Creation "Science" is Anti-God

nvxplorer said:

Yes, I deny this. Naturalism is a method used by science. It is not a political ideology. How is communism relevant to science? That seems absurd. Is capitalism a supernatural economic theory?

Click to expand...

You're in total denial if you don't believe this. Naturalism and evolution are the foundation of communism. It was also the foundation of Naziism. No I am not saying all naturalists/evolutionists are Nazis/Commies. I'm simply showing you the knife cuts both ways. I've often said, a man’s beliefs about origins are a better indicator of his politics then even his religious beliefs. IOW evolutionists are much more likely to be lefties (regardless of their religious affiliation).

Naturalism is a belief. Creationists believe natural processes are normative, but supernatural additions can and have occurred. Both belief systems make ideal environments for scientific advancements. In fact science was born out of and thrived in christian cultures.

Matthew777 said:

Creation "science" is.

Click to expand...

Okay let's talk about creation science. Creation scientists starts with a miracle recorded in the Bible and then, using the scientific knowledge we have today, seeks to understand that miracle better (in the sense of speculating about its details). There is nothing covert or clandestine about it. All the organizations I know if are up front about this. Why do you consider this a right-wing conspiracy? Do you feel they should not be allowed to use science in this regard?

Calminian said:

You're in total denial if you don't believe this. Naturalism and evolution are the foundation of communism. It was also the foundation of Naziism. No I am not saying all naturalists/evolutionists are Nazis/Commies. I'm simply showing you the knife cuts both ways. I've often said, a man’s beliefs about origins are a better indicator of his politics then even his religious beliefs. IOW evolutionists are much more likely to be lefties (regardless of their religious affiliation).

Click to expand...

Marx’s philosophy was based on humanism, not methodological naturalism. Hitler’s ideology was social Darwinism. Again, irrelevant to science.

I agree that creationists are overwhelmingly conservative, as I stated. However, liberal Christians most certainly believe in the supernatural. As evolution is a sensitive and relatively new field, it’s only natural that conservatives would resist change.

Naturalism is a belief. Creationists believe natural processes are normative, but supernatural additions can and have occurred. Both belief systems make ideal environments for scientific advancements. In fact science was born out of and thrived in christian cultures.

Click to expand...

Naturalism is the method of science, not a philosophy. As such, it is not a belief.

nvxplorer said:

Marx’s philosophy was based on humanism, not methodological naturalism. Hitler’s ideology was social Darwinism. Again, irrelevant to science.

Click to expand...

Marx's was a naturalist and evolutionist. His humanism was built on those foundations. When you apply methodological naturalism all the way back to origins, there is no distinction between it and philosophical naturalism. Hitler's social Darwinism was built on Darwin's scientific theories. I don't know why you're resisting this.

nvxplorer said:

I agree that creationists are overwhelmingly conservative, as I stated. However, liberal Christians most certainly believe in the supernatural.

Click to expand...

But they generally believe in a non intervening Supernatural in the area of origins.

nvxplorer said:

As evolution is a sensitive and relatively new field, it’s only natural that conservatives would resist change.

Click to expand...

And since it assumes naturalism and makes a Creator irrelevant, lefties are naturally drawn to it.

nvxplorer said:

Naturalism is the method of science, not a philosophy. As such, it is not a belief.

Click to expand...

Actually it is both. I believe science to be a useful tool based on my world-view of normative naturalism. Someone without this foundation will not have the same trust in it. There are religions that believe this all to be an illusion, a dream. You and I reject this because of our belief systems.

Calminian said:

Marx's was a naturalist and evolutionist. His humanism was built on those foundations. When you apply methodological naturalism all the way back to origins, there is no distinction between it and philosophical naturalism. Hitler's social Darwinism was built on Darwin's scientific theories. I don't know why you're resisting this.

Click to expand...

I’m not resisting anything. Marx’s and Hitler’s ideologies are irrelevant to science. Science does not involve itself with economics or philosophy. Marx did not develop his theory using the scientific method. Moreover, there is nothing inherently “evil” about communism anyway. It is a failed economic system, nothing more. The Communist Party isn’t exactly a voice in American politics, so it’s also irrelevant to American liberals. Hitler was a madman. Science did not create Hitler. Hitler was not a liberal, either, so his mention here is out of place.

But they generally believe in a non intervening Supernatural in the area of origins.

Click to expand...

So what? You probably believe storms are caused by weather patterns. Compared to someone who thinks storms are directly caused by the wrath of God, does that make your faith any less authentic?

And since it assumes naturalism and makes a Creator irrelevant, lefties are naturally drawn to it.

Click to expand...

This is a bold assertion. Who are these lefties and why would they be drawn to naturalism? All liberals are not atheists. All conservatives are not theists. (Check the icons.) However, most creationists are conservative, for the reasons I’ve stated.

Actually it is both. I believe science to be a useful tool based on my world-view of normative naturalism. Someone without this foundation will not have the same trust in it. There are religions that believe this all to be an illusion, a dream. You and I reject this because of our belief systems.

Click to expand...

The only philosophical statement made by science is that reality is observable, nothing more. You can claim that what we observe is both natural and supernatural, but science must investigate all phenomena as being natural. It cannot operate any other way.

Did Jesues cure the blind or just give glasses! Was he a micarile makeror just a sincetist?

Cal - your opposing of left-wing politics and Christianity is very funny from this side of the pond.

You may not be aware of this, but in this country socialism was largely originally promoted by Christians - the Christian socialist movements from both Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical church groupings were particularly prominent in the early history of the Labour Party and the Trade Union Movement. They may be one of the reasons that Marxist communism had relatively little influence on the development of UK democratic socialism.

The only reason that you see mainstream science origins models associated with left-wing politics is the particular social situation in the USA, where Christianity is primarily associated with the Republican party, and the more fundamentalist that Christianity, the more closely associated. This is, in fact, a specifically USA phenomenon. As I've said, over here severa prominent left wing politicial figures have been Christians, which is all the more notable since, again, unlike the US, it is not normal, nor electorially advantageous, to wear ones faith on ones sleeve.

Perhaps even more shockingly to you, many of us are "lefties" precisely because we are Christians. I'm sure you could write a screed on why we're terribly wrong, but then we could do the same for you. It achieves nothing.

Just don't think you're seeing anything particularly profound - you're just seeing a specifically US phenomenon.
Finally, over here, the idea that ones view on origins has anything to do with politics would have us rolling around laughing. YEC is not something we associate with the right wing over here; it's something we generally associate with those "strange American fundamentalists". I was seventeen before I found out that some people actually took Genesis 1-3 literally.

Calminian said:

Okay let's talk about creation science. Creation scientists starts with a miracle recorded in the Bible and then, using the scientific knowledge we have today, seeks to understand that miracle better (in the sense of speculating about its details). There is nothing covert or clandestine about it. All the organizations I know if are up front about this. Why do you consider this a right-wing conspiracy? Do you feel they should not be allowed to use science in this regard?

Click to expand...

AiG said:

6.By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Click to expand...

This, ladies and gentlemen, is not science.

6.By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Click to expand...

I wonder if they think that The Bible is also a piece of evidence subject to interpretation by fallible people?


As.

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:

Perhaps even more shockingly to you, many of us are "lefties" precisely because we are Christians. I'm sure you could write a screed on why we're terribly wrong, but then we could do the same for you. It achieves nothing.

Click to expand...

This is indeed an interesting phenomenon. After I had been in America for half a year, I was talking with some dutch friends of mine. They are very strict christians, adhering to the two most fundamentalist christian parties in the Netherlands. The political viewpoint they adhere to is very political left-wing however, at least on the economic parts (although they are probably more right-wing on some of the social issues, like abortion). They also didn't understand the republican reaction on (for example) the Schiavo-affair one bit.

Socialism forms a major part in the political direction of many christian parties in Europe, especially in the politics of the more fundamentalistic christians in the Netherlands and (as far as I'm aware) the Netherlands. On that part, the claims of many right-wing fundamentalists regarding communism and socialism made on this forum have a sort of surreal feel for me. On that part, the American, fundamentalist, republican elements on CF almost form a sort of alternate reality for me, because they differ so much from the fundamentalist christians I meet when in Europe.

nvxplorer said:

The only philosophical statement made by science is that reality is observable, nothing more. You can claim that what we observe is both natural and supernatural, but science must investigate all phenomena as being natural. It cannot operate any other way.

