It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If creationism is a scientific theory, put your money where your mouth is.

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I'd like to start this thread based on the idea of creationism being a scientific theory, which some people are proposing, and that it should be taught/researched alongside evolution. That said, this thread is directed towards these people. I would like for them to lay out the theory of creationism. What is the mechanism behind it? What evidence supports it? What does it predict? What would falsify it?

Since we are dealing with a seperate theory, there should be no mention of evolution.

So there you go creationists. This is your chance to provide the rest of us with a clear understanding of exactly what the theory of creationism is and how it should be used in a science class. You ultimately control if people will take you seriously or not. Put your money where your mouth is.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by LuDaCrIs]

[edit on 26-2-2007 by LuDaCrIs]




posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Isnt it just that somewhere, sometime, somthing started?

Doesnt really sound like it can be proved or disproved.
I mean, something started otherwise we wouldnt be here but either it was started intentionally or accidentally. There really isnt way to prove or disprove it.

You could argue that because it cant be disproven then faith is a perfectly rational response to attempting to understand what is basically uncomprehendable. Or, because there isnt any proff a skeptical position must remain until proof is found.

Personally I dont understand why one group is so eager to get everyone to believe one way or the other.

What difference does it make?

Why cram religion down my throat or constantly attack my religion and try to convince me there isnt a god?

There has to be better things to do out there.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Doesnt really sound like it can be proved or disproved.
I mean, something started otherwise we wouldnt be here but either it was started intentionally or accidentally. There really isnt way to prove or disprove it.


Well creationists like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Behe and so forth all claim they can prove it. This is their followers chance to present their theories.


Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
You could argue that because it cant be disproven then faith is a perfectly rational response to attempting to understand what is basically uncomprehendable.


Well what now? Because you cant prove its a ok to just believe in anything?

I, personally, believe the world was created last thursday by a nike air shoe. In all its glory. Care to disprove me? No? Then that settles it. The world was created last thursday by a shoe.


Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

There has to be better things to do out there.


Yes, but this forum is for this kind of discussions

You can create a similar thread like this, just with evolution in the topic.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
how about we start with something basic

creationists (or IDists if you prefer the illusion) what is your hypothesis?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
how about we start with something basic

creationists (or IDists if you prefer the illusion) what is your hypothesis?


POOF!!!!

or maybe this?.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
how about we start with something basic

creationists (or IDists if you prefer the illusion) what is your hypothesis?


POOF!!!!

or maybe this?.


HAHAHAHAHA...thats pretty funny.

But seriously, I want this thread to be regarded as a serious one. I am not out to bash creationists or somehow chastize them. I merely want them to present their theory here so we can discuss it. Thats all. madnessinmysoul gave you guys a start. Please elaborate if any of you think creationism deserves the respect and class time that you think it deserves.



[edit on 26-2-2007 by LuDaCrIs]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
But seriously, I want this thread to be regarded as a serious one. I am not out to bash creationists or somehow chastize them. I merely want them to present their theory here so we can discuss it. Thats all. madnessinmysoul gave you guys a start. Please elaborate if any of you think creationism deserves the respect and class time that you think it deserves.


I really think you will be wasting your time here, Lude. It's a pity, but the focus really is on just poking holes in the fine theory we have already.

YECs will just ignore the multitude of evidence refuting their position, IDers will just highlight the gaps in knowledge we have as evidence for their position, whilst flailing around trying to sound all 'sciency' and speaking 'truthiness'.

ID is pretty much a dead-duck, it has been in a coma since Dover but NDEs, such as the biologic institute, still give them hope. And YEC is a long-term zombie. If you want something with detail, Genesis is your best bet and few will raise it seriously here, although they will support it.

Here's the closest I've seen to a full ID mechanistic theory...


A Positive Theory of Intelligent Design.

As Howard Van Till has observed, Intelligent Design requires both “mind-like” and “hand-like” actions. While it is a commonplace that Design requires the origination of planful, mind-like intentions, it is perhaps less obvious that design also requires a mechanism by means of which mind-like design is impressed, hand-like, onto matter/energy.

What has been lacking in the ID literature is a positive theory of these mind-like and hand-like phases of design, and of their interaction, one that generates testable hypotheses and hence promotes ID to the status of a genuine empirical science. Avocationist was challenged to provide such a theory, but was unable to do so. It is my aim here to step up and suggest such a positive theory, one that I hope gives rise to both theoretical and empirical investigation that further shapes and informs the science of Intelligent Design. It is also my aim to draw upon the creative brilliance and generosity often displayed by participants of AtBC to build upon and expand this potentially revolutionary new view of nature.

