Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

soren7550:

truckspond:
There isn't really that much to say about this except...

Ninja'd. However, it took until the second page for this to be posted. Getting a little slow on the draw there, Escapist...

And the reason for that is that I got a "Low Content" warning for that. Obviously the moderators here do not like it when people use videos with more content than words can deliver in their posts

Plasmadamage:

Sofus:
I believe that the universe exists within the belly of a giant odder and that the universe expands because the odder is eating alot of muffins.

Oh really? Then who created this odder? Or the muffins?

Also, what's an odder?

It was simply a spelling error on my part.. I used the danish word instead of the english one. Odder = Otter

As with any good religion, I came upon the concept while I was sleep depraved and bored. Regarding your other (Otter? lol) questions... it's not that i'm utterly incapable of answering them without first ingesting large quanteties of LSD.. it's just that i'm not allowed to share that information with the non-believers :D

Ratty:

But it's an inevitable reaction none the less.

Socially? Maybe. In regards to personal intellectual development? Not at all.

Ratty:

is being used as a supposedly criticism-proof stick to beat down progress. Including social progress like equal rights for LGBTs. Of course many skeptics are going to get defensive and, after a while, outspoken.

Zealous religious beliefs have always been criticism proof. It's in their very nature. The reality is that homosexuality is abnormal in the most literal sense. That overwhelming majority of Earth's population is heterosexual, or at least "identifies" that way. In more cosmopolitan areas what individuals do in regards to their sex life is not viewed as important, but in all traditional communities is will be. However the traditional institution manifests itself is of course a variable. Sometimes it's the church, sometimes it's the government. That is an inevitability. Remove the church and something else will take its place.

Westaway:

Ratty:

But it's an inevitable reaction none the less.

Socially? Maybe. In regards to personal intellectual development? Not at all.

Ratty:

is being used as a supposedly criticism-proof stick to beat down progress. Including social progress like equal rights for LGBTs. Of course many skeptics are going to get defensive and, after a while, outspoken.

Zealous religious beliefs have always been criticism proof. It's in their very nature. The reality is that homosexuality is abnormal in the most literal sense. That overwhelming majority of Earth's population is heterosexual, or at least "identifies" that way. In more cosmopolitan areas what individuals do in regards to their sex life is not viewed as important, but in all traditional communities is will be. However the traditional institution manifests itself is of course a variable. Sometimes it's the church, sometimes it's the government. That is an inevitability. Remove the church and something else will take its place.

An overwhelming majority of Earth's population are insects. Therefore, Humans are abnormal.

How about right-handed? Dark-haired?

Neta:

An overwhelming majority of Earth's population are insects. Therefore, Humans are abnormal.

How about right-handed? Dark-haired?

I don't understand what idea you're trying to communicate there. "Population" was obviously referring to human population. The population of all living things on Earth is a completely false comparison. The other two things you listed are clearly things in the majority, so I'm not sure what point they could possibly be making.
I wasn't even making disparaging remarks about homosexuals.

Westaway:

Ratty:

But it's an inevitable reaction none the less.

Socially? Maybe. In regards to personal intellectual development? Not at all.

Humans are social animals, it is inevitable however you wish to qualify it.

Westaway:

Ratty:

is being used as a supposedly criticism-proof stick to beat down progress. Including social progress like equal rights for LGBTs. Of course many skeptics are going to get defensive and, after a while, outspoken.

Zealous religious beliefs have always been criticism proof. It's in their very nature. The reality is that homosexuality is abnormal in the most literal sense. That overwhelming majority of Earth's population is heterosexual, or at least "identifies" that way. In more cosmopolitan areas what individuals do in regards to their sex life is not viewed as important, but in all traditional communities is will be. However the traditional institution manifests itself is of course a variable. Sometimes it's the church, sometimes it's the government. That is an inevitability. Remove the church and something else will take its place.

If you're trying to say that LGBTs will be discriminated against in all smaller, traditional communities you're just wrong.

