1. Standard memberJerryH
    Hyperbole Happy
    Joined
    17 Jul '08
    Moves
    1740
    23 Jul '15 12:00
    Creationism is the doctrine in which the pronouncements of the Holy Bible are sacred beliefs held without question.

    Science is the doctrine in which no beliefs are sacred and all beliefs must be questioned and independently verified.

    Does anyone take exception with the above? Please reword the above, as one thinks correct, to be similarly reviewed then.

    So is Creation Science the doctrine in which the pronouncements of the Holy Bible are sacred beliefs held without question and no beliefs are sacred and all beliefs must be questioned and independently verified? Then Creation Science must start by breaking Creationism or Science. This then would reduce to Creationism or Science.

    Please keep this thread to the above. Please do not question the correctness of either Creationism or Science here. Lets just settle the question, "What is Creation Science?" to the satisfaction of all.
  2. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    23 Jul '15 14:022 edits
    Originally posted by JerryH
    Creationism is the doctrine in which the pronouncements of the Holy Bible are sacred beliefs held without question.

    Science is the doctrine in which no beliefs are sacred and all beliefs must be questioned and independently verified.

    Does anyone take exception with the above? Please reword the above, as one thinks correct, to be similarly reviewed the ...[text shortened]... nce here. Lets just settle the question, "What is Creation Science?" to the satisfaction of all.
    It is a contradiction in terms. Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame, a Christian philosopher, refers to appeals to the supernatural for explanations of the natural world as "science stoppers" precisely for the reasons inherent in the descriptions you have here.

    "Creation science" is an invention of creationists who want to get creation taught in public schools. It is a virtually 100% United States issue.
  3. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    23 Jul '15 14:27
    Originally posted by JerryH
    Creationism is the doctrine in which the pronouncements of the Holy Bible are sacred beliefs held without question.

    Science is the doctrine in which no beliefs are sacred and all beliefs must be questioned and independently verified.

    Does anyone take exception with the above? Please reword the above, as one thinks correct, to be similarly reviewed the ...[text shortened]... nce here. Lets just settle the question, "What is Creation Science?" to the satisfaction of all.
    creation science is an oxymoron
  4. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    23 Jul '15 14:461 edit
    Creationism is a religious origin story.
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    23 Jul '15 16:381 edit
    Originally posted by JerryH
    Creationism is the doctrine in which the pronouncements of the Holy Bible are sacred beliefs held without question.

    Science is the doctrine in which no beliefs are sacred and all beliefs must be questioned and independently verified.

    Does anyone take exception with the above? Please reword the above, as one thinks correct, to be similarly reviewed the ...[text shortened]... nce here. Lets just settle the question, "What is Creation Science?" to the satisfaction of all.
    The most ordinary response by atheists and evolutionists is that "creation science" is an oxymoron. However, to those that believe in creation exactly as indicated in the Holy Bible and also believe in science, the term "creation science" refers to the use of scientific methods to obtain scientifc evidence that supports creation over the theory of evolution. 😏

    The Near Genius
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    23 Jul '15 16:50
    Intro to Creation Science: What your University Professors Won't Tell You

    Creation science is scientific evidence, not religious dogma. Both creation and evolution have profound religious, philosophical implications, yet, both may be investigated scientifically.

    Chief Justice Rienquist and Justice Scalla pointed out that creation science involved the study of biology, paleontology, genetics, astronomy, astrophysics, probability analysis and biochemistry. They concluded that this discipline was the study "of scientific data supporting the theory that the physical universe and life within it appeared suddenly and have not changed substantially since appearing...Creation Science is a strictly scientific concept that...does not require the presentation of religious doctrine."

    Many have difficulty imagining scientific evidence for creation, perhaps because it is zealously censored from our classrooms. The truth is, there is a great deal of such evidence. Watch this video and see for yourself.


    YouTube
  7. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    23 Jul '15 18:091 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    [b]Intro to Creation Science: What your University Professors Won't Tell You

    Creation science is scientific evidence, not religious dogma. Both creation and evolution have profound religious, philosophical implications, yet, both may be investigated scientifically.

    Chief Justice Rienquist and Justice Scalla pointed out that creation scienc ...[text shortened]... such evidence. Watch this video and see for yourself.


    [youtube]XMnSzTwVxFg[/youtube][/b]
    If what the justices said has bearing on this thread's purpose (I think not), it should be noted that Rehnquist and Scalia were in the minority.

    "Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a legal case about the teaching of creationism that was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution, was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion."

    wikipedia
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    23 Jul '15 19:47
    Originally posted by JS357
    If what the justices said has bearing on this thread's purpose (I think not), it should be noted that [b]Rehnquist and Scalia were in the minority.

    "Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a legal case about the teaching of creationism that was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring ...[text shortened]... tional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion."

    wikipedia[/b]
    It is unfortunate that all Justices did not seem to understand creation science as well as Rehnquist and Scalia. And the other Justices made no statement defining creation science, which is the purpose of this thread. 😏
  9. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    23 Jul '15 19:48
    Further to the Edwards v. Aguillard SCOTUS decision:

    "These same historic and contemporaneous antagonisms between the teachings of certain religious denominations and the teaching of evolution are present in this case. The preeminent purpose of the Louisiana Legislature was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind. [11] The term "creation science" was defined as embracing this particular religious doctrine by those responsible for the passage of the Creationism Act. Senator Keith's leading expert on creation science, Edward Boudreaux, testified at the legislative hearings that the theory of creation science included belief in the existence of a supernatural creator See 1 App. E-421 — E-422 (noting that "creation scientists" point to high probability that life was "created by an intelligent mind" ).[12] Senator Keith also cited testimony from other experts to support the creation-science view that "a creator [was] responsible for the universe and everything in it."[13] 2 App. E-497. The legislative history
    therefore reveals that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the legislature that adopted this Act, embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind."

