Creationist Tours School

#1
What has Science Ever Done for Us?

Personally, I'm all for kids being taught all sort of batsh1t nonsense because the sooner society falls apart in an orgy of religious fervour, the sooner I can ramraid the hot tub shop down the road, followed by Unwins, before sitting in my jacuzzi with a lot of scotch, watching the whole thing. It beats celebrity come dancing.
 
#3
RTFQ, have to agree.

The logic behind creationism (if it can be describd as logic), is absolutely simplistic and to my eyes, symbolise weak-minded people (or groups) who either cannot (or choose not to) understand the information (scientifically validated!) put before them that proves evolution IS how we came about.

Do you consider yourself a 'bright'?
 
#4
Agent_Smith said:
RTFQ, have to agree.

The logic behind creationism (if it can be describd as logic), is absolutely simplistic and to my eyes, symbolise weak-minded people (or groups) who either cannot (or choose not to) understand the information (scientifically validated!) put before them that proves evolution IS how we came about.

Do you consider yourself a 'bright'?
Of course anybody who is not weak-minded and simplistic would appreciate that there is nothing that can ever be considered proof of fact when it comes to science.

Saying that, evolution and it's underlying genetics is possibly the best darn useful and influencial theory we will ever see.
 
#5
Agent_Smith said:
Do you consider yourself a 'bright'?
By Mencken I will crawl through the phone line and gut you like a squirrel if you call me that again :D

To be fair, Groucho Marx had it spot on when he called religion the opiate of the masses, and creationism is a sympton of it. It has nothing to do with logic, in fact it is the surrender of reason that causes the opiate's rush in the first place. That's why there is no point insulting or arguing with a Believer, they've eschewed reason and that's what makes them happy.

When you're faced with a world where the perceived realities are all out to kill you, abuse you and generally make the Six O'Clock news a pretty heinous experience, some people find it better that something benign and invisible will save them from it all. i find it hard to really condemn them for that.

But I'll raise the black flag and start slitting throats if they ever get into power though. Oops, too late :oops:
 
#6
It would be interesting for this chap to partake in a debate with Professor Richard Dawkins. Dawkins has been a champion of evolution theory for his whole academic career and will be the first to admit that many theories abound about the exact origin of the first replicating molecules that led to DNA and, ultimately, life.

The idea of evolution, however, is irrefutable and whilst his books The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker are not the easiest reading, they quickly eliminate any question of orthodox creationism. IMHO the only question remaining is what caused the Big Bang.
 
#7
Bat_Crab said:
It would be interesting for this chap to partake in a debate with Professor Richard Dawkins. Dawkins has been a champion of evolution theory for his whole academic career and will be the first to admit that many theories abound about the exact origin of the first replicating molecules that led to DNA and, ultimately, life.

The idea of evolution, however, is irrefutable and whilst his books The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker are not the easiest reading, they quickly eliminate any question of orthodox creationism. IMHO the only question remaining is what caused the Big Bang.
I went to see Professor Dawkins once. I was very impressed.

Re the bit in bold; Even Darwin continued his belief in God after he had come up with his theory. The two are not incompatible, just incompatible with creationism.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#8
The only response to these is to demand the right of reseponse from the Pastafarians:

http://www.venganza.org/

Their site has a link to an interesting interview with Prof Dawkins, as mentioned above.

I'm a Christian, but not a creationist. The two aren't necessarily always compatible!
 
#9
OldSnowy said:
The only response to these is to demand the right of reseponse from the Pastafarians:

http://www.venganza.org/

Their site has a link to an interesting interview with Prof Dawkins, as mentioned above.

I'm a Christian, but not a creationist. The two aren't necessarily always compatible!
...beat me to it. Fewer Christians take the view the earth was created in six 24 hour periods. Most will believe there is a 'creator God' at work over extended periods.

Evolution theory is just that, theory. For the sake of debate Christians can bring out as many scientific theories to challenge evolution as its protagonists can. It all ends up as a question of faith, on both sides.
 
#10
OldSnowy said:
The only response to these is to demand the right of reseponse from the Pastafarians:

http://www.venganza.org/

Their site has a link to an interesting interview with Prof Dawkins, as mentioned above.

I'm a Christian, but not a creationist. The two aren't necessarily always compatible!
Do you mean a biblical literalist? If not then, how was existence created?
 
#13
Yes, that’s what I meant - Maybe the universe always existed (though obviously not always in its present form).

I'm not trying to provoke you.

Good article in the FT.
 
