Creationists choose to ignore empirical evidence of science
2 months ago | 1079 views | 67 
| 26 
| 
| 
| 26 | |
Their arguments are wrong. You can check this out for yourself in Mark Isaak’s “The Counter-Creationism Handbook” or on-line at http://talkorigins.org and http://ncseweb.org. Moreover, these arguments remain wrong no matter how many times creationists repeat them; for they have a tendency to trot out their old arguments no matter how often they’ve been refuted.
Biology is an empirical discipline. Biological knowledge is grounded on empirical facts, not textual citations nor Neo-platonic idealism. Creationists offer no facts to support their contentions. (Apparently, once one is in possession of the “truth,” one can afford to ignore the facts.)
Their arguments are based on a false dichotomy: either evolution is true or a literal interpretation of the Bible is true. For another, many of their arguments are merely variations of the argument from incredulity: “I can’t believe that X is true. Therefore, X is false.”
Moreover, the “debate” for which they so desperately claim that they are clamoring almost always takes place outside of science conferences and peer-reviewed scientific journals, which are the most appropriate venues for it.
I noted above that creationists do not support their contentions with facts, but with biblical citations that they interpret literally. (And, yes, a literal interpretation is still merely one interpretation.)
Creationists are not concerned with science or with empirical truth. If they were, they would not keep repeating their tired, old, oft-refuted arguments. Creationists are out to subvert the Constitution and establish Biblical literalism as the official religion of America. Hence, it makes sense for them to keep repeating refuted arguments because it clouds the issue and makes it appear as if their claims are valid.
These arguments are shortsighted and ultimately self-defeating. Creationists are pushing to use a literal interpretation of the Bible to critique evolution (and eventually, cosmology, paleontology, plate tectonics, physical anthropology and archaeology) in the public schools. But a “science education [that teaches] students to identify assumptions, use critical thinking, make logical deductions and consider alternative explanations” would also enable them to use science to critique creationism (and, indirectly, Biblical literalism). In doing this, students would come to prove for themselves that creationism is pseudo-science. In the ultimate irony, the creationists’ attempt to enhance the authority and prestige of the Bible would end up undermining it.
Wait. Maybe we do want the members of the board of education to be creationists.
ROY TRESSLER, Rome
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpeHrkbx9LU
However, his other videos are good too:
http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa
*Warning - rampant (but funny) sarcasm ahead.*
until then God Bless.
Apology accepted. Hope I didn't offend you with my exasperated outburst.
Evolution is an easy concept to define--change through time--but the devil is in the details, and those details are scientific (which means that they can be difficult to understand. I was not being condescending when I recommended purchasing a science or biology dictionary.).
Again, it is not my purpose to discredit religion as such. I think that, throughout history, and even today, religion has provided humanity with more benefits than costs. But I am adamantly opposed to defining a particular religious orientation as science.
If I can make a suggestion, I think that you may have an easier time imagining the workings of TOE if you read the works of Kenneth R. MIller. This guy is a world-class evolutionary biologist, co-author of the most popular high-school biology text (which means that most of us can follow his thinking), and a practicing Christian who rejects both the materialism and atheism of many of his colleagues, as well as creationism and ID. His books (in paperback) are "Finding Darwin's God" and "Only a Theory." He was also the main witness for the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover. The judge in that trial (who had not read a biology text since high school) described Miller's testimony as "the biology course you wish you'd taken." (Or something like that. I can't recall the quote exactly and I'm too lazy to go look it up.) I mention all this because the PA chapter of the ACLU (who represented Kitzmiller) have posted his testimony on-line at http://aclupa.org. It's free.
Best wishes.
Funny I have Brave New World on my reading list but I can't find time to get to it. Don't really even know what it's about. ...so I'm taking that as a compliment. (for now. lol)
For your question though, you're talking about two different things.
Self propelled evolution, is really just another way of saying 'Artificial Selection'. Not a big deal, but the other issues relate to applied knowledge and not the actual theory itself.
That being said, I think it's important that we investigate EVERYTHING. The most important thing is that it should never be a crime to investigate the world around us. (Can't stress that enough)
However, the applications are left up to society. Science provides the knowledge, people (flawed philosophies and all) decide HOW we use the knowledge. [think atomic bomb here, or even Nobel and his dynamite]
Personally, I can see positive uses for cloning. Not full beings of course, but imagine if we could get a liver, of my antibody profile exactly, to grow in a saline solution. Heck yeah!
Genetic engineering? Honestly, I see a great amount of potential abuse here. However, imagine if we could identify and correct genetic defects before a child is born? Wow. Think of all the lives you could save, and abortions you could prevent. A pretty cool aspect to me.
Short Answer: I'm all for the research and investigation, but I can't speak about the applications until we actually know what they are. Even then nothing in this world is black and white.
So, no religious holidays, or funny rituals for me to annoy my coworkers with. :( lol
Seriously though, be careful what you wish for. If evolution was declared a religion, do you realize how many people we could education when everything is tax free, including donations?
