Master's in Creationism

It might be argued that the spread of scientific philosophy had a lot to do with western imperialism which spread many western ideals aroun the world, a little like Coca Cola or Pepsi today. Yes, it is true that many have adopted western science and have become exceedingly good at its practice. A little like Christianity perhaps.

Creation is a theory of the beginning of the world. Evolution is a theory of the beginning of the world. Since nobody has replicated the experience, observed it, or measured the processes involved with each theory, it remains just that.

Yes, there have been a number of findings which are used to say that evolution has caused the world. There is little doubt that things evolve. It is a mechanism for the survival of species, not necessarily the beginning of them. It is little like a coke bottle falling from a plane into the path of a Kalahari Bushman.

The bushman may not not interpret the coke bottle as a coke bottle. He may attribute another purpose to the bottle and it may be a thing to him of entirely different meaning. The findings made by science in respect of the evolutionary origins of the world will remain as speculative until the forming of the world can be duplicated, observed and measured. The scientific test is not yet passed.

Creationists may claim that this theory appears within the cultural beliefs of a number of different societies. A story that has multiple origins within seemingly disconnected communities may have some argument. This is essentially the same proposition put forward in your argument in respect of science.

The 'big bang" theory attributes the making of the universe to a single source, so do the creationists. What proceeded the "big bang" event is not known. It, again, has not passed any scientific testing. No human being has seen it. It is unobservable, unmeasurable, and unable to duplicated.

Opposing views which cannot pass any scientific rationale. Why is one science and the other not? In respect of subjectivity and scientific inury, intuition has a place at the table when a scientist develops the hypothesis. Science still has an element of art held within its practice.

The "big bang" theory and evolutionary development are the outgrowths of specific disciplines i.e.biology, physics. Aren't these disciplines likely to adopt a bounded rational approach and exclude competing theories from other disciplines? These competing theories may relegated to a status as "non science" which is now the equivalency to being non worthy. It is a little like the "non person" approach so well demonstrated in Nazi Germany.

This exclusion may be a little premature since there nobody has proved the origins of the universe by observation, duplication and measurement. One's view is based upon ethnicity, cultural and professional stances. All theories are non science until proven by scientific method. I do not personally accept the Creationist's biblical version in respect of the origin of the universe, but it has not been displaced by scientific method. Science cannot arrogantly dismiss it until it proves otherwise. It also cannot claim that its version is scientific either.

 

I think that natural science has several advantages that facilitate its spread across cultures. First and probably most important, it's seen to work. Science is the intellectual foundation of engineering and medicine and indirectly, the modern world. Most of the world wants those things. Second, its methods and results are persuasive, simply by definition. It's based on evidence and argument. Finally, science isn't dependent on and can coexist with any number of aesthetic sensibilities and social organizations. Scientific concepts are typically abstract and closely associated with existing craft skills like building construction and metallurgy. Most cultures can easily conceptualize measurement, mathematics, experimental trial-and-error, and logical argument without doing great violence to their own cherished traditions.

Science does historically move cultures in a rationalistic this-worldly direction that can ultimately prove quite corrosive to received pieties, as we see illustrated right here with this creationism thread, but that implication isn't readily apparent at first.

Creation refers to anthropomorphic accounts of the origin of new things, in terms of act and intention. So creation can't be an account of the initial origin of everything, since it requires the preexisting creator(s). Creation is an account of changes within being.

Evolution likewise is a class of accounts of the origin of new things within existing being. It doesn't account for the initial origin of everything either.

(That's the mystery of mysteries: Why is there something rather than nothing?)

The big difference between evolution and creation is that evolution isn't anthropomorphic. It uses cause-and-effect and employs the same sort of natural processes that can be observed in the universe today (or inferred from those observations).

That difference between hidden intentional agency accounts and naturalistic cause-and-effect accounts takes us from the creation/evolution debate towards the broader underlying magic/science distinction. We see similar issues arising in controversies about things like witchcraft and demonic possession.

There's no reason why scientists can't speculate or why speculations can't be scientific.

If we are talking about events that occurred in the past, our evidence is necessarily going to be indirect. Biogeography, comparative anatomy and the fossil record do tell us a great deal about life's past. And as we speak, a tremendous new flood of information is flowing in as the genomes of more and more organisms are sequenced and compared.

