Creationism vs Noncreationism

[Capitalist Pig]

gogogogogogogogo

[marooned]

I descended from a race of giant man eating birds. They call them Wuulaaahs. You don't want to piss them off.

[Creepy-bg]

I descended from a race of giant man eating birds. They call them Wuulaaahs. You don't want to piss them off.

those guys are fags.

[Not A Communist Shill]

blame god, not genetics

[xerx]

The Pope supports evolution over intelligent design:
Catholic Church and evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[silverchris9]

Pro-Intelligent Design

Some of the objections raised by Intelligent Design scientists are relevant: children are taught evolution because it is a scientific consensus, but to a large (or at least relevant) degree, it is a scientific consensus because it is enforced as such, and one of the methods of that enforcement is teaching only evolution.

I mean, I had a good friend come to me from her intro bio class and gladly say that her professor had informed her that all arguments against evolution are bullshit and wrong, at which point she proceeded to offer a quite illogical workaround of the intelligent design bit about how the eye is useless until all the pieces are there (i.e., it is not the sum of its parts---the function of the eye is emergent). And I think that's really irresponsible. I mean, how do you discover relativity when everyone goes around teaching that "all alternatives to Newtonian physics are wrong! Such is the scientific consensus!"

I do think that science in general falls prey to "methodological naturalism," which is the assumption that nothing exists but matter, and as such, it should be no surprise that scientific conclusions tend to imply that nothing exists but matter, or at least to minimize/ignore the role of immaterial things.

Some things intelligent design has done are just things that should have happened long ago anyway, like pointing out that Haeckle's embryo drawing purportedly proving that 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' are manifestly faked and incorrect, and as such should NOT be in children's textbooks any more than history books should report that George Washington wrote the Declaration of Independence. Just because a false piece of evidence contributes to an (arguably) true conclusion (in my example, that George Washington played an integral role in the development of the United States), doesn't make it any less of a false piece of evidence.


Anti-Intelligent Design

On the other hand, the scientific consensus exists for a reason. Evolutionary theory has proven to be quite the effective explanation for a variety of phenomena, and that definitely counts for something.

Intelligent design, no matter how many protestations it makes to the contrary, is not a 'movement' with a purely secular purpose. Both the majority of the scientists that pursue it and the organizations that fund it have non-scientific ideological goals and ways that they seek to gain from intelligent design research.

Science kind of has to be methodologically naturalistic, simply because immaterial things are freaking hard to test, while material things can be tested fairly easily, until they start getting really, really, really, really small. (really = a decrease of five-to-ten orders of magnitude).

[Logos]

Some of the objections raised by Intelligent Design scientists are relevant: children are taught evolution because it is a scientific consensus, but to a large (or at least relevant) degree, it is a scientific consensus because it is enforced as such, and one of the methods of that enforcement is teaching only evolution.

It's the scientific consensus because it has been repeatedly tested and supported by the research of other scientific branches, and no theory has yet been presented that explains the natural phenomenon observed in biodiversity better than Darwin's evolutionary theories.

I mean, I had a good friend come to me from her intro bio class and gladly say that her professor had informed her that all arguments against evolution are bullshit and wrong, at which point she proceeded to offer a quite illogical workaround of the intelligent design bit about how the eye is useless until all the pieces are there (i.e., it is not the sum of its parts---the function of the eye is emergent). And I think that's really irresponsible.

Of course, but those pieces evolved through descent with modification, the specialization of pre-existing parts through genetic mutation and adaptation. The morphological stages in the evolution of the eye is fairly well documented in more "primitive" species. I expect that a simple Google Image search of "evolution + eye" would show numerous graphical representations charting these stages.

I mean, how do you discover relativity when everyone goes around teaching that "all alternatives to Newtonian physics are wrong! Such is the scientific consensus!"

You do so through challenging it on mathematical and scientific grounds.

I do think that science in general falls prey to "methodological naturalism," which is the assumption that nothing exists but matter, and as such, it should be no surprise that scientific conclusions tend to imply that nothing exists but matter, or at least to minimize/ignore the role of immaterial things.

That's because science cannot test or speculate on anything beyond the material. Science does not make claims about "non-matter" or the spiritual, though many scientists do have a preferred scientific naturalism worldview rather than a supernatural worldview. Science only makes claims about the material universe. Anything beyond that is not in the scope of scientific pursuit.

Some things intelligent design has done are just things that should have happened long ago anyway, like pointing out that Haeckle's embryo drawing purportedly proving that 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' are manifestly faked and incorrect, and as such should NOT be in children's textbooks any more than history books should report that George Washington wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings were debunked and decried as fraudulent in his lifetime. But this was originally done by evolutionists and fellow scientists and not from the intelligent design community, who only did so when they needed an outdated evolutionary strawman to tilt against. Now Haeckel is not in scientific textbooks for the scientific breakthroughs he did achieve, but to showcase this controversy in the intellectual history of evolution.

[Aiss]

Some of the objections raised by Intelligent Design scientists are relevant: children are taught evolution because it is a scientific consensus, but to a large (or at least relevant) degree, it is a scientific consensus because it is enforced as such, and one of the methods of that enforcement is teaching only evolution.

I agree with the principle of offering people alternatives, as it forces them to think on their own rather than accept whatever they're told, but I don't think "intelligent design" is a sensible one in this case. "Intelligent Design scientist" is an oxymoron for me, as is "belief in evolution", which sounds like something made up by believers because they can't understand it has nothing to do with it. What distinguishes science from religion is that it focuses on doubt rather than belief, and so it's disturbing to me when it's made into the latter, as you describe with evolution here. Only it's even worse to present something based on pure belief (regardless of how generic it is) as an alternative and still pretend it's science. There's nothing wrong with admitting we don't know or understand something - and the more advanced it gets, the more often you meet with this answer. It's mostly on the basic level that everything is presented shallowly as obvious and proved.

There might be no proof of evolution, but there's evidence and no real alternative. You could try to explain it with another theory, or question it, but to dismiss it altogether on the basis of nothing more than a belief is like saying "it's proved false because I want it to be false".

Believe in whatever you want, just don't call it science.

[Creepy-male]

Perhaps not incredibly relevant to the discussion at hand, but it seems like the teaching of evolution is hardly an appropriate arena for teaching children about scientific skepticism. This should really be introduced

A more relevant issue is not "Evolution is a belief being passed off as The Truth over other beliefs" (and as Aiss stated, it's not really a belief or philosophy or anything like that), it's "children are not being taught to question things". It seems like that would be a more worthwhile debate topic tbh. But whatever, I smell a NiTe vs SiTe superego clash on the winds, so I'll leave my thoughts at that

At any rate, I'm not in America, and AFAICT Australia doesn't have similar issues with the church dipping its toes in every facet of public life (which is frankly what I see ID being taught as). I did also attend a secular private school, so I can't speak for the public schools. Bear that in mind.

