Contributions of Creationism/Intelligent Design to Science, page 3

reply to post by SuperiorEd

---

Oh, and...

We humans are the top of all creation in complexity, function and ability. Science says our source is the Earth. This is not possible since nothing rises above its source anywhere in nature...

Waterspouts

Geysers

Springs

Clouds

Flames

Am I being dully literal? How about complex biological organisms developing from relatively simple gametes? How about complex civilizations arising from relatively simple human motives? Complex information-processing capabilities arising from relatively simple arrays of switches? How about the whole complex Universe arising from a handful of relatively simple physical laws?

Here’s what one of your broader-minded co-religionists had to say about that last example:

God has chosen the most perfect world, that is, the one that is at the same time the simplest in hypotheses and the richest in phenomena, as might be a line in geometry whose construction is easy and whose properties and effects are extremely remarkable and widespread.

Thus Gottfried Liebniz, Protestant theologian, philosopher, mathematician and scientist, in his Discourse on Metaphysics. As the co-inventor of the calculus, he was comfortably familiar with the concept of natural things ‘rising above their sources’.

reply to post by Uncle Gravity

---

I respectfully disagree. I am South Asian, and quite familiar with the teachings of most Asian faiths, particularly Buddhism and Hinduism. The similarities behind some ontological and cosmological models found in Hindu-Buddhist texts and some concepts in modern physics, first explored in the late Seventies by western authors like Fritjof Capra and Gary Zukav, do exist, though they are somewhat far-fetched and contrived.

It is only to be expected that such formal similarities between philosophical systems exist, since all ideas come from one source, the human brain – all examples of which receive data through the same sensory channels and operate in more or less the same way. Indeed, you can find the same ideas in Western philosophy – and even, warped but still recognizable, in the rhapsodies of mystics and the ravings of lunatics.

Science is precisely the attempt to cut through all this in-the-head stuff and learn directly from nature. The project is philosophically questionable (as all things are), but in practical terms it has been a stellar success. To learn how the world works, and just who and what we are, science, not ancient works of speculative fiction and modern exegeses thereof, is our best bet. The Vedas belong on the same trash-heap as the Bible.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

---

There isn't a single similarity between Big Bang cosmology and the Genesis account other than "There was a (sort of) beginning". Nowhere in Genesis does it say that the universe is expanding, that it arose billions of years before the Earth, etc.

And I do know who first proposed the idea of the Big Bang, I actually bothered to pay attention in science classes.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

There isn't a single similarity between Big Bang cosmology and the Genesis account other than "There was a (sort of) beginning". Nowhere in Genesis does it say that the universe is expanding, that it arose billions of years before the Earth, etc.

Well of course you don't see it. Your lack of creativity has been readily apparent for some time.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 2 - 3

Lemaitre - the Catholic priest who first proposed the hypothesis that you know about because you were "paying attention" -- called this the "hypothesis of the primeval atom" predicated on the notion that if we are living in an expanding universe, then this universe began with an infinite density, which can very easily be interpreted to be God, and at some point this infinite density exploded outwards - outwards of a void and darkness - causing a grand explosion - "Let there be light!"

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this connection, and in science if you lack the creativity you do, in all likelihood there is very little that you as a scientist will have to offer to the contribution of discovery for humanity.

You have asked what "creationists" have contributed to science, and I have answered, but so trapped are you in your own dogma, that just like any other zealot, instead of concede that it was a Catholic priest who first proposed the Big Bang Theory, a clear contribution to science, you stick your fingers in your ears and scream at the top of the lungs; "La la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la"

Originally posted by Astyanax

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.

Are you two serious? You're both wrong...

Theory -- a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena
dictionary.reference.com...

Intelligent design and evolution fit this definition.

Theory -- a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact
dictionary.reference.com...

You could argue that both intelligent design and evolution both fit this definition too. Most people however, consider evolution to be a matter of fact and therefore no longer a theory by this definition.

Get your bloody act together. If you're going to have a reasoned argument you have to at least know what the words you argue about mean.

reply to post by Pimander

---

Please learn the difference between the layman's definition of the word theory and the scientific definition of the word theory. Claiming that evolution is conjecture only serves to highlight your ignorance of basic science, let alone evolution.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Pimander

---

Please learn the difference between the layman's definition of the word theory and the scientific definition of the word theory. Claiming that evolution is conjecture only serves to highlight your ignorance of basic science, let alone evolution.

I am a research scientist.

Perhaps you should read that again? I said you "could argue" that either fit that definition. I didn't claim either evolution or intelligent design were conjecture.

For the record, I think it is a certainty that evolution by natural selection is a reality. However, that does not mean that some intelligent design is not possible. The "theories" are not mutually exclusive.

If there is intelligent design by some creator it must be subtle, at least on the surface, otherwise it would be easily detectable and it isn't. Bear in mind that small changes on the sub atomic level could have massive effects at say the chemical and cellular level.

Another thing to bear in mind is this. If you believe humans have free will (debatable of course) and they are intelligent (also debatable in many cases) then human design must be intelligent design. If we build a dam, create a new strain of plant or insert new genes into an organism (as I have) then that is surely intelligent design and Creative (with a capital 'c'.) I know this is borderline philosophy/metaphysics but interesting still.

