oh wait, you're serious?

March 22, 2009

When I first read about the Institute for Creation Research trying to award a Master of Science degree in creationism, my jaw found itself very comfortable in my lap. Texas’ Higher Education Coordinating Board swiftly told the ICR to forget it and the ICR cried to the media about how its academic freedom is getting stomped on by evil politicos who won’t let them issue a degree in theology and pretend that it’s science. My jaw returned to its upright and locked position, but I was still curious how exactly the ICR could even claim that it taught anything about science or the scientific method.

creation "science"

You see, if you get a degree in science, you have to be well versed in the scientific method. This means you should be able to form a hypothesis, observe and experiment to test it and find out whether your hypothesis is true or false. Simple enough. But the ICR teaches the very opposite; that there already is an answer and that by virtue of something existing and the personal views of our ancestors, it must be a deity. There is no hypothesis, no experimentation and, above all, there’s no research. Ironically, an organization with the word research in its name doesn’t even do any actual research about anything other than how to proselytize. And now they want to get the same certification as people who actually do real scientific work? What a sick joke!

If you really want to have a facepalm moment, try to read their evidence for why God exists. It’s nothing but short, talking point essays reflecting the authors’ personal opinions on culture and their admiration for how beautiful our planet is along with the predictable creationist strawman of infinite reduction, i.e. something can’t come from nothing. Where’s the evidence? Where are notebooks with detailed charts of human DNA signed by God? Where are videos of miracles or demonstrations of prayers coming true before our very eyes? All we get are clichd essays and pretty pictures from Getty and Corbis libraries. Even worse, the ICR essay which tries to assert that “God caused love,” says the emotion can’t be proven “like gravity or aerodynamics.” If you haven’t randomly floated off into space, you’ve proven gravity. If you’ve ever flown on an aircraft, you’ve proven aerodynamics. And after such a public demonstration of ignorance, the ICR expects to be given the right to award science degrees?

Creationism neatly packaged all the questions and problems it can’t answer into a black box it labeled God and then pretends as if it has a solution. But it really doesn’t have anything besides its black box. Scientists don’t claim that everything came from nothing. They think that there’s a very long process where everything changed forms and the universe as we know it still needs to be studied to find out exactly what happened. Creationism has created its own Quixotic quest in its desperation to find some sort of justification for its beliefs but in doing so, they’ve turned to an idea which requires an eternal, all knowing, all powerful and incredibly intelligent being and if a scientist or a curious bystander ask how can this God come from nothing, creationists are at a loss. They have no idea. They just wanted to believe they’re special and were designed by divine manifestations for a greater purpose than they can imagine. And now, it seems that a group of them wants permission to present their security-blanket view of the universe as a science.

Share
  • Sozo

    Wow. Way to be all wrong. Creationists using God as an answer is no different than using evolution or the big bang as an answer. Congratulations, you can generalize and demean something you obviously don’t understand.

  • http://www.msn.com Daniel

    Gfish writes: “We have vast observational evidence that something huge did happen around 13.5 billion years ago.”

    Very vague. What is this “vast” amount of evidence? Is it that the universe is expanding? Could it not be that God created the universe that way, at a point in time that was less than 13.5 billion years ago? You acknowledge something “huge did happen,” but don’t post a hypothesis as to what. And if you did post a hypothesis – i.e. there was a tiny ball of matter of incalculable density that exploded – THAT would not be proven in any way shape or form, just as the existence of God could not be proven. Thus, both Big Bang and Creationism take faith to believe in.

  • Greg Fish

    Can I observe God? Can I talk to God? Can I see God at work? Can I get miracles to happen on demand in a lab setting? Could I interact with God, document how I did it and send it to another person to replicate my results? A lot of people have tried and so far, all of them have failed.

    Evolution on the other hand is a repeatable science. We can test all the major parts of the theory in any lab or in any environment of our choosing and replicate the results at will. As for the Big Bang, we have vast observational evidence that something huge did happen around 13.5 billion years ago.

    So Sozo, to borrow your commenting style for a bit, way to equate things we can see with our own eyes and replicate on demand, with personal beliefs based on books of ancient religious punditry. Maybe when the ICR won’t try to convince us that we can’t scientifically prove gravity, I won’t be as demeaning.

  • Rob

    Whatever. Even if it were necessary for BOTH creationism and the big bang to require some kind of blind faith (which it is NOT), there are innumerable falsehoods to creationism that have been proven for centuries.

    Even the earliest error-prone dating mechanisms used to unearth dinosaur fossils dated dinosaurs as immensely older than creationism purports the earth to even have existed!

    That aside who’s theory is more believable even at face value?

    SCIENTIST: “We believe that through various forms of carbon dating and study of planetary trajectory that indicates a massive universal event dating back XX billion years…”

    CREATIONIST: “There is a big wonderful man in the sky who watches over us and takes care of us all.”

    What about the other gods of the world? Many of them pre-date your ideas of a religious deity by some time — and they haven’t got nearly as much blood on their hands. Does creationism bother to account any of these other stories? Surely not. Only the Christian branches of religion could be so callous as to claim they have roots in science, and not the drunken writings of old men in ancient times, cherry-picked and selected by various ruling bodies for their crowd-controlling principles.

    You criticize the lack of an apparent “vast” amount of evidence when your own favored cause has literally none (and, in fact, mountains against it). People who blindly believe the garbage you do are the reason why there are third world shitholes trying to procure nuclear weapons to rain nuclear destruction on their enemies “in God’s name.”

    Screw God. If he’s real he’s done nothing but spread ignorance and hatred. His values are twisted and he is the epitome of humanity itself; arrogant, masochistic, sinister, self-absorbed and indifferent.

  • http://www.chucksanimeshrine.com Chuck Gaffney

    Here’s a little wrench in the system. If you’ve read the book “Angels and Demons” in which will be a movie in a few months, the creation of something from nothing has been proved by the study of matter and anti-matter. But that’s with the creation of the universe as a whole. To go around saying that people, animals and other modern items here on this planet just appeared out of thin air because some mystical bearded moron in the sky is close to insanity. You might as well start believing in Santa and the Easter Bunny. Sad how people have died at the hands of religious morons that couldn’t thing beyond their little box of ideals. Science is proving some religious rhetoric on a grand scale is right but the religious type don’t want science to discover the truth since they already have nothing to stand on. Just keep playing with your fairy-tales kids and let us adults handle the important aspects of the world we currently live in.

  • http://www.chucksanimeshrine.com Chuck Gaffney

    BTW, couldn’t have said it better Rob. I bet we will get a load of religious (mainly Christian) nuts upset. Can’t wait for their statements proving a talking snake and whale are real. They should look back in their own book and read the (fake) story of Sodom and Gomorrah. It’s where we get the word “sodomy” from. The story is another “end of world” BS in which the survivors of the two cites are a father and his 2 daughters. They seek shelter in a ave and the daughters get him drunk on wine to pro-create the supposed end of the human race. Yeah…tell that story to the kids around the x-mas fire; x-mas being a holiday taken from the pagans and Egyptians in both date and theme. Mix the ancient seasonal celebration of Yuletide and the celebration of the virgin birth of the Egyptian God Horis, add a historically important, and married Jew in the mix..and you got…Christmas.

    I grew up as a Catholic with all the damn sacraments passed other than marriage and I had to grow up for the sake of being a normal human being. My father was beaten by ruthless nuns in Brooklyn back in his day. The Christ Cult can finally end for all I care.

  • Greg Fish

    “Could it not be that God created the universe that way, at a point in time that was less than 13.5 billion years ago?”

    It could be. The only problem with that assertion is that it requires solid proof. It’s much easier to assume that an explosion has taken place rather than the idea in which a being with supernatural powers and incredible intellect created what we know as the observable universe. We have the shockwave from the Big Bang, the microwave background radiation. Is there a shockwave from God’s moment of creation? How do we prove it?

    Keep in mind that the universe we see may not be the whole of it. After a certain amount of light years, the light just never reaches us. How far away is the farthest part of the universe? We don’t know yet. We call it the Horizon Problem and keep trying to ascertain how far away this horizon truly is based on gravity and the expansion patterns of galaxies.

    But in your statement, what you’ve done is shown that rather than offer a different and testable theory, creationism just seeks to throw in a nod to a deity. Unless of course you’d humor me and tell me how exactly we would test for God creating the universe 13.5 GYA.

  • JoeJMz

    “You see, if you get a degree in science, you have to be well versed in the scientific method. This means you should be able to form a hypothesis, observe and experiment to test it and find out whether your hypothesis is true or false. Simple enough.”

    Yeah, OK, let me see your observations of one single life form going from endothermic to exothermic with all of the necessary changes in regulatory and respiratory systems required for the life form to be viable.

    Once evolutionary “theory” steps into the realm of origins, it becomes nothing more than a religious/philosophical thought.

  • http://untruths.org/ Untruths

    Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board swiftly told the ICR to forget it and the ICR cried to the media about how its academic freedom is getting stomped on by evil politicos who wont let them issue a degree in theology and pretend that its science.

    Now you’re being unfair to the serious theologists. There are actual scientists studying religion and theology (eg. history of religion) from a scientific point of view. I bet some of them would object to being linked to creationists.

  • http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/03/22/oh-wait-youre-serious/ Robin

    Unfortunately, science is not fully equipped to deal with the topic of the creation of the Earth. In order for a hypothesis to be provable, you need to have a way to measure the process as it happens. Since there was no scientist there to measure and quantify the processes involved in the creation, there is an obvious lack of evidence. Any attempt to hypothesize will have to depend on measuring the current processes at work and making a comparison.

    This idea makes this topic all about faith, where those who believe in a Creator are pitted against those who believe scientists that claim to know exactly when and how the Earth was created. There were scientists in the past called Shamans that used their knowledge of things unseen to the common man to hold a position of power over the others. Do you think it is possible that this debate is used to further the interests of others in the same way by providing funding for projects? You bet it is.

    Max Planck, who is considered the father of Quantum Theory, theorized that there is no reason to assume that the same laws of physics that apply to our lives now are the same as the ones that existed in the past. Not only was he smart, he was right. You cannot assume anything in your scientific hypothesis and expect to be taken seriously. It wouldn’t work in any other field of science and I’m not sure why it would apply here.

    Using science to criticize others for their beliefs is only used by those with an intolerant attitude and completely misses the point of scientific debate. Science is about gaining knowledge to further the cause of the human race. Using science to be intolerant seems to be the common thing in this day and age.

  • Raelas

    @gfish:

    You are using a “straw man” argument as well! And the biased article you link to is talking about SPECIATION. Going by the DEFINITION, evolution is not science because it is NOT observable and it is not repeatable. And we are (or should be) talking about evolution on a large scale, not so-called “micro-evolution”; no one’s claiming that lineages of animals and species don’t change! That is simply mutation, or a LOSS of genetic material (IE bats losing sight); not the addition of new material. This is why macro-evolution or “molecules-to-man” evolution can’t and never will be proved. I respect your right to believe what you want, but find it telling that there is so much hate in many evolutionists’ reactions to an alternative theory.

  • http://www.chucksanimeshrine.com Chuck Gaffney

    @Raelas

    Evolution not observable?!?

    Just look at the different races of the human race. Native Americans have an Asian look to them…why? because they are traced back to a tribe in Japan over 10,000 years ago. Yet, because their gene pool obviously stayed here in the Americas…eventually their features changed and so did their skin color.

    That’s just one example.

    Observe how dogs are bred into different breeds or a certain trait of the breed enhanced over the years.

    That’s another example.

    For god sakes, corn is is a result of us evolving the trait of a certain plant over time.

    I’d add Darwin’s observations as well on those birds…but of course I’d guess you’d already know that.

  • http://worldofweirdthings.com Greg Fish

    “Going by the DEFINITION, evolution is not science because it is NOT observable and it is not repeatable.”

    I’m sorry but it actually is. Even for large animals. You’re wrong. That’s the long and short of it.

    “And the biased article you link to…”

    Ah, the good, old cry of bias when someone wants to shoot the messenger and discard facts…

    “is talking about SPECIATION.”

    …followed by a nonsensical accusation. In case you don’t know, speciation is at the very heart of evolutionary theory. It’s like accusing a physicist of being wrong about gravity because he’s talking about mass.

    “That is simply mutation, or a LOSS of genetic material (IE bats losing sight); not the addition of new material.”

    That’s patently ridiculous. Mutations are not defined as losses of genetic material. They’re changes of genetic material. Bats losing their sight is not evidence for a loss of genetic data. Methylation of genomes and introduction of retroviral DNA into bat genomes could’ve done the same thing so a gain in genetic material or the same amount of genetic material could also lead to the same effect.

    Before you rush to start defining what is and isn’t possible, why don’t you try to take a look in a biology textbook and figure out what it is you’re actually talking about because your current level of expertise on the subject would net you a D in a remedial science class.

