…This is the last time I’m going to explain this. “Creation science” wants to get into the science club. However, “creation science” doesn’t follow the same rules that the science club has, so “creation science’s” application for membership keeps getting denied. If “creation science” were let into the science club, this wouldn’t be fair to all the other members of the science club, because “creation science” gets to play by different rules when it wants to bring knowledge in to the club. Not only that, but if Christian “creation science” were let in to the club, then what about all the other types of “creation science”?..
[/quote]
Actually parts of this post were quite accurate. Evolutionists do indeed think along the lines of “We consider ourselves to be in a club, The Origins Club, and we will decide who gets in and who doesn’t.”
A lot of bickering, drama, politics and childishness, not to mention a lack of professionalism, is part and parcel of this “club.”
The Bill Nye, the Club Member Guy video illustrates this rather well.[/quote]
Oh push.
If you want to play football, you play by football’s rules, right?
If you want to play science, you have to play by science’s rules.
It really is this simple.[/quote]
But who decides on the “rules”? Usually everyone agrees on the rules up front.
[/quote]
Who else would determine the rules of science if not the people best trained and qualified to do so?
And the scientific method is agreed on by everyone. It’s accepted nationally as the best method for determining reality.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Anyways, I’m going to step away from the computer for a bit so I’ll just not bother to wait for your answer on the astrology question.
If the definition of science were to changed to include creationism, the loosening of the definition would allow astrology to be considered a science by extension.
This was noted over and over again by prominent Creationists Michael Behe during the Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial.
“Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.”
“Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.”
[/quote]
Given that Behe agreed that his definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis, does it not follow that Behe believes that astrology would be classed as a hypothesis?
It is a hypothesis. When tested the hypothesis fails.
Creationism is also a hypothesis. When tested the hypothesis passes as it is able to explain the natural phenomena that we observe.
Who else would determine the rules of science if not the people best trained and qualified to do so?
And the scientific method is agreed on by everyone. It’s accepted nationally as the best method for determining reality.
[/quote]
I agree with you. The issue is who are those “people best trained and qualified to do so?” Is it your contention that Sir Issac Newton is not qualified?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Anyways, I’m going to step away from the computer for a bit so I’ll just not bother to wait for your answer on the astrology question.
If the definition of science were to changed to include creationism, the loosening of the definition would allow astrology to be considered a science by extension.
This was noted over and over again by prominent Creationists Michael Behe during the Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial.
“Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.”
“Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.”
[/quote]
Creationism is also a hypothesis. When tested the hypothesis passes as it is able to explain the natural phenomena that we observe.[/quote]
Excuse me? Creationism 100% does not pass it’s hypothesis when examined under the scientific method. I must have read your post wrong but to me I read that creationism has been proven by science which is obviously not true.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
I agree with you. The issue is who are those “people best trained and qualified to do so?” Is it your contention the Sir Issac Newton is not qualified?[/quote]
My apologies, I assumed the answer was obvious, please allow me to explain:
The people best trained and qualified to dictate the rules of the Science and the Scientific method, are the same people who are the best trained and qualified in the areas of Science in general: Scientists.
Not sure what Newton has to do with this…but he’s not really up to date on 21st century science.
Far too generous of you to worry over me push. However, I must regrettably inform you that I’m well entrenched in my belief in both evolution and God. Or to be more specific with your objections, macroevolution. Now, I understand you reject that one can hold to both, God and evolution. Hey, the atheists often say the same from the other side, so I get it from both sides.
That’s fine by me. I doubt it has any relevance to whatever puts food on your table. In fact, for the vast, vast, majority, it doesn’t. Heck outside of evolutionary biology…Well, who’s to tell a guy working on designing a petroleum eating microbe that he’s not a scientist because he doesn’t accept macroevolution? Not me! And while I realize this isn’t reciprocated, your belief in creationism isn’t a sin according to my faith. So, it’s of zero concern to me that you’re a young-earth creationist.
Again, I’m not here for the young earth creationism vs. evo debate. Just chiming in on some bio questions here and there. It makes for a good review.
Who else would determine the rules of science if not the people best trained and qualified to do so?
And the scientific method is agreed on by everyone. It’s accepted nationally as the best method for determining reality.
[/quote]
I agree with you. The issue is who are those “people best trained and qualified to do so?” Is it your contention that Sir Issac Newton is not qualified?[/quote]
I stand by the word natural philosopher for the list of people you mentioned. But even still, they still used methodological naturalism to study natural phenomena.
Try to understand that methodological naturalism isn’t incompatible with religion. The type of naturalism that is incompatible with religion is philosophical naturalism.
And I’m talking within the context of natural sciences. Such as biology and physics and environmental science.
