Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

[Phinehas]

It would be a complete waste of time. Creationism is not science, it does not use the scientific method. The only thing it has to do with science is that it is a good example of pseudoscience. It is a religious belief trying to masquerade as science. It has no place in a science classroom.

The same could be said for any theory of origin. The scientific method is used for things that can be observed. You don't really know anyone who was there at the beginning of the universe, or humanity, do you?
Rest assured, creationism uses the scientific method just as much as evolutionary theory. The only difference is how people choose to see the evidence.
In my own humble opinion the odds that something came from nothing are astronimically low, to say the least. The observed Law of Causation outweighs any unobserved hypothesis of how the universe, and therefore humanity, began.
Ex nihilo nihilo fit.
But feel free to look elswhere for answers, that's what free will is for.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

The same could be said for any theory of origin.

No, it can't. It cannot, for example, be said of the theory of evolution.

The scientific method is used for things that can be observed. You don't really know anyone who was there at the beginning of the universe, or humanity, do you?

No, it's not. Who told you that? It's nonsense. If it was, there'd be no such thing as sciences like forensics and archeology.

Rest assured, creationism uses the scientific method just as much as evolutionary theory. The only difference is how people choose to see the evidence.

No, it does not. Creationism does not use the scientific method in any way. It begins with a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support that conclusion. Worse, it declares at the start that evidence which does not support the conclusion is inadmissable. This is the very antithesis of the scientific method.

In my own humble opinion the odds that something came from nothing are astronimically low, to say the least.

Since this has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution, it's irrelevant.

The observed Law of Causation outweighs any unobserved hypothesis of how the universe, and therefore humanity, began.

What is the "observed Law of Causation"? In what science reference can I find this law defined?

Once again, how the universe began has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution.

But feel free to look elswhere for answers, that's what free will is for.

I will continue to look where the evidence points.

 

[Shane Roach]

No, it's not. Who told you that? It's nonsense. If it was, there'd be no such thing as sciences like forensics and archeology.

Forensics often starts with some assumptions about who may have commited a crime. The fact that psychology and archaeology, sociology and others are called sciences perhaps it he best reason to stop the outcry against creationism or intelligent design as sciences.

No, it does not. Creationism does not use the scientific method in any way. It begins with a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support that conclusion. Worse, it declares at the start that evidence which does not support the conclusion is inadmissable. This is the very antithesis of the scientific method.

Demonstrably untrue if anyone has even mildly looked at intelligent design arguments. No so much creationism, although some small parts of it could be demonstrated to rely on science. Here again, the assumptions behind Big Bang and evolution as the origin of species have of necessity similar sorts of assumptions, so raising the problem of prior assumptions appears to dismiss all origins ideas from science.

Since this has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution, it's irrelevant.


What is the "observed Law of Causation"? In what science reference can I find this law defined?

These sorts of refusals to face an argument head on, but rather skirting the issue by asserting that there is no relation, or that there is no such thing, are very typical of the discourse surrounding these subjects.

Once again, how the universe began has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution.

Sure. Of course the underlying assumption that there is nothing intervening between now and the unimagineably distant past that is shared between the two is not to be discussed.

 

[Phinehas]

No, it can't. It cannot, for example, be said of the theory of evolution.

Yeah, it can. I'm saying it. Evolution and Creationism are both on the same "scientific" level. They are both ideas and philosophy mixed with interpretation of scientific evidence, and, furthermore, should be taught as such.

In the future a reply with a little more reason than "nuh-uh" would be more condusive to a logical debate.

No, it's not. Who told you that? It's nonsense. If it was, there'd be no such thing as sciences like forensics and archeology.

Forensics and archeology are used in true creationism all the time. You may want to read what Creation scientists have to say.

No, it does not. Creationism does not use the scientific method in any way. It begins with a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support that conclusion. Worse, it declares at the start that evidence which does not support the conclusion is inadmissable. This is the very antithesis of the scientific method.

