Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Jul 2002 04:47:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5382 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > Science in general has nothing to say about faith based beliefs other than
> > "they are outside the purview of science". You can't use science to prove or
> > disprove them.
>
> > Teaching creation "alongside evolution" is wrong because they talk to
> > different things.
>
> That may be true, but I wonder: When evolution is taught in schools, is it
> preceded by the topic "origin of the universe"? That seems logical to me, and
> I'd be willing to bet that Big Bang garners all of the press (to the exclusion
> of mentioning a Creator as a "theory"), but I'm guessing. I wonder what an
> atheist would have to say about such an inclusion as that?
A creator is not a theory. It fails the falsifyability test. You seem not to
understand this...
> > Discussing the origin of the universe and the origins of life properly
> > belong in a theology or philosophy class...
>
> To clarify: are you saying that the origin of the universe and the origin of
> life are topics about which science cannot speak ie "outside the purview of
> science"?
The evidence indicates support for the Big Bang (I think that's a misnomer
in modern terminology, but OK...) and as Dave! is relating quite well, that
particular theory has great predictive powers, is falsifyable, and is doing
well in the marketplace of ideas.
Science at this time has nothing useful to say about what came before the
Big Bang, or what is outside the universe, or why the Big Bang happened. A
prime mover could, or could not be involved, that theory is mute on that
point. (and coincidentally, the point is moot.)
So, depending on how you define "origins", yes or no.
The evidence is quite definitive that at some point in the earth's history,
there was no life on earth. At some later point, there was. It is unclear at
this point when and where (or if) life elsewhere arose (has arisen?), and if
so whether it came earlier, and if so, if it propagated here from elsewhere
, or it arose independently on earth or what.
But the original process by which life arose is not yet known. If anything
it is less well understood than the events around the Big Bang. It could
admit of a prime mover, or not. It could admit of a creator who set up the
rules, or not. Not a relevant question in the framework of science.
There are theories about how life could have been started. They are
falsifyable. Some have already been falsified. These theories say nothing
about whether the process itself was creator instigated (by setting up the
rules, by tossing lightning bolts till things started, whatever), or not.
So, depending on how you define "origins", yes or no.
Science deals with reality, with what is testable, with what is falsifyable.
Creators are not falsifyable. Therefore it takes no position on them.
(It so happens *I* take a position on them as implausible, but that is not
relevant to this discussion)
To your question about presentation of the creation myth alongside the Big
Bang as equally valid and equally useful theories...
I have no problem with this material being presented in the following
fashion in science class:
"here are the facts and observations, here is the best theoretical
explanation we have, note that why it happened this way is not a topic for
science. Accept it as a mystery or believe in a creation myth if you so
choose, decide for yourself. But realise that this theory IS the most
accepted at this time, has been developed with the scientific method,
explains the facts we have available to us better than any other, and makes
predictions about events better than any other. The question of why is
properly a philosophical or religious one and will not be dealt with here"
What I would have a problem with is something being presented like this:
"The big bang is one theory. Another equally valid theory is the Genesis
creation myth. Even though one theory is falsifyable and predicts things
well, and the other one has no predictive power and is not falsifyable, they
are both scientific and you should give them equal weight"
That's what the creationists want (check with various state legislature
transcripts if you doubt me).
Poppycock.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) That may be true, but I wonder: When evolution is taught in schools, is it preceded by the topic "origin of the universe"? That seems logical to me, and I'd be willing to bet that Big Bang garners all of the press (to the exclusion of (...) (22 years ago, 12-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
|
|
|
|
