Creationists: What Was Wrong With The Dover Trial?

[DogmaHunter]

Your whole argument is faulty because you based it on the faulty premise that science is the ultimate infallible epistemological means and that nothing can be proven without it. However, the very claim that nothing can be proven without science cannot be proven through science (it is a statement that belongs to philosophy, which is not a branch of science), so it's a paradox.

I didn't see the OP make that claim.

I'ld say that so far, science has proven to be the most succesfull method to get answers to questions about reality. It simply has the best track record.

It's the best we can do at this point.

So yes, I'ld say it is very correct to say that if science currently can't answer a question, there is no reason at all to assuming some unscientific method could.

ps: the idea that science is the best we got, is demonstrated easily by pointing at its track record in succesfully figuring out things.

Furthermore, science claims that the only means of achieving knowledge is by using the capabilities of our brains

What else? Our little pinky? Our hair?

The brain is what we do our thinking with.

, but it defines the brain as the end result of a mindless unguided process

Evolution isn't "unguided". Evolution is subject to natural selection, which is the opposite of "unguided".

, so what reason is there to believe its capacity to tell us the truth?

Its continued reliability on producing effective results.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

I didn't see the OP make that claim.

He demanded that God be proven to him through scientific means. That seems like an implication of the belief that science has the ultimate authority, which is not an universal truth.

I'ld say that so far, science has proven to be the most succesfull method to get answers to questions about reality. It simply has the best track record.

According to what criteria? We have answers about our existence in The Bible. The fact that you dismiss them as untrue because you don't accept divinely-inspired written accounts as proof is not grounds for stating that science has been the most successful method to get answers. Does science tell us how the world was created? Not clearly. Just a bunch of theories that scientists contradict each other about. The Bible tells us clearly. Does science tell us how the world is going to end? Nope. The Bible does in Revelation. Does science tell us what our purpose is? Nope. The Bible does. Well, would you look at all these fundamental things that sciences doesn't tell us...

Science has been known to constantly contradict, correct and improve itself. Scientific facts that were considered the norm in the past have been proven wrong by science.

It's the best we can do at this point.

According to what criteria? According to whose opinion? The scientists? There are monks and priests out there who will tell you that the best we can do is pray. There were saints out there who performed miracles and said that he best we can do is draw near to God. How do you prove that either one of these sides is right?

So yes, I'ld say it is very correct to say that if science currently can't answer a question, there is no reason at all to assuming some unscientific method could.

It is a mistake to think that the scientific method is the only valid means of investigating or understanding reality. Of course, it is the only valid means of scientifically investigating and scientifically understanding the physical world. But that does not, in itself, demonstrate that reality is limited to physical reality, or that all investigation is limited to empirical investigation in accordance with the scientific method.

ps: the idea that science is the best we got, is demonstrated easily by pointing at its track record in succesfully figuring out things.

How about pointing out its track record of constantly making errors that it later corrected? Wouldn't that be grounds for considering it untrustworthy? No to both of these assumptions because that would be a fallacy.

Evolution isn't "unguided". Evolution is subject to natural selection, which is the opposite of "unguided".

Well, you're going to have to disagree with many scientists on that one. I'm just paraphrasing what they wrote: Unguided evolution - RationalWiki

Its continued reliability on producing effective results.

Is that so? Wouldn't it be logical for the continued reliability on producing fulfilled prophecies of The Bible to consider it trustworthy?

100prophecies.org

 

[Audacious]

He demanded that God be proven to him through scientific means. That seems like an implication of the belief that science has the ultimate authority, which is not an universal truth.

I'm a Christian, if you didn't notice my user profile thingy beside every single post I make. I clearly do not need God to be proven to me via science. It's simply the case that evolution has a much, much better empirical case than creationism.

I don't see why evolution, common descent, abiogenesis, etc would invalidate God at all. (Which is good, since the first two are effectively proven and the third is an extremely strong hypothesis.). All it does is mean that God chose to do things via more "natural" means than people originally thought.

According to what criteria? We have answers about our existence in The Bible. The fact that you dismiss them as untrue because you don't accept divinely-inspired written accounts as proof is not grounds for stating that science has been the most successful method to get answers.