What follows is a brief abstract of this positive, empirical theory.

I. Biological causality reflects the operation of two basic, complimentary units: Thinks and Poofs. A Think is a mind-like, timeless-sizeless representation of a Thing. A Poof is a hand-like manipulation of matter-energy such that the appropriate Thing is physically instantiated. A Think without a Poof is incapable of interacting with matter/energy, is therefore undetectable, and hence remains a somewhat of a theoretical abstraction. Similarly, a Poof can arise IFF informed by at least one Think. Because they perforce must arise together, a Think and its corresponding Poof are often denoted by the couplet shorthand ‘Think’n Poof.’ When several Thinks give rise to a Poof, a Thinks’n Poof has occurred; when a single Think gives rise to several Poofs, Think’n Poofs have occurred. And so on.

Given sufficient agentic and material resources, a Think’n Poof (or derivatives) gives rise to a Thing. Moreover, Balanced Think’n Poof calculations give rise to testable empirical predictions arising from the combinatorial mathematics of Thing Theory.

II. Thinks and Poofs are initiated by units of pure intelligent agency known as Rodins. At the current state of theoretical development the Rodin remains a placeholder concept that has yet to be given empirical grounding. It is unclear, for example, whether there is a single Rodin, two Rodins, or countless Rodins and, if there exist more than one Rodin, whether all Rodins give rise to equally efficacious Think’n Poofs. It is also unclear whether multiple Rodins stand in cooperative, competitive, or other relationship to one another, whether Rodins borrow Thinks inferred from the Things originated by other Rodins, whether Rodins have degrees of omniscience, and so forth. However, we have every reason to believe that these questions can be given empirical formulation and resolved through an appropriate combination of laboratory and field investigation.

With the above limitations in mind, we may begin to sketch the moving parts of Intelligent Design, grounding it in a calculus of Rodins, Thinks, Poofs, and Things, and indeed begin to explore the operation of these entities in any given instance of Intelligent Design.

IV. Intelligent Design may be said to have occurred when a Rodin gives rise to a Think or Thinks, which in turn invoke a Poof or Poofs in order to originate a Thing.

Rodin-initiated Thinks are mind-like, agentic, timeless-sizeless representations. Poofs do the hand-like work of actually arranging matter/energy to conform to the specification of a given Think, giving rise to a Thing. A Rodin may “choose” to formulate a grand system of interlocking Thinks all apiece, yet implement such a Think-Structure imperceptibly over deep time by issuing Poofs only slowly and sequentially. Alternatively, a Think-Structure may give rise to thousands of simultaneous Poofs, yielding an (only apparently) saltational Thing-Structure that instantaneously mirrors the underlying Think Structure. Biological Things that display Irreducible Complexity almost certainly issue from the latter sort of process: a single Rodin exerts its intrinsic intentionality to originate a complex biological Think Structure which is in turn effected by means of multiple simultaneous, interlocking Poofs.

(The reader may find it helpful to imagine countless little hands equipped with little minds issuing from a Rodin or Rodins, swarming over and grasping bits of matter-energy - say, base pairs in a DNA molecule - and manipulating them with special tweezers to form irreducibly complex biological Things.)

V. It should be clear from the above that a calculus of Rodins, Thinks, Poofs and a completed, empirical Thing Theory promises to dissolve some of the knottiest problems in biology today. For example, we may now confidently sketch the origins of life on earth: a Rodin or Rodins originated a complex Think-Structure that gave rise to both simultaneous and sequential Poofs that created the first biological Thing, detonating life on earth. All that remains is to supply the details.

In the future we hope to infer the properties of agentic Rodin or Rodins themselves, by tracing Think-Poof-Thing pathways much as the electrodynamic properties of elementary particles may be inferred from the ephemeral trails left within a cloud chamber. We anticipate that the biology of the 22nd century will be characterized by Rodin simulations, the computational modeling of Biological Think-Structures, the detection and deconstruction of Poof-efficacy at the Think-Thing interface, and a completed Thing Theory. Ultimately we may see the triumph of what has been derisively called the "Big Think" theory of the origins of the universe. We may also confidently anticipate that a bankrupt Darwinism with truly be a “think” of the past.

courtesy of reciprocating bill from AtBC

Better than letting the thread die I guess. Maybe someone will be motivated to show some nerve, otherwise, 'think'n poofs' is the best you have...

