Leauki Leauki

The Word on Creationism

The Word on Creationism

The Word is "Lie"

What opponents of evolution (and other theories) don't understand is that science is not about finding the truth (that is best left to philosophy professors) but about finding out something useful about this world.

The predictions of theories can be used in engineering and other fields. Applications of the theory of evolution have been used successfully in such diverse fields as medicine and (yes) computer science. Evolution is solid, a tool that we can use to advance.


For a good article about the difference between a scientific theory and Creationism and the utter stupidity (and, I want to add, sacrilege) of believing in "Intelligent Design", see Steven Den Beste's essay about the human eye.

http://denbeste.nu/essays/humaneye.shtml

The vertebrate retina is a terrible design. The optic nerve comes into the eyeball at a certain point, and the nerve fibers spread out across the surface of the retina. Each individual nerve fiber reaches its assigned point, burrows down into the retina through several layers of epithelial cells, and ends with the light receptor itself pointing away from the lens of the eye, which is the direction from which the light must come. As a result, incoming light strikes the surface of the retina and must penetrate through multiple layers of inactive cells and then through the body of the nerve itself before it reaches the active point where it might be detected. This both diffuses and attenuates the light, decreasing the efficiency of the retina in accomplishing its function.

For a rationalist and atheist like Steven Den Beste, extrapolating from the existence of the human eye to a "designer" is illogical, because there is no evidence for design but plenty evidence for evolution.

For me, personally, saying that the human eye has been "designed" is blasphemy. I do not think it is all right to claim that G-d would intentionally create a faulty design or was incapable of doing better. (Plus I agree with Steven's thinking as well. There is evidence for evolution in the human eye, but no evidence for design.)


But the problem here is not the fact that some people are not capable of understanding complicated science and are thus forced to make up fairy tales that make them believe that they are as clever as scientists (and even cleverer since scientists don't "know" the truth), but the fact that those some people sometimes have the power to take away knowledge from the rest of us.

There are MANY countries in the world where Creationism is taught instead of evolution. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the majority of the world teaches Creationism to some extent, replacing biology or "adding to" biology in schools.

But what does that do for those societies?

Are they leaders in science based on learning something that is a "theory" just like evolution and a "better "explanation?

It's not enough to change the rules to allow Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") to become science, because what is science is not a decision made by man. It's ultimately a desicion made by nature (or G-d, if you will). Because science is something we can use to create.

When we look at the world and compare societies, we see that countries that teach evolution create technologies, whereas countries that teach Creationism, do not have the workforce to be leading in any field of technology.

Teaching Creationism causes stupidity. That's the problem.

And it doesn't help if "Christian" fundamentalists in the west blame Islam for it and pretend that teaching "Christian" Creationism will give better results, because the Creationism of Islam IS the Creationism of Christianity. It's word for word, letter for letter the same legend.

And it's phony. It's phony and stupid and a big lie.

    * Why does the birth canal run through the middle of the pelvis?
    * Why does the backbone run down one side of the trunk instead of through the middle where it would be more balanced?
    * Why does the ankle attach at one end of the foot instead of in the middle?
    * Why are there toes?
    * Why is it that nearly every part of the brain is as far as possible from the piece of the body with which it is associated?
          o Why is the motor control center for the right side of the body on the left side of the brain, and vice versa?
          o Why is the vision center at the rear of the brain, as far from the eyes as possible -- and on the opposite sides?
    * Why is it that fully 90% of the genetic material we carry around is useless?
    * Why do we share a single canal through the neck through which we both breath and swallow?

Biology has explanations for these oddities. Creationism does not. "It was G-d's will" is not an explanation, it's an excuse for incompetence.

(Why are some people born with a mechanism that destroys the beta cells in the pancreas, causing Type 1 Diabetes that is ALWAYS deadly within a few months without treatment? Would an "intelligent designer" design his subjects like that?)

Richard Dawkins called evolution the "blind watchmaker" because evolution does not "see" what it produces, it merely tries out what happens with the stuff it finds. I find the term "incompetent designer" appropriate for a god who designs things like us. And I cannot pray to an incompetent designer. How could I?

Teaching Creationism has never helped a society and is bringing down many.

 

Dear Creationists,

I do not want the western world to become a second "Islamic" world.

Do you not understand that?

 

136,866 views 625 replies
Reply #76 Top
Christian scientists are continually collecting data and experimenting according to the scientific method in order to improve upon their understanding of the Biblical hypothesis that states God created in six days 6 to 10,000 years ago through. Thus, while the creationism hypothesis is not being altered, it is being used as a model system for
experimentation.


