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.

 

Contributions of Creationism/Intelligent Design to Science

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I keep seeing people espousing the creationist/intelligent design point of view and I'd simply like to ask: What the hell has it ever contributed to science?
What valuable, applicable knowledge has been gained from it?
What are the applications of this knowledge?
Where has it been applied?
Who applied it?

I know attacking creationism/ID is like beating a dead horse, but there are still creationists on here so I'd like to see how they justify their position.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
ha, i was ready to come in guns blazing, but then i realized we are on the same side...pheww

"contribution" to science...larf larf...

best of luck to you




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
i give you a few hours at most before the Christians start complaining to the mods and have this removed...tut tut how dare you question their belief



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Umm none? In fact, it's diametrically opposed to science. it's a farce that some schools are forced to teach this garbage. Sure, i'll give you "theory" of evolution, you can use all the air quotes you want, but teaching religion as science? And people wonder why the current crop of illiterates can use a ipod but not do simple math.

Maybe we should start petitioning for them to teach that life evolved from Alien material left here by a meteor.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
First off . . . if we are to believe ID'ers . . . ID has nothing to do with creationism or religion, therefore, attacking ID is not an afront to believers of the christ. (I can supply quotes from Discovery Institute is needed . . . )

Secondly, this thread is a fail Madness!


By it's own definition according to the Discovery Institute, Evolution.org, and Intelligent Design.org it does not follow the scientific method, so it cannot contribute to science. See below:

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Source

Note: they still claim it is a "scientific research program" and give it labels like "Theory of"; however, by their own admission they back engineer complex human systems to figure out traces of design and then look for this "informational properties of intelligent agents" in nature. Simply using scientific "jargon" as a replacement for "God did it" . . . It's sci-fi religion . . . They start with their conclusion. Look outside of their test subject for "types of evidence needed". Return to their subject and search for anything resembling, then label their efforts success . . . Anti-Science.

Of course I know you already know that . . . but the definition above contains the "proof" that will be offered by proponents . . . irreducible complexity of the flaggelum motor (complex systems), information transcribition through DNA (programming), sustaining life (protective creator). Three concepts that cover the whole of the physical universe and a myriad of "evidence" to back it up . . . just no data to support this evidence. You have to "feel" the evidence . . . BUT, this is TOTALLY different than creationism.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Does the fibbonacci series come in here? How life is made to produce fruit with maximum gains and balance.

Learn more about it here.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
God says he created us out of the dust of the earth. Last time I checked the human body is made up of chemicals and elements all found in the earth. Not to mention when humans are cremated, we literally turn to the "dust" of the Earth. So there's a start. Perhaps some of you should actually take the time to study the Bible and creation side by side with scientific research before spewing out hot air about things you know nothing about or bothered to study. You are simply scientific sheep. You have a bias against Christianity already and just take what scientist tell you as truth. And you do this because of your prejudice. If you were an intelligent person, you would leave your prejudice, biases, and egos at the door and actually study what "those crazy christians" are always talking about.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cataclysmo
Does the fibbonacci series come in here? How life is made to produce fruit with maximum gains and balance.

Learn more about it here.


Yes . . . That has been offered by ID'ers. That falls under the guise of "programming", like DNA transcription.

Now . . . Show any evidence of said "intelligence" or "creator". Assumptions and incredulity don't equate to evidence. ID'ers must show that there is evidence of the supernatural acting on natural processes or that these process could come about ONLY from said intelligence (ie. no possible natural causation); or else, it's just an argument from incredulity.

Almost every field of science has shown that mathematics is the language of the natural world (universe) and can be used to understand it's principles. Using mathematics to argue against nature seems funny to me.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I am not yet, and I may never be, sure that your question can be answered. I think the problem is with the question itself. It seems similar to asking "What are the contributions of science to poetry?"

Science has not found an answer to the first cause, creationism thinks it has. I may be expressing this poorly, but science can't do anything until it has some "thing" to observe or measure. Creationism tries to find out how the first "thing" came to be. Science asks "What?" Creationism asks "Why?" Science believes there are some things it isn't equipped to study, and in some of those areas you'll find creationism.

It might be interesting to ask if there is any benefit to the individual in believing in creationism, but that's not what you're intersted in (it seems).



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ag893
God says he created us out of the dust of the earth. Last time I checked the human body is made up of chemicals and elements all found in the earth. Not to mention when humans are cremated, we literally turn to the "dust" of the Earth. So there's a start. Perhaps some of you should actually take the time to study the Bible and creation side by side with scientific research before spewing out hot air about things you know nothing about or bothered to study. You are simply scientific sheep. You have a bias against Christianity already and just take what scientist tell you as truth. And you do this because of your prejudice. If you were an intelligent person, you would leave your prejudice, biases, and egos at the door and actually study what "those crazy christians" are always talking about.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Well . . . This thread is not about religion or the bible. It's about ID. Proponents of ID say that it has nothing to do with the bible or religion (see below). So . . . what does the bible have to do with it? According to the driving force behind ID, its link to creationism is brought on by proponents of "Darwinism" to confuse people and discredit a designer.
Intelligent Design is not Creationism

Furthermore . . . Unless any of the respondents of this thread were raised in India or Asia, I'm pretty sure we are all fairly acquainted with the bible and all judeo-christian mythology . . . the western world revolves around it. Myself, I had the benefit of growing up inside synagogues, baptist, and lutheran churches (Jewish/Luthern upbringing and Baptist part of the country and friends). To this day, I have several versions of the bible on my bookshelf (NIV, KJV, and NASB), as well as, the gnostic gospels and a copy of the complete gospels by Miller and Funk. CG by Miller/Funk. Add that to my family copy of the Torah and Tanakh and the myriad of "religious" books I have accumulated over the years, and I'd say I have quite the education into the bible. While it may be easier on your conscious to believe that those who "don't fear God" are uneducated in the ways of judeo-christian mythology, both exo and esoteric, it rarely is the case. Most are educated, but just don't fall for the indoctrination and fantasy anymore.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
perhaps the sciences of propaganda

and eugenics

remember the "Darwin is an idiot thread"


s/f



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Other than the religious fanatic I'm curious about this thread. I want to know more because I've always had an intuition that there was a creator I just don't think he has influence over our lives like most religions believe. As far as scientific proof I don't think you can find any. At least not with current technology. It'd be like saying "We are humans trying to be god but we don't know what tools he used."

Maybe the ultimate creation was not that got made every one the worlds creature separately but instead made millions of very adaptive microscopic lifeforms that have the ability to learn and grow. Send them to earth and ironically add water to make us all react and have to fight and adapt for survival till there was so many things to overcome that we slowly changed into everything we are now. Dogs Cats Fish Birds Humans. It's a hard concept to grasp. Hell, I actually just thought of it. But it's an interesting theory.

Anyways i believe that until we truly understand the genome and DNA then there's no way we could understand the question of if there is a Creator or Designer of the universe. When I was a kid in Sunday school back when I was a christian I used to always say that god is like the ultimate scientist. If he (the creator) is really unfathomable then how can we even come close to finding him through trying to explain how he did it. As it stands he's still God because we don't know how he pulled it off. So, until we can figure out how to make a cell adapt and grow with its surrounding environment I doubt we can come close to explaining whether our universe was designed or not.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
The question is backwards. It should be, "What has science contributed to the creationist/intelligent design point of view?" It has been obvious since time began that we are created. It's taken science this long to figure it out. Theories essentially amount to faith, not fact. Science tells us that 90% of matter is unobservable. We only see 10% of what is actually there. Humans can only tune in to a small band of this frequency of information. Science places its faith on the theory of the 10% when it cannot observe the 90%. Ironically, the 10% of what is seen confirms the claims of the Bible that all you see comes from what is not visible.

Hebrews 11:3

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Romans 1 says that it is obvious and you have no excuse to not see it right there in front of you daily.

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I keep seeing people espousing the creationist/intelligent design point of view and I'd simply like to ask: What the hell has it ever contributed to science?
What valuable, applicable knowledge has been gained from it?
What are the applications of this knowledge?
Where has it been applied?
Who applied it?

I know attacking creationism/ID is like beating a dead horse, but there are still creationists on here so I'd like to see how they justify their position.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
If you would like proof of ID, here it is right in front of you:

Can a river rise above its source? NO Apart from consciousness, ALL that you can observe in nature moves away from its source. There are no exceptions. Are you greater than what we think is our source (Earth)? YES What does that tell you about your true source? Consciousness is the ability to move against the flow and back toward the source. The earth does not rise. Substance does not rise. Only consciousness. Pride is believing that you are above the source. Disbelief is foolish in light of this obvious proof.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I keep seeing people espousing the creationist/intelligent design point of view and I'd simply like to ask: What the hell has it ever contributed to science?
What valuable, applicable knowledge has been gained from it?
What are the applications of this knowledge?
Where has it been applied?
Who applied it?

I know attacking creationism/ID is like beating a dead horse, but there are still creationists on here so I'd like to see how they justify their position.

edit on 21-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


The question is backwards.

No, your post is backwards. Allow me to demonstrate.


Theories essentially amount to faith, not fact.

See what I mean? The truth, as anyone who understands the scientific definition of ‘theory’ knows, is that theories amount to fact, not faith.


It has been obvious since time began that we are created. It's taken science this long to figure it out.

No, it has taken this long for science to show that what appears obvious is in fact nothing of the kind. For example, it appears obvious that the Sun goes round the Earth. It appears obvious that matter and energy are different. It appears obvious (to some people at least) that we were created. But thanks to science, we know that these apparently obvious things are untrue. Backwards again!


Science tells us that 90% of matter is unobservable... Science places its faith on the theory of the 10% when it cannot observe the 90%.

No, science proposes the invisible. The visible, being observed, does not require science to vouch for it, but merely to help us understand it.


The 10% of what is seen confirms the claims of the Bible that all you see comes from what is not visible.

Again, what is seen comprehensively refutes the Bible; it’s Bible-thumpers who appeal to invisible realms and invisible angry men in the sky to substantiate their nonsense.

Do you drive your car in reverse, looking in your rearview mirror all the time?

Generally speaking, it’s dangerous for creationists and intelligent-design exponents to go for the cleverer-than-thou option when attempting to promote and defend their ideas. Because their ideas are not very clever. May suggest a touch less intellectual arrogance next time you find yourself moved to weigh in on the discussion?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
What the hell has it ever contributed to science?


There are legitimate answers to this one.
Without intelligent design there we be far less pro-science groups/websites/resources to start with.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I keep seeing people espousing the creationist/intelligent design point of view and I'd simply like to ask: What the hell has it ever contributed to science?

ID supplied more nut jobs for shrinks to work on, hence an advancement of psychological sciences!




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ag893
 



Originally posted by ag893
God says he created us out of the dust of the earth.


No, Genesis (supposedly written by Moses) says that Adam was created from dirt, not from "dust of the earth". Furthermore, humans are created twice in Genesis.



Last time I checked the human body is made up of chemicals and elements all found in the earth.


Except it isn't made from dirt. It's made of proteins and other organic stuff.



Not to mention when humans are cremated, we literally turn to the "dust" of the Earth.


Nope, we turn into carbon ash. Ash isn't dust.



So there's a start.


Sure, if you want to be reductionist and silly about it.



Perhaps some of you should actually take the time to study the Bible and creation side by side with scientific research before spewing out hot air about things you know nothing about or bothered to study.


Look at your post count, now look at mine, now back to your post count, now back to mine. My post count is significantly higher. Most of those posts? Religious topics. Many of those posts specifically dealing with the Bible and quite a few dealing with creation.

Hell, I'm sure within my last 800 posts you'll find me specifically pointing out how the Biblical creation narrative is irreconcilable with science.



You are simply scientific sheep.


Projection!

Sheep? How am I a sheep when I want evidence based reasoning? How am I a sheep when I am open to correction in the face of evidence?



You have a bias against Christianity already and just take what scientist tell you as truth.


For the first 16 years of my life I had a pro-Christian bias and I still didn't take the creation narrative as absolute truth. I understood science and accepted it on the merits of the arguments and evidence.



And you do this because of your prejudice.


Nope, I do it because it makes sense. Please don't phrase this as an issue of prejudice. I rejected



If you were an intelligent person, you would leave your prejudice, biases, and egos at the door and actually study what "those crazy christians" are always talking about.


What is with people stuffing words in my mouth lately? Does my mouth have a sign on it that says "Insert whatever you want here!". Nope, nothing in the mirror. I did study it. I've read the Bible. I've read the creation account dozens of times. Have you ever bothered reading any science?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


ID is creationism. Hands down. It was spawned out of the creationism movement as a rebranding of creationism for the classroom. The Dover case did enough to expose the origins of ID as creationism by another name. And would creationism by any other name not smell as rank?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by LikeDuhObviously
 


I guess it does give the scientific community a rallying cry in a nation where there is pitiful scientific literacy.




top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join