How come there is absolutely no extra-biblical proof of those things happening, though? And in many (most) cases, there's evidence that those things didn't happen -- not just a dearth of evidence that they did.

If I tell you that I can turn my skin to steel, but I never actually show you that I can or offer any other proof, will you believe me? Of course not.

Does science tell us how the world was created? Not clearly. Just a bunch of theories that scientists contradict each other about.

Idunno, it seems pretty solid. Big bang, expansion of space/matter, really thick sort-of dust clouds etc form, eventually one turned into an accretion disk that became the solar system (sun, planets, asteroid belt, etc). It gets a lot more specific than my overview if you take a look at what modern astronomy and astrophysics has to say.

The Bible tells us clearly. Does science tell us how the world is going to end? Nope. The Bible does in Revelation.

What useful information...

Does science tell us what our purpose is? Nope. The Bible does.

Science has very little to do with purpose. It is a tool, not a philosophy on life.

Science has been known to constantly contradict, correct and improve itself. Scientific facts that were considered the norm in the past have been proven wrong by science.

Yes. That is called progression. Science progresses according to newfound knowledge and evidence. We used to think the Earth was flat; now we know it is an oblate spheroid.

According to what criteria? According to whose opinion? The scientists? There are monks and priests out there who will tell you that the best we can do is pray. There were saints out there who performed miracles and said that he best we can do is draw near to God. How do you prove that either one of these sides is right?

Well it's very simple: which side has better evidence? I'd say it's science, personally, since it has all the empirical data on its side.

It is a mistake to think that the scientific method is the only valid means of investigating or understanding reality. Of course, it is the only valid means of scientifically investigating and scientifically understanding the physical world. But that does not, in itself, demonstrate that reality is limited to physical reality, or that all investigation is limited to empirical investigation in accordance with the scientific method.

I don't think anyone said that science is the only way to investigate or understand reality. But it is an extremely useful way to do so.

How about pointing out its track record of constantly making errors that it later corrected? Wouldn't that be grounds for considering it untrustworthy? No to both of these assumptions because that would be a fallacy.

It corrected itself based on new data. That's generally considered a positive thing, not "Science is lying!!!1".

Is that so? Wouldn't it be logical for the continued reliability on producing fulfilled prophecies of The Bible to consider it trustworthy?

Isn't it amazing how, given enough time, almost anything can happen? Especially if you make the prophecies as vague as possible.

Also: even if the prophecies were 100% accurate, that doesn't mean there was a Noadic flood.

Edit: The website also states historical stuff without making any links or references. There's no reason to believe 100prophecies.org is even reliable. (Especially since it is really strongly trying to sell a book about biblical prophecies.).

 

[tas8831]

I suggest starting with Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator."

Nah...


Another Case Not Made: Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator

I don't know all the particulars of the Dover trial, but the case for creation is quite strong.

No, it really isn't.

This is why, for example, my thread on this forum asking for such evidence (for creation) is NOT filled with such a case, but instead is littered with ducks and dodges and excuses and burden shifting and bible verses - and, at the very "best", attacks on evolution presented as support for creation. I see the same results on every forum I visit or read.

That tells me that there is virtually no case for creation.

 

[tas8831]

There is no way to prove anything from the big bang to
stellar formation to the beginning of life with science.
All are extra-natural or supernatural.

How did energy begin, when the first law of thermodymics
says it can neither be created nor destroyed?

When was the creation of the universe ever part of the theory of evolution?

References please.

 

[tas8831]

Technically professionals have built an Ark: Life-size Noah’s Ark

Using modern machinery and work crews in the hundreds.

Just like that Dane that built an 'ark replica' a few years ago - not much discussed was the fact that to make it float, he has welded the hulls of two modern barges together and placed the wooden part on top of it.

Just like Noah did...

 

[tas8831]

Well that's that rub isn't it. God can't be an explanation for the origin of life legally because it's against the first amendment. It can't be scientific because inductive science is an exploration of natural phenomenon. That must mean it never happened, surely we all see the leap in logic based on naturalistic assumptions here.

I will gladly ignore all of that if you care to provide a testable mechanism by which God transformed the dust of the ground into organic polymers.

