...
One scientist has decided to use creation science to test the validity of evolution.
Because, he says, if it turns out that creation science proves evolution, then by its own logic, it will have to reject its own canon of research that previously denied it.
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wondermonkey ... crea.shtml
Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
If a man speaks in the forest and there are no women around to hear is he still wrong?
Re: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
Iteresting article though you confuse "Creation Science" with "religious teachings"
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
Creation "Science" is a religious teaching.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
Re: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
Not really. Its more of the "fan fiction" of the Christian world That is it's not the official or authorized teaching of any religion though it is sometimes used by those to lazy to develop their own theology.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
I meant as opposed to being science.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
Re: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
No argument there.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
I'm sure that's not true, though it depends what you mean by "authorized".Crackpot wrote:That is it's not the official or authorized teaching of any religion
Actually I didn't make any confusion since I didn't write the article. But now you mention it, what is the difference? Obviously "creation science" is an oxymoron, But a lot of people teach creationism as part of their religion. I don't currently see the distinction?Crackpot wrote:Iteresting article though you confuse "Creation Science" with "religious teachings"
If a man speaks in the forest and there are no women around to hear is he still wrong?
Re: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
You named the Thread did you not?
Creationism: the belief that God Created the universe
Creation Science: the misuse of scientific and pseudo scientific principles to "prove" God created the universe and a worldwide flood.
Of course I'm being a little harsh on the world of creation science. But, even though there are those who understand scientific principles and know that their work is unlikely to get past the stage of hypothesis and discard it as soon as it's disproven a large majority take it as a truth unto itself and get bitchy when people don't swallow it whole.
Creationism: the belief that God Created the universe
Creation Science: the misuse of scientific and pseudo scientific principles to "prove" God created the universe and a worldwide flood.
Of course I'm being a little harsh on the world of creation science. But, even though there are those who understand scientific principles and know that their work is unlikely to get past the stage of hypothesis and discard it as soon as it's disproven a large majority take it as a truth unto itself and get bitchy when people don't swallow it whole.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
No - the article I quoted named the thread. None of the content was mine.Crackpot wrote:You named the Thread did you not?
So are you saying the difference between creationism and creation science is the former simply accepts god did it while the latter tries to prove it? I can see that would be a distinction thanks
If a man speaks in the forest and there are no women around to hear is he still wrong?
Re: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
Yeah but you typed in the thread title Stoat... or copied and pasted it...
Either way, it's all your fault!
Nery nery!
Either way, it's all your fault!
Nery nery!
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Re: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
A fair cop. 
If a man speaks in the forest and there are no women around to hear is he still wrong?
Re: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
... Actually, which is worse? To blindly accept that god did it or to try to twist facts to establish a "proof" that god did it?
If a man speaks in the forest and there are no women around to hear is he still wrong?
Re: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
Good question. Is it better to be dumb or dishonest?
I would say that blind acceptance is the lesser of the two evils. The other is malicious.
I would say that blind acceptance is the lesser of the two evils. The other is malicious.
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Re: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
Ah, but is the other really malicious? I suspect they are looking for that proof because they genuinely believe god did it, but are clearly crap at science. Kind of like the end justifying the means. I wonder ... hypothetically ...
Suppose you saw someone being murdered, so you know for a fact who did it, but also know that your word would be discounted in a court of law. Would you be prepared to fabricate evidence to get the conviction you believe or not, knowing that to do nothing would let the murderer off the hook?
(I guess in this analogy, god is the murderer, though to be fair, he hasn't murdered anyone for years - unless you consider inaction to the suffering of millions of innocents by an omnipotent being to be murder ... but I digress..)
Suppose you saw someone being murdered, so you know for a fact who did it, but also know that your word would be discounted in a court of law. Would you be prepared to fabricate evidence to get the conviction you believe or not, knowing that to do nothing would let the murderer off the hook?
(I guess in this analogy, god is the murderer, though to be fair, he hasn't murdered anyone for years - unless you consider inaction to the suffering of millions of innocents by an omnipotent being to be murder ... but I digress..)
If a man speaks in the forest and there are no women around to hear is he still wrong?
Re: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
Your analogy doesn't quite hold up Stoat unless the believer is question actually saw God (God the being that is... not a fucking rainbow or something...* 
). It's hard to make an analogy as there is no material evidence for God which cannot be soundly attributed to something else.
So it's a question of belief. A person may believe with all his heart that God is real (as he may believe that the murderer was the man he saw arguing with the victim five minutes prior to the killing) but if he fabricates evidence where none exists then he is maliciously deceiving others in order to make them share his belief. And let's face it, belief is all it is. That's why religious types use the word 'faith' and science types use words like'proof' and 'knowledge'.
*Person 1: "I've seen God!"
Person 2: "Bollocks you have!"
Person 1: "Yes I have, I've seen him in the beauty of nature..."
Person 2:
). It's hard to make an analogy as there is no material evidence for God which cannot be soundly attributed to something else.So it's a question of belief. A person may believe with all his heart that God is real (as he may believe that the murderer was the man he saw arguing with the victim five minutes prior to the killing) but if he fabricates evidence where none exists then he is maliciously deceiving others in order to make them share his belief. And let's face it, belief is all it is. That's why religious types use the word 'faith' and science types use words like'proof' and 'knowledge'.
*Person 1: "I've seen God!"
Person 2: "Bollocks you have!"
Person 1: "Yes I have, I've seen him in the beauty of nature..."
