Does Creation Science Threaten Science Literacy?

[kbc_1963]

One more thing kbc--there are not two schools of thought. There is a scientific school of thought, and there are many, many diverse religious schools of thought. Let the religious schools of thought be taught in philosophy/religions courses.

There are only 2 schools of thought;

1) we are here via natural action
2) we are here via intelligent design

all current theories/ beliefs fall into one of these categories, If you believe there is a third possibility then enlighten me.

I say let only that which can be proven by reproducible scientific evidence be taught in school or let every theory/ religion be taught as well. that will clear out any grey area teachings that could change as science makes discoveries that keep changing current theory.

 

[Raphael]

Creation is a fact. Evolution is also a fact. Both address completely different aspects of existance. Evolution is the telling of the story of the examination of physical evidence of the obserable changes in matter that take place over time. This in no way explains the existance of matter, energy and motion. A cup evolves. A story evolves. A cup was once clay in the bed of a stream. Over time and by the hands of a craftsman it takes on a new identity and a new purpose. It continues to evolve until its own end and retransformation of its current form of matter. Before matter itself existed there was an eternity of pre-time. The phenomena of time only exists where there is factual motion or observable change. But before observable time there was eternity. At some point there was the first factual motion. This motion like all motion had to be caused by something outside of itself that was not in motion but posessing the power to cause the first motion from which all motion extends.(Prime Cause) "Intellectual Motion," reinforces that fact that the complexity of the end result of the first motion is suffient proof that the prime cause is intelligent and the end result was planned. (The end result of the first motion being all physical existance and the physical laws that govern it called physics) The Catholic Church has never stated in its teaching on creation over what period of time that the end result of that first planned motion came into its present state.

 

[Pah]

If science can show uncontested proof then that would be great however you can't prove that we evolved from lesser to greater, I could just as easily say that we are devolving from perfection to more and more imperfection.

First of all Kbc, science always shows contested proof - that's what makes it proof. hehehe

Second, evolution has no direction - it is not to or from perfection that it moves. It is random and has no purpose. That is a serious misconception of evolution you have there.

My GOD could very well have made everything perfect and when we disobeyed him he took away his protection and everything has been devolving since then

The reason for the flood was to clear the earth of monsters was it not? So let me ask where imperfect really started according to what God had to say in his word. The curse in Eden was quite specific was it not? There was no removal of "protection".

I like this analogy that I saw somewhere recently and it apropriaate here and now:

Imagine you have a computer program that does simple math calculations now imagine that every so often there is a copy mistake as we copy it an pass it from person to person how long would it be before we would get a copy of Windows XP?

But copying is not the only means of making another program. There is purposeful addition , modification, redesign, always with a "blueprint" in mind. Evolution doesn't work that way, Failure of this argument is tied to the very same misconception mentioned above.

Not understanding exactly how cells work from the inside out is a reason why most people think that everything is evolving, but a simple cell tells volumes since at any point in time even the simplest cell is more complex than the most complex computer on our planet. in order for evolution to be factual then it must be proven that we began as chemicals and that chemicals became cells otherwise we can argue all day as to whether evolution as you call it is a fact of science theory or a fact of the creation of GOD that can adapt or are possibly devolving and appearing evolutionary.

No, it must be proven to show origin is correct and we're well on the way to doing just that. Evolution as a process for the living is without creditable dispute.

-pah-

 

[Hirohito18200]

in order for evolution to be factual then it must be proven that we began as chemicals and that chemicals became cells

what is being contested here? Are you denying that chemicals cannot or did not combine to form cells? This is one of the most fundamental teachings of biology, regardless of origins belief.. It was demonstrated that certain common chemicals, when electrically charged, bond together to form amino acids. Amino acids commonly form proteins, this is a key process for life to exist. Proteins, as well as other, more simple chemical compounds, are all that compose cells, with mabey the exception of nucleic acids, which are created in a similar manner (its just that they are arguably as complex).

And as to evolution being taught in schools... I don't think it honestly matters because I was taught from a strictly biblical point of view, and I have learned and accepted evolution on my own initiative. And I don't think that we have to worry about creationists slowing down scientific advancement; over time, they'll evolve their thinking.

 

[kbc_1963]

First of all Kbc, science always shows contested proof - that's what makes it proof. hehehe

Second, evolution has no direction - it is not to or from perfection that it moves. It is random and has no purpose. That is a serious misconception of evolution you have there.

Proof is how theory becomes law, once it has enough proof then it can no longer be contested.
what you must be referring to is circumstantial evidence, evidence that could be looked at more than one way


The theory of evolution indeed could go both to higher complexity or to less complexity however the main argument is that evolutionist believe that you can become more complex from less complex, so my "CONCEPT" is where it should be dealing with those issues that are relevant to the subject, so once again my argument stands as it was meant;
Evolutionists believe that COMPLEX life arose from SIMPLE chemicals through evolution/ natural interaction.
I contest that idea since it is an unproven theory.

The reason for the flood was to clear the earth of monsters was it not? So let me ask where imperfect really started according to what God had to say in his word. The curse in Eden was quite specific was it not? There was no removal of "protection".

Ge*6:5
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Ge*6:7
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

It looks like not on the monster thing

Ge*3:22
¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Ge*3:23
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Ge*3:24
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

it appears that the protection that was had in the garden of eden was indeed taken from man.

here is a curious verse that may imply that GOD changed the nature of things when cursing the ground as it appears that thorns and thistles probably didn't exist prior to this.

