Creationism

[Non sequitur]

Is it the same thing as Intelligent Design? If it is, is it science?

Should it be taught in non-religious schools?

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Is it the same thing as Intelligent Design? If it is, is it science?

Should it be taught in non-religious schools?

Intelligent Design, as far as popularly supported, is effectively Creationism Lite.

It's also important I think to understand that "Creationism" isn't a single view, but can describe several mutually exclusive positions; and even just within the Christian perspective.

What most people know as "Creationism" is actually Young Earth Creationism, that is, the universe was created between 6 and 10 thousand years ago, in the span of six literal 24 hour days.

There is also Old Earth Creationism, including Gap-Theory Creationism, here the days of creation are not literal 24 hour days, but periods of time, here the earth and the universe can be millions, even billions of years old. Thus the six days of creation refer to six stages of creation over the course of a very long period of time, though as far as the creation of life is concerned each moment of creation was a specific act of creation (Darwin's theory of evolution is a no-go here).

Then there is Theistic Evolution, or Evolutionary Creationism. Here the Creation story is not read literally, but rather is understood as chiefly poetic, mythological and/or theological (See the Framework Hypothesis). The days of creation most likely really do mean six actual days, but it's not to be understood as describing literal history or an offering of a scientific account, but rather offering a theological account through the use of mytho-poetic language. Ordinary, mainstream science is not thrown out, but fully accepted: The universe is about 14 billions years old, and probably began with a big bang, the earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago from the solar accretion disk, life appeared around 3 billions years ago and has evolved since with complex organisms appearing about 500 million years ago during the Precambrian/Cambrian and the course of evolution has been going on ever since.

None of the above constitute as science in my opinion. Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creationism is not a scientific position, but a theological one. It simply accepts what the widely accepted scientific accounts offer and, as an act of faith, recognizes that these are the methods and processes by which God has been acting and is acting; no different then any other natural mechanism in the universe. God is present and working through and in the ordinary, mundane mechanisms of the universe as the Creator and the One who sustains all things.

Technically, "Intelligent Design" can describe Theistic Evolution as much as anything else, but that's not what is usually meant, since it is usually set up against evolution, rather than concurrent with it--and either way, it's not science; it's theology.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[drich0150]

It's like you guys all follow a prescribed line of thought, almost like your following some sort of doctrine, but how can this be if you all do not share a common system belief?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7559995/

 

[Non sequitur]

Intelligent Design, as far as popularly supported, is effectively Creationism Lite.

It's also important I think to understand that "Creationism" isn't a single view, but can describe several mutually exclusive positions; and even just within the Christian perspective.

What most people know as "Creationism" is actually Young Earth Creationism, that is, the universe was created between 6 and 10 thousand years ago, in the span of six literal 24 hour days.

There is also Old Earth Creationism, including Gap-Theory Creationism, here the days of creation are not literal 24 hour days, but periods of time, here the earth and the universe can be millions, even billions of years old. Thus the six days of creation refer to six stages of creation over the course of a very long period of time, though as far as the creation of life is concerned each moment of creation was a specific act of creation (Darwin's theory of evolution is a no-go here).

Then there is Theistic Evolution, or Evolutionary Creationism. Here the Creation story is not read literally, but rather is understood as chiefly poetic, mythological and/or theological (See the Framework Hypothesis). The days of creation most likely really do mean six actual days, but it's not to be understood as describing literal history or an offering of a scientific account, but rather offering a theological account through the use of mytho-poetic language. Ordinary, mainstream science is not thrown out, but fully accepted: The universe is about 14 billions years old, and probably began with a big bang, the earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago from the solar accretion disk, life appeared around 3 billions years ago and has evolved since with complex organisms appearing about 500 million years ago during the Precambrian/Cambrian and the course of evolution has been going on ever since.

None of the above constitute as science in my opinion. Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creationism is not a scientific position, but a theological one. It simply accepts what the widely accepted scientific accounts offer and, as an act of faith, recognizes that these are the methods and processes by which God has been acting and is acting; no different then any other natural mechanism in the universe. God is present and working through and in the ordinary, mundane mechanisms of the universe as the Creator and the One who sustains all things.

Technically, "Intelligent Design" can describe Theistic Evolution as much as anything else, but that's not what is usually meant, since it is usually set up against evolution, rather than concurrent with it--and either way, it's not science; it's theology.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks for such a good description of your thoughts.

Should I assume that you believe it shouldn't be taught, outside of religious schools?

 

[Non sequitur]

It's like you guys all follow a prescribed line of thought, almost like your following some sort of doctrine, but how can this be if you all do not share a common system belief?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7559995/

My, my. You are always all over the place.

By "you guys" are you talking about the Christian, because of his response, or insinuating me, because of my question?

 

[solarwave]

It seems to me that Intelligent Design is a form of creationism (because it involves the direct creation of God), is not science and shouldn't be taught in a science class of any type of school. I have no problems with it being taught in a religion class.

 

[Mr Dave]

Is it the same thing as Intelligent Design? If it is, is it science?

Should it be taught in non-religious schools?

They are different; to me creationism implies Young or Old Earth creationism in which its adherents believe that the universe and life were both brought into being directly by God in 6 days, however long ago the belief claims. Creationism believes that all life was created in its present form. ID believes that living creatures have changed over time but each of these changes was directly made by God (unlike evolution which believes that they happened for other reasons).

The thing the two have in common is that neither is scientific, neither view-point is decently supported by any evidence.

They can be brought up in RE lessons as something that a minority of Christians believe but to be taught as true or to be taught in a science class would not be right.

