Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[GrowingSmaller]

we all know that evolution is a scientific theory, and that creationism is religious. But if we regard creationism as a philosophy (or a religious philosophy) then maybe thet will help explain wht people do not give in and accept evolutionism. They are not practicing scientists, and therefore asking them to submit to scientific standards of argument is like asking a plumber to do electrician's work. IIRC the Dover school case went to court and it was ruled that creationism was not a scientific account of reality. So perhaps having the creation vs evolution forum as a sub-set of the science forum is a little misleading. There might be sparks flying, but you need to go "upstream" into the philosophy of science if you want to get a parellel plane to the creationist domain. Or have science "take a hike" as AV1611VET would say.

I do not follow these debates much, so the above comments might be redundant. I am human so they are likely to be flawed in any case. What do you think?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

To put it simply, Science works.

This is the difference, how would you determn if a plane can fly in a purely religious philosophy? I think you will quickly find all your answers involve science. So if science works for every part of our lifes but at some point clashes with a deeply held belief, what kind of person decides it better to get rid of science just so they dont have to face facts?

 

[Simply_Amazing]

we all know that evolution is a scientific theory, and that creationism is religious. But if we regard creationism as a philosophy (or a religious philosophy) then maybe thet will help explain wht people do not give in and accept evolutionism. They are not practicing scientists, and therefore asking them to submit to scientific standards of argument is like asking a plumber to do electrician's work. IIRC the Dover school case went to court and it was ruled that creationism was not a scientific account of reality. So perhaps having the creation vs evolution forum as a sub-set of the science forum is a little misleading. There might be sparks flying, but you need to go "upstream" into the philosophy of science if you want to get a parellel plane to the creationist domain. Or have science "take a hike" as AV1611VET would say.

I do not follow these debates much, so the above comments might be redundant. I am human so they are likely to be flawed in any case. What do you think?

Creationism makes physical claims, and as such is considered under the purview of science.

Other aspects of religion may very well be outside the reach of science, but that still doesn't make them legitimate unless sufficiently substantiated.

 

[Greg1234]

we all know that evolution is a scientific theory, and that creationism is religious. But if we regard creationism as a philosophy (or a religious philosophy) then maybe thet will help explain wht people do not give in and accept evolutionism. They are not practicing scientists, and therefore asking them to submit to scientific standards of argument is like asking a plumber to do electrician's work. IIRC the Dover school case went to court and it was ruled that creationism was not a scientific account of reality. So perhaps having the creation vs evolution forum as a sub-set of the science forum is a little misleading. There might be sparks flying, but you need to go "upstream" into the philosophy of science if you want to get a parellel plane to the creationist domain. Or have science "take a hike" as AV1611VET would say.

I do not follow these debates much, so the above comments might be redundant. I am human so they are likely to be flawed in any case. What do you think?

The old "my materialism is better than your idealism" charade, this time abusing science to try to establish the elite.

 

[Oncedeceived]

we all know that evolution is a scientific theory, and that creationism is religious. But if we regard creationism as a philosophy (or a religious philosophy) then maybe thet will help explain wht people do not give in and accept evolutionism. They are not practicing scientists, and therefore asking them to submit to scientific standards of argument is like asking a plumber to do electrician's work. IIRC the Dover school case went to court and it was ruled that creationism was not a scientific account of reality. So perhaps having the creation vs evolution forum as a sub-set of the science forum is a little misleading. There might be sparks flying, but you need to go "upstream" into the philosophy of science if you want to get a parellel plane to the creationist domain. Or have science "take a hike" as AV1611VET would say.

I do not follow these debates much, so the above comments might be redundant. I am human so they are likely to be flawed in any case. What do you think?[/quote]

I think that you are basing your posts on the assumption that science has nothing to say about religion but that is a false assumption. Look at Dawkins and Hawkings to cite two that are leading edge in the anti-religion science reigns proclaimers.

 

[SkyWriting]

we all know that evolution is a scientific theory, and that creationism is religious. But if we regard creationism as a philosophy (or a religious philosophy) then maybe thet will help explain why people do not give in and accept evolutionism. They are not practicing scientists...<snip>...

How would you show that all scientists reject God as the Creator of life?
I'd like to see your data. What I found was that about 20% of Scientists take the bible literally.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

How would you show that all scientists reject God as the Creator of life?
I'd like to see your data. What I found was that about 20% of Scientists take the bible literally.

Could I have a look at that data?

 

[Chalnoth]

we all know that evolution is a scientific theory, and that creationism is religious. But if we regard creationism as a philosophy (or a religious philosophy) then maybe thet will help explain wht people do not give in and accept evolutionism.