Of course, I completely agree that Churchianity is BS. Fairy tales to control the Sheeple.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

---

...you've clearly never read Genesis nor have you bothered to read the OP. I didn't ask what creationists have contributed to science, that would be an inane and stupid question because you could just spew out Newtonian mechanics. I asked very simple questions about creationism and intelligent design as a scientific field, not as personal beliefs. Considering that the prevailing mode of thought for most of human history was some form of creationism, you could have easily just said "The shadoof" as an answer to your distortion of my OP.

Of course, you're rather happy to simply attack my lack of creativity, which hurts me as an artist more than anything else. I guess I'm not creative enough to not bother reading thread titles or OPs and then make up answers to questions that weren't asked...oh, wait, that's dishonesty, not creativity.

As for the Big Bang..."Let there be light" occurs in the third verse of Genesis. The first act of creation is the creation of the 'heaven' and the physical Earth, not that of light. And in Genesis 1:1-2 we see:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Of course, in Genesis 1:3 God lets light be...

So the Earth exists prior to the passage you quoted. Nice to know.

Now, instead of attempting to insult me try answering the questions I actually asked or at least try to come up with better answers to the ones I'm not answering. Isaac Newton is the prevailing creationist who contributed something to science.

Now, to repeat the questions I asked in my OP:

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?

Nowhere in there did I mention specific creationists or the contributions of science by individuals who happen to be creationists. I'm asking what creationism/intelligent design as a scientific idea has contributed.

Sorry to be repetitive, but exposing people who are being deceptive and dishonest is fun.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

...you've clearly never read Genesis nor have you bothered to read the OP. I didn't ask what creationists have contributed to science, that would be an inane and stupid question because you could just spew out Newtonian mechanics. I asked very simple questions about creationism and intelligent design as a scientific field, not as personal beliefs.

It's bad enough when Bible thumping religious zealots claim I have never read Genesis when I clearly have, but it beyond absurd when atheists start thumping the Bible.

Your disingenuous equivocations do not change the fact that Monsignor Lemaitre is no doubt a "creationist" who has used his background in physics in an attempt to align the two disciplines. The result was the Big Bang Theory and your equivocations now claiming I haven't read your O.P. are nothing more than backpedaling. Lemaitre did not propose his hypothesis to challenge Genesis, but rather to support it in a scientific manner. I stand by my assertions of your lack of creativity. You're a dogmatist through and through.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
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.

Sure let's replace one belief system with another one that's unproven..

Evolution is just as much up for debate as intelligent design!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

---

Alright, so you're going to continually ignore what I said and merely accuse me of equivocation without proving that I equivocated? Very typical.

And yes, you clearly didn't read the first verse of the Bible if you claim that 'let there be light' is somehow the initial creation even when the initial creation event is clearly in Genesis 1:1 rather than 1:3.

The good Monsignor arrived at his conclusions based in natural science. You've not shown how he arrived at it through the idea that a supreme being created the universe. Sure, he may have been a creationist, but you've yet to show how his creationism influenced his work.

You're essentially providing the same sort of argument as those who say that Newton derived F=ma from his belief in God.

Even if he was attempting to reconcile the ideas of creation with the natural world, he came to his conclusions via his observation of the natural world. He didn't look at the idea of a creator being and then derive the idea of an expanding universe from there.

reply to post by libertytoall

---

No, it really isn't. Evolution is proven, concrete, scientific fact. It's been observed, it's been tested, it has made verified predictions. All that's up to debate is how it specifically operates.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

And yes, you clearly didn't read the first verse of the Bible if you claim that 'let there be light' is somehow the initial creation even when the initial creation event is clearly in Genesis 1:1 rather than 1:3.

This is a fine example of your equivocation. I actually cited 1:2, and 1:3, but that is just a technical point, the equivocation on your part is pretending that because I chose to skip 1:1 and rely on verses 2 and 3 that this somehow indicates I never read Genesis, and more to the point, ignores the fact that I quoted what I did to show the similarity between it and the explanations of how a Big Bang worked.

The good Monsignor arrived at his conclusions based in natural science. You've not shown how he arrived at it through the idea that a supreme being created the universe. Sure, he may have been a creationist, but you've yet to show how his creationism influenced his work.

The good Monsignor was all ready advocating his hypothesis in physics before he was even ordained. If you seriously think that the Catholic Church ordained a priest who was rejecting their dogma in favor of your interpretations you are seriously bent. The Church was obviously pleased with Lemaitre's work. It took the Church 500 years to vindicate Galileo, don't imagine for a single second that they would tolerate a renegade priest disproving Genesis, let alone ordain that priest when it was clear he was headed down the road he was.

You're essentially providing the same sort of argument as those who say that Newton derived F=ma from his belief in God.

No, I am not, and if I thought that Newton served as a good example of a creationist that contributed something to science, I would have used him as an example. This is just more equivocation on your part.

Even if he was attempting to reconcile the ideas of creation with the natural world, he came to his conclusions via his observation of the natural world. He didn't look at the idea of a creator being and then derive the idea of an expanding universe from there.

Oh yes, he did look at the idea of a Creator, but he also relied heavily upon Einsteins theories. Here again is a fine example of your equivocations. Even if he was...? Why would a physicist want to be ordained a priest if he didn't accept the idea of a Creator? This is a fine example of your fundamental lack of creativity, and more importantly your woefully lack of critical thinking skills. Just being an atheist doesn't automatically make you a critical thinker. Such a skill requires actual work and discipline, not just flatulence.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by libertytoall

---

No, it really isn't. Evolution is proven, concrete, scientific fact. It's been observed, it's been tested, it has made verified predictions. All that's up to debate is how it specifically operates.

It isn't that cut and dry mate...

A key part of the modern theory of evolution is that speciation occurs. Give me one example of speciation being observed in an animal other than an insect that wasn't caused by humans (there are fewer than you might imagine).

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

---

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

I'm not being ambiguous here, I'm being quite straight forward. I set up a set of guidelines that would answer the question of how creationism (or for that matter, any scientific idea) contributed to science, you didn't provide an answer to those questions.

I'm merely highlighting that you're glossing over the part where the world is created before "let there be light". Since you decided to be personally offensive, I decided to not pull any linguistic punches. If you're skipping the first line of the Bible, it might be indicative of an unfamiliarity with the text. Technically, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in claiming your ignorance rather than in calling you a liar.

Now, I'm just going to wholeheartedly accuse you of being deceitful. Once more, where did I ask for the contributions of a creationist? I asked for the contributions of the (supposedly) scientific idea of creationism, not the contributions of someone who happened to be a creationist.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by libertytoall

---

No, it really isn't. Evolution is proven, concrete, scientific fact. It's been observed, it's been tested, it has made verified predictions. All that's up to debate is how it specifically operates.

You see this is where all the self proclaimed intelligent people need to learn the difference between macroevolution and microevolution. Microeveolution HAS been studied and has a basis to call science. Macroevolution however, HAS NEVER been proven beyond some religious fantasy following that humans originally came from fish that crawled out onto land and grew feet.. That part of evolution is SO FAR from being proven it's not even funny. That's why it's called the "theory" of evolution rather then the facts on evolution.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

I'm not being ambiguous...

If you are implying that equivocation means ambiguous, this is just more equivocation...and ironically, yes you were being ambiguous, at least with your opening remark in this last post since you conspicuously avoided naming which word you imply I do not understand. Equivocation means evasiveness. Using language that is not technically false, but clearly an avoidance of the truth. Ambiguity on the other hand, is an expression that cannot be determined from its context. Of course, since you were most assuredly being ambiguous with your opening statement, I suppose now you can reply with more equivocations, or just flat out lie, depending upon what the truth actually is, and claim it was not the word equivocation you were referring to.

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 have used your guidelines and presented The Big Bang Theory as "applicable knowledge", however I admittedly did not explain the applicable applications, but in fairness to me, you don't seem to be taking to me to task for that and claim that Lemaitre doesn't fit your guidelines. You are no better than marketers who create advertising offering a contest prize if the answer is answered correctly and then refuse to pay out because they get to decide what their guidelines actually mean, and will only clarify after the fact, not beforehand. In other words, you're a cheat and liar!

I'm merely highlighting that you're glossing over the part where the world is created before "let there be light".

Oh for crying out loud! It is astounding how much you sound like those idiot Bible thumper's. Genesis is a creation myth, and I am not going to entertain any assertions that it must be treated as an historical account, or a scientific hypothesis. It is mythology, and imposing historical or scientific accuracy upon mythology is absurd.

Since you decided to be personally offensive, I decided to not pull any linguistic punches. If you're skipping the first line of the Bible, it might be indicative of an unfamiliarity with the text. Technically, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in claiming your ignorance rather than in calling you a liar.

You may as well call me a liar, because I am certainly calling you one. Your insistence on using deceit in order to insist that Lamaitre is not an example of a creationist, clearly influenced by Genesis, that also used physics to advocate a hypothesis that became The Big Bang Theory is unacceptable.

Now, I'm just going to wholeheartedly accuse you of being deceitful. Once more, where did I ask for the contributions of a creationist? I asked for the contributions of the (supposedly) scientific idea of creationism, not the contributions of someone who happened to be a creationist.

Uh-huh. It is common phenomenon that people will accuse others of their own crimes. I quoted your "guidelines" above, no allow me to quote your O.P. in it's entirety:

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.

Your O.P. does not say what you are now saying it says.

How Are Plants Aware of the World Around Them?
  Posted 3 days ago with 5 member flags

The Genesis Code
  Posted 10 days ago with 4 member flags

Explain Diversity Reloaded
  Posted 11 days ago with 3 member flags

Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge
  Posted 6 days ago with 3 member flags

The carrot (chicken or egg , vegetable version)
  Posted 5 days ago with 3 member flags

A theory of proof of a God
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags

Eden: The Double Sided Coin
  Posted 5 days ago with 2 member flags

We are all connected with nature and The Universe IMO
  Posted 5 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: