Master's in Creationism

Isn't this degenerating into a series of personal attacks? Is anybody's opinion being changed by the arguments that are being advanced?

If they haven't already, I think there is sufficient information in the thread for people to choose. The feeling in this thread appears to run very deep on both sides. I don't think that this would even create a blip on the radar over here, but then we are preoccupied with sport, surfing, fishing, and surviving the elements.

As a simple Antipodean, might I suggest that we will all find out in due course, so why the hurry or angst? I have difficulty in believing that legislatures get into the act on this. The simple fact is that we all have beliefs, but in the end it is all an article of faith at this stage.

In this country, where we come from is probably not as important as where we are going. To quote Descartes (Australian Version), "I think, therefore I exist. OK, now where's lunch?" We exist, the planet exists, lets get on with it. The rest we will find out in due course.

 

Yeah. It looks like a couple of new arrivals on the board have turned this thread into their own private flame-war.

It's kind of sad, since I think that the science/religion/philosophy/history nexus is a fascinating subject. Oh, well.... You made some good posts ebbwvale.

Probably the best that anyone can expect is to sharpen and clarify some of the issues surrounding this thing.

Good for you.

It's kind of an American preoccupation, I guess. The United States was settled by many religious refugees from Europe, people who moved to this continent because their nonconformist sects weren't exactly welcome in a Europe of established state churches. So we got our full share of doctrinally uncompromising Protestants. They actually tried to create theocratic commonwealths in 17'th century New England and are very numerous in the rural South today.

I see it as an ongoing battle between the modern and medieval sensibilities. It's tremendously immportant and not unrelated to the West's confrontation with radical Islam. The world is still filled with countless people who want to turn their backs on modern secularism and return to a religion-centered society where education, thought and polity are shaped by divine revelation and obedient to God's will.

Americans have always seen themselves as an optimistic forward-thinking people too. Most of them have, at any rate. Australia seems to share that quality with us and it's why so many Americans are so instinctively fond of Australia. Your country and its people seem like kindred spirits in the world.

 

It is interesting that we share so much in common, although our origins differ somewhat. A significant number of us received a rather rude invitation to leave the UK for Australia or be hanged. In fact, if we returned, we were hanged. I guess they were serious.

As a country that began in effectively began in the European sense, with rum as a currency, we were not particularly well known for our religious observance or obedience to governance. Some of us are Christians, including myself, but we are a lot more passionate about our football and cricket than about a debate over the origins of the world. I do my incompetent best with the application of the principles of the New Testament.

I take your point about the thing in Afghanistan etc. I guess we need to show tolerance in our discussions (with the exception of football of course). The fundamental strength in our communities is our ability to assimilate different viewpoints. I think that we probably have sharpened our viewpoints on this issue, but we don't need to cut each other with them.

 

That's physics and cosmology and other things which are not part of the theory of evolution.

I didn't say a "creationist" could not contribute, but how did they use CREATION SCIENCE to come about these contributions? Or did they use the scientific method? How did creationism bring about the MRI? And what diseases will it cure and how will it do so?

Except for those silly dark ages we had.

Talking about this?: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/032609dntexevolution.72be216f.html

Because the exact wording they're now using is:

How is that denying "critical reasoning?"

This is part of their "wedge" tactic. To slowly get their religious ideas into schools. Every science textbook I've had clearly defines what a "theory" in science is. Never does it say any theory in science is absolutely true. But creationists wanted "strength and weaknesses" put in so they can try to sneak in more creationism/ID into the curriculum.

Where are these creationists successes at getting their ideas taught in schools? They've failed over and over because creationism is a religious belief and not science. Creationism has failed to produce any peer reviewed scientific papers in respectable journals that provide any support for them. Instead, they invented a journal!

 

Sorry about that, but I'm doing my best to keep it on topic that creationism is not science.

But in America there's a battle going on. They're trying to get their religious ideas into the schools via the evolution/creationism (intelligent design) debate.

After that, big bang and quantum theory are next (as you can see from his post).

 

That's right. Because only YOUR religion is allowed to be taught to MY children, with MY hard earned money.

Common descent is not science: it is a religion. Some evolutionary scientists, bless there little hearts, have even been man enough to admit it (though not many).