Wow. We could use all the allure of camaraderie, song, and community service to actually make learning interesting, to more people.
Almost brings a tear to my eye.
Your bald assertion that evolution is a religion and not science is bogus. You have defined niether one. You said that you wanted to debate, but that statement is obviously false, given your lack of responses to my direct and honestly-intentioned questions. It seems to me that either you are being deliberately obtuse in an effort to sabotage any real discussion of creationism's claim to be science, or you just don't understand scientific (and philosophical) concepts.
Let me make some things perfectly clear for you. I have no wish to discredit religion as such. I do wish to discredit the claim that creationism is science. And, yes, I can claim NOMA because religions exist and they make claims about matters that science, as such, cannot address. In other words, the fact is not that I am inconsistent, but that you can't follow an argument.
In short, you lack the intellectual integrity (and possibly the wherewithal) to engage in disciplined inquiry. Reading your postins is a colossal waste of time. I am finished with you.
hope the above definition helps you, though I doubt it will
you wish to discredit "religion" but then claim NOMA?!?!
Again evolution IS a religion not science...
You must be very light on your feet, given how you dance around my questions. You wrote that we all conflate science and religion. I don't. I consistently distinguish between science, philosophy and religion. I challenge you to cite one sentence in what I've written that conflates the two. More to the point, you avoided saying why you conflate them, and that is what I want to know. What's your motive/purpose in refusing to draw distinctions between these phenomena? Saying that you doubt that there are "true" NOMA and that "the spheres have to come in contact sometime" are just other ways to say that you conflate science and religion.
What do you mean by "common sense?" Is this the same common sense that, along with Biblical literalism, tells you that the sun revolves around the earth? (I remember yelling at my uncle, "You can see the sun move!") I'm not being a (complete) smart-aleck here. I really want to know.
What would constitute REAL proof? (Other than a verse in Genesis, of course.)
What do you mean when you say that "it's too lofty?"
If you don't understand the words, why don't you by a science dictionary? I still use one.
Evolution makes no sense, but the Fall of Man and Original Sin and immaculate conception do? (This last is rhetorical. I expect your definition of common sense will clarify your point here.)
(although, in my defense, parts of it sounded like they were from our conversation)
Later
I have a very low tolerance for religious wackos and hypocrites.
Why don't you drop by and give me that lesson or simply FO.
Am I offending you? Sounds like you need a lesson in words you speak. Would you be able to back up anything you say? Using acronyms to fill a void in your life is very unsettling. Who cares about the Alabama nut? It sounds like you would argue with a wall. BTW if your a georgia tech fan, HA! GO DAWGS! (I know unfit, but I was excited)
that article is pretty funny.
and by the way your (NOMA)sphere is touching my sphere :)
take care friend
And this is why the comments on these boards never bother me. If you can’t even define evolution, I wouldn’t expect you to understand the things they teach at the university level.
“I refuse to give up my common sense for something that makes no sense.”
Hey, that’s you’re right, but I personally think it’s better to have a little bit of sense about all of the world, than complete understanding of the very small world you live in.
“"Well, to believe this, you have to believe in a God that is purposely, and unequivocally deceitful." not real sure what you mean by this...””
The God of your original statement would be deceitful because it expects us to believe in something for which there is not a single shred of proof, AND to disregard everything we observe upon investigation of the world around us.
I am starting to rethink things though. This seems like pretty good evidence for creation.;
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/god_introduces_new_bird
"maybe you can enlighten me as to your reason for conflating religion and science" actually I think we all do that, and I'm not sure there is a "true" NOMA...the spheres have to come in contact at some time...
I didn't buy into evolution before I became a Christian, to me it has always just been a theory(an unproved assumption) with no REAL proof, believers claim evidence but never show it, or its too lofty, or we have to use terms that you can't understand...
I refuse to give up my common sense for something that makes no sense...like global warming ;)
Woman named Jesus Christ called for Jefferson County jury duty
By Erin Stock -- The Birmingham News
December 01, 2009, 4:30PM
Jesus Christ was called for jury duty this week in Jefferson County.
Court officials were skeptical at first when on Monday a potential juror submitted a name change form with "Jesus Christ" on it. But the 59-year-old Birmingham woman, who previously went by Dorothy Lola Killingworth, assured the presiding judge that was her name.
"It raised eyebrows, so I asked her if that were truly her name," Circuit Court Judge Scott Vowell said. "She assured me that it was. She had her name changed in the Probate Court, and she presented her driver's license."
Christ was sent to Judge Clyde Jones's courtroom for a criminal case. She was excused because she was disruptive, court officials said. Instead of answering questions, she was asking them, a court employee in Jones's office said.
Efforts to reach Christ today were unsuccessful.
Court administrator Sandra Turner said she and others in the jury assembly room were somewhat shocked at first when the woman insisted Christ was her name. And when her name was called, several potential jurors laughed out loud.
Unlike some Jefferson County residents, Christ did not try to get out of jury duty, Turner said.
"She was perfectly happy to serve," said Turner.