First, let's define the scientific method.
Anything that cannot be observed cannot be tested by the scientific method. The beginning of life hasn't been recreated, and therefore cannot be observed by man.
Because of this, neither Evolution nor Creation can be "proven" by way of the "scientific method" .

Your claim that "Creationism" never ever uses the scientific method in any of it's evidencial support are pure conjecture. It's used all the time in Creationism. You just haven't bothered to investigate your own claims. Feel free to tool around on icr.org.

I guess it's ironic that the scientific method was, in its essence, created by a Christian by the name of Sir Francis Bacon, a.k.a. the father of deductive reasoning.

What is the "observed Law of Causation"? In what science reference can I find this law defined?

Causality- Wikipedia.

Since this has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution, it's irrelevant.
Once again, how the universe began has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution.

The beginning of the Universe has everything to do with how man began. It's called the domino effect, a.k.a. causation, a.k.a. good science. If God created the universe in the first place, then man came about because of Him, and vice versa.

I will continue to look where the evidence points.

Or, at least, wherever you want it to point.

And therefore, God never wrought miracle, to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.

Of Atheism: An essay by Sir Francis Bacon

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Yeah, it can. I'm saying it. Evolution and Creationism are both on the same "scientific" level. They are both ideas and philosophy mixed with interpretation of scientific evidence, and, furthermore, should be taught as such.

No, they're not. You can say it all you like, but it's still false. Evolution is a scientific theory. It is not a philosophy. It is based on, and derived from, evidence. Creationism is a religious belief. It is not based on evidence - a conclusion is established and then evidence which supports it is looked for. In addition, evidence which does not support it is dismissed. This is the antithesis of the scientific method. The fact that creationism is not science is precisely why it's not taught as such, and why articles on creationism don't make it into peer-reviewed science journals.

Evolution should be taught as it currently is - as a scientific theory. Creationism should be taught as it currently is - as a religious belief.

In the future a reply with a little more reason than "nuh-uh" would be more condusive to a logical debate.

If I'd just said "nuh-uh", your point would be justified. Since in my previous post I detailed exactly why creationism is not science, it's not.

Forensics and archeology are used in true creationism all the time. You may want to read what Creation scientists have to say.

I've read what "creation scientists' have to say.

First, let's define the scientific method.
Anything that cannot be observed cannot be tested by the scientific method. The beginning of life hasn't been recreated, and therefore cannot be observed by man.

That is simply false. As I stated, a number of sciences rely on testing things that have not been seen. They do it by using science to predict what we would find if a certain thing happened in the past and testing whether or not we do find that certain thing. This is, and always has been, valid science.

Because of this, neither Evolution nor Creation can be "proven" by way of the "scientific method" .

Science is not in the business of proof. Proof is for alcohol, logic, and mathematics. Science only ever finds that which is pointed to by evidence as the most likely.

Your claim that "Creationism" never ever uses the scientific method in any of it's evidencial support are pure conjecture. It's used all the time in Creationism. You just haven't bothered to investigate your own claims. Feel free to tool around on icr.org.

Sorry, but no, it's not. Your statement that I "haven't bothered to investigate [my] own claims" is without basis. You have no idea how much investigation I have done. In fact, I have read a great deal of creationist material, from books by 'traditional' creationists like Hovind and Gish to more modern neo-creationists like Johnson, Behe and Dembski.

On the other hand, you can of course demonstrate me wrong by showing some applications of "creation science" that are in use today. However, since this question has been asked repeatedly in this forum and nobody has been able to come up with any, I doubt it.

I guess it's ironic that the scientific method was, in its essence, created by a Christian by the name of Sir Francis Bacon, a.k.a. the father of deductive reasoning.

What's ironic about it? Scientific history is full of Christians who were excellent scientists. Christians scientists, in general, have no problem following the scientific method. It's only a small subset of Christians who choose to ignore it, and then only in relation to one particular belief, creationism.