[silverchris9]

Believe in whatever you want, just don't call it science.

Fair. Trade? Science whatever you want, just don't call it absolute truth.

My real opinion on intelligent design and evolution is that it's fine to teach only evolution in a science class (with the exception of incorrect things like those embryo drawings), but that people shouldn't be made to believe that the scientific idea ("the best natural explanation for biodiversity is evolution") necessarily supplants or replaces the philosophical/religious/spiritual idea ("God created life").

[Creepy-male]

but that people shouldn't be made to believe that the scientific idea ("the best natural explanation for biodiversity is evolution") necessarily supplants or replaces the philosophical/religious/spiritual idea ("God created life").

"Science isn't English. I like English, but not Science, because Science robs life of meaning, so I think Science should be made into English." Unfortunately philosophy and religion are quite outside the scope of science or the science classroom. I'm not mocking you or anything btw

I don't think science in school really suppresses any of that. Do your experiences run contrary to this?

[silverchris9]

That's because science cannot test or speculate on anything beyond the material. Science does not make claims about "non-matter" or the spiritual, though many scientists do have a preferred scientific naturalism worldview rather than a supernatural worldview. Science only makes claims about the material universe. Anything beyond that is not in the scope of scientific pursuit.

Right. But then you have statements and beliefs like: science and testing has replaced belief and superstition; the scientific method has been proven the best way to truth; there are no shortcuts to truth beyond the scientific method, etc. It would be fine for science to confine itself to material things if the culture respected that confinement, but it doesn't (and some scientists--Dawkins--don't either). Rather than remaining neutral (on scientific grounds anyway) on immaterial questions, which would be the responsible thing to do, many people, both scientists and nonscientists, attempt to apply natural standards (i.e., evolution) to metaphysical questions (i.e., how the universe came into being, what existed "before" the universe, what caused the universe or life or whatever). It's not that the two cannot inform one another, but there is a way in which science is limited as well as strengthened by its scope. I think we tend to recognize the strength, and not the limit.

[Creepy-male]

How did the universe come into being?

We don't know... yet. And we may never, but it's worth seeking the answers.

What existed before the universe?

We don't know... yet. And we may never, but it's worth seeking the answers.

What caused the universe and life?

A reasonable guess (to my knowledge) is random chance. There might be other answers, and they're worth investigating, because we might found out that we can come up with a better answer.

"We". This is sort of like the limbo between science and philosophy, since I think, much like how there's the pyramid of needs for individual humans, civilisations have their own pyramids of needs, and as a species we're still really dealing with staying alive, so not too much thought can really be directed toward (since thought on a grand scale also costs money, and money only tend to flow to where it can accrue and return in greater mass... very frustrating) the grand mysteries of the universe.

Science is also as applicable to the abstract as it is to the concrete, since the two are the same, just one is made of neurons firing, and the other is made of atoms and molecules. If it weren't, we wouldn't have theoretical physics.

[marooned]

Fair. Trade? Science whatever you want, just don't call it absolute truth.

My real opinion on intelligent design and evolution is that it's fine to teach only evolution in a science class (with the exception of incorrect things like those embryo drawings), but that people shouldn't be made to believe that the scientific idea ("the best natural explanation for biodiversity is evolution") necessarily supplants or replaces the philosophical/religious/spiritual idea ("God created life").

How are they "made to believe this" though? Science just follows the evidence around and creates hypotheses and theories to explain the evidence... theories change when enough evidence to the contrary is found (invalidating the theory). It isn't about belief or philosophy at all (if it is, it is no longer science). If a person believes there is no God to create life for instance, and also agrees that evolution appears to be the best explanation we have for the changes observed with living organisms throughout time, the reason they're "supplanting the philosophical/religious/spiritual idea" is simply that they didn't believe in God to begin with, which is a separate matter. Although some people don't believe in something like "God" and don't have really many spiritual beliefs because they see no evidence for it or reason to believe in it (and you could say that this kind of person and thinker is very much a product of a modern worldview that holds evidence as supreme in understanding reality, so point taken). Anyway ironically the only science class I've ever had (and I've taken many) where someone tried to make us believe something was in 9th grade biology where the teacher couldn't seem to restrain himself from telling us that the human ear is so complex that only the Biblical God could have made it and that although there may be evidence for micro-evolution, there's no such thing as macro-evolution because God created all life on Earth and it's been for the most part unchanging for the last 6,000 years (as the Earth is only 6,000 years old). Other than this, there have been no "beliefs" presented in sciences classes I've had... only the course material and the evidence & theories surrounding it. Considering that he was otherwise a shitty teacher aside from this I thought he had no place teaching biology class. It would be one thing if he was just sharing his personal beliefs and saying they were personal beliefs while still maintaining a line between science and things that are not science (but in his mind he had intertwined them to be the same thing and was presenting it as "the Truth" of things). To clarify he was trying to push his personal beliefs on the class as both "truth" and as scientifically valid (or perhaps he was saying that science itself is invalid, I'm not sure which). But the point is it didn't belong in science class.

Edit: I would contrast this with my 11th grade AP Biology teacher who told us that after we've delved into the biological complexity of everything enough we'll see that only the Biblical God (that fiend) could have made all these things because they're just so ingenious and all. I can't remember her beliefs, but I think she felt God was guiding evolution along or something. Anyway I had virtually no issue with this because although it was clear she thought her personal beliefs were "true" she wasn't corrupting the presentation of the science itself and with that I have no issue. She also seemed to have some understanding at least that people have the right to believe what they will and so I didn't feel trampled over by her ideology. And I think discussions of these broader questions can enter into science classes (or I don't really have some sort of stance on it) and be just fine (although they could potentially create arguments and take time away from the course material defeating the purpose of the class, but I don't know if I even have a problem with this, and I guess it would just depend on the actual individual cases, because I can only go so far with it hypothetically). I probably don't see any reason to believe "God is guiding evolution along"... I mean it's like saying that God is guiding along processes of erosion or something when gravity and wind and what not can make rock walls gradually fall into rivers all by themselves.

I mean I do think that we operate more off of a view of evidence these days and looking to evidence and fact has to some extent overwhelmed the more mystical inclinations that dominated the peoples of the past before we had all of these tools of thought (and technology to delve more and more into things). So you could say "science has become many people's religion" but science itself isn't supposed to be a religion... it's not about belief. Beliefs that arise in one's mind in part influenced by what they know about science are still their own doing (not the doing of science) because humans manufacture beliefs and meaning. It's like blaming the gun for shooting someone rather than the person who pulled the trigger.