  • http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/03/22/oh-wait-youre-serious/#comment-1285 Robin

    gfish, you are correct.Only an illegitimate scientist would say that they know exactly when and where the Earth was created. Legitimate scientists say that areas of science that are not fully proven, are a hypothesis. This is absolutely critical to furthering the understanding of science. The point was that a legitimate scientist would have to tell you that science will never be able to solve this equation without a time machine. You would actually have to be there to study it scientifically.

    The process of micro evolution, or adaptation of a species within a species, is proven fact and is now known to be a result of genetics. Macro evolution, on the other hand, has yet to clearly defined other than pieces of fossils thought but not proven to be intermediary species. These two different aspects of evolution always seem to get grouped together under the umbrella term, evolution.

    There is without a doubt a those who use their beliefs in God to justify their own opinion instead of using facts. The problem is that there are also a number of those that believe in God and can still use facts to justify their position. I know it seems incredible, but it’s true.

  • Greg Fish

    “Once evolutionary ‘theory’ steps into the realm of origins, it becomes nothing more than a religious/philosophical thought.”

    Um, it’s not intended to go into the origins of life or cosmology. The origins of life are studied by abiogenesis, a subset of organic chemistry. So what you’ve basically said is that once someone tries to use a theory to explain something it was never designed to explain in the first place, it becomes meaningless. And that’s very true. But it’s also a very misleading way to analyze theories. You’re essentially trying to disprove them by misrepresenting them and attacking the strawman.

    “There are actual scientists studying religion and theology (eg. history of religion) from a scientific point of view.”

    Right, but those scientists are usually archeologists, folklorists, sociologists and anthropologists. Theologians study religion and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. I’ve dedicated quite a bit of time to studying a number of religions from a historical and cultural point of view myself. But theology is not science and the scientists who study the history of religion are in completely different fields than people who pontificate on the nature of God and the meaning of holy books.

  • Robin

    “If bacterial colonies can undergo mutations and branch off into various strains that then either thrive or die off in an accelerated example of natural selection, why would this mechanism suddenly stop working in an animal?”

    Simply put, it wouldn’t. What you are describing is the process of micro evolution. Bacterial colonies can and do undergo changes that are a result of the gene pool being thinned out by those faulty genes that do not thrive in a specific environment. The problem is, no one has ever seen a bacteria change into another life form. That would be macro evolution. A further problem is that absolutely no study has ever been done that has studied these organisms in a natural environment that has not in some way been disturbed by simply watching them.

  • Greg Fish

    “This idea makes this topic all about faith, where those who believe in a Creator are pitted against those who believe scientists that claim to know exactly when and how the Earth was created.”

    Actually Robin, you have it exactly backwards. Scientists don’t claim to know exactly how the universe was created. They teach probabilities and theories clearly telling students that as time goes on there will be further refining to what we know today. It’s the creationists who claim to know exactly how everything around us was created and they insist on indoctrinating people with dogmas, many of which have been shown as false.

    They have no real evidence and their level of factual knowledge can be downright deplorable but they still use it as a battering ram against people who tell students that they can take what they’ve learned in science class and one day, either add to that knowledge or overturn it with a new discovery. If you want kids to be taught that today’s understanding of nature is woefully incomplete and needs much more study, you’d be teaching them scientific evolution.

  • david davidson

    ok lets fly with creationism and god…… god would be very understanding of the reasoning why a human being would refuse to believe he exists because he never left any physical evidence to build faith upon. there is no evidence; its foolish to take the act of gawking-at-nature as evidence.

  • Anonymous

    @Sozo (and all the others that apparently do not have a clue): creationists using god as an answer is COMPLETELY different from using evolution or the big bang as an answer. First of all, evolution is based on observable facts; observable in laboratory settings, my dear Sozo (Google “bacteria” + “resistance” and read up on the use of antibiotics; you might even get the point). And yes, evolution is indeed a theory AND it is based on facts (no, it is not “just” a theory). Confusing? That’s because you probably don’t know what the word “theory” means in a scientific context (and I’m not going to explain this again; I’m getting tired of it, look it up for yourself (Google “scientific theory” if you haven’t figured out what to search for yet)). As for the big bang: there is this thing called cosmic microwave background radiation (you guessed it: Google is your friend). And then there is also this thing that we can observe called “the inflating universe”. Mix in some observation, hypothesizing (using logic and deduction instead of faith; you know, those things that leads to hypotheses that are actually falsifiable (while you’re at it, look that word up as well)), and experimentation and… BAM! All of a sudden you have this fairly nice explanation of what might have happened (and yes, we will admit it if it is not (completely) correct and will adjust or dismiss it if needed; that’s what researchers – as opposed to religious zealots – are prepared to do). All of it is nicely supported by science, which cannot be said of this amusing fairy tale that a lot of people like to believe, since that is based on… Oh yeah, I forgot: nothing at all.

  • Greg Fish

    Robin,

    You simply cannot try to separate evolution of microorganisms from the evolution of macroorganisms. That’s like trying to separate gravity of the Earth from the gravity of Jupiter and say that they’re two different kinds of gravity because of the scale.

    As I noted in a post written just a day before this one:

    “Creationists dont seem to understand that the very thing that drives microevolution also drives macroevolution. If bacterial colonies can undergo mutations and branch off into various strains that then either thrive or die off in an accelerated example of natural selection, why would this mechanism suddenly stop working in an animal? Does macro life not have genetic material like its micro counterparts?”

    Oh and Robin, please don’t put this thread’s URL into the boxes when you make a comment. WordPress sends such comments into the spam folder and I don’t want you to wait for your comment to be approved and appear on this site. I’m far too lazy to moderate comments beyond looking out for spam and porn links… =)

  • Robin

    Macro evolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools. Macro evolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with micro evolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. The actual definition of macro evolution accepted by scientists is “any change at the species level or above” (phyla, group, etc.) and micro evolution is “any change below the level of species.

    Bacteria changing to a different species of bacteria, would in fact be micro evolution.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    Lets be very clear: there is no such thing as micro and macro evolution. Those are convenient terms that were created by creationists to distinguish between change we can see in our lifetimes and change that takes longer then a typical generation. There is only evolution.

    Robin, you’re also very wrong when you say no one has seen speciation. Try this page for just a few examples of speciation. There are a ton of examples.

    The interesting comments I’ve seen here is this idea that evolution isn’t science. I think by last surveys, 99.5% of biologists and scientists studying evolution (evolutionary biochemists, etc) believe in evolution. Either they’re ALL really wrong about what science is, or your interpretations of science and evolution are flawed. There is no debate among a strong majority of scientists about whether evolution happens… the debate is how it occurs, and even most biologists agree on that. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution describes how evolution occurs.

  • roy

    i love reading comments for articles about these things.

    You have the so many annoying people from both sides of the fence.

    this has all been said probably so I will just summarize it quickly.

    BIg Bang, Theory, not proven

    Evolution, Theory, depending on who you are you will argue that it has been observed and therefore proven, or you will argue something like it cant be proven.

    Creation stories. Theory, not proven.

    There, none of you are going to convince the side they are wrong, you should know this.

    “what is more unbelievable? a powerful being created the universe from nothing? Or once apon a time there was nothing…which exploded?”-paraphrased from somewhere

    You’re all nuts

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    @Roy:

    I’m fairly certain you don’t understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is the best explanation for a given phenomenon. It is the highest honor a scientific idea can hold. Facts and laws are assembled together into theories. The Big Bang theory is the best idea we have at the moment for the creation of the universe. There are a lot of papers supporting it, but no sensible physicist will claim its beyond doubt (no science is beyond doubt). Evolution is so widely accepted, that more historians doubt the Holocaust then do scientists (who study the field) doubt evolution. Creation stories have no scientific evidence to support them, and so are not theories. They are simply baseless hypotheses.

  • Don

    I keep hearing people bash others who think that everything was created and they proof that does not discount the idea. But personally I could care less if the universe was created by a greater being or was started by a random vibration of a quantum string. Does it really matter to me not one bit. See if science is right then when I die I am gone and it did not matter if I understood how the universe came about. And if creationism is right well I am fucked. I will go to hell and burn. So does it really matter in the least bit no. Only fools argue over crap like this. If you believe in a god good leave me out of it. If you don’t believe in god good leave me out of it. I think that the rest of the world would do good if people just shut the hell up about stupid shit like this. One way or another you have a religion be it the church of a god or the church of science its all the same. Because in the end nether theory has been proven. So should they be taught as fact no. Now I know that you will jump all over this post and say that you think I am a dip shit but maybe your right and maybe your wrong. In the end You mean nothing to me or the rest of the world. So with that bye.

  • Orange

    I like how everyone arguing against science with attempted facts posted false ones

  • Orange

    @ Don – yes generally logical people don’t like to deal with the stupidity of religion but it crops up in times, like in the article. Also in government. If religious people weren’t ardent about spreading their beliefs (especially Christianity with all the missionaries) I’m pretty sure it would not be an issue any more.

  • http://ihateyoustupidfacefartybutt.shitass Farter Poopie Stinks

    I think you guys are all meanies and you make my head hurt with all your big words and yucky creationism hate. Lets solve the debate and say that, no they shouldn’t be issuing science degrees in creationism, but some people need something more out of this life than a huge empty void, and their everyday interactions. I fancy myself as a lover of cool science stuff and read about all the new changes in the science community. But honestly, it comes down to the fact that “I want to believe”.

    - Mr “Has All the Answers” :)

  • Greg Fish

    “The problem is, no one has ever seen a bacteria change into another life form. That would be macro evolution.”

    No. I’m sorry but no, no and again no. Macroevolution is the evolution of complex, animal life. We can see by jellyfish, sea sponges and sea anemones as well as some ancient species of marine worms how bacterial colonies could work together as tissues and then as organs. So yes we have seen them change. The only difference between micro and macroevolution is the time it takes to make major changes.

    “A further problem is that absolutely no study has ever been done that has studied these organisms in a natural environment that has not in some way been disturbed by simply watching them.”

    Biology is not quantum mechanics. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does not apply here. Watching animals will not suddenly change how their genes mutate.

  • kljh

    Why is this such a debate? The article is not even debating creationism versus evolution. Yeah he seems a little towards the scientific side but the big thing is not giving bachelor of science to a theological perspective. No one is saying you cant get a degree in theology or that you cant believe in creationism and that you cant obesrve god (well some are but thats not the point). The point is creationism is not a valid science by the standards of earning a degree of scientific nature (which includes labs etc.).

  • The Old Wolf

    The point of the blog post is well taken – “Master of Science in Creationism” is a contradiction in terms. That said, I’ve never seen a convincing argument proving or disproving the existence of divinity via logic, polemics or sophistry. We study the universe around us through the scientific method, but God can only be experienced.

    A believer debating the existence of God with a scientist is no different than a Catholic debating an Evangelical as to whose faith is “correct”. It basically comes down to this: http://tinyurl.com/ctzwkv – in a fight of this nature, no matter who wins, you’re both morons.

    How much better would it be to take all that time spent arguing about the unprovable and channel it into concrete efforts to lift the human condition. In such an effort, theists and secular humanists could work side-by-side.

  • Greg Fish

    Roy,

    Now that we’ve established our insanity, I’d like to ask what you’d propose. Since you call creationism a theory, you’re basically saying that personal beliefs are the same thing as a collection of observed and tested facts. And yet, you’re also saying that scientific theories need to be proven even though they’re already based on proven facts.

    The bottom line is that in science, a theory tries to explain complex processes that span the universe or apply over billions of years which is why until we stop making adjustments for new knowledge, it will remain a theory. Scientific theories are bodies of knowledge and the colloquial semantic games simply don’t apply.

  • Greg Fish

    “Macro evolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.”

    The way you’re defining things makes it impossible to prove speciation by the sheer power of semantics and corner all evolution in the micro range. Any proof a species branching off into two or three new ones would immediately be placed under a very misleading label. And a grossly inaccurate one.

    Like Don pointed out, the whole micro/macro thing are just labels. Evolution in a cell and evolution in an elephant are all the same process. What you’re going for is the Ken Ham example of dogs only changing into new dogs. While forgetting that wolves are very closely related to dogs, so close the two can still hybridize, but are two different species. So yeah, that’s just not gonna work because it’s not true.

    Arguing against evolution is exactly like arguing against gravity. And yes, gravity is *just* a theory, yet it will happen whether you believe it or not and regardless of how you choose to label it.

  • http://mrgnome.wordpress.com/ mrgnome

    First of all. Darn nice theme. I’m Switching :) Oh no, the pain of re-arraning all Widgets…

    Secondly I like your blog, you are on my blogroll

    Thirdly Thanx for an interesting post, I’m going to read it again.

    Fourthlieses How do you make those cool BUZZ widgets appear? Me wants

    I’ll be dropping by!

