Arkansas House Votes to Allow Teaching of Creationism in Science Classes

[Bradskii]

I've seen even scholarly people here set the scientific method aside to ridicule the Bible.

They'll preach the scientific method ... until someone brings up something from the Bible ... like basic doctrine ... and there goes the SM out the window.

I'm not sure of the point you are making here. If you want to discover some scientific explanation, you use the scientific method. You know this. And you know how the method works. And you fully accept it in every aspect of your existence. Except when it contradicts your religious beliefs.

And that's not a proposal or an argument or a forum point-scoring position to gain an advantage for the secular unwashed. It's simply an observation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed. AV has no use for ID.

But I think that what happens with many creationists is that they are not particularly well informed about ID and take it to be merely the notion that God "designed" the universe and ignore the fact that ID doesn't sit particularly will with biblical creationism.

Indeed.

Biblical creationism says what was done, why it was done, when it was done, who did it, where it was done, how long it took to do it, why it took that long, what order it was done in, and who the eyewitnesses were (some by name).

All in one easy-to-read chapter.

ID writes books after books after books about everything that takes place after the creation week.

 

[AV1611VET]

Belief has nothing to do with science or physical reality.

Well if I sponsored a hunt for the Loch Ness Monster and overheard someone say what you just said, I'd have him removed from the hunt.

Traipsing around with expensive equipment with the attitude you're wasting your time usually results in not finding anything.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well if I sponsored a hunt for the Loch Ness Monster and overheard someone say what you just said, I'd have him removed from the hunt.

Traipsing around with expensive equipment with the attitude you're wasting your time usually results in not finding anything.

No, thats not how it works.

Besides, Nessie is a part of physical reality (if she exists).

 

[dlamberth]

No it doesn't point to any particular God.

The only ones talking ID are Christians. The only one pushing that image are Christians. The belief of ID was born within the Christian religion pointing towards the Christian God as the designer. There are no other God's involved.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure of the point you are making here. If you want to discover some scientific explanation, you use the scientific method. You know this. And you know how the method works. And you fully accept it in every aspect of your existence. Except when it contradicts your religious beliefs.

Kinda coincidental that it tends to negate every jot & tittle of the Bible that it "researches," isn't it?

 

[VirOptimus]

Kinda coincidental that it tends to negate every jot & tittle of the Bible that it "researches," isn't it?

Science research doesnt care about the bible (or any other religious text).

 

[AV1611VET]

Besides, Nessie is a part of physical reality (if she exists).

LOL -- read that slowly.

 

[VirOptimus]

LOL -- read that slowly.

?

 

[AV1611VET]

The only ones talking ID are Christians. The only one pushing that image are Christians. The belief of ID was born within the Christian religion pointing towards the Christian God as the designer. There are no other God's involved.

Just the same, it can't hold a candle to creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science research doesnt care about the bible (or any other religious text).

Says you.

 

[VirOptimus]

Says you.

No, thats how it works.

Try to learn the (very) basics.

 

[dlamberth]

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

Which counters what renniks was saying:

No it doesn't point to any particular God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which counters what renniks was saying:

QV please:

The contemporary intelligent design movement formulates its arguments in secular terms and intentionally avoids identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit.

SOURCE

 

[Bradskii]

Submitted for your edification, Brad: The Scientific Method Is A Myth

You must have read that. And known that it was a treatise on the philosophy of science as opposed to a rejection of science itself.

In which why post it? Catchy title?

 

[Bradskii]

That's no excuse to throw doctrine out the window without investigating it first.

How many times have I balked that people don't investigate before they communicate?

Yet they'll insist we should all be using the scientific method like it means something.

Yeah, we use the scientific method (there's that term again) to study scientific matters. And as it relates to doctrine, it separates that which we should treat literally from that which we should not.

But you re still free to believe whatever you want. Religion can be dogmatic. But science, by definition, cannot (and you are free to believe that it can as well).

 

[AV1611VET]

You must have read that. And known that it was a treatise on the philosophy of science as opposed to a rejection of science itself.

In which why post it? Catchy title?

I like this sentence:

As long as no one asked too many questions, the flexibility of the term could be a force of cohesion and a tool for inspiring action among groups.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, we use the scientific method (there's that term again) to study scientific matters. And as it relates to doctrine, it separates that which we should treat literally from that which we should not.

But you re still free to believe whatever you want. Religion can be dogmatic. But science, by definition, cannot (and you are free to believe that it can as well).

What I believe isn't the real issue I'm complaining about.

It's when I espouse something someone has never heard before, then take flak for "making it up," when, in reality, it's basic doctrine.

I think those are called "ad hominems," and some are trigger happy to employ them.

 

[Bradskii]

Kinda coincidental that it tends to negate every jot & tittle of the Bible that it "researches," isn't it?

Why say that when it doesn't? There's so much in the bible that can be shown to be true. If you want to make a point you can do so without ridiculous exageration. It'll actually carry more weight.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

No, there ignorance or dishonesty can always be demonstrated. Creationists unfortunately won't let themselves understand how their heroes lied for them. They won't even let themselves understand the basics of science. If they did they could not support creationism without lying.

Are you up for it? Do you think that you could learn what the scientific method is and the concept of scientific evidence?

We do not even need to bring evolution into the discussion until you get the basics down.