Creationists/ IDers:

[nonbeliever_92]

Please define for me, in your own words, what science is and how would creationism/Intelligent Design fit into that category. Furthermore, please explain to me why you think it should be taught in school (if you think that at all).

 

[fallingblood]

You know you won't get any logical answers.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

You can't say that.

 

[Man of Faith]

To me science is the study of the natural world and what is observed. The natural world and what is observed could have been created by an intelligent being, nobody can verify that or prove it wrong. How the natural would and what is observed got here should be reserved for the philosophy class. Science cannot observe the big bang, the beginning of life, and evolution via common descent so it is philosophy and should be in the philosophy class along with creation.

 

[tumbleweed41]

To me science is the study of the natural world and what is observed.

Basic, but true.

The natural world and what is observed could have been created by an intelligent being, nobody can verify that or prove it wrong.

Also true.

How the natural would and what is observed got here should be reserved for the philosophy class.

Fortunately for the advancement of science, not true.

Science cannot observe the big bang, the beginning of life, and evolution via common descent so it is philosophy and should be in the philosophy class along with creation.

Science can and does observe the results of, and tests the verifiability of, natural results of past occurrences.
By your reasoning, the only thing that is "real" is what is observed by yourself, all else is philosophy.

 

[Super Saiya Jinn]

To me science is the study of the natural world and what is observed.

Not a complete answer, but right.

The natural world and what is observed could have been created by an intelligent being, nobody can verify that or prove it wrong.

You are right, although i don't see how you can say such a thing when you just said above, that things need to be observable, and you just conjured an intelligent being out of thin air with no "observable" evidence or proof. You just shot yourself in the foot buddy.

How the natural would and what is observed got here should be reserved for the philosophy class.

I thought what is observed should be left to the Sciences????

Science cannot observe the big bang, the beginning of life, and evolution via common descent so it is philosophy and should be in the philosophy class along with creation.

Common descent has been proven by "observable" DNA and fossil evidence, so still belongs in the Science class. Magical fairies and the such however, have never been observed or proven, so can remain in philosophy, or religious studies class.

 

[RomCat]

Science ends at the moment of creation. It can
go no further than to stipulate that the material
world came into existence in an instant.

 

[ShakeZula]

Science ends at the moment of creation. It can
go no further than to stipulate that the material
world came into existence in an instant.

If science ends at the moment of creation, how did it begin before creation? You're not making any sense but no doubt you think you sound incredibly deep.

-S-

 

[johnhanks]

Science cannot observe the big bang, the beginning of life, and evolution via common descent so it is philosophy and should be in the philosophy class along with creation.

In fact we can observe evolution by common descent, in the form of the finely graded stages of speciation we can see taking place in animal and plant populations all over the world.

But let's, for the moment, pretend that you are right and that evolution cannot be observed. Well, science cannot observe the earth orbiting the sun, either; but we can observe the world as we find it and deduce that what we observe is overwhelmingly consistent with such an orbit, and inconsistent with rival theories; and so it is with evolution. In both cases what is being practised is science, not philosophy in its modern meaning.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Science ends at the moment of creation. It can
go no further than to stipulate that the material
world came into existence in an instant.

Or to be more precise.
Science, at this time, can only speculate on what, if anything, existed before time/space emerged from the rapid cooling of the Big Bang.

 

[fallingblood]

If science ends at the moment of creation, how did it begin before creation? You're not making any sense but no doubt you think you sound incredibly deep.

-S-

I have to agree with this.




Creationism can exist with science. However, it has be approached from a logical (or call it semi-logical) perspective. If one believes the Bible to be 100% literal, and take that creation story to be true, then a logical approach has not been approached for the simple reason that that creation story is easily disproven. For instance, it simply did not happen long enough ago. Second, we know that human life did not originate in Iraq (where the Garden of Eden would be located). There is no such garden. Etc.

However, if one takes the Genesis story metaphorically, then it becomes possible to reconcile evolution and creationism.

I personally believe in both. I believe that God always was and he started the general motion of all things to come. Basically, he created the building blocks for the universe, and set it into motion, and then sat back to watch what happened. That goes beyond what evolution explains, but it eventually relates once we see the Earth formed and evolution to begin.

I accept evolution to be a fact though, and I see no reason that a creationist has to deny the fact of evolution. It usually relies on a logical fallacy (basically either or), that could be overcome by a little knowledge. Personally, I like to believe what Richard Dawkins states, those who don't believe in evolution are either ignorant, or idiots.

 

[Man of Faith]

Science can and does observe the results of, and tests the verifiability of, natural results of past occurrences.
By your reasoning, the only thing that is "real" is what is observed by yourself, all else is philosophy.

I am saying that nobody can observe the big bang, not the results of the big bang. The results of the big bang is the nature and things we observe that science can study, how it happened, either big bang or creation is philosophy.

 

[Man of Faith]

Or to be more precise.
Science, at this time, can only speculate on what, if anything, existed before time/space emerged from the rapid cooling of the Big Bang.

If it is speculation it isn't science.

 

[fallingblood]

If it is speculation it isn't science.

That is not true. Science does involve speculation, which is then tested and researched.

 

[tumbleweed41]

....either big bang or creation is philosophy.

I am going to go with creation as the philosophy. And the Big Bang as a scientific model based on observable evidence.

 

[Valjean]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say science began at the moment of creation? Without a creation to observe and test, how can there be science?

 

[Man of Faith]

That is not true. Science does involve speculation, which is then tested and researched.

Science follows the scientific method, speculation isn't part of it. Now a hypothesis from something we observe is, but not speculation.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Science follows the scientific method, speculation isn't part of it. Now a hypothesis from something we observe is, but not speculation.

I am so glad you are here to educate all the worlds scientists what the "real" scientific process is.
In fact, to help you educate the scientific community as a whole, I am going to provide you with links to Scientific Journals so that you can submit your true Scientific Methods to them.

• Nature
• Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
• PLoS ONE
• Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
• Proceedings of the Royal Society
• Science
• Astronomical Journal
• Astrophysical Journal
• Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
• Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific
• Accounts of Chemical Research
• Angewandte Chemie
• Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan
• Canadian Journal of Chemistry
• Central European Journal of Chemistry
• Chemical Communications
• Chemical Reviews
• Chemistry Letters
• Journal of the American Chemical Society
• Helvetica Chimica Acta
• American Naturalist
• Biological Reviews
• BioEssays
• Biophysical Journal
• Cell
• Journal of Cell Biology
• Central European Journal of Biology (journal home)
• International Journal of Biological Sciences
• Journal of Theoretical Biology
• Journal of Molecular Biology
• PLoS Biology
• PLoS ONE
• The ScientificWorldJournal

• Biophysical Journal
• European Journal of Biochemistry
• FEBS Journal
• Journal of Biological Chemistry
• Biochemistry
• Journal of Molecular Biology
• Xenobiotica

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Science follows the scientific method, speculation isn't part of it. Now a hypothesis from something we observe is, but not speculation.

Which is why no scientist will ever state that anything known about the period before the big bang (if there was such a time as "before" the big bang) is anything more than speculation.

What's more, all hypotheses start as speculation.

 

[Willamena]

Science follows the scientific method, speculation isn't part of it. Now a hypothesis from something we observe is, but not speculation.

Hypotheses can be formed to test observations, but they can also be formed to test speculation.

hypothesis: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com