Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

Shane Roach · Feb 19, 2005

MartinM said:
The problem is that you're conflating two separate issues. The question 'did the Universe go through a hot Big Bang phase?' is one that science has answered 'yes' with very high confidence. The question 'how did that come about?' is as of yet unanswered, though there are several interesting possibilities being explored.

It's a fairly natural thing to conflate. "Oh such and such happened." "Really, how?" "We don't know." "Then how do you know it happened?" "Well it's the only explanation we can come up with." "But it looks impossible?" "Well..."

And with that firm foundation, everyone here supporting the exclusion of any discussion of creation then want to accuse the religious of having 'unfalsifiable' or 'unscientific' ideas, when I have pointed out over and over again that consciousness and will are observed daily, and I have yet to hear a refutation.

The assertion that the concept of God is somehow outside of the observed scope of natural phenomena is false. We absolutely know that conscious acts of will either exist, or else our own perceptions are so tainted that to discuss much of anything based on obervations is moot because the evidence for will and consciousness is in each and every one of us. To discuss how this relates to ideas of the origin of the material world is well within the scope of science. Again, consciousness and will are observed. We know its nature is seemingly impervious to outside observation, so by any rational thought process, to simply discount the possibility is unsound.

Many, many people claim to be aware of God, or spiritual beings. Much of the history of the western world is dominated by how societies dealt with the concept of God. Psychics, despite all the mocking they tend to get from so called scientists, can be documented now in how they have helped police. Discounting spiritual reality and claiming that a: we know how all things were created and yet b: we have no understanding of how our explanation could have possibly worked, then turning around and denying the free interchange of ideas about that in relation to other ideas about how things began is not separating science from religion or history, it is hiding behind arguments over words.

Some science is simple. Calculating the fall of an apple from a certain height near the surface of the earth is nothing as complex as Big Bang theory, and neither is the concept of creation by God. Just because something is simple does not mean it is not science. Just because will and consciousness are implied does not make it opposed to science.

No one could even DO science without the exercise of conscious will.

Shane Roach · Feb 19, 2005

MartinM said:
Oh, right. Got a better explanation than current cosmological models for, say, the angular power spectrum of the CMB, then?

No, but I have an equally valid one. A conscious being designed the universe and even went to the trouble to make it impossible to explain naturally to give mankind a hint that He was responsible for it, and then intervened in history repeatedly, and has been the center of western culture for centuries. His followerd predicted that his small cult would expand worldwide and indeed it did just that.

You can't refute that there is no real explanation for why things are as they have been observed, and you can't refute that consciousness and will exist, nor that they seem capable of somehow affecting matter. You can't refute history, though you may well interpret it differently, but ultimately, you have no business foisting off an idea that obviously doesn't work as if it is measureably superior just because you happen not to like that consciousness and will throw a monkey wrench in all your mechanistic calculations.

Design is not an elegant idea, nor complex. But it is an idea and it fits the evidence which from the beginning frankly has been rather bizarre. No one was anticipating a universe that seemed to be expanding from some central point, and it certainly presents a lot of bizarre questions.

I am not surprised that lots of ways have been found to tie various things we have observed together. Mathematics is quite pliable, even able to encompass that which does not exist at all, so it is no suprise to me that it mathematical constructs can be found to tie a lot of disparate data together and cobbe it into an idea of how the universe could exist. That doesn't mean that's actually how things happened.

MartinM · Feb 19, 2005

Shane Roach said:
It's a fairly natural thing to conflate. "Oh such and such happened." "Really, how?" "We don't know." "Then how do you know it happened?" "Well it's the only explanation we can come up with." "But it looks impossible?" "Well..."

Utter nonsense. That I don't know how my computer was made doesn't stop me from figuring out how it works. Even if how my computer was made was in principle unknowable, I'd still be able to take it apart and see how it works.

