Creationism will only destroy science

shernren said:

*eyes glaze over* there is a definite need for the capability to rename threads.

Click to expand...

We don't see to much of this nitty-gritty science stuff in this forum. It is mind-numbing isn't it.

mark is one of the few creationists I have run across who actually reads scientific papers rather than the pre-digested version on creationist sites. I would prefer not to read them either, but he has pushed me into it so that I can understand what he is talking about.

Creationism also destroys Faith.

Creationism is science, or at least as much as Darwinism is. It is odd that creationism is an attempt to reconcile faith and factual science and yet it is accused of destroying both. Science produced creationism and the theory of evolution was originally a creationist concept that dovetailed with Biblical theism perfectly, and still does. Creationism is neither a threat to science or faith, it's the common ground between the two.

mark kennedy said:

Creationism is science, or at least as much as Darwinism is. It is odd that creationism is an attempt to reconcile faith and factual science and yet it is accused of destroying both. Science produced creationism and the theory of evolution was originally a creationist concept that dovetailed with Biblical theism perfectly, and still does. Creationism is neither a threat to science or faith, it's the common ground between the two.

Click to expand...

by repeating something multiple times it does not make it more true, only less likely that anyone will respond to it.

creationism is NOT a science. it has been full falsified, 200 years ago, by the geological structures.

the neodarwinian synthesis is science, it is falsifiable, it is very fruitful as a research program and it makes predictions that can be studied.

creationism is not an attempt to reconcile science and Genesis it is an attempt to read Genesis into science. To make the epistemology of theology and the supernatural part of the structure of modern science. it is the opposite of reconcilation it is an attempt to control and overrule the principles of science in the name of something (God) external to the scientific community itself.

creationism does seem to destroy both good theology and good science. good theology but constrainting interpretations to the scientific, historical and hyper literalistic, good science by attempting to import supernaturalism which was discarded from science 200 years ago as: divisive, unable to confirm, fundamentally accessible only by revelation, private knowledge.


....

rmwilliamsll said:

by repeating something multiple times it does not make it more true, only less likely that anyone will respond to it.

Click to expand...

That is equally true of the single common ancestor model and most of what I post that is not responded to is genetics.

creationism is NOT a science. it has been full falsified, 200 years ago, by the geological structures.

Click to expand...

Creationism defined as what and science as defined as what?

the neodarwinian synthesis is science, it is falsifiable, it is very fruitful as a research program and it makes predictions that can be studied.

Click to expand...

Neodarwinism is pure presumption and runs contrary to genetics and allways has. Natural selection has offered nothing to formal scientific method and it does not belong in any discipline remotely related to an empirical methodology.

creationism is not an attempt to reconcile science and Genesis it is an attempt to read Genesis into science. To make the epistemology of theology and the supernatural part of the structure of modern science. it is the opposite of reconcilation it is an attempt to control and overrule the principles of science in the name of something (God) external to the scientific community itself.

Click to expand...

Here we go again, if God is the first cause it is not science. This kind of circular reasoning is antitheistic and a naturalistic presumption. You want to pass it off as science but that is undiluted bunk. God does not overrule the principles of science He commands them, don't blame God when he understands the principle of science better the the scientists that make antitheistic claims.

creationism does seem to destroy both good theology and good science. good theology but constrainting interpretations to the scientific, historical and hyper literalistic, good science by attempting to import supernaturalism which was discarded from science 200 years ago as: divisive, unable to confirm, fundamentally accessible only by revelation, private knowledge.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't and this is what has turned the common ground of theology and science into a no man's land. This is neither natural nor is it science. I make a point of keeping my theology out of scientific discussions but it is the evolutionist that is determined to make a theological issue out of evolution. Science is supposed to be religiously neutral but Darwinism isn't, which makes it psuedo science in every sense of the word.

Neodarwinism is pure presumption and runs contrary to genetics and allways has. Natural selection has offered nothing to formal scientific method and it does not belong in any discipline remotely related to an empirical methodology.

Click to expand...

this has the potential to be a real discussion.
be specific what are, or what is one presumption of the neo darwinian synthesis that is contrary to genetics?

