Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative? Are the ‘free thinkers’ - atheists scared of som

Originally posted by madeioo
Can someone explain to me what are the practical applications in science of Intelligent Design?
What does it predict? What fields will it be used? In which industry will it be applied? Basically what are we getting out of it?

People who are scientists, bring what they bring...each in their field of study contribute to furthering knowledge, the issue is one of VANTAGE POINT, a chief difference between scientists who are creationists and those who are evolutionists is their starting assumptions. Creationists and evolutionists have a different view of history, but the way they do science in the present is the same. Both creationists and evolutionists use observation and experimentation to draw conclusions about nature. This is the nature of observational science. It involves repeatable experimentation and observations in the present. Since observational scientific theories are capable of being tested in the present, creationists and evolutionists are generally in agreement on these models. They agree on the nature of gravity, the composition of stars, the speed of light in a vacuum, the size of the solar system, the principles of electricity, etc. These things can be checked and tested in the present.

Originally posted by SpacePunk
reply to post by OldThinker

 

I'll make a deal with ya, if creationism can be taught as if it is science, which it isn't, then all creation myths should be taught including the FSM.

"......which it isn't....."????

why would you take an extremist view? What are afraid of man?

OT would never say those scholars, that have an evolutionary assumptions are NOT "science"

OT

FSM????

[edit on 19-8-2009 by OldThinker]

Info.....www.answersingenesis.org...

Today there are many other Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and believe that God created in six days, a few thousand years ago, just as recorded in Scripture. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. physicist, has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields,5 which enabled him to accurately predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all. On the contrary, Dr. Humphreys was able to make these predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scripture. John Baumgardner, a Ph.D. geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a sophisticated computer model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which was reported in the journal Nature; the assumptions for this model are based on the global Flood recorded in Genesis. Additionally, think of all the people who have benefited from a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan. The MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian.6

Consider the biblical creationist Georgia Purdom (one of the authors of this book) who has a Ph.D. in molecular genetics. Dr. Purdom certainly understands DNA, mutations, and natural selection. However, she is convinced that these do not support evolution because such processes go in the “wrong direction” to make evolution work.7 On the contrary, they confirm biblical creation.

I have a Ph.D. from a secular university and have done extensive research in solar astrophysics. In my Ph.D. research, I made a number of discoveries about the nature of near-surface solar flows, including the detection of a never-before-seen polar alignment of supergranules, as well as patterns indicative of giant over-turning cells. Was I hindered in my research by the conviction that the early chapters of Genesis are literally true? No, it’s just the reverse. It is because a logical God created and ordered the universe that I, and other creationists, expect to be able to understand aspects of that universe through logic, careful observation, and experimentation.

Clearly, creationists can indeed be real scientists. And this shouldn’t be surprising, since the very basis for scientific research is biblical creation. This is not to say that noncreationists cannot be scientists. But, in a way, an evolutionist is being inconsistent when he or she does science. The big bang supporter claims the universe is a random chance event, and yet he or she studies it as if it were logical and orderly. The evolutionist is thus forced to borrow certain creationist principles in order to do science. The universe is logical and orderly because its Creator is logical and has imposed order on the universe. God created our minds and gave us the ability and curiosity to study the universe. Furthermore, we can trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent. This is why science is possible. On the other hand, if the universe is just an accidental product of a big bang, why should it be orderly? Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver? If our brains are the byproducts of random chance, why should we trust that their conclusions are accurate? But if our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by God, as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature. Science is possible because the Bible is true.

Here's just a small amount of trouble those ID scientists experience...

(1) Derogatory and clearly inappropriate comments
Examples range from placing obscene or anti-creationist cartoons in the workers’ mailboxes to open, blatant, inappropriate direct name-calling. Bolyanatz32 noted that evolutionists often assume that

‘anyone holding the creationist viewpoint must be illogical, backward, subversive, uneducated, and stubborn.’

Gross name-calling, even by eminent scientists, is commonly found in the secular literature.33,34 A typical example is Isaac Asimov’s statement that all

‘creationists are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way.’ And that all of their ‘points are equally stupid, except where the creationists are outrightly lying.’35

(2) Refusal of admittance to graduate programs
It was found that it was not uncommon for a creationist to be denied admission to a degree program even if he/she clearly exceeded published admission standards. In some cases the person denied was able to locate letters of recommendation which recommended against admission specifically because of the candidate’s creationist worldview.