Your hypothetical conversation should go something more like this:

The Universe went through a hot, dense Big Bang phase
How did this come about?
We don't know yet.
Then how do you know it happened?
Because the evidence says so. Cosmological models make testable predictions about what we should observe if such an event really took place - we have now observed this.
But it looks impossible.
Not really, no. There are multiple hypotheses as to how such an event could have taken place. Additionally, while science doesn't consider such possibilities, a supernatural event could cause it. That we cannot currently pin down any one specific cause for a hot, dense Big Bang phase does not mean that it did not happen. The evidence says that it did, and anyone who wishes to reject current models will have to explain why they work so well.

And with that firm foundation, everyone here supporting the exclusion of any discussion of creation then want to accuse the religious of having 'unfalsifiable' or 'unscientific' ideas, when I have pointed out over and over again that consciousness and will are observed daily, and I have yet to hear a refutation

Sure, if you can come up with a testable model of creation, then it will indeed fall under the purview of science. Do you, in fact, have such a model?

The assertion that the concept of God is somehow outside of the observed scope of natural phenomena is false. We absolutely know that conscious acts of will either exist, or else our own perceptions are so tainted that to discuss much of anything based on obervations is moot because the evidence for will and consciousness is in each and every one of us. To discuss how this relates to ideas of the origin of the material world is well within the scope of science. Again, consciousness and will are observed. We know its nature is seemingly impervious to outside observation, so by any rational thought process, to simply discount the possibility is unsound

I'm actually going to somewhat agree with you here. Any definiton of God which makes such a being observable and empirically falsifiable is perfectly open to scrutiny with the scientific method.

Psychics, despite all the mocking they tend to get from so called scientists, can be documented now in how they have helped police

An issue for a separate thread, perhaps, but I've yet to find a case where advice from a psychic was genuinely helpful to the police. I'd certainly be interested to hear of one, however.

Discounting spiritual reality and claiming that a: we know how all things were created and yet b: we have no understanding of how our explanation could have possibly worked, then turning around and denying the free interchange of ideas about that in relation to other ideas about how things began is not separating science from religion or history, it is hiding behind arguments over words

But science doesn't actually make claim a) at all.

Some science is simple. Calculating the fall of an apple from a certain height near the surface of the earth is nothing as complex as Big Bang theory, and neither is the concept of creation by God. Just because something is simple does not mean it is not science. Just because will and consciousness are implied does not make it opposed to science

Really, the basics of the Big Bang aren't nearly as complicated as you might think. It's just what you get when you combine GR with some basic particle physics. The finer details can get pretty complex, granted.

MartinM · Feb 19, 2005

Shane Roach said:
No, but I have an equally valid one. A conscious being designed the universe and even went to the trouble to make it impossible to explain naturally to give mankind a hint that He was responsible for it, and then intervened in history repeatedly, and has been the center of western culture for centuries. His followerd predicted that his small cult would expand worldwide and indeed it did just that

That's not an explanation at all. Nothing in your statement allows me to conclude anything whatsoever about the existence of the CMB, let alone the details of its angular power spectrum. Cosmological models, on the other hand, not only predict the existence of the CMB, but also predicted the exact form the angular power spectrum would take, before it was observed. As we observe it in greater and greater detail, the match between observation and prediction is seen very clearly. Modern cosmological models have both explanatory and predictive power with respect to the CMB and its properties. To replace them, your model needs to have the same.

You can't refute that there is no real explanation for why things are as they have been observed, and you can't refute that consciousness and will exist, nor that they seem capable of somehow affecting matter

I'd like a formal definiton of will to work with, and yes, I can object to the notion that consciousness 'affects matter'. Rather, I would say that consciousness supervenes on the physical.

You can't refute history, though you may well interpret it differently, but ultimately, you have no business foisting off an idea that obviously doesn't work as if it is measureably superior just because you happen not to like that consciousness and will throw a monkey wrench in all your mechanistic calculations

The problem here is that cosmological models patently do work. They make testable predictions which are verified by observation.

Right, I have a plane to catch. I'll try to stop in again before I leave, but if not, I'll be back Sunday or Monday.

Shane Roach · Feb 19, 2005

MartinM said:
Sure, if you can come up with a testable model of creation, then it will indeed fall under the purview of science. Do you, in fact, have such a model?

