1 edit
Originally posted by JerryHI'll say the Scientific method can't be applied to the supernatural claims of creationism because science seeks only the naturalistic explanations. Supernaturalistic explanations are the in the domain of religion. Science is silent on that part of things. If a scientist concludes in public that there is no creator, he's not speaking as a scientist.
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?
So science can neither prove not disprove the supernatural part of any proposed supernatural explanation and there is no such thing as YEC science..
Originally posted by JS357I think this would be an excellent thread OP. I think it is less constructive here to differentiate between hypothesis and supposition with no basis for investigation. For this discussion please let, "God created All" be a hypothesis to be ground under The Scientific Method in the case when Creation Science is reduced to Science.
I'll say the Scientific method can't be applied to the supernatural claims of creationism because science seeks only the naturalistic explanations. Supernaturalistic explanations are the in the domain of religion. Science is silent on that part of things. If a scientist concludes in public that there is no creator, he's not speaking as a scientist.
So scie ...[text shortened]... tural part of any proposed supernatural explanation and there is no such thing as YEC science..
Originally posted by JerryHI believe there are scientific criteria for what makes a supposition a scientific hypothesis.
I think this would be an excellent thread OP. I think it is less constructive here to differentiate between hypothesis and supposition with no basis for investigation. For this discussion please let, "God created All" be a hypothesis to be ground under The Scientific Method in the case when Creation Science is reduced to Science.
One good reference is
http://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html
Perhaps we can discuss what makes "God created All" a scientific hypothesis.
As per the link, we can structure this as the following, modified by me in [ ]:
"If [and only if] God created all, then the following observations will confirm it, or the other following observations will falsify it.
Then the confirming and falsifying observations will be listed.
However, before all that, people like RJ will have to confirm that "God created All" is their contention. Don't forget, he asserts that God did it all fairly recently, there has been no evolution of "kinds", etc.
But we could take it one step at a time, and test "God created All" to see if it is a scientific hypothesis. It doesn't even have to be true, to be such.
So no, it is not scientific to just "let" "God created All" be treated as a hypothesis.
But this might be the first step in grinding down creation science. That's good.
I am curious about your capitalizing terms like "Creation Science" and "Scientific Method.".
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by RJHindsIt's precisely that cherry picking of evidence to support an a priori conclusion that makes a joke of "creation science". Thank you for the demonstration.
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.
Originally posted by JerryHI disagree. Some Christians have a doctrine in which 'the pronouncements of the Holy Bible are sacred beliefs held without question'. That doctrine is not called 'creationism'. Creationism rather is one of the beliefs that result from that doctrine. It also usually, but not exclusively refers to the belief in a recent creation (circa 6,000 years).
Creationism is the doctrine in which the pronouncements of the Holy Bible are sacred beliefs held without question.
Creation science supposedly refers to attempts to find scientific evidence for these beliefs, but in reality usually refers to attempts to use the 'science' moniker to legitimise what would otherwise be considered purely religious beliefs and also to get those beliefs treated in equal standing with scientific theories / findings that contradict those beliefs.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAdditionally, so-called scientific studies done by CS-ers are generally oriented around finding supposed inadequacies in evolution theory. There are also arguments from incredulity to the same effect.
I disagree. Some Christians have a doctrine in which 'the pronouncements of the Holy Bible are sacred beliefs held without question'. That doctrine is not called 'creationism'. Creationism rather is one of the beliefs that result from that doctrine. It also usually, but not exclusively refers to the belief in a recent creation (circa 6,000 years).
Creat ...[text shortened]... efs treated in equal standing with scientific theories / findings that contradict those beliefs.
If creationism is correct, and CS is legitimate, we should instead expect to see scientific evidence that it is correct.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI capitalized Creationism and Science to show I held them as equal for this discussion. If there is another name for Christians with the doctrine in which the pronouncements of the Holy Bible are sacred beliefs held without question, I'd be happy to use it.
I disagree. Some Christians have a doctrine in which 'the pronouncements of the Holy Bible are sacred beliefs held without question'. That doctrine is not called 'creationism'. Creationism rather is one of the beliefs that result from that doctrine. It also usually, but not exclusively refers to the belief in a recent creation (circa 6,000 years).
Creat ...[text shortened]... efs treated in equal standing with scientific theories / findings that contradict those beliefs.
I thought and still think Creationism and Creation Science to be separate. I think Creationists should run screaming from Creation Science! If Creation Science reduces to Creationism then Creation Science has been proven dishonest. Creationist aren't dishonest! If Creation Science reduces to Science then isn't Creation Science stepping away from faith? How far is it hoped by Creation Science that the proving, removal of the need for faith, will go? When is this heresy?
