Stop the Madness

[Ceridwen018]

I would like to use this thread to specifically discuss a rather prominent issue in today's society: creationism in the science labs of public schools.

As I have recently stated in another thread, I respect everyone's right to believe what they want. I don't care if you think that sheep's bladders cause earthquakes, or if gnomes are stealing your underpants. I may not agree with what you believe, and that is my right, but I also recognize that you probably don't agree with me either, and I think that the best way to handle such a situation is to agree to disagree out of mutual respect for each others rights, and to go about our separate business.

However, there is one exception. I only have problems about what others believe when I see them trying to push their beliefs upon other people, and into situations where such things are not welcome. For instance, I have a serious problem with creationists trying to push their theology into the science curriculum of public schools, and I will tell you why:

1. Most obviously, creationism is not a science. I don't think I need to explain why I think it is ridiculous and silly to teach unscientific things in science class.

2. The teaching of creationism has become synonymous with the rejection of real science, namely the origin of species and geology. The problem I have with rejecting science in favor of non-science deals with progression. I cringe at the thought of serious scientific knowledge being dumbed down and/or done away with in favor of religious mumbo-jumbo, and the subsequent lack of progression of knowledge to follow.

3. In this country, we have a separation of church and state, which means that our legislature, on both state and federal levels, may pass no laws favoring any religion of any kind. Due to the fact that creationism is a complete and blatant religious theory, by allowing it to be taught in public schools as a science is utterly unconstitutional and an infringement on my rights as an American.

That said, there is hope. I don't agree with creationism in any fashion, but I can't argue against it being taught as a science in private schools, if thats what they really want to do--just don't expect me to send my kids there. Neither can I argue against it being taught in a "World Religions and Cultures 101" type of class, which would be perfectly acceptable as an elective in a public school.

Now that you have all read my opinion of the subject, I offer a challenge to those who disagree with me, and still think that the only place for creationism is in a biology textbook. I challenge you, simply, to prove me wrong. Obviously, if I am truely wrong and you are truely right, it shouldn't be that difficult to help me see the light....right?

Lastly, I would like to clarify that my only motivation for accepting science and rejecting creationism is my own personal quest for truth. Many creationists balk at participating in discussions such as this becuase they are afraid that the opposition is totally biased anyway, and therefore there is no point. I assure you all that this is a completely unbiased thread, and that all competent and logical arguments regarding creationism will be considered equally with those regarding evolution.

My hope for this thread, however impossible it may seem, is to come to some sort of an accord. I believe that it is possible to resolve this issue beyond a reasonable doubt, and I feel that it is high time that happened. Let the debate begin!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I would love to take issue with you for the fun of it, but I can't YOU ARE SO RIGHT.
We don't have the problem over here except for schools on closed US forces stations.
Terry
________________________________________


Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

As I have recently stated in another thread, I respect everyone's right to believe what they want. I don't care if you think that sheep's bladders cause earthquakes, or if gnomes are stealing your underpants. I may not agree with what you believe, and that is my right, but I also recognize that you probably don't agree with me either, and I think that the best way to handle such a situation is to agree to disagree out of mutual respect for each others rights, and to go about our separate business.

Sure, why not.

However, there is one exception. I only have problems about what others believe when I see them trying to push their beliefs upon other people, and into situations where such things are not welcome.

Forcing someone to believe something is wrong. Trying to convicne someone is fine.

For instance, I have a serious problem with creationists trying to push their theology into the science curriculum of public schools, and I will tell you why:

Theology doesn't belong in science class, sure.

1. Most obviously, creationism is not a science. I don't think I need to explain why I think it is ridiculous and silly to teach unscientific things in science class.

Or you could. What is un-scientific about hypothesizing that a superior being created the universe? Can we prove it? No. But we also can't prove the big bang and no one denies THAT as a scientific theory.

2. The teaching of creationism has become synonymous with the rejection of real science, namely the origin of species and geology.

Sadly, that is true. Due to certain loud-mouthed fundamentalist groups, many sciences are percieved to be at odds with relgiion when in fact real science in no way contradicts true religion.

The problem I have with rejecting science in favor of non-science deals with progression. I cringe at the thought of serious scientific knowledge being dumbed down and/or done away with in favor of religious mumbo-jumbo, and the subsequent lack of progression of knowledge to follow.

Well what constitutes "religious mumbo-jumbo" is entirely subjective.