No, but I am aware that some have ideas about design and, as I have said repeatedly, excluding those ideas from any mention of Big Bang in public schools because it is not sufficiently 'science' smacks of redefinition of terms and intellectual dishonesty to me. I mean, let me tone my rhetoric down here a little, since I know you personally do not feel you are being dishonest, but for all the difference it would make, and seeing as how the whole subject is as loose as it is, I don't see the harm and I see loads of good coming from an atmosphere among educators that remembers that they are there to serve those they teach, not to dictate to them.

As for Psychics, well you're right it's probably something for a new thread, but just for convenience if you are interested here is the link to the t.v. show that has been mystifying me the last few weeks. I had no idea this much had been done. I thought it was limited to a handfull of cases with easy explanations for alternative reasons why it might have worked. And there is still the question of why in the world this so called power doesn't appear to work more or less on demand.

I tell you, whoever Bush was using as a psychic for the Iraq war had a blind third eye for sure...

http://www.courttv.com/onair/shows/psychic_detectives/

And on another tangent, there is some question in my mind whether or not this qualifies as the kind of mediums and such the Bible teaches not to deal with, so that's another odd angle to it all.

Shane Roach · Feb 19, 2005

MartinM said:
That's not an explanation at all. Nothing in your statement allows me to conclude anything whatsoever about the existence of the CMB, let alone the details of its angular power spectrum. Cosmological models, on the other hand, not only predict the existence of the CMB, but also predicted the exact form the angular power spectrum would take, before it was observed. As we observe it in greater and greater detail, the match between observation and prediction is seen very clearly. Modern cosmological models have both explanatory and predictive power with respect to the CMB and its properties. To replace them, your model needs to have the same.

I object to this explanation of the events because it makes it seem as if someone made those equations from whole cloth, when what actually happened is they come from prior observations and a WHOLE lot of experimentation and trial and error. As I said, it should come as no surprise to anyone even mildly familiar with math that equations can be found to relate various observations and ideas and construct a model. That's what math is all about, modeling. But once you have reached the point where the model breaks down, it is fair to ask was the model correct in the first place and why you cling to the idea that it was. There's no harm and a lot of good in continuing the line of inquiry, but there is also something to be said for an open mind and some discussion about other ideas, and I don't think we have to wait until someone cobbles together definitions of consciousness and will that you will be willing to put your stamp of approval on either. People understand those things well enough to discuss them in what little detail it can be approached in a public education setting.

Shane Roach · Feb 19, 2005

MartinM said:
The problem here is that cosmological models patently do work. They make testable predictions which are verified by observation.

I find this method of argumentation a bit questionable. You know full well the part of the theory I am referring to. :-/

Let's not talk around each other.

Shane Roach · Feb 19, 2005

MartinM said:
I'd like a formal definiton of will to work with, and yes, I can object to the notion that consciousness 'affects matter'. Rather, I would say that consciousness supervenes on the physical.

I'm at a loss for why mathematically minded people have such difficulty with language. 'Supervene' indicates some sort of unexpected or extraneous thing, which makes no sense at all. I certainly don't find it unexpected. Either that or you are trying to imply it follows after, in which case using the word 'on' is, well, extraneous and surprising. Not to mention I have no idea why you would assert which came first.

Arikay · Feb 19, 2005

Anyway we can falsify this designer?

Shane Roach · Feb 20, 2005

Arikay said:
Anyway we can falsify this designer?

It seems to me you could falsify the idea of design. On the other hand, seeing as how ideas about how the universe began alter with new information, I am not impressed with the way folks like to lean on the concept that if it cannot be falsified it is not science. The fact is you can no more falsify the idea that there is no God than you can falsify that there is, and yet the entire Big Bang theory is predecated on an explanation that either dictates there's no God or that He hasn't interefered with the natural process, which is an unfalsifiable assertion.

Rather than remove both, I would think it would be better to discuss both, along with their pros and cons.

Arikay · Feb 20, 2005

It seems to me you could falsify the idea of design.

How?

On the other hand, seeing as how ideas about how the universe began alter with new information, I am not impressed with the way folks like to lean on the concept that if it cannot be falsified it is not science.

