The focus of this debate has not been on whether creationism/ID and Evolution are compatible with each other. It’s been over the teaching of creationism/ID in science class. Is creationism/ID in fact science, or is it really religion in disguise?
There are many Christians who accept evolution as scientific fact, believe in creationism but reject it as a scientific theory.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
All I know is that this recently found forest sure has some OLD WOOD!
[/quote]
Stop making this thread about you!
[quote]therajraj wrote:
The focus of this debate has not been on whether creationism/ID and Evolution are compatible with each other. It’s been over the teaching of creationism/ID in science class. Is creationism/ID in fact science, or is it really religion in disguise?
There are many Christians who accept evolution as scientific fact, believe in creationism but reject it as a scientific theory.
[/quote]
Creation science = pseudoscience
Religion should be taught in a theology or philosophy class. NEVER in a science class.
Wow this is a long thread.
I’m just up to page 8, and right now my favorite poster is Dr. Matt (sorry push, you know i have a soft spot for you bud).
Push, I just read the post you referenced me in and probably wanted me to comment on. I hate to say it, but I do tend to agree with Dr. Matt regarding his stance on grant money and proving other scientists wrong while staying honest. That would be the pattern I see as well in research. It certainly does work both ways with grant money (incentive to disprove, incentive to toe the line if that line is getting grant money), but I think money and the constraints involved with giving it do this in any competitive environment, even outside of science (say, business/charity/entrepreneur projects/etc.). Besides which, if somebody managed to disprove a widely held theory they would get TONS of grant money far as well as a stellar reputation far and above what otherwise would be possible. Go to Stockholm, collect prize.
However, yes, I have posted several times in the past about politics in science. I think I remember which post of mine you are wanting me to reiterate, from a long years dead CvE thread in which I posted about some of the biases inherent in the community concerning worldview.
The basic point of that post was that many very intelligent, very scrupulous and reliable scientists who absolutely under no circumstances mention their views on evolution, because it would immediately kill their career in research or academia. Now, I know (personally) of a number of very fine researchers at the State University level in fields associated with biology and chemistry that keep quiet about it. And I know of one in particular who is a full professor at a major university who has not kept quiet about it—and he is mocked and quite honestly shunned. As a person. Even though he is not running on and on at every opportunity about his views–and would not, even if he could–the mention of them in the past has resulted in that treatment. Even though his area of research has absolutely nothing to do with evolution (it has to do with cell signaling biochemistry in membrane channels and electrochemistry). He is a fine scientist with a large number of publications in reputable journals in his field, including some my boss at the time worked with him on. My boss, incidentally, is one of the people who basically mocks him. Fortunately this man has never written word one about his opinions or his research money and reputation would almost surely dry up.
However, I am not suggesting that there is a large “silent majority” in academia who are closet creationists. I do not believe that it is the case by any margin and you should not either. I hope you do not, because you would be wrong statistically speaking, and by a wide margin.
My point in that old post was that it is quite sad that such people are “killed off” if they open their mouths–because their opinion in no way whatsoever impedes their ability to do groundbreaking research in their fields when they are otherwise capable via grades and experimental design approach. And it is a dominant opinion that anybody who even mentions “ID” must by definition be a kook, or at the very least incapable and unworthy of doing research in a scientific field in a major university. That is not true and it illustrates a large chunk of politics in science. But nobody will open their mouths about it for fear of their careers. And I would not blame them either.
As far as Dr. Matt goes, his field may be slightly different. I do not know.
However push, I agree with Dr. Matt about dating methods. Sorry bud.
[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:
Just stopping by to say that it’s reasonable that the concept of a day refers to a ‘literal day’ without the sun being created. If a day is (roughly) the amount of time it takes the Earth to spin once, any equivalent duration is the same length as a day. Regardless of how you measure, it still took a ‘day.’ So the fact that you don’t have a sun doesn’t really matter.
Anyways, carry on :)[/quote]
I may be wrong but the earth wouldn’t be rotating without the sun right? Isn’t it the sun’s gravitational pull that is required? Your argument is akin to saying that the moon would be rotating without the earth. Without the sun the concept (as humans think of it) would not have relevance.
Steely had the best post in this thread. Science and religion are not a zero sum game but for some reason we choose to make it such (both sides) but when you lose this you lose focus of what really matters in both.
james
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Ghost16 wrote:
In my mind…
[/quote]
Therein lies your problem.
Go start another thread, Mr. 21 Year Old T-Nationeer-Chock Full of Ideas ForceFed From University.[/quote]
Really…? Are you serious?
You know absolutely nothing about me. You regard yourself as some sort of intellectual but every time I’ve tried to discuss something you take the easiest way out you can and leave subtle insults.
You’re better than that dude.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
some of you are a little blind to reality if you think scientists can’t believe in God.[/quote]
I’ll certainly agree with this.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:
[/quote]
I may be wrong but the earth wouldn’t be rotating without the sun right? Isn’t it the sun’s gravitational pull that is required? Your argument is akin to saying that the moon would be rotating without the earth. Without the sun the concept (as humans think of it) would not have relevance.
james
[/quote]
It doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not anything is actually rotating. It’s just a descriptor of an interval of time.
