1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Can any creationist tell me ...

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by blü 2, Jul 15, 2017.

  1. blü 2

    blü 2 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    112
    Ratings:
    +76
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    In 1859 The Origin of Species hit the stands, and most scientists and thoughtful people were very rapidly persuaded by the power of its arguments and demonstrations.

    Though creationism never wholly went away after 1859, it was greatly overshadowed until, in 1961 Whitcomb and Morris published The Genesis Flood, and, particularly in the US, put enthusiasm into the bible literalists' cause again. The book also marks the birth of 'creation science'.

    I address this question to creationists here:

    If, as creationists say,

    ─ the theory of evolution is truly wrong, and

    ─ 'creation science' is valid science

    then why, in the 56 years since The Genesis Flood, has creationism put not one single scientific mark, not the tiniest scientific scratch, on the theory of Evolution?
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Muslim-UK

    Muslim-UK Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2017
    Messages:
    502
    Ratings:
    +138
    Religion:
    Islam
    Nothing in Evolution theory goes against creationism in Islam. God is the who and Science tells us the how. Nothing random, and nothing by chance, all of it planned and designed.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  3. blü 2

    blü 2 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    112
    Ratings:
    +76
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Muslim-UK

    Thanks for your input. I hadn't realized there was no 'special creation' in Islamic creationism.
     
  4. Guy Threepwood

    Guy Threepwood Mighty Pirate

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    5,102
    Ratings:
    +1,003
    Religion:
    Non atheist
    I can understand how convincing it must have seemed in the Victorian age among certain academic/intellectual groups, along with classical physics, static universe, phrenology, canals on Mars and Piltdown man. But real science has come a long way since then!

    Belief in Darwin's theory of evolution (a purely natural process without God) is about 19% in the U.S. according to Gallup, and much lower elsewhere, so apparently it's arguments are not all that convincing.

    Intelligent design/ creation science/ skeptics in general have made a lot of progress in science the method, but in science: the fashionable academic consensus- as above that's another matter entirely, and historically the two have often been diametrically opposed
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. syncretic

    syncretic

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    16,928
    Ratings:
    +1,291
    Religion:
    Israelite
    I don't think they've proven that there aren't canals on mars.
     
  6. syncretic

    syncretic

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    16,928
    Ratings:
    +1,291
    Religion:
    Israelite
    Non static universe is just a theory as well.
     
  7. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,156
    Ratings:
    +1,370
    Religion:
    None
    But that's not Darwin's theory, wherein nothing is planned or designed.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,156
    Ratings:
    +1,370
    Religion:
    None
    I must have missed all of that progress made in "creation science." What I'm mostly aware of is zero contributions to the scientific literature, zero usable ideas, no theory or mechanism, a raft of falsified claims about irreducible complexity in assorted biological systems, no useful predictions, and an embarrassing trial last decade that declared ID pseudoscience and religion.

    Can you share some of what you are calling progress?

    Why would you call ID people skeptics, or group them with skeptics? I see that term used by climate deniers as well to define themselves. Faith based thought is not skepticism. It's antithetical to skepticism. It's merely contrarianism and unsupported belief.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  9. Muslim-UK

    Muslim-UK Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2017
    Messages:
    502
    Ratings:
    +138
    Religion:
    Islam
    If GOD planned and designed, then ALL of Creation is very special.

    I didn't mention Darwin, but anyway wasn't he Agnostic having trained to serve the Church in his earlier years.
     
  10. Guy Threepwood

    Guy Threepwood Mighty Pirate

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    5,102
    Ratings:
    +1,003
    Religion:
    Non atheist
    you never know!
     
  11. Guy Threepwood

    Guy Threepwood Mighty Pirate

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    5,102
    Ratings:
    +1,003
    Religion:
    Non atheist
    True, global cooling was all the rage when I grew up - theories come and go,

    [science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact (Mark Twain)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Guy Threepwood

    Guy Threepwood Mighty Pirate

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    5,102
    Ratings:
    +1,003
    Religion:
    Non atheist
    Once again Lemaitre and Planck's theories were considered faith based at one time also- arguably a pretty productive basis as it turns out!