It's not always a fool proof test to see if something is science, but it works rather well. The current theory of the big bang can be falsified. In which case a new version is created to fit all the evidence, or if the falsification is strong enough, a whole new theory would be created.

This is an easy test, it prevents answers such as,
"supernatural demons did it, that ends the investigation."
"Last tuesdayism is true."
"God did it, that ends the investigation."

The fact is you can no more falsify the idea that there is no God than you can falsify that there is,

Very true, that is why science is agnostic.

and yet the entire Big Bang theory is predecated on an explanation that either dictates there's no God or that He hasn't interefered with the natural process, which is an unfalsifiable assertion.

Nope. The entire big bang theory is predecated on the idea that science is the study of the natural world, and that if God exists we are studying his tool of creation, if he has faked evidence, then we are studying the fake evidence to come to his deceptions, and if he has tinkered with his tool that it when we study the areas he tinkered with it will end in a dead end or an unknown.

Rather than remove both, I would think it would be better to discuss both, along with their pros and cons.

Sure. In philosophy class. Thats not a bad thing, philosophy isn't a lesser study than science, just a different study. You don't learn painting in english class, or geology in psychology class but there isn't anything wrong with that.

Shane Roach · Feb 21, 2005

Arikay said:
Nope. The entire big bang theory is predecated on the idea that science is the study of the natural world, and that if God exists we are studying his tool of creation, if he has faked evidence, then we are studying the fake evidence to come to his deceptions, and if he has tinkered with his tool that it when we study the areas he tinkered with it will end in a dead end or an unknown.

Well, nice try but that reveals a rather blatant prejudice on your part. As I pointed out earlier, a person with a different outlook would look at the theory of the Big Bang and wonder at the obvious problems with it. Rather than God faking evidence or being deceptive, it seems scientists are by refusing to acknowledge the more simple and straightforeward alternative - that they simply do not understand how things could possibly be such as they are.

In any case, this is about as far as I have ever been able to take conversations like this. Loaded terms such as 'faked evidence' and 'deception' clearly indicate to me that we have progressed beyond simple discussion of whether society should discuss the various implications of the difficulties with Big Bang theory and the matter of consciousness, will, and the nature of study of such things.

Mathematics itself can be seen to have the same difficulty. There are such things as mathematical system's which can be formally proven to be undecideable. This is simply the nature of life, my friend, and if math can suffer from it, so can the Big Bang or creationism.

I suppose the interesting thing would be to see if perhaps the mathematics being used to deal with Big Bang theory are fomally undecideable. If so, it might be proveable that it is therefore unfalsifiable. Unfortnately that sort of thing is more than a little beyond my means.

Arikay · Feb 21, 2005

It only reveals a "blatant Prejudice" when you realize that faked evidence was not the only answer I gave but the only one you are focusing on.

that they simply do not understand how things could possibly be such as they are.

I already said that, here,
if he has tinkered with his tool, when we study the areas he tinkered with it will end in a dead end or an unknown.

So, would you like science to stop searching for an answer just because there is a possibility that there is no answer? Where would we be now if 100 years ago scientists had decided that nothing else was discoverable?

Shane Roach · Feb 21, 2005

Arikay said:
It only reveals a "blatant Prejudice" when you realize that faked evidence was not the only answer I gave but the only one you are focusing on.

I already said that, here,
if he has tinkered with his tool, when we study the areas he tinkered with it will end in a dead end or an unknown.

So, would you like science to stop searching for an answer just because there is a possibility that there is no answer? Where would we be now if 100 years ago scientists had decided that nothing else was discoverable?

I never said a thing about not continuing to look. I simply am observing that it doesn't appear that there is anything that could falsify a Big Bang theory since any change in observed conditions simply mean the theory is changed somewhat. Neither is the idea of creation 'unscientific' or 'supernatural' since it coincides with problems science has with consciousness, will, plus reems of historical evidence and controversy. This excuse to refuse to discuss other ideas about something like this is weak.