  • http://beyondtheflock.co.nr beyondtheflock

    Great post… hit the nail on the head.

  • http://www.Eulogytothesyllogistic.wordpress.com fernanie2002

    I am never not amazed by the level of scientific ignorance displayed by people under the creationist delusion. For instance,Sozo wrote “Creationists using God as an answer is no different than using evolution or the big bang as an answer”. The two, evolution and big bang, are entirely distinct theories that exist by merit of evidence. EVIDENCE!!! Scientist don’t just make this stuff up. A lot of tedious work and brainpower have went into them. These theories are supported by years of data collection and analysis made by many dedicated scientific contributers who follow stringent guide lines and are subject to harsh peer reviews.

    But I guess the scientifically ignorant desert wandering folks who wrote the bible somehow know better.

  • Matthias

    This whole discussion is really quite absurd. Classic as well. It seems what we have is a bunch of Dawkins evolutionists bashing on a bunch of unfortunately ignorant religious believers.

    One of these days you Dawkins people will learn some manners, you creationists will learn some science, and the world will be a little bit happier.

  • http://mrgnome.wordpress.com/ mrgnome

    Listen, I found this video late last night when I was thinking along these lines.

    I really think it is right for this discussion. Give it a spin:

    http://mrgnome.wordpress.com/2009/03/28/what-the-bleep-do-we-know/

    And we can continue discussing it here or @ my blog. I think it has some good points.

  • cory

    I think everyone here is wasting their time. Its foolish for people on either side to try and convert each other on this site, since the only people who are going to post on here are people who aren’t open to the ideas of people on the opposite side of the argument. Especially since everyone is just throwing out “facts” without at least credible links to the different theories they are mentioning.

  • http://mrgnome.wordpress.com/ mrgnome

    Cory, check the vid. I think you’ll agree with it. It’s all one thing.

  • Greg Fish

    “It seems what we have is a bunch of Dawkins evolutionists”

    Hey, I resent that! I was an evolutionist way before Dawkins came along. All it took was a few science classes and good, scientific books.

  • muttslikeme

    A side door into religion. The whole point is to have differences, tolerate them, and live our own truths. Who wants homogeneity. If we did, we’ve never have mutts http://muttslikeme.wordpress.com

  • http://www.ihategoogle.org/ Dan Kramer

    you should be able to form a hypothesis, observe and experiment to test it and find out whether your hypothesis is true or false.

    Actually, that’s wrong. The scientific method can only tell you if something is false, not true. You need to read up on it.

  • Dave

    I think one major point everyone’s missing is that science does not disprove God, and God (‘s existence, excluding much said in the Bible here) does not disprove science.

    Is God is this ‘divine intellect’ or merely the name of creation?

    Did we naturally try to personify the idea of creation, as with much of old legends?

  • Skrubber

    The invisible and the non-existent look very much the same.

  • Joe

    “If a man begin with certainties,

    He shall end with doubts,

    But if he will be content to begin with doubts,

    He shall end with certainties”

    Francis Bacon

  • Midna

    Before I go off on my spiel, I must say I enjoyed the article. I had no idea there are efforts to make creationism a science…

    As a zoology student/ aspiring vet surgeon who has done work on the field as well as research in the labs, I must say I have observed without a doubt evidence of evolution. It is a way of adapting to a changing environment…in short time periods we have variations and over long periods we have different species..

    I don’t think it’s right to claim anything for certain, especially if you have little knowledge in the subject matter. It’s also not right to force your beliefs on others in aggressive or violent matters. I’d call myself spiritual in that I believe we are all connected somehow, not necessarily through some entity, though I believe it’s selfish to claim we (humans) were created through some guy’s image who also created the entire universe…that’s so egotistical.

    The fact is we need to focus on what is happening now. whether you believe God put it there, or you believe it has evolved here, it is all beautiful. Species are disappearing from our world at a rapid pace. Within the next few decades the coral reef will be gone (so go and see it now…so you can tell your grand children how beautiful it was). The Golden frog, one of my favorite types of anuran, no longer exists in the wild (that has happened recently…within the past 5 years) and will probably die off in captivity. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOp3rFQvgPI ) This documentary was made before that last population died off.

    We are contributing to a rapidly changing, poisonous environment and species are not able to adapt quickly enough. The sensitive animals (corals, amphibians, fish certain inverts) are all being effected. I see it on the field every day. We need to stop calling everyone wrong. If you really care about this world and the future of nature in all of it’s beauty, we need to work together and tolerate our indifference so we can save our beautiful Earth. Whatever you believe in, it’s where we were born…and where our children and their children and their children will live. Our roots are in nature.

  • Jay

    Science is actually very good way of looking at things but it also traps itself to its own set limitiations. The reason it traps itself is because science is actually a man made process and way to look at things…it uses reason at the exclusion of intuition…it uses the mind at the exclusion of spirit…hence it can never get out of its own trap that would otherwise give a greater perspective. That is not to say all who use science as the primary way to understand things allow themselves to fall into that trap; fine discernment of the mind can be a great tool for realizing futility of using reason only and for attempting to grasp the infinite. A Scientist can be as equally dogmatic as a theologin drawing upon their respective school of thought as proof to support there view. When the mind consider matters that brings its consciousness to realizing that which is infinite, if the person is what we call ‘religous’ they start to stick names to that like GOD, when a person bent on science comes to such realizing put names on it like theories….whether creationism or evolution..they are both the same thing just being described through different means. I have yet to hear what an evolutionist says about why does evolution evolve? Plenty of evolutionist reading this will already have plenty of answers, but before you post – why to those answers as well?….Is it not obvious to even just common sense that even if life on this planet “evolved” slowly over eons that life itself is inherently intelligent; without intelligence acting on every small and large process in concert this evolution could not of happened. And realizing the immense intelligence of such a process why do we have to call it a GOD? If a GOD created all this intelligence then what intelligence created this GOD, would GOD not have to be inherently intelligence like all of creation or Universe…why do we have to think it was created to begin with by a GOD or a BIG BANG; thats easy…its because the human mind cannot grasp infinity so it needs to finite it with a name or theory. If life did gradually evolve and change, perhaps sometimes very quickly and other slowly, then is that not the most intelligent way to do it? Because if you change the equations around too much it flops and won’t work….stupid fat chance?…I don’t think so

  • Midna

    Well if you read what I put Jay, species of animals and plants evolve to adapt to the changing environment. However it is changing…

  • Midna

    But I digress…

  • Jay

    Yes Midna…I wrote before reading yours but I made the point you have to question why does the environment change?

  • Midna

    Yes. There are a number of factors….but not one concrete answer. Slight change in the earth’s tilt, human contributions, other species contributions, long-period cycles, galactic cycles. universal cycles. Right now, humans are contributing to very rapid change. The naturally occurring contributions happen over very long periods of time.

  • john

    I only have one question for gfish. Even if creationists were to concede every point youve made in these comments and the Big Bang theory is indeed correct and there was an immensely dense point of matter that exploded and everything that we see today is simply the evolution of all that matter; one question remains. Where did that matter come from? It must have been created by something at some point because by laws you yourself follow that matter must have a beginning or we wouldn’t be here (second law of thermodynamics). Your car will run out of gas eventually, so will all energy on the universe. So the question remains, where did the energy come from?

  • Jay

    Yes Midna..but why is there a number of factors?…probably because it is the most intelligent way to do it….if intelligence is inherent in all things…omnipresent…then that is not one concrete answer…it is an infinite expression of intelligence, an infinite potential that does express itself…in the light of our discussion life being present in its many different forms on this planet. There is actual evidence from a scientific point of view that at times life forms went under very rapid changes in a short period of time, that does not refute evolution…all that does is have us consider life does not only just evolve slowly over long periods of time. And how do we know that it is humans creating rapid change and not something perhaps science cannot grasp yet that is changing things quickly that in turn causing humans to change rapidly. And what is natural and not natural really…if humans are an extension of evolution then whatever we do is that not natural as well? since we are the product of that evolution? I came across an analysis of one of those charts that Al Gore used for his man-made causing global warming hypothesis and it showed a very direct corollation between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and planetary temperatures suggesting increases in those gases increases temperature…but if you looked at the graphs closely you found temperature increases preceding carbon dioxide increases. And also why is the tilt of the earth as is? why other species contributions? why long period cycles, why galactic cycles? why universal cycles?

    To me it seems like it takes much intelligent co-ordination for that to happen..so much in fact that it is impossible for the human mind to grasp completely…although we attempt to fathom it objectively through science or subjectively through theology or ….

  • js

    Never in the recorded history of mankind has anyone ever witnessed the mutation of on species into another.

  • john

    They’re not teaching them as fact! I really don’t understand where evolutionists get this idea that all creationists think they have everything right and everyone else is wrong. It’s simply another that some choose to believe because, as you said yourself, there are answers neither side know and neither side can answer. When the day arrives that scientists figure out how a single atom, let alone duotrigintillions (10 x 99) of atoms can blip into existence in an instant, then you have the right to point and laugh and creationists, and believe me I’d be right beside you. But we simply are not at a point in our understanding of the universe to make such an unyielding statement as “Im right, you’re wrong, bottom line.” In an age of such acceptance of others, I’m appalled to see such discrimination in the field of science, what use to be considered gentlemen’s study, just because someone believes something different.

  • john

    I also believe scientists have lost touch of what Darwin himself said were the guide lines to this thing he called evolution. Not only did Darwin say himself that if you couldn’t find the gradual, fine steps in the fossil record that you could wholly disregard his ENTIRE theory. And I’m sorry to disappoint you, but those steps arent there. Yes we have a few fossils that seem to be hybrids of two animals that people say must prove evolution. But where are the rest? There should be hundreds of ever so slightlly different fossils. I won’t argue irreducible complexity because I find it a weak argument, but Darwin also said that if someone finds a complex system that cannot be reduced to it’s basic parts, disregard his ENTIRE theory.

  • john

    yes, it’s an alternative. It’s no the only thing being taught. And last time I checked, creationism is taught in ANY public schools. If someone wants to go to a private school and learn about creationism I say more power to ‘em.

  • john

    isn’t taught*

    sorry

  • john

    And now I digress. Ive spoke my peace

  • Jay

    gfish

    When you say they teach god poofed the universe into existence you already show your prejudice because science holds poof then there was a big bang…perhaps if you took time with an open mind you would find the deeper significance of a ‘…god poofed..’

    You have to remember that facts alone have no meaning without an interpretation of those facts which is subjective in nature. There is nothing in science that is completely objective, those who think so are either in denial or have not gone down the rabbit hole deep enough. So for creationists its not ok to mix fact with beliefs yet for yourself its ok? because all your thoughts about evolution through science is based on your beliefs.

  • Greg Fish

    “Actually, thats wrong. The scientific method can only tell you if something is false, not true.”

    So Dan there has never been a study that actually found support for an idea? Not one?

    “Where did that matter come from? It must have been created by something at some point because by laws you yourself follow that matter must have a beginning or we wouldnt be here”

    That would be what quantum mechanics studies because we know that all sorts of very strange things happen in the subatomic world. We don’t know yet and that’s what we’re trying to find out. But not knowing is no excuse for making things up and trying to teach them as fact.

  • Greg Fish

    js,

    I would hope not because one species turning into another would be a very good case against some of the fundamental parts of evolutionary theory.

    Species branch of from existing ones and we’ve seen it over the history of humanity. For instance, we’ve seen wolves and dogs branch off into two canid species.

  • Greg Fish

    john,

    The idea that a god poofed the universe into existence and we will never be able to understand how is being taught as a viable alternative to genetics, zoology and biology. Again, not allowing people to trump facts with personal belief is not discrimination, it’s a basic tenet of logic.

  • John

    Gravity is a theory. Having not “randomly floated off into space” is not proof of gravity. If you are going to argue on the side of science, it’s best not to be ignorant of it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

  • Mark

    Ok, I’m sorry, but you simply cannot scientifically test a non-falsifiable claim. By it’s very definition, it cannot be tested. You can’t even through it in computer generated models and see whether the math is consistent.

    Now, with the Big Bang Theory, we actually have observable evidence and established mathematical formulas to test these things out and make an educated guess. Intelligent Design/Creationism cannot be indicated through any such observable evidence. The most we have is religious hearsay, personal anecdotes and weak analogies to make any such assertion in regard to a Deity. The evidence standards that actual Scientific Theories (Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Natural Selection, etc) have to meet are far beyond what any Creationist theories are capable of meeting.

    So, to anyone who thinks there should be an Intelligent Design/Creationism Degree, kindly tell me what kind of labs you would be able to do to test your theories.