Clearly a lot of evolutionary biology is still rather hypothetical and uncertain. I think that the general outline is reasonably well established and reliable, but the finer details are often works-in-progress.

Maybe, it's certainly possible. I'm more inclined to think that most early cultures just naturally conceived of the world anthropomorphically, by analogy to themselves and to their own actions. The idea of inanimate physical causation, while certainly implicit in many ancient craft processes such as firing pottery, only gradually emerged in an explicit conceptual form. We see interesting intermediate ideas like karma in India, which kind of smears physics and ethics together in a single concept.

I think that astrophysics arrives at the big-bang by extrapolating backwards from the universe's observed expansion. There is a lot of speculative stuff (that I haven't really followed) about particle physics in the first tiny fraction of a second after the big bang. The idea seems to be to observe high-energy physics in particle accelerators, then to think about the implications of the entire universe being in those highly energized states for a fleeting instant.

Isn't that a bit hyperbolic? It's no more fascist to say that some ideas and methodologies aren't scientific than to say that some beliefs and doctrines aren't Christian, Jewish, Vedic or whatever.

Accounting for natural phenomena as the result of inexplicable miracles, worked by transcendent agencies, whose reality is established by faith in revealed tradition, just isn't what natural science is.

I'm not really arguing that these alternative non-scientific ways of conceptualizing things have to go away. I'm just arguing that they aren't science. Ideas that aren't consistent with these very different religious methods and presuppositions shouldn't be confused with their doctrines either.

To the extent that we believe that these very different approaches each have value, we will have to recognize and respect what's distinctive about each one.

 

In science, a theory is frequently something that can never really be absolutely proven true. It is frequently more likely that it will proven false one day rather than ever be proven true beyond any possible doubt. My previous example was Newtonian physics. It was accepted as true for hundreds of years until it was proven to be nothing more than a good predictor except under certain boundary conditions.

The true value in a scientific theory is how useful the theory is in predicting things that then turn out to be true. For example, Newtonian physics has proven to be very valuable in predicting the movements of objects. This is still true today even though we now understand that it's applicability is not as universal as we once thought. This is an important difference between Creationism theory and a real scientific theory. The purpose of the pseudo science associated with Creationism theory is to simply prove Creationism. It isn't really useful in predicting any unknown outcomes, at least that I'm aware of, that can then be observed as being true or untrue.

Regarding criticism that some perceive may be placed on Creationism, I haven't seen it in this thread. My perception is that the criticism was directed at calling Creationism science not at Creationism itself. The real way that science is supposed to work is that a theory is hypothesized and then there's attempts to prove the theory false or think of some experiment that might be very convincing for the truth of the theory. Creationism theory is not being treated that way. Why? because it is not really a scientific theory. It is a religious theory. That doesn't mean that it's not true, just that it's not a scientific theory.

 

This is correct - a scientific theory must be 'falsifiable' - if conflicting information arises then the theory must be modified or scrapped.

 

How is the theory of evolution, as it relates to the beginning of the universe and of humankind, any more scientifically testable than Creationism? They are untestable theories. There is evidence that both parties use to persuade the other to their side, but I do not see one as being any more "scientific" than the other. There is either science involved in both theories or there is no science involved in either theory.

 

Just curious? Would everyone be comfortable with a school offering a Master of Science in Evolutionary Theory?

 

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. The theories regarding the beginning of the universe is a wonderful example of a theory that I said can probably never be proven true beyond any doubt. Anyway, theory of evolution and the theories regarding the big bang are testable and may eventually be proven wrong. The theory of evolution, for example, makes predictions as to what new fossils might be found. Another example, it can be used to explain why chicken DNA has in it the capability to produce a long tail, a tail similar to an ancient Raptor dinosaur. It can be used to explain how a gizzard was found in another dinosaur and feathers on another dinosaur. Creationism isn't testable. It can't be proven wrong like a scientific theory can. Creationism therefore isn't science. I note again that this does not mean that Creationism is untrue.

