What is the Creationists' goal?

As I understand it, the Creationists want Darwin's Teory of Evolution (TOE) away from school books, possible because it is not in accordance with the Bible.
But denouncing the TOE is the beginning of denouncing all science. It that the ultimate goal of Creationists?
Don't they want to have hospitals caring for them? Airplanes, cars, ships, modern plows, telephones, computers, and all the other things that science has provided?
Is the ultimate goal a Taleban-like, or an Amish-like society where the most obvious signs of science has been prohibited?

Originally posted by nickybutt
As I understand it, the Creationists want Darwin's Teory of Evolution (TOE) away from school books, possible because it is not in accordance with the Bible.
But denouncing the TOE is the beginning of denouncing all science. It that the ultimate goal of Creationists?
Don't they want to have hospitals caring for them? Airplanes, cars, ships, modern plo ...[text shortened]... eban-like, or an Amish-like society where the most obvious signs of science has been prohibited?

Do you really think the TOE is that central to science? I don't. It's highly relevant to biological sciences, but why should it have any relevance to, say, engineering, which is the most relevant discipline to many of the examples you just gave.

There are a great many scientists over the course of history, whether famous or unknown, who were creationists. And it didn't stop them from working. That's because most science deals with the world as it IS and doesn't really need to deal with the question of how the biological parts of the world came to be.

If God was proved to exist tomorrow, or proved not to exist, I fail to see how this would have any influence on the use of telephones whatsoever other than severely jamming the mobile phone network for a period of a few days. 😉

Originally posted by nickybutt
As I understand it, the Creationists want Darwin's Teory of Evolution (TOE) away from school books, possible because it is not in accordance with the Bible.
But denouncing the TOE is the beginning of denouncing all science. It that the ultimate goal of Creationists?
Don't they want to have hospitals caring for them? Airplanes, cars, ships, modern plo ...[text shortened]... eban-like, or an Amish-like society where the most obvious signs of science has been prohibited?

But denouncing the TOE is the beginning of denouncing all science.

i am not sure i agree with this. and i definitely think many creationists would disagree. i don't think it would be fair to label creationists as anit-science. i am not a creationist, but i think many of them don't think there is viable proof that the TOE is correct, and they therefore argue against teaching the TOE as though it were a proven fact.

IMO, there is much more proof for the TOE than for creationism, which i see as being strictly faith-based.

also IMO, i think that instead of teaching one or the other, they should teach objectively about both sides, and just let people sort out their own beliefs. i guess that would be way too much to ask.

Originally posted by nickybutt
As I understand it, the Creationists want Darwin's Teory of Evolution (TOE) away from school books, possible because it is not in accordance with the Bible.
But denouncing the TOE is the beginning of denouncing all science. It that the ultimate goal of Creationists?
Don't they want to have hospitals caring for them? Airplanes, cars, ships, modern plo ...[text shortened]... eban-like, or an Amish-like society where the most obvious signs of science has been prohibited?

Close enough, religion has been trying to surpress science for centuries.
It's not the technology they are against, it's anything the contradicts that book they contend is the "Word of God". A book btw that starts with a monotheistic version of Sumerian polytheism mythology.

Originally posted by orfeo
Do you really think the TOE is [b]that central to science? [/b]

TOE is highly central to science. If you accept the Creationists' explanation then you also denounce astronomy, and consequently also nuclear physics, as most astronomical science is based on that. Nuclear physics is one of the bases for computer science, which infulences airplanes controls.
And I could go on, but I won't.

Originally posted by nickybutt
TOE is highly central to science. If you accept the Creationists' explanation then you also denounce astronomy, and consequently also nuclear physics, as most astronomical science is based on that. Nuclear physics is one of the bases for computer science, which infulences airplanes controls.
And I could go on, but I won't.

Sorry, you're going to have to explain the links to me.

I can see how creationism might clash with the big bang, and hence 'astronomy', but that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. I'll let that one slide for now.

Why is most astronomical science based on nuclear physics? I could equally argue it's based on chemistry. And for your argument to work you need nuclear physics to be based on astronomical science, not the other way around.

And how does nuclear physics lead to computer science?

Please understand I'm not saying you don't have a point, but you are going to have to argue it a lot more clearly. At the moment I simply don't understand what you're trying to say.

Originally posted by orfeo
Sorry, you're going to have to explain the links to me.

I can see how creationism might clash with the big bang, and hence 'astronomy', but that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. I'll let that one slide for now.