Anyway my main beef is when "creationism" or "intelligent design" are taken as valid alternative theories to the theory of evolution because they are not "theories" in the scientific sense and therefore they do not belong in science classes at all.

My other beef is that they assume a Judeo-Christian worldview and you know there are actually other bodies of religious belief out there and so I see it as discriminatory against other religions and other beliefs in general (including atheism, which I see as very much a belief and some atheists are just as fanatical about it as some religious people).

I think that part of the issue is that both spiritual beliefs and science are used to answer questions... people want to understand the why behind everything and in our minds it's easy to cross different ways of addressing these questions and muddle them up... it's just that science doesn't operate in a more mystical context as spiritual beliefs do and so they don't at present belong in each other's universes, at least not things like the classroom where the classroom is supposed to teach scientific matters.

But I mean when you have all these vectors pointing in the same directions "the big whys" it is conceivable they may eventually hit each other... but still this is more a philosophical matter... and it's not like they can't merge, but one has to be very careful I guess about how they organize it in their minds (I think geniuses like Stephen Hawking for instance often have the mental power to organize this together, addressing both scientific and philosophic matters without mixing it all up into a giant mess fueling feelings of outrage regarding what it does to their own beliefs).

Another issue is the need to believe in something interferes with the seeking of understanding. At some point belief overcomes understanding and then it isn't about asking why anymore but about defending what one believes (but of course what we believe gives us reasons to actually do things and so we need our beliefs). And I think this is kind of a dangerous ground to tread mentally and objectivity is one thing I feel helps keep me from falling into it (as well as questioning). It's a precarious balance in it's own way. It's that everything one learns contributes to a conception of reality and the world and sometimes the defending of that conception turns around and denies what is right in front of us because it might tear down the walls of the world we believe in.

[marooned]

I keep adding onto my post, so I think I'll just start another one. I wouldn't worry that people will lose all sense of the underlying elements that produce superstitious beliefs, faith, mystical notions, etc. I think that people naturally do this (it's in our biology) and I think is very wed to our emotionality, intuition, and sense of meaning. No matter what the world believes, I don't think we could lose that part of ourselves and still be human. Nothing is changing, just the external framework of that something. I also think these things are essential to being a complete human. And regarding "God" I can't say I know if there is or isn't one, or something beyond the physical and mortal world that I understand (or perhaps don't understand), or simply beyond my conceptions of it, but the question is definitely important to me (but I think it's important to everyone, and people seek after it in their own realms--and I think science can be one of those realms... I mean we're just trying to learn more about our world, the universe, and ourselves... and we're trying in every avenue we have available... but fundamentalist beliefs can get in the way, and I generally feel it's wise to avoid them I suppose). Or perhaps I should have just said beliefs that seem too fixed. I'm just really wary of adopting too many beliefs and then I torment myself over not having any beliefs. I'm not happy either way. But there is somewhere in the middle where it's all balanced and I like the middle.

[Aiss]

Fair. Trade? Science whatever you want, just don't call it absolute truth.

Deal. Absolute truths and doubt are mutually exclusive, anyway.

[yellow82]

Creationism – Where’s The Proof? ((Pt. 1))

The question is: can one determine with 100% accuracy that God does or does not exist? The answer to that question would be no – no one has seen God; neither do we need to see things in order to know that they are there (wind, radiation, etc.). But, we can see the effects of wind and radiation. This should also be true if there really is a God; is there evidence that points to there being an actual creation? Since neither side can fully justify their belief system the question really comes down to – which theory is more likely to be accurate?

In this post I’m going to be going over the reasons why I believe that our planet was created by an eternal being rather than created by chance. I will be bringing up practical reasons as to why it would be shocking if our planet was created by “soup”.

First of all; let’s consider the facts:


The Big Bang Theory

There was a Big Bang. I think most Creationists and non-Creationists agree with this conclusion at this point due to the facts that our earth is ever expanding. Because if our earth is ever-expanding then the farther back we go – the more the earth decreases in size. The proof behind this theory would come in the Friedmann Equations. As well as the fact that during Friedmann’s experiments they actually found proof of the earth expanding.

Therefore; we can conclude that at one point there was nothing; no time, no matter, absolutely nothing. The question is; if there was nothing then how could all of this come from nothing? I like to think that God actually did it; but I’m going to sit here and start giving you some more facts to think about.


Our DNA

A lot of people like to think that within the DNA structure over millions of years; species can add on more DNA to where that over millions of years they become a different species. The fact is that there is no proof of this. I have yet to see a “missing link” that wasn’t hocus pocus; or DNA that wasn’t added onto by the scientists in the lab.

Yes; species can change; but only within their species. We have never seen a species jump from one species to a missing link to another species; and out of all the millions of animals/plants/rocks/everything else, wouldn’t we have seen one in the past 100 years?


No Proof of Missing Links

Not only this; but there is no proof in the fossil record. Scientists like to tell you so; but when you actually study the fossil; they are still birds/dinosaurs/etc. Or a skeleton that’s been messed with to make it look like it’s something that it’s not.


Dinosaurs Still Exist Today

Evolutionists like to say – that there are no dinosaurs that actually exist today. This is a BIG lie. We have proof of dinosaurs that have hit the Florida beach; there are dinosaurs in Africa; (even the flying one), there is a dinosaur named Nina in Australia; and the Locknus monster in England (there’s around 40 of these dinosaurs in that lake).

The Vikings feared the Dinosaurs of the sea so they would make their boats have the dinosaur’s head. They were considered “sea dragons” and if you read their logs there are several stories of these creatures; all up until the 1800’s.

Yes; there are very few dinosaurs left now; but; they exist. Still!

If you believe in evolution – that is killer evidence that the theory is messed up right there. --^


How Could These Creatures Live Without the Circle of Life?

One of the main questions that I have about evolution is this: how could certain animals live without others? How could an animal live without some of its primary necessities? Wouldn’t the circle of life mess things up?

Yep; it sure would; but evolutionists don’t want to talk about that. The fact is; plants could not live without birds, butterflies, etc. Neither could the insects live without their stingers, etc.

Everything is tied together in a perfect unity – look at creation, it was made to be perfect. Think about it, could that really come by chance?


Chance: The Statistics

So let us sit here for a moment and consider the possibility that this world was created by chance. Out of nothing – our world came. Wow. That’s a hard one to stomach. . . and then, out of non-living matter came living matter; WHAT?!? (That goes against all the foundations of Biology!)

The fact is that this “theory” that scientists have made “law” ((excuse me while I ::cough:: )) is seriously un-logical and unscientific. There is no proof that non-living matter can turn into living matter. In fact; DNA cannot even add onto itself. It merely functions within the realm of DNA that already exists.

So which makes more sense? There’s a God that made all things; or that somehow chance; (supposedly based on the rules of physics) created all things?