3. In this country, we have a separation of church and state,

Huh? Says who? Where does the constitution say that? Everyone always claims how the founding fathers tried to seperate the two. They did ONE way. They wanted to protect the Church's FROM the State, not the other way around.

which means that our legislature, on both state and federal levels, may pass no laws favoring any religion of any kind.

"In God we trust"? Is that not a religious maxim?

Due to the fact that creationism is a complete and blatant religious theory,

No it is not! We derive religions from our belief in God, not our belief in God from religions. Using reason and evidence I have come to believe there is a God. AFTER that you get into religions. The idea that a God may exist is not a religious one.

by allowing it to be taught in public schools as a science is utterly unconstitutional and an infringement on my rights as an American.

Oh? Is it? The idea that God CAN'T exist shouldn't be taught in schools, and the idea that He MUST shouldn't be taught in schools, but the fact that He COULD exist certainly can.

That said, there is hope.

Depending on who you are.

Now that you have all read my opinion of the subject, I offer a challenge to those who disagree with me, and still think that the only place for creationism is in a biology textbook. I challenge you, simply, to prove me wrong. Obviously, if I am truely wrong and you are truely right, it shouldn't be that difficult to help me see the light....right?

You'd think so

Lastly, I would like to clarify that my only motivation for accepting science and rejecting creationism is my own personal quest for truth. Many creationists balk at participating in discussions such as this becuase they are afraid that the opposition is totally biased anyway, and therefore there is no point. I assure you all that this is a completely unbiased thread, and that all competent and logical arguments regarding creationism will be considered equally with those regarding evolution.

Oh for heaven's sake. THEY AREN'T OPPOSED. Not only that, but evolution does not in ANY WAY show how the Universe started. The ONLY theory that adequately explains how the universe started is that of a god, and that is a strong reason indeed for the legality of teaching in public schools that God could possibly be the reason this whoel universe started.

My hope for this thread, however impossible it may seem, is to come to some sort of an accord. I believe that it is possible to resolve this issue beyond a reasonable doubt, and I feel that it is high time that happened. Let the debate begin!

What debate, exactly? Evolution versus creation again? I hope not. Whether or not religion should be taught in public schools? Well of course no certain religion should be taught in a public school. The existance of God is NOT a religious idea, it as the most sensible and most coherant argument for how the universe started. I don't suppose YOU have an idea as to why, without a God, atoms came out of nowhere, then started MOVING for no good reason at all, and then eventually randomly came together to create life so complex that we in all our "genius" can't even figure out how it happened. Even though the chances of amino acids coming together randomly to form something alive has NEVER been observed in nature and yet somehow this is an acceptable theory yet God isn't?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Or you could. What is un-scientific about hypothesizing that a superior being created the universe? Can we prove it? No. But we also can't prove the big bang and no one denies THAT as a scientific theory.

You bring up a very interesting point here. You are correct that scientists cannot prove the Big Bang. In line with this, the Big Bang is usually not taught at the grade school or high school level, and if it is, it is accompanied by the numerous other scientific theories that it is currently competing with.

For the second point that you brought up, "What is unscientific about hypothesizing that a superior being created the universe?", I would like to first say that the problem does not lie in the fact that it cannot be proven. The problem lies in the fact that you would not be hypothesizing, but conjecturing, and there is a very poignant difference between the two.

As it can be found at dictionary.com:

hy·poth·e·sis
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses

1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

and,

con·jec·ture
n.

1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election.

Comparing the two definitions, you can see that a hypothesis is, most clearly, a tentative explanation for a scientific question that can be tested by further investigation. The reason why speculation about creationism cannot by called a hypothesis, is simply because the theory of creationism cannot be tested or investigated in any way.

On the other hand, although the Big Bang has not been proven, its status as a credible theory is able to be affected by scientific experimentation, where affirming evidence can either be found or not.

Huh? Says who? Where does the constitution say that?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Its in the "Establishment Clause".

"In God we trust"? Is that not a religious maxim?

It is indeed, and its also unconstitutional. Two wrongs don't make a right though, do you agree?

The idea that a God may exist is not a religious one.

Whatever it is, the fact remains that it is not scientific, and that is what matters in this debate.

but the fact that He COULD exist certainly can.

Not in public schools, funded by my tax dollars. Its the job of the parents and the Church to teach religious ideals, not the publis schools.