Click to expand...

First you say science believes all reality is observable. (To be precise it says it can only investigate that which is natural and observable.) Then you admit that scientists must believe all they observe is natural. These are philosophical beliefs that science has not verified or supported. They are presuppositional starting points. The same starting points of the political ideologies we are discussing.

My whole point is bringing it up is to show you that political philosophies are built on philosophies. Science doesn't support yours anymore than it supports mine. I never said science had something to do with certain ideologies. I said philosophies do. You claimed the right wing generally agrees with my philosophy. You are right. I claimed the left wing generally agrees with your philosophy. Why fight such a simple truth?

nvxplorer said:

Naturalism is the method of science, not a philosophy. As such, it is not a belief.

Click to expand...

I don't know what it is with naturalists. They can't seem to swallow their own philosophical beliefs. Naturalism is a belief. Yes it is also the assumption science operates under but that doesn't mean it's not a belief. As a christian I believe in naturalism also—that it is normative, but not exclusive. This is also a belief. Some reject that naturalism is even normative, yet another belief. Science can't verify nor falsify any of these philosophies.

It's always very confusing talking to naturalists. It's kind of like when liberal media personalities tell you they're objective.

Calminian said:

I don't know what it is with naturalists. They can't seem to swallow their own philosophical beliefs. Naturalism is a belief. Yes it is also the assumption science operates under but that doesn't mean it's not a belief. As a christian I believe in naturalism also—that it is normative, but not exclusive. This is also a belief. Some reject that naturalism is even normative, yet another belief. Science can't verify nor falsify any of these philosophies.

It's always very confusing talking to naturalists. It's kind of like when liberal media personalities tell you they're objective.

Click to expand...

Care to give us any way to perform science other than through methodological naturalism? This is what makes methodological naturalism in science a methodological tool rather than a belief. People who are not philosophical naturalists will still use methodological naturalism when performing science, because it is the only way science can work. As soon as you can show us another way to produce testable results, I'll gladly give you that methodological naturalism is a philosophical fundament rather than a methodological one.

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:

Cal - your opposing of left-wing politics and Christianity is very funny from this side of the pond.

Click to expand...

You've misunderstood my posts. I wasn't opposing left-wing politics (I do, but wasn't here). I was pointing out that generally the left favors one side of the origins debate and the right the other.

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:

You may not be aware of this, but in this country socialism was largely originally promoted by Christians - the Christian socialist movements from both Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical church groupings were particularly prominent in the early history of the Labour Party and the Trade Union Movement. They may be one of the reasons that Marxist communism had relatively little influence on the development of UK democratic socialism.

Click to expand...

Not only true then but even now. But most christians who veer left also favor the naturalistic view of origins (of course there are exceptions). I find that very interesting. Origins philosophy is a better indicator of politics than religion. I think we're all in agreement. Are we not?

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:

The only reason that you see mainstream science origins models associated with left-wing politics is the particular social situation in the USA, where Christianity is primarily associated with the Republican party, and the more fundamentalist that Christianity, the more closely associated. This is, in fact, a specifically USA phenomenon. As I've said, over here severa prominent left wing politicial figures have been Christians, which is all the more notable since, again, unlike the US, it is not normal, nor electorially advantageous, to wear ones faith on ones sleeve.

Click to expand...

Sure has been advantageous lately if you follow current US politics. I've never seen so many liberals talk about God and their faith. Kerry practically became born again mid campaign.

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:

Perhaps even more shockingly to you, many of us are "lefties" precisely because we are Christians. I'm sure you could write a screed on why we're terribly wrong, but then we could do the same for you. It achieves nothing.

Click to expand...

Lefties have always been super religious. They are what I call "theistic naturalists".

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:

Just don't think you're seeing anything particularly profound - you're just seeing a specifically US phenomenon.
Finally, over here, the idea that ones view on origins has anything to do with politics would have us rolling around laughing. YEC is not something we associate with the right wing over here; it's something we generally associate with those "strange American fundamentalists". I was seventeen before I found out that some people actually took Genesis 1-3 literally.

Click to expand...

Interesting Karl. Where ya from?