  • Mark

    John, you need to understand that there is a BIG difference between a ‘scientific theory’ just any old theory. The scientific community requires a high standard of evidence based arguments before it will adopt a theory. ID/Creationism comes nowhere even close to meeting these standards. Seriously, equating the Intelligent Design theory with things like the Big Bang Theory is like equating apples with people. I mean, there may be a couple basic similarities, but they’re on totally different levels.

  • Gaelic Girl

    Science and Faith are as different as an orange and an elephant. Did you know that the Vatican has a large vested interested in scientific research? Even the Pope doesn’t discount evolution — because he is an educated man, not just a man of Faith. Creationism is Faith — not science and should be kept in a religious context. It has no place in an educational system, let alone being a Masters Program.

    I have a REAL Master of Science degree and feel that this is a bad joke perpetuated by ignorant people out to make a buck. I worked hard for my degree and seeing this article just makes me mad.

  • Andrew

    Haha, I watch you all bicker and fuss but NONE of you, from what I read which is not all of it, realize that the Bible was not written to to fit modern science. It was written in a way that the people of the time of Christ could understand, they didn’t know about gravity or any of that shit. It wasn’t written to fit with science.

    I’m not saying that the Bible is right, I’m just saying your trying to use the creation account for something it wasn’t made. You will always be able to go, well what about this…….. no you forgot this…… well this proves God……well this proves there is not God.

    The thing is, we will never know.

    Have fun being children who are insecure in their own beliefs.

    Andrew

  • Andrew

    Dang Gaelic Girl, you beat me by 4 seconds

  • http://ourmaninthefield.wordpress.com/ Our Man in the Field

    In my experience when asked to rationalise their beliefs, believers all have the same tendancies. These being:

    1. An inability to frame a logical answer based on one or more sound premises

    2. They all seem to make the same assumption-conclusion mistake of saying either A. A lack of proof proves God’s existance or B. Science cannot explain everything utterly so therefore, God exists.

    and 3. A fundamental desire to avoid admitting that they are wrong – which is where scientists who hunger for knowledge and truth really do have the edge because they do not let ego or reputation get involved as much as people who live their life based on a religious lie.

    These three items, when combined make it awfully hard for a believer to agree on any level with a rational argument, so instead they seek to silence those who do argue for science or try and legitimize their own theories as something other than simply matters of misguided opinion.

  • Tiffany

    I cannot believe that the existence of God disproves evolution, or vice versa.

    To this day, no one knows what sparked the big bang. So of course, the theory could be that it is God. As for God coming from nothing being perceived as a ridiculous idea You could look at it as you either believe the universe came from nothing, or God. The thing that makes it more logical to believe in God is that the universe follows all the laws of the universe, and matter doesnt just pop into existence. God being a creator however, would transcend his creation (therefore transcending time as well), making it possible for God to have no beginning.

    Why is it such a horrifying prospect to believe God used evolution to create us? This kind of work would be behind the scenes, and that seems to be his style. As far as Im concerned, evolution is proven. If you dont believe that, you should maybe pick up a book on the subject. I once heard a Christian say as a response to rebuke evolution, were you there? Im afraid this is a weak argument. Was Moses there at the beginning of time when he wrote genesis? No one believes he was but many do believe that God revealed to him what to write. Could God not reveal more of his system of design through evolution? I really hope that someones belief in God would never make them afraid to educate themselves.

  • Jay

    “…Its a much more complex theory…”

    Which is exactly my point… why do you not leave “the big bang” as an oversimplification yet do leave “…a god poofed into existence…” as so?

    Well you say “.. Evolution predicts a radiation of species..”

    yet you say “…pseudo-Lamarckian concept that species evolve and progress into something else. This simply does not happen…”

    well if a species ‘radiates’ then it has changed and progressed into something else..so it does happen

    And I believe you miss what John is saying…gravity is just a word…we only know its effects…that doesn’t mean we know what it is itself…its still only a theory…it may not be gravity at all…meaning the effects we observe are the result of something else at play..the anomaly of the voyager spacecraft leaving our solar system have thrown a wrench in how believe gravity functions and it was also the case back in the early apollo missions where trajectories were not as planned.

  • Jay

    Mark

    “Ok, Im sorry, but you simply cannot scientifically test a non-falsifiable claim. By its very definition, it cannot be tested. You cant even through it in computer generated models and see whether the math is consistent.”

    It can be tested subjectively…

    “…Now, with the Big Bang Theory, we actually have observable evidence…”

    All the evidence I’ve seen is based on assumptions.

    “…and established mathematical formulas to test these things out and make an educated guess….”

    Established mathematical formulas are only so because people agree that it is so…it doesn’t mean it’s correct or the only way of looking at it.

    “…Intelligent Design/Creationism cannot be indicated through any such observable evidence….”

    Of course it can….can you not observe and see the immense intelligence of everything around you at work.

    “..The most we have is religious hearsay, personal anecdotes and weak analogies to make any such assertion in regard to a Deity….”

    No its not the most ‘we’ have…its the most you have because you are shut out from all that

    “…The evidence standards that actual Scientific Theories (Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Natural Selection, etc) have to meet are far beyond what any Creationist theories are capable of meeting….”

    Ok …fair enough…in your opinion though only..because in my opinion science at its current mainstream condition is very childlike and closeminded.

    “…So, to anyone who thinks there should be an Intelligent Design/Creationism Degree, kindly tell me what kind of labs you would be able to do to test your theories….”

    The lab of spirit in Life..and once you get past the words in the head of that..you graduate

  • Jay

    mark

    “…The scientific community requires a high standard of evidence based arguments before it will adopt a theory…”

    Thats why science will not get very far in the future of mankind if it continues down that road.

    Keeping things predominantly to the minds reasoning will just run to a dead end.

  • Ezekiel

    Maybe the degree would deal with using science to support the creationist theory? There are some great minds who do this, they have some good points.

  • Greg Fish

    “Not only did Darwin say himself that if you couldnt find the gradual, fine steps in the fossil record that you could wholly disregard his ENTIRE theory.”

    Darwin said nothing of the sort. Evolution predicts a radiation of species which is just what we find in the fossil record. For example, we’ve been able to use the theory of transitional fossils to find Tiktaalik in just a few years in exactly the right place in the fossil record. Let’s not start making up who said what without a link or a source.

    Your idea is based on the pseudo-Lamarckian concept that species evolve and progress into something else. This simply does not happen. They branch off and only certain branches survive.

    “…because science holds poof then there was a big bang”

    It’s interesting how you want me to open my mind, yet don’t take the time to figure out that the Big Bang is not necessarily a poof into existence. It’s a much more complex theory which deals with advanced quantum mechanics. It was a process, not a simple flash into being and the Big Bang came from something else. And from there we’d go into the multiverse and brane theories.

    “Having not randomly floated off into space is not proof of gravity.”

    Wow. You must be joking. So actually feeling the force of gravity is not proof that it’s there? Are you even aware of what it is you’re saying?

  • Max

    The idea of a science supported creationist class is good, except I’m afraid that class would give a limited knowledge of how we came to be. It would only be able to focus on the facts that support creationism. Studying evolution as a whole brings up all the fact, and in that we are able to see some that support creationism.

  • anne

    the thought of a creationism MS and these comments makes my brain want to explode. is science education really this lacking? so many of these commenters don’t have a clue what a scientific theory is? i’m sorry, but that’s absolutely pathetic.

  • Jackson

    Well then why don’t you educate us, Anne.

  • anne

    ezekiel, good scientists set out to disprove their hypotheses. this is something that creation science (which already has a preconceived notion of what their results will be, despite the evidence) can/will not do. it’s not science and it’s outrageous for it to be dressed up as so. it’s fine to have religion, but don’t try to pretend it’s science.

  • anne

    i hope you’re joking, jackson. maybe i can scare up a third grade science textbook for you.

  • Mark

    Jay,

    You’re saying that science won’t get far unless it lowers it’s evidential standards? That makes no sense whatsoever. Science is what it is. It tests mathematical formulas through objective, highly specialized experiments. Results and conclusions then go through the process of journal publication and peer review. If there are flaws in the experiments or the conclusions in these journal publications, the scientific community will reject it. You ID’ers simply can’t accept the fact that your theories are very flawed and do not meet the requirement of being objectively verifiable. So, when you say things like:

    “It can be tested subjectively”

    It just doesn’t fly. We can only use the scientific method to test objectively measurable things. You apparently don’t understand the meaning of “non-falsifiable”. I’ve personally had experiences that make me question the finality of scientific rationalism, but I in no way consider these experiences to be scientifically verifiable. So, that means your theories don’t really fall under the umbrella of science. If you can’t test out hypotheses with observations and models, then it isn’t really a scientific subject. That’s not really saying we can prove you are wrong, but just that your theories are not scientific or scientifically testable.

  • Ezekiel

    Sure, I am an evolutionist, but I don’t see my belief as any better than those of the creationists. I am sick of people thinking all creationists are unintelligent, there are brilliant (and stupid) individuals on both sides of the spectrum. I see a lot of anger and hate towards creationists and I wish that evolutionists would stop feeling so superior to creationists.

  • Greg Fish

    Andrew,

    I’m not trying to prove whether there’s a God or not. Just that calling faith a science is both misleading and woefully incorrect.

  • Jay

    gfish

    “….

    gfish

    “…Um, no. It means it split into two or more new species with the original one staying as is…”

    Again…how can you have a new species without something having changed?…thats the point…you don’t understand?

    “..Really? And what anomaly would that be? Again, you dont get to make things up just because you want to make a point..”

    Really? you don’t know?….just because you haven’t read about it doesn’t mean I made it up

  • Ezekiel

    Anne, the religion itself is not a science, no, but science can be used to support religious beliefs, and it has many times before. I’m not arguing for the existence of this degree, because one should just get a more legitimate MS to do any of these things.

  • “Disa”

    yeah…whateva!

  • Mark

    Jay,

    “All the evidence Ive seen is based on assumptions.”

    All that does is show me you haven’t really studied the evidence and reasoning. I’m sure there are already multiple threads on forums like the Richard Dawkins one which outline the copious amounts of evidence and reasoning behind these theories. Why not go educate yourself a little more.

    “Established mathematical formulas are only so because people agree that it is soit doesnt mean its correct or the only way of looking at it.”

    And why do they agree? Because they’ve actually tested out those models and mathematically proven theorems. They function and are highly accurate.

    “No its not the most we haveits the most you have because you are shut out from all that”

    I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian household. I didn’t start questioning until college. Then I realized no religious person I know or read about could adequately answer the questions I was asking. I’ve had the same religious experiences that just about every believing Christian I knew had and I’ve studied scriptures. So don’t assume too much about what I’m shut out from.

    “Ok fair enoughin your opinion though only..because in my opinion science at its current mainstream condition is very childlike and closeminded.”

    And that is only your opinion. Which is, based on what you’ve written, sorely undereducated.

  • Mark

    Also, please enlighten us about any evidence that does not fit into the categories of either religious hearsay (the bible, etc), personal anecdote, and weak analogies (ie- the house analogy).

  • Jay

    Keeping things predominantly to the minds reasoning will just run to a dead end.

    gfish

    “Actually, faith is also a part of human reasoning.”

    And so what if that is the case? I never brought up anything about faith?

    “You cant explain something so you turn to the supernatural.”

    And what is this supernatural?

    “…Its not the best reasoning but it is a form of reasoning….”

    You still miss the point…its not about how good or not that reasoning is..your still basing it on reasoning…your still in your own trap

    “…So what youve actually said is that human thoughts are a dead end….”

    No you can’t make things up like that…Actually I did not say that…but if you want to look at it that way…that’s you and its fine

  • Mark

    Jay,

    “The lab of spirit in Life..and once you get past the words in the head of that..you graduate”

    Well, that’s all well and good, but it doesn’t fall under the Scientific Discipline. I could personally expound the personally verifiable truths of Buddhism (which is non-theistic) and that wouldn’t mean a whole hell of a lot scientifically unless I could create something that is testable with the scientific method.

    In other words, these theories are philosophical and religious in nature and are simply cannot constitute a scientific discipline.

  • Mark

    Also, there are scientific theories about Abiogenesis (pre-biological formation of the universe). Would you suggest we create a religion major on the subject?

  • Greg Fish

    “well if a species radiates then it has changed and progressed into something else..so it does happen”

    Um, no. It means it split into two or more new species with the original one staying as is. You don’t get to make things up because you don’t understand them. I’m sorry but this is how it works.

    “the anomaly of the voyager spacecraft leaving our solar system have thrown a wrench in how believe gravity functions”

    Really? And what anomaly would that be? Again, you don’t get to make things up just because you want to make a point.

  • Mark

    Btw, supernatural implies that it cannot be objectively verified or explained by science. So how in the heck are you going to prove supernatural claims with science?