I don’t know about you; but somehow believing that this all came to be through nothing doesn’t make any logical sense to me.

[FDG]

I CREATED YOU ALL, NOW DIE bY MY SWORD

[Aiss]

Creationism – Where’s The Proof? ((Pt. 1))

The question is: can one determine with 100% accuracy that God does or does not exist? The answer to that question would be no – no one has seen God; neither do we need to see things in order to know that they are there (wind, radiation, etc.). But, we can see the effects of wind and radiation. This should also be true if there really is a God; is there evidence that points to there being an actual creation? Since neither side can fully justify their belief system the question really comes down to – which theory is more likely to be accurate?

In this post I’m going to be going over the reasons why I believe that our planet was created by an eternal being rather than created by chance. I will be bringing up practical reasons as to why it would be shocking if our planet was created by “soup”.

First of all; let’s consider the facts:


The Big Bang Theory

There was a Big Bang. I think most Creationists and non-Creationists agree with this conclusion at this point due to the facts that our earth is ever expanding. Because if our earth is ever-expanding then the farther back we go – the more the earth decreases in size. The proof behind this theory would come in the Friedmann Equations. As well as the fact that during Friedmann’s experiments they actually found proof of the earth expanding.

Therefore; we can conclude that at one point there was nothing; no time, no matter, absolutely nothing. The question is; if there was nothing then how could all of this come from nothing? I like to think that God actually did it; but I’m going to sit here and start giving you some more facts to think about.


Our DNA

A lot of people like to think that within the DNA structure over millions of years; species can add on more DNA to where that over millions of years becoming a different species. The fact is that there is no proof of this. I have yet to see a “missing link” that wasn’t hocus pocus; or DNA that wasn’t added onto by the scientists in the lab.

Yes; species can change; but only within their species. We have never seen a species jump from one species to a missing link to another species; and out of all the millions of animals/plants/rocks/everything else, wouldn’t we have seen one in the past 100 years?


No Proof of Missing Links

Not only this; but there is no proof in the fossil record. Scientists like to tell you so; but when you actually study the fossil; they are still birds/dinosaurs/etc. Or a skeleton that’s been messed with to make it look like it’s something that it’s not.


Dinosaurs Still Exist Today

Evolutionists like to say – that there are no dinosaurs that actually exist today. This is a BIG lie. We have proof of dinosaurs that have hit the Florida beach; there are dinosaurs in Africa; (even the flying one), there is a dinosaur named Nina in Australia; and the Locknus monster in England (there’s around 40 of these dinosaurs in that lake).

The Vikings feared the Dinosaurs of the sea so they would make their boats have the dinosaur’s head. They were considered “sea dragons” and if you read their logs there are several stories of these creatures; all up until the 1800’s.

Yes; there are very few dinosaurs left now; but; they exist. Still!

If you believe in evolution – that is killer evidence that the theory is messed up right there. --^


How Could These Creatures Live Without the Circle of Life?

One of the main questions that I have about evolution is this: how could certain animals live without others? How could an animal live without some of its primary necessities? Wouldn’t the circle of life mess things up?
Yep; it sure would; but evolutionists don’t want to talk about that. The fact is; plants could not live without birds, butterflies, etc. Neither could the insects live without their stingers, etc.

Everything is tied together in a perfect unity – look at creation, it was made to be perfect. Think about it, could that really come by chance?


Chance: The Statistics

So let us sit here for a moment and consider the possibility that this world was created by chance. Out of nothing – our world came. Wow. That’s a hard one to stomach. . . and then, out of non-living matter came living matter; WHAT?!? (That goes against all the foundations of Biology!)

The fact is that this “theory” that scientist have made “law” ((excuse me while I ::cough:: )) is seriously un-logical and unscientific. There is no proof that non-living matter can turn into living matter. In fact; DNA cannot even add onto itself. It merely functions within the realm of DNA that already exists.

So which makes more sense? There’s a God that made all things; or that somehow chance; (supposedly based on the rules of physics) created all things?

I don’t know about you; but somehow believing that this all came to be through nothing doesn’t make any logical sense to me.

Wow that's really funny, yellow never seen such a good parody of creationists' arguments before, where did you find it?

[yellow82]

Wow that's really funny, yellow never seen such a good parody of creationists' arguments before, where did you find it?

I wrote it.

[DirectorAbbie]

blame god, not genetics

Creationism makes sense.
"Goo to you by way of the zoo" defies the law of entropy and Murphy's law.

There's always the giant turtle theory. I have yet to see anyone disagree with that one.

[silverchris9]

Creationism – Where’s The Proof? ((Pt. 1))

The question is: can one determine with 100% accuracy that God does or does not exist? The answer to that question would be no – no one has seen God; neither do we need to see things in order to know that they are there (wind, radiation, etc.). But, we can see the effects of wind and radiation. This should also be true if there really is a God; is there evidence that points to there being an actual creation? Since neither side can fully justify their belief system the question really comes down to – which theory is more likely to be accurate?

In this post I’m going to be going over the reasons why I believe that our planet was created by an eternal being rather than created by chance. I will be bringing up practical reasons as to why it would be shocking if our planet was created by “soup”.

First of all; let’s consider the facts:


The Big Bang Theory

There was a Big Bang. I think most Creationists and non-Creationists agree with this conclusion at this point due to the facts that our earth is ever expanding. Because if our earth is ever-expanding then the farther back we go – the more the earth decreases in size. The proof behind this theory would come in the Friedmann Equations. As well as the fact that during Friedmann’s experiments they actually found proof of the earth expanding.

Therefore; we can conclude that at one point there was nothing; no time, no matter, absolutely nothing. The question is; if there was nothing then how could all of this come from nothing? I like to think that God actually did it; but I’m going to sit here and start giving you some more facts to think about.


Our DNA

A lot of people like to think that within the DNA structure over millions of years; species can add on more DNA to where that over millions of years they become a different species. The fact is that there is no proof of this. I have yet to see a “missing link” that wasn’t hocus pocus; or DNA that wasn’t added onto by the scientists in the lab.

Yes; species can change; but only within their species. We have never seen a species jump from one species to a missing link to another species; and out of all the millions of animals/plants/rocks/everything else, wouldn’t we have seen one in the past 100 years?


No Proof of Missing Links

Not only this; but there is no proof in the fossil record. Scientists like to tell you so; but when you actually study the fossil; they are still birds/dinosaurs/etc. Or a skeleton that’s been messed with to make it look like it’s something that it’s not.


Dinosaurs Still Exist Today

Evolutionists like to say – that there are no dinosaurs that actually exist today. This is a BIG lie. We have proof of dinosaurs that have hit the Florida beach; there are dinosaurs in Africa; (even the flying one), there is a dinosaur named Nina in Australia; and the Locknus monster in England (there’s around 40 of these dinosaurs in that lake).