The hypothesis is simply 'goddidit'. Whatever it was, he did it. He lives in some quantum realm popping into existence when required, performing think'n poofs.

Some will say the first life was god's work, evolution took place after that. Others will say god put it all in motion from before planck time, twiddling knobs on his big machine. Another group will say from dust in the garden of Eden. A few more will claim 'front-loading' of information, all the info was there from day one, just waiting to unfold. A few others will say god has been manipulating genomes.

Most need think'n poof though

[edit on 27-2-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   
You know I think your thread is a stroke of genius. I haven't seen anyone come out and try to prove creationism yet when they are given a blank sheet to draw out their reasoning. It is a belief based on faith and not on scientific reasoning. You either have faith or you have science. Keep them separate. I believe the world was created by God because I personally choose to believe in God. However, I am not so blind to try to prove it by scientific means and I get very mad when people do because they aren't smart enough to even understand scientific results, theory, protocol or the scientific method. It is people who don't even have college educations who are preaching to other people who don't have college educations who act like scientists are stupid. Get real! One well known creationist pretends to be a Doctor but actually got his degree from a diploma mill. Yeah I heard him in church when I was in school grammar school and knew he was a quack. This issue makes me so mad!



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Arius,....

I was discussing Creationism vs. Evolution with someone (a 16-17 year old) on another forum who attends a religious private school, and they mentioned that the person that inspired and appealed to them was Kent Hovind. I had no idea who this person was, so I decided to do a search. That's when I found out he would be spending some time in prison, and that he didn't really have any credentials on the topics he lectured on. I respect people's religious beliefs, I respect their belief that God created this universe. My only concern was that states like Kansas, Florida and Ohio want to teach Creationism in Science classrooms. I read somewhere on this site that only 28% of the U.S. is Science literate, and that's sad. If people like Hovind continue to spoil American youth by "teaching" or preaching subjects they have little understanding in,.... more and more kids will grow up too stupid to understand what Science is all about. They are basically being brainwashed in school for the sake of preserving certain religious beliefs. Religion should be taught separately from Science classrooms.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I really think you will be wasting your time here, Lude.


So how exactly is this issue taken to court and making its way on to textbooks through sticker that proclaim "Evolution is a only a theory, not fact..."[1]? I know that statement might be a bit off topic, but what are creationist scientists presenting when they proclaim its a scientific theory deserving of being taught along side evolution in a science class?

If the answer really is "goddidit", then how are people supporting such social movements? People are monetarily supporting this kind of action.

I have no issues with creationism if it withstands scientific standards. In fact I encourage it. Once creationism declares it is science, it should back it up. In this case, creationism is entering the realm of science and not the other way around. Science never tries to declare itself a religion. It might end up stumbling into certain aspects of religion (Noah's global flood claims would be a good example of this).

This thread is for you creationists. Where are you? Lets hear from you guys. Evolutionist should step aside for one moment and let them present their ideas. So with that said I leave it to you.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
But seriously, I want this thread to be regarded as a serious one. I am not out to bash creationists or somehow chastize them. I merely want them to present their theory here so we can discuss it. Thats all.


Sounds equitable. I'm looking forward to hearing some results.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
madnessinmysoul gave you guys a start. Please elaborate if any of you think creationism deserves the respect and class time that you think it deserves.


Hm...you're already implying it does not deserve respect and class time. So much for merely wanting them to present theory without preconceived bias.

Regardless, I'm interested in what creationists have to say here.

Melatonin provided an interesting yet abstract source looking to build a framework for the science, but so far I don't see anything gelling from it. No pun intended. So, not a fan of "think'n'poof" as it's presented here until more specifics arrive.

Diagramatically, it seems to me like the idea of evolution and creationism are at different states of development scientifically (though creationism is technically many thousands of years older). If the idea is represented as a ball it'd look like this:

Evolution:
Here's a ball
run with it
dropped the ball
picked it up
dropped it
picked it up
run with it
dropped it

...so it's got some work needing to be done.

Creationism:
Here's a ball
Take the ball apart and study it

Hehe, well. There's a few reasons why it is still in this stage. Primarily because universities are unwilling to provide funding towards its investigation.

I have some contributions to the idea of Creationism for framing purposes, but none of which has been tested, modeled, reproduced and very very mild glances at actual mechanism. I'd much rather hear from someone who's done more specific study & research into it. If mattison where to pop in and give the technicals as he had on other threads, that'd be awesome I think.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
So how exactly is this issue taken to court and making its way on to textbooks through sticker that proclaim "Evolution is a only a theory, not fact..."[1]?


Let us take a critical look at the article:

A federal judge Thursday ordered a suburban Atlanta school system to remove stickers from its high school biology textbooks that call evolution “a theory, not a fact,” saying the disclaimers are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.


Is evolution a fact? Is the disclaimer incorrect? How does this disclaimer endorse a religion? What religion does it endorse?


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
If the answer really is "goddidit", then how are people supporting such social movements? People are monetarily supporting this kind of action.


"God did it" is a response from people who don't care about science. A believer in science wants to know how God did it.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
This thread is for you creationists. Where are you?


Creationist in what regard? Those who believe they have scientific proof of creation? Those who personally believe God created the universe by "think'n'poof"? Those who believe God caused the changes of evolution? Those who personally believe God arranged existing molecules of the earth to form necessary components of life as we know it? Those creationists who accept the existence of dinosaurs? Those who deny them? The term "creationist" is a new one from a scientific standpoint, and a broad one at that. You've got a big net out there, are you looking to catch all the fish or just a certain kind?


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Lets hear from you guys.


What would you like to know?


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Evolutionist should step aside for one moment and let them present their ideas. So with that said I leave it to you.


I'll be sure to observe how "stepped aside" evolutionists are.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Hm...you're already implying it does not deserve respect and class time. So much for merely wanting them to present theory without preconceived bias.


Well, kind of. Except for the preconceived bias part. So far creationism hasn't provided a theory so why should it deserve any class time in a science class? Its not a matter of bias. Its a matter of them not having presented anything ligitamate yet.


Originally posted by saint4God
Is evolution a fact? Is the disclaimer incorrect? How does this disclaimer endorse a religion? What religion does it endorse?


No, the disclaimer is not endorsing a religion but the disclaimer is wrong in that evolution is not a scientific fact. Seeing as how this is off topic, I would like to keep the theory of evolution out of this thread and keep the discussion as to why evolution is a fact to this thread. I know I brought up the article in this discussion, but I did so to illustrate the point that creationists are doing nothing to further their case.



Creationist in what regard? Those who believe they have scientific proof of creation? Those who personally believe God created the universe by "think'n'poof"? Those who believe God caused the changes of evolution? Those who personally believe God arranged existing molecules of the earth to form necessary components of life as we know it? Those creationists who accept the existence of dinosaurs? Those who deny them? The term "creationist" is a new one from a scientific standpoint, and a broad one at that. You've got a big net out there, are you looking to catch all the fish or just a certain kind?


Sorry for not being clear on this. I am aiming this at the ones that beleive it should be regarded as an opposing theory to evolution and should be taught in a science class.



What would you like to know?


What is the scientific theory of creation? What is the mechanism behind it? What does it predict? How is it falsifiable? What is the evidence behind it? I know there's a lot there to ask for, but can we at least start somewhere?


[edit on 28-2-2007 by LuDaCrIs]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Skipping to the meat and potatos then, as it seems you've done a fine job addressing the previous points.
Although evolution is not a fact, I agree it should be argued on a thread related to it. If it is a fact, there must be details 'they' are keeping secret
.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Sorry for not being clear on this. I am aiming this at the ones that beleive it should be regarded as an opposing theory to evolution and should be taught in a science class.


Ah! Okay, so evolution is out. That slices the number of creationists in half. I'm on the fence so I'll not have strong assertions but will do my best to contribute as much as I can.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
What is the scientific theory of creation?


Non-evolutionary creationism states that the formation of biological life was not a progression over time. This is supported by the diversity of life being interdependent upon one another. It also claims the the molecular composition of living beings as "of the earth" instead of aquatically inclined which is opposed to traditional trans-species evolution. It recognizes the barriers that are a natural component in DNA and the process of transcription and translation as "quality and control" aspect of ensuring the process of growth is maintained with a sense of order.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
What is the mechanism behind it?