Causality- Wikipedia.

Right. A discussion of causality, which is far from the "Law of Causality" which you imagined.

The beginning of the Universe has everything to do with how man began. It's called the domino effect, a.k.a. causation, a.k.a. good science. If God created the universe in the first place, then man came about because of Him, and vice versa.

No, the beginning of the universe has little to do with how man began, and absolutely nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution. Whether or not man came about because of any god is outside the realm of science; it can only study natural things. Evolution is the study of changes in life forms, and the beginning of the universe is related to it only in as much as the beginning of the universe caused the environment in which life forms would later exist to be. However, this does not get away from the fact that criticising any scientific theories of the origin of the universe have nothing to do with evolution. If it were somehow proven tomorrow that the big bang did not happen, and science admitted that it has no idea whatsoever how the universe began, the theory of evolution would not be affected in the slightest.

Or, at least, wherever you want it to point.

No, wherever it points. That's what science is about - unlike creationism, which insists that the evidence must point to a pre-determined conclusion.

Of Atheism: An essay by Sir Francis Bacon

I have no idea what one particular man's opinion of atheism has to do with the discussion, particularly since atheism does not equate to evolutionary theory.

 

[Shane Roach]

That is simply false. As I stated, a number of sciences rely on testing things that have not been seen. They do it by using science to predict what we would find if a certain thing happened in the past and testing whether or not we do find that certain thing. This is, and always has been, valid science.

Your constant assertion is that Creationism is not a science precisely because it is applied in this way rather than in the way Phinehas points out science is supposed to be done, i.e. to discover applicable methods through experiment.

Science is not in the business of proof. Proof is for alcohol, logic, and mathematics. Science only ever finds that which is pointed to by evidence as the most likely.

Word games. Your complete skirting of the subject of the scientific method and its proper use is the issue here. Science's reputation for reliability is founded on the utility of the scientific method in discovering facts about the world around us that find utility in our daily lives - something entirely lacking from Big Bang and origin of species theories that neglect to take the entire reality of experience, including consciousness, free will, and the weight of historical understanding of those traits into account.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Your constant assertion is that Creationism is not a science precisely because it is applied in this way rather than in the way Phinehas points out science is supposed to be done, i.e. to discover applicable methods through experiment.

This is false. Creationism is not a science because it does not use the scientific method. It starts with a conclusion and works backward, choosing evidence which supports the conclusion and ignoring other evidence.

Word games. Your complete skirting of the subject of the scientific method and its proper use is the issue here. Science's reputation for reliability is founded on the utility of the scientific method in discovering facts about the world around us that find utility in our daily lives - something entirely lacking from Big Bang and origin of species theories that neglect to take the entire reality of experience, including consciousness, free will, and the weight of historical understanding of those traits into account.

Science's reputation for reliability might well be founded on the utility of the scientific method in discovering facts about the world around us that find utility in our daily lives. This does not mean that that is science's only job, or even job. The "utility in our daily lives" of a scientific discovery is completely irrelevant to whether or not that discovery is, in fact, science.

Scientific theories such as those relating to the Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution and the like may well not have as many applications in daily life as other scientific discoveries. This says nothing at all about their validity as science.

And I have no idea in what way you want scientific theories to "take the entire reality of experience, including consciousness, free will, and the weight of historical understanding of these traints" into account that you think it doesn't already.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

This is false. Creationism is not a science because it does not use the scientific method. It starts with a conclusion and works backward, choosing evidence which supports the conclusion and ignoring other evidence.

And this differs with evolution or the big bang how?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

And this differs with evolution or the big bang how?

Evolutionary theory and the big bang were conclusions arrived at after examining evidence. They were not conclusions decided upon before examining the evidence, said evidence then being discounted if it did not support the conclusions.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Evolutionary theory and the big bang were conclusions arrived at after examining evidence. They were not conclusions decided upon before examining the evidence, said evidence then being discounted if it did not support the conclusions.

