Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jul 2002 19:43:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4873 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
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).
> *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."
This is totally different. Any "evidence" that supports evolution could be
used to prove S.C.
> > > 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.
Explain to me how what I said is not scientific.
<snip>
> 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.
Read Earth in the Beginning. (FYI, Eric Skousen is not a chemical engineer,
he has a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering science. He works in the fields of
fluid dynamics, energy systems, and space physics).
> > 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."
I don't believe he's all around us; that is illogical, to me. I beleive, as
do all members of my religion, that He has an immortal body, and that he has
many powers, some of which are uncomprehensible to man. You appear to
believe that the human mind can comprehend everything, or it does not exist.
> Evolution has been empirically demonstrated in the
> laboratory.
Again, microevolution. Macroevolution is diffenrent.
Curt
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) Evolution makes many claims that can be tested. One deals with the order in which fossil records are deposited in strata, and in this respect is has proven correct again and again. Another is in the types of transitional fossils that will (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (23 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
|
|
|
|