(3) Refusal to award degree
Some creationists interviewed, although they clearly met all of the requirements, were openly denied a degree (usually a Ph.D. in the sciences) because of their creation orientation and/or publications.

(4) Denial of promotion
Many creationists claimed that they were not promoted even though they clearly exceeded the written standards for promotion (high student ratings, more than an adequate number of publications, etc.). In several cases this was openly because of their creationist publications.36,37

(5) Denial of tenure
Many cases of tenure denial clearly based mainly on the creationist activities of the candidate were encountered. It was often obvious that bias existed because of active involvement in the creationist movement. Research has well documented that a known scientific creationist who does not experience some bias in this crucial decision is a rare exception.38 This view was fully supported by the interviews with creationist professors and others.

In many cases of religious discrimination, the university was open and blatant about such, either claiming immunity or citing various laws or precedents which they felt either rendered them unaccountable, or the law ineffective in rectifying their illegal behaviour. In one case the university did

‘not deny either religious discrimination or [lack of] university specified due process. Its entire case rests on immunity (as a State institution, immune from lawsuits unless plaintiff is given permission by the State to sue itself).’39

In this case, the university claimed that

‘as a whole, whatever wrongdoing occurred, it is not liable to damages’.

Source: Bergman, J., A study of court cases related to creationism, Unpublished manuscript, 1995.

reply to post by OldThinker

Sir, you are an idiot :/

????

Would that make me "out of the ordinary?" No one KNOWS, that's the Null Hypothesis....

OT

So you have no idea of evolutionary theory, then. You can't argue a point you do not understand.


Answersingenesis is wrong. These are the same people who think all mutations are bad (something you should know better like I taught you) and that there are no transitional fossils. They, too lack understanding of evolutionary theory and are completely and utterly biased.

There is no truth in such a biased source! Stop quoting them, it just makes you look stupid.

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker

 

Sir, you are an idiot :/

[quote

Your timing is so right on...

Readers, just scroll up 2 posts....and read the number (1) then scroll down one post and see it in real time....so cool

reply to post by OldThinker


It might not be right to call them idiots but you on the otherhand are incapable of learning it seems. Time and again I explain why quoting scientists of the past about their religious opinions is pointless and why quoting pages such as answersingenesis is pointless because they are clueless.

And you seem adamant to not learn a thing about the science behind evolution so instead to mine criticisms of it and not realise they are all wrong, like Ben Stein - what a joke.


You were clueless about the fact that most mutations are benign and clueless about the observed emergence of new species. People who know their stuff are not this clueless. And let's not forget Ida.

So I'll repeat myself:

So you have no idea of evolutionary theory, then. You can't argue a point you do not understand.


Answersingenesis is wrong. These are the same people who think all mutations are bad (something you should know better like I taught you) and that there are no transitional fossils. They, too lack understanding of evolutionary theory and are completely and utterly biased.

There is no truth in such a biased source! Stop quoting them, it just makes you look stupid.



[edit on 19-8-2009 by Welfhard]

" New knowledge has led to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is more than a hyphothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressivly accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory."

- Pope John Paul II, 1996 Encyclica
Truth cannot contradict Truth.

It shocks me that there's a significant portion of the american religious community arguing for a return to the dark ages.

reply to post by madeioo


There was a thread on here ages ago about the creationism-bread anti-intellectualism that threatens America. You're absolutely right.

Here we go:
Creationism's Legacy: Anti-intellectualism

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Welfhard]

Science can not prove Evolution, you think it will be able to prove God exists? In my opinion neither should be taught in school they are both religions. (Remember I said "In my opinion")

The problem is, we have places to go learn and worship God, but Evolutionists don't. Why doesn't someone start the Church of Evolution and use Darwin as the main prophet? Then it would be placed where it belongs, outside of our schools. Seperation of Church and State anyone?

reply to post by weird_travels

The problem is, we have places to go learn and worship God, but Evolutionists don't.

Well science isn't a religion so it doesn't ask that it's students worship it or any particular thing or concept. So "evolutionists" (creationist term) have science classes to learn.

Evolution is not religion:



[edit on 19-8-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by weird_travels


You obviously do not understand the scientific method. Evolution is not a religion, because it does not use superstition or paranormal to give itself credit. It is a scientific theory, based on physical evidence and empirical data. Obviously the theory isn't complete, but it's the best we have so far. So to compare it to a religion is both asinine and ignorant.