    But can we at least agree to put all that aside- that we should follow the evidence wherever it leads- no matter the implications of it?

    aka the scientific method, or how would you define that?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,156
    Ratings:
    +1,370
    Religion:
    None
    So when you wrote, "Nothing in Evolution theory goes against creationism in Islam," you weren't referring to the Darwin's theory of evolution? What then? The evolution of the automobile? The evolution of the English language?

    I don't know Darwin's religious views. I began looking into it just now here, but didn't finish reading, because the first few sentences were neither interesting nor useful. His theory is compatible with my secular humanist beliefs whatever his religious beliefs if any.

    Why would it matter if you are correct?
     
  14. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,156
    Ratings:
    +1,370
    Religion:
    None
    Comments like that always remind me of this:
    • "You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits. This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server.This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of man made hogwash."- anon.
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Funny Funny x 2
  15. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,156
    Ratings:
    +1,370
    Religion:
    None
    Scientific hypotheses are not expressions of faith. They are attempts to explain observed phenomena. Planck put an idea out there because it could account for an otherwise inexplicable phenomenon (no ultraviolet catastrophe in black box radiation). Einstein used it to explain the photoelectric effect, and people like Heisenberg, Bohr, and Schroedinger used it again. Eventually, this counterintuitive idea of quanta of energy was established based on the success of these people using it.

    Where do you see faith there?

    That I can agree with.
     
  16. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,114
    Ratings:
    +4,630
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Often we see religious believers try to recast science in terms of faith because they recognize how fragile faith is, thus imparting the same weakness to scientific endeavors and conclusions. It's a purposeful attack that, in my opinion, is best ignored.

    Guy Threepwood's remark,

    "Once again Lemaitre and Planck's theories were considered faith based at one time"​

    was done either out of ignorance of the meaning of "faith" and/or the actual circumstances, or plain ol' crankiness.

    .
     
    #16 Skwim, Jul 15, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2017
    • Like Like x 3
  17. osgart

    osgart Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    161
    Ratings:
    +29
    Religion:
    spiritual
    even evolution being true there still is an intelligent creative force at the helm of existence. so you would have to eliminate mindless chance from evolution, no miracle primordial soup came up with life, sorry.
     
    • Creative Creative x 1
  18. Guy Threepwood

    Guy Threepwood Mighty Pirate

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    5,102
    Ratings:
    +1,003
    Religion:
    Non atheist
    I don't atheists did, was the point- and the explicit reason many preferred static models (no creation = no creator) over the primeval atom

    Good, so it shouldn't matter where the evidence for evolution points either way, regarding a materialist or creative explanation for life, we should just follow the evidence.

    As above, expecting that the evidence must back up either point of view- is a matter of faith either way, and not very helpful to the scientific method-

    why is why acknowledging our faith is important, if we don't recognize it, it's very difficult to separate from science
     
  19. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,114
    Ratings:
    +4,630
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    And you know this to be a fact because______________________fill in your answer here______________________________ .

    Please be aware that evolution doesn't care one wit about origins, be it abiogenesis or the hand of some gods. Biological evolution only concerns itself with change in organisms.

    .


    .
     
    #19 Skwim, Jul 15, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2017
  20. Guy Threepwood

    Guy Threepwood Mighty Pirate

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    5,102
    Ratings:
    +1,003
    Religion:
    Non atheist
    Edison was home schooled, the Wright brothers were high school dropouts, Bill Gates dropped out of college - not sure if anyone ever called them 'scientists'

    Stephen Hawking barely left college campus/ academia his whole life and is widely considered the greatest living scientist. Can you name his greatest contribution??
    How about Dawkins? Sagan? DeGrasse Tyson?

    i.e. we have to make the distinction between science the method- the useful, practical, demonstrable method. And science the academic, theoretical, ideological, and even political opinion.

    The method v the label. Historically the two have often been at complete odds.

    The theory of evolution from conception to this day, remains an entirely academic theory, it's not demonstrable, it's not contributing to facilitating our interesting discussion!
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
Loading...