NS is empirical, antibiotics resistance, bacterial media components metabolism for example are predicted and shown every day. N. gonorrhea producing penicillinase in Manilla prostitutes is an example of NS as is the prediction that the plasmid will jump into N. meningitis and cause massive neonate deaths. tell me how creationism will help with this problem?

more than assertions use the data, be specific, inform and persuade.

Science isn't god nor should it be treated as such. It can be incorrect or the data that it gives misinterpreted. It is a tool and is only as good as the one wielding it and none of us is God, so it shall never be 100% correct all the time.
The interpretation of the Word of God is to be taken to the Lord, not men.

If you find yourself offended by that, it means now is the time to start seeking the one true God.

Anduron said:

Science isn't god nor should it be treated as such. It can be incorrect or the data that it gives misinterpreted. It is a tool and is only as good as the one wielding it and none of us is God, so it shall never be 100% correct all the time.
The interpretation of the Word of God is to be taken to the Lord, not men.

If you find yourself offended by that, it means now is the time to start seeking the one true God.

Click to expand...

You're right, you're just a man. Hence, your interpretations are not 100% correct all the time either.

And if you actually think your interpretations are 100% correct all the time, well, that's called Pride.

Hmm. Nothing too mind-numbing recently.

Personally I think that despite all those grand ideas by the creationist movement about "debunking the evolutionist subterfuge", "toppling the intellectual idolatry of Darwinism" et al., the creationist/evolutionist split will likely become just another theological issue, instead of a scientific issue. Already I don't think it is very relevant to the non-Christian: give a few more years and a few more radical wannabe antiscientists (the likes of Kent Hovind) and the outside world will want to have nothing to do with it. It will become another internal doctrinal struggle, like predestination vs. free will.

Not to say that these doctrinal struggles aren't important. But the world is being thoroughly corrupted by relativism, to the extent that AiG themselves use similar arguments, and by the time the Church wakes up and smells the smoke it may take the return of Christ to stop it from burning down...

rmwilliamsll said:

this has the potential to be a real discussion.
be specific what are, or what is one presumption of the neo darwinian synthesis that is contrary to genetics?

NS is empirical, antibiotics resistance, bacterial media components metabolism for example are predicted and shown every day. N. gonorrhea producing penicillinase in Manilla prostitutes is an example of NS as is the prediction that the plasmid will jump into N. meningitis and cause massive neonate deaths. tell me how creationism will help with this problem?

more than assertions use the data, be specific, inform and persuade.

Click to expand...

You never told me what you thought of this quote:

On the Origin of Species was published on Mov. 24, 1859. The word "evolution" barely appears in it. Many scientists by 1859 were evolutionists-that is, they believed that species had not been created once and for all, but had changed over time...Darwin's book decisively tipped the balance of educated opinion to evolutionism; but even afer 1859, more nineteenth-century evolutionists were (whether they identified themselves as such or not) Lamarckians or Spencerians then Darwinians. The purpose of On the Origin of Species was not to introduce the concept of evolution; it was to debunk the concept of supernatural intelligence-the idea that the universe is the result of an idea." (The Metaphisical Club, pp 120, 121)

I have chased down the anecdotal evidence before and it does not offer a demonstrated mechanism for evolution on a macro level.

shernren said:

Hmm. Nothing too mind-numbing recently.

Personally I think that despite all those grand ideas by the creationist movement about "debunking the evolutionist subterfuge", "toppling the intellectual idolatry of Darwinism" et al., the creationist/evolutionist split will likely become just another theological issue, instead of a scientific issue. Already I don't think it is very relevant to the non-Christian: give a few more years and a few more radical wannabe antiscientists (the likes of Kent Hovind) and the outside world will want to have nothing to do with it. It will become another internal doctrinal struggle, like predestination vs. free will.

Not to say that these doctrinal struggles aren't important. But the world is being thoroughly corrupted by relativism, to the extent that AiG themselves use similar arguments, and by the time the Church wakes up and smells the smoke it may take the return of Christ to stop it from burning down...

Click to expand...

