Creation Science House Bill 3826

[sooda]

Probably the bigger question is why would any school teach ID creationism in the first place? By what standard would ID creationism be taught in science classes, but not geocentrism or astrology?

American schools are already weak in science and math.. Time spent teaching creation science would just be swimming for the drain.

 

[JChnsc19]

How do we go about getting a bill to teach creationism from every religion, including Islam, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Scientology, satanism (if satanism even has a say of this aspect, I have no clue...)

 

[sooda]

How do we go about getting a bill to teach creationism from every religion, including Islam, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Scientology, satanism (if satanism even has a say of this aspect, I have no clue...)

LOLOL.. There are over 250 different creation myths.

 

[JChnsc19]

LOLOL.. There are over 250 different creation myths.

groovy. looks like we better get started STAT

 

[sooda]

groovy. looks like we better get started STAT

Creation science is a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts. It is viewed by professional biologists as unscholarly, and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.

Creation science began in the 1960s, as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution.

It has since developed a sizable religious following in the United States, with creation science ministries branching worldwide. The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in "creation ex nihilo" (Latin: out of nothing); the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 6,000–10,000 years; the belief that humans and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed "baraminological" kinds; and the idea that fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic flood which completely covered the entire Earth.

Creation science - Wikipedia

 

[JChnsc19]

Creation science is a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts. It is viewed by professional biologists as unscholarly, and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.

Creation science began in the 1960s, as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution.

It has since developed a sizable religious following in the United States, with creation science ministries branching worldwide. The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in "creation ex nihilo" (Latin: out of nothing); the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 6,000–10,000 years; the belief that humans and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed "baraminological" kinds; and the idea that fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic flood which completely covered the entire Earth.

Creation science - Wikipedia

yes i know this, i'm an atheist but thanks. i was being facetious

 

[ecco]

Ok, heres the definition of naturalism.

"the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted."

That is a faith statement. A "belief".

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

Jollybear said: ↑
You let your naturalism stand in the way of scientific knowledge.
​

When I suggested you look up 'naturalism" I meant you needed to understand what it meant. All you did was copy and paste the definition. You still cannot explain how "naturalism stand(s) in the way of scientific knowledge".

 

[sooda]

yes i know this, i'm an atheist but thanks. i was being facetious

I'd hate to see institutionalized Ignorance.. School children should NOT be taught that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Creation science - Wikipedia

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted."

As @Polymath257 alluded, supernatural is a problematic concept with no clear definition. Are we considering that there are realms or domains of existence the physics of which differs from that with which we are familiar? If this is what is meant, why call it supernatural? Anything causally connected to the reality we experience is part of reality, that is, a part of nature, and therefore natural. The physics within a black hole may be exotic and unfamiliar, but there is no reason to consider it anything but another aspect of nature. We don't have a use for the idea of the supernatural apart from inventing a word where we can imagine that the things that don't exist are hiding from our detection.

If a god exists capable of suspending the known laws of physics around us and performing what looks like magic or miracles to us, why is that not just another aspect of nature not yet explored or understood? If this god can manipulate the matter that we see, then it is causally connected to us and is in principle detectable. Is there a way to go from our part of reality to where this god resides, as when Jesus is said to have ascended to heaven? If yes, then that is just more reality - more nature - and is in principle accessible to our senses and devices.

I always understand the argument that of course we can't find God because He's supernatural and not accessible to science to be invalid arguments.They assume that it is possible to exist in some sense, but be undetectable by any means available to us. That's something that people living in a godless universe who want to believe in gods nevertheless are forced to say to account for their god being as inaccessible as Superman.

 

[tas8831]

So, is Shapiro in error, and if so, by what qualifications or citable evidence do you say so ?

I didn't say he was in error, I said it was his opinion.

What is your background such that you are convinced of the correctness of his opinion to the exclusion of others in the field?

RNA world is but one hypothesis (and as I have indicated, one that, unlike creation/ID assertions, is actually being investigated), and Shapiro doesn't like it. He prefers his own version. You know that, yes?

I am not going to spend a great deal of time on your "one big thing"-style, but I did google 'RNA world 2018' just to see what has come out in a more recent year than 2007. Interestingly, I came across a short essay on an intelligent design/creation site (which I will not link to) indicating the death of the RNA world. It had a couple of quotes from a recent publication indicating as much. I clicked the link provided, and saw this:

"The hypothetical RNA World does not furnish an adequate basis for explaining how this system came into being, but principles of self-organisation that transcend Darwinian natural selection furnish an unexpectedly robust basis for a rapid, concerted transition to genetic coding from a peptide·RNA world."

Funny that the creationist/ID author left out that part in his 'analysis.' This is the norm.