 

I think this argument is enscapsulated about what is called "knowing". I have no objection to science saying objectivity, replication and measurement are the foundations of knowledge, although this process would exclude most of how human knowledge is managed in the world. My objection is when scientific theories are advanced as superior and they don't meet their own test. War is then declared on those theories that are generated from another perception of "knowing". This would appear to highly flawed if their own theories don't meet their own test.

Creationism is not science. I admit that, but I think that evolution as the origin of the world also has a shaky claim on the science title as well. Scientists advancing a claim which cannot be tested objectivity, observed or is measurable is doubtful science in my opinion. The dedication by other scientists to it to the exclusion of other possibilities is in my opinion a faithbased process, not science.

I would suggest that an MA should used to teach both subjects. I, incidentally, value the MA very highly. The MA should not be viewed as inferior qualification to a MSc and I am sure that nobody here is suggesting that.The issue of epistemology is another debate for another day perhaps. I have enjoyed this debate for its argument and lack of personal and emotive attacks. This makes degreeinfo a very useful tool.

 

I think I was saying something similar when I gave the examples of chiropractic treatments and perhaps acupuncture being rejected by some scientists simply because they weren't developed using the scientific method. The strict scientific method would really simply indicate that they should be approached with skepticism rather than outright rejected.

 

Yes, it's called Master of Science in Biology.

 

My dog-eared old 2002 Peterson's 'Graduate Schools in the US' lists 32 masters and 52 doctoral programs specifically entitled 'evolutionary biology'. There are additional programs in paleontology and systematics. Many other biological specialties (cell, molecular, ecology, botany etc.) take an interest in evolution and may be actively researching it.

Do I have any objections? No, I welcome it.

I don't really have much objection to a masters or doctorate in creationism either. It would probably be most appropriate conducted in a theology or religious studies department, but nobody is preventing anyone from offering them.

I'm not quite sure what the content of a degree in creationism would be, though.

 

This is atrocious prejudice. ICR's graduate program, is a THOROUGH program, which is ALREADY accredited.

I don't know if they have since edited it, but the original statement from the board basically said "If your science program doesn't include teaching abiogenesis as a fact, you can't teach science in Texas".

What was ESPECIALLY horrible, was that an initial team, which did the on site inspection, gave them an exemplary stamp of approval. The Board, after receiving a huge amount of pressure from atheist groups, went against the advice of the team, and turned them down.

ICR ALREADY has graduates working in various fields of science in many institutions across the country.

The idea that "atheistic evolutionism" (which is what is taught in all colleges and High schools) is any more scientific than creationism (which does not deny evolution: only it's extent), is preposterous. Evolutionists hold on to their pet little "theory" (read, "religious beliefs) just like the creationists do.

BASIS OF SCIENCE: You have a theory, and you try to disprove it. NEITHER evolutionists, NOR creationists do this.

Now, from a biologists (amateur) prospective: nothing in biology necessitates evolution, at least regarding descent from a common ancestor. In fact, ALL of the things that could be called 'evidence' for common descent, could equally be considered evidence for special creation (homologous structures, similarities in DNA, etc.).


This is a travesty of justice, and a spit in the face of American freedom. Biology is a teaching of how different life forms function: it does not include religious belief about our descent from ape like ancestors.

 

Bro,

ICR ALREADY has a 100 percent accredited science degree program. They ALREADY have scientists working in their fields across the country.

There programs teach ALL the same facts that, say, an equivalent degree from Texas A & M teaches.

The team that visited their site, admitted their program was rigorous.

The only difference in what ICR teaches, and what an atheistic science class teaches, is that instead of the beginning of the textbook stating "Your being here is simply a chance interaction of molecules", it states "God created you special" (or something like that).

They go on to teach the exact same biological processes, experimental procedures, etc.

For people to say that ICR cannot teach an accredited science program in Texas, simply because they do not teach an atheistic viewpoint, borders on Hitlers Germany.

 

I have recently read a passage from Dr. Paul Davies, a noted scientist, in his Book, "The Mind of God" at page 231 (Penguin Books, 1993):

"Although many metaphysical and theistic theories seem contrived or childish, they are not obviously more absurd than the belief that the universe exists, and exists in the form that it does, reasonlessly."

