Creationism--Proof ?

[alexander]

heh, so we should all switch to Flying Spagetti Monsterism, there is scientiffic data that links amount of pyrates to global warming (there's even a pie chart) and countless references to FSM in all kinds of places...

[daytonturner]

One of the big problems I see in several of the religion v. science threads is that there are a lot of people who do not know the difference between knowledge and belief.

 

This phenomenon is not exclusively owned by either group, although it seems to me that the science, or "knowledge," people have a tendency to believe that they know things which they only believe and consistently seem to suggest they do not believe anything other than knowledge. For the most part, religious people do understand that belief in that which is unproven is the basis of their faith. However they, too, sometimes tend to operate from a position of assumed fact where belief is the only basis for their acceptance of a concept.

 

Science, basically, is a process by which we gather facts and knowledge about our physical world in an attempt to explain what has happened and what will happen in our world. We do this in relation to a number of physical areas such as biologically, zoologically and chemically or even in social applications such as morality and legal systems as we look back at past civilizations. That stuff is all science -- knowledge.

 

Sometimes there are things which we cannot explain because we lack sufficient data and facts to clearly understand -- sometimes what took place or sometimes how it took place. So we take the observations we have made and draw conclusions through various forms of reasoning to attempt to find a reasonable explanation. We also use the observations we have made to attempt to predict what can or will happen if we artificially create a set of circumstances or if a set of circumstances should come to bear.

 

When scientists make such predictions they usually experiment to prove their predictions valid. At that point, they have temporarily left the world of science and, in a sense, entered the world of believe. They believe their calculations are correct and their experiment will successfully show they have made accurate deductions. However, until the experiment is successful, the scientist can only believe. Only after their experiment has proven or disproven their calculations, does the scientist return to the realm of knowledge.

 

It is unfortunate that some here attempt to trivialize religion by comparing it to the Easter Bunny. No rational person believes in the Easter Bunny and no one has ever successfully attempted to establish a religion with the Easter Bunny as its figure head. Such interjections into an intellectual discussion are not only majorly disingenuous, they are absolutely assine. It is the type of thing someone who has nothing relevant to post puts up to make himself look like a complete and total horse’s ***.

 

The next thing is that disbelief is actually a belief. Belief and disbelief are not opposites such as light and dark where dark is the absence of light. Disbelief is not the absence of belief, but rather a belief that the belief is inaccurate.

 

We do not know how the universe came into being or if it is, as some suggest, eternal having had no beginning and having no ending.

 

There is no more proof that the universe is eternal than there is proof that it had a beginning. Perhaps it is oversimplification but it appears there are only those two possibilities – either the universe is eternal or it had a beginning. If it is eternal, there is not much to discuss. If it had a beginning, which most people seem to believe – even science oriented people – then it appears there are only two explanations offered for that possibility. One element, which includes but is not restricted to, the religious people suggests that some extra-universal intelligence designed and created the universe. The other element suggest that it just happened, whether via “The Big Bang” or some other uncaused set of circumstances.

 

I do have a belief in one of those explanations and I am sure there are advocates for any of the other explanations. However, I am not aware of tangible, physical evidence which comes even close to proving one of these positions or which successfully debunks any of them.

 

My point is that we all “believe” what we believe based on our life experiences. If you believe differently from me, it is not because I am right and you are wrong – unless you believe in the Easter Bunny – but because we have had different life experiences or have placed greater importance on some aspect of that experience than the other person has.

 

I just find it interesting that some feel it is scholarly to investigate only two of these possibilities – an eternal universe or the “it just happened” theory. I fail to find them any more or less plausible or provable or scientific than the concept that some intelligence caused it to happen.

[daytonturner]

perfectWeakness has provided a perfect definition of religion. However, it does seem to exclude Christianity which is based on a personal relationship with a Diety and is based not on rules and regulations, but merely on belief and trust. So simple a child can do it; so complex it is impossible to comprehend.

[Erasmus00]

There is no more proof that the universe is eternal than there is proof that it had a beginning.