The Vikings feared the Dinosaurs of the sea so they would make their boats have the dinosaur’s head. They were considered “sea dragons” and if you read their logs there are several stories of these creatures; all up until the 1800’s.

Yes; there are very few dinosaurs left now; but; they exist. Still!

If you believe in evolution – that is killer evidence that the theory is messed up right there. --^


How Could These Creatures Live Without the Circle of Life?

One of the main questions that I have about evolution is this: how could certain animals live without others? How could an animal live without some of its primary necessities? Wouldn’t the circle of life mess things up?

Yep; it sure would; but evolutionists don’t want to talk about that. The fact is; plants could not live without birds, butterflies, etc. Neither could the insects live without their stingers, etc.

Everything is tied together in a perfect unity – look at creation, it was made to be perfect. Think about it, could that really come by chance?


Chance: The Statistics

So let us sit here for a moment and consider the possibility that this world was created by chance. Out of nothing – our world came. Wow. That’s a hard one to stomach. . . and then, out of non-living matter came living matter; WHAT?!? (That goes against all the foundations of Biology!)

The fact is that this “theory” that scientists have made “law” ((excuse me while I ::cough:: )) is seriously un-logical and unscientific. There is no proof that non-living matter can turn into living matter. In fact; DNA cannot even add onto itself. It merely functions within the realm of DNA that already exists.

So which makes more sense? There’s a God that made all things; or that somehow chance; (supposedly based on the rules of physics) created all things?

I don’t know about you; but somehow believing that this all came to be through nothing doesn’t make any logical sense to me.

roflface double plus bad. lol.

[CILi]

Allow "benefit of the doubt" 'til Part 2?

Double plus maybe?

[Not A Communist Shill]

[...]and the Locknus monster in England (there’s around 40 of these dinosaurs in that lake).[...]

I presume you mean the Loch Ness Monster of Scotland? I don't really see much point in responding in depth to your post if this is what you mean.

With wind and radiation, it is true we cannot see them directly with our eyes...but we can "see" them through equipment which can measure their effects. The same is not true of god - with such a being, the effects are presumed by some individuals to have been caused by a god.

The Universe is only still around today because of imperfection - because a very long time ago, there was slightly more matter than anti-matter. When you see insects eating the eyes of a child, it is hard to see how this is an example of a perfect ecosystem in balance. There have been many countless times in history when ecosystems have been hugely out -of-balance, so to say they are always in check is a loud of nonsense. Wild nature is very savage - it is a constant flux between species becoming too populous and then having many individuals die off, and all the other species tearing each other to shreds.

"Plants" (as loosely defined) did exist before butterflies and birds. Such plants were capable of reproducing without birds and butterflies. A "fact" that puzzles me more is how Noah's Ark was able to accommodate two Blue whales, considering it must have done so because the worldwide floods that apparently happened at the time would have made the oceans far too salty for the whales to live.

Bacteria are well-known for being able to acquire DNA from outside themselves and add it to their own DNA to change how trhey function.

As for the chance argument...you don't know how many universes there have been, and how much time. Also, saying god created everything is even more unlikely, because presumably, god needs a creator too...if he does not, then why does the Universe?

[Jarno]

Mankind created God.

[Crispy]

Dinosaurs Still Exist Today

Evolutionists like to say – that there are no dinosaurs that actually exist today. This is a BIG lie. We have proof of dinosaurs that have hit the Florida beach; there are dinosaurs in Africa; (even the flying one), there is a dinosaur named Nina in Australia; and the Locknus monster in England (there’s around 40 of these dinosaurs in that lake).

The Vikings feared the Dinosaurs of the sea so they would make their boats have the dinosaur’s head. They were considered “sea dragons” and if you read their logs there are several stories of these creatures; all up until the 1800’s.

Yes; there are very few dinosaurs left now; but; they exist. Still!

If you believe in evolution – that is killer evidence that the theory is messed up right there. --^

This is what Fundamentalists actually believe. Please run far away from whoever brainwashed you when you were vulnerable.

[yellow82]

Just a thought:



I'll try and post by tomorrow. But don't count on it; my life is pretty fast-paced.

[Capitalist Pig]

Guys, yellow82 is being serious. This is why this thread was created. It started as a debate in the chatbox, and she suggested we make a thread, so here it is. No need to play Devil's advocate, we have a real advocate. All I ask (and I'm sure all that the administration asks) is you be respectful in your dissent.

[Creepy-bg]

Guys, yellow82 is being serious. This is why this thread was created. It started as a debate in the chatbox, and she suggested we make a thread, so here it is. No need to play Devil's advocate, we have a real advocate. All I ask (and I'm sure all that the administration asks) is you be respectful in your dissent.

[Skeptic]

-Stuff that I was told to believe... and did-

My only advice; educate yourself. You have terribly misrepresented these theories and facts and if you actually read anything regarding them that are not tainted by creationist bias I am absolutely sure you would realize there is nothing in your favor.

Now I'll tell you why what you've written is... wrong. There were so many errors in a row that I could not touch on everything.

 

-The Big Bang states that the universe is expanding, not the earth.
-The Big Bang does not state that everything came from nothing; that would destroy the foundation that it was built upon in the first place. Its basic premise is that everything expanded from a very hot, dense mass.
-Everything you said about DNA is complete bullshit. DNA does not necessarily have to get 'added onto' in order to foster change. Most often, DNA mutates, meaning the original DNA that was passed on was reconstructed with mistakes. There is physical proof of DNA and its components as well as its replication process.
-And no, we absolutely would not have seen a species jump in the past 100 years, that shows how ignorant you are of the theory. Evolution is a long process that often takes thousands of years to foster even the slightest change.
-New species are created in a number of different ways; members of the same species adapt differently to different environments because the DNA mutated in different ways and with enough change members of the supposedly same species can no longer mate; at this point they are no longer of the same species.
-I don't know what you're talking about when you say missing link.
-Of course variations of the dinosaurs exist today. That is one of the foundational premises of the theory; that we have evolved from life in the past. Seeing similarities in the past dinosaurs and the present species means nothing and is in complete harmony with evolutionary theory and non creationism.
-The lochness monster and 'sea dragons' are myths or lies. Just because someone wrote about them or modeled ships after them does not mean they existed. By that same logic, dragons existed in the middle ages.
-Circle of life? What are you talking about here? No animal goes without its basic necessities, that contradicts the definition of 'necessities'. If you do not have the necessities to survive, you do not survive. I do not see why evolutionists would be unwilling to speak about this; it's an integral part of their theory that animals that do not provide for their basic needs will be overtaken by their genetic superiors.
-Give me just one example of life that is 'perfect'. All living things die, they all get sick, they all need things to survive, some are ugly, others are eaten, etc. They all have short lives and cannot control their environment. They are anything but perfect when put into different reference frames; an animal's ability to survive completely depends upon its environment.
-Statistics; our world didn't come from nothing ... ... there are many different theories explaining how life on earth came about. The one you're talking about, the 'nonliving matter' is the idea that when all the basic components of life are assembled with the perfect conditions (much like how earth was around where we predict the first forms of bacteria appearing) and enough energy to stimulate the chemical bond breaking/creation, a basic form of life is made. Experiments have been conducted by scientists to verify this, and indeed, nonliving elements were combined to form matter that grew and consumed. It did not fulfill all the current requirements for life, but they are man made conditions and do not necessarily account for all uncounted forms of life.

Also, one side can justify their belief system. It is done through the scientific method; we observe phenomena, such as the expansion of the universe, and then we apply existing knowledge to test our understanding of that observation and arrive at conclusions such as the big bang. It is not a monopoly on truth and concedes that it will definitely change as new phenomena are observed and we change our bodies of existing information.

You use the scientific method every day when you use appliances, automobiles, electricity etc., so do not deny its applicability to reality.

Fair. Trade? Science whatever you want, just don't call it absolute truth.

My real opinion on intelligent design and evolution is that it's fine to teach only evolution in a science class (with the exception of incorrect things like those embryo drawings), but that people shouldn't be made to believe that the scientific idea ("the best natural explanation for biodiversity is evolution") necessarily supplants or replaces the philosophical/religious/spiritual idea ("God created life").

No, that is not fair. Your personal beliefs have no right to influence truth by consensus. They are too personal; they do not apply to everyone, nor do they apply to the physical world. Evolution applies to the physical world. All scientific theories apply to the physical world. They are the model by which we perceive our world to be run; you are not allowed to deny its truth unless you play the science game, because the science game is the best way to explain existing physical phenomena that doubles as a systemic framework upon which to make extensions like machinery, as opposed to the myths of the past which were nothing but personal beliefs by which no real application was obtained.

Right. But then you have statements and beliefs like: science and testing has replaced belief and superstition; the scientific method has been proven the best way to truth; there are no shortcuts to truth beyond the scientific method, etc. It would be fine for science to confine itself to material things if the culture respected that confinement, but it doesn't (and some scientists--Dawkins--don't either). Rather than remaining neutral (on scientific grounds anyway) on immaterial questions, which would be the responsible thing to do, many people, both scientists and nonscientists, attempt to apply natural standards (i.e., evolution) to metaphysical questions (i.e., how the universe came into being, what existed "before" the universe, what caused the universe or life or whatever). It's not that the two cannot inform one another, but there is a way in which science is limited as well as strengthened by its scope. I think we tend to recognize the strength, and not the limit.

Science is not limited in this way. As I said earlier in this post, there are many scientifically based ideas that attempt to explain how life came to the planet, and how what we know as 'the universe' began. To deny their applicability because you personally feel that these questions shouldn't be answered by science is to limit the scope of science. It is an actively close minded attitude that serves to slow and limit theory craft that may benefit all of society.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I don't really see why whether dinosaurs are still around today or not is an issue. It really isn't a big deal.

However, saying that Tyrannosaurus Rex is or was around at the same time as humans is another issue all together. I don't believe it was - and I don't think there'd ever be evidence around to show that. There is evidence however that birds are descended from dinosaurs.

There have also been many cases of speciation being observed in both the natural world and in the laboratory in recent times, even without humans doing clever stuff with genetic manipulation etc.

[MatthewZ]

"Intelligent Design" is simply a fraudulent theory. (and I truly do mean to stress the sham that is Creationism masking itself under a new name in response to "creation science" being barred from schools in Edwards v. Aguillard) While one can speculate about what is technically the unfalsifiability of the existence/nonexistence of an unobservable being such as a god or Santa Claus, the same cannot be said for creation science. The implications of the "theory" are demonstrably false. As others above me have pointed out, modern instances of speciation very directly contradict the idea that organisms do not evolve. Also, the nature of life itself casts some very damning questions on the nature of a creator, if one existed. Why do viruses exist? Why do mutations--even cancer-- exist? Why do organisms exhibit apparently useless or near-useless vestigial structures? Why are peristalsis and respiration conducted partially down the same pathway? (thereby enabling choking) Why do miscarriages exist? If life was purposely "created," then why does it exhibit so many flaws? This leads into the problem of evil, but that's not relevant to the topic at hand.

The existence of a creator god can be no more disproven than the existence of an unobservable teapot revolving around the sun. However, science is about testable claims, and if "Intelligent Design" is going to purport itself as such, it would need to stand up against evidence and observation. However, it simply doesn't. It's refutable as evidence. If it's not science, it doesn't deserve credit as some sort of alternative scientific theory. At best, it's an alternative metaphysical theory.

[Brilliand]

While one can speculate about what is technically the unfalsifiability of the existence/nonexistence of an unobservable being such as a god or Santa Claus

I'm pretty sure that the existence of Santa Claus is falsifiable. All we need is an investigation of the place where he supposedly lives... (Arguably, millions of small children demonstrate that he doesn't exist every year by catching their dads doing his job.)

[MatthewZ]

I'm pretty sure that the existence of Santa Claus is falsifiable. All we need is an investigation of the place where he supposedly lives... (Arguably, millions of small children demonstrate that he doesn't exist every year by catching their dads doing his job.)

I suppose that's where my bias for scientific realism comes in. How can one know that he doesn't only exist for those that believe in him? And why wouldn't Santa, being such an important figure, have help? Certainly using millions of dads on the face of the earth would expedite the job and make "miracle" of Christmas possible. How does one know that some accounts of him haven't been falsified to either hide his mystery? Is it not possible that his "location" is merely a metaphor for his affinity for all things winter and cold and shouldn't be taken literally?

(anyways, enough off-topic satire. My point is that its very easy to tweak metaphysical claims of existence in order to make them not blatantly contradict evidence.)

[Not A Communist Shill]

The existence of a creator god can be no more disproven than the existence of an unobservable teapot revolving around the sun.

Actually I'd argue that a teapot most definitely CAN exist, but a supernatural being such as a god cannot exist because it would go against the laws of nature by definition.

[Logos]

Right. But then you have statements and beliefs like: science and testing has replaced belief and superstition; the scientific method has been proven the best way to truth; there are no shortcuts to truth beyond the scientific method, etc. It would be fine for science to confine itself to material things if the culture respected that confinement, but it doesn't (and some scientists--Dawkins--don't either). Rather than remaining neutral (on scientific grounds anyway) on immaterial questions, which would be the responsible thing to do, many people, both scientists and nonscientists, attempt to apply natural standards (i.e., evolution) to metaphysical questions (i.e., how the universe came into being, what existed "before" the universe, what caused the universe or life or whatever). It's not that the two cannot inform one another, but there is a way in which science is limited as well as strengthened by its scope. I think we tend to recognize the strength, and not the limit.