  • Ryan Malm

    I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding here from the creationist side as to why scientists dissaprove of a ‘creationist science’ degree in the first place. My comments go out to the creationists specifically:

    To make atheists stance on the existence of deities perfectly clear: we accept fully that the non-existence of god cannot be proven through logic. To attempt to do so is futile. From a rational-thought, scientific point of view, the burden of proof is with the believers. The existence of any god, let alone the Judeo-christian god of Abraham, is not proven simply because it cannot be disproved. This is illogical.

    All specific examples of speciation or lack thereof, explanations and misrepresentations of abiogenesis theories, attempts to debunk evolutionary theory, etc. represented by the comments here are moot. The frustration can been seen clearly in previous comments; semantics and disinformation used to poke holes in well-established scientific theory, instead of defending their position with their own evidence.

    All creationist arguments basically say, Your theory “X” clearly has some holes in it, therefore God exists. I won’t rehash what has already been said above except to say that scientists, and free-thinkers in general, are fully aware that their theories may not be correct. New evidence has always been, and will always be taken into account, and theories will be modified as needed. A theory, by definition, isn’t undeniable proof of anything, and to use that as an argument for God’s existence, i.e. “You can’t PROVE the existence of gravity” is just plain ignorant.

    You cannot say the same for your religious doctrines. For you they’re set in stone, absolute truth, infallible, not to be modified, ever. Yet they’re open to interpretation by religious leaders and distorted to serve their own personal vendettas, killing countless innocents simply for disagreeing on matters of religion. Strong/false words you say? Google “The Crusades”.

    Again, your specific examples and poking holes in scientific theory is pointless, because they all rely on two logical fallicies shared by all creationists:

    1. If something cannot be explained, god did it.

    2. You cannot disprove the existence of god, therefore god exists.

    As free-thinkers, atheists, and scientists, we can not take anything on faith alone. To do so is anti-scientific by definition. So, when a religious establishment attempts to call their beliefs scientific, citing only their religious doctrine as evidence, yes, we are offended. Science and religion cannot coexist in this way, if at all.

  • DB

    The original article was about whether creationism can be an M.S. or not. I think it would be an abomination to knowledge if it were even considered. If it were an M.S. all of them would need to have at least 200 level physics, chem, bio etc… I don’t understand how humanities (history, religion) courses could ever contribute to a science degree.

    Ultimately the entire debate is pointless because the two ideas aren’t competitive. Both can exist simultaneously, so proof in one offers no disproof for the other. This means that one of the two ideas (creationism) can’t be a scientific theory. If you look at the progression of the atomic model, it went from small particles, to the inclusion of electrons on the surface, to orbiting electrons, to electrons with different power levels. As more evidence was gathered, the competing theory fell to the way side. Since there’s no evidence that can defeat creationism, it’s not science, and can’t be an MS.

    When there’s a physics book that includes the unified theory, and biology books that perfectly document the evolutionary trees of every species, religions will still say that “God” created it all, even if humans figured out how “He” did it.

  • Greg Fish

    “Keeping things predominantly to the minds reasoning will just run to a dead end.”

    Actually, faith is also a part of human reasoning. You can’t explain something so you turn to the supernatural. It’s not the best reasoning but it is a form of reasoning. So what you’ve actually said is that human thoughts are a dead end.

  • jay

    “Youre saying that science wont get far unless it lowers its evidential standards? That makes no sense whatsoever.”

    ** No I didn’t say that.

    “… Science is what it is. It tests mathematical formulas through objective, highly specialized experiments. Results and conclusions then go through the process of journal publication and peer review. If there are flaws in the experiments or the conclusions in these journal publications, the scientific community will reject it…”

    ** That is not the case at all…most of the time its about keeping the status quo….

    You IDers simply cant accept the fact that your theories are very flawed and do not meet the requirement

    ** and whoes requirment would that be now?

    of being objectively verifiable. So, when you say things like:

    It can be tested subjectively

    It just doesnt fly.

    ** It doesn’t fly with you because you assume things can only be ascertained through scientific method…

    We can only use the scientific method to test objectively measurable things.

    **Exactly!! To me that is an admission that science is deeply flawed as far as its ability to do more than it does, because there far more to this universe/s than this observable physical world and that is from the the type of direct experience that even transcends human subjectivity.

    You apparently dont understand the meaning of non-falsifiable. Ive personally had experiences that make me question the finality of scientific rationalism, but I in no way consider these experiences to be scientifically verifiable.

    ** Who says they are suppose to?

    So, that means your theories dont really fall under the umbrella of science.

    ** Well first…I don’t carry around theories as a primary focus, nor beleifs as to what I do or not do in life…secondly science is under my umbrella of consciousness.

    If you cant test out hypotheses with observations and models, then it isnt really a scientific subject.

    **Something that reveals itself directly has no objective nor subjective component…it is self-revealing….the models used to express that are inherently faulty because they never grasp the totality of that…it can forever be picked apart…but it matters not because it is only the model…an acorn comes from an oak tree…and no matter how close you come to creatively describing the oak tree with that acorn…you never make it…but the oak tree needs no explanation that its an oak tree

    Thats not really saying we can prove you are wrong, but just that your theories are not scientific or scientifically testable.

    **And just because it’s not so-called scientific or testable in a way that is palatable doesn’t make it any less valid

  • Mark

    “Youre saying that science wont get far unless it lowers its evidential standards? That makes no sense whatsoever.

    ** No I didnt say that.”

    Then explain what you did say. I said that Intelligent Design/Creationism can’t meet the evidential standards of Science and you said:

    “Thats why science will not get very far in the future of mankind if it continues down that road.

    Keeping things predominantly to the minds reasoning will just run to a dead end.”

    You are saying that using observation and reason will run into a dead end. The evidence standard for Scientific Theories is less than the evidence standard for Religious Theories. So, this basically would mean you are suggesting that Science should lower it’s standards.

  • Mark

    “** That is not the case at allmost of the time its about keeping the status quo.”

    Prove that statement with sourced material.

  • Mark

    “**Exactly!! To me that is an admission that science is deeply flawed as far as its ability to do more than it does, because there far more to this universe/s than this observable physical world and that is from the the type of direct experience that even transcends human subjectivity.”

    No, it does not admit deep flaws. Science has a stated purpose and it is designed in the way to achieve that purpose best. Yes, science has it’s limits. But when it comes to explaining consistent and reliable behaviors of observable subjects, it is the ideal method of investigation.

    Just because it science does not satisfy your spiritual yearnings does not mean it is flawed. It just means that it doesn’t satisfy them. Also, I’m not going to get into to all the deep flaws of religion. I’m simply discussing whether Intelligent Design and Creationism constitute Scientific Disciplines. And unless we change the definition of a scientific discipline, they do not.

  • Jay

    mark

    All the evidence Ive seen is based on assumptions.

    All that does is show me you havent really studied the evidence and reasoning. Im sure there are already multiple threads on forums like the Richard Dawkins one which outline the copious amounts of evidence and reasoning behind these theories. Why not go educate yourself a little more.

    ***Isn’t this what we are doing right now?

    Established mathematical formulas are only so because people agree that it is soit doesnt mean its correct or the only way of looking at it.

    And why do they agree? Because theyve actually tested out those models and mathematically proven theorems. They function and are highly accurate.

    ***If we both agree the sun moves around the earth and go watch the sunrise does that prove it? who determines what the proof is?

    No its not the most we haveits the most you have because you are shut out from all that

    I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian household. I didnt start questioning until college. Then I realized no religious person I know or read about could adequately answer the questions I was asking. Ive had the same religious experiences that just about every believing Christian I knew had and Ive studied scriptures. So dont assume too much about what Im shut out from.

    ***I ‘m still satisfied with my assumptions…I haven’t heard anything from you yet that says otherwise…Christian households or scriptures doesn’t mean anything to me

    Ok fair enoughin your opinion though only..because in my opinion science at its current mainstream condition is very childlike and closeminded.

    And that is only your opinion. Which is, based on what youve written, sorely undereducated.

    ***Yes , undereducated…in your opinion :)

  • jay

    Also, please enlighten us about any evidence that does not fit into the categories of either religious hearsay (the bible, etc), personal anecdote, and weak analogies (ie- the house analogy).

    ***I cannot enlighten you…I do not have that power…but I can see that so long as you continue to look for evidence you will not be able to enlighten yourself

  • Mark

    “**Something that reveals itself directly has no objective nor subjective componentit is self-revealing.the models used to express that are inherently faulty because they never grasp the totality of thatit can forever be picked apartbut it matters not because it is only the modelan acorn comes from an oak treeand no matter how close you come to creatively describing the oak tree with that acornyou never make itbut the oak tree needs no explanation that its an oak tree”

    Why does the oak tree need no explanation? Yes, “oak tree” is just a conceptual designation of a commonly observable phenomena. So, in what ways is this designation useful and practical? I imagine there will be ways which this designation is incredibly useful as ways where it is useless. That’s true for any idea or concept.

    So, when it comes to the subjective experiences of what we consider to be spiritual phenomena, you will likely find subjects such as Big Bang Theory to solve your existential dilemmas. That’s fine, but I guess I don’t see how it applies to whether Intelligent Design constitutes Science.

    Also, please explain the manner in which something can reveal itself in a way that is neither objective, nor subjective. These are really the only 2 categories of experience.

  • jay

    Jay,

    The lab of spirit in Life..and once you get past the words in the head of that..you graduate

    Well, thats all well and good, but it doesnt fall under the Scientific Discipline.

    I could personally expound the personally verifiable truths of Buddhism (which is non-theistic) and that wouldnt mean a whole hell of a lot scientifically unless I could create something that is testable with the scientific method.

    ***If you really verified it personably why would you attempt to verify it “scientifically”

    why should it mean anything scientifically?

    In other words, these theories are philosophical and religious in nature and are simply cannot constitute a scientific discipline.

    ***Who knows…maybe they can…

  • Mark

    In regard to your question of “proof.”

    Science does it’s very best to observe phenomena and find consistent and repeatable. It is a functional/practical discipline. It has proven reliable and just about every technological advancement we see is produced by the scientific method. As they say, “the proof is in the puddin’.” You test it under controlled conditions and either it works or it doesn’t. For example, evolutionary science has produced medical breakthroughs. The scientific theories have been demonstrably shown to work in the real world. Last I checked, Intelligent Design Theories have not.

  • jay

    Also, there are scientific theories about Abiogenesis (pre-biological formation of the universe). Would you suggest we create a religion major on the subject?

    ***Go for it if you would enjoy that! and think you have some people interested in taking it.

  • Andrew

    hath thou lives not?

    Seriously, two hours have gone by and 40ish posts have been made.

    In that two hours I got something cleaned up and made some money.

  • http://mandrewsprong.blogspot.com MAndrewSprong

    I think the creationist movement goes too far. While I believe the Bible, I see the creation story for what it is. It is meant to be edifying and not something to be taken literally. Protestants spend so much time parsing the Bible, they seem to miss the message which is:

    Don’t be a prat.

    Stop hurting people.

    Stop spreading hate.

    Take a break and rest your body at least once a week.

    Don’t sweat the small stuff.

    Stop worshiping junk you carved out of driftwood.

    Treat people the way you want them to treat you, unless you are a masochist.

    Don’t eat contaminated food.

    and above all…

    Don’t take everything so literally!

    Sometimes it’s a story and sometimes it isn’t. If you stick to the Gospels and the Nicene Creed you can’t go wrong. Which version of Genesis are you going to take literally? There are four distinct versions of Genesis alone, each with different versions of creation, the generations, the flood, and the tower of Babel. While the stories differ, the message is consistent.

    Scientifically Darwinism is a theory with some verified data — but it is not considered Scientific Fact. For it to become Fact it must survive any and all tests which can be put to it. Creationism is Theological Theory and by the same accord,it must be put to the same scrutiny before it is declared fact. The difference between the two, is that theology requires faith, while science excludes it. For theologians to demand faith of the faithless is unreasonable. In the same light, scientists and atheists must not demand faithlessness of the faithful.

  • jay

    Youre saying that science wont get far unless it lowers its evidential standards? That makes no sense whatsoever.

    ** No I didnt say that.

    Then explain what you did say. I said that Intelligent Design/Creationism cant meet the evidential standards of Science and you said:

    Thats why science will not get very far in the future of mankind if it continues down that road.

    *** If it continues to use only reasoning without incorporating the spiritual

    Keeping things predominantly to the minds reasoning will just run to a dead end.

    You are saying that using observation and reason will run into a dead end. The evidence standard for Scientific Theories is less than the evidence standard for Religious Theories. So, this basically would mean you are suggesting that Science should lower its standards.

    ***I’m not suggesting that…but that’s how you are interpreting that?

    When you start saying things like the “evidence standard for Scientific theories is less than the evidence standard for Religious….”

    The question is..what are you – and I mean you as in I’m not interested in hearing the answer; but for yourself to ask yourself what is the purpose of having your so-called evidence standard whether science or religous.?