If Kent Hovind were the only creationist then we would not be having this conversation. I noticed you guys don't like to talk about D. Gish or H. Morris, why is that? Answers in Genesis has dozens of reputable scientists that think the Bible is perfectly consistant with the scientific data. Darwinism has become sacrosanct and it does not deserve to be but I wouldn't care, if it had not made intrusions into my theology. That is the whole point of these antithesitic philosophies and they are allways an attack on theistic reasoning. Creationists have the unmittagated gall to defend their belief systems from these secular philosophies and they are branded enemies of science. It is the Darwinians that are destroying science by useing it to undermine the faith of millions, that is the whole point of Darwinian logic.

mark kennedy said:

If Kent Hovind were the only creationist then we would not be having this conversation. I noticed you guys don't like to talk about D. Gish or H. Morris, why is that? Answers in Genesis has dozens of reputable scientists that think the Bible is perfectly consistant with the scientific data. Darwinism has become sacrosanct and it does not deserve to be but I wouldn't care, if it had not made intrusions into my theology. That is the whole point of these antithesitic philosophies and they are allways an attack on theistic reasoning. Creationists have the unmittagated gall to defend their belief systems from these secular philosophies and they are branded enemies of science. It is the Darwinians that are destroying science by useing it to undermine the faith of millions, that is the whole point of Darwinian logic.

Click to expand...

This may be a bit off-topic and perhaps we need to open another thread to discuss it thoroughly, but I have become interested in the many ways the terms "Darwinist", "Darwinism" and "Darwinian" are used.

Could you describe to me the meaning of these terms as you use them?

I am expecting that since you see "Darwinism" as non-scientific and based in metaphysics, you are using the terms in this way. But I would like to see how you would define them if you were writing a dictionary entry, or the introduction of a treatise on the history of "Darwinism".

gluadys said:

This may be a bit off-topic and perhaps we need to open another thread to discuss it thoroughly, but I have become interested in the many ways the terms "Darwinist", "Darwinism" and "Darwinian" are used.

Could you describe to me the meaning of these terms as you use them?

I am expecting that since you see "Darwinism" as non-scientific and based in metaphysics, you are using the terms in this way. But I would like to see how you would define them if you were writing a dictionary entry, or the introduction of a treatise on the history of "Darwinism".

Click to expand...

I suggest you learn a little about what the modern synthesis was based on and how Darwinism influenced it. Other then that I think the term is self explanatory.

mark kennedy said:

I suggest you learn a little about what the modern synthesis was based on and how Darwinism influenced it. Other then that I think the term is self explanatory.

Click to expand...

I know what the modern synthesis is based on. In fact just this afternoon I was going over Mark Ridley's tutorial on it.

But the term is not self-explanatory at all. I can think of at least six different ways it is used. And usually the person using it does not define which one(s) s/he is using. I read Denyse O'Leary's book By Design or by Chance last weekend. If you are interested in ID, it is an excellent introduction. She would certainly agree with your thesis that Darwinism is more metaphysics than science.

But I can see that she does not use the term consistently with a philosophical meaning, but sometimes uses it to mean neo-Darwinism which is a school of scientific thought, not philosophy, and sometimes uses it simply to refer to evolution or natural selection.

So I would still like to know with more precision what meaning you personally give to the term. I am not interested in a debate on this issue. For the time being I just want to get people's personal ideas of what is meant by "Darwinism" .


And if anyone else wants to chip in with their own ideas, please do.

When you hear the term "Darwinism" or "Darwinist" what do you take it to mean?

Just to give an example.

wagsbags on this thread made a remark about how people didn't know the difference between Darwinism and evolution. So I asked him how he understood "Darwinism".

His answer (in post 40) was:


Mark: would you agree with this definition? I don't get the impression that this fits with how you use the term "Darwinism".

Well Mark the thing is, no Kent Hovind isn't the only creationist out there. But, that difference is only apparent to us insiders. For us who are involved in the debate, who weigh (somewhat ) the different sides' evidence and think about logical attacks and counters for each side, we know the difference between a spurious firebrand and a creationist who knows his stuff. But is this difference apparent to the outside world? I believe this thread is about the relationship between creationism and science in general, and I think that often Gish and Morris are painted with the same brush as Hovind in outsiders' eyes.

AiG. Hooboy, you touched a nerve there .... and yes, what do you mean by Darwinism, exactly?