 

[tas8831]

The first amendment allows for both freedom of speech
and free exercise of religion, so it's certainly not that.

it seems that rational courts have concluded that one's free expression of religion ends at forcing it upon others in the public sphere.

Which seems reasonable, no?

Surely you would not sit back and think 'Freedom, 1st amendment style' were a Satanist to stand and give an invocation at a high school graduation or a town meeting?

In fact, we see the exact opposite - we see what happens when a non-Christian does what Christians are allowed to do all over...

 

[tas8831]

Exactly.
Non-believers demonstrate their lack of understanding of science by thinking they can find a scientific explanation for a supernatural creation.

Thanks for setting us all straight on science.


However - I would settle for some actual evidence for ANYTHING God is claimed to have
done.

Science is the study of the natural world, not the supernatural world.

Events leave evidence behind. A world-wide flood would leave evidence behind, all over the world. A population bottleneck - in ALL living things - leaves behind genetic signs. No such signs exist.

Science can not ever find the correct answer. It doesn't look in the right place.
If you believe a man could return to life after three days of decomposition you completely reject biology. If you don't believe Christ returned from the dead, you reject the foundation of Christianity.

Or, you could consider the source of the story and understand that such tales were relatively common in ancient times, and that this one is no more reliable as an actual event than, say, the resurrection of Osiris.

 

[tas8831]

who said we can't? this motor prove that nature need a designer (basically it's a motor with a self repliciating system):

Just curious - How many times are you going to make the exact same failed analogy-driven argument in how many threads before you realize that you are making yourself look silly?

 

[PsychoSarah]

who said we can't? this motor prove that nature need a designer (basically it's a motor with a self repliciating system):

VCAC: Cellular Processes: Electron Transport Chain: Advanced Look: ATP Synthase

Sigh. A story to try to show you another folly of your argument.

A person builds an artificial waterfall in their back yard. 3 miles away, there is a natural waterfall. They are the exact same thing, but one is created, and the other naturally formed. Thus, one being designed isn't evidence that the other is too.

 

[Halbhh]

Both sides -- creationists and evolutionists -- got the chance to present their evidence in court. The evolutionists won, because if you examine creationist claims with the rigors of science, there is no evidence behind them; whereas there is plenty with evolution.

Let me put it this way: if creationism were true, you'd be able to prove it without the Bible, using science as a method of data-gathering and analysis.

As someone believing God created this Universe, I could call myself a 'creationist' if I wanted to, even something like an "old Earth creationist" or a "14 billion year creationist" or whatever silly labels people like to make up, but instead...

...instead, I call myself a follower of Christ, because He is the way, not creationism.

The real problem with various versions of creationism that assert whatever view of whatever about time periods and other speculations isn't simply that they are wrong -- just mere human error, the norm, only to be expected -- in their details, but instead what actually does matter is that such doctrines distract and lead people away from our correct focus -- on the gospel of Jesus Christ our Savior.

Nothing else saves. Only Christ saves.

Creationism won't save a single soul, though some versions of creationism will indeed cause some young people to trip and fall away.

Christ did say something about that, in the early part of Matthew chapter 18 I think.

 

[Speedwell]

Just curious - How many times are you going to make the exact same failed analogy-driven argument in how many threads before you realize that you are making yourself look silly?

He can't do anyhing else. The only thing ID and the Intelligent Design movement have is the assertion that complexity needs an intelligent designer. It's false, but that's all he has to hammer on.

 

[KWCrazy]

Thanks for setting us all straight on science.

You're welcome.

However - I would settle for some actual evidence for ANYTHING God is claimed to have
done.

You don't understand evidence.
You want physical proof. There is no physical proof of miracles. There have been witnesses; sometimes thousands of witnesses to events, but that isn't enough for you. You want someone to prove God to you and God said to come to him through faith. You won't have any such irrefutable proof until you stand before Him, and then it will be too late.

I'm sorry that your mind cannot grasp the existence of the supernatural. That isn't our failing.

Events leave evidence behind.

Sometimes.
Sometimes you misread the evidence because you see the world as a self creating entity that took billions of years to come about. That mindset blinds you to evidence of God's perfect creation.

A world-wide flood would leave evidence behind, all over the world.

Like fossils on mountain peaks or whale skeletons in deserts? When you find such evidence you make excuses for it.

