Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jul 2002 19:30:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4343 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler 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 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.
> > 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.
That's completely wrong. Plenty of scientific thought is based on recordings
of past events -- fossils, landform data, strata, human accounts, etc.
> 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.
Do you mean the scientific method?
> 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.
Experimental treatment is not at all a requisite for investigation to be
scientific. It's often the most interesting, but not needed.
Maybe you should review
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html for an
example of what I think science is. This is pretty well agreed upon, but I
would break the steps (here listed as four) out more -- at least to emphasize
the sharing and replication of results. No matter what else you do, if you
don't share the results it isn't science.
> 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.
That's just not so. In once case, the progenitor organism is very much like,
but not identical to, the new organism. In the other case, the progenitor
organism is very much like, but not identical to, the new organism. In the
case of speciation, the "new" organism is usually unable to breed with the old
one. And, correct me if I'm wrong, that's all.
> Time frame, I agree, is irrelevant--50 years or 50000
Agree with whom?
> years, we're still going to lose our wisdom teeth due to the environment
> that we happen to be in
The dentist's office? :-)
> --does not make us less human than we were 50000 years ago.
You could say, more human actually. Homo sapiens sapiens arose about 120,000
years ago, but we have changed substantially during that time. But over about
500,000 years ago "we" were not human.
I like the pictures at http://library.thinkquest.org/26070/data/eng/ if
anyone's interested.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) "Oxymoron" may have been a cruel overstatement, but I stand by my assertion that there is nothing scientific about Creationism. However, in another post, I recognized the error of my absolutist stance and acknowledge that it's fair to call (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) You are wrong, and I will correct you. According to scientists (including non-Creationist), the definitions are these: Microevolution: The theory that natural selection, over time, take an organism and transform it into a more specialized (...) (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
|
|
|
|
