Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[GrowingSmaller]

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

The only such claim I am aware of is thet of irriducible complexity. YEC might imply other things to the scientist, like there ought to be different geological data, but will the creationist accept empiricism and the scientific interpretation of empirical data.

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

Legitiate to whom?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

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.

Yes, but their opinions stem from adopting a scientifically minded epistemology. Without adopting the epistemology themselves, how can creationists be expected to accept scientific data and theory?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The only such claim I am aware of is thet of irriducible complexity.

They also claim things about the age of the universe, the Earth, and life, the relatedness of species, the lengths to which evolution can adapt a species, etc.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

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

So would you expect a creationist to accept scientific findings? No? That is my point. If they do not respect science and you want them to, they may need to be confronted on the philosophical level rather than on a level a scientist would approach a scientist. They will not accept the science because they are anti-scientific (or at least non-scientific) in their general approach. Their authorities are different, their standards of evidence are different, their morels of confirmation are different. So data driven arguments will not change their minds, they are like an alien language.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Not at all.

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

Putative history yes.

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.

Ok point taken.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

A creationist.

Isn't the Eucharist a sacrament, GS?

In your opinion, can transubstantiation be verified by DNA testing?

If not, and if you don't believe it, do you realize what a sacrament really is, and why it is called a 'sacrament', and not just a 'ritual'?

Take a good look at this picture:

Would you say this is a fair representation of the Eucharist?

 

[WretchedMan]

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?

That is not the difference, not even close.

First, I can't say no one, because you can't account for everyone, but I don't know anyone who would claim that you would determine if a plane could fly by a "purely religous philosophy". This is ludicrous.

Second, science doesn't "work for every part of our lifes (sic)". Science's scope is limited.

Finally, the science vs. religion argument is a false argument. When you strip everything away and get to the core of the issue it is a naturalism vs theism conflict. It is a philosophical issue. The philosophies have certain assumptions and those assumptions affect how the evidence is understood. No one is immune to this, not even evolutionists.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

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

I'll look into that, I know shamefully little about the origins of the scientific methode actually I really should brush up on my history.

A creationist.

Well now my keyboard is sticky with soda I hope your happy xD

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So would you expect a creationist to accept scientific findings? No? That is my point.

Actually, I would. Most Creationists I've talked to are amenable to rational discourse; they're Creationists not out of stubborn refusal to accept facts presented to them, but out of ignorance of the facts themselves. The vocal minority don't represent the silent majority, who are actually quite willing to learn.

If they do not respect science and you want them to, they may need to be confronted on the philosophical level rather than on a level a scientist would approach a scientist. They will not accept the science because they are anti-scientific (or at least non-scientific) in their general approach. Their authorities are different, their standards of evidence are different, their morels of confirmation are different. So data driven arguments will not change their minds, they are like an alien language.

But it's amusing to see them flail when presented with actual data, though. I believe that calm, civil discourse is the best approach to reveal their fundamental errors and assumptions, rather than stooping to their level of fallacies.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

That is not the difference, not even close.

First, I can't say no one, because you can't account for everyone, but I don't know anyone who would claim that you would determine if a plane could fly by a "purely religous philosophy". This is ludicrous.

Second, science doesn't "work for every part of our lifes (sic)". Science's scope is limited.

Finally, the science vs. religion argument is a false argument. When you strip everything away and get to the core of the issue it is a naturalism vs theism conflict. It is a philosophical issue. The philosophies have certain assumptions and those assumptions affect how the evidence is understood. No one is immune to this, not even evolutionists.

Now I may be mistaken, but I believe the issue in this thread was to paraphrase:

"creationists cannot give scientific data, creationism is a religion but if we take them both up a step they are each philosophies so we can compare them better and we see that because they are a competing philosophies we cannot expect creationists to give answers that conform to science."