The Christian Science church has nothing to do with science nor any scientific research. Now you're simply throwing out a bunch of crap because I know an aweful lot about the Church. My father grew up in a Christian Science family.....Take your BS elsewhere. The Science in their name comes from believing in the spiritual as opposed to the material. They believe we can be healed spiritually as opposed to medical science. I watched several of my relatives die because they would not allow certain or any medical treatment.

Reply #77 Top
I have no problem with creationism or the teaching of creationism, but I know just as much as economic theory doesn't belong in a science class neither does creationism.


What is the fear of presenting scientific arguments and inquiry of the Creation model? Why should an evolution only syllabus be imposed in the classroom as though only naturalism qualifies as science?

With respect to typology, the reality of entropy, genetics and biochemical research, the Creation model explains the data far better than does Evolution theory.
Reply #78 Top

The answer is NO but I know why you're asking.

 

Why am I asking?  Why does your profile say you are?

Reply #79 Top

What is the fear of presenting scientific arguments and inquiry of the Creation model?

 

Define the creation model, Lula.  One paragraph please.

Reply #80 Top
What is the fear of presenting scientific arguments and inquiry of the Creation model?


It has nothing to do with fear. They are not scientific arguments is the problem.

The importance of teaching scientific theory is that you take a specific theory and do research to build on that theory to discover something that is materially useful. For example the evolution theory is the basis for a lot of genetic and dna study.

The theory of relativity is the basis of a lot of engineering science


Creationism theory brings scientific study nowhere but to a dead end. You can't build on it because the "intelligent designer" is supernatural. It isn't science.
Reply #81 Top
Why am I asking? Why does your profile say you are?


you answered your own question: Profile.

I can't remember why. I think way back when I started I just didn't want to put down too much personal information and I just picked a birth year.

Define the creation model, Lula.


In the beginning......God created.

For example the evolution theory is the basis for a lot of genetic and dna study.


but that doesn't contadict the creation theory either. Creationists believe in DNA..heck we have the whole pictue of God taking Adam's dna to make Eve. It was there all along. Way before we even knew what DNA was. There is some science in scripture that explains the natural world.

Creationism theory brings scientific study nowhere but to a dead end. You can't build on it because the "intelligent designer" is supernatural. It isn't science.


NEITHER is the Evolution theory. Both are based on beliefs.

Reply #82 Top
The Christian Science church has nothing to do with science nor any scientific research. Now you're simply throwing out a bunch of crap because I know an aweful lot about the Church. My father grew up in a Christian Science family.....Take your BS elsewhere. The Science in their name comes from believing in the spiritual as opposed to the material. They believe we can be healed spiritually as opposed to medical science. I watched several of my relatives die because they would not allow certain or any medical treatment.


I am NOT talking about CHRISTIAN SCIENCE the religious denomination.

I actually have NOTHING to do with nor do I beieve their theology one twit.

So I'm not throwing any crap. You're assumming too much and very defensive.

I would tell anyone in that denomination to turn and run the other way...and if you knew anything about me at all you'd know this....like the other regulars here on JU.

Reply #83 Top
There is no proof as to the origin from which evolution began but evolution is a theory and as such much is now known as to how things evolve.

I have no problem with creationism or the teaching of creationism, but I know just as much as economic theory doesn't belong in a science class neither does creationism.


Right there is no proof. So why are we teaching it as if it's fact? Creationism has no proof so why not teach it since it has the same criteria as the Evolutionary Theory? Both are based on faith.

The reason you believe it shouldn't belong in Science Class is because everyone is telling you it doesn't. Both are just as viable theories to teach.

Where life begain is all based on interpretation of the evidence...not Science.





Reply #85 Top
Define the creation model, Lula. One paragraph please.


Just read Genesis Ock. And then, realize that in view of how science developed out of the theological premises and institutions of Christianity. Copernicus, Kepler, Boyle etc. all understood the compatility between science and religion.

The Creation model begins with the earlier presupposition that the universe and all that's in it reflects Almighty God. These unexplained mysteries can now be given scientific explanations.

God is the Author of all nature and there must exist an authentic concordism between true empirical science and the historical events recorded in Genesis. Creation researchers endeavor to discern the objective truth about these events.





Reply #86 Top
I would tell anyone in that denomination to turn and run the other way...and if you knew anything about me at all you'd know this....like the other regulars here on JU.


I'll vouch for that.  :) 
Reply #87 Top
For example the evolution theory is the basis for a lot of genetic and dna study.


This is also true of Creation theory.

Reply #88 Top
NEITHER is the Evolution theory. Both are based on beliefs.


Evolution theory is based on science and not the same belief system as creationism. You simply have to read about the vast amount of science that has been done since the first theory of evolution was put forth. It predates even Darwin's theory and goes to present day showing how the theory itself has changed as well as what scientific discoveries have been made in light of the theory.

Reply #89 Top
Evolution theory is based on science and not the same belief system as creationism. You simply have to read about the vast amount of science that has been done since the first theory of evolution was put forth


based on Science...yes. Science not neccesarily because it can't be proven with scientific observation. It's an interpretation of Science. It's not the same as Creationism....agree with you.

There is no contradiction between true Science and Chrisitianity. They get along quite well regardless of what you've been told by the seculars.

There is contradiction between the Evolutionary Theory as we know it and Christianity.They are opposing beliefs. Both are systems built on faith regarding the evidence. One looks at the evidence and sees Dawrinian Theory and another looks at the evidence and sees Creationism as outlined in the book of Genesis, written by Moses.

Therein likes the debate. So why is one taught and the other not taught?

Stubby

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out and get back to you.

Reply #90 Top

The Creation model begins with the earlier presupposition that the universe and all that's in it reflects Almighty God. These unexplained mysteries can now be given scientific explanations.

 

Really?  So how does science explain how God created everything?  How did he make atoms?  How did he make gravity?  How did he do all this?  I've been dying to know...I'm so glad you have access to the science that explains these mysteries because I missed it somehow.  Please enlighten me.

 

Reply #91 Top

Copernicus, Kepler, Boyle etc. all understood the compatility between science and religion.

 

Now why in the world would you leave Galileo out of this list, Lula?  Gee golly willikers hmmm, I wonder....

Reply #92 Top
based on Science...yes. Science not neccesarily because it can't be proven with scientific observation.


the purpose of theory is not that it be proven. It is a basis that is to be improved upon. A good example would be newton's theory of gravitation. It was improved upon and although it is still used because it is simple and provides adequate accuracy for certain things, it has been superceded by Einstein's theory of general relativity.

The same goes for economic theory...The purpose is not to prove them but to improve upon them to create models so economists can forecast economic conditions.

There is contradiction between the Evolutionary Theory as we know it and Christianity.


No. there is a conflict between Darwinism and Genesis. So one is best to research religion and theology. You cannot find answers as to the origin or meaning of Genesis by trying to disprove evolution theory.

In the same regard scientists do not try to improve upon the theory of evolution by trying to disprove Genesis.


Reply #93 Top
No. there is a conflict between Darwinism and Genesis.


which is semantics. It's the same thing. Darwinists hold to the Evolutionary Theory and Creationists look towards Genesis as their explanation.

It is a basis that is to be improved upon.


Yes, and like I said before you can't prove a negative. You can only prove a positive. So it's not that a negative can't be proven. It's just that it's not proven yet. With better technology and techniques things can change.

So again, since one is looking at the natural and one at the supernatural but both unproven yet, both should be taught as possiblilites.





Reply #94 Top
Darwinists hold to the Evolutionary Theory and Creationists look towards Genesis as their explanation.


You just proved why creationism doesn't belong in a science class.

Science should be taught in a science class.
Religion should be taught in church.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion


Reply #95 Top
Leauki posts: #71
Mainly because Creationists simply call all evolution shown to them and then claim that there is such a thing as "macro-evolution", which the theory of evolution doesn't mention at all.


You still think that evolution speaks of gigantic steps between species while in reality it never did.


What do you want? Do you want an experiment that shows a bacteria transform into a mammal in one or two generations, even though the theory evolution dictates that it cannot? Do you want an example of "macro-evolution" even though the theory of evolution doesn't mention "macro-evolution" and speaks of small changes only?

Experiments for the theory of evolution:

1. One species into two: check.

2. Change of body, completely new mechanisms: check.


AGAIN, LEAUKI, WE AGREE THAT SMALL CHANGE WITHIN SPECIES OCCURS (this is what I've called micro-evolution)...yes, we have evidence of micro-evolution, no question there. However, throughout this discussion, I've always referred to macro-evolution.

Perhaps it would be best to go back to square 1 and define what we are talking about. Throughout this discussion whenever I (and I think KFC) use the word Evolution or Evolution Theory, we mean macro-Evolution..(molecules to man) or what is commonly call Darwinism or Darwin's theory.