Ge*3:18
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

But copying is not the only means of making another program

so you believe that the beginning cells had sex?
its either that or otherwise they divided or copied themselves (doh!)
It is my suggestion that rather than just throw out any old thought you should think it out realisticly since this theory must apply all the way to the beginning.

No, it must be proven to show origin is correct and we're well on the way to doing just that. Evolution as a process for the living is without creditable dispute.

show origin?

science has had over 50 years to prove that simple chemical reactions were our beginnings and we still have squat for a realistic theory much less actual empirical facts so I deny that evolution is without creditable dispute as I have shown in my own thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2895

it has tons of things to dispute so you can have an opinion of course but as usual you don't come with empirical evidence like I do.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Proof is how theory becomes law, once it has enough proof then it can no longer be contested.

It would be more accurate to say that "Once it has enough EVIDENCE it cannot be EASILY contested."

Evolutionists believe that COMPLEX life arose from SIMPLE chemicals through evolution/ natural interaction.
I contest that idea since it is an unproven theory.

Who says chemicals aren't complex? Just because they're separated from each other, doesn't mean their simple. That's your definition of complex, is it not? The more components a thing has working together, the more complex it is? You don't seem to be thinking this throguh.

so you believe that the beginning cells had sex?
its either that or otherwise they divided or copied themselves (doh!)

Not quite. It is a strong biological theory that the first eukaryotes spawned from one prokaryote ingesting another, and their two systems cooperating to for a bicellular organism.

science has had over 50 years to prove that simple chemical reactions were our beginnings and we still have squat for a realistic theory much less actual empirical facts so I deny that evolution is without creditable dispute as I have shown in my own thread:

As the great (Q) would say, this is 'horsepucky'. Over these past 50 years, and even further, science has expanded it's knowledge in leaps and bounds. There is plenty of evidence suggesting different ways that 'chemical reactions' could have been our beginnings. Likewise, we have examples of transitional species, etc. Evolution is getting closer and closer to 'fact status' every year. For you to say that science has made no new discoveries regarding evolution in the past 50 years suggests that you don't really know what's going on in the world of science.

That aside, the 'lack' of evidence for evolution does not automatically make creationism correct. It simply means we don't know everything...yet. The fact remains that evolution has a ridiculously larger amount of evidence than creationism.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Evolution is getting closer and closer to 'fact status' every year.

Perhaps abiogenesis is getting closer and closer to fact status every year, but evolution as a natural phenomenon was a proven fact about a hundred years ago.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Perhaps abiogenesis is getting closer and closer to fact status every year, but evolution as a natural phenomenon was a proven fact about a hundred years ago.

...Truly?...Well then what in the heck are we even arguing about? I was under the impression that the theory of evolution, although highly probable and backed by much evidence, was still incomplete and therefore not able to be considered 'fact'. Indeed, evolution as a fact is news to me.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Ceridwen-- check out: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Evolution was observed almost a hundred years ago, and since then it has been observed many more times and repeated in laboratories. So that evolution happens is a fact. How exactly unicellular organisms evolved into multicellular organisms is theory, as well as how proteins and self-replicating molecules evolved into the first cells.

 

[kbc_1963]

Not quite. It is a strong biological theory that the first eukaryotes spawned from one prokaryote ingesting another, and their two systems cooperating to for a bicellular organism.

canibals believe they gain the strength of the person they eat as well.

wanna prove that any of the theories argued about are even possible?
then you can start here;
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2895
every part of this thread deals with empirical science that is actual provable science not theories about why something won't work actual proof of why it can't work.
This thread also deals with what I mean by complex so go take a whack at it and see what happens.

 

[kbc_1963]

Who says chemicals aren't complex? Just because they're separated from each other, doesn't mean their simple. That's your definition of complex, is it not? The more components a thing has working together, the more complex it is? You don't seem to be thinking this through.

chemicals indeed are complex they are just less complex than the things they become part of so you can read whatever you want into my post but if you want to take this to the level of the atom or smaller then bring it on, I am well versed and read in all these subjects, so lets get complex.

 

[kbc_1963]

Hirohito18200 said:

what is being contested here? Are you denying that chemicals cannot or did not combine to form cells? This is one of the most fundamental teachings of biology, regardless of origins belief.. It was demonstrated that certain common chemicals, when electrically charged, bond together to form amino acids. Amino acids commonly form proteins, this is a key process for life to exist. Proteins, as well as other, more simple chemical compounds, are all that compose cells, with mabey the exception of nucleic acids, which are created in a similar manner (its just that they are arguably as complex).

If those are facts indeed then I would not be able to make my statements in this thread;
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...read.php?t=2895

see for yourself if any of what they feed you is true.

 

[Pah]

canibals believe they gain the strength of the person they eat as well.

wanna prove that any of the theories argued about are even possible?
then you can start here;
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2895
every part of this thread deals with empirical science that is actual provable science not theories about why something won't work actual proof of why it can't work.
This thread also deals with what I mean by complex so go take a whack at it and see what happens.

Your premises are wrong in that thread and nobody should waste their time on anything that follows from them

-pah-

 

[kbc_1963]

Your premises are wrong in that thread and nobody should waste their time on anything that follows from them

-pah-

your opinion about my premise is wrong and no one should waste time listening to your opinion, bring empirical scientific proof or sit on the sidelines.
Because you can't disprove my thread or its premises you are acting as any child would that has lost a fight but that is evident.

To all that can look for yourselves and determine the truth or falseness of my post, do not be led by opinion, each of us has intelligence so let yours be the judge.