Evolution is dependent on the faith of random changes or mutation being handed down successive generations. Creationism starts with a base plan and assembling of components for a whole organism. The best analogy I can produce is a car kit. You have a bluepint, you have components. When the components are put together, it has the look and all the functions of a car. Because of the nature of complexity, human kind could not achieve this yet, but it does imply if we can break down each component to see how it was made, we could reproduce given the same materials and processes. Science got really happy when it learned to clone, but cloning is not creating. Cloning is taking a cell with pre-set instructions and putting them in an environment to execute those instructions. We didn't grow it, we merely facilitated the process.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
What does it predict?


It predics consistency, that things will not change over time from one species to the next. It demonstrates the Hardy-Weinberg principle of equilibrium in ecology. It predicts the possbile outcome of genetics for a million years or more (which would be an incredibly complex mathmatical model that has no $profit$ potential in the undertaking at this time).


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
How is it falsifiable?


Show from a genetic standpoint that it is possible for one species to grow into a different one.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
What is the evidence behind it?


I'll admit I don't like the phrase "irreduceable complexity" because it implies that we cannot discover the truths that are embedded in the molecular processes, however it does make a good point. In the same way we have interdependency of organisms in the environment, it supposes also there is an interdependency of cells and even cell components by design.


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
I know there's a lot there to ask for, but can we at least start somewhere?


Sure. Hope this is a decent springboard. I'm welcomed to be called wrong if it's the case as I've not done a great deal of study into the field but have a cursory look at some of the principles.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
I'd like to start this thread based on the idea of creationism being a scientific theory, which some people are proposing, and that it should be taught/researched alongside evolution.

Yep. Some US states are now being forced by law to teach creationism next to evolution. This is not something that is being taught in a general science class. It is being taught specifically in Biology!

Assuming that Creationism is a science, It has nothing to very little to do with Biology. Biology is a Natural Science, while Creationism would have to be, if anything, classified as a Supernatural Science. Which ofcourse is just contradictory when viewed on a classic model.

Anyway, The same US states are required by law to have schools stamp biology books that deal with evolution on the cover with a disclaimer stating that "Evolution is not proven by science and therefore must not be considered as fact."


Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
...We are dealing with a seperate theory, there should be no mention of evolution.

I think you misunderstand the view of how creationism is considered as a science.
Creationism is not considered as a science by itself. It is considered a science as apposition to evolution, and therefore evolution MUST be taken into account.
Think of physics. You can't talk about Classic Physics and ignore and deny Quantum Physics because it aposes and follows different rules.
The problem with Creationism as a Science is that it doesn't follow the rules that a scientific theory should, and generally must follow.
These being in order:
Observe.
Hypothesis.
Develop test.
Prediction of outcome.
Test.
Observe outcome.
Reach Hypothesis.
Repeat.

Creationism does the following:
Hypothesis.
That is all.

Ironically, this is how and why it is apposing evolution. Because although evolution has external scientific reference and backing, Both currently and historically, It can not be directly tested.
Evolution does the following:
Observe.
Hypothesis.


In the end, this is what it comes down to from a Creationsit's point of view: If Evolution can be considered a Scientific Theory without following Scientific Method, Why can't Creationism?



On a side note, I once heard someone say this:
"Sure they should be allowed to teach Creationism in Science! Just so long as we get to teach Evolution in Religious Studies."



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jugg


Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
You could argue that because it cant be disproven then faith is a perfectly rational response to attempting to understand what is basically uncomprehendable.


Well what now? Because you cant prove its a ok to just believe in anything?

I, personally, believe the world was created last thursday by a nike air shoe. In all its glory. Care to disprove me? No? Then that settles it. The world was created last thursday by a shoe.


Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

There has to be better things to do out there.


Yes, but this forum is for this kind of discussions

You can create a similar thread like this, just with evolution in the topic.



Sure, if you believe this is all here because of some sneaker thats perfectly fine. I dont care to disprove you. Why should I care? Youre free to believe whatever you want. It doesnt justify my beliefs any more to argue yours. It doesnt make mine any less valid if you dont believe in my Reebok Pump theories. Why would it? Why should it?

And Id rather not start a thread about evolution. I dont care. It doesnt change a thing about my life, my childrens lives, my grandparents lives or any one elses life either way.

Unless of course they feel the need to constanly preach to me and show up on my front porch with pamphlets or instigate arguments about it in public places. Thats harassment. I believe those actions have much more to do with the persons character than their beliefs. If anything it a reflection of their own insecurity with their beliefs.

It is what it is and thats all it is. But feel free to do whatever it is youre doing. It seems to be entertaining at the very least to a few folks. I hope you find whatever it is youre looking for. I really do.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I'm sure I'll regret this but....