Evolution Theory (ET), Darwinism, basically means that higher, more genetically complex forms of life evolve from simpler forms of life. Over the years, we have seen that the theory itself is still evolving as problems are encountered which tend to negate previous theories. The theorists devise new ideas to establish the feasibility of ET.

For molecules to man, ET has to prove that lower grades evolved into higher grades. Evolutionists have to give evidence of or prove a process and to prove that process they need not what they are able to produce at present, but what they are not able to produce, namely the missing transformational links.

The science of paleontology in no way displays transitional forms between phyla and classes, and possibly not even between orders. There aren't any transitional forms between vertebrates and invertebrates. The deeper our knowledge penetrates the fossil evidence, the clearer it seems not in support of ET.

Macro-evolution cannot be demonstrated...the bacteria experiment was not one demonstrating macro-evolution. You start with bacteria...you end with bacteria.

Formation of one kind of species into a different one hasn't been demonstrated. Thus far there has not been any proof in favor of transformation of one lower grade of species into a another higher grade of species and the probabilities are against it.





Reply #96 Top
Science should be taught in a science class.


Pseudo science should not be taught in a science class as real science; certainly not as fact. Evolution Theory is pseudo science. To believe it one must take someone else's fanciful imaginations on faith.



Reply #97 Top

Luka:

These unexplained mysteries can now be given scientific explanations.

 

Me:

Really?  So how does science explain how God created everything?  How did he make atoms?  How did he make gravity?  How did he do all this?  I've been dying to know...I'm so glad you have access to the science that explains these mysteries because I missed it somehow. Please enlighten me.

 

You hear that?  Me either, because it's silence.

 

Lula:

Copernicus, Kepler, Boyle etc. all understood the compatility between science and religion.

 

They understood what Galileo either didn't understand or refused to pay heed to.  That noticing things inn the universe that were documentable (is that a word?) that disagreed with the bible, and doing so too loudly would result in death or incarceration from the church of loving god.

 

Richard Pogge, Professor of Astronomy - Ohio State:

I get asked about this a great deal, in large measure because the common lore is that the Catholic Church immediately condemned Copernicus and his system, while enlightened Protestants eagerly embraced both. In fact, the response from the leading Protestant theologians of Copernicus' time was swift and negative, though even this response was mostly remarks in passing in conversation or sermons, nothing resembling an organized anti-Copernican campaign. The Catholic Church, despite later official hostility, was largely silent at first. Silence, however, does not necessarily imply approval, as the events of the following century were to so forcefully prove.

 

Martin Luther on Copernicus:

 

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

 

Yeah it's pretty clear from both Catholic and Protestant sides just how "compatible" things were.

 

 

Reply #98 Top
So how does science explain how God created everything? How did he make atoms? How did he make gravity? How did he do all this? I've been dying to know...I'm so glad you have access to the science that explains these mysteries because I missed it somehow. Please enlighten me.


How does Science explain otherwise? How did the earth get created? How did atoms get made? When did the first atom appear? How about gravity? How did all these things get started using Science to explain this? Enlighten me.

That noticing things inn the universe that were documentable (is that a word?) that disagreed with the bible


This is an oxymoron. There is not one thing in the bible that Science has disproved as of yet. Most likely Galileo, like Columbus, opened up his bible and read something that helped him scientifically come up with his ideas.



Reply #99 Top

How does Science explain otherwise? How did the earth get created? How did atoms get made? When did the first atom appear? How about gravity? How did all these things get started using Science to explain this? Enlighten me.

 

Cute.  And weak.  I'm not the one that made the claim, KFC.  Hukked on Fonicks still not helping with your reading comprehension, I see.

 

This is an oxymoron. There is not one thing in the bible that Science has disproved as of yet. Most likely Galileo, like Columbus, opened up his bible and read something that helped him scientifically come up with his ideas.

 

Did you read Martin Luther's quote above?  Not sure where you see an oxymoron.  Maybe you don't quite understand the word...let me think of a good example of a real oxymoron.  Ah...here's one.  "Creation Scientist."

Reply #100 Top

What is the fear of presenting scientific arguments and inquiry of the Creation model?


I don't know. You tell me.

Perhaps you can shed some light on why it isn't being done? Is it fear?

I remember you told me that an experiment on Creationism would be nearly blasphemy. (I disagreed and said that I think it _is_ blasphemy.) Is that your fear? Is that the fear of other Creationists?