Now, I am afraid I must depart, at least for a couple of days. I have a biology exam to study for.

Shalom.

 

Originally Posted by BillDayson
"Yeah. It looks like a couple of new arrivals on the board have turned this thread into their own private flame-war."

It's kind of sad, since I think that the science/religion/philosophy/history nexus is a fascinating subject. Oh, well.... You made some good posts ebbwvale.

 

I just looked up his signature "Professional Worldview Certificate Institute for Creation Research"

He's a certified proselytizer for creationism.

http://www.icr.org/cw/catalog/

 

Yeah. Like I was hiding that, or something, LOL.

Just like you are "proselytizer" for the religion of common descent.

Just popped in for a sec...

 

I have a solution for Havensdad he might consider to offer his school. Make the degree something new like a Masters of Theology in Creation Science then its a religious degree. And you can enforce the seperation of church and state as protected by the Courts to get the government out of this matter. Since its then a religious degree not one that could be confused for a secular degree under a Master of Science designation.

As for dark-dan he is not being deceptive in fact its his religious duty to post and support his position so have some respect.

 

The second edition of Encylopedia Britanica (1777-83) lists the date the world was created as either 4,305 BC or 4,000 BC. Are these dates the same as those held today by Creationists?

Also the encyclopedia talks about the "Mosaic" history of the world but I did not find any other reference to this; what is the Mosaic history?

 

I do not like the turn that this thread has taken. We do not need to make personal attacks or place eternal judgments. Up until this point we have been able to discuss this issue rationally and I give kudos to several of the people that are arguing the evolutionary side of this because they have helped me better shape my opinions and better define my own arguments.

The main point of my posting this thread was to question whether it is appropriate to exclude the "theory" of creation from our educational system.

Dark Dan...you mention that there is a battle going on. The irony is that the battle happened the opposite way. Creation has been taught in our schools since this country was formed and only within the past 30 years or so have evolutionists won the battle and somehow been able to exclude the creationist theory from any mention in modern textbooks. This is amazing to me given the holes in evolutionary theory. And now that we are fighting back and questioning the science of evolutionary theories, we are mocked and ridiculed for having a contrary opinion.

While, in and of itself, creationism is not a science, the points that creationists make regarding holes in evolutionary theories are very scientific. I am not sure where that leaves us, but it definitely means that it would be inappropriate to only teach one theory about the formation of the universe and the development of humanity. I do not mind the theory of evolution being taught to my children. I do not mind the big bang theory being taught to my children. But, I do find it very disconcerting the way that our school systems have taken any mention of a possible alternative explanation out of the curriculum.

That is all that I am asking for, allow both sides to be heard, provide contrary evidence of both theories and allow students to form their own conclusions.

Why is that wrong or unfair? If creationism is so bogus, than what is the harm in mentioning it in conjunction with evolution theories? If evolutionary theory is so solid and sound, than any rational person will obviously gravitate toward evolution...

 

I didn't say you were hiding it, I just looked it up. What I find sad is you're "trained" in this, but the training is apparently just:

• Call evolution a religion
• Mention taxes to get people emotional
• Avoid answering questions
• Make claims about "50 million years of static species" but provide no evidence
• Call people wicked sinners when all else fails

Common descent is not a religion! Only creationists like to claim that.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html :

I don't like being personally attacked either, but it's common in these type of discussions that the fundamentalist is going to call someone a sinner, mentions that evolution leads to the holocaust, or some other tangent on morality.

Creationism is not a scientific theory.

Once upon a time they taught a lot of things in schools. Should we go back to teaching all of them?

What "holes" do you speak of? Most of what people think are holes there are already explanations for. Others holes is my next point.

The best they can do is go, "oh look, something we don't understand, must be creationism." But those gaps are slowly closing too. It wasn't until a few years ago we found out why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and the great apes have 24. We know now. This is called the God of the Gaps argument. There's lots of holes in every other scientific discipline. Should we not teach those because we don't have a 100% understanding (which we never will, but we're striving for it).

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

With evolution, there is no competing scientific theory. There's a few internally competing theories (gradual change or punctuated equilibrium, etc).

Should we also teach the earth is flat and let the children decide? Should we also teach the stork theory of reproduction and let the children decide?