 

Actually, there is all sorts of proof that at least our little pocket of the universe did have a begininng. Cosmic microwave background, past light cones, etc. Whether or not the entire universe did is something we can't really test for, but scientists tend to believe that there is nothing particularly special about our little pocket.

-Will

[daytonturner]

, but scientists tend to believe. . . -Will

 

If belief is not proof in religion, it does not seem that it should qualify as proof in science.

[Tormod]

I just find it interesting that some feel it is scholarly to investigate only two of these possibilities – an eternal universe or the “it just happened” theory. I fail to find them any more or less plausible or provable or scientific than the concept that some intelligence caused it to happen.

 

Who says only two possibilities should be investigated? AFAIK there are tons of models for how the universe came into being and whether or not it is eternal. I have read numerous articles and books about this for years.

 

You need to distinguish between belief and faith. Belief in science has nothing to do with faith - it is related to experience and learning, and especially to experiment - than faith in a religious sense, which is irrational and needs to be so (because if we *knew* there was a god, then we would no longer need faith). In science we never really know things for sure. But given the evidence we are able to gather, we believe this or that to be true, unless otherwise proven wrong.

[GAHD]

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

Actually that could be very interesting idea for a thread. perhapse devise an experiment? Shurely you can proove anger exists, why not love?

perfectWeakness has provided a perfect definition of religion. However, it does seem to exclude Christianity which is based on a personal relationship with a Diety and is based not on rules and regulations, but merely on belief and trust. So simple a child can do it; so complex it is impossible to comprehend.

what are the ten commandments if not rules? I had thought that was a part of it all.

[questor]

Daytonturner, well reasoned and to the point. there is an obvious bias among some posters here who refuse to give any credence to the possibility of a creator or intelligent design. this is OK as far as an opinion. what is not OK is to summarily close threads only because they don't want to participate or have antipathy to the subject. this is a science forum and matters of the physical forces and inner workings of the universe are the very

basis of scientific enquiry. what greater discovery could be made in the history of science than to determine whether the universe was created by an all powerful force or ''just

happened''. when we have no clear understanding of gravity, black holes, dark matter, the thought process or life on the elemental particle level, how can we positively say there was no intelligent design? unfortunately, many posters here cannot separate the man made concept of a Diety, whether he be called God, Buddha, or Allah with the concept of

an elemental force which would be capable of creating the universe. we will not know the answer possibly for ages, but in my opinion the evidence points to intelligent design.

[daytonturner]

Well, Gahd, The 10 Commandments have nothing to do with salvation or belief or faith or trust in God. But that is a misunderstanding shared by many Christians and non-Christians alike.

 

One of the purposes of The 10 Commandments is to show us that we cannot live a perfect life and thereby gain God's favor. Who among us has not violated at least one of those commandments? Who among even those who claim to be Christians has not violated at least one of those commandments since becoming a believer?

 

The 10 Commandments, as well as many other "laws" in the Bible, when applied to real life, merely suggest generally productive and counterproductive actions we can take. Wherein the "laws" prescribe certain conduct, such conduct will generally prove to be productive. Wherein the "laws" proscribe certain conduct, such conduct will generally prove to be non-productive.

 

Unfortunately, does little to prove or disprove creationism.

 

As to Tormud's suggestion that there are more than two models -- I totally agree. However, reduced to their common denominators one is left with the eternal v. had-a-start groups of models with the had-a-start group again separated into intelligent causation v. happenstance causation. I do not mean happenstance as derogatory but merely as descriptive of a non-intellectual causation.

 

Tormud has also adroitly pointed out the problem of our language in which words have numerous nuances such that the faith one exhibits in sitting down in a chair he has never sat in before is not quite the same as faith he might have in the ability of a God to preserve his essense for eternity.

 

I can only suggest that those who believe and have faith in science to someday "fill in the gaps" display a faith which is similar to that displayed by those who have a belief and faith in some religious concept.

[perfectWeakness129]

If you just want the piont of all this, drop down to the bottom...