I think it is much, much simpler than that. People are taught not only that creationism is true, but that it is moral and good to believe it is true. If people believe strongly that it is moral to believe in creationism, then anybody trying to convince them otherwise is evil and trying to deceive them. So they build this nice mental fortress to prevent them from ever examining alternative ideas. It's self-contained, and quite impervious to most any attempt at persuasion.

 

[Magnus_the_Red]

I think that you are basing your posts on the assumption that science has nothing to say about religion but that is a false assumption. Look at Dawkins and Hawkings to cite two that are leading edge in the anti-religion science reigns proclaimers.

"Science has nothing to say about religion"

"Look at Dawkins and Hawkings"

Spoliers: Dawkins and Hawking are not the Presidents of "Science".

Their opinions on religion have nothing to do with science. You're being obtuse.

 

[Chalnoth]

"Science has nothing to say about religion"

"Look at Dawkins and Hawkings"

Spoliers: Dawkins and Hawking are not the Presidents of "Science".

Their opinions on religion have nothing to do with science. You're being obtuse.

I would have to disagree with that. Their conclusions about religion are grounded quite strongly in science, and coincide with the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists, especially working scientists.

 

[Greg1234]

I would have to disagree with that. Their conclusions about religion are grounded quite strongly in science, and coincide with the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists, especially working scientists.

Their conclusions about a Darwinian origination have been refuted by scientists.

 

[Incariol]

Their conclusions about a Darwinian origination have been refuted by scientists.

Correct. Humans originated in Africa, not Darwinia, or whatever this place is that you are talking about.

Sent from my iPod touch using Forum Runner

 

[juvenissun]

we all know that evolution is a scientific theory, and that creationism is religious. But if we regard creationism as a philosophy (or a religious philosophy) then maybe thet will help explain wht people do not give in and accept evolutionism. They are not practicing scientists, and therefore asking them to submit to scientific standards of argument is like asking a plumber to do electrician's work. IIRC the Dover school case went to court and it was ruled that creationism was not a scientific account of reality. So perhaps having the creation vs evolution forum as a sub-set of the science forum is a little misleading. There might be sparks flying, but you need to go "upstream" into the philosophy of science if you want to get a parellel plane to the creationist domain. Or have science "take a hike" as AV1611VET would say.

I do not follow these debates much, so the above comments might be redundant. I am human so they are likely to be flawed in any case. What do you think?

One critical correction:

Creationism=(religious philosophy)+science, evolution=science

 

[Chalnoth]

One critical correction:

Creationism=(religious philosophy)+science, evolution=science

There is no science in creationism, period. Professional creationists take on some of the language of science, but don't do any science themselves (at all).

 

[Chalnoth]

Their conclusions about a Darwinian origination have been refuted by scientists.

What are you talking about?

 

[AV1611VET]

So perhaps having the creation vs evolution forum as a sub-set of the science forum is a little misleading.

Not at all.

Although creation-ism is found in different religions, [the] creation is history, not a religious philosophy.

I'm glad this subforum is titled Creation & Evolution -- not Creationism & Evolution.

And the title of this thread is misleading, in my opinion.

If you are going to call it creationism, then you should compare it to evolutionism.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

we all know that evolution is a scientific theory, and that creationism is religious. But if we regard creationism as a philosophy (or a religious philosophy) then maybe thet will help explain wht people do not give in and accept evolutionism. They are not practicing scientists, and therefore asking them to submit to scientific standards of argument is like asking a plumber to do electrician's work. IIRC the Dover school case went to court and it was ruled that creationism was not a scientific account of reality. So perhaps having the creation vs evolution forum as a sub-set of the science forum is a little misleading. There might be sparks flying, but you need to go "upstream" into the philosophy of science if you want to get a parellel plane to the creationist domain. Or have science "take a hike" as AV1611VET would say.

I do not follow these debates much, so the above comments might be redundant. I am human so they are likely to be flawed in any case. What do you think?

The main difference between evolution and Creationism, is that the former is science and the latter is not.

 

[AV1611VET]

The main difference between evolution and Creationism, is that the former is science and the latter is not.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Like it or not evolution is a theory and a fact, religions are beliefs, it ends there.

Ok but beliefs can be components of knowldege. I am not a biological creationist btw. I believe Darwin.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

To put it simply, Science works.

I know that. Wasn't if Bacon, the poineer of scientific method, that said science gives mastery and control.

This is the difference, how would you determn if a plane can fly in a purely religious philosophy? I think you will quickly find all your answers involve science. So if science works for every part of our lifes but at some point clashes with a deeply held belief, what kind of person decides it better to get rid of science just so they dont have to face facts?

A creationist.