Creationists and Shapiro might like to dis the RNA world, but this paper came out just last year:

Rethinking the tools of the RNA world
Abstract
An artificially evolved ribozyme can catalyse the synthesis of RNA by using trinucleotide triphosphates as building blocks

Your hero himself had an article in Scientific American in 2007, with the following subtitle:

"The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. Energy-driven networks of small molecules afford better odds as the initiators of life."

So, he prefers his notion to the RNA world. But he is not supporting creation by doing so. You get that, right?

Oh, also saw this:

RNA world easier to make
Ingenious chemistry shows how nucleotides may have formed in the primordial soup.

"An elegant experiment has quashed a major objection to the theory that life on Earth originated with molecules of RNA.

John Sutherland and his colleagues from the University of Manchester, UK, created a ribonucleotide, a building block of RNA, from simple chemicals under conditions that might have existed on the early Earth.

The feat, never performed before, bolsters the 'RNA world' hypothesis, which suggests that life began when RNA, a polymer related to DNA that can duplicate itself and catalyse reactions, emerged from a prebiotic soup of chemicals."


Can you show us some of the amazing scientific research being done on the Design or Creation of life?

You are proclaiming a dichotomy, I made no reference to ID. I simply quoted one abiogenesis chemist on the RNA world idea.

Right... Just out of the blue... No agenda... Got it.

If I were to quote an equally qualified chemist who supports ID, you would dismiss him/her immediately.

Probably, based on my experience with such folks and my better than average ability to understand the relevant science (based on my educational and experiential background).

So, I only quote abiogenesis true believers, atheists.

'True believers.' Cool projection, bro! Sure - you quote them. But you don't tell the whole story, do you?

I couldn´t care less what you believe regarding ID. I simply am addressing the myth that vast strides have been made by science in showing that abiogenesis occurred, and the evidence for it are substantial.

'Vast strides'? Well, compared to ID research into ID, yes.

Those who believe the myth haven´t really investigated the science, or give greater value to the evidence than is warranted, or dogmatically cling to and idea because it meets their own philosophical needs, like you accuse deists of doing.

Right, OK.

I can't speak for others, but I think I have written on this forum before that I don't really care how life began, for that has no impact on what happened afterward (in terms of evolution). Evolution happened (and still happens) whether abiogenesis on earth happened via the RNA world or some other phenomenon, or aliens seeded the planet, or a tribal deity did it.
That said, again, at least non-creationists are actually doing research into their hypotheses. All cretionists/IDists have are attacks on that work and their mere assertions.

 

[tas8831]

Im not a scientist or biologist and im not fully read. But, i know some things. And i learn as i go and i learn through debate.

I doubt you know everything either, or.....do you?

Not at all. But the thing is - I tend to only argue about or pontificate on things that I have an educational/experiential background in - vertebrate anatomy, embryology and physiology; evolution; basic genetics; some related geology; etc. Read the threads on here on things like cosmology and such, and one can see that I rarely take part (unless it is on the basics). I recognize my limits (most of the time ). I cannot say the same for pretty much every creationist I have ever encountered.

I wonder if scientists can read DNA? i know they mapped it, but can they read it yet?

Nice admition. So, the scientists can READ much of the DNA instructions? Well, you just indirectly admitted its instructions then.

I provided your quote to which I had replied - you said nothing of instructions. Why did you add that? Look, I don't mind using the term "instructions" and such, but I have a problem with how creationists misconstrue its use. I can find things like promoters and coding in sequence in DNA because I have read and learned about it and have done so using several different programs by which to do so.. I understand that the terms we use are metaphorical, or short-hand. A promoter, for example, is just a sequence of DNA that binds to certain proteins that are involved in copying the nearby DNA into RNA. Chemical interactions, not 'written instructions'.
THAT is my 'admission.'

You cant read what is not instructions now, can you?

I just read that sentence you wrote and it is not instructions.
Please make better points.

So again - if you know so little about this stuff, how is it that you can bring yourself to write about it?

Even scientists dont know everything about the body, yet they write about it.

So... If we do not know everything, we know nothing? If we do not know everything, we should write nothing? Do you know everything about the bible?

This is not hubris, this is a fact - I know WAY more than you do about the body. I can say this because I have taken 3 undergraduate anatomy course (2 of which I was picked to be a teaching assistant in) and medical school anatomy. As part of my graduate program requirements, I had to teach remedial anatomy to medical students. I was also involved in making prosections (pre-made dissections) for the medical students. I have since taught human anatomy and physiology at the college level for more than 10 years as well as vertebrate anatomy and 2 different classes on evolution, both of which have a lot of anatomy in them.
WHY should I not write about it?