Science is not the pursuit of Truth either, nor do good scientists claim to know the "truth." (Talk about a loaded word.) To paraphrase from Indiana Jones: "[Science] is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."

While some scientists attempted to claim that science and religion exist in two separate spheres - namely Stephen Jay Gould and his concept of the Non-Overlapping Magisterium (NOMA), this is not necessarily the case, as Richard Dawkins explains quite well. Religion has, does, and will make claims about the natural world. And in those cases, religious claims do fall within the purview of scientific inquiry and examination. For example, any resurrection to life from a state of death would be an anomaly apart from naturally observed phenomena.

In this post I’m going to be going over the reasons why I believe that our planet was created by an eternal being rather than created by chance. I will be bringing up practical reasons as to why it would be shocking if our planet was created by “soup”.

First of all; let’s consider the facts:

Your "facts" hurt my brain.

I wrote it.

But are you serious?

Skeptic, I admire your willingness to respond so thoroughly to yellow82's post. I was in the process of losing my patience just reading it.

Yellow82, I would highly recommend Ernst Mayr's fantastic book What Evolution Is. Ernst Mayr is a leading evolutionary biologist who was instrumental in the modern evolutionary synthesis. If reading is not your thing, then there are a number of anti-creationist YouTube channels that debunk creationist misconceptions of science. I would recommend: thunderf00t, potholer54, and AronRa.

[yellow82]

You know; a lot of you if you ever played the: "How rude can I get game?" could win first prize. :wink:

Right now I am beginning to not even want to discuss this on a thread anymore. . .

Skeptic and Subterranean I will pm you.

The rest of you: enjoy your time discussing this amongst those that can withstand your seriously insulting comments.

[Bardia]

Actually I'd argue that a teapot most definitely CAN exist, but a supernatural being such as a god cannot exist because it would go against the laws of nature by definition.

Have you ever considered the fact that he operates outside of the laws of nature because He created them?

Can anyone please explain to me how life can come from non-life? What's the probability of that occurring?

I don't have a problem with evolution being taught. It's got a lot of science behind it. I don't understand why people cannot handle criticism of it. People treat the theory as though it is their religion and not a scientific theory like all the others. It seems like even if secular people critique the theory they are either considered insane or an idiot. There are holes in the theory such as the missing links, irreducible complexity, not sufficiently answering the question of where life came from, etc...

[Not A Communist Shill]

Have you ever considered the fact that he operates outside of the laws of nature because He created them?

I've considered it, and deemed it nonsense that any being could be greater than the sum of the Universe\Multiverse that it was in.

Can anyone please explain to me how life can come from non-life? What's the probability of that occurring?

If you understand how amino acids are able to replicate themselves, then that would be a start to understanding the wider process. Needless to say, such compounds tend to more abundant than those that are unable to replicate themselves.

In this article, the odds of intelligent life forming on a Earth-like planet is "low" at 0.01% probability. So the probability of any life arising on any planet would of course be higher. I know I've read more interesting figures than this, so I will look into it.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | ET contact odds 'extremely low'

This article suggests there may be between 361 and 37,964 intelligent civilisations on Earth-like planets in our galaxy (there may be around 200 billion galaxies in our Universe, though most of them aren't as old as ours).

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Number of alien worlds quantified

[silverchris9]

Guys, yellow82 is being serious. This is why this thread was created. It started as a debate in the chatbox, and she suggested we make a thread, so here it is. No need to play Devil's advocate, we have a real advocate. All I ask (and I'm sure all that the administration asks) is you be respectful in your dissent.

Oh... really? I seriously thought that was a joke post. Um, sorry yellow... Anyway, I disagree. I'm pretty sure dinosaurs (including the Loch Ness Monster) don't exist anymore. Also, I don't see how the concept of extinction is at all in conflict with any ideas prommulgated in the Bible, except maybe the Young Earth business, and, I mean... come on. It is entirely reasonable that one would skip steps in a geneology. Heck, it doesn't even say "was the father of," it says "begot." I don't know the Hebrew, but it is very possible that the Hebrew in the geneologies (and the Aramaic/Greek in the NT) is closer to the english "begot" than "was the father of."

Science is not the pursuit of Truth either, nor do good scientists claim to know the "truth." (Talk about a loaded word.) To paraphrase from Indiana Jones: "[Science] is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."

If I am obliged to respect these "facts" then it is as good as saying it is the "truth." If I am to be considered foolish for disagreeing with the "facts" then it is as good as saying it is the "truth." A fact has truth value, so there is no effective difference between a fact and the truth, since facts are presumed to be true. And furthermore, many people, when philosophical truth is in conflict with scientific fact, automatically assume that the scientific position, because it is more empirical, is more accurate. In the pure good of theory (a theory I disagree with, but it serves my purposes here), a philosophical conclusion is more believable than a scientific one, since the philosophical conclusion is deductive and necessary, rather than inductive and probable.

While some scientists attempted to claim that science and religion exist in two separate spheres - namely Stephen Jay Gould and his concept of the Non-Overlapping Magisterium (NOMA), this is not necessarily the case, as Richard Dawkins explains quite well. Religion has, does, and will make claims about the natural world. And in those cases, religious claims do fall within the purview of scientific inquiry and examination. For example, any resurrection to life from a state of death would be an anomaly apart from naturally observed phenomena.

I disagree. This is basically Hume's argument against miracles, which is, frankly, bullshit. "Things that violate the laws of nature are unlikely, and therefore we should not believe in them." But the whole point of miracles is that they violate the laws of nature, the whole idea is that there is a force capable of superseding nature. And the question of whether or not there is something beyond and superior to the physical world is, by definition, a metaphysical question and therefore outside of the purview of science.

I guess the idea is that "anything involving the natural world is under the purview of science." And my counter argument is "anything involving the non-natural world is outside of the purview of science." And obviously, both arguments are wrong. If there is an immaterial "world" or immaterial objects, obviously they exist in some degree of relationship with the material world. But, to use a scientific analogy, we have one set of rules for water, one set of rules for hydrophobic molecules, and a totally different set of rules for the interaction between the two. To assume that we can guess the properties of the interaction from solely the properties of the lipid or solely the properties of the water, is nonsense. I would say that similarly, it is silly to judge proposed supernatural phenomena purely by natural standards, but that it is equally silly to ignore all natural evidence (i.e., to believe that dinosaurs still exist...)

