There is no Faith vs. Science

[Guest shiloh357]

No scientific opposition. Creation scientists are not taking their ideas to the scientific community, but to the general public. Creationists do not engage in academic discourse with the scientific community about creationism. And the few scientists that are creationists/IDers is opposition in the sense that they're the crazy distant uncle at Thanksgiving that everyone just ignores before he complains about leprechauns stealing his socks. I know that sounds harsh, but it really is pretty accurate in how about 99% of scientists view creation scientists.

Creation scientists are barred from having their work peer-reviewed, at least that is the complaint they have made against the scientific community. The scientific community subjects them to ridicule and disparages anyone who is a creationist. They burn the candle at both ends. They bar creationists from presenting anything for peer review and then claim that creation science is no science primarily because they are not peer reviewed. Creation scientists are not allowed to be heard and their findings are rejected out of hand BEFORE any peer review can take place.

They are never allowed to actually participate in the scientific community and labeled as nonscientists despite holding Doctorate degrees in nearly all areas of physical and life sciences from the same universities as do their noncreationist counterparts. In fact, it has been revealed over the years that anyone holding a creationist position can be kicked out of university science degree programs as well lose their jobs at universities for the same. There is a serious lack of integrity in the scientific community in addition to possessing an air of infallbility,

[Guest]

The Fool

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalms 14:1

And His Play-Dough

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Isaiah 45:9

Are Soon Forgotten

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Hosea 4:6

~

That's one of the main problems with creationism, it is more political and religious than anything scientific. Creation "scientists" have stopped doing science over 100 years ago as their hypotheses have been completely falsified. I cannot go to a respected science journal and get a paper about creationism to show you how ignorant creationists are because they are simply not submitting research or professional papers on creationism, they are not giving talks at scientific conferences; instead they are taking the battle to the public schools, to the churches, to the public domain of websites, cheesy museums, bad journalism, and dishonest signatures.

If you want to see their ignorance and dishonesty that is where you have to go because that is where all the creationists' efforts go, not into the scientific arena. That isn't my opinion, it's just how creationism works in the 21st century.

Dishonest?

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:9-12

Ignorant?

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

Opinion?

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Romans 3:3-4

~

Poor Pagan

There is no fear of God before their eyes. Romans 3:18

What You Gonna Do

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Matthew 12:35-37

When He Calls For You

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. John 5:28-29

~

Believe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[Citizenship]

Your claim is that no "real" science that is testable goes against creationism, and that evolution is not real science. Can you define how you use "evolution" for me?

Where did I ever claim that creationism, as far as anything unobservable or untestable is concerned, was "real" science? Both creationist and evolutionists work with the same data but interpret it differently, and as far as origins is concerned both interpretations are faith-based.

God is supernatural by definition, science is solely about the natural by definition If you don't like the idea that God cannot be utilized in science, then you have a problem with the scientific method, and what you seek isn't the scientific method.

I never said that I liked or disliked any idea. This is a forum for discussion for discussing issues related to Christianity and that is all I am doing. I realize the problems involved in mixing up religious issues and other belief systems with science. But I am nevertheless interested in discussing whether or not the idea of a designer qualifies.

In light of that what exactly is "supernatural"? The only thing we know about God given the Biblical account is that he is "invisible", or in other words "unobservable" to a certain extent. But you could say the same thing about gravity. You can see its effect but then again I would say the same thing about God.

So let me rephrase my question:

Why should an unobservable designer be excluded from science when it is OK to include other unobservable explanations?

Also, given a situation where something that is unobservable has an effect on the physical universe then wouldn't you agree that science as a tool for interpreting truth would be basically worthless?

Now, before you mistakenly interpret this as "disliking the scientific method" then you need to take a step back and do some careful thinking, because I think you are making brash conclusions based on your bias towards secular science. I have as little "dislike" of the scientific method as I have of a spanner. Science is nothing more than a tool that we use in the physical world we live in that we attempt to use to determine truth. It is useful when used correctly and when we are fully aware how to use it and what limitations it actually has.

No scientific opposition. Creation scientists are not taking their ideas to the scientific community, but to the general public. Creationists do not engage in academic discourse with the scientific community about creationism. And the few scientists that are creationists/IDers is opposition in the sense that they're the crazy distant uncle at Thanksgiving that everyone just ignores before he complains about leprechauns stealing his socks. I know that sounds harsh, but it really is pretty accurate in how about 99% of scientists view creation scientists.

This I would say is the typical response that I was talking about when I mentioned "scratching under the surface". Proponents of evolution love to make comments about how "ignorant" creationists are, but Whenever challenged they fall back in to mock-mode and hope that silly comments about sphagetti monsters and leprechauns will rescue them.