 

Well good, I think my leading statement and even more so, daytonturner's lengthy essay steered this thread in a good direction. The point I was aiming for is that Science is no less of a religion than Buddhism, Hinduism or many other philosophies. I think this is something we can all agree on. I like Wikipidia's passage about 'relating us to the universe’ (prphsed). Science in our society has become more than just a school subject. It is a structure of rules and philosophies that guide us in our quest to explain the unexplained, from sub-atomic chemistry to galactic physics. Many have become very absorbed in the scientific method, the 10 commandments if you will of Science. The analogies can go on and on.

 

The point of all this is not to 'dis' science as a religion, but to bring to light a truth regarding the original point of this thread. Evolution and The Bib Bang are sciences explanation of origins of life just as Creation is to Theist religions, and therefore are beliefs the government should not be imposing on our children as fact. I think there are interesting implications of evolution and 'happenstance', and I think the scientific observations can improve one's understanding of science, but it is still not fact.

 

I remember discussing string theory in High School, as well as various aspects of the theory of relativity. It was fun and interesting and educational but I never once heard that these ideas were fact because they weren't proven. None of this stuff can be proven like you can prove gravity. None of this stuff can be summed up in an equation or observed like chemical reactions. It is all too abstract, and therefore falls under Science the religion, and not science the academic subject.

 

On a biblical note... (Hopefully this won't close the thread as is so frequently done). For followers of God (Jews BC and Christians AD) this is not a new thing. People around God's children have always followed other religions be it Egyptians, Baal-followers, Greeks, Babylonians, etc. These religions had their own explanations of Life, before and after, and they all had gods. The god of science is the relatively new concept. There is no god. This does not mean, however, that science cannot be an idol itself, and this idol will compete with God just as Baal and Nebo competed with God 3000 years ago.

 

Point: Science is a system of beliefs, and in my book that is a religion.

 

PS: Is Christianity a religion? Yes, according to my definition it is, but as daytonturner stated above, the RELIGION is a sideffect of the RELATIONSHIP with God. Becuase one follows God, certain convictions about life come forth into the persons life. But as seen in the teachings of Jesus, if the religion starts to become the god, then the religion is useless. This is why 'The Way' is separate from any other religion on the earth. (Except for Judahism, they just don't know it)

[Erasmus00]

I remember discussing string theory in High School, as well as various aspects of the theory of relativity. It was fun and interesting and educational but I never once heard that these ideas were fact because they weren't proven. None of this stuff can be proven like you can prove gravity. None of this stuff can be summed up in an equation or observed like chemical reactions. It is all too abstract, and therefore falls under Science the religion, and not science the academic subject.

 

emphasis added by me

 

While it may be true that string theory can't be experimetnally tested right now, I'd point out that it is summed up in equations (as is all of physics). As to relativity, special relativity and general relativity have been subjected to all sorts of experiments, and passed with flying colors. Also, both theories are neatly encapsulated by equations. The difference betweern science and religion, the difference you fail to note, is that in science, after you've made your abstract predictions, you TEST them against nature. There is no way to test for religion.

-Will

[perfectWeakness129]

Real quick…

Define: Science (upper case) belief system of a scientist, religion if you will.

Define: science (lower case) Study of nature and the physical universe.

 

While I recognize your point, and it is very true, I hold that this idea of 'scientific method' (SM), or using experiments to define truth, is an aspect of Science the religion. Unfortunately we are now getting to the point where we are rebutting with "Infinity + 1" arguments. Or anything you say, I can turn into religion and anything I say you can turn into non-science.

 

Lets pretend for a moment that Science and theist religions can each in their own rite, fall under both belief, and testable fact. How you ask?

 

Both require a certain amount of faith. Religion is obvious. Science, however, will take some explanation. In Science and science one believes that

A)The SM approach is completely reliable

:doh: His/her approach to experiment is infallible

C)His/Her interpretation of results is accurate and final

These are inclusive of reproducibility and all that validation stuff.