"Intelligent Design" is simply a fraudulent theory. (and I truly do mean to stress the sham that is Creationism masking itself under a new name in response to "creation science" being barred from schools in Edwards v. Aguillard) While one can speculate about what is technically the unfalsifiability of the existence/nonexistence of an unobservable being such as a god or Santa Claus, the same cannot be said for creation science. The implications of the "theory" are demonstrably false. As others above me have pointed out, modern instances of speciation very directly contradict the idea that organisms do not evolve. Also, the nature of life itself casts some very damning questions on the nature of a creator, if one existed. Why do viruses exist? Why do mutations--even cancer-- exist? Why do organisms exhibit apparently useless or near-useless vestigial structures? Why are peristalsis and respiration conducted partially down the same pathway? (thereby enabling choking) Why do miscarriages exist? If life was purposely "created," then why does it exhibit so many flaws? This leads into the problem of evil, but that's not relevant to the topic at hand.

Christianity accounts for this problem, rather well in my opinion, by arguing that the moral corruption of human beings led to a degradation in quality of the natural world. While this takes another leap of faith, it is rather intuitive when you think about it: internal faults often create external problems. If you have tectonic plates scraping against each other on the inside of the earth, it creates an earthquake on the outside. If you have a fundamental problem in the construction of your government (e.g., the Soviet Republic), there will eventually be problems in the lives of your citizens. If you have an internal moral failing, usually it will come to light in bad/dangerous/harmful behavior. Obviously, I cannot prove that a problem in the "soul" as it were of nature led to a problem in the physical aspects of nature. But it is, at least to me, a satisfying metaphysical solution to the existence of negative aspects of nature. Another solution is simply that these negative results arise purely because of the nature of the system. If you want a system of gravity that prevents people from floating off into space and dying from lack of oxygen, you're gonna have a few nice old men who fall off of roofs. Then it does become problem of evil (i.e., a perfect God should be able to make a perfect system), which we can make another thread about if you like.

Also, serious question, can you provide some examples of speciation?

No, that is not fair. Your personal beliefs have no right to influence truth by consensus. They are too personal; they do not apply to everyone, nor do they apply to the physical world. Evolution applies to the physical world. All scientific theories apply to the physical world. They are the model by which we perceive our world to be run; you are not allowed to deny its truth unless you play the science game, because the science game is the best way to explain existing physical phenomena that doubles as a systemic framework upon which to make extensions like machinery, as opposed to the myths of the past which were nothing but personal beliefs by which no real application was obtained.

Your post is full of metaphysical and ethical opinions which have no scientific basis, and you criticize truth that isn't based in science. You see the problem here, right? Even your argument that "the science game is the best way to explain existing physical phenomena" is by nature ethical, because it invokes the "best," rather than the "most efficient way of achieving a given goal."

Really, I don't see where you made any argument whatsoever. You just made dogmatic pronunciations, i.e., "you are not allowed to deny the truth of scientific claims unless you are a scientist." All of your arguments were implicit, perhaps to hide their notable weakness. As I see it, your actual argumentation consisted of:

1) Science is more explicit (exoteric) and therefore a better basis for truth.
2) Science has produced more positive results than any other
3) Science produces truth that pertains to the physical world, and is therefore a better source of truth period.

Let me know what points I missed.

Contra point 1:
Your only grounds is "consensus," esoteric vs. exoteric knowledge, and as a scientist, you should have a much higher standard of truth than, "well, everybody can see it." Does that mean that when everybody "saw" that Christianity was true, it was true? And then it stopped being true when everybody "saw" that science was true and better? That's just silly.

Contra Point 2:
Now, I agree, science is far and away the best method for making machines. But to pretend that the "myths of the past" had no real application is demonstratably false. To pretend that Christianity has had no historical application, as much positive impact as science (why do you think all of those hospitals where the medical machinery operates are named "St. Luke's" and "New York Presbyterian"?), and as much negative impact as science (i.e., wars of religion, where people used the latest scientific tools to make sure they killed even more people than before), is simply historically ignorant. I mean, read Nietzche. A revolution in morality, inspired by Judaism and Christianity, does seem to best explain how we get from the Homeric values of the Iliad to the Christian values of the Gospel of Mark. And I'm sure you, valuing your write to sit in your house or at your laboratory and pursue scientific knowledge, are quite glad we have Christian values rather than Homeric ones.

Contra Point 3:
Furthermore, to claim that my beliefs have no right to influence "truth by (scientific) consensus," because they do not pertain to the physical world is to beg the question. If there is an immaterial world which is as large or larger a part of a person's life as the material one, as Plato believed, then beliefs about that immaterial world are as valid as anything else.


I think the big picture problem here is that people confuse "no physical evidence for x" with "x does not exist or is irrelevant." The idea is not that we only believe in that for which we have proof, because we don't have proof for anything (see Christopher's Anti-Rationalist Beliefs). The idea is that we remain neutral on the question of that for which we do not have proof until we have other grounds. Now, as I argue elsewhere, there are other valid grounds for believing something beyond scientific evidence and beyond even the laws of logic (which cannot prove themselves, and so must be justified on other grounds). So we can be perfectly justified in believing things for which there is no physical evidence, if for no other reason than that we have no physical evidence demonstrating the reliability of physical evidence. Some beliefs are properly basic/intuitively true. In other worlds, irrelevant to science =/= irrelevant to life.

Now we're arguing on the right grounds, i.e., ethical ones. Your objection to this idea has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of deduction and induction and everything to do with your ethical objection to an epistemology that privileges that which is available to the few (esoteric) over that which is available to the many (exoteric). You identify the explicit with the exoteric, but I think that you could just as easily argue that explicit scientific knowledge is made esoteric by jargon, while, for instance, religious knowledge is presumably substantially shared by millions of people every Sunday morning, i.e., is exoteric.

Science is not limited in this way. As I said earlier in this post, there are many scientifically based ideas that attempt to explain how life came to the planet, and how what we know as 'the universe' began. To deny their applicability because you personally feel that these questions shouldn't be answered by science is to limit the scope of science. It is an actively close minded attitude that serves to slow and limit theory craft that may benefit all of society.

Another ethical argument.

1) Questions about origins and such ought to be answered by science (this is no less ethical and nonscientific a belief than "questions about origins and such ought not to be answered by science).

2) To claim that science is inapplicable to a given question is close-minded. Close-mindedness is bad.

3) The expansion of science has potential benefit to society, and therefore science should be allowed to proceed in all fronts, regardless of its effect on religion and/or philosophy.

Also underlying these arguments is the, in my view, rather foolish idea that science is an engine of Progress, and that by increasing technological knowledge, we will Progress to greater levels of society. In reality, science is as amoral a force as any other; science doesn't make society a whit better, it just makes it different. For evidence, I present hospitals and Hiroshima.

If you can show me scientifically how you derived these beliefs, I'll believe them too.