'd need to determine the position of every atom on earth before we could predict tornadoes with certainty.

But still a tornado is not a supernatural event as you maybe believe. It follows perfectly the nature laws that we know.

The second problem is that you seem to think nature is a construct of men. It isn't, it is a construct of God. God made the laws of nature and made our minds able to understand them. If God wanted us to believe in the supernatural, why has he not constructed a supernatural world without any nature laws for us to understand?

 

[busterdog]

I think there are two problems here. The first one is that you're confusing knowledge with determinism. We know the laws of nature that cause tornadoes, but that does not mean we can predict any tornado years in advance. One of the nature laws says 'nature is not deterministic', so we can only deal with probabilities here. Even if nature were deterministic, we'd need to determine the position of every atom on earth before we could predict tornadoes with certainty.

But still a tornado is not a supernatural event as you maybe believe. It follows perfectly the nature laws that we know.

The second problem is that you seem to think nature is a construct of men. It isn't, it is a construct of God. God made the laws of nature and made our minds able to understand them. If God wanted us to believe in the supernatural, why has he not constructed a supernatural world without any nature laws for us to understand?

Just because you can say something is impossible doesn't mean you have the right to treat it has something you understand. No, you can't figure out the behavior of every atom. Predicting the weather is virtually impossible, except with some broad generalizations, isolated areas and narrow time frames.

Thus, it is quite beyond you. You cannot account for it. It is virtually, supernatural.

"Natural" is a word men use to pretend they understand something. Like the word "random." The idea of the random actions of atoms is itself a further pretense. Remember that Heisenberg also theorized absolute limitations on our knowledge of particle behavior.

It is so far beyond us, of what benefit is it to theorize that knowing every atom's behavior might help us predict the weather with certainty? We don't even know why the components of atoms don't fly apart.

Being unable to account for things like weather, you haven't the first clue about what the boundary is between "natural" and "supernatural." You don't know why things happen. Period. "Nature" is a mental construct of man to the extent at least that men presume there is a boundary between "natural" and "supernatural."

People would like for YECs to hate nature. But they don't. That is the straw man. The problem is evolutionists have an arbitrary boundary between natural and supernatural and scant evidence to support it. That is an entirely different matter.

 

[busterdog]

So, again: why is something less glorifying of God when it is seen as "natural"?

See response to Paul.

What doesn't glorify God is the arbitrary boundary men draw between supernatural and natural. The boundary is quite unscientific. It is without evidence and without a cogent theory. It is about professional standards, not anything observed or demonstrated. It is arbitrary. And it presumes a boundary on God supernatural province with no just basis.

 

[crawfish]

See response to Paul.

What doesn't glorify God is the arbitrary boundary men draw between supernatural and natural. The boundary is quite unscientific. It is without evidence and without a cogent theory. It is about professional standards, not anything observed or demonstrated. It is arbitrary. And it presumes a boundary on God supernatural province with no just basis.

What is arbitrary about the boundary? Things that are knowable versus things that are unknowable. Things that are predictable versus things that are not. Science cannot - and should not - deal in what cannot be discovered, cannot be predicted. It should exclusively remain in those things that can.

I still fail to understand why it is that God-made natural law is so threatening to your theology. The implications of what you say would seem to invalidate science altogether - and if it had been so for the last 2000 years, we would not know what we do today.

 

[shernren]

We don't even know why the components of atoms don't fly apart.

Nonsense. An atom is held together by the electromagnetic force between the negatively charged electrons and positively charged nucleus, in accordance with the Schrodinger wave equations using a potential well described by Maxwell's equations. The nucleus itself is held together by the strong nuclear force, again in accordance with the Schrodinger wave equations but this time with a very short-range potential well described by quantum chromodynamics.

We know a whole lot more than you give us credit for, busterdog.

 

[busterdog]

Nonsense. An atom is held together by the electromagnetic force between the negatively charged electrons and positively charged nucleus, in accordance with the Schrodinger wave equations using a potential well described by Maxwell's equations. The nucleus itself is held together by the strong nuclear force, again in accordance with the Schrodinger wave equations but this time with a very short-range potential well described by quantum chromodynamics.

We know a whole lot more than you give us credit for, busterdog.

not

 

[juvenissun]

As there isn't even one piece of evidence in favour of your materialist, scientistic interpretation of scripture (just a lot of lies, misquotes, distortions of facts and bad science (not to mention bad theology)), what would be the point?

You should leave this criticism to those young people. If they would think the same way, that is their judgement. You can not make it for them. And you should not take the privilege from them.

Communist and Muslim did the brain washing to their young based on a similar thought you have.

 

[Mallon]

not

Wow. You just got pwned, shern. You must be devastated.

 

[Paul365]

not

I'm glad that I found this forum where arguments are exchanged on such a high intellectual level.

 

[IndyPirate]

not

Compelling argument there, Mr. Borat.
.
.
.
.
NOT!

 

[busterdog]

I'm glad that I found this forum where arguments are exchanged on such a high intellectual level.

Why is more the use of more words better?

Shernren knows that there isn't a conclusive unified field theory. There are lots of idea, but we just aren't there. This is OBVIOUS. So obvious that it is rather obtuse to posit that we do understand what holds an atom together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory

This is not even discussing the nature of theorized particles that comprise these other constituents of the atom. That is, theorized, but not proven, not predictable and not understood.

 

[busterdog]

Compelling argument there, Mr. Borat.
.
.
.
.
NOT!

Not.

As in not an argument.


As in Shernren never gave me an argument. Not admitting facts we both know and pretending otherwise was, as such, propaganda. It is a public relations maneuver. Not an argument.

 

[busterdog]

What is arbitrary about the boundary? Things that are knowable versus things that are unknowable. Things that are predictable versus things that are not. Science cannot - and should not - deal in what cannot be discovered, cannot be predicted. It should exclusively remain in those things that can.

I still fail to understand why it is that God-made natural law is so threatening to your theology. The implications of what you say would seem to invalidate science altogether - and if it had been so for the last 2000 years, we would not know what we do today.

Most of so-called "nature" is not known at all. You can't predict the weather, so you know very little about it. Knowing so little, you have no idea where the boundary between "natural" and "supernatural" should lie.

You don't even know whether there is a supernatural reason why you weren't hit by an asteroid while you slept. You have no idead. So why pretend to know the difference between natural and supernatural?

The argument is very simple. Address it on its own terms. And having done so, reject it if you like. There is a clear knowledge boundary for "nature". What lies beyond that boundary and distinguishes the supernatural is nothing but guess work. I know quite well that science presume to extrapolate about what it might later find in matters such as weather prediction and unified field theory. Lets be clear about what it is, though.