Oh for heaven's sake. THEY AREN'T OPPOSED.

I was talking about myself, as in, I am opposed to creationism being taught in public schools.

Not only that, but evolution does not in ANY WAY show how the Universe started.

"How the universe started" is only one of the questions that creationism seeks to answer. The other is that of the origin of species, and that is where it butts heads with evolution. As for how the universe started, read on.

The ONLY theory that adequately explains how the universe started is that of a god,

...Or the scientific theory of abiogenesis.

You don't hear much about creationism conflicting with abiogenesis though, because abiogenesis is a more advanced theory and is not usually taught in grade schools or high schools, except at the honors or AP level, perhaps. Thus, I don't see a reason to get into abiogenesis and how creationism conflicts with it, because thats not the issue here.

that is a strong reason indeed for the legality of teaching in public schools that God could possibly be the reason this whoel universe started.

"God" is not scientific, so...no.

The existance of God is NOT a religious idea, it as the most sensible and most coherant argument for how the universe started.

That all depends on how you define "sensible", "coherent" and "argument". It also depends on what kind of idea God is exactly, if not religious.

I don't suppose YOU have an idea as to why, without a God, atoms came out of nowhere, then started MOVING for no good reason at all, and then eventually randomly came together to create life so complex that we in all our "genius" can't even figure out how it happened.

This is an entirely different barrel of monkeys. One that I have been inspired to turn into a new thread. Please look for it. (I'll try to post the name of it here once I'm done with it.)

Even though the chances of amino acids coming together randomly to form something alive has NEVER been observed in nature and yet somehow this is an acceptable theory yet God isn't?

Oh my, how quickly you presume. "Amino acids coming together randomly to form something alive" actually has happened. Google the "Miller-Urey Experiment" and tell me what you think. I'll help explain it to you if you'd like.

 

[michel]

Hehe Ceridwen;


"In this country, we have a separation of church and state, which means that our legislature, on both state and federal levels, may pass no laws favoring any religion of any kind. Due to the fact that creationism is a complete and blatant religious theory, by allowing it to be taught in public schools as a science is utterly unconstitutional and an infringement on my rights as an American."

you surprise me; as a foreigner, from what I have seen from this side of the pond, religion seems to have infiltrated the whole fabric of your society an regularly pops up in politics - but hey, what do I know?

Your answer to a question about God "This is an entirely different barrel of monkeys. One that I have been inspired to turn into a new thread. Please look for it. (I'll try to post the name of it here once I'm done with it.)" - I am looking forward to that.......

But basically, I agree with you completely - taking creationism an passing it off as a science is er........strange to say the least; and villifying evolution is like denying the obvious....

 

[Ceridwen018]

For the record, the new thread that I created which I refer to at the end of post #3 ^^^, is called "Filling in the Gaps" and can be found in the "Science vs. Religion" forum.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Or you could. What is un-scientific about hypothesizing that a superior being created the universe? Can we prove it? No. But we also can't prove the big bang and no one denies THAT as a scientific theory.

What's un-scientific about hypothesizing that a superior being created the universe is precisely what's unscientific about hypothesizing that a council of beings created the universe, or that humans are reincarnated as rats, or that undetectable, perfect, crystalline spheres exist around all planetary bodies. What these claims all have in common is that they make no predictions, and therefore cannot be falsified. Big bang theory, on the other hand, predicts that more distant galaxies should be younger and closer together....if we observed that more distant galaxies were not younger, and were not closer together, that would falsify big bang theory.

But no observation could possibly falsify the existence of a "superior being", or its participation in creating the universe. Nor could any observations demonstrate how many "superior beings" took part in the "creation". (Was it one, or five, or five-hundred?) It may very well be true that no less than seventy-six "superior beings" created the universe....but if these beings are supernatural, there is no way for the scientific method to uncover this truth.

Sadly, that is true. Due to certain loud-mouthed fundamentalist groups, many sciences are percieved to be at odds with relgiion when in fact real science in no way contradicts true religion.

Whoah! I've never seen the "no true Scottsman" argument used twice in the same sentence before...

Huh? Says who? Where does the constitution say that? Everyone always claims how the founding fathers tried to seperate the two. They did ONE way. They wanted to protect the Church's FROM the State, not the other way around.