So, what if i know less then them? I learn as i go. Whats wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong if you actually learn first, but most creationists don't do that - they pick up one little tidbit, of dubious veracity, from some creationist website and then pontificate about it on forums like this as if they are the ultimate experts, and then go on to dismiss, ignore, or reject actual information from others (usually accompanied by insults and unwarranted condescension, like one gets from deeje).

THAT is whats wrong.

 

[Jollybear]

Except that it doesn't except as an analogy.

So if DNA is NOT a code, but is LIKE a code, what part of it is like a code and why?

Also if its not like a code, what then is it like and why?

But changing the ink doesn't change the message. Changing the chemicals does change the 'message'.

The ink is chemicals.

Exactly, with codes, the form for the codeword has no actual connection to the 'message'. it is a connection made up by an intelligence. That isn't the case with DNA. The connection between the sequence of DNA and the sequence of amimo acids is precise and depends on the chemistry of both.

So its not like a code then?

Information is there, as it is in all things. But having information doens't imply an intelligence.

Why?

In the case of ink on a paper, yes. In the case of DNA, no.

Why?

Actually, they are quite different. For example, for a book or blueprint, you can say what the structure is from the description given in the document. But that isn't possible with DNA. Given the DNA sequence alone you couldn't tell whether it was a code for a digestive enzyme or a blood clotting factor. There are no specific instructions of what to do when in the DNA, as there would be for a detailed plan. Instead, there are chemical reactions that feedback. The DNA that is transcribed depends on the chemical environment, which is one reason environment has such an effect on development.

Does DNA determine how we will look?

Well, in that case, we need a precise definition of the term 'code'. There are several possibilities, some of which require an intelligence while others do not.

Give me an example of a code putside DNA that implies no intelligence?

Would you care to attempt a precise definition of the term 'code' and how we could determine if something is a 'code' by your definition? Also, whether such a 'code' requires an intelligence to produce it?

Our human experiences tell us that codes and instructions come from intelligence.

I guess this definition will do >

https://www.google.com/search?q=cod...droid-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

[Jollybear]

it's also a default position. We know that the natural world exists.

We dont know if the natural world created the universe or created life.

Until a supernatural is shown to exist (whatever that could mean), the default is to stay with what we know.

Until a natural mechanism is shown to exist that could create the universe and life, the default is to stay with what we know.

But I have a deeper issue with the notion of a supernatural. I think it is ultimately self-contradictory. The problem is defining what it means to be 'natural' and what it means to 'exist'.

Whats contradictory about supernatural?

 

[Jollybear]

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

Jollybear said: ↑
You let your naturalism stand in the way of scientific knowledge.
​

When I suggested you look up 'naturalism" I meant you needed to understand what it meant. All you did was copy and paste the definition. You still cannot explain how "naturalism stand(s) in the way of scientific knowledge".

Saying naturalism did it stands in the way of scientific knowledge because "naturalism did it" is merely filling in a gap. Thats not knowledge in and of itself. Thats why.

 

[Polymath257]

So if DNA is NOT a code, but is LIKE a code, what part of it is like a code and why?

It is like a code because there is a correspondence between the sequence in the DNA and the sequence of the proteins. it is NOT like a code in that the correspondence isn't arbitary, but is in the nature of the chemicals involved.

The ink is chemicals.

Exactly. If you change the chemicals in the ink, it doesn't change the message. That is because the message has no necessary connection to the medium. In the case of DNA, though, if you change the chemicals, you do change the 'message'. That is because the link is causal, not arbitrary.

So its not like a code then?

In some ways it is, in others it is not. It carries information, so is like a code in that way. But the link between the information and the DNA is tighter than it is for human-based codes.

Why?

Like I said before, information is a product of all causal events. So intelligence isn't required for there to be information.

Does DNA determine how we will look?

Not completely, no. There is a vital aspect of the environment and how the DNA and the environment interact. The DNA isn't a blueprint in the way you have a blueprint for a house. DNA doesn't work that way. Instead, DNA is an active aspect of how development happens. There are feedback mechanisms that turn stretches of the DNA on or off depending on the environment and timing of events. So, there is no set of instructions telling where every neuron will be. Instead, the neurons grow into a region based on chemical signals and stop growing because of other chemical signals. those signals interact (eventually) with the DNA to turn transcription of different proteins on of off.

Give me an example of a code putside DNA that implies no intelligence?

Our human experiences tell us that codes and instructions come from intelligence.

I guess this definition will do >

https://www.google.com/search?q=cod...droid-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Well, DNA doens't fit any of those definitions. it is NOT a collection of words or symbols substituted for others. And it is NOT a set of programmed instructions (like in a computer).

 

[Polymath257]

Saying naturalism did it stands in the way of scientific knowledge because "naturalism did it" is merely filling in a gap. Thats not knowledge in and of itself. Thats why.