Person 2:
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Re: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
Good post there Sean. It was a flawed analogy (actually it didn't start off as an analogy, but I ended up considering it one).
Now - the big difference here is ...
Suppose we go to that planet - call it Zarg, a pretty plannet ith about the same mass as our own Earth, and drop the apple. Suppose on Zarg that apple floats off into space. Scientists will be in their element, trying to formulate new rules of gravity that apply to Earth and Zarg. Through history that has not been so for religious types - they will simply fall back on the god did it mantra: god of the gaps.
Yes indeed. Science simply describes what is seen and attempts to extrapolate that to areas not seen. Thus our understanding of gravity gives a strong suggestion as to what would happen if we take an Apple to another planet and drop it from 6m above the surface. We don't actually know what will happen since we haven't done it - but gravity tells us what would happen and we are therefore prepared to believe it will happen.Sean wrote:And let's face it, belief is all it is. That's why religious types use the word 'faith' and science types use words like'proof' and 'knowledge'.
Now - the big difference here is ...
Suppose we go to that planet - call it Zarg, a pretty plannet ith about the same mass as our own Earth, and drop the apple. Suppose on Zarg that apple floats off into space. Scientists will be in their element, trying to formulate new rules of gravity that apply to Earth and Zarg. Through history that has not been so for religious types - they will simply fall back on the god did it mantra: god of the gaps.
If a man speaks in the forest and there are no women around to hear is he still wrong?
Re: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
I think "Creation Science" is a term that is used to capture a lot of different avenues of inquiry. But basically, it is an attempt by people who believe that God created the universe and everything in it, to reconcile that belief with what appears to be overwhelming evidence that (mainly) Genesis is a collection of fairy tales.
Furtunately for them, there is a lot of known biological information that simply cannot be explained by our current understanding of evolution. (There is a chapter in one of Ann Coulter's books that goes into a great deal of detail on many of these anomalies).
The great irony of the whole discussion is the religious fervor of non-scientific types who shriek at the top of their voices that "EVOLUTION IS ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC FACT!" and refuse to countenance any evidence that contradicts the common understanding of the phenomenon. Just the hint, for example, that all of human history does not record a single instance of any plant or animal naturally evolving from what it was into anything different, sends them into spasms of hysterical name calling and vituperation. It is EXACTLY that same kind of unquestioning, strident attidude among religious types that seems to drive them crazy, to wit, any mention of a concept, hypothesis, or idea that contradicts what I have already decided to be true is HERESY!
The same attitude infects the same non-scientific types when it comes to the phenomenon formerly known as "Global Warming." There can be no questioning! Anyone who disagrees is either an idiot or a flack for the Oil Companies! Don't bother me with facts that contradict what I already know!
Bottom line: Evolution is a cool hypothesis that explains almost everything we know about the biological world. Almost everything. And a God who is smart enough and powerful enough to create the universe is probably smart enough to set in motion a chain of events (and evolution of species) that would ultimately lead to the universe as we know it, with very little "interference" required on His part to make it come out as planned.
Most religious people have no trouble accepting the major tenets of evolution and the major tenets of the Bible. Obviously. Very few biology professors are atheists.
Furtunately for them, there is a lot of known biological information that simply cannot be explained by our current understanding of evolution. (There is a chapter in one of Ann Coulter's books that goes into a great deal of detail on many of these anomalies).
The great irony of the whole discussion is the religious fervor of non-scientific types who shriek at the top of their voices that "EVOLUTION IS ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC FACT!" and refuse to countenance any evidence that contradicts the common understanding of the phenomenon. Just the hint, for example, that all of human history does not record a single instance of any plant or animal naturally evolving from what it was into anything different, sends them into spasms of hysterical name calling and vituperation. It is EXACTLY that same kind of unquestioning, strident attidude among religious types that seems to drive them crazy, to wit, any mention of a concept, hypothesis, or idea that contradicts what I have already decided to be true is HERESY!
The same attitude infects the same non-scientific types when it comes to the phenomenon formerly known as "Global Warming." There can be no questioning! Anyone who disagrees is either an idiot or a flack for the Oil Companies! Don't bother me with facts that contradict what I already know!
Bottom line: Evolution is a cool hypothesis that explains almost everything we know about the biological world. Almost everything. And a God who is smart enough and powerful enough to create the universe is probably smart enough to set in motion a chain of events (and evolution of species) that would ultimately lead to the universe as we know it, with very little "interference" required on His part to make it come out as planned.
Most religious people have no trouble accepting the major tenets of evolution and the major tenets of the Bible. Obviously. Very few biology professors are atheists.
Re: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
stoat the problem comes in where "Creation Scientists" expect thier ideas to be accepted as equal or "better than" evolution. It's an abuse to Science which in return damages the credibility of Christianity by its at best blind ignorance at worst blatant disregard for the scientific method.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
Absolutely agreeCrackpot wrote:stoat the problem comes in where "Creation Scientists" expect thier ideas to be accepted as equal or "better than" evolution. It's an abuse to Science which in return damages the credibility of Christianity by its at best blind ignorance at worst blatant disregard for the scientific method.
If a man speaks in the forest and there are no women around to hear is he still wrong?
Re: Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?
stoat and c/p summed it up best IMHO.
I'm glad you two didn't use up twenty pages to argue your points.
I struggle with a lot of stuff in the Bible.
I let His word stand on its own.
<shrugs>
I'm glad you two didn't use up twenty pages to argue your points.
I struggle with a lot of stuff in the Bible.
I let His word stand on its own.
<shrugs>
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato