Arkansas House Votes to Allow Teaching of Creationism in Science Classes

[renniks]

Here in the NorthWest, old growth forest is very much teaming with life. Logging is about money. Money is not truth. The Life Force of the an old growth forest is where Truth resides. It's also the kind of place that God's Glory becomes alive in matter.

God's glory isn't limited by the size of the trees. Do you live in a house with wood in the walls? Logging is about being able to make stuff from what God made.

 

[renniks]

No, it is not. I have never seen a person that understands evolution that can honestly oppose it.

Lol, right. And you are the ultimate judge of who understands it, obviously!

 

[dlamberth]

God's glory isn't limited by the size of the trees. Do you live in a house with wood in the walls? Logging is about being able to make stuff from what God made.

It's not about the size of the trees. It's about the depth and breath of life in an old growth forest that only an old growth forest can grow. Logging is about money. Money has nothing to do with God.

 

[dlamberth]

Creation just means a Creator. I doubt it's gonna be a " Christian" class. Probably more like ID.

ID is totally and completely Christian!!

 

[renniks]

It's not about the size of the trees. It's about the depth and breath of life in an old growth forest that only an old growth forest can grow. Logging is about money. Money has nothing to do with God.

Right that's why the Bible talks about managing money do much.

 

[renniks]

ID is totally and completely Christian!!

No it doesn't point to any particular God.

 

[Bradskii]

I agree. We're long overdue to wipe our hands of abiogenesis, and come up with another hypothesis to test.

Abiogenesis is simply the proposal that life emerged from inanimate matter. Unless I'm mistaken, there is a detailed explanation for that in the bible. If that's one of the other hypothesis that you'd like to test then I'll be keen to know how you propose to do that.

I'm going to assume God exists for the rest of this post. However, I see no evidence for biblical creation. But I see a gargantuan amount of evidence for evolution. You could say of biblical proportions. So I would suggest that God didn't shazam everything into being over a short period of time. But that He set up his creation to unfold in the manner which we have determined over the time periods which we have also determined. I'm going to call this process 'natural' (yet accept that it is God's handiwork).

Now, in the same way that we can't test evolution through from, say, bacteria to man, we can't test a natural process of abiogenesis. Because the proposal is that under conditions of which we aren't exactly sure of, over periods of millions of years, untold numbers of mini experiments were being carried out in some verion of the primordial soup every single second accross an entire planet. Which eventually produced, not life, but inanimate material that had one or two chacteristics of life.

And that, according to the process of evolution that we understand so well, the gazillions of experiments built on those first small steps and added further characteristics. Until we had what most people would agree to as being life.

Now quite a few of those small steps are readily understood. And we can exoeriment to show that they indeed could have taken place. So we have this monsteous jigsaw puzzle to which we are very slowly adding small pieces bit by bit. Stick around long enough and we'll have a larger picture.

In the meantime, you can suggest how any other proposal might be tested.

And, bear in mind, if we ever find evidence for life elsewhere in the cosmos, then we won't need to do any more tests. You've quite a lot of eggs in your one basket...

 

[Speedwell]

No it doesn't point to any particular God.

Don't worry--the Discovery Institute has one waiting in the wings--and guess who it is?

 

[Bradskii]

No it doesn't point to any particular God.

You must know your credibility drops a few points when you suggest that. Anyone reading your posts with an open mind would be discouraged to treat anything else you say as being credible if you try to maintain such a monstrously nonsensical position.

 

[SelfSim]

Now, in the same way that we can't test evolution through from, say, bacteria to man, we can't test a natural process of abiogenesis. Because the proposal is that under conditions of which we aren't exactly sure of, over periods of millions of years, untold numbers of mini experiments were being carried out in some verion of the primordial soup every single second accross an entire planet. Which eventually produced, not life, but inanimate material that had one or two chacteristics of life.

I don't agree that Abiogenesis hypotheses and theory of Evolution are untestable.
I'm not at all sure your wording there, accurately describes the central issue (and the essence of the objections presented thus far(?) .. not that anyone has come up with any better accuracy in their descriptions of their objections yet either, mind you).

Stuart Kauffman says:

Each new biological innovation begets a new functional niche fostering yet more innovation. You cannot predict what will exist, he argues, because the function of everything biology generates will depend on what came before, and what other things exist now, with an ever-expanding set of what is possible next.
...
Life’s emergence might rest on the foundations of physics, “but it is not derivable from them”

'Non-derivability' doesn't rule out that there will be 'a something' which can ultimately be tested (or is testable), someplace, sometime, in a very big universe.

 

[renniks]

You must know your credibility drops a few points when you suggest that. Anyone reading your posts with an open mind would be discouraged to treat anything else you say as being credible if you try to maintain such a monstrously nonsensical position.

Obviously, if you find that the evidence points to a creator, you are free to pick one. Lots of Jews, Muslims, etc. believe in a similar creation story even though they believe different doctrines about who God is.

 

[VirOptimus]

Obviously, if you find that the evidence points to a creator, you are free to pick one. Lots of Jews, Muslims, etc. believe in a similar creation story even though they believe different doctrines about who God is.

There is no data supporting god(s).

 

[renniks]

There is no data supporting god(s).

Thousands of Scientists believe otherwise. But I guess we should all go with what you believe, oh random internet dude...

 

[VirOptimus]

Thousands of Scientists believe otherwise. But I guess we should all go with what you believe, oh random internet dude...

No, they dont.

They may belive, but its based on faith, not science.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't agree that Abiogenesis hypotheses and theory of Evolution are untestable.
I'm not at all sure your wording there, accurately describes the central issue (and the essence of the objections presented thus far(?) .. not that anyone has come up with any better accuracy in their descriptions of their objections yet either, mind you).

Stuart Kauffman says:
'Non-derivability' doesn't rule out that there will be 'a something' which can ultimately be tested (or is testable), someplace, sometime, in a very big universe.

I'm simply heading off counter arguments from creationists along the lines of 'we can't rerun the whole of evolution!' No, we can't. Neither can we set up a planet with suitable conditions and wait a few billion years to see what happens re abiogenesis.

But...we can propose different aspects of each process and test them individually. And those small parts go to make up the whole. As it does with evolution and as I believe it ultimately will re abiogenesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

You must know your credibility drops a few points when you suggest that. Anyone reading your posts with an open mind would be discouraged to treat anything else you say as being credible if you try to maintain such a monstrously nonsensical position.

What's this then?

'Not all creationist organizations have embraced the intelligent design movement. According to Thomas Dixon, "Religious leaders have come out against ID too. An open letter affirming the compatibility of Christian faith and the teaching of evolution, first produced in response to controversies in Wisconsin in 2004, has now been signed by over ten thousand clergy from different Christian denominations across America." Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, a proponent of Old Earth creationism, believes that the efforts of intelligent design proponents to divorce the concept from Biblical Christianity make its hypothesis too vague. In 2002, he wrote: "Winning the argument for design without identifying the designer yields, at best, a sketchy origins model. Such a model makes little if any positive impact on the community of scientists and other scholars. [...] ...the time is right for a direct approach, a single leap into the origins fray. Introducing a biblically based, scientifically verifiable creation model represents such a leap."'

SOURCE

 

[AV1611VET]

But...we can propose different aspects of each process and test them individually.

Only on paper.

And those small parts go to make up the whole. As it does with evolution and as I believe it ultimately will re abiogenesis.

Yup ... it's a game of connect-the-dots, isn't it?

 

[Bradskii]

Obviously, if you find that the evidence points to a creator, you are free to pick one. Lots of Jews, Muslims, etc. believe in a similar creation story even though they believe different doctrines about who God is.

Nothwithsatnding that those two religions believe in the same god as you, that wasn't the point you were making. But a B+ for deflection.

You stated that ID 'didn't point to a particular God'. It so obviously does (surely you are aware of the farce regarding swapping out all references to 'the Creator' for the term 'Intelligent Designer' in the book Pandas And People?). And a minor Freudian slip, if you were genuine in that respect then you would have said 'god'. Not 'God'.

Doubling down ensures you lose double the credibility don't you know...

 

[SelfSim]

Only on paper.

'On paper' is what counts when it comes to what 'really exists' means.

Yup ... it's a game of connect-the-dots, isn't it?

Your attempts to trivialise the quest of human understanding of origins of life betrays your own faith.

 

[Bradskii]

What's this then?

It seems to be a source that points out that not all Christians believe in the standard ID model - which they themselves consider to be God. It seems that you've posted something that confirms my statement.

Thanks, I guess...