Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jul 2002 17:23:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4777 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Curt Tigges writes:
>
> First of all, "Scientific Creationism" is an oxymoron, so let's dispense
> with that term and stick with Creationism.
Just like military intelligence or whatever... There are scientists who are
Christian, and they came up with a theory and they called it Scientific
Creationism, in which they try to merge the Biblical stories of creatin with
scientific principles and ideas, and they did a pretty good job, for the
most bit--so, like my badly used 'bigoted' word, saying Scientific
Creationism is an oxymoron is not contributing to a healthy discussion, S.C.
has just as much right to be at the table of this discussion as Evolution
and pure Creationism. I'll try to be the first to do away from nadjectives
(negative adjectives!) used against the ideas I do not concur with.
>
> > The hypothesis of evolution (yes, it is still a hypothesis, according to the
> > scientific method)
>
> Actually, it's a *theory,* just as the theory of gravitation, the theory
> of relativity, the theory of sexual reproduction, and the theory of
> continental drift.
/concur Evolution and Creationism are theories
> > is full of holes and does not make much sense.
>
> In fact, given the current state of understanding, it is the only theory
> that makes real sense, and all of modern biology is based upon it.
No, the current state of understanding in modern biology, like physics and
chemistry, has nothing to do with what happened 5000 (or a million) + years
ago. They have something to do with the Scientific Principle--which I
ferget right now (second thing that goes is the memory...) but doing and
observing have something to do with it. As such, the scientific principle
cannot be applied to *anything* that predates scientific exploration. I can
observe that mold grows on bread, and that some mold can be beneficial
against infections (a la pennicillin) because I can do 'xperiments and
observe results. *That* is the basis of Science.
If the world started last week, the scientific principle would still
work--Oh look, if I put a match in an atmosphere full of oxygen, it burns
brighter--and we would gather just as much information than if the world
started billions of years ago.
It is my personal observation that fundamentalists on any side of any
situation prevent true understanding--one just has to look to the 'dark
ages' to see that strict and improper adherence to Gods Word can lead to
atrocities, as well as the atrocities committed in 'modernity', where
science 'could do no wrong'.
The ability to open oneself to the idea of new and different possibilities
is what causes growth and change. Thinking outside your particular POV and
considering another side does not necessitate 'changing teams' but it does
give one a healthier and better understanding of the bigger picture.
>
> > While minor evolution--i forget the official term--development within a
> > species' genetic code, for example, dogs, has been proved to be possible,
> > major evolution into an entirely different species has not been proven to be
> > possible.
>
> There really isn't much distinction between so-called "microevolution" and
> so-called "macroevolution, other than the time frame, and even that's not
> all that significant.
Its totally different--is night and day different--one the species remains
the same species--not like the other one which a species changes into
another species. Time frame, I agree, is irrelevant--50 years or 50000
years, we're still going to lose our wisdom teeth due to the environment
that we happen to be in--does not make us less human than we were 50000
years ago.
> Not even gravity has been "proven" in the absolute way that Creationists
> demand evolution to be "proven, but for very strong evidence (which is all
> we can ask of any theory, really), see:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I'll look into that right after this post, but I do not need evolution
'proven'. The issue with *some* Creationists is that they believe that the
inspired word of God *has* to be taken literally at all times. Well, if so,
I want my 10 wives and a bunch of concubines, kplsthx! I wanna be able to
sell my daughter into slavery to pay off my debts, and, for the love of
everything that's holy, no one can wear purple!! (don't ask me for exact
passages but they be there...)
> By the way, it would be worth your while to examine as much of the
> TalkOrigins site as possible, if you're really interested in reading about
> the subject.
>
> > I agree, although more has been revealed than you think.
>
> Oh, that. Personal revelation is worthless in furthering overall
> knowledge, since by its essential nature revelation of this sort cannot be
> confirmed or tested. Further, if the question is "does the Revealer exist,"
> then I can't accept your personal testimony (or anyone else's, except the
> Revealer's) as proof of that existence.
Forgetting the philosophy behind "are we real?" and what is real, when I do
something and it can be proven time and time again--sure it's the theory of
gravity, but I'm still letting go of the hammer and, wherever I am on this
planet, it's more than likely going to fall--can be observed to do so...
Scientific Principle wins out again.
>
> > (1) This is explained by LDS scholar Eric Skousen, in his book Earth in the
> > Beginning.
>
> Well, Skousen is a chemical physicist, so his expertise does not
> necessarily relate to cosmology. That's not an attempt to dismiss him out
> of turn--if his theories are good, they're good regardless of the author's
> qualifications. But I certainly won't accept his word simply because he
> said so (any more than I would accept Gould's or Einstein's or Dawkins' or
> Hawking's simply because one of them said so.)
>
> Dave!
Once again showing that there are well-learned folks in this discussion!
Sometimes I wish I had more time for reading--but wait--I think West Wing's
on, or a computer game is calling my name, or mayhaps is my LEGO
collection--be right back....
Dave
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) Please don't misunderstand me--I reject "Scientific Creationism" as a term because there is nothing at all scientific about it. It makes no claims that can be tested, it calls for no experiments that can be repeated, it uses no evidence that (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) What's the difference between "pure Creationism" and "Scientific Creationism?" Both are based on anti-logic, and both are necessarily rooted in theistic dogma. If you want to produce a totally non- sectarian vision of spontaneous generation ex (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) I agree, and hope that Dave(!) will reconsider. Since it is a name of a belief/theory, and the name is reasonably illustrative of what the theorists are thinking about, I think the name is fit. (...) That's completely wrong. Plenty of (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Curt Tigges writes: First of all, "Scientific Creationism" is an oxymoron, so let's dispense with that term and stick with Creationism. (...) Actually, it's a *theory,* just as the theory of gravitation, the theory of (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