I agree that they wanted to protect the Churches....but I'm also convinced that they wanted to protect the temples, Mosques, and the rights of the people, too. The seperation was BOTH ways, as I think is clear from the things the founding fathers and other political leaders have said:

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own" ~Thomas Jefferson

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." ~[edit: Benjamen Franklin (not Jefferson)], Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

​

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" ~James Madison [emphasis added]

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Treaty of Tripoly, article 11
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." ~John Adams


"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separated." ~Ulysses S. Grant​

"In God we trust"? Is that not a religious maxim?

Yes, it is a religioius maxim. That's why it shouldn't be on our currency. (Besides....don't you think putting that phrase on money--a "false idol" and "the root of all evil"---is a bit disrespectful to your deity?)

No it is not! We derive religions from our belief in God, not our belief in God from religions. Using reason and evidence I have come to believe there is a God. AFTER that you get into religions. The idea that a God may exist is not a religious one.

Please present any scientific papers that have appeared in peer-reviewed journals which say anything about gods and whether or not they exist.

Oh? Is it? The idea that God CAN'T exist shouldn't be taught in schools, and the idea that He MUST shouldn't be taught in schools, but the fact that He COULD exist certainly can.

And the fact that he COULD not exist certainly can, too--just not in science class.

Oh for heaven's sake. THEY AREN'T OPPOSED. Not only that, but evolution does not in ANY WAY show how the Universe started. The ONLY theory that adequately explains how the universe started is that of a god, and that is a strong reason indeed for the legality of teaching in public schools that God could possibly be the reason this whoel universe started.

What's amusing here is how you assume that there can be only one god, and that this happens to be the deity in which you believe. No, evolution does not show how the universe started.....but to say that "god did it" has any explanatory power is just absurd. What is "god"? How many "gods" are there? How did this god (or gods) come about--were they created by yet another pantheon of even higher gods? Most importantly, what falsifiable predictions can we make regarding the existence of this god (or gods)?

What debate, exactly? Evolution versus creation again? I hope not. Whether or not religion should be taught in public schools? Well of course no certain religion should be taught in a public school. The existance of God is NOT a religious idea, it as the most sensible and most coherant argument for how the universe started. I don't suppose YOU have an idea as to why, without a God, atoms came out of nowhere, then started MOVING for no good reason at all, and then eventually randomly came together to create life so complex that we in all our "genius" can't even figure out how it happened.

No explanation is better than an imaginary one.

Even though the chances of amino acids coming together randomly to form something alive has NEVER been observed in nature and yet somehow this is an acceptable theory yet God isn't?

Again, why just "God"? Why not several gods? Why not an infinite chain of gods, each with its own parent-god from which it came?

Evolution is an acceptable *scientific* theory because it makes observable predictions which be falsified. For instance, if we were to find that the fossils of all species in the fossil record do NOT change--that entire species suddenly appear, stay exactly as they are for a while, and then suddenly disappear, as if actors parading onto and off of a stage--that would falsify evolutionary theory. Of course, that's not what we see in the fossil record.....the manatee fossils I saw at the Smithsonian in D.C., for example, showed a clear and steady progression from a legged-land animal to a flippered aquatic animal.

 

[Fluffy]

I agree completely with you Ceridwen. It is easy to tell whether something is science or not. If a conclusions is brought about through scientific method, it is science. If it is not, then it is not science. I don't understand why people have difficulty with this.

However, I think that the view that "if its science it must be true and if its religion/philosophy then it is highly unreliable" needs to be firmly thrown out of the window. I strongly dislike this attitude since I view it to be identical to that of "My religion is true therefore you are wrong". I mention this because I feel that it is the one credible notion that the creationists have attacked the evolutionists with, in my humble opinion.

 

[Natas]

Hello Uncertaindrummer,

Overall we agree on some things, but here's my take on the others.

"Or you could. What is un-scientific about hypothesizing that a superior being created the universe?"

Not a thing. That's the purpose of a "Hypothesis", or "Educated guess". The Hopi Indians "Hypothesize" that our ancestors descended from a first man (superior being ) in a world far below the present one and who climbed up through four successive worlds along a reed and emerged into the world we know today. Good as guess as any.


"Can we prove it? No. But we also can't prove the big bang and no one denies THAT as a scientific theory."

That's why it's called a, "Theory" and not a scientific fact.


"Sadly, that is true. Due to certain loud-mouthed fundamentalist groups, many sciences are percieved to be at odds with relgiion when in fact real science in no way contradicts true religion."

That's like saying real religion in no way contradicts true science...what's your point?
I would love to hear which ones you consider to be, "Loud-mouthed fundamentalist".

"Well what constitutes "religious mumbo-jumbo" is entirely subjective."

I agree.

"Huh? Says who?"

Uh, the United States Supreme Court for one...

"Where does the constitution say that? Everyone always claims how the founding fathers tried to seperate the two. They did ONE way. They wanted to protect the Church's FROM the State, not the other way around."
That is basically true...

"The phrase separation of church and state does not appear in any founding American document. It is, however, a common interpretation of the first clause of the First Amendment, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Wikipedia

It has been expanded since then to mean a lot more.

""In God we trust"? Is that not a religious maxim?"

Yes it is. It was first used on our paper money in 1957, on a one dollar bill. At about the same time [font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance.[/font] Both relatively recent events.

"No it is not! We derive religions from our belief in God, not our belief in God from religions. Using reason and evidence I have come to believe there is a God. AFTER that you get into religions. The idea that a God may exist is not a religious one."

Yes, it is! It's not able to be proved, therefore it's strictly theory.

"We derive religions from our belief in God, not our belief in God from religions."

"Using reason and evidence I have come to believe there is a God. AFTER that you get into religions. "

Are you saying you believed in God before you knew anything about religion? What kind of "reason and evidence" outside of religion led you to believe in a God?


"Oh? Is it? The idea that God CAN'T exist shouldn't be taught in schools, and the idea that He MUST shouldn't be taught in schools, but the fact that He COULD exist certainly can."

We can agree on this point. Creationism and Evolution are the two main theories, so one shouldn't take precedence over the other. Both theories should be explained and evaluated.


"Oh for heaven's sake. THEY AREN'T OPPOSED. Not only that, but evolution does not in ANY WAY show how the Universe started. "

Neither does Creationism. They are both theories.


"The ONLY theory that adequately explains how the universe started is that of a god, and that is a strong reason indeed for the legality of teaching in public schools that God could possibly be the reason this whoel universe started."

Not really, there are plenty of theories to go around. That's the reason we come up with different ones, because we just don't know, Your's only seems better to you since you are an admitted believer in your theory. Again, we do agree on teaching them both in school.



"What debate, exactly? Evolution versus creation again? I hope not. Whether or not religion should be taught in public schools? Well of course no certain religion should be taught in a public school."

This seems contradictory to your previous statement. Are you suggesting now that all religions should be taught or none now?


"The existance of God is NOT a religious idea, it as the most sensible and most coherant argument for how the universe started."

Whose idea was it then? Surely you aren't suggesting Atheist or some other group came up with this theory?


" I don't suppose YOU have an idea as to why, without a God, atoms came out of nowhere, then started MOVING for no good reason at all, and then eventually randomly came together to create life so complex that we in all our "genius" can't even figure out how it happened. Even though the chances of amino acids coming together randomly to form something alive has NEVER been observed in nature and yet somehow this is an acceptable theory yet God isn't?"

No, just like you probably don't have an idea how God came out of nowhere and started moving all these things around. That's NEVER been observed in nature either. What was he doing before he decided to make amino acids come together? Where did he get his chemistry degree?

Evolution or Creation?
Because we can't prove either to be true, one choice is as good as the other.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Any other takers?

 

[Fluffy]

Any other takers?

I don't quite understand the conflict between creationism and evolution. I was under the impression that creationism was about turning matter into life and evolution was about life turning into other kinds of life.

Since I am aware of no scientific theory that addresses how the former happened (could very well be wrong though), perhaps such a startling abscence needs to be emphasised when teaching evolution so that students can pursue it and perhaps come to creationism on their own if they are that way inclined.

 

[Yerda]

Since I am aware of no scientific theory that addresses how the former happened (could very well be wrong though)

Abiogenesis, although not a solid and unified field addresses life's beginnings and has also been written about rather fluently on this forum by Miss Ceridwen. Try searching this section and the science vs religion section.

EDIT:-

Try this - Abiogenesis, explained.

 

[Yerda]

Whoah! I've never seen the "no true Scottsman" argument used twice in the same sentence before...

...No explanation is better than an imaginary one. ...