Similarly, the percentage of creationists or evolution deniers is so small, they don't submit papers for peer-review, they aren't trying to get spots at conferences, and they aren't doing anything to get the attention of the scientific community to the point that there hasn't been any serious scientific opposition to an old earth or evolution in over 100 years. Virtually all the opposition has been on the public stage, mainly the public education system of K-12, and organizations like AiG and ICR that try to convince the general public with websites, public debates, and a creation museum. Great ways for getting your ideas out to the public, horrible ways to get the attention of respected academics in science, at least good attention anyways.

What does the popularity of something that is unobservable prove? There are plenty of reasons why evolution is so strongly supported in the scientific community. Let me ask you something. During the years that these 99% of scientists go though the education system, what percentage of that time is devoted to studying creationism? Roughly? And please try to conduct this discussion without sarcasm and sneery opinions about creationism. Let's try to stick to the facts and keep the rhetorical slogans at a minimum.

Well they "know" in the scientific sense which is always accompanied by a margin of error.

Not they do not know, just as they do not know what the the "margin of error" is. As I pointed out earlier, all dating methods are based on univeralistic assumption. And if you think they know any more than that then please lay it out on the table so we can see what you've got.

Hovind is definitely not the only creationist to use or talk about dating techniques improperly, he just came to mind as one who did and one who has a very big name for himself in the movement.

Well the fact that he "came to mind" doesn't support what you were trying to claim. It only showed that you didn't understand his point and drew a faulty conclusion. But if you think there are other creationists that fit the bill then, please be my guest and list them.

That's the point, no one that knows anything about carbon dating would use carbon dating on a living animal and expect an accurate result because it is an improper use of the technique. Either Hovind is being deceptive about the technique by saying/alluding that if it is accurate then carbon dating a live animal should work, or he is being deceptive about his credentials to talk about the technique as he doesn't understand the most basic principles of it. Radiometric dating works well if you use it properly, if you use it improperly you get wacky dates that make no sense, and carbon dating a live animal is an improper use as the parent-daughter isotope is not trapped inside but continually being recycled between the organism and its environment. Only when the organism dies does the system become closed to start the timer that scientists use for radiometric dating.

When you use carbon dating you're getting a date for how long the animal has been dead, regardless if the animal was alive for a year or 10,000 years.

Again, you are jumping the gun and making an assumption that you haven't taken the time to thoroughly evaluate. Nowhere did Hovind say that dating live animals would render an "accurate" date. It is the size of the margin of error that he wanted to draw attention to, and if you were so well-informed about this then you would also be aware that he has also pointed out other inconsistencies in dating methods. And the point is not always that the scientific community does not recognize or achnowledge these problems, but that most people are totally unaware of them and think that carbon dating is always correct.

[Citizenship]

That's one of the main problems with creationism, it is more political and religious than anything scientific. Creation "scientists" have stopped doing science over 100 years ago as their hypotheses have been completely falsified. I cannot go to a respected science journal and get a paper about creationism to show you how ignorant creationists are because they are simply not submitting research or professional papers on creationism, they are not giving talks at scientific conferences; instead they are taking the battle to the public schools, to the churches, to the public domain of websites, cheesy museums, bad journalism, and dishonest signatures.

If you want to see their ignorance and dishonesty that is where you have to go because that is where all the creationists' efforts go, not into the scientific arena. That isn't my opinion, it's just how creationism works in the 21st century.

I ask for specific details and all I get back is propaganda and your biased opinions, the very thing I ask you not to give me. I have studied this debate from both sides. You obviously have not since all you do is parrot what others have drummed into you. You have NO evidence that creationism is more religiously based than evolution. You give NO examples that creationist hypotheses have been completely falsified. Your idea of what a "respected science journal" would naturally only support evolution and you totally ignore the fact that any peer-reviewal done in the scientific community deems anything that disagrees with the reigning paradigm to be incorrect. These are obviously things you don't want to admit.

Demonstrate that there is no twin-nested hierarchy

A twin-nested hierarchy was not a prediction made by evolutionists but rather something that was discovered after the fact, so it does not prove anything?

find an out-of-place fossil

Just google out-of-place fossils and you will find them. But if you want one very well-known example then why don't we discuss the coelacanth. If the fossil record is what the evolutionists suppose then the coelacanth should not have disappeared from the record 400 million years ago and not leave a trace in the layers above it.

Evolution is able to explain dynamic changes and stasis in a coherent and comprehensive model that takes into account the environment in which these organisms live and how fast it changes.