I think that the creationist movement seems to be using the wrong methodology for the issue at hand. If they are convinced that the earth is young because of Scripture, then it should be with Scripture that they defend and authenticate their beliefs, not with science. That is my main issue. AiG enjoy portraying themselves as some sort of "alternative science" but what they're doing doesn't really seem to be science to me at all. Doesn't mean they're wrong, in itself, but they should at least stop misrepresenting themselves. Creationism is a theological movement, not a scientific movement.

gluadys said:

I know what the modern synthesis is based on. In fact just this afternoon I was going over Mark Ridley's tutorial on it.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting discussion on the subject, we seem to have simular tastes in source material.

But the term is not self-explanatory at all. I can think of at least six different ways it is used. And usually the person using it does not define which one(s) s/he is using. I read Denyse O'Leary's book By Design or by Chance last weekend. If you are interested in ID, it is an excellent introduction. She would certainly agree with your thesis that Darwinism is more metaphysics than science.

But I can see that she does not use the term consistently with a philosophical meaning, but sometimes uses it to mean neo-Darwinism which is a school of scientific thought, not philosophy, and sometimes uses it simply to refer to evolution or natural selection.

So I would still like to know with more precision what meaning you personally give to the term. I am not interested in a debate on this issue. For the time being I just want to get people's personal ideas of what is meant by "Darwinism" .


And if anyone else wants to chip in with their own ideas, please do.

When you hear the term "Darwinism" or "Darwinist" what do you take it to mean?

Click to expand...

Single common ancestory is a conclusion in evolutionary biology, one that is no longer seriously questioned, even though it should be. The Modern Synthesis is itself a philosophy of science and as such should be subject to valid criticisms on that level. Darwinism is a form of secular thought that expunges theistic reasoning in all forms.

"They helped put an end to the idea that the universe is an idea, that beyond the mundane business of making our way as best we can in a world shot through with contingency, there exists some order, invisible to us, whose logic we transgress at our peril." The Metaphysical Club, by Louis Menand

This gave rise to pragmatism and if you don't think this is an antithesistic worldview you don't understand the philsophical underpinnings of evolution:

On the Origin of Species was published on Mov. 24, 1859. The word "evolution" barely appears in it. Many scientists by 1859 were evolutionists-that is, they believed that species had not been created once and for all, but had changed over time...Darwin's book decisively tipped the balance of educated opinion to evolutionism; but even afer 1859, more nineteenth-century evolutionists were (whether they identified themselves as such or not) Lamarckians or Spencerians then Darwinians. The purpose of On the Origin of Species was not to introduce the concept of evolution; it was to debunk the concept of supernatural intelligence-the idea that the universe is the result of an idea." (The Metaphisical Club, pp 120, 121)

While Darwin was tipping the balance toward the epistomology of naturalistic assumptions the father of genetics was identifying the principles of what would become the laws of inheritance. His work was rediscovered around the turn of the century and became modern genetics. Darwinism was fadeing away but philosophers of science like Ernst Mayr revived this philosophy of origins and synthesised it with the empirical demonstrations in genetics. The reason is that Darwin said that there were no limits to the amount of change that was possible through natural process and Mendel said that there were.

The single common ancestor model never had a genetic basis and never will because it presumes a limitless number of changes over time dispite the empircal evidence, not because of it. What darwinism is, is a dialectic like the one Hegel used to syntesis theism and atheism, what happens is that the central term gets redefined. Evolution is defined as the change of alleles in populations over time but what it means to the Darwinian is that the change is from the single common ancestor to me and you though exclusivly naturalistic processes. That is how a synthesis works and it's semantical shell game.

In evolutionary biology they have used this supposed synthesis to reconcile The mere suggestion that God acted in time and space to produce all living systems as a deliberate act, with an expressed purpose, is viewed as psuedo science. It can't be considered scientific if God is the cause and I say why not? I have read their literature, their peer reviewed scientific journals, their empirical research and found the theory of evolution (the single common ancestor model) to be counter to the actual scientific evidence, especially genetics. A couple of choice quotes:

No limit to this process of improvement:

"As each species is improved, and as the number of forms will have increased, if we look to the whole course of time, the organic condition of life for other forms will become more complex, and there will be a necessity for other forms to become improved, or they will be exterminated; and I can see no limit to this process of improvement, without the intervention of any other and direct principle of improvement. All this seems to me quite compatible with certain forms fitted for simple conditions, remaining unaltered, or being degraded. If I have a second edition, I will reiterate `Natural Selection', and, as a general consequence, Natural Improvement." (Darwin's letter to Lyell on Natural Selection)

Limits beyond which they cannot change:

“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (Mendel)

"What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect." (Pierre-Paul Grasse')

There is either a limit to the process of improvement or there are limits beyond which things cannot completely transform into another 'kind'. Genetics has demonstrated that fundamental changes to the genes produce sever disease and disorder but school children are being taught that these mutations are what drives evolution. This is a myth, a fantasy and a lie.