I don't really understand where I ever focused on fake evidence. Not once have I ever mentioned anything being fake. There is nothing dishonest about making a universe, or making it look in any particular way. I merely point out that a reasonable explanation, give the existance of conscoiusness, will, and the historical evidence about God, is that the reason the observed data is so difficult is because an explanation for the universe that tries to account for it entirely mechanistically is doomed to failure precisely because it is not how things happened.

Apparently to you, if God exists he had some sort of obligation to make the universe look some specific way or else He is being dishonest in some way? I have certainly heard this argument before, but perhaps you'd like to distance yourself from it.

Arikay · Feb 21, 2005

I never said a thing about not continuing to look. I simply am observing that it doesn't appear that there is anything that could falsify a Big Bang theory since any change in observed conditions simply mean the theory is changed somewhat.

That would technically be a falsification, the theory may hold the same name but it is now different. Science is a process of adapting the theory to explain all the current evidence. If a theory fails completely then it will probably be replaced by a new one. So far the big bang hasn't failed completely.

Neither is the idea of creation 'unscientific' or 'supernatural' since it coincides with problems science has with consciousness, will, plus reems of historical evidence and controversy. This excuse to refuse to discuss other ideas about something like this is weak.

You can say the idea of "creation" is not unscientific all you want but it doesn't change the fact that you haven't given any reason for it to be scientific. Give us a model that makes predictions (Beyond the prediction that science wont find evidence, as that is a logical fallacy), show how an intelligent designer can be falsified, etc.

I merely point out that a reasonable explanation, give the existance of conscoiusness, will, and the historical evidence about God, is that the reason the observed data is so difficult is because an explanation for the universe that tries to account for it entirely mechanistically is doomed to failure precisely because it is not how things happened.

What is consciousness? will? What is this historical evidence about God? and does it provide some of the things asked above?
Then science is doomed to fail when it comes to origins if that is the case.

Apparently to you, if God exists he had some sort of obligation to make the universe look some specific way or else He is being dishonest in some way? I have certainly heard this argument before, but perhaps you'd like to distance yourself from it.

That depends, an honest God is required to not plant evidence to stay honest. This is a very old argument, called oomphalo. In that argument it basically says that God wouldn't give Adam and Eve a bellybutton because they weren't born. In this case, we assume that an Honest God won't give the universe a naturalistic bellybutton if it didn't originally have one.

Of course, the universe could have been made last tuesday and everything in our memories is faked. If the universe was created last tuesday science would never be able to tell.
Just the same, if the universe was created by God in a way that science can't research, it will never point to that, it will never point to God.

Think of it this way. If the universe is a painting, science is the study of the brush, the paint, the canvas, the colors, etc. but not of the painter.

Shane Roach · Feb 21, 2005

Arikay said:
You can say the idea of "creation" is not unscientific all you want but it doesn't change the fact that you haven't given any reason for it to be scientific. Give us a model that makes predictions (Beyond the prediction that science wont find evidence, as that is a logical fallacy), show how an intelligent designer can be falsified, etc.

No, but you have continually excused the unscientific assumptions of the Big Bang with elaborate arguments like the one at the end of this post.

Arikay said:
What is consciousness? will?

Observable phenomenon of a type with well understood definitions. Why do you even ask such a question? Get a dictionary.

I've said it before, and I repeat, these are observable phenomenon at the heart of ideas about the soul and so forth. To simply discard them and make up a theory about the begining of the universe, then refuse to talk about other possible explanations alongside the difficulties presented by the Big Bang or any other theory, is not only unscientific but just plain dishonest and skewed.

The assumptions, including the rather bizarre ones you state regarding some supposed necessity that God should have more or less signed the universe for you, are integral to the mechanistic world view that uses these theories in order to marginalize religion. The two different frameworks deserve equal treatment.

aca_rev55 · Feb 21, 2005

In MY own personal opinion (I'm not jumping into your guys' Big Bang debate thing going on here... there's already enough posts with that), I think it's completely pointless and just freakin' stupid that all these people whine and complain that "God is in the Pledge of Allegience and we say it at school even though it's optional in most schools I'm still offended!" Just don't say it, it's not your problem if other people say it and you shouldn't get offended if they do... it's their own belief so let them believe it. As well as the money, what the heck should you care if it says "In God we Trust" on it? It's money, just spend it! The normal person I'd talk to anyday doesn't typically "read" their money, so who freakin' cares... neither of those things specify a certain god either, so lady in California on the news who doesn't want her kid "exposed" to "infidel gods" can send her kid to a private school or something. Jeez... it's stupid! In my opinion.