There have been cultures throughout human history that have accepted LGBTs to varying degrees. I recall reading the memoirs of an Anthropologist couple who stayed with an African tribe before Christian missionaries got there in (I think) the 1970s. Homosexuality (or at least homosexual sex among men) was seen as a normal part of every day life. Somewhat formalized with men tending to move from the "bottom" to the "top" as they got older. When the same anthropologists came back some years later, after missionaries had been there, the people they had known were ashamed of their former sexual way of life and never spoke of it.

Then of course there are the ancient Greeks, and the famous four genders of the Navajo. These are just examples off the top of my head, I'm sure someone who looked could come up with many more. The point is, discrimination against LGBTs is by no means a given for any society. It is usually the result of tradition which springs from some long forgotten crises, such as ancient Hebrews being afraid of underpopulation. And it would appear that the world is in no danger of being underpopulated right now.

Ratty:
Snip

Again, I am well aware that homosexuality has been "acceptable" in several societies throughout the world. I was speaking of traditional communities. As in, communities where homosexuality has always been taboo. These are the only communities where religion is being used as an excuse to persecute. If their religion somehow dissolved, they would find other reasons to persecute the homosexuals.

Westaway:

Neta:

An overwhelming majority of Earth's population are insects. Therefore, Humans are abnormal.

How about right-handed? Dark-haired?

I don't understand what idea you're trying to communicate there. "Population" was obviously referring to human population. The population of all living things on Earth is a completely false comparison. The other two things you listed are clearly things in the majority, so I'm not sure what point they could possibly be making.
I wasn't even making disparaging remarks about homosexuals.

By your logic left-handed people and blonds are "abnormal".

The thing about insects was supposed to be a joke, I forgot to add the smiley face at the end.

Westaway:

Ratty:
Snip

Again, I am well aware that homosexuality has been "acceptable" in several societies throughout the world. I was speaking of traditional communities. As in, communities where homosexuality has always been taboo. These are the only communities where religion is being used as an excuse to persecute. If their religion somehow dissolved, they would find other reasons to persecute the homosexuals.

So you mean traditional western European/United States Christian communities to be clear. Since there are many kinds of "traditional".

I'm not entirely convinced of that, because I don't see the benefit to most of these communities in continuing the bigotry. Unless it is community strength and togetherness through hate of the kind that you see in the KKK and Neo-Nazi communities. And I'm being serious.

Neta:

By your logic left-handed people and blonds are "abnormal".

Yes, exactly, they are. That's what I was saying. Homosexuals are an extreme minority and by that definition "abnormal".

Chessrook44:
See, I figured out a way, while watching, to give creationists some lip service.

"We don't know where life originated from. Perhaps some higher intelligence created it and put it on Earth, or perhaps it came from an asteroid from another world. We don't know."

Bam.

Doesn't make logical sense. Because the idea that "some higher intelligence created it and put it on Earth" means that we need to answer where that intelligence came from to truly know where life came from. Otherwise, we might as well ask the question "Where did we come from?" with "From our parents."

Ratty:

So you mean traditional western European/United States Christian communities to be clear. Since there are many kinds of "traditional".

No, don't burden the West with that accusation of being the only bigots. Whites are not the only anti-gay communities by a long shot.

Ratty:

I'm not entirely convinced of that, because I don't see the benefit to most of these communities in continuing the bigotry. Unless it is community strength and togetherness through hate of the kind that you see in the KKK and Neo-Nazi communities. And I'm being serious.

I never said it was beneficial that they maintain the discrimination. I was simply saying that the anti-homosexual sentiment is so engrained into the social psyche that even if their current excuse for the discrimination were to disappear ("Jesus hates gays") then another institution would replace the old one with the same ideas ("Supreme Leader hates gays")

Westaway:

Ratty:

So you mean traditional western European/United States Christian communities to be clear. Since there are many kinds of "traditional".

No, don't burden the West with that accusation of being the only bigots.

Never said they were, you're just being very vague in your posts so I am trying to pen down what you mean.