 

In many cases in science, these are true and mostly indisputable (i.e. gravity), but in more abstract ideas, such as evolution and universal origins, this is much less rigid and begins to fall under that Science religion. Your proofs may not convince me, but for you and fellow scientists, you are convinced based on you 'faith' in the scientific absolute.

 

That being said, the same applies in reverse, providing an argument for religion as having scientific aspects. I can guarantee that most theists or philosophites (Buddhists, Taoists...) don't just try out what they here, see no response or truth to it, and keep after it regardless of their experience. The problem is that one's revealing experience can't be recorded in a 'scientific' manner.

 

I can tell you all day long about my testimony regarding salvation, redemption, and revelation from God. I can go on to tell you the things I have experienced that reveal to ME the existence of God. But only by faith can you believe me, and only by a greater faith can to pursue those truths yourself. The fact still remains that for me, I have proof. My maintenance of faith is not based on just on words alone.

 

So the difference I see between science (That's lower-case science) and religions is that scientific evidence can be published in a factual, real, reproducible, and widely acceptable way. And because we can all see these facts, it is easy for most people to accept. With religious truth, however, we can't all see what the other is talking about either because we don't understand or we don't want to understand.

 

Science (upper case) is the part that tries to explain away God, and in doing so uses explanation that we can't see. Not many people have seen evolutionary advances in their lifetime (adaptation being it's own topic of discussion). So it is very difficult for many to believe in evolution. There are some really creative/’smart’ people out there who are able to convince themselves of evolution and the big bang, but I tell you they have nothing more than personal evidence themselves.

[C1ay]

The point I was aiming for is that Science is no less of a religion than Buddhism, Hinduism or many other philosophies. I think this is something we can all agree on....

 

Point: Science is a system of beliefs, and in my book that is a religion.

No, it is not something we can all agree on because science is not a system of beliefs based on faith.

 

Why is the sky blue? Do you think it's simply because you have faith that it is blue? No. We know the sky is blue because of the wavelengths of light absorbed by the molecules that make up our atmosphere. We observe the blue sky, we hypothesize that it is because of this absorption, we predict the colors we will see be passing light through the various gases that make up the atmosphere and we find in the end that our predictions based on our hypothesis which was based on out initial observations turn out to be true. That's science, not faith.

 

Part of science is producing theories we cannot currently prove to be absolutely correct because of current limitations on our abilities. Take the theory of relativity for example. There are portions of the theory that we can make predictions from but we haven't the technology to test them. Without this we cannot declare the Theory of Relativity to be the Law of Relativity. That doesn't make it a system of faith though. We believe it to be true because it matches our observations and the predictions we have been able to make and test, not because of faith.

 

There is much rigorous science that we know to be absolutely true by using the scientific method. Theories of the past that have been proven true, not just accepted as true because we thought they should be. This is not religion, it is science performed using the scientific method.

 

There is also theoretical science that we think could be true because it matches our observations. This stays a theoretical science though because we maintain a doubt as long as it cannot be proven. We never accept that these theories must be true just because we think they should be. Should we cross that line then we do so on faith and that would be religion.

[C1ay]

In many cases in science, these are true and mostly indisputable (i.e. gravity), but in more abstract ideas, such as evolution and universal origins, this is much less rigid and begins to fall under that Science religion. Your proofs may not convince me, but for you and fellow scientists, you are convinced based on you 'faith' in the scientific absolute.

I don't know of any scientists though that claim the theory of evolution as the law of evolution. I'm sure there are some that may believe it to be absolutely true without further discourse but I would argue that they are not true scientists. In short, theories or hypotheses are not religion or beliefs or accepted on faith alone.

[perfectWeakness129]

Yes, Yes and Yes theories are not laws. The faith I am talking about in regards to Science is not the faith in evolution or reletivity, but in our methods of proof. That they are infallible and our concept of science begets absolute truth. This begins to fall under the definition of belief.

 

Furthermore, this faith also brings with it the burden of dis-beliefe in anything not tangible, or a faith in 'noGod'.

[daytonturner]

So far I have found it frustrating that I have hardly touched on the subject of this forum Creationism – Proof.