Jugg

Well creationists like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Behe and so forth all claim they can prove it. This is their followers chance to present their theories.


Creationists like Hovind, Ham and Behe, seriously? In what gross misrepresentation of the term creationist does Behe fit? He accepts common ancestry. He does not believe Scripture gives an accurate model of creation/nature. Have you read anything he's written... never mind I know the answer, it's always the same. What does he "claim [he] can prove"?

maddnessinmysoul

how about we start with something basic

creationists (or IDists if you prefer the illusion) what is your hypothesis?


Illusion? Is that the illusion [appearance] of design in nature you're speaking of? Or is ID based on Scipture like creationism is? Please be specific. I guess we're all just pretending to have just heard about it?


Some reading from the young-Earth creationists for you Luda... assuming you really are interested and have no idea what they believe or why.

BSG: A Creation Biology Study Group

Relationship to the "Creation-Evolution Debate"

Because we are dedicated to building creation models that can be evaluated by both scientifically informed creationists and evolutionary biologists alike, criticizing and debunking evolution is not our focus. While we reject strict materialistic presuppositions as a basis for science, we respect scientists who hold that view as being intellectually honest in interpreting data in accord with evolutionary theory. As an independent affiliation, the BSG has no formal ties with any creationist or Intelligent Design organizations or with any Christian colleges.



Baraminology: "is the study of the ancestry of life on Earth with reference to the created kinds of Genesis. In short, it is an effort to find scientific means to determine which forms of life are related, and which are not."


Institute for Creation Research's RATE project (RATE stands for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth)


There's plenty there to get you started.

FWIW I'm what's known as a progressive creationist or an old Earther eg, www.reasons.org... and www.godandscience.org...


PS to the confused:

The ID hypothesis is: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion." Source (emphasis - Rren)


It is not creationism so ID is off topic but some folks here seem to be ignorant of the distinction. Some I know have been shown this several times already so their ignorance is willfull, or baiting, and no amount of debate or information will change their position.

For anyone interested in how ID is defined/argued outside of evangelical atheist circles I'd recommend this website for more information: www.researchintelligentdesign.org...

(edit) I meant to include this link in my original post -The Essential Intelligent Design Bibliography - "Important information sources for understanding intelligent design, listed here beginning with general and clear reading to more technical treatments. "

[edit on 1-3-2007 by Rren]

[edit on 1-3-2007 by Rren]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Rren, the "illusion" remark is simply to show that IDists are pretty much creationists with a much more marketable name
you can argue that they're different, but one is just taking the arguments of the other to a greater length (creationsim takes the concept of ID much further)

just a comment, the hypothesis for ID sounds just like the conclusion...



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I've been listening to some arguments about Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design again and wanted to clarify two distinguishing characteristics.

Creationism - "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis"
209.161.33.50...

Intelligent Design - "the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence"
209.161.33.50...

Despite how we may "feel" about it, it appears that all three are theories.

So what then is the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design? By definition, Creationism is founded upon God creating the world. Intelligent Design does not. Does Intelligent Design imply God as the Creator? One could establish that link. Does Intelligent Design rule out aliens or multi-force creators making the universe as we see it? No.

Why was this distinction made? Could it be Creationists wish a more subtle approach to gain support for a more faith-based science? Could it be alien/other believers wish to promote an alternative between Creation or Evolution? I don't know the answer, but it is clear there is a difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Due to a hybridization of theories, Creationism in itself does not rule out the possibility of evolution playing a part or being the mechanism set into motion. Intelligent Design however, is dimetrically opposed to evolution. Some interesting things to consider before we move on. Looking forward to more contributions in a fact-finding manner.


[edit on 6-3-2007 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gear
The problem with Creationism as a Science is that it doesn't follow the rules that a scientific theory should, and generally must follow.
These being in order:
Observe.
Hypothesis.
Develop test.
Prediction of outcome.
Test.
Observe outcome.
Reach Hypothesis.
Repeat.


The rules here are part of "The Scientific Method" and might I point out that evolution does not fulfill these requirements either. If you want to throw out Creationism because of this, you must equally discard Evolution in the same regard. If you agree with this, then so will I. Let us toss both Evolution and Creationism out of the textbooks until they fit the criteria.

Two things not stated here that are accepted in The Scientific Method is data and generating a working model.

[edit on 6-3-2007 by saint4God]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join