...Evolution is an acceptable *scientific* theory because it makes observable predictions which be falsified....

Someone frubal him please, I'm forbidden. What a great post!

 

[Fluffy]

Abiogenesis, although not a solid and unified field addresses life's beginnings and has also been written about rather fluently on this forum by Miss Ceridwen. Try searching this section and the science vs religion section.

EDIT:-

Try this - Abiogenesis, explained.

I have recently started to look into the field of Abiogenesis but chose to not include it under the term "scientific theory" for 2 reasons:

1) I do not know enough about the subject to come to a safe conclusion about whether it is science or not
2) What I have read about the subject either skips over the question of whether it is science or falls onto the negative side of the question

 

[Ceridwen018]

Yes Fluffy, I would like to second truth's post.

Now I'd like to clarify the conflict between creationism and evolution for those who don't know.

Creationists in general believe that the earth is roughly 6000 years old, which means that they don't believe in natural selection, common ancestors, erosion, fossils, etc. Creationists believe that animals appear today pretty much the same as they did when God placed them on the earth 6000 years ago, and that no change has occurred over time.

On the other hand, evolution states that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that life evolved very slowly into being, and then continued to evolve into different species, etc. Geology says that things like the Grand Canyon, mountains, etc., evolved by way of erosion and earthquakes over billions of years.

Creationism also conflicts with other scientific areas, such as abiogenesis and the Big Bang to name a few, but neither of those are involved in the regular school curriculum.

 

[Ceridwen018]

1) I do not know enough about the subject to come to a safe conclusion about whether it is science or not
2) What I have read about the subject either skips over the question of whether it is science or falls onto the negative side of the question

If you have any questions about abiogenesis, Fluffy, I would be happy to answer them as best I can if you want. Keep in mind, however, that although it is probably the best theory, it is still one of many, and still considered a scientific frontier.

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

Alright, first off, I jsut wanna say that my first post was more arguing just for the sake of arguing than anything else. I don't have a problem with too much Ceridwen said, although I still don't see why the possibility that God could have created the universe is "un-scientific".

Creationists in general believe that the earth is roughly 6000 years old, which means that they don't believe in natural selection, common ancestors, erosion, fossils, etc. Creationists believe that animals appear today pretty much the same as they did when God placed them on the earth 6000 years ago, and that no change has occurred over time.

That is not REALLY true though. The reason that there is an impression that all creationists think the world is 6,000 years old is becasue they are the ones who are ridiculously vocal about it. Even then, it is only those who believe in the Book of Genesis' inspiration who would claim such a thing. I believe in the Bible and yet have no problem with evolution, survival of the fittest, etc. Of course, I don't think evolution has been conclusively proved--I just don't have a problem if it is.

Creationism also conflicts with other scientific areas, such as abiogenesis and the Big Bang to name a few, but neither of those are involved in the regular school curriculum.

Well it certainly conflicts with abiogensis, but God could have easily used the big bang to start everything off.

 

[Ryan2065]

although I still don't see why the possibility that God could have created the universe is "un-scientific".

Ok, if it is scientific then prove it. First prove it by proving god exists, then prove that god was around when the universe wasnt, and then prove that god had the power to create the universe. Ok, I won't even have you prove it. Give us a way to go about proving it and I'll consider it science.

 

[Yerda]

...I still don't see why the possibility that God could have created the universe is "un-scientific".

Can you describe to me what is scientific?

I don't think evolution has been conclusively proved--I just don't have a problem if it is.

How does Deut. 32.8 put it? Proof is the realm of liquor and logic only. Something like that.

Well it certainly conflicts with abiogensis, but God could have easily used the big bang to start everything off.

Easily. Of-course.

 

[Ceridwen018]

The reason that there is an impression that all creationists think the world is 6,000 years old is becasue they are the ones who are ridiculously vocal about it. Even then, it is only those who believe in the Book of Genesis' inspiration who would claim such a thing.

Not all creationists believe that the earth is 6000 years old, that is true, but many do. Also, I have never heard of a creationist who doesn't believe the book of Genesis.

I think that the "6000 year old earth" deal might be more common than you think.

Well it certainly conflicts with abiogensis, but God could have easily used the big bang to start everything off.

Precisely! Abiogenesis and evolution only conflcit with a literal interpretation of the Bible. However, I agree that it is entirely possible to trust those two scientific theories and believe that God is in charge.