You should perhaps read the definition of scientific theory since so many people in this thread seem to have such a hard time understanding it.

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
reply to post by weird_travels

 

You obviously do not understand the scientific method. ...

D= The WORD ‘Defines’ God!
M=The Universe ‘Measures’ limitless Creation!
A=Knowledge will increase!
I=Sin is forgiven!
C=Entropy needs restraint!

DMAIC: The scientific method-Smile! Remember is not a strict recipe, but a fluid technique for uncovering truth.

reply to post by OldThinker

DMAIC: The scientific method-Smile! Remember is not a strict recipe, but a fluid technique for uncovering truth.

No it doesn't, it assumes a creation and sin, needless assumptions.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker

 

DMAIC: The scientific method-Smile! Remember is not a strict recipe, but a fluid technique for uncovering truth.

No it doesn't, it assumes a creation and sin, needless assumptions.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Welfhard]

Well yeah!!!!! Just LOOK around....don't you see "effects" in nature and human behavior?

Creation and Sin are intuitive man...

reply to post by OldThinker


It's more reasonable to merely acknowledge nature and human behaviour. You take it one step further and assume a creation and an absolute moral law.

You are unscientific, you do not employ Occam's Razor.

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by EdCase512
"Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative?

Because their viewpoint is myopic


Are the ‘free thinkers’ - atheists scared of something"

Yes, myopic viewpoints


A literal answer to the question(s) as posed.

one more time myopic ED??????


Are both myopic?

Wrong??

Right????


Try again ok?

OT

Yes myopic. To a creationist there is the truth, theirs.

To a "free thinker" (nicely loaded term by the way) the world is a little less black and white. So yes as an atheist, I recognize no religion AND as free thinker I am willing to challenge the things i do believe in.
The absolute "beliefs", espoused by creationists scares me.
There is no questioning, no doubt at all in the statements they make. There should ALWAYS be doubt as doubt drives the frontiers of knowledge forward.

(The usage of belief/believe is very deliberate in the above statement.)

Originally posted by Welfhard

You are unscientific, you do not employ Occam's Razor.

Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation or the one with the fewest assumptions that explains the facts is to be preferred. Creation makes ‘one’ assumption—that God is who He says He is in the Bible—because if this is so, then He must have done all that He said He did.

Evolution has ‘many’ assumptions and none of them provides an answer to anything.

One vs. Many? Simplest, you ask? ONE!

Please answer…
Where did matter and/or energy come from?
Where did life come from?
Where did information come from?

OC is a double edged sword friend, no wonder I using it in the avatar!!!!

Originally posted by EdCase512

Yes myopic. To a creationist there is the truth, theirs.

To a "free thinker" (nicely loaded term by the way) the world is a little less black and white. So yes as an atheist, I recognize no religion AND as free thinker I am willing to challenge the things i do believe in.
The absolute "beliefs", espoused by creationists scares me.
There is no questioning, no doubt at all in the statements they make. There should ALWAYS be doubt as doubt drives the frontiers of knowledge forward.

(The usage of belief/believe is very deliberate in the above statement.)

Fair point! Nice answer friend, thanks.

Some scare OT too...

but not my best pal JC, nor this guy, what's ya think? www.youtube.com... its only 9 min

[edit on 19-8-2009 by OldThinker]

reply to post by OldThinker

You disappoint me gravely.

Creation makes ‘one’ assumption

Wrong.

hat God is who He says He is in the Bible—because if this is so, then He must have done all that He said He did.

Assumptions.

1) God.
2) God is the Christian God.
3) That Genesis is not an allegory.
4) That God is accurately represented in the Bible.

To contrast that with Evolution, you must understand the method of science. Every facet of evolution is supported by the evidence even before we knew of the mechanism behind it. We have and can see DNA mutate, We have and can see adaptation. We have and can see speciation.

0 assumptions. Science doesn't permit it.

Where did matter and/or energy come from?

I don't know but it's got nothing to do with evolution. You don't know either.

Where did life come from?

Probably slowly developed in the open primordial oceans in the very common and rife organic chemistry in pre-biotic earth. Such chemicals are even found to be common in space.

Where did information come from?

You'll have to be more specific.

OC is a double edged sword friend, no wonder I using it in the avatar!!!!

You use it in your avatar because you, sir, are an idiot :/

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Welfhard]