The book is worth a read and is very on point with the discussion here. I found it after this discussion. It comes back to my earlier point that the removal of divine influence cannot be falsified by science.

If you adopt Hume and Kant's approach to science, then the origins of the world, in terms of scientific method, become very problematic. Nobody alive has observed the phenomenon, nobody can replicate it, and nobody can measure it.

The evolutionary origins of humanity are speculative and, according to Davies, no less speculative than creationism. Why is one science and the other not? It both are excluded, then it would resonate with fairness, otherwise it becomes more prejudice and representative of a greater antipathy.

Of course, this antagonism was not one sided. Initially, creationists excluded and criminalised, in some jurisdictions, evolutionists. It does not make later prejudice any less wrong.

My opinion is that both are worthy matters for discussion in an MA. Perhaps both could be discussed and examined in the one framework as competing or complementary theories of the origins of humanity.

Davies Profile can be found at:

http://cosmos.asu.edu/

 

Create life? I'm still waiting for scientists to successfully demonstrate "cold fusion", an outcome consistent with other accepted theories of nuclear fusion. It was a big thing in the 80's but has fallen off the radar screen in recent years.

 

"100 percent accredited" by whom, exactly? It doesn't appear to be accredited by TRACS any longer. That's an interesting development, since ICR's then-owner (Morris) was one of the people who created TRACS, in part specifically to accredit ICR. I'll speculate that ICR's new Texas owners might have essentially bought ICR's name, and are still building a new institution around it.

Here are ICR's "Tenets of Scientific Creationism".

http://www.icr.org/article/tenets-creationism/

Those are theological, not scientific propositions. In particular, they are an expression of a conservative literalistic reading of the first chapters of the Biblical book of Genesis. (Other religions could produce very different traditional religious cosmologies.)

I'll repeat what I've already written:

Isn't that a bit hyperbolic? It's no more fascist to say that some ideas and methodologies aren't scientific than to say that some beliefs and doctrines aren't Christian, Jewish, Vedic or whatever.

Accounting for natural phenomena as the result of inexplicable miracles, worked by transcendent agencies, whose reality is established by faith in revealed tradition, just isn't what natural science is.

 

The TRACS website www.tracs.org no longer mentions the Institute for Creation Research among its list of accredited members and the Institute for Creation Research website www.icr.org makes no mention of accreditation. The wikipedia article on the Institute for Creation Research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research says that ICS resigned its TRACS accreditation in November 2007 after moving to Texas because Texas does not recognize TRACS accreditation. And, yes, Henry Morris is founder of both ICR and TRACS.

 

What "New owner"? Although I must admit that I was unaware that ICR had willingly given up their TRACS accreditation, I was under the impression from their site, that the institution was passed on to Morris' sons.

However, here is a regionally accredited school, that uses the same curriculum: you might recognize it:

http://www.liberty.edu/academics/arts-sciences/biology-chemistry/index.cfm?PID=11778

So what? These are the same types of "tenets" that all the people who hold to the religion of evolutionary descent hold: they are just not brave enough to admit it. They are 100 percent unwilling to consider the possibility that common descent is fantasy: because they like, and adhere to their religious beliefs.

Completely illogical. "Natural" is completely subjective to the individual. You cannot define science according to what you like. Science is about finding out how the universe works. One can do that, and believe that their is a creator behind it, every bit as much as a person can believe it all just "poofed" into existence. Both are religious beliefs. The only difference is, the Evolutionary religion, is THROUGHOUT textbooks, while the creationist perspective (and the huge amount of scientific data that supports it) is prohibited.

Evolutionary (natural) Cosmology is RELIGION, not SCIENCE. ANY exploration of origins is inherently religious, and you cannot therefore discriminate on the basis of said religion.

 

Since this thread revolves to a large extent around Charles Darwin his complete works are available here:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/

 

Exactly. And creationism isn't falsifiable. Therefore, it's NOT science.

You could consider it evidence for your side, but you have to deny reality. All those things are major support for common descent and I don't see how you could possibly twist it.

Just look up ERVs and DNA. Clearly proof of common descent and the branching tree of life.

Biology is the study of life. Creationism is purely a religious idea. It's NOT science.