Westaway:
I never said it was beneficial that they maintain the discrimination. I was simply saying that the anti-homosexual sentiment is so engrained into the social psyche that even if their current excuse for the discrimination were to disappear ("Jesus hates gays") then another institution would replace the old one with the same ideas ("Supreme Leader hates gays")

And I disagree, Neta has reminded me of a comic strip which succenctly demonstrates why.
image
I'm a cultural materialist, from what I can see most if not all aspects of culture serve a material function (EVEN THOUGH that function may not be readily apparent without study) or they die out. It's just a matter of how many generations it takes them to die. Human society is, in a sense, just a coping mechanism against environmental pressures. Everything in a culture is an expression and extension of that mechanism, if a piece of the machine ceases to (serve a) function it will eventually be shaken and fall off.

You know what bugs me the most about this request? That creationist shows about the biblical origin story of the world usually don't include a mention of how the vast majority of scientist consider it evident that the biblical story is pure fiction.

Westaway:

Again, many of these claims are completely false. First off, the scientific method was created by theistic philosophers in ancient Greece. Secondly, the Christians and Muslims the two curators of literacy and culture after the fall of Rome.

No they aren't. Again, the fact that religious people created the scientific method and were responsible for literacy and culture does NOT prove that religion was necessary. All it proved is that everybody and his mother were religious back then and SOMEBODY had to do it, and religious people were the only ones available to actually do it. In fact, until the scientific method was created there wasn't anything but religion to explain anything. If religion never existed then those things would have happened anyway, they were an inevitability that would have happened regardless. These things would have happened even faster without religion as humanity would have been needed to explain the world around us and would have lacked made up stories to explain it all to hold them over.

Saying that religion held humanity back and squashed any attempt at "science" is false.

Oh? Then explain to me why any attempts to contradict religious doctrine were met with hostility if not deadly force throughout human history. Explain to me why there are people lobbying right now to get science out of the classroom and religion into it and there always have been. Explain to me why even the great thinkers had difficulty completing their great contributions due to their religious biases getting in the way. Explain to me how that and many more aren't evidence that religion has actively held humanity back.

I will not argue the merits of religion, but the fact remains that for the majority of the time leading up until the enlightenment people were not being "thrown in jail" for being "atheist".

Yes they were, and all it takes is a basic knowledge of history to prove that. Galileo was probably the most well known example of someone who was thrown in jail for saying that the earth revolved around the sun because it contradicted scripture and as a result it wasn't until decades after his death that this fact became widely known. Galileo just one of countless people who had that happen. One could not be openly atheist in those times without facing persecution, thus there were very few people who were brave enough to actually admit it and face punishment for it. It didn't happen a majority of the time because everybody was both indoctrinated to accept religious doctrine blindly from birth and too scared shitless of being punished for a long long time for it to be possible.

The idea that irreligious scientists are better than religious scientists again is laughable.

One can be religious and a scientist, however this requires one to be in massive denial of the truth and it colors any endeavor one makes to advance science. Being a religious scientist means one has bias that affects the hypotheses one makes, the tests to prove those hypotheses, and the conclusions one draws from those tests. Without religion a scientist has one less bias to get in the way of any advancements to science they make.

Religion and science are the antithesis of each other, you can't have more of one without having less of the other.

Queen Michael:

Chessrook44:
See, I figured out a way, while watching, to give creationists some lip service.

"We don't know where life originated from. Perhaps some higher intelligence created it and put it on Earth, or perhaps it came from an asteroid from another world. We don't know."

Bam.

Doesn't make logical sense. Because the idea that "some higher intelligence created it and put it on Earth" means that we need to answer where that intelligence came from to truly know where life came from. Otherwise, we might as well ask the question "Where did we come from?" with "From our parents."

Ah, but here's the beauty of it... "A higher intelligence" could mean EITHER Aliens (Which begs that question) OR God (Which does not, and satisfies some creationists. SOME.). And while yes, we don't know where they come from, knowing where WE come from is a start at least. Something to jump off from.

immortalfrieza:

No they aren't.

Yes, they were.

immortalfrieza:
Again, the fact that religious people created the scientific method and were responsible for literacy and culture does NOT prove that religion was necessary.

Correct, I never said it was necessary.

immortalfrieza:
All it proved is that everybody and his mother were religious back then and SOMEBODY had to do it,

No, they didn't. The barbarians really couldn't have been bothered about everything the Romans and Greeks wrote.

immortalfrieza:
and religious people were the only ones available to actually do it.

In Europe it was very specifically THE CHURCH that preserved the knowledge. In Arabia/Spain it's another matter.

immortalfrieza:
In fact, until the scientific method was created there wasn't anything but religion to explain anything. If religion never existed then those things would have happened anyway, they were an inevitability that would have happened regardless. These things would have happened even faster without religion as humanity would have been needed to explain the world around us and would have lacked made up stories to explain it all to hold them over.

Religion WAS their way of explaining it. Tribesmen don't see leaves turning red in the fall and decide to do several experiments on them.

immortalfrieza:
Oh? Then explain to me why any attempts to contradict religious doctrine were met with hostility if not deadly force throughout human history. Explain to me why there are people lobbying right now to get science out of the classroom and religion into it and there always have been.

Because zealots have always existed and whatever lobbying they do to keep science away from their students in the Southern United States will have no impact whatsoever on the greater scientific community.

immortalfrieza:
Explain to me why even the great thinkers had difficulty completing their great contributions due to their religious biases getting in the way. Explain to me how that and many more aren't evidence that religion has actively held humanity back.

I'd love some citations on this claim in particular.

immortalfrieza:
Yes they were, and all it takes is a basic knowledge of history to prove that. Galileo was probably the most well known example of someone who was thrown in jail for saying that the earth revolved around the sun because it contradicted scripture and as a result it wasn't until decades after his death that this fact became widely known. Galileo just one of countless people who had that happen. One could not be openly atheist in those times without facing persecution, thus there were very few people who were brave enough to actually admit it and face punishment for it. It didn't happen a majority of the time because everybody was both indoctrinated to accept religious doctrine blindly from birth and too scared shitless of being punished for a long long time for it to be possible.

You seriously need to brush up on your history. Galileo's imprisonment was FAR more complex than simply "He disagrees with us!"
I'll start you off though by pointing out the Copernicus had already made heliocentrism fairly well known, that Galileo was funded by the church (and Medici's) and that geocentrism was actually most widely accepted because of Aristotle, not the Bible.

immortalfrieza:
One can be religious and a scientist, however this requires one to be in massive denial of the truth

Wrong.

immortalfrieza:
and it colors any endeavor one makes to advance science. Being a religious scientist means one has bias that affects the hypotheses one makes, the tests to prove those hypotheses, and the conclusions one draws from those tests. Without religion a scientist has one less bias to get in the way of any advancements to science they make.

Incontestably false. My father is the head of a genetic research institute and at least half of his scientists are religious. I personally know one Muslim, one Baptist and two Buddhists that work for him. He has never in his entire career enccountered a religious scientist who's religious views have in anyway affected their work.

immortalfrieza:
Religion and science are the antithesis of each other, you can't have more of one without having less of the other.

You can have faith in one aspect of life and look to science for other's. In many ways they may contradict, but in reality they are not mutually exclusive.

Even all this is reliant on the idea that somehow science is "the one truth!" that will lead humanity to its perfect irreligious utopia. It won't.

Westaway:

immortalfrieza:
Explain to me why even the great thinkers had difficulty completing their great contributions due to their religious biases getting in the way. Explain to me how that and many more aren't evidence that religion has actively held humanity back.

I'd love some citations on this claim in particular.

I find it amusing you request citations when a previous claim by yourself, that theistic philosophy in greece created the scientific model is complete fiction. So do you have any sources to back that up?

All of this anti-religious talk is disgusting and hypocritical.
I mean, for pete's sake, to believe that the world is nothing but the creation of random accident is itself a faith statement in naturalism.