Calminian said:

Nothing wrong with intellectual honesty. But you do realize that the supernatural is outside the realm of scientific investigation. So many with scientific minds can’t seem to grasp this. Science can’t help us with miracles especially the world wide ones spoken of in Genesis.

Click to expand...

Cal, I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Genesis is true despite science because it is supernatural and therefore beyond science? Ok -- but if that's true, then all scientific arguments for creationism are not only fallacious, they're flatly dishonest.

Either the Genesis account is scientific, and can be supported by science; or else the only creationists in the world who aren't liars are the ones who say, "Genesis is flatly contradicted by all available evidence but we choose to believe it's true anyway because God isn't bound by science."

Calminian said:

I don't know what it is with naturalists. They can't seem to swallow their own philosophical beliefs. Naturalism is a belief. Yes it is also the assumption science operates under but that doesn't mean it's not a belief. As a christian I believe in naturalism also—that it is normative, but not exclusive. This is also a belief. Some reject that naturalism is even normative, yet another belief. Science can't verify nor falsify any of these philosophies.

It's always very confusing talking to naturalists. It's kind of like when liberal media personalities tell you they're objective.

Click to expand...

The confusion seems to originate in the misuse of terms. What is a naturalist? As it applies to philosophy, a naturalist would be considered an atheist. About 10% of the US population identifies itself as atheist. That leaves 90% theists. All atheists are not Democrats (again, check the icons). Even if they were, the difference between the two parties is minimal.

As to your philosophy, we can say that you believe in one (or several) more miracle than TEs. You want to concentrate on origins, but theism is not dependent on your particular claim of a miracle in this regard. A belief in God is a belief in the supernatural by definition. One does not become a naturalist simply because he doesn’t agree with you on the nature of events and/or a biblical interpretation. I’ll repeat; if you believe that storms are caused by weather patterns, would that make you a naturalist?

Please explain normative naturalism, as I’m not familiar with the term. It appears you want to pick and choose which events are of supernatural origin. To me, this is an arbitrary process, arrived at by interpretation. If these non-objective liberal media personalities exist, it appears you are guilty of that which you claim.

Ledifni said:

Genesis is true despite science because it is supernatural and therefore beyond science?

Click to expand...

You've taken quite a bit if liberty with my comments, Ledifni. I've never said anything close to the above. Genesis contains testimony of miracles. These (or any miracles for that matter) can't be verified nor falsified by science. I don't think anyone disagrees with this.

Calminian said:

You've taken quite a bit if liberty with my comments, Ledifni. I've never said anything close to the above. Genesis contains testimony of miracles. These (or any miracles for that matter) can't be verified nor falsified by science. I don't think anyone disagrees with this.

Click to expand...

Oh, I do. If miracles happen, then they affect the natural world, and so they can be studied. If they don't affect the natural world then what do they matter?

But as for my taking liberty with your comments -- you responded to a poster who said that science supports evolution and so scientific honesty demands that he accept it; you told him that scientific honesty is all well and good, but that miracles are beyond the realm of science. If you didn't mean that we should disregard science with respect to miracles (in this case, with respect to the miraculous creation described in Genesis) and believe them anyway because they're "beyond science," then what exactly did you mean?

You know, Calminian; even if you had statistics that showed a link between evoultion and liberals, there are other polls that don’t fare well for conservative ideology if we make such a connection.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Creationists:

College graduates: 25%
High school dropouts: 65%

Income over $50,000: 29%
Income under $20,000: 59%

Using your claims, I can conclude that uneducated, unproductive people are drawn to conservative ideology. Or, bluntly and rudely, that conservatism makes people dumb and lazy. Of course, I wouldn’t do that because I don’t believe that evolution and liberalism are related as you claim.

Matthew777 said:

It should be obvious to anyone who has posted on this forum as long as I have that creationism relies upon falsehoods, misinformation and fallacious logic in order to advance its right-wing fundamentalist agenda.

But what about truth? Isn't the truth supposed to be what sets us free?

If you have the truth right in front of your eyes and you deny it then are you not an enemy of truth?

If evolution were God's method of creation and you hate evolution then do you not hate God?

Think about it, my friends.

Peace.

Click to expand...

so are you now a TE or what????? im just curious. im with you Man