  • Mark

    Jay,

    You’re simply making an argument of context. I could have had the personal experience of euphoric bliss as the Lord filled my vision with radiance, but unless I can design a properly controlled experiment, I can’t prove that my experience was anything more than subjective.

    Now, in regard to religious experiences. People of all religions have had similar religious experiences. Buddhists have seen Buddha, Christians have seen Christ, Hindus have seen Krishna. The problem is that these religions have claims that contradict one another. So, these sorts of subjective experiences can’t really prove a whole heck of a lot. The same can be said for religious documents. So how do we know which religion is correct? What standard do we use? People dismiss literally hundreds of Gods (Zeus, Thor, etc) without a second thought and yet get upset when their Deities are rejected by others.

    I could go on, but Religious claims are also very limited. Beyond what is pragmatically testable in one’s day to day life, you really can’t prove metaphysical claims. For these reasons, and a host of others, Religious claims are deeply flawed, and if we went tit for tat, I’d imagine the list of flaws with religion would be longer than for science.

  • Ryan Malm

    @Jay: What is your position exactly? So far all of your lengthy arguing and personal attacks on Mark simply state that you’re a spiritual person, that you believe that science is “childlike and closeminded”, and that in your opinion we should look to alternative methods to obtain our “truths”. Your opinions about science in general aside, that doesn’t change the fact that religious beliefs with no proof besides their religious doctrine have no place in the scientific community, which is the point of the article and the only thing Mark is arguing, I believe.

  • jay

    **Something that reveals itself directly has no objective nor subjective componentit is self-revealing.the models used to express that are inherently faulty because they never grasp the totality of thatit can forever be picked apartbut it matters not because it is only the modelan acorn comes from an oak treeand no matter how close you come to creatively describing the oak tree with that acornyou never make itbut the oak tree needs no explanation that its an oak tree

    Why does the oak tree need no explanation?

    Because it is an analogy

    Yes, oak tree is just a conceptual designation of a commonly observable phenomena. So, in what ways is this designation useful and practical?

    ***It is useful as an analogy

    I imagine there will be ways which this designation is incredibly useful as ways where it is useless. Thats true for any idea or concept.

    ***Its only useful if get what I am infering

    So, when it comes to the subjective experiences of what we consider to be spiritual phenomena, you will likely find subjects such as Big Bang Theory to solve your existential dilemmas.

    ** I don’t have an existential dilemma…

    Thats fine, but I guess I dont see how it applies to whether Intelligent Design constitutes Science.

    **You don’t have too

    Also, please explain the manner in which something can reveal itself in a way that is neither objective, nor subjective. These are really the only 2 categories of experience.

    the manner of self-revealing is by revealing-itself

    Only 2 categories of experience? OK …for you

  • Mark

    “The question is..what are you – and I mean you as in Im not interested in hearing the answer; but for yourself to ask yourself what is the purpose of having your so-called evidence standard whether science or religous.?”

    The purpose of having an evidence standard for science is to know how things work. That’s pretty much it. Nobody’s saying it’s going to solve your existential dilemmas.

    This discussion is simply about whether we can consider Creationism a Scientific Discipline. Science creates dependable, workable answers for practical questions about the observable universe. It doesn’t set out to answer man’s existential dilemmas, so arguing that it doesn’t is really a waste of time, imo.

    BTW, I’ve spent a considerable amount of time contemplating the meaning of life and the essential nature of things. And to be perfectly honest, you remind me of my former Christian self. And if this is an accurate conclusion, then I would naturally assuming that you’re jumping to a lot of conclusions about the nature of Self and the Universe to begin with (irregardless of any scientific matters). But I don’t know you or what you’ve gone through personally, so I really don’t know for sure.

  • jay

    ** That is not the case at allmost of the time its about keeping the status quo.

    Prove that statement with sourced material.

    *** Follow the money

  • Ryan Malm

    There is no intelligent discussion with Jay; he’s simply being a troll for troll’s sake, getting a reaction from the passionately anti-religious folk. He’s obviously not interesting in backing up his claims.. what the hell does “Follow the money” mean?

    All of his responses and rebuttals boil down to “just because… its my opinion”. You’re wasting your breath.

  • Mark

    “I dont have an existential dilemma”

    Your line of argumentation seems to imply otherwise, but I could be wrong.

    “the manner of self-revealing is by revealing-itself

    Only 2 categories of experience? OK for you”

    Actually, this is based on the definition of those words. This isn’t some arbitrary standard I’m making up for the sake of argument. And you still haven’t shown or properly explained what you mean by ‘self-revealing’ or how it does not fit in the categories of ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’.

  • Mark

    Ryan,

    You’re probably right, but I used to be a lot like him, so I guess I still hold out hope. And in regard to the ‘opinion’ thing, he’s feels that our stance is equally “opinion” and I’m trying to demonstrate why that isn’t so much the case.

    Besides, Intelligent Design is the affirmative claim that requires proof. Adding an explanation that itself requires an explanation is kind of silly, imo.

  • jay

    **Exactly!! To me that is an admission that science is deeply flawed as far as its ability to do more than it does, because there far more to this universe/s than this observable physical world and that is from the the type of direct experience that even transcends human subjectivity.

    No, it does not admit deep flaws. Science has a stated purpose

    **Science has stated nothing…people state things…Science is a product of humans

    and it is designed in the way to achieve that purpose best. Yes, science has its limits. But when it comes to explaining consistent and reliable behaviors of observable subjects, it is the ideal method of investigation.

    **Wonderfull

    Just because it science does not satisfy your spiritual yearnings

    **Well I don’t have spiritual yearnings…so….

    does not mean it is flawed. It just means that it doesnt satisfy them.

    ** then its flawed…

    Also, Im not going to get into to all the deep flaws of religion. Im simply discussing whether Intelligent Design and Creationism constitute Scientific Disciplines. And unless we change the definition of a scientific discipline, they do not

    I think it would be good to change the definition of a scientific discipline and how science is taught and implemented in society… and as a result produce something much more beneficial to society.

  • Jay

    Jay,

    Youre simply making an argument of context.

    I could have had the personal experience of euphoric bliss as the Lord filled my vision with radiance, but unless I can design a properly controlled experiment, I cant prove that my experience was anything more than subjective.

    **But why do you feel it needs to be proven to be valid

    Now, in regard to religious experiences. People of all religions have had similar religious experiences. Buddhists have seen Buddha, Christians have seen Christ, Hindus have seen Krishna. The problem is that these religions have claims that contradict one another. So, these sorts of subjective experiences cant really prove a whole heck of a lot.

    ***It only matters to the person having them

    The same can be said for religious documents. So how do we know which religion is correct?

    ***It is correct for the person who wishes to study it

    What standard do we use? People dismiss literally hundreds of Gods (Zeus, Thor, etc) without a second thought and yet get upset when their Deities are rejected by others.

    ***So let them get over it

    I could go on, but Religious claims are also very limited. Beyond what is pragmatically testable in ones day to day life, you really cant prove metaphysical claims.

    *Like I said before …your can prove it yourself

    For these reasons, and a host of others, Religious claims are deeply flawed, and if we went tit for tat, Id imagine the list of flaws with religion would be longer than for science.

    ***Well the thing about that is you haven’t studied science enough to see it is like a religion itself

  • Greg Fish

    “Againhow can you have a new species without something having changed?thats the pointyou dont understand?”

    Jay, actually I seem to recall you telling me that one species is supposed to change into another, not that just something is supposed to change. And by recall, I mean here’s the link to your claim.

    And no, one species will never change into another. A new species will just branch off.

    “Really? you dont know?.just because you havent read about it doesnt mean I made it up”

    Well then you should have no trouble producing a link and some proof that now, all scientists are questioning how gravity works…

  • Mark

    **But why do you feel it needs to be proven to be valid

    Because people of other faiths have those experiences too and arrive at different conclusions. And I’m not so much arguing that it actually needs to be proven or disproven, it is what it is. I’m simply saying that my subjective experiences do not constitute science. Earlier you said that you can prove things subjectively. Now you’re asking why you need to prove things. It seems either your position has shifted or you are back-pedaling. Either that or you expressed your arguments in a way that would imply inconsistency.

    ***It only matters to the person having them

    No, that’s not true at all. While the personal significance is certainly an individual matter, how we categorize and apply meaning to our experiences affects how we think and how we approach life. And that, in turn, affects the people around us as well as our environment. So, imo, it is important I have some degree of certainty about my assumptions in regard to the universe and my life.

    ***It is correct for the person who wishes to study it

    I don’t understand how this is a rebuttal to any of the points I am making. And no, it is not necessarily correct. People make wrong conclusions all the time. Isn’t that a point you’re making? Or are you just trolling?

    ***So let them get over it

    Again, I’m not sure how this is a rebuttal to what I’m talking about.

    *Like I said before your can prove it yourself

    Huh, what does this mean? You are not communicating your point very well here. I could take it in more than one way, so I’m not going to respond further unless you explain.

    ***Well the thing about that is you havent studied science enough to see it is like a religion itself

    This is an unfounded claim. Your posts do not demonstrating anything more than a surface knowledge of science (and in some cases not even that). Additionally, you do not have any idea of the degree to which I’ve studied science or these specific subject matters. And once again, the standards of evidence are what separate science from religion. The fact that you even make this argument in the first place demonstrates that you are woefully ignorant as to what science is.

  • Mark

    **Well I dont have spiritual yearningsso.

    Are you stating this to mean you aren’t religious or that you have acheived some sort of spiritual fulfillment in which you no longer have spiritual yearnings? (cup runneth over kind of stuff)

  • Mark

    ** then its flawed

    Is a hammer flawed because it can’t turn a screw?

  • Mark

    “I think it would be good to change the definition of a scientific discipline and how science is taught and implemented in society and as a result produce something much more beneficial to society.”

    This is because, as your rhetoric demonstrates, you don’t understand the purpose or methods of science.

  • Mark

    “and as a result produce something much more beneficial to society.”

    While you may be able to argue that religion does more to improve one’s quality of life than any amount of technological advancement, I’m really not sure that you could redefine the scientific discipline in a way that is more beneficial to society. Unless you just want to call religion science.

  • bowman

    why would you guys not want to believe in god?

  • Mark

    Bowman,

    For me at least, this issue is completely separate from whether or not you personally believe in a God. This is about whether Creationism can somehow classify as a Science. It simply can’t, imo. It is a theological assertion that cannot be verified through the scientific method.

    Beyond that, it is not so much about whether you ‘want to believe in god.’ The point for me is finding out the truth. Wanting something to be true does not make it true. Sure, it would be great if there was some really cool guy in the sky who watched me and protected me and I got to be in eternal bliss after death. Good times. But that doesn’t mean that there actually is one. And even if there is, it doesn’t mean that He/She/It would be anything like what is described in the Bible, the Hindu Scriptures, the Koran or any other document.

  • Jay

    **But why do you feel it needs to be proven to be valid

    Because people of other faiths have those experiences too and arrive at different conclusions. And Im not so much arguing that it actually needs to be proven or disproven, it is what it is.

    ***Yes this very true to me as well…it is what it is

    Im simply saying that my subjective experiences do not constitute science. Earlier you said that you can prove things subjectively.

    ****When I said you can prove things subjectively it was because you were saying you cannot scientifically test a non-falsifiable claim.

    Now youre asking why you need to prove things.

    ***Yes why do you need to prove things from a scientific perspective in order that it is valid? you didn’t answer that question

    It seems either your position has shifted or you are back-pedaling. Either that or you expressed your arguments in a way that would imply inconsistency.

    **…you think I am arguing with you when I am stating matters in a way to show you the limitations of your reasoning…

    ***It only matters to the person having them

    No, thats not true at all. While the personal significance is certainly an individual matter,

    ***So then it is true

    how we categorize and apply meaning to our experiences affects how we think and how we approach life. And that, in turn, affects the people around us as well as our environment. So, imo, it is important I have some degree of certainty about my assumptions in regard to the universe and my life.

    ***It is correct for the person who wishes to study it

    I dont understand how this is a rebuttal to any of the points I am making.

    ***That’s because I’m not making a rebuttal

    And no, it is not necessarily correct.

    **Correct in the sense that its perfectly valid for that person to be studying what they are studying

    People make wrong conclusions all the time. Isnt that a point youre making? Or are you just trolling?

    **What do you mean by trolling?

    ***So let them get over it

    Again, Im not sure how this is a rebuttal to what Im talking about.

    ***That’s because I’m not making a rebuttal

    *Like I said before your can prove it yourself

    Huh, what does this mean? You are not communicating your point very well here.

    **No its because you don’t understand what I’m saying…and thats ok…it is just how it is

    I could take it in more than one way, so Im not going to respond further unless you explain.