Why is most astronomical science based on nuclear physics? I could equally argue it's based on chemistry. And for your argu ...[text shortened]... gue it a lot more clearly. At the moment I simply don't understand what you're trying to say.

A lot of astromical measurement is based on radiology, which is, as far as I understand it, a part of the nuclear physics science field. And computer science ows a lot to nanotechnology which also is linked with nuclear physics (I believe 😕).
My reasons for bringing astronomy into the debate is that I have heard the argument from Creationist, that the earth is only 6000 (or 50000 or any other low number) years old, which contradicts with the findings in astromony. I could also bring in geology, or chemistry as scientific fields that contradics with the Bible, and thus with Creationist.
I'm not sure what you mean about which scientific field depends on the other, but if I'm wrong, I'll apologise.

Originally posted by nickybutt
A lot of astromical measurement is based on radiology, which is, as far as I understand it, a part of the nuclear physics science field. And computer science ows a lot to nanotechnology which also is linked with nuclear physics (I believe 😕).
My reasons for bringing astronomy into the debate is that I have heard the argument from Creationist, that the ea ...[text shortened]... ou mean about which scientific field depends on the other, but if I'm wrong, I'll apologise.

You might mention that Radio-astronomers have
been picking up huge clouds of organic- compounds.

Originally posted by nickybutt
A lot of astromical measurement is based on radiology, which is, as far as I understand it, a part of the nuclear physics science field. And computer science ows a lot to nanotechnology which also is linked with nuclear physics (I believe ...[text shortened]... field depends on the other, but if I'm wrong, I'll apologise.

Sorry, still only partially with you.

I understood why you brought astronomy up, but any link between astronomy and the technology examples we started with still escapes me.

I can also understand why'd you mention geology, because of the millions of years vs 6000 years thing. But that ONE disputed 'fact' in creationism has no relevance to how to... oh, I don't know, mine raw materials to make something. You have to know the properties of minerals, and your beliefs about how they came to be the way they are make no difference so long as you have their CURRENT properties right.

Why you think chemistry contradicts creationism completely escapes me. I studied chemistry at university, and I certainly don't remember the age of the universe having the slightest relevance to my understanding of why transition metals behave the way they do. Hydrogen atoms don't behave differently depending on how old they are.

These are all just examples of my central problem with your original idea: an awful lot of science is about describing the world as it is. How it came to BE that way is only an issue in some parts of science.

Even in biology (which I also studied at university), an awful lot of the useful information is about how things ARE, and it's only when you start to ask WHY things are as they are that a creationist might run into difficulty. I had strongly creationist friends doing biochemistry who didn't have the slightest problem accepting all the intricacies of cell metabolism. They could explain the mechanism of cyanide as a poison just as well as an evolutionist could.

I personally don't have a settled view on evolution/creation precisely because it doesn't make any difference for most purposes. To do practical applications - like making things - the theory behind why is a lot less useful than the empirical observation about the world as it is now.

Originally posted by orfeo
Sorry, still only partially with you.

I understood why you brought astronomy up, but any link between astronomy and the technology examples we started with still escapes me.

I can also understand why'd you mention geology, because of t ...[text shortened]... seful than the empirical observation about the world as it is now.

On that "ONE" disputed fact is the foundation the fundamentalists base their objection to science being taught in science classrooms.
Yes. i said science , evolution is based on many science disiplines, while "creationism" is only based entirely words.

Even the "intelligent designer" (which does differ from creationism ) is based solely on reason and doesn't conflict with the TOE unless it requires a "directed" evolution to reach a desired end. Which is a logical leap that doesn't belong in science, except as a hypothesis.

Originally posted by frogstomp

trick post

Originally posted by Coletti
trick post

wait til im done editing my typos lol

HAHAHA

so's this one

I think anti-evolution authors such as Phillip Johnson actually do science a favor by devising a variety of questions and criticisms aimed at the theory of evolution. It's when people with religious blinders on their heads get a branch of science banned from the classrooms that it becomes a negative thing for society.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac
I think anti-evolution authors such as Phillip Johnson actually do science a favor by devising a variety of questions and criticisms aimed at the theory of evolution. It's when people with religious blinders on their heads get a branch of science banned from the classrooms that it becomes a negative thing for society.

I'm not so sure that someone playing word games can be offering valid criticism of a highly technical process.
That kind of criticism influenced science to prematurely rule out a LaMarckian role in evolution and settle on random mutations as the mechanism.
A form of LaMarckism , Epigenetics can logically play a role in speciation , if for no other reason than helping a species survive enough generations to allow it time to produce the genetic mutation needed to survive a changing environoment.