And I agree with you on your contention that creationism has lots of evidence. It totally does. It uses the same evidence as evolution. [b]But[/b], it is still not science because of the violation of that axiom.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< [b]But[/b], it is still not science because of the violation of that axiom. [/quote]This sounds to me like a bit of semantic slight of hand. The issue is what it’s called? The fact is that there are highly qualified experts who advance creationist explanations for the observed data that are every bit as plausible at least as what the “atheists”/skeptics do. If you don’t like the term “scientist”, then call them… fozziewozzles or whatever else you like. What difference does it make? Let’s say creationism actually isn’t science. Then science does no better a job of explaining the data than does creationism. Which is why I prefer to argue epistemology. The scientific method (2+2=4) isn’t even explicable without the very God it is so often employed to deny.
[quote]pat wrote:
Scripturally speaking the day of rest was put in for human kind as Jesus stated in the Gospels. God did not need rest. The day of rest was an example to the people.
[/quote]
If God knew he’d have to eventually send Jesus, why didn’t he send him in the first place? [/quote]
That would be assuming we know all the facts and we don’t. Wondering why God didn’t do things the way we think he should have doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist, nor does it mean He’s wrong. Why is there evil in the first place? Why create us at all? If created, we not perfectly? They are questions we can ask, but the questions don’t discount his existence or his authority or judgement. Why? That I cannot answer, you got to go to the source for that one. I don’t know.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< [b]But[/b], it is still not science because of the violation of that axiom. [/quote]This sounds to me like a bit of semantic slight of hand. The issue is what it’s called? The fact is that there are highly qualified experts who advance creationist explanations for the observed data that are every bit as plausible at least as what the “atheists”/skeptics do. If you don’t like the term “scientist”, then call them… fozziewozzles or whatever else you like. What difference does it make? Let’s say creationism actually isn’t science. Then science does no better a job of explaining the data than does creationism. Which is why I prefer to argue epistemology. The scientific method (2+2=4) isn’t even explicable without the very God it is so often employed to deny.
[/quote]
That’s why I’m saying to teach it as theology or philosophy alongside other culture’s creationisms because it sure isn’t science. Fozziewozzilism… that would be the funniest sounding ‘ism’ ever. I like it!
[quote]pat wrote:
Scripturally speaking the day of rest was put in for human kind as Jesus stated in the Gospels. God did not need rest. The day of rest was an example to the people.
[/quote]
If God knew he’d have to eventually send Jesus, why didn’t he send him in the first place? [/quote]
That would be assuming we know all the facts and we don’t. Wondering why God didn’t do things the way we think he should have doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist, nor does it mean He’s wrong. Why is there evil in the first place? Why create us at all? If created, we not perfectly? They are questions we can ask, but the questions don’t discount his existence or his authority or judgement. Why? That I cannot answer, you got to go to the source for that one. I don’t know. [/quote]
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Does anybody else find it humourous that creationists(of all people) are getting, for lack of a better word, “pissed off” about evidence?[/quote]
I am not a creationist in the traditional sense of the word. I believe that God is the creator of existence itself, that doesn’t mean I take Genesis 1 a literal account, through the paradigm of modern thought.
But like I said, the order of events does square with science. I believe, this universe we live in is about 13.7 billion years old, as we understand a year to be.
Therefore biological systems have to have an intelligent designer.
No there isn’t anymore to it than that.[/quote]
No that’s not creationism, that’s a horribly butchered version of the ‘Intelligent design’ argument. Creationism is a literal reading of the book of Genesis, dare I say out of context.
[quote]pat wrote:
Scripturally speaking the day of rest was put in for human kind as Jesus stated in the Gospels. God did not need rest. The day of rest was an example to the people.
[/quote]
If God knew he’d have to eventually send Jesus, why didn’t he send him in the first place? [/quote]
Actually, this got me thinking a little more. If we were to take the 1000 yrs=1 day theory from the time of Genesis, then that would put the “Earth as we know it” (as discuss ^^ up there) at about 7500 to 8000 B.C.
EDIT: What I mean by this date is that the creation ‘period’ ended at this time. I believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. I am merely claiming, when you consider the complexities of the universe and the order of events they square with the order in Genesis, though Genesis is a very condensed version.
Who else would determine the rules of science if not the people best trained and qualified to do so?
And the scientific method is agreed on by everyone. It’s accepted nationally as the best method for determining reality.
[/quote]
I agree with you. The issue is who are those “people best trained and qualified to do so?” Is it your contention that Sir Issac Newton is not qualified?[/quote]
I stand by the word natural philosopher for the list of people you mentioned. But even still, they still used methodological naturalism to study natural phenomena.
Try to understand that methodological naturalism isn’t incompatible with religion. The type of naturalism that is incompatible with religion is philosophical naturalism.
And I’m talking within the context of natural sciences. Such as biology and physics and environmental science.
And I agree with you on your contention that creationism has lots of evidence. It totally does. It uses the same evidence as evolution. [b]But[/b], it is still not science because of the violation of that axiom. [/quote]
You seem to think that I don’t understand what you are saying. Let me be clear, I understand but I disagree.
As I have said, your definitional semantics around scientist vs natural philosopher are irrelevant. By any measure Newton, Kepler and Galileo were scientists. They were also creationists. The point is, they made incredible advances in science while believing in a creator. More than that, they chalked up their success to that very fact.