Because it's NOT SCIENCE. Therefore it has no place being taught in school. This is why they removed it. Many people do gravitate towards evolution and common descent being the reason for the diversity of life. It's only people that it conflicts with their deeply ingrained religious beliefs that don't.

99.9% of biologist consider evolution to be a true fact.


If you want to teach all sides, why not also teach Hindu creationism? Why not Islamic creationism? Why not Native American creationism? Oh wait, you could....in a religions of the world class or something similar, but NOT in biology because creationism isn't science. It's actually the anti-science.

 

That depends.

There are "Young Earth Creationists" which are religious fundamentalists that believe in the Biblical literacy and the Bible is inerrant. They also don't believe radiometric dating works. Some even don't believe the speed of light has been constant over time and is slowing down (because how else can we see things a few light years away if the universe is only 6000 years old?).

Then there are "Old Earth Creationists" who accept the age of the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old, but still believe in various aspects of creation. Some even go so far to accept evolution as the device for life diversity, but humans weren't humans until God gave them a soul.

 

Can you provide a reference for that statistic?

 

I know, it's an argument from authority, but still. Sorry I can't find a more recent one:

"Keeping God Out of the Classroom". Newsweek. June 29, 1987. p. 23.

I'm sure that number has actually grown recently.

Here's a great survey on biology undergrads: http://www.springerlink.com/content/4637267u13726204/

Continue the trend through grad school and you'd come close to my number.

Here's a great video rebutting the Discovery Institute's list of 101 scientists that reject evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

I'll ruin the end for you, on the creationists organization's list of 101 scientists that reject evolution, 88% of the biologist on it actually accept evolution! Wow, if the creationists can't make better propaganda than that they should just give up.

But hey, if you want some great stats on scientists that reject evolution, look no further than Project Steve: http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve

 

Brilliant point. I was just thinking about that one the way home.

Abner

 

Dan - It is difficult to have a logical debate with you because you say things that are so inflammatory and off-point...

To compare the teaching of a possible creator for the origin of the universe to teaching that the earth is flat is just senseless. I know that you are saying that to make a point, but in reality, it diminishes your point. The world has been proven to be round. The fact that the earth is a sphere is not a theory, it is a provable fact. The world has not been proven to have not come from a creator. I know that you believe it and perhaps you believe it enough to consider it fact, but to compare those 2 points is just irresponsible and childish. And I won't even touch on the stork comparison...

Also, I never asked that a specific brand of creation theory be taught in schools. I did not even ask that the bible be used as the frame of reference for the mention of a possible creator. I simply said that the theory of creation inasmuch that a creator may very well have created the universe and humanity is worthy of mention next to evolutionary theory.

I can now see the frustration that Havensdad was having with you and why he got so contemptuous with you. I’m certainly not going to start calling you a sinner and condemning you to hell, but when you say things that are so inflammatory, you lower the intelligence of the overall tenor of the debate.

 

The whole point of mentioning those things is to demonstrate why things that used to be taught in school no longer are taught in schools. They are not science, and neither is creationism.

Creationism isn't science, it's not a scientific theory, it doesn't make predictions, it doesn't have a mountain of evidence, it has no peer reviewed scientific papers. Therefore, it does not belong in schools. Especially young earth creationism.

While evolution has evidence from several fields of science that all converge on evolution is the reason for the diversity of life on this planet.

 

The debate is not so much whether creationism is science. I have already conceded that in and of itself, creationism is not a science, but that does not make it untrue. Also, I am not so much focusing on the evolutionary mutation part of evolutionary theory, but rather the origin of the universe. One could exist without the other. God could have created a world that did evolve and species did mutate into new species to create what we see today. I am not sure that I believe that, but it is certainly a possibility.

My main problem is trying to explain how anything could come from nothing. Even if all evolutionary theory is true, it ultimately comes down to that point. Where did this first piece of matter that exploded and expanded to create our universe come from? There is no scientific evidence in nature of something manifesting itself from nothingness without the work of a creator. I have never heard a logical explanation to this. Maybe you can help...

By the way, I am an "Old Earth" creationist... God created Adam and Eve as adults, so there is no reason to believe that he did not create the earth with age.