    *Please do take it more than one way…thats a good start

    ***Well the thing about that is you havent studied science enough to see it is like a religion itself

    This is an unfounded claim.

    *It is very founded…you haven’t studied reflectively enough to see that

    Your posts do not demonstrating anything more than a surface knowledge of science (and in some cases not even that).

    *That is because you still do not understand what I am saying

    Additionally, you do not have any idea of the degree to which Ive studied science or these specific subject matters.

    *You still haven’t shown me that you understand

    And once again, the standards of evidence are what separate science from religion.

    *That’s why standards of evidence are faulty

    The fact that you even make this argument in the first place demonstrates that you are woefully ignorant as to what science is.

    *Oh..so if you don’t understand what I am saying, what I have to say is not valid?

  • JAY

    **Well I dont have spiritual yearningsso.

    Are you stating this to mean you arent religious or that you have acheived some sort of spiritual fulfillment in which you no longer have spiritual yearnings? (cup runneth over kind of stuff)

    **I’m ok with you looking at it like that

    ** then its flawed

    Is a hammer flawed because it cant turn a screw?

    **Yes it is, because it cannot turn a screw…so don’t use a hammer

    Don’t use science as a means to guide your life, tap into your spirit and use science as its servant for matters that don’t contradict the flow of your spirit but rather support it.

  • Midna

    -_- If you are all so passionate about this you should put this energy towards making a difference in the world… I suppose it’s easier to just sit and type…

    100 posts since I posted…you all seem so articulate. I wish you’d put your problem solving and communication skills to greater use.

  • bowman

    -jay-

    you are very articulate when you give your thoughts. are you a student, teacher or what?

  • john

    This goes back to my argument yesterday gfish. You’ll find that Darwin did in fact say things of the sort. I would have cited them yesterday but I didnt have them on hand.

    To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. – Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st Ed., p. 186.

    “When we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change” – Darwin, 1863.

    But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” (Origin of Species, 1859).

    “The case at present (problems presented by the fossil record) must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” – The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Penguins Books, New York, Edition 6, p. 310.

    IF it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.- origin of species section VI Difficulties of the Theory

    and finally

    If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed… Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 179.

  • nelsonleith

    Anyone who really understands reason would know what a “false dilemma” is and would not indulge in it simply because the other side does.

  • http://www.livlovelaugh.wordpress.com livvyjane

    gfish said:

    “Can I observe God? Can I talk to God? Can I see God at work? Can I get miracles to happen on demand in a lab setting? Could I interact with God, document how I did it and send it to another person to replicate my results? A lot of people have tried and so far, all of them have failed.

    Evolution on the other hand is a repeatable science. We can test all the major parts of the theory in any lab or in any environment of our choosing and replicate the results at will. As for the Big Bang, we have vast observational evidence that something huge did happen around 13.5 billion years ago.”

    Well……

    Can you observe the Big Bang?

    Just the fact the evolution can only be replicated in A LAB tells you something. A lab is a controlled environment, the scientists put all the “ingredients” together, and BANG- “evolution”…. Well, man made evolution. Not quite a “random chance.”

    If evolution is so “repeatable” then why are there not any (clearly, w/o a doubt) transitional fossils?

    What observational evidence? No human was there 13.5 billion years ago to write a textbook on the formation of the earth!

  • Greg Fish

    John,

    Actually, just for your information, I’ve seen these supposed claims before and the funny parts is that each one of these quotes asks a question he then explains later in the book. You have to read past the past the part in which you’re interested and to the actual explanations. And you also have to read what he’s talking about. He talks about links between species, not one species turning into something else which is your claim.

    On top of this, Darwin is dead. I’m not sure if you knew that. And after his death there were a lot of scientists who tackled and revised his ideas into what we know today as the theory of evolution. It takes more to refute this theory that a couple of out of context quotes from 150 year old books. Much more. You have to refute over a century of studies proving his core concepts correct.

    So far you’ve not proven anything but your conviction in using your lack of proper knowledge is a valid way to have a scientific debate. It’s not. You also need to have convincing evidence on your side, not just nay saying of things you don’t want to even try to understand.

  • http://www.myspace.com45secfreefall udtlearner

    When it comes to the point of:EEEC!Don’t come crying to us Christians,because we’ll be gone….Ignorance is never bliss!

  • dbc132

    I don’t have time to write a huge comment on this, but all I can say is that I’ve gone a bit cross-eyed and this is ridiculous.

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

    If evolution is so repeatable then why are there not any (clearly, w/o a doubt) transitional fossils?

    If creationists are not immoral villains, why do they keep repeating this obviously false claim that transitional fossils are rare, when museums around the world are full of them?

  • Greg Fish

    “A lab is a controlled environment, the scientists put all the ingredients together, and BANG- evolution. Well, man made evolution.”

    Actually no. A lab is where scientists can observe and isolate evolutionary mechanisms, then repeat them to see if this is something that can happen again. Without there being an evolution in the first place, there would be nothing scientists can study about it.

    “If evolution is so repeatable then why are there not any (clearly, w/o a doubt) transitional fossils?”

    There are but creationists just put their fingers in their ears and shout really loud when they’re explained as such. (see) And when you choose to willfully ignore evidence, of course there’s none to be found. If I deny the existence of chairs, you’d never be able to tell me that chairs exist.

    “What observational evidence? No human was there 13.5 billion years ago to write a textbook on the formation of the earth!”

    Considering that the Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago, of course not. Of course if being there is the measure of how correct you are, then no one should ever talk about how the planet formed.

    But oh, wait… we can see how planets in other solar systems form and apply their models to our very own Earth. And by redshift and the movement of galaxies as well as the fact that light traveling to us actually allows us to see backwards in time (thing happens 13 billion years ago, light takes 13 billion years to travel to us, hence, we’re looking into the past), we can actually see what was happening in the universe’s ancient past. So when it comes to the universe, we can literally see back in time and say what happened at what time +/- a million years here or there on a scale of billions.

  • Dabunker

    Random mutation (evolution as it is defined, as macro evolution is an integral part of cellular design) as the creator of life has several major flaws.

    1st being that it is statistically impossible in the most liberal estimates regarding the age of the universe, for enough random proteins to be formed in a chain long enough to even create the first cell, not to mention the complexity of cellular workings to “mutate” from nothing, and doubly so for the first cell to have the intelligence to reproduce itself.

    2nd HUGE flaw is that DNA is a code by definition, because it can be decoded to reproduce correct protein structures for the sustenance of cells, and there is absolutely no evidence or supportable theory that a genuine code has ever been, or will ever be magically evolved from nothing. Code requires intelligence by definition, otherwise it would not be a code. The logic is infallible, an it’s only opposition is to ignore it. The “scientific method” of proving evolution requires more faith in nothingness and ignoring logic than ID ever could. The root of faith in evolution is finding another way to convince oneself that God does not exist.

    Good luck with that…

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

    Well

    Can you observe the Big Bang?

    All the processes, yes. We have photographs of the universe just shortly after Big Bang, showing how matter was clumping (start here:

    http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/slide_captions.cfm). Wilson and Penzias won a Nobel Prize for having stumbled upon the radiation “echo” of the big bang, disproving steady state and providing clear evidence of the event having happened.

    So, we can replicate most of the processes, we stand on the verge of replicating small black holes and the most basic building blocks, we have the radiation history, and we have the photographs.

    Have you ever bothered to spend 10 minutes studying Big Bang and the wealth of evidence there is for it?

  • mikebert4

    Ok, my two cents are this:

    Ignorance:

    Science is ignorant because scientists admit to not having all the answers, not knowing where it all began or how it all started. They have theories which account for most of what we can observe and these theories are tested, reviewed and refined constantly to adapt to the ever evolving (ooh, I used a dirty word) collection observational and expermental data.

    Religion is ignorant because they don’t ask the questions in the first place. They insist that they have all the answers and that questioning them is unaceptable and, indeed, people can be punished for doing so – in this life or (if this is inconveinent) in another, post-death-life where their essence should suffer for eternity.

    Activity:

    Science is alive with activity, change and progress. Millions of new ideas surface every year and are rigourously tested and peer-reviewed, most are rejected or found to be false, but some ideas come through. Some ideas come through that change the way we see the world and the way we deal with life as a whole. Science doesn’t look for answers, it’s always chasing down the next question.

    Religion has remained surprisingly static over the last few hundred years. The same God(s), the same dogma, the same books. True, interpretation has changed over time, and practices have evolved to suit the modern era. However, the source text, if I can be allowed to generalise to that extent, remains largely unaltered.

    Everybody who discusses this subject should read the Bible, the Koran, and indeed any number of other religious scriptures as befits their curosity. However, to accept such (and I’m going to get slated for this one) fallible texts as gospel (irony and pun very, very much intended :) is to deny the greatest, rarest and most beautiful part of human nature; humanity has the ability, divinely granted or otherwise, to ask these questions and to seek these answers. To claim that one knows already is to deny a part of all of our natures and the arrogance required to be able to do so, to dismiss so nonchalantly centuries of dreams, passions and strife as irrelevant is to stifle the very essence of our humanity. To claim that we already know these answers and to then attempt to restrict further exploration on those grounds is criminal.

    It astonishes me that people can overlook this so easily.

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

    Random mutation (evolution as it is defined, as macro evolution is an integral part of cellular design) as the creator of life has several major flaws.

    Evolution is not defined as random mutation. Please, will you spend a few minutes Googling evolution to see what it is?

    Evolution by natural and sexual selection depends on random mutations for part of the “ammunition” for variation, from which selections are made. Random mutation is not thought by anyone to be a process that created life, but is instead a process that contributes to the diversity of life once it was created.

    And, random mutation is as solid as it is possible to get in science. Most cancers depend on random mutation, for example — and if you think it’s a problem for evolution, you must understand that you’re arguing cancer cannot occur. I understand you’re not very familiar with evolution and mutation, and the sciences of biology, but surely you do not mean to imply that cancers do not occur.

    1st being that it is statistically impossible in the most liberal estimates regarding the age of the universe, for enough random proteins to be formed in a chain long enough to even create the first cell, not to mention the complexity of cellular workings to mutate from nothing, and doubly so for the first cell to have the intelligence to reproduce itself.

    No one proposes that “random proteins” play a role in the formation of life — and of course, once life gets going, then random proteins would play a decreasingly small role. The facts are that proteins, specific proteins necessary for life, do form spontaneously. Essential amino acids provide the framework. None of them form randomly — chemistry is not random. That they form at all is a virtual certainty, due to the way elements combine. Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen form molecules only in specific ways. There is absolutely nothing random about it. Lab experiments and observations in the wild confirm the hypothesis that these chemicals arise spontaneously. Spectrographic studies of matter in distant parts of the universe demonstrate that these life chemicals exist everywhere in the universe.

    You are arguing, inessence, that it is statistically impossible to predict what would happen if we combusted hydrogen and oxygen — but that’s silly. If we combust H2 and O2 (the common molecular forms of the two elements), we get H2O, water. Every time. We don’t get random splays of H1502, or HO, or HO15 — we get H2O almost exclusively (H2O2 is the product of the next reaction, and it is also not random).

    So, when you tell me it’s statistically impossible to get a certain protein, I know that you’re unfamiliar with proper uses of statistics. It is 100% probable that we will get amino acids under the proper conditions. I also understand that you do not know much about chemistry, because your argument assumes that chemicals can form molecules randomly, in any order. That’s not the way the universe works.

    It is a statistical certainty that we will get the basic building blocks of life when we have carbon, hydrogen and oxygen together in some abundance, plus time, and heat and/or an electrical spark. Anyone who tells you differently is playing you for a fool who knows nothing about statistics and less about chemistry. Don’t let them play you for a fool.

    2nd HUGE flaw is that DNA is a code by definition, because it can be decoded to reproduce correct protein structures for the sustenance of cells, and there is absolutely no evidence or supportable theory that a genuine code has ever been, or will ever be magically evolved from nothing.

    DNA is a twist on RNA. There are a lot of papers that show the spontaneous rise of RNA.

    I am greatly amused at the volume and ferociousness with which you declare “impossible” things that have already been observed to occur.

    Code requires intelligence by definition, otherwise it would not be a code.

    It’s not code in the way you mean it. DNA is not magical. The spontaneous creation of new “code” has been observed in the wild, and in the lab. The good Texas Christians over at Texas A&M observed the spontaneous creation of “new code” in a protein called T-URF 13, way over a decade ago. It was significant because the experimenters had controlled things down to the molecular level assuming such spontaneous occurrences would be so rare as to not affect their experiment. The rise of the new code was completely spontaneous, completely without precursor, and completely without interference from the outside, intelligent or otherwise.

    So, once again, I’m amused at the alacrity with which you call God’s creation a liar. It’s generally not considered accurate to label something “impossible” when it is commonly observed to occur.

    The logic is infallible, an its only opposition is to ignore it.