And the creation/evolution thing... just get over it, it's one stupid class that everyone normally hated anyway. Evolution is not religion (yes, believe it or not, evolution does not symbolize a religion, at all), Creationism pertains to certain religions, therefore they CAN NOT be taught in public schools. Public schools are government business, and it's written in stone that religion is separated from state. Therefore if you don't want your child learning about science in their little bio class just send them to a private school or homeschool them! Ahh! I get so frustrated when I start ranting about this junk.

Anyways, that was all MY opinion, again, OPINION. And it's still my opinion that if any of the above offend you or just tick you off a little bit because it's not what you believe, then here's good advice: suck it up buttercup and deal with it. That's just the way it is.

Shane Roach · Feb 21, 2005

rev_atheist said:
In MY own personal opinion (I'm not jumping into your guys' Big Bang debate thing going on here... there's already enough posts with that), I think it's completely pointless and just freakin' stupid that all these people whine and complain that "God is in the Pledge of Allegience and we say it at school even though it's optional in most schools I'm still offended!" Just don't say it, it's not your problem if other people say it and you shouldn't get offended if they do... it's their own belief so let them believe it. As well as the money, what the heck should you care if it says "In God we Trust" on it? It's money, just spend it! The normal person I'd talk to anyday doesn't typically "read" their money, so who freakin' cares... neither of those things specify a certain god either, so lady in California on the news who doesn't want her kid "exposed" to "infidel gods" can send her kid to a private school or something. Jeez... it's stupid! In my opinion.

And the creation/evolution thing... just get over it, it's one stupid class that everyone normally hated anyway. Evolution is not religion (yes, believe it or not, evolution does not symbolize a religion, at all), Creationism pertains to certain religions, therefore they CAN NOT be taught in public schools. Public schools are government business, and it's written in stone that religion is separated from state. Therefore if you don't want your child learning about science in their little bio class just send them to a private school or homeschool them! Ahh! I get so frustrated when I start ranting about this junk.

Anyways, that was all MY opinion, again, OPINION. And it's still my opinion that if any of the above offend you or just tick you off a little bit because it's not what you believe, then here's good advice: suck it up buttercup and deal with it. That's just the way it is.

Evolution as the origin of species and Big Bang are both examples of pseudo-scientific theories that touch on religion because they pretend to tell us things about the past that can never truly be put to any test and do so with the assumption that there is none, or else God exists only in the desitic sense. They do not qualify as just science.

aca_rev55 · Feb 21, 2005

Shane Roach said:
Evolution as the origin of species and Big Bang are both examples of pseudo-scientific theories that touch on religion because they pretend to tell us things about the past that can never truly be put to any test and do so with the assumption that there is none, or else God exists only in the desitic sense. They do not qualify as just science.

They aren't "pseudo"-scientific theories unless every scientist in the world since the scientific method was invented is completely oblivious to how anything works. They don't "pretend" to tell us anything, they give us ideas of how things could have happened and it's up to us to interpret the information. Some interpret them as logical explanations whether they can be proven or tested or not, and some brush them off as "pseudo-scientific theories that pretend to tell us things about the past." No where in any formal evolutionary does it say "there is no god" or "this is meant to imply there is no god." I don't recall any scientists spurting such things out either... and if any one scientist has, who gives a rats behind about what one person thinks? Some people on these forums quote some dude no one's ever heard of and call it sufficient. Yea, right.

Shane Roach · Feb 21, 2005

rev_atheist said:
No where in any formal evolutionary does it say "there is no god" or "this is meant to imply there is no god."

The assumption is necessary for either theory.

Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

GondolierAce

GondolierAce

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

HI

Well-Known Member

HI

Well-Known Member

HI

Well-Known Member

HI

Well-Known Member

aca_rev55

Guest

Well-Known Member

aca_rev55

Guest

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency