Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jul 2002 18:25:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4356 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> 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.
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 can be verified empircally, and it makes no
predictions about future discoveries. *That* is why "Scientific
Creationism" is an oxymoron.
I grant you, adherents to that faith can call it what they choose, but it
is the height of intellectual dishonesty to name something with the express
purpose of misrepresenting it as something it is not. In addition, the
primary reason (for all practical purposes) to call it "scientific" is so
that its adherents can sound more reasonable when they claim that it should
be taught in public schools as science. If they called it what it
is--"Faith Based Creationism lacking empirical evidence" no one would think
twice about rejecting it from science curricula.
If you saw "vegetarian steak" offered on a menu, would you agree that
misrepresentation was at work if the steak in question was 100% beef? The
same with "Scientific Creationism."
> > 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
I should also clarify, in the interest of honesty, that Creationism is
indeed a theory, but it's not a scientific one, whereas evolution and
gravity are.
> 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'.
Of course dogmatism is foolish, and that's why science, to its credit, is
fundamentally fluid so that it can change to match changing understanding.
Science isn't a belief system; it's a method of explanation that needs
constantly to be updated as our knowledge increases.
> 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.
As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem with anyone holding a different
belief system from mine--more power to them, I say! The implication of your
statement suggests that I have somehow dug in my heels and refused to accept
any alternatives, and that's manifestly not the case. If someone presents a
theory to me that is more compelling and offers a better (ie, more complete
and more consistent with observation) explanation than the evolutionary
model, I'd be thrilled to hear it! I have heard no such theory.
> 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.
Evolution has been demonstrated trillions of times, and is going on all
around us at all times. That's not the same as saying "God's all around us
but we don't see him." Evolution has been empirically demonstrated in the
laboratory.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) The same could be said about evolution. You can't prove macroeveolution in a lab, it makes no claims that can be tested, it uses no evidence that cannot be used for the S.C. theory (the type I believe in anyway). (...) This is totally (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
