Creationism--Proof ?

[questor]

Since we are now starting the second round of the Scopes monkey trial and schools are being forbidden to even mention the fact there may have been a creator of the universe, it may be pertinent to ask why this supression of free speech should be allowed to exist, when there is no proof of the absence of a creator? in fact there is much more evidence that there was and is intelligent design than that it does not exist. while the argument seems to be crystalized between the believers and unbelievers of the theory of evolution,this is an extremely narrow view of the subject of creation and only speaks to one small part of the overall activity ( and maybe an unimportant one ) of the cosmos.

it seems to me that the ''scientists'' who are so cocksure that there was no creator stand on shaky ground when there is no proof either way. i would say we know far less about the workings of the universe than some posture. why don't we get on firm ground about forces we don't understand such as gravity,before we take an indefensible stand which could easily be incorrect. if someone has proof about the non existence of a creator, i

would like to hear it.

[Tormod]

You are opening yourself up for attacks by using fallacious arguments here. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist.

 

The US has a strict separation between church and state. I wonder why on earth you pitch this as a freedom of speech thing. It would mean that every teacher in the country can teach that Jesus was gay as much as they want, since it is impossible to prove that he wasn't.

 

On the same note, it will by your reasoning be fully okay to teach kids about fairies in biology because it is impossible to prove they do not exist.

 

It is the ID movement that is pitching this as a "creationism vs evolution" debate. But it is not about evolution at all. It is about whether teaching religious views in science classes in state funded schools is okay.

 

Evolution is being used as a strawman argument by the ID movement with the claim that "it is faith based, just like religion". Since this becomes a semantic issue rather than a scientific issue, it is in fact misleading. The real question is not whether evolution is correct or not, but whether ID is a religion or not.

[questor]

why should anyone attack me for asking simple questions? attacks usually originate from persons with an agenda opposite to the one proposed. the fact is that you don't believe in creation although you cannot defend that position scientifically. the truth also is that the politically correct movement and the ACLU are trying to drive religion out of our society, when the very laws and societal mores we live by were founded on these principles. the result will be a poorer society rather than a better one, with fewer curbs on bad behavior.

the word science derives from the Latin word meaning ; to know. i am not playing

semantical games here, i am saying neither you nor i know the origin of the universe, you're taking the non-creational position with no facts to back it up, i'm assuming there is a

possibility of a creator, and the evidence i see points in that direction.

[questor]

p.s., i'm not a member of any ID movement or group or cults. i think for myself and my thoughts

are my own opinion. there are many reasons religion should not be driven out of our society, if you would give it some thought.

[pgrmdave]

Science only deals with things that it can prove, not things which it cannot disprove. I cannot disprove that there is a dragon in my garage, but that does not mean that I can assume that there is one.

[questor]

science deals with all physical presences in the universe, not all of which are currently understood, such as gravity and how the universe occurred. if your garage had scales and dragon droppings around it, and you heard noises, you may conclude a dragon was there, but you couldn't be sure until you investigated.

[rockytriton]

the fact is that you don't believe in creation although you cannot defend that position scientifically.

 

You don't need to defend your position scientifically on something that has not been proven. I don't believe in the easter bunny, I don't need to prove that scientifically do I?

[questor]

have you ever seen any type of evidence that would indicate to you that there is an Easter bunny? do you view the physical evidence of the mathmatical precision of the operation of the universe as proof there is no intelligent design ?

[Tormod]

have you ever seen any type of evidence that would indicate to you that there is an Easter bunny?

 

Good point! We must make sure they begin teaching about the Easter Bunny in biology classes, because we cannot rule out the fact that it exists.

[IrishEyes]

have you ever seen any type of evidence that would indicate to you that there is an Easter bunny?

When I was a wee lass, every Easter Sunday, there was a huge basket of candies on the table. And there was also a bunch of colored eggs. Nobody had any idea how they got there, I asked every single year. Does this prove that the Easter Bunny exists? If so, my children will be so excited. (especially the boys- they'd love to lay inwait with their guns so we could have rabbit stew. yummy!)

[rockytriton]

have you ever seen any type of evidence that would indicate to you that there is an Easter bunny? do you view the physical evidence of the mathmatical precision of the operation of the universe as proof there is no intelligent design ?

 

Actually, when I was a kid, on Easter. When I would wake up, these strange colored eggs would appear all over my lawn. I tried to think of some scientific explaination for it, but I just couldn't come up with any. Therefore, by proof of the inability to disprove: the Easter Bunny does exist. Now to find out if he had anything to do with the creation of the universe, hmm, I don't think I can disprove it, so it MUST be true! :)

[pgrmdave]

if your garage had scales and dragon droppings around it, and you heard noises, you may conclude a dragon was there, but you couldn't be sure until you investigated.

 

It is a reference to this: http://www.users.qwest.net/%7Ejcosta3/article_dragon.htm

 

However, that is the point. There is no direct evidence of a creator, there are no scales, or droppings, or noises. It is most reasonable to thus conclude that there is no creator, thus creationism must be treated as being false.

[rockytriton]

However, that is the point. There is no direct evidence of a creator, there are no scales, or droppings, or noises. It is most reasonable to thus conclude that there is no creator, thus creationism must be treated as being false.

 

If I hear voices in my head, does that count as evidnece? :doh:

[questor]

perhaps for some of you, your scientific methods Do prove the existence of the bunny.

[Biochemist]

...There is no direct evidence of a creator, there are no scales, or droppings, or noises. ...

There is no evidence if a Creator (currently) supported by the scientific method. That is only a subset of alll evidence. It is, however, the subset that we discuss on this site.

 

Most folks would readily concede that love exists. It is not demonstrable by the scientific method either. But that is not a science topic.

[perfectWeakness129]

I propose a definition...

 

Religion: A structure of beliefs and convictions based upon a determined set of rules, regulations, or dogma that influances or sometimes dictates one's descision outside of his or her own logic.

 

I entered 'define: religion' in Google and found that all of its definitions required a supernatural being (god or diety) to complete the religion. We know this to rare as many existing religions don't even include diety(i.e. Buddahism), and most that do, don't even center on it/them(i.e. Hindu).

 

This definitions implies religion is not limited to a god, is not limitied to after-life ideals, or even good vs. evil, though many include these ideals in their cannon/systemology.

 

I would like to see if anyone finds fault in this definition before a go on to make any further point. Don't worry, I'm not setting anyone up for some cliche attack on Creationism or Evolution, but I think what I am getting at will level the playing field for this apples vs. oranges argument.

[C1ay]

I would like to see if anyone finds fault in this definition before a go on to make any further point. Don't worry, I'm not setting anyone up for some cliche attack on Creationism or Evolution, but I think what I am getting at will level the playing field for this apples vs. oranges argument.

See Wikipedia's definition...