Westaway:
In Europe it was very specifically THE CHURCH that preserved the knowledge. In Arabia/Spain it's another matter.

In europe we had a thousand years of what is called the dark ages because nothing was being written. No new knowledge was gained(baring in a few trade skills being passed down from master to apprentice), and much old knowledge was lost.

The darkness of the dark age was literally the church stopping publication of anything that wasn't bibles.

We regained some of the works from the old great thinkers of greece and rome because it was preserved by the muslims, and some of this being left behind in al-andalus(spain) when the Ottomans were driven out. This refinding of knowledge brought about the renaissance and the age of enlightenment, where people moved away from faith and more towards reason. It was in the islamic world that had been preserving knowledge and making advances up to this point, much of that because they welcomed everyone, including "doubters", as fine a name for atheists as any. (this before islam turned anti-science not much later).

So to say that the church was the preserver of knowledge is historical revisionism at its very worst!

Grey_Wolf_Leader:
All of this anti-religious talk is disgusting and hypocritical.
I mean, for pete's sake, to believe that the world is nothing but the creation of random accident is itself a faith statement in naturalism.

May I ask what is hypocritical about accepting that the universe exists and there is nothing supernatural about it?

Cute, but I don't wan't to hear any "the earth is 6 thousand years old" bullshit.

Rhykker:
Given evolution is not "just a theory," but rather one of the most reliably established facts in science and the foundation of modern biology, it is not exactly surprising that a science series would not present special creation as an alternative.

Technically evolution is a theory, just like creationism. HOWEVER, unlike creationism, there's a stupid amount of substantial evidence suggesting that evolution is a thing and has always been a thing. So-called, "Creationist Scientists," follow the words of some random books where as scientists follow the observations of their eyes.

EDIT: YES YES YES, I know there's a difference between scientific theory and common theory. Yes, I'm a terrible person for not acknowledging the difference. Yes, Creationism is a host of defecation that has no scientific standing. However, evolution is more of a scientific theory than a scientific law, which Rhykker tried to say otherwise.

Grey_Wolf_Leader:
All of this anti-religious talk is disgusting and hypocritical.
I mean, for pete's sake, to believe that the world is nothing but the creation of random accident is itself a faith statement in naturalism.

The scientific evidence doesn't point toward the idea that the world is the result of random events. Rather it suggests that matter follows consistent natural laws which are observable and testable. Based on the evidence we currently have, we can say that apparently the earth is the result of billions of years of gravity working on matter. Life is a result of chemical reactions, and life on earth as we know it today is the result of environmental pressures selecting better adapted (and therefore gradually more complex) specimens to survive and reproduce over millions and millions of years.

All according to consistent natural laws. Some things we think we know we will find out we were wrong about, and we'll discover new questions with our new answers. Scientific pursuit is the endless quest for knowledge of the natural world, always seeking to inch our understanding closer to an accurate and complete picture of the universe.

V8 Ninja:

Rhykker:
Given evolution is not "just a theory," but rather one of the most reliably established facts in science and the foundation of modern biology, it is not exactly surprising that a science series would not present special creation as an alternative.

Technically evolution is a theory, just like creationism. HOWEVER, unlike creationism, there's a stupid amount of substantial evidence suggesting that evolution is a thing and has always been a thing. So-called, "Creationist Scientists," follow the words of some random books where as scientists follow the observations of their eyes.

I agree, though it's important to remember that creationism is not a theory in the scientific sense. The common usage of the word theory and what it means specifically in scientific discourse are different. An explanation has to be rigorously tested before it can really be called a theory in science. Whereas the common usage of "theory" as just "some possible explanation I've thought of" is closer to a hypothesis in science. Though even then a scientific hypothesis needs to be testable, and something like "it was done by magic/God" obviously isn't.

*sighs* Not trying to disabuse religion, just things that try to sell themselves as fact despite not being so.