#14
He compares a photo of a fossilised jellyfish with one that he caught off the coast of Australia last year: "We know it's a dead jellyfish - because it looks the same as a jellyfish that died yesterday! Even if you thought that rock billions of years old - jellyfish have turned into jellyfish! And if you haven't changed for two billion years, I'm sorry but you're stuck in a rut!"
Simple. A jellyfish evolved into its most efficient form very early on and did not need to evolve any more. As with the Shark, Crocodile and most other 'prehistoric' looking creatures. As you will agree, these creatures have been pretty much at the top of their food chain for a long time. The old addage of 'if it aint broken, don't fix it' seems to apply.

Can he explain the carbon > diamond equation? If he could then his 6000-8000 year old Earth argument is blown out of the water.

I have to agree with one of his points though. He believes the human race is 'devolving'. Visiting Birkenhead would prove this theory to be 100% true.

Nice that people still believe in a work of fiction written over 2000 years ago.
 
#15
It was interesting in the Paxman interview for Professor Dawkins to posit that his goal was a search for 'truth'.

This was an unusual term for someone so dedicated to 'scientific reason'. What is 'truth' in a biologically accidental universe? Whose truth? Yours? Mine? God's? Dawkins? How can such concepts exist to what is purely cell matter?

He also used terms such as 'purpose'.

These are metaphysical if not spiritual terms largely at odds with the evolutionary scientist who regards all life, love, spirit and soul, as purely biological functions and electrical brain impulses.

It seems wholly hypocritical to present scientific theory aided by a religious lexicon to explain his gaps in knowledge.
 
#16
BoomShackerLacker said:
Christians can bring out as many scientific theories to challenge evolution as its protagonists can. It all ends up as a question of faith, on both sides.
Umm...no they can't. They may well propose scientific hypotheses (and even that is giving them too much credit), but if you think there are any scientific theories challenging evolution then you need to re-research what exactly a scientific theory is.

Theory

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.
I am wondering BoomShackerLacker at the level of your science education that makes you think you are in any position to posit any serious arguments about this subject?
 
#17
Soldier_Why said:
BoomShackerLacker said:
Christians can bring out as many scientific theories to challenge evolution as its protagonists can. It all ends up as a question of faith, on both sides.
Umm...no they can't. They may well propose scientific hypotheses (and even that is giving them too much credit), but if you think there are any scientific theories challenging evolution then you need to re-research what exactly a scientific theory is.

Theory

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.
I am wondering BoomShackerLacker at the level of your science education that makes you think you are in any position to posit any serious arguments about this subject?
I have a Masters in one of the social sciences, which is enough to tell me that there are fewer bone arguments than purporting to have ultimate 'evidence' as this is still only your perception of reality viewed through your lens, coloured by your experience and your own humanity. To cut a long story short humanity can't be placed in a test tube and possessed by one man's Eureka moment.

And yes there are many Christian scientists who combine rigorous due diligence in their work with a faith in a creator God. Regrettably for those like Dawkins who is only offering a hunch himself. He's as far up the gum tree as I am. Faith isn't a redundant concept replaced by science, it is the nature of the human condition. You have faith your brakes work everytime you drive your car.

Science isn't the holy grail, as once modernity propounded. Science achieves much and it destroys much, leaving us sadly dissillusioned with its offering. We are back to the drawing board and into post-modern reflection on what science once heralded realising it was more faith, hope and belief than the solution.
 
#18
As a history teacher, I'm often asked when I'd like to have lived: to which I always reply, "Right in the here and now."

What's science ever done for us? From an entirely personal perspective, it saved my life - literally. Same is true for many others: of my present Year 7 pupils about half probably wouldn't have made it to age 11 at any time prior to the C20th, and two of them certainly wouldn't have survived the last year at any time before the 1970s. Not a bad tally for science from a fairly representative sample of 30 British youngsters.

Have no time for these "creationist" tossers & their Arcadian delusions.
 
#20
I have a Masters in one of the social sciences, which is enough to tell me
Tree hugging, pot smoking hippy then?


Scientists tend to believe in the factual evidence gathered or presented to them by way of logical process. That evidence may well just be a theory but if they don't actually believe in what they are doing it all becomes a bit of a waste of time. I'm guessing for a Christian Scientist, it becomes a bit of a quandary. Faith v Science. If he doesn’t believe in his work, how can he possibly deliver a valid judgement? If a fossil type bloke discovers that his latest rock is over 6 million years old, will his faith overtake his scientific knowledge which would lead him to actually discredit himself??

Science is on the whole a logical process based on some form of factual evidence or rational theory. Faith is based on a bunch of bullies who have a penchant for choir boys.
 

Similar threads


Top