 

[salida]

Its more scientific than whats being taught at times. Social engineering is what is occurring in the educational system-indoctrination not education. Thus, they teach abiogenesis-living matter coming from dead matter. The least they should do is have both sides if the argument which IS education. Some states already do this.

From Creation to Universal Darwinsim(polls)-41% creationists
http://www.deepscience.com/philosophy/design.html
60% of doctors take an ID position
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/05/poll_60_percent_of_doctors_reject_darwin000937.html

http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation

Design versus Darwinism
http://www.deepscience.com/philosophy/design.html

http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm

http://www.creation-facts.org/tag/mathematics/
　
Scientific case for adam and eve
http://www.reasons.org/files/ezine/ezine-2010-04.pdf

Why Abiogenesis is impossible
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
　
http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa
　
The Myth of Abiogenesis
http://www.studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogenesis.html
If you put intelligent design and compare the evidence of abiogenesis-you will find that the overwhelming circumstantial evidence is intelligent design.

Scientists teach the origin of life according to how they view the world; by christian, agnostic or athiestic glasses. The stats alone go against abiogenesis grossly.

 

[Non sequitur]

Its more scientific than whats being taught at times. Social engineering is what is occurring in the educational system-indoctrination not education. Thus, they teach abiogenesis-living matter coming from dead matter. The least they should do is have both sides if the argument which IS education. Some states already do this.

From Creation to Universal Darwinsim(polls)-41% creationists
http://www.deepscience.com/philosophy/design.html
60% of doctors take an ID position
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/05/poll_60_percent_of_doctors_reject_darwin000937.html

http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation

Design versus Darwinism
http://www.deepscience.com/philosophy/design.html

http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm

http://www.creation-facts.org/tag/mathematics/
　
Scientific case for adam and eve
http://www.reasons.org/files/ezine/ezine-2010-04.pdf

Why Abiogenesis is impossible
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
　
http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa
　
The Myth of Abiogenesis
http://www.studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogenesis.html
If you put intelligent design and compare the evidence of abiogenesis-you will find that the overwhelming circumstantial evidence is intelligent design.

Scientists teach the origin of life according to how they view the world; by christian, agnostic or athiestic glasses. The stats alone go against abiogenesis grossly.

No, scientists teach the origin of life according to data. There is no bias, as data has no beliefs to hold.


You have cited 3 references for your "stats alone that go against Abiogenesis grossly".

Without referencing more than 3, and tallying those "in favor of" and "against it" to arrive at your majority, you can't reasonably make this claim.


"Living matter coming from dead matter" is a sentence that uses a word that doesn't exist (except in the printing world) and is nonsensical.

"Living bricks coming from dead people" is the essence of your sentence, which wouldn't be a valid statement.

Matter is the substance of which all physical objects consist.

Matter does not "live" or "not live". The combination of matter can lead to life... as well as bricks.


See, this is what is irritating. You don't know the definitions of the very words you are using.

A vast majority of Christians make so many inaccurate statements in a row and as then fast as they can arrive at a conclusion, based on those inaccurate statements. They, then, leave it up to someone else to have to go back and sort out each and every one.

The most irritating being, they never apologize or acknowledge that they were wrong, even if dealing with the non-supernatural.




Evolution is both a scientific theory and scientific fact.

Evolution is an established scientific model of a portion of the universe that generates propositions with observational consequences, making it a theory.

Evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations, making it a fact.


For something to make it into the realm of fact or theory, we must be able to test (for) it. Science deals with data.

Saying it can't be tested for, no matter if those are its properties, means it can never be a scientific theory.

Now, if you want to be in favor of us teaching non-scientific theories, then you have to think we should equally teach Scientology, and every other religious-type or religious belief, as well.

Can I count on your vote?

 

[Non sequitur]

The thing the two have in common is that neither is scientific, neither view-point is decently supported by any evidence.

That is not true, on any level, and by any definition of scientific evidence.

In your definition of ID, you included God.

Your god can not be scientifically tested for (or apparently tested, in any way that would provide data and/or yield any results) at all.

When you scientifically test something, you will get always get some immediate (they use catalysts, if they need to) data as a result of that test.

I can not test (for) your god and get an immediately result.

However, we can test our immediate world.

Saying it doesn't work that way, or doesn't happen in a way that I can actually measure, just simply means it can't be tested.

No testing, no weight.

 

[Incariol]

Is it the same thing as Intelligent Design? If it is, is it science?

Should it be taught in non-religious schools?

Answers: Yes, no, no.

 

[Non sequitur]

Answers: Yes, no, no.

Thanks for responding.

If I can ask, why do some Christians think we should teach it and others not?

 

[Hakan101]

Thanks for responding.

If I can ask, why do some Christians think we should teach it and others not?

Frankly, because not everyone is a Christian. It's almost like forcing kids to go to Church. Sounds good in theory, in practice not so much.

 

[Non sequitur]

Frankly, because not everyone is a Christian. It's almost like forcing kids to go to Church. Sounds good in theory, in practice not so much.

Is the Christian thinking we should not teach it a Christian? Or is the Christian thinking we should teach it a Christian?

 

[Incariol]

Thanks for responding.

If I can ask, why do some Christians think we should teach it and others not?

Because Christians, like all groups, evidence a range of intellect and education. Some Christians are educated and understand biology and law, other Christians are not.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Thanks for such a good description of your thoughts.

Should I assume that you believe it shouldn't be taught, outside of religious schools?

It doesn't belong in the science class room, since it's not science.

-CryptoLutheran