Originally posted by JerryHIt is not a question of there being another name, that name simply does not refer to 'the doctrine in which the pronouncements of the Holy Bible are sacred beliefs held without question'. There are Christians who hold to said doctrine without being Young Earth creationists - they just have a different interpretation of what the Bible says. Almost all theists are ultimately creationists of some sort as they believe God created the universe.
I capitalized Creationism and Science to show I held them as equal for this discussion. If there is another name for Christians with the doctrine in which the pronouncements of the Holy Bible are sacred beliefs held without question, I'd be happy to use it.
Normally, 'Creationist' refers to someone who specifically believes that God created man directly rather than via the process of evolution. There are even Muslim Creationists.
Creationist aren't dishonest!
Some are, but I agree that it is not universal. They are wrong, but not necessarily dishonest.
If Creation Science reduces to Science then isn't Creation Science stepping away from faith?
Maybe - depending on what you mean by 'faith'. Is faith so important that you must not try and find evidence? For some theists, it is important to have 'faith' in a form that it is not based on evidence. Somehow they think they get extra credit for believing things for no reason. But not everyone defines faith that way or believes such faith is required.
1 edit
Originally posted by JerryHYou say, "Creationist aren't dishonest!"
I capitalized Creationism and Science to show I held them as equal for this discussion. If there is another name for Christians with the doctrine in which the pronouncements of the Holy Bible are sacred beliefs held without question, I'd be happy to use it.
I thought and still think Creationism and Creation Science to be separate. I think Creationists sho ...[text shortened]... Creation Science that the proving, removal of the need for faith, will go? When is this heresy?
You need to educate yourself.
This case is about Christians trying to get creationism taught in a public school. Bonsell and Buckingham were on the school board which was trying to get it taught. Kitzmiller filed suit against them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Judge Jones: "The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. ... Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. ... Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html
"This is the decision of the court in the Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al. case. Judge John E. Jones III, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, made a very strong ruling against intelligent design. He ruled that it is creationism and is not science. He also ruled that members of Dover's school board lied under oath to hide their religious motivations. This archive also hosts transcripts of the trial. "
Originally posted by JS357I think those would be advocates of Creation Science. Creationists, by the definition that I'm using, need only believe in the creation story of the Holy Bible. Creationists, I think, would be as appalled as you are over proven dishonesty.
You say, "Creationist aren't dishonest!"
[b]You need to educate yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Judge Jones: "The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. ... Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. ...[text shortened]... ath to hide their religious motivations. This archive also hosts transcripts of the trial. "[/b]
Originally posted by JerryH" If Creation Science reduces to Science then isn't Creation Science stepping away from faith? How far is it hoped by Creation Science that the proving, removal of the need for faith, will go? When is this heresy?[/b]"
I capitalized Creationism and Science to show I held them as equal for this discussion. If there is another name for Christians with the doctrine in which the pronouncements of the Holy Bible are sacred beliefs held without question, I'd be happy to use it.
I thought and still think Creationism and Creation Science to be separate. I think Creationists sho ...[text shortened]... Creation Science that the proving, removal of the need for faith, will go? When is this heresy?
Nobody's going to lose their faith by doing CS research, because can be no scientific research on the question of whether the universe was created by the supernatural being they call God. Not only that, I think you can rest assured that any scientific research on the natural world will fail to prove such things as a young earth, so faith will still be necessary.
Originally posted by JerryHWell, the definition you are using is contradicted by the evidence of that trial, which found that the lying defendants WERE creationists peddling intelligent design as a "hook" to get creationism into schools. What you need for your distinction to be useful, is to provide evidence that the advocates of CS that actually exist in the world are not creationists.
I think those would be advocates of Creation Science. Creationists, by the definition that I'm using, need only believe in the creation story of the Holy Bible. Creationists, I think, would be as appalled as you are over proven dishonesty.
You responded so fast you could have read much if any of the links I provided, which provide plentiful evidence that it was a creationist effort. If you aren't committed to the intellectual content of this discussion, we might as well bid each other fair sailing and terminate our discussion.
Originally posted by JS357I think you are misunderstanding him. He is not saying "there are no lying Creationist's". He is saying "Not all Creationists are liars". Being a Creationist does not automatically mean you are a liar. And I agree with him.
Well, the definition you are using is contradicted by the evidence of that trial,.....
It does automatically mean you are either uneducated in the sciences, or must live with some cognitive dissonance - but that doesn't make you a liar.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't know whether all creationists are liars. I doubt it. But I read "Creationist aren't [sic] dishonest!" as a sweeping statement/generalization with blatant and important exceptions such as in Kitzmiller, that should make people refrain from making the statement that way.
I think you are misunderstanding him. He is not saying "there are no lying Creationist's". He is saying "Not all Creationists are liars". Being a Creationist does not automatically mean you are a liar. And I agree with him.
It does automatically mean you are either uneducated in the sciences, or must live with some cognitive dissonance - but that doesn't make you a liar.