Basicaly trying to say that creationists are under no obligation to make sense in science, because it is not their philosophy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now I may be mistaken, but I believe the issue in this thread was to paraphrase:

"creationists cannot give scientific data, creationism is a religion but if we take them both up a step they are each philosophies so we can compare them better and we see that because they are a competing philosophies we cannot expect creationists to give answers that conform to science."

Basicaly trying to say that creationists are under no obligation to make sense in science, because it is not their philosophy.

Why can't creationists give scientific data, in your opinion?

Because none exists, or because it should, but none can be found sufficient enough to suit you guys?

 

[WretchedMan]

So would you expect a creationist to accept scientific findings? No? That is my point. If they do not respect science and you want them to, they may need to be confronted on the philosophical level rather than on a level a scientist would approach a scientist. They will not accept the science because they are anti-scientific (or at least non-scientific) in their general approach. Their authorities are different, their standards of evidence are different, their morels of confirmation are different. So data driven arguments will not change their minds, they are like an alien language.

This is a gross generalization.

You are essentially correct on one point, though. The issue does need to be confronted on the philosophical level. Naturalism is a weak and insufficient philosophical framework and conclusions that are based on its presuppositions are not worth incorporating into our understanding of any issue, scientific or otherwise.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Why can't creationists give scientific data, in your opinion?

Because none exists, or because it should, but none can be found sufficient enough to suit you guys?

I do not understand the question.

 

[AV1611VET]

I do not understand the question.

Creationists can't give scientific data, because the creation event did not generate any.

QV please: 1

Therefore, to ask or demand it, is disingenuous; and to expect it, is ignorance.

In my opinion.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Creationists can't give scientific data, because the creation event did not generate any.

QV please: 1

Therefore, to ask or demand it is disingenuous, in my opinion; and to expect it, is ignorance.

By that logic, we could have been created last thrusday. There just isnt any evidence of it cause none was generated.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Isn't the Eucharist a sacrament, GS?

According the the RCC yes.

In your opinion, can transubstantiation be verified by DNA testing?

No because putatvely DNA is an accidental property (as opposed to substantial property) of blood in the first case.

If not, and if you don't believe it, do you realize what a sacrament really is, and why it is called a 'sacrament', and not just a 'ritual'?

A sacrament according the Aquinas is an "outward sign of an inward grace", but are statements about "inward graces" reducible to scientifically testable hypotheses?

Take a good look at this picture:

Would you say this is a fair representation of the Eucharist?

It depends on the definition of substance and miracle. If a miracle is a violation of a natural law as understood scientifically, and if substance is not a naturalistic predicate, then transubstantiation is not an naturalistic, scientifically consequential process in the first place. Hence claims about transubstantiation are not scientific, and cannot entail claims of violations of natural law. Why may "substantial" not be a naturalistic predicate? Well, as Carnap said "In science there are no depths, there is surface everywhere."

 

[AV1611VET]

By that logic, we could have been created last thrusday.

Cue Genesis 1 for pwnage of Last Thursdayism.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Basicaly trying to say that creationists are under no obligation to make sense in science, because it is not their philosophy.

Yes, that's it. From their own frame of reference at least.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Cue Genesis 1 for pwnage of Last Thursdayism.

Ah but you see genesis was was ALSO created last thursday.

 

[WretchedMan]

Now I may be mistaken, but I believe the issue in this thread was to paraphrase:

"creationists cannot give scientific data, creationism is a religion but if we take them both up a step they are each philosophies so we can compare them better and we see that because they are a competing philosophies we cannot expect creationists to give answers that conform to science."

Basicaly trying to say that creationists are under no obligation to make sense in science, because it is not their philosophy.

Science isn't a philosophy. It is married to philosophy, since you cannot do science without it, but the two are very different.

To claim that creationists cannot give answers that conform to science, give data, and are under no obligation to do so is as ludicrous as the "determine if a plane could fly by purely religious philosophy" bit in the post I responded to.

To say that they are unable to give answers or data that conform to naturalism isn't even true in all cases since there are some areas that will overlap, though those instances aren't typically brought up in debate.