Creationism as it currently stands is wrong, there is no proof to back it up and a lot of proof to disprove various points it makes. If creationism were "God created all this stuff, including evolution and whatnot... maybe he did it on purpose so we were self perpetuating and rather then god having to directly intervene, humanity could rely more on faith in god's existence." there would probably be a shite load less arguing. But as most creationism and religion relies on things that fly in the face of something that in tangibly provable, they're gonna get shouted down.

It's really as simple as that.

Grey_Wolf_Leader:
All of this anti-religious talk is disgusting and hypocritical.
I mean, for pete's sake, to believe that the world is nothing but the creation of random accident is itself a faith statement in naturalism.

It's not anti-religious to expect a science show to stick with actual science.

There is no "debate amongst scientists".

There is debate between scientists, and people who wield scientific degrees for the purposes of teaching church doctrine.

Just like how you don't confuse a professional veteran football player with someone who played college ball and then never touched the sport again, you don't confuse a scientist with a clergyman in a lab coat.

Grey_Wolf_Leader:
I mean, for pete's sake, to believe that the world is nothing but the creation of random accident is itself a faith statement in naturalism.

Except that the Big Bang Theory has actual evidence lending itself to being real, and creationism does not.

It is only referred to as a "theory" because it is virtually impossible to prove such a thing conclusively since we weren't there when it happened. But its effects and the evidence it left behind are all clearly measurable and lend credence to the idea. Sort of like how gravity is a "theory" but no one would argue that it isn't present or that its effects aren't clearly measurable and detectable. Scientific definitions of the word "theory" do not match ordinary definitions of "theory".

V8 Ninja:
Technically evolution is a theory, just like creationism.

Oh HELL NO. That statement is wronger than wrong

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!

On the other hand, creationism is emphatically NOT a theory. It's not even a hypothesis(falsifiability is a requirement). Where it's testable it's wrong, where it's not it's unfalsifiable.

Creationism relies on FALLACY at its very core.

Rhykker:

...
I'm not one to refute religious beliefs, but just as much as I would never expect a Church to teach evolution...

Like the Catholic church do, for example?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Catholic_teaching_and_evolution

The doctrine of the Catholic faith is badly out of sync with what can be considered modern ethics and good morals, but it isn't out of sync with science (in this issue) at least.

V8 Ninja:
Technically evolution is a theory, just like creationism.

Hold your horses there partner, first we need to look up what the word Theory actually means. Most people seems to think that Theory means hypothesis. This is incorrect. Theory means "current best possible explanation". In science, a Theory starts as a hypothesis which you then try to prove and disprove by various means such as empirical study, observation etc.
Only when the hypothesis can't be disproved, does it get labelled a Theory.
From a scientific standpoint, Creationism, or intelligent design is barely even a hypothesis, i.e. an "idea based on observation".

Ref:
The word Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
The word Hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
Scientific Method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Edit: I suppose my little post is the TLDR version of Cerebrawls more in-depth rebuttal above.

For those who can't be bothered to read all that above.

JarinArenos:

hermes200:
A creationist scientist is simply someone that does not adhere to the theory of evolution, but either works on other branches of science or adheres to any version of creationism in regards to the origin of life. Not that weird at all, considering there are many scientists that don't agree with the Big Bang theory or Strings theory, without being considered pariahs.

Moving the goalposts a bit here. There's a huge gulf between "thinks there's some issues with current scientific models" and "thinks 'God' created everything"... and then another huge step between that and "believes, in the face of all evidence, that the earth is 6k-10k years old". (the last being what these "creation scientists" claim)
The first is perfectly acceptable. It's even laudable, as it should encourage further testing and experimentation to improve our scientific models. The second is fuzzy, but not inherently a bad thing; as people have said repeatedly, religion and science do not have to be in conflict, they just shouldn't overlap. The third is absurd, anti-scientific, and blind self-deception.

