The battle of evolution vs creationism

[bobhikes]

Good idea.
How about you go to the evolution vs creation forums and let the creationists there know.
Perhaps they will listen to you when they refused to listen to anyone else.
I shant be holding my breath.

This is the evolution vs creation debate forums and the creationists are not complaining so far only those supporting evolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

I disagree, I believe it would set a legal precedent at least in the country of the scientific organization resides and then it would spread across the world.

Heck. Would that even _be_ a good thing?

There is no shortcut, Bob. Those who take refuge in dogmatic stances must learn to overcome that weakness.

 

[bobhikes]

Creationism is not philosophical. It's mythological. There is a difference. Philosophy does not deny what science reveals. It simply interprets what it implies or suggests into a context of human knowledge. Creationism on the other hand is rooted firmly in myth. It is anti-science, anti-reason when operating on that level.

Fine then prove Creationism is mythological. You still don't need evolution to do it. Evolution still remains in the realm of science.

I never said it was any bodies job. In fact I do not know what job you are talking about. It is the biologists responsibility to define their science, what it is and what it is not. It is the religions responsibility to define their religion what it is and what it is not.

If neither Science or Religion defines their responsibilities then they will not be successful.

My view on religion God wants you to trust God 100% and forgo everything else. Religion is man's attempt of adjusting Gods reality with the reality they are trying to live in.

Now, I like this reality 100% and have no desire for Gods but I am a rarity.

 

[LuisDantas]

Fine then prove Creationism is mythological.

Is that even in question?

What else could it possibly be?

 

[bobhikes]

Heck. Would that even _be_ a good thing?

There is no shortcut, Bob. Those who take refuge in dogmatic stances must learn to overcome that weakness.

This is not a short cut.

Science is declaring evolution a science that is all
Creationism must meet the criteria for science or be taught as a philosophy.

To be honest I don't think all that many people would have a problem with this. The Catholics, Muslims, Baha'i, Hindu's and others already except aspects of evolution theory. Even creationists could write it off as another misunderstanding of gods hand in creation. Same as they do with the world Flood issue.

 

[bobhikes]

Is that even in question?

What else could it possibly be?

A philosophy unless you can prove its God does not exist you can not prove it to be Mythology.

 

[LuisDantas]

Theism might qualify as philosophy. Creationism does not.

 

[LuisDantas]

This is not a short cut.

Science is declaring evolution a science that is all

Again, what would the point be? That has already been established, back in the 19th century.

Creationism must meet the criteria for science or be taught as a philosophy.

It falls so very short for either call.

To be honest I don't think all that many people would have a problem with this. The Catholics, Muslims, Baha'i, Hindu's and others already except aspects of evolution theory. Even creationists could write it off as another misunderstanding of gods hand in creation. Same as they do with the world Flood issue.

That would be very wrong, though. It would suggest a respectability for Creationism that it never even attempted to earn.

 

[Me Myself]

1)Biology Scientists need to make it clear that evolution has no bearing on the condition of God.

No they dont.

They dont have any reason to even mention God or their personal opinion about his state existence or anything about hir in the science class.

If we want to teach both evolution and creationism they should be taught under there appropriate studies(Science or Philosophy). Evolution should never be brought up in a religious environment and Creationism should never be brought up is a scientific environment.

If Scientists and Religions make this clear we will no longer need this debate room. If Scientist just do their part we can call this room Creationism (Philosophy or Science)

I agree creationism shiuld never be brought up in a 100% scientific enviroment but I dont see why evolution cant be brought up on a religious one.

I know it was brought up for me on my studies (My school was private religious school)

 

[Me Myself]

Fine then prove Creationism is mythological. You still don't need evolution to do it. Evolution still remains in the realm of science.

Creatonism is obviously mythological. This doesnt mean its false of course, but it is clearly not a phylosophy, even though you could be phylosopcal about it.

 

[bobhikes]

No they dont.

They dont have any reason to even mention God or their personal opinion about his state existence or anything about hir in the science class.




I agree creationism shiuld never be brought up in a 100% scientific enviroment but I dont see why evolution cant be brought up on a religious one.

I know it was brought up for me on my studies (My school was private religious school)

I have commented on most of this but you are correct in that I should change environment to study. Religious schools should teach evolution as a scientific study and Scientific schools can teach creationism as a philosophy if they chose.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It occurred to me today how silly this is.

Evolution a scientific study
Creationism a philosophical study

The 2 are not even related so that they can be compared.

1)Biology Scientists need to make it clear that evolution has no bearing on the condition of God.

2)Religions need to make it clear that scientific studies are human studies.

If we want to teach both evolution and creationism they should be taught under there appropriate studies(Science or Philosophy). Evolution should never be brought up in a religious environment and Creationism should never be brought up is a scientific environment.

If Scientists and Religions make this clear we will no longer need this debate room. If Scientist just do their part we can call this room Creationism (Philosophy or Science)

Theology=/= philosophy

Creationism is Theology.

 

[bobhikes]

Theology=/= philosophy

Creationism is Theology.

I see it as

Philosophy starts it all. Science and theology are subsets or practiced forms of philosophy but I take your point theology is not philosophy and creationism is theology. Just substitute theology for where I put philosophy.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I see it as

Philosophy starts it all. Science and theology are subsets or practiced forms of philosophy but I take your point theology is not philosophy and creationism is theology. Just substitute theology for where I put philosophy.

Philosophy is about abstract concepts that may or may not exist. Science however is the study of our universe. Theology is neither. Theology is something that is created from superstition. If it has any basis in truth I don't know. I don't believe it does and I haven't seen anything to suggest that it does per-say.

For example Philosophy was where we brought in critical thought for things we didn't understand to come to some sort of answer. Science is based entirely for evidence and study. Philosophy is based entirely on logic and thought, Theology is based off of belief.

Philosophy answers us why we should be "good"
Science tells us the practical applications of being "good"
Theology tells us to be "good" because god said so.

 

[McBell]

This is the evolution vs creation debate forums and the creationists are not complaining so far only those supporting evolution.

Your blatant avoidance speaks louder than your OP.

 

[McBell]

A philosophy unless you can prove its God does not exist you can not prove it to be Mythology.

unless you can show that creation is anything other than wishful thinking...

Now since we all know that isn't gonna happen....

 

[bobhikes]

unless you can show that creation is anything other than wishful thinking...

Now since we all know that isn't gonna happen....

It has been pointed out that Creationism is theology and I accepted that as It still is not science and all my previous points work the same with theology.

But to your point I can philosophically make a valid case for Creationism, no it would not stand against science but it be valid philosophically. I'm rather surprised you can't.

 

[bobhikes]

For example Philosophy was where we brought in critical thought for things we didn't understand to come to some sort of answer. Science is based entirely for evidence and study. Philosophy is based entirely on logic and thought, Theology is based off of belief.

I believe all learning, all intelligence starts with belief, Philosophy is the very first expansion of this belief, science and theology expand philosophy.

I understand we see things differently and just wanted you to understand this as my view. Some day we can debate it in another thread.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I believe all learning, all intelligence starts with belief, Philosophy is the very first expansion of this belief, science and theology expand philosophy.

I understand we see things differently and just wanted you to understand this as my view. Some day we can debate it in another thread.

Alrighty then.

 

[McBell]

It has been pointed out that Creationism is theology and I accepted that as It still is not science and all my previous points work the same with theology.

But to your point I can philosophically make a valid case for Creationism, no it would not stand against science but it be valid philosophically. I'm rather surprised you can't.

Again, seeing as you cannot make a case for creation that is not wishful thinking...