If I were to attempt a definition of darwinism it would be the single common ancestor model based on naturalistic assumptions. Now if you would like a more elaborate and precise definition we can work on that but I think I have been pretty clear about what I mean by Darwinism.

ok. So what I have from you is:

mark kennedy said:

Darwinism is a form of secular thought that expunges theistic reasoning in all forms.


If I were to attempt a definition of darwinism it would be the single common ancestor model based on naturalistic assumptions.

Click to expand...

Now if you would like a more elaborate and precise definition we can work on that but I think I have been pretty clear about what I mean by Darwinism.

Click to expand...

I would like one clarification. Would I be right in thinking that when you say "naturalist assumptions" you are referring to philosophical/metaphysical naturalism, and not simply the effort to see if there are natural causes for a phenomenon.

The latter, it seems to me is compatible with theism, as a Christian can legitimately seek to know in any specific instance whether God acted directly or through secondary causes. But the philosophical or metaphysical outlook that the only real entities are those of nature which can be studied by science is, of course, incompatible with theism.

Would you be comfortable with a slight rewording of your definition as follows:

Darwinism is a form of secular thought that expunges theistic reasoning in all forms. Darwinism is the single common ancestor model of evolution based on (combined with?) the assumptions of philosophical (or metaphysical) naturalism.

gluadys said:

ok. So what I have from you is:

I would like one clarification. Would I be right in thinking that when you say "naturalist assumptions" you are referring to philosophical/metaphysical naturalism, and not simply the effort to see if there are natural causes for a phenomenon.

Click to expand...

Natural selection is an attepted debunk of the concept of supernatural intelligence-the idea that the universe is the result of an idea. Darwinism is philosophical/metaphysics naturalism from top to bottom, there is no discernable difference.

The latter, it seems to me is compatible with theism, as a Christian can legitimately seek to know in any specific instance whether God acted directly or through secondary causes. But the philosophical or metaphysical outlook that the only real entities are those of nature which can be studied by science is, of course, incompatible with theism.

Click to expand...

On the Origin of Species is philosophy with anecdotal evidence thrown in for good measure. It gave nothing in the way of a cohesive scientific model except for how we should draw up all the charts. Now studying God may well be out of reach for natural science but an event like special creation is well within scientific inquiry.

Would you be comfortable with a slight rewording of your definition as follows:

[Darwinism is a form of secular thought that expunges theistic reasoning in all forms. Darwinism is the single common ancestor model of evolution based on (combined with?) the assumptions of philosophical (or metaphysical) naturalism.

Click to expand...

Actually I did mean based on rather then combined with and naturalistic assumptions are the philosophical/metaphysical underpinnings of natural selection.

mark kennedy said:

Natural selection is an attepted debunk of the concept of supernatural intelligence-the idea that the universe is the result of an idea. Darwinism is philosophical/metaphysics naturalism from top to bottom, there is no discernable difference.

Click to expand...

I don't think you're being very fair to Natural Selection

Remember, besides the Bible, the main support for Creationism before Darwin was a lack of alternatives...which is a temporary answer at best. Scientists believed in a literal Genesis for the diversity of life for, among other reasons, no natural mechanism seemed plausible.

Even pre-Darwinian scientists toyed with the idea of evolution, but they couldn't come up with a plausible natural mechanism to make it work.

So Darwin did not debunk "supernatural intelligence" per se...he debunked "supernatural intelligence is the only answer."

On the Origin of Species is philosophy with anecdotal evidence thrown in for good measure. It gave nothing in the way of a cohesive scientific model except for how we should draw up all the charts.

Click to expand...

Sounds more like a scientific hypothesis supported by observation. If that's not how science should be done, then how?

Now studying God may well be out of reach for natural science but an event like special creation is well within scientific inquiry.

Click to expand...

How so?