But the label "creationists" is also a wide term... It covers people that believe part or all the bible is literal history, and people that believes life and evolution were created or heavily influenced by a higher intelligence.
That is part of the problem of asking for "equal representation", because there is a single version of natural selection in the scientific community (there are some branches, but they differentiate in small details), but there are a lot of interpretations of the Genesis among Christians (and that doesn't even include other religions).

hermes200:

JarinArenos:

hermes200:
A creationist scientist is simply someone that does not adhere to the theory of evolution, but either works on other branches of science or adheres to any version of creationism in regards to the origin of life. Not that weird at all, considering there are many scientists that don't agree with the Big Bang theory or Strings theory, without being considered pariahs.

Moving the goalposts a bit here. There's a huge gulf between "thinks there's some issues with current scientific models" and "thinks 'God' created everything"... and then another huge step between that and "believes, in the face of all evidence, that the earth is 6k-10k years old". (the last being what these "creation scientists" claim)
The first is perfectly acceptable. It's even laudable, as it should encourage further testing and experimentation to improve our scientific models. The second is fuzzy, but not inherently a bad thing; as people have said repeatedly, religion and science do not have to be in conflict, they just shouldn't overlap. The third is absurd, anti-scientific, and blind self-deception.

But the label "creationists" is also a wide term... It covers people that believe part or all the bible is literal history, and people that believes life and evolution were created or heavily influenced by a higher intelligence.
That is part of the problem of asking for "equal representation", because there is a single version of natural selection in the scientific community (there are some branches, but they differentiate in small details), but there are a lot of interpretations of the Genesis among Christians (and that doesn't even include other religions).

I'm sorry, but this is simply incorrect, a creationist is something rather specific. It does not refer to believers that think that naturalistic explanations are the tools used by a god to create life, but those whose believe in divine creation where everything is made in its current form. This belief is in direct contradiction to the established, verifiable facts. Evolution happens, if you believe otherwise, you are wrong, simple as that. Some definitions:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/creationism?q=creationist#creationism__6

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/creationist?q=creationist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationist?s=t

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationist

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/creationist?showCookiePolicy=true

All pretty consistent and specific.

hermes200:
But the label "creationists" is also a wide term... It covers people that believe part or all the bible is literal history, and people that believes life and evolution were created or heavily influenced by a higher intelligence.
That is part of the problem of asking for "equal representation", because there is a single version of natural selection in the scientific community (there are some branches, but they differentiate in small details), but there are a lot of interpretations of the Genesis among Christians (and that doesn't even include other religions).

That's nice and all... but we're talking about Dr. Danny Faulkner and his Answers in Genesis literalists here. They're the ones attacking Cosmos and demanding scientific teaching of parables and fables.

Why doesn't cosmos teach creationism? I don't know, why don't churches teach evolution?

BanicRhys:
So much ignorance in this thread.

We know as much about the universe now as we did back in the back in the bronze age (nothing). Sure, we have some pretty good ideas based on what we're able to observe and comprehend around us, but they're still just ideas.

By completely disregarding other, less popular, ideas, you're being just as closed minded as those who allow themselves to be blinded by their religious dogmas.

We know fuck all about the universe, we can perceive fuck all of the universe, we can comprehend fuck all of the universe, to think anyone is anywhere close to an actual answer on anything is the height of arrogance. Odds are, creationism is just as likely to be correct as evolution and the big bang theory, so why not give it its fair share of coverage?

Edit: I now realise the irony of "preaching" open mindedness.

I find your argument the most amusing of the lot. To know something with 100% probability that argument would have to be deductive. For example, a triangle is a shape with 3 sides and whose angles add up to 180. I have a figure with 3 sides and 3 angles that add up to 180 degrees, therefore it is a triangle. Science, in general, is inductive. The most we have is probability based upon experience. Right now it's getting to be spring. I've experienced springs in the past, so I know warm weather is on the way.

The greater beauty is that science seeks to find answers to the physical things around us. It can not answer metaphysical questions. God is a metaphysical concept and therefore is beyond the realm of science to disprove. Which means anytime there is a scientific discussion and someone says because of God, that is argument is irrelevant and thus needs no air time.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here