Says who? And who can't make up an explanation that fits all sizes? A whale (ok ancestor..) crawls up out of one environment into another, sprouts legs, roams around on the prairies.. or whatever.. does a 180 and returns to the same environment it left, loses its legs and swims around... all the while another animal in the same environment hardly changes at all. What is the "coherent and comprehensive model" that explains that? Welcome to the world of fantasy.

Diversity and similarities are evidence because of how the two are arranged.

Diversity and similarity can be arranged without evolution, so how is that supposed to be evidence?

One measure of how powerful a scientific theory is, is its ability to connect otherwise unrelated phenomena into a single model, and that is powerful evidence for evolution.

As long as a theory is so flexible that it can be expanded to swallow anything in its path then that kind of power isn't particularly powerful. Just consider how soft tissue in dinosaurs has been handled in the scientific community. Finding it was considered absolutely impossible before it was found. In fact, Mary Schweitzer's exact words were "That's impossible" when she found it, because everyone knows that tissue could not remain soft for over 70 million years.

Later on she apparantly changed her mind and said "soft tissue can be preserved in fossiled bone" after millions of years.

Oh come on!

[Citizenship]

I think we are drifting off topic a bit. Maybe we should start another topic concerning the prophetic reliability of the Bible. Althought, i believe, the effectivity of prayers can be studied statistically. For instance, if a Christian prays for someting extraordinary, like curing cancer worldwide or growing a new limb for an amputee (possible according to John, if done in faith), then I expect zero hits. If a heathen like me prays 100 times that the sun rises the next 100 days (if I did not live north of the polar circle, lol) then I expect 100% hits, if the Maya are not right So, it is obvious that effectivity depends on deviation from the norm.

Viole, people who make these kinds of remarks only reveal how shallow their understanding of Christian faith is and that they are also very poorly informed about what the Bible says about prayer, the use of miracles, and God's will for mankind.

That's why even when Jesus lived he was taunted in a similar fashion, first in the desert by satan:

"If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."

"If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down..." etc..

Then by his own brothers, who at first did not believe in him:

"Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world."

Then by those watching his crucifiction:

"Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself ! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!"

After Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead he finally had his big chance to "show himself to the world". Did he do that? No. He only showed himself to his apostles.

And then finally his brother Jude rephrased the question that he and his brothers made earlier on:

But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?"

Jesus replied,

"If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

Consequently, God does want to show himself to the world. Miracles, healings and answers to prayer do not produce love. That only comes from obeying his teaching.

But to get back on topic, it is obvious to me that the definition of science is in conflict with the definition of faith, or, more precisely, in conflict with the expectations of creationists. The moment you say that it is stupid for science to not contemplate the supernatural is the moment you make my point. If it did, it would not be science, anymore; and this does not depend on the existence or not existence of supernatural events. True, if supernatural events exists, then science would miss them; but this is the rule of the game, as D-9 clearly pointed out. These are the rules, and if they are incomplete, then too bad for science. The only arbiter is effectivity; the day we realize that science is not effective with said rules is the day where we need a new paradigm, and a new name for it. At the moment, there is not a sign that requires such a paradigm shift that leaves out methodological naturalism.

I don't remember breaking any of the rules, but thank's anyway for agreeing with my point that science potentially has an enormous flaw.

[Citizenship]

So, we agree that "Faith VS. something with potential enormous flaws" is more appropriate than "Faith AND something with potential enormous flaws. Don't we?

Ciao

- viole

We do? Why do we do that?

No one picks up a book about how bread is baked in the oven and starts talking about the "baker vs. the loaf of bread". The baker and the loaf of bread sounds ok with me.

[Citizenship]

Wow! Who changed my profile picture? It wasn't me anyway. But I'm cool with that.

[Citizenship]

Wow! Who changed my profile picture? It wasn't me anyway. But I'm cool with that.

I fear, someone is hacking the accounts here. Can't wait to see what picture I get, lol.

Ciao

- viole

Well they're doing a good job as far as I can see, they even got "Citizenship" into the picture. I say let them have their fun.

[Citizenship]

Well, if I suddenly turn into a believer, do not believe me. LOL

Hehe.. weeell, I'm a believer, so that makes it pretty hard for me to do. But I promise I'll try.

[thomas t]

Consequently, God does want to show himself to the world. Miracles, healings and answers to prayer do not produce love. That only comes from obeying his teaching.

That is, miracles are such that they do not show God to the world. I.e. they are such that they might not be miracles at all

Ciao

- viole

God day Viole,

well, maybe, we can believe you someday when you tell us you are believer....

Citizenship failed to answer that one, so I believe he left it to me.

Well, did you ever miss a miracle? Or have you seen all of them, so that you could give us this kind of evaluation?

Thomas