Sorry, adaptation is not evolution and big bang is life and order out of chaos and lifelessness.
I'll pass on your 'because I say so' authority to the contrary.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Sorry, adaptation is not evolution

Wrong. What creationists often call "adaptation" is precisely evolution.

and big bang is life and order out of chaos and lifelessness.

So what?

I'll pass on your 'because I say so' authority to the contrary.

Apparently you're happy to pass on science as well.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Wrong. What creationists often call "adaptation" is precisely evolution.


So what?


Apparently you're happy to pass on science as well.

Now you're just being argumentative.
No, I'm happy in being the more honest one between us as to what science IS. I am, after all, utilizing the accomplishments of science to communicate with you and not some evolved groupings of silicon, tin, etc. that I call a computer.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Now you're just being argumentative.

That's what the forum is FOR.

No, I'm happy in being the more honest one between us as to what science IS. I am, after all, utilizing the accomplishments of science to communicate with you and not some evolved groupings of silicon, tin, etc. that I call a computer.

Oh, I've no doubt you're being perfectly honest...you're just mistaken. Particularly as regards either (a) what science is or (b) what creationism is, if you think creationism is science. Haven't you ever wondered why creationism can't get into schools or technical journals?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

That's what the forum is FOR.


Oh, I've no doubt you're being perfectly honest...you're just mistaken. Particularly as regards either (a) what science is or (b) what creationism is, if you think creationism is science. Haven't you ever wondered why creationism can't get into schools or technical journals?

Please point out where I said Creationism is science.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Please point out where I said Creationism is science.

Oops! My mistake...I got you confused with another poster who earlier today said precisely that. My apologies. Mea culpa.

However, I'm curious, then. In what regard do you think that you are "being the more honest one between us as to what science IS"? That is, in what regard do you think your opinion of what science is is more correct than mine?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Oops! My mistake...I got you confused with another poster who earlier today said precisely that. My apologies. Mea culpa.

However, I'm curious, then. In what regard do you think that you are "being the more honest one between us as to what science IS"? That is, in what regard do you think your opinion of what science is is more correct than mine?

I would say that it can be found easily in me not claiming scientific foundation for either and you claiming:

Evolutionary theory and the big bang were conclusions arrived at after examining evidence. They were not conclusions decided upon before examining the evidence, said evidence then being discounted if it did not support the conclusions.

I suppose there lies the rub.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I would say that it can be found easily in me not claiming scientific foundation for either and you claiming:

I suppose there lies the rub.

I see. I can only assume, then, that you haven't studied either very deeply, or the history of the ideas.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I see. I can only assume, then, that you haven't studied either very deeply, or the history of the ideas.

It appears that regardless of what is said, you will assume what you will anyways. You are free to add assumptions of what I have and have not done, do and do not know, etc.
I don't mind.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

It appears that regardless of what is said, you will assume what you will anyways. You are free to add assumptions of what I have and have not done, do and do not know, etc.
I don't mind.

No, I assume what I assume precisely because of what you said. If I told you that Jesus never was crucified, but that I have read the NT, would you assume that I had not, in fact, read the NT (or at least did not understand it)? Similarly I assume that you have not, in fact, read much about the theories in question (or at least have not understood what you read).

 

[joebudda]

And this differs with evolution or the big bang how?

The theory of evolution states that populations of species evolve do to natural selection (predatorily or environmentally). That is it.

The Big bang is more based on the theory of relativity, a mathematical equation, using the speed that the universe is separating and calculating it back to its origins. This theory falls apart once we get down to everything we know condensed down to an extremely heavy focal point of mass. This is because we haven’t found a way to combine quantum mechanics and relativity, yet if M theory is proved true then this would be able to merge the two and explain the big bang more, or discredit it altogether.

Either of these is put out there for anyone to prove false. They are still dominating theories because no one has proved them wrong yet.