It just means the duration of ~ (246060)*9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom
Anyways, I think it’s a minor point. But those are the only kinds of points I really have to make, let everyone else do the heavy lifting.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
But…what if the actual DAY used to be shorter?
http://www.scribd.com/arbab64/d/9498374-Length-of-DayEarth-rotation
All kinds of cool stuff to consider.[/quote]
Just to go further into this…it seems they are saying that gravity has changed as well which has affected the growth of the organisms on the planet. I find that very interesting.
I don’t personally believe science has in any way disproved the existence of any guidance in creation. The universe itself is too vast for most of us to even comprehend…and the chances of all things adding up to us sitting here discussing this shit on a computer that will be dust in 200 years just seems like too much “oops” in one place to brush off as accident.
I understand where you are coming from if you believe that along with the creation of the planet, our concept of time was also created and manipulated. Considering we know space can warp time in a sense just based on how dense an object is, philosophically, we may not even be sitting here right now…and “now” doesn’t exist…so who is to say you are wrong.
I honestly choose to keep looking for answers…and I haven’t seen any yet that scream out the existence of a “creator” is fantasy.
If anything, I find people who think that way to be some of the least imaginative people I know.
The collision world theory would explain our drifting moon…ie, the Earth was created by the collision of two separate astral bodies and one chunk formed the moon and the larger chunk formed the rest of the planet. Scientists say the moon is made of the same material as our own crust.
Either way…that is a whole lot of wrong going right…and we still can’t explain where all the water came from.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Just to go further into this…it seems they are saying that gravity has changed as well which has affected the growth of the organisms on the planet. I find that very interesting.
[/quote]
Gravity can affect the growth of organisms through the fact that gravity (and any force) affects the passage of time relative to an object that that gravitational (or other) force is acting on. Time, relative to an object, is dependent on many factors. One of these factors is the speed of light. The closer an object gets to the speed of light relative to the rest of the universe, the slower time passes. That being said, one would need a gravitational force that is about that of a black hole or massive star in order to noticeably slow the passage of time relative to the rest of the universe.
Push, I have read that article you have posted and agree with his premise that the concept and measurement of time has changed drastically throughout human history. A year or a day to us is definitely not what a year to the people of Biblical days. I do not know what they meant by a day, and so will not venture a guess as to whether the author’s calculations of the Six Days are correct, but it is definitely possible.
Also, I would also like to state that I am in complete agreement with Steely, Aragorn, Professor X and all the others that have expressed their opinion that religion and science are not mutually exclusive.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[/quote]
The universe itself is too vast for most of us to even comprehend…and the chances of all things adding up to us sitting here discussing this shit on a computer that will be dust in 200 years just seems like too much “oops” in one place to brush off as accident.
[/quote]
This argument has always kind of bothered me.
Given that we know how vast the observable universe is (and that’s just the observable universe), it seems conceivable to me that a sentient life form could develop merely by chance. Since with enough random trials you are likely to see all sorts of outlandish results, this seems very plausible.
Also, any organism that did manage to develop by chance would develop under unique circumstances, and they would have to be very stable circumstances. So, if it were merely by chance, it would have the appearance of something very finely tuned. This would lead to the very straightforward argument that it was therefore too perfect to be an “oops,” when it would in reality be the result of statistical variation.
To sum up: it doesn’t seem like an oops, it really is.
I’m not asserting anything other than that the, “too perfect to be chance” argument doesn’t hold water. This is more or less a reaction to something I’ve seen espoused by many people, not your specific post.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
My point in that old post was that it is quite sad that such people are “killed off” if they open their mouths–because their opinion in no way whatsoever impedes their ability to do groundbreaking research in their fields when they are otherwise capable via grades and experimental design approach. And it is a dominant opinion that anybody who even mentions “ID” must by definition be a kook, or at the very least incapable and unworthy of doing research in a scientific field in a major university. That is not true and it illustrates a large chunk of politics in science. But nobody will open their mouths about it for fear of their careers. And I would not blame them either.
As far as Dr. Matt goes, his field may be slightly different. I do not know.
However push, I agree with Dr. Matt about dating methods. Sorry bud. [/quote]
Physics tends to have many people in it of one faith or another so we tend to be more tolerant of religious views as long as one doesn’t compromise their integrity to further a personal agenda, which doesn’t happen all too often. It is another matter entirely in the biological sciences. Just mentioning creationism is enough to become ostracized. My girlfriend is a biologist (not evolutionary), and is a devout Christian. She will not even tell her colleagues that she is a christian because she does not want her colleagues to start in on her beliefs. I am of the mind that as long as someone does their job well and does not let their beliefs affect their work, it should not matter.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
…Also, I would also like to state that I am in complete agreement with Steely, Aragorn, Professor X and all the others that have expressed their opinion that religion and science are not mutually exclusive.
[/quote]
I have no problem being on that list.[/quote]
I can’t believe that I forgot to put you on the list! Sorry.