 

The question itself presents some logical challenges since one must necessarily start from an assumed position of the concept that the universe is the result of some creative process.

 

If there was some creative process one must consider if there is something prior to that process, but we do not even have words to describe a non-time, non-place.

 

Our very being is so locked up in our time-space continuum that we do not even have words which can describe a non-time. Every verb of every language I am even remotely familiar with has some expression of past, present or future which cannot, by their very nature, describe a non-time environment.

 

The concept of creation thus necessarily connotes a vastly different economy than that which we enjoy in our time-space continuum.

 

What could that non-time, non-place economy be like?

 

One thing we can surmise is that, devoid of time, it would be lacking either energy or matter or both. Time in our world is, to some extent, an expression of the relationship between energy and matter in that our basic measurement of time is based on the speed of light as it travels from one measurable location to another with those locations determined by the placement of specific pieces of matter.

 

It is possible that quantum theory and string theory tickle the edges of such an economy, but if they are “science” per se, they are making (he writes punishly) quantum leaps from mere fragments of observations that can be quantified and qualified to conclusions which cannot be quantified or qualified. Science is not always correct.

 

The idea of proof, in a court of law, is divided into various levels of proof, each of which requires a different quantum of evidence. So let us look at those for a moment.

 

There are usually three levels of proof – 1. Preponderance 2. Clear and convincing 3. Beyond a reasonable doubt. The law does not ever require evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

While the quantum of evidence required to reach a particular level may vary from person to person, they can be generally described at follows: To attain a preponderance one must be able to conclude, based on the evidence, that one suggested conclusion is more likely than another. To be clear and convincing, the evidence must show the evaluator that the suggested conclusion is most likely while the alternative is highly unlikely. Beyond a reasonable doubt suggests a quantum of evidence which leaves the evaluator in a position where he must accept the suggested conclusion because he can find no reasonable alternative.

 

There is yet another level of evidence which is allowed in a specific nook of law which is called sufficient evidence. To attain that level the evaluator merely need base his determination on evidence from which one could reasonably draw a conclusion regardless of the other evidence presented.

 

Generally speaking, it is the proponent of an issue who must first present some evidence for evaluation. It is then up to the detractor to challenge this evidence by presenting more convincing and controverting evidence or by undermining the value of the evidence which was first presented.

 

So what quantum of evidence does it take to prove or disprove creationism? It varies from person to person. For some, such as I, there is probably no quantum of evidence which would convince me of other than a creationist view. For others, there is no quantum of evidence which would convince them that there was a creation perpetrated by an intelligent creator. There are also those on any side of this issue who are so predisposed to one point of view that any quantum of evidence is proof to them that they are right.

 

There is evidence available from which one can reasonably and intellectually reach any of the potential answers to these kinds of questions. It all depends on which evidence the individual finds most convincing. No one group (other than those who believe in the Easter Bunny) is totally made up of retards or stupid people.

 

It is a rather interesting twist of fate that those who advocate for a creationist view will never know if they were wrong while those who advocate against such a position will never know if they were right.

[Erasmus00]

Science (upper case) is the part that tries to explain away God, and in doing so uses explanation that we can't see. Not many people have seen evolutionary advances in their lifetime (adaptation being it's own topic of discussion). So it is very difficult for many to believe in evolution. There are some really creative/’smart’ people out there who are able to convince themselves of evolution and the big bang, but I tell you they have nothing more than personal evidence themselves.

 

The thing with science is that, yes, you have to have some faith. You have to have some faith that the natural world exists, and follows some rules we can comprehend. You have to believe it isn't simply facitious. But the "faith" you need to conduct science is largely the faith you need to live day to day in the world in which we live.

 

The thing is, I can't make any predictions with religion, I can't make any tests. However, even with evolution, and the big bang, things you call "Science" I can make tests. For one prediction of evolution, see http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002522889_evolution27.html

 

for a prediction from the Big Bang google cosmic microwave background.

 

The faith you need to do science is the faith that the natural world isn't out to trick you, and even non-scientists tend to have it.

-Will