And yet, it is a position that has worked quite well for many problems that were previously considered to be due to supernatural agents. Like diseases, or earthquakes, or lightning.

Asking for a natural explanation as opposed to a supernatural one has been the main key to the advances of science over the last 400 years.

Are there things we don't know? yes, of course. But the way to figure them out isn't by defaulting to a supernatural. In fact, the best way to proceed is to look for the natural processes involved.

 

[ecco]

Saying naturalism did it stands in the way of scientific knowledge because "naturalism did it" is merely filling in a gap. Thats not knowledge in and of itself. Thats why.

What "knowledge" has your religion given us?

• The earth is 6000 years old.
• The entire earth was covered in floodwaters as high as Mt. Everest.
• A small group of people and two of each "kind" of animal survived the most horrific seas in a wooden boat.
• After landing safely on Mt. Ararat, all the animals made their way to different parts of the world - like kangaroos getting to Australia.
• The sun, which revolves around the earth, stopped for a period of time.

What does that tell us about nature? Nothing! The reason is that none of those things could possibly have happened.

If you believe those things, then you must equally believe that it is just as possible that God created everything Last Thursday.

 

[Jollybear]

What "knowledge" has your religion given us?

Now wait just a minute there. Saying "God did it" i already granted does not get us any closer to knowledge then saying "naturalism did it". Its akin to saying "my dad engineered this truck, therefore i understand how trucks work" or "nature made this truck, therefore i understand how trucks work". Both statements dont get us any closer to understanding how trucks work. Its the same with life and the universe.

The earth is 6000 years old.

Lol, see what you just did? You enacted a straw man and hit it. Im not debating how old the earth is. Im debating if DNA IS a code or is a metaphor of a code.

But, you know as well as i do that there are various interpretations for genesis chapter 1 and the flood. If i start debating that when im debating DNA, my time will be crunched all the more.

The entire earth was covered in floodwaters as high as Mt. Everest.

Some think it was local. As in the highest mountains according to the authors perception.

Some think it was global. There are fish fossils on mount Everest after all. But, perhaps theres another reason there up there.

A small group of people and two of each "kind" of animal survived the most horrific seas in a wooden boat.

I dont care to debate the boat because we dont know how well the boat was built. We only have a general discription of it.

After landing safely on Mt. Ararat, all the animals made their way to different parts of the world - like kangaroos getting to Australia.

Debating stuff like this leads to so much speculation. Again, this assums a global flood.

The sun, which revolves around the earth, stopped for a period of time.
What does that tell us about nature? Nothing! The reason is that none of those things could possibly have happened.

How do you know certain phenomona did not happen and the authors just wrote down what they percieved? They may not have fully understood it, but they percieved it and wrote accounts.

If you believe those things, then you must equally believe that it is just as possible that God created everything Last Thursday.

This is a stupid statement. Polymath is doing a way better job then you are.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Lol, see what you just did? You enacted a straw man and hit it. Im not debating how old the earth is. Im debating if DNA IS a code or is a metaphor of a code.

I believe the point they're making is that these are claims that religions (or, at least, interpretations of certain religions) have lead people to believe throughout history, and that methodological naturalism has a far superior track record.

How do you know certain phenomona did not happen and the authors just wrote down what they percieved? They may not have fully understood it, but they percieved it and wrote accounts.

Again, I think the point they're making isn't regarding the accuracy of the accounts so much as it is about the ideology that lead people to believe the claim. Even if the Bible's account is only accurate from the writer's perspective and not intended to be literally true, religious teaching and indoctrination historically still enforced in many people the idea that it was literally true.

 

[Jollybear]

I believe the point they're making is that these are claims that religions (or, at least, interpretations of certain religions) have lead people to believe throughout history, and that methodological naturalism has a far superior track record.

I dont think nasturalism has any better track record. It stifles knowledge. Before the discovery of DNA, it was said by the naturalists that the cell was simple jelly. Now we know its not. It was also said DNA had alot of junk, now we know thats not true either.

So, no, "naturalism did it, of the gaps" does not help us anymore then saying "God did it, of the gaps".

Again, I think the point they're making isn't regarding the accuracy of the accounts so much as it is about the ideology that lead people to believe the claim. Even if the Bible's account is only accurate from the writer's perspective and not intended to be literally true, religious teaching and indoctrination historically still enforced in many people the idea that it was literally true.

Well i think the stories wer literally true, i just think there perception played a role in there writing it. It dont mean they understood all dynamics. Like the sun standing still. That probably happened, but, not in the way they understood. So, they say it stood still. But, the phenomenon still happened.

Oh, also, sorry i havent gotten to your other posts. Im aware of them, but, due to such number of posts and time, i cant get to respond to everyone.