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3232659778662846156&q=EDWARDS+V.+AGUILLARD&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1

    As I have said elsewhere, science is characterized by methodological naturalism. Many theists work in scientific research and know how to shift gears. This subset of Christianity is by its own free choice (and I defend its rights), making itself incompatible with science.
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    23 Jul '15 19:591 edit
    Originally posted by JS357
    Further to the Edwards v. Aguillard SCOTUS decision:

    "These same historic and contemporaneous antagonisms between the teachings of certain religious denominations and the teaching of evolution are present in this case. The preeminent purpose of the Louisiana Legislature was clearly [b]to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created huma ...[text shortened]... ty is by its own free choice (and I defend its rights), making itself incompatible with science.
    Now this is helpful:
    "the theory of creation science included belief in the existence of a supernatural creator"

    That is basically the reason for creation science - to obtain evidence for the existence of a supernatural creator and creation as alluded to in my definition.
    "creation science" refers to the use of scientific methods to obtain scientifc evidence that supports creation over the theory of evolution.
  11. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    23 Jul '15 20:15
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Now this is helpful:
    "the theory of creation science included belief in the existence of a supernatural creator"

    [b]That is basically the reason for creation science - to obtain evidence for the existence of a supernatural creator and creation as alluded to in my definition.
    [/b]
    Yes we agree. This is the reason for "creation science". The reason for calling it "science" is to make young-earth creationism (YEC) seem like it is like biology or geology or other natural science, to get it into schools.

    This split between science and religion goes back to Galileo and beyond. Geocentrism, the Church dogma that all celestial bodies revolve around the Earth, was contradicted by his sighting of Jupiter's moons. That was settled, eventually. There is no Christian effort to get the alternative theory of geocentrism seem like a science and get it into schools. Now we have it happening again,with YEC..
  12. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    23 Jul '15 20:20
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It is unfortunate that all Justices did not seem to understand creation science as well as Rehnquist and Scalia. And the other Justices made no statement defining creation science, which is the purpose of this thread. 😏
    I The case was settled on the basis of clear evidence that one religious view was being given preferential treatment by a public institution even if Rehnquist and Scalia were right, the court would have ruled against preferential treatment for YEC, over, say, mainstream protestantism or other religious views.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    23 Jul '15 20:231 edit
    Originally posted by JS357
    Yes we agree. This is the reason for "creation science". The reason for calling it "science" is to make young-earth creationism (YEC) seem like it is like biology or geology or other natural science, to get it into schools.

    This split between science and religion goes back to Galileo and beyond. Geocentrism, the Church dogma that all celestial bodies revolv ...[text shortened]... ocentrism seem like a science and get it into schools. Now we have it happening again,with YEC..
    But Chief Justice Rienquist and Justice Scalla pointed out that there is no requirement to teach religious dogma even though the other Justices feared that that was what it would lead to. However, the belief that there is no god or creator is what teaching the theory of evolution has led to. So which is worse?

    The theory of evolution is a lie in the view of many scientists today. I don't believe teachers should be required to teach lies in the name of seperation of church and state.
  14. Standard memberJerryH
    Hyperbole Happy
    Joined
    17 Jul '08
    Moves
    1740
    23 Jul '15 21:32
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Now this is helpful:
    "the theory of creation science included belief in the existence of a supernatural creator"

    [b]That is basically the reason for creation science - to obtain evidence for the existence of a supernatural creator and creation as alluded to in my definition.

    "creation science" refers to the use of scientific ...[text shortened]... ethods to obtain scientifc evidence that supports creation over the theory of evolution.
    [/b]
    Does this mean then that Creation Science is reduced to Creationism as The Scientific Method must not be applied to the tenets of Creationism? Or does it mean that Creation Science is reduced to Science as The Scientific Method is applied to the now only hypothesis ,"God created All" and all honest means are use to test, edit, expand and reject this hypothesis?
  15. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    23 Jul '15 22:14
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    But Chief Justice Rienquist and Justice Scalla pointed out that there is no requirement to teach religious dogma even though the other Justices feared that that was what it would lead to. However, the belief that there is no god or creator is what teaching the theory of evolution has led to. So which is worse?

    [b]The theory of evolution is a lie in the ...[text shortened]... ve teachers should be required to teach lies in the name of seperation of church and state.
    [/b]
    We both know how that argument goes.

    I'll say it was not a case of where it might or does lead, it was a case of favoring a particular religious view unconstitutionally. To the point of the OP, you have acknowledged that the "science" is in there to defend a particular religious view. You are more honest than some YECs (see Kitzmiller v Dover School Board).

    You will say evolutionism is there to defend an anti-religious view or you will say it too is a religion.

    So it goes.
Back to Top