A population bottleneck - in ALL living things - leaves behind genetic signs. No such signs exist.

So you claim.
You can't have a bottleneck without understanding the previous and subsequent quantity of living things, which cannot be known.
You have to know the reproduction rate than the speciation rate of species after the flood, which you have no way of knowing.
I you reject the origin of man, the fall of man and the judgement of God, then you understand nothing about human history.

Or, you could consider the source of the story and understand that such tales were relatively common in ancient times...

Or you could consider that intelligent people wouldn't allow themselves to be tortured rather than renounce a lie. The early Christians paid a great price to spread the news of Christ's ministry. Many were killed in the most gruesome manners imaginable. I would think there would be an ever greater price to pay for one who comes among believers and spends his time trying to turn them away from their belief. Such a person does not serve God. Rather, such a person does the will of Satan without even believing he exists. How strange it must be to serve a master which you don't believe even exists.

 

[USincognito]

Does science tell us how the world was created? Not clearly. Just a bunch of theories that scientists contradict each other about. The Bible tells us clearly.

I stopped reading after this because this assertion is laughable.

 

[pitabread]

Does science tell us how the world is going to end? Nope.

Actually it does. Assuming we don't get hit by a massive asteroid in the mean time, once the Sun runs out of hydrogen fuel, it will turn into a red giant and expand until it effectively envelopes are planet. The good news is that it won't happen for billions of years to come. The bad news is, well, it will happen at some point.

 

[pitabread]

this motor prove that nature need a designer

No, no it doesn't. And no amount of equivocation will demonstrate otherwise.

 

[pitabread]

1. Even if we find a means by which life could have come about, it wouldn't prove that it did come about by that process.
2. Considering that the origination of anything is a scientific impossibility, I wouldn't look for science to answer the question of origination any soon.
3. If God created a mature planet, as Genesis said He did, it would look exactly as it does now. The simple fact is that science can neither validate or invalidate God's miracles. They are a manifestation of God's authority in defiance of natural law.
4. Christians have faith in God over the laws of nature. We know people can't walk on water. We also know that Jesus did. We know that Jesus taught the Bible was the breathed words of God. As Christians, we trust that every word is true from the initial creation until the end of the Revelation.

Basically no matter what scientists uncover, you'll dismiss it anyway.

So why do you care what scientists do?

 

[KWCrazy]

Basically no matter what scientists uncover, you'll dismiss it anyway.

If it's wrong, yes.
Scientists will never uncover a natural cause for the creation of the universe.
They may come up with an excuse that sounds good.
They can't "uncover" a natural causation because there was nothing natural about God speaking the universe into existence.
They may be able to convince people like you that the great flood didn't happen, but they can't convince us that God's word is not God's word.
They may be able to convince you that there are no angels or demons, but those of us who have seen them recognize that the "experts" speak from profound ignorance.

The world is not and will never be millions of years old, much less billions. In all likelihood it will all be gone in 100 years. Christ could return at any time. When He returns it will be too late for the scoffers. When the trumpet sounds your window of opportunity to come to the Lord by faith will be closed.

 

[pitabread]

If it's wrong, yes.
Scientists will never uncover a natural cause for the creation of the universe.

I wasn't talking about the origin of the universe. I was talking about the origin of life.

They may be able to convince you that there are no angels or demons, but those of us who have seen them recognize that the "experts" speak from profound ignorance.

Scientists haven't convinced me there are no angels or demons. Complete lack of evidence for angels or demons has convinced me there are no angels or demons.

For the record, I believe that people have legitimate experiences that lead them to believe in the existence of such things, but I believe that is due to misattribution of the nature of the experience than actual existence of angels or demons.

This is because I've also "seen" them, but have no reason to believe they exist beyond a product of the mind.

The world is not and will never be millions of years old, much less billions.

Except it looks billions of years old.

In all likelihood it will all be gone in 100 years. Christ could return at any time. When He returns it will be too late for the scoffers. When the trumpet sounds your window of opportunity to come to the Lord by faith will be closed.

Doomsday predictions are quite bluntly rather lame. People have been making the same predictions for thousands of years and they've been wrong every time. Short of a nuclear war or other massive disaster, humankind will still be here 100 years from now.