    The logic may be infallible, but your fact set is absolutely in error. You assume chemistry is random. It’s not. You assume chemistry cannot happen. You assume proteins do not form spontaneously, when they do. You assume a wide range of proteins necessary, when only a few are. You assume the absence of chemical reaction when reactive chemicals are present in reactive conditions. You assume statistical claims that are based on erroneous assumptions.

    Don’t tell us about “ignoring” when every molecule of your argument is based on your denial of reality.

    The scientific method of proving evolution requires more faith in nothingness and ignoring logic than ID ever could. The root of faith in evolution is finding another way to convince oneself that God does not exist.

    Good luck with that

    At this level of chemistry, well above quantum physics, God does not shoot dice with the universe. Shame on you for claiming God does shoot dice with the universe. Go read Psalms — God is constant, not a spasmodic presence. God is consistent, not whimsical. The chemistry of life reflects that. Don’t dismiss God’s creation as something it is not.

  • Greg Fish

    “1st being that it is statistically impossible in the most liberal estimates regarding the age of the universe, for enough random proteins to be formed in a chain long enough to even create the first cell”

    I’ve looked into it.

    Those estimates are based on total fluff and are essentially meaningless as they fail to account for the rules of organic chemistry. (see explanation).

  • Mark

    Jay,

    Your arrogance shines through your writing. You think you are schooling me in opening up to the universe or something because I am bothering to define what science is and isn’t. Trust me, I can guarantee you I’ve done plenty of opening up and you are not presenting anything in the ballpark of a new idea for me. You assume way too much about people you don’t know.

    Also, it gets pretty annoying when you quote something I said with a response then try to claim you are not giving me a rebuttal. That and saying that you can use subjective experience to test a hypothesis scientifically. I’m sorry, but you just can’t. Do you know what subjective means? Honestly, it seems you really need to learn terminology and look up definitions when you aren’t sure about something. If we can’t agree on terms, then we can’t really have a discussion. Additionally, you aren’t bothering to explain your own definitions when I ask you for them. This leads me to believe that you don’t have enough of a grasp of what you are talking about to explain.

  • http://www.livlovelaugh.wordpress.com livvyjane

    “If creationists are not immoral villains why do they keep repeating this obviously false claim that transitional fossils are rare, when museums around the world are full of them?”

    -Just because museums are full of them doesn’t mean they are “100% transitional fossil.”

    Below is a quote from Dr. Niles Eldredge, who is a curator at the American Museum of Natural History:

    “I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten in the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable.”

    Now I’m not sure if that exhibit is still on display or not, but there’s an example.

    Another example-

    Responding from a letter from a reader of his book asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book Dr. Colin Patterson has this to say:

    ” I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?”

    (from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp)

    Check out this link- http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/tetrapod.asp

  • Greg Fish

    Jane,

    You’re joking, right? Answers in Genesis? This is like getting your facts about law from a local mafia don! All these quotes taken out of context are meaningless because they’re personal opinions, not direct evidence.

    And as for how convinced AiG “scientists” are in their own screeds, you should consider the fact that their geologist writes books about how the Earth is 6,000 years old and about 2.5 billion year old rock formations when the boss isn’t looking. (post)

    And 100% transitional fossils? Come on! This is legalizing your way out of having to face evidence contrary to your beliefs. Find me a fossil of a modern day rabbit, in the Haydean Period, before bacteria evolved, and then I’m going to say that this evolution this isn’t as solid as it seems. In fact, you’d probably win a Nobel Prize because you’d redefine our understanding of biology.

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

    You know, it would help if you knew what you were talking about. For example, do you have a clue where Eldredge said that? Have you read the book yourself? Niles Eldredge didn’t say evolution doesn’t work. And he didn’t say that the exhibit was wrong because it showed evolution. Do you have a clue what he really said?

    Below is a quote from Dr. Niles Eldredge, who is a curator at the American Museum of Natural History:

    I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten in the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable.

    Now Im not sure if that exhibit is still on display or not, but theres an example.

    Are you sure that’s from Eldredge?

    Almost doesn’t matter (except as a showing that creationism can’t even get the simple things right). The display in question is one that showed horses and their ancestors. The criticism, as made by C. G. Simpson 30 years ago, was that the chart did not show enough of the transitional species. Horses at one point had several dozens of different species roaming the Earth — perhaps more than a hundred at one time. The chart only showed a tiny handful.

    So, scientists criticized the chart for showing evolution as too simple, too assured a thing. Instead of a line from one species to the next, a more accurate chart would show a bush of evolution, with dozens of species, many of them dead ends. The real story of evolution is much more exciting than a simple chart, a much better story than a soap opera. It is an epic covering geological epochs, not just a chart showing four ancestors.

    And Niles Eldredge? Let me recommend his book to you, Livvyjane, and please pay close attention to the title: The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism.

    So, where do you get off trying to represent Niles Eldredge as a critic of evolution? Creationism rots away the moral fiber of its adherents, I fear, and this monkeying around with the words of great scientists is one indication of that rot.

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

    Alivia, seriously, check out Eldredge’s book. On page 130 he directly addresses that quote attributed to him by a well-known crank scientist.

    And here is what he said about that claim (see page 133 et seq):

    No, horse evolution was not in the straight-line, gradualistic mode. But to state or imply that the horse evolution exhibit was somehow arranged to support an evolutionary story — to imply that the old museum curators deliberately misled the public by arranging the order of these horse fossils as they saw fit — is a damn lie.

    The upshot here is that the fossil record of horses is now known to be many times more dense and richly diverse than in the days when that old exhibit was first mounted. Yes there are side branches, and stasis, rapid evolution in speciation, and turnover pulse-related phenomena (such as extinction) are as utterly typical of horse evolution as they are of all other forms of life that have left fossil records behind. If anything, we know more intermediate anatomical forms in horse evolution than we did when that fabulous old exhibit was mounted.

    Creationists hear what they want to hear because they believe what they want to believe. They obviously think that all is fair in both love and war, and they see this as a culture war. But somehow I persist in the apparently quaint belief that lying, cheating, and distortion are inherently unchristian.

    Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism (W. H. Freeman and Co., 2000), pp. 133-134.

  • Pingback: oh wait, youre serious? « Skepfeeds-The Best Skeptical blogs of the day

  • cory

    How about this Charles Darwin guy. His theories are held so dear by people who use them to attack that there is no God, when he himself always believed there was a God, maybe not exactly the Christian God, but one nonetheless. check out wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

  • http://noeasyanswers.com NoEasyAnswers

    @cory

    Darwin’s belief in God mean nothing. If he was a creationist means nothing. He developed these ideas 150 years ago. The theory and fact of evolution have come by leaps and bounds in that time. I’ve said it before: saying Darwin believed in God does as little to dismantle evolution as saying an evolutionary biologist today believes in God. The theory is not about one person. It’s what I hate about people calling it “Darwinism”… he came up with the idea, but thousands of scientists since then have solidified it.

    Second, yes, people who attack the idea of a God use Darwin because people who use the idea of a God attack Darwin. In one sense, its fair turnaround, but its completely irrelevant. If I use Issac Newton to argue that the gravity doesn’t exist, does it hold any more credence? (Heck, just typing that out was hard because of how non-nonsensical it is.) Plus, if he wasn’t Christian, how does it help in the argument of “Evolution vs Creationism”? Creationism as a common argument today is almost solely from believers of the Abrahamic God.

  • Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com

  • Anonymous

    A quick point of error… Whether you are studying the origins of the universe as natural or created, you can’t “form a hypothesis, observe and experiment to test it and find out whether your hypothesis is true or false.” This would involve recreating the universe, observing the big bang, or whatver, altering its course…etc…

    The scientific method, as described by your own definition, can not be applied to the question of the origins of the universe.

  • Greg Fish

    “This would involve recreating the universe, observing the big bang, or whatver, altering its course”

    Why? Light moves at a finite speed and we can just keep developing tools to use this to look earlier and earlier in time. Every time you look at the stars, you’re looking into the past so when it comes to the universe at large, we actually have a time machine of sorts to see it.

  • http://www.livlovelaugh.wordpress.com livvyjane

    “For example, do you have a clue where Eldredge said that? Have you read the book yourself? Niles Eldredge didnt say evolution doesnt work. And he didnt say that the exhibit was wrong because it showed evolution. Do you have a clue what he really said?” -Ed Darrell

    =>I didn’t say anything about Eldredge’s book. I didn’t say he was anti-macroevolution. I was responding to this comment:

    “…claim that transitional fossils are rare, when museums around the world are full of them?” -Ed Darrell

    => My point with that quote was to say that museums don’t always have the most accurate exhibits. “Eldredge was in fact complaining that the exhibits showed horse fossils in a linear sequence – a “ladder of progress”, small-and-archaic shading into big-and-modern. This is false to evolutionary theory, which predicts that species can be organized into a tree diagram.” -from http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/quote_eldredge.html. The exhibit was false. I don’t believe that all of the macro-evolutionary exhibits are correct in their interpretation of the fossil/data etc. That was my point.

    “Are you sure thats from Eldredge?” -Ed Darrell

    =>I had ran across that quote in my biology book earlier this month, that’s where it came from. I looked it up online to see if it was valid. (Haha, I know, what a great place to check out the validity of something =P)…. And, it is.

    “…except as a showing that creationism cant even get the simple things right…” -Ed Darrell

    => I am not “creationism.” I am a 15 year old girl in high school, trying to figure out what she is supposed to do with the rest of her life, and occasionally defending her viewpoint on the lack of transitional fossils and macroevolution. Of course I won’t get everything right, you should see my PSAT scores….

    “So, where do you get off trying to represent Niles Eldredge as a critic of evolution?” -Ed Darrell

    => I am not trying to represent Eldredge as a critic, I looked him up prior to posting my comment, to see if he was still curator of the museum, and saw for myself that he was a full-fledged macro-evolutionist.

    “Youre joking, right? Answers in Genesis? This is like getting your facts about law from a local mafia don!” -gfish

    => Haha. Funny. You’re view of AIG depends on what you believe and what side your standing on. I believe in Intelligent Design, and I agree with what AIG says. Ever been the their museum? It’s amazing. They don’t bash macro evolution. They very professionally and creatively present their point of view, without any name calling.

    Arguing here is rather pointless except to further my knowledge of evolution and creation, and to stretch my knowledge and make me dig for answers and compare world views. Both sides of this argument (I.D vs. Big Bang/Macroevolution) think they are right and have their own evidence to *prove* it. Everything depends on your world view. I believe we we created with a purpose by a loving God, not here by random chance. When you take away God, you take away purpose, and the issue of what is right and wrong becomes hazy. I know I’m not winning over any macro-evolutionists to the “I.D side” here, but I just want to express my views on this topic.

  • Pingback: yes, we can look back in time « weird things

  • http://noeasyanswers.com NoEasyAnswers

    @livvyjane

    The only reason you’re harassed about this is the type of arguments you used the ones typically brought up by creationists in an attempt to prove their point. As a scientist, I’m sorely disappointed you think scientists are stuck to a “world view”… quite the opposite… if a scientists could one day prove God, he would, without a doubt, become the most famous scientist of all time.

    Unfortunately using AiG to argue I.D. vs Evolution is like using the Bible to argue (actually, it is the same thing). I haven’t been to AiG’s museum, but I plan to. I have seen images and details from inside it, and as someone who’s done the research, its so factually errant, I’m pretty sure when I do go in there, I’ll either start laughing or crying.

    Also, so say both sides have proof is a misnomer. I.D. has no proof, just conjecture. Again, scientists don’t reject I.D because they’re rejecting God (a ton of even current famous scientists and even evolutionary scientists believe in God/a god), scientists reject I.D because there is no evidence to support it.

    And yes, there is no neutral point, but regardless… for the sake of education, should you choose to read this, here are some comments, said before but repeated in case you missed it:

    1) There is no micro or macro evolution. Those are creationist terms used to define adaptation and speciation. There is only evolution. In the short term, its adaption, in the long term, its speciation. Speaking about them as two different things is just a way to obscure the fafct.

    2) You don’t need to believe in a God to have a purpose or know whats right or wrong. I come from a religion that doesn’t have a all powerful god. I am no less moral then anyone else, and in fact, I would argue I’m a lot more moral then a lot of people I know who do believe in a God. I have no less purpose in life, and I’d argue I have see more purpose to life because of how amazing the mechanics of life actually are.

    3) There’s no reason you can’t believe in God and evolution, lest you believe in a literal Bible, but if you do, then there are a whole slew of other questions which go far off the bounds of this post.

  • Phil E. Drifter

    I hate religitards.

    Einstein, arguably the smartest man to ever walk the planet, was an atheist. But that’s not enough for you religitards. it’s your fear of death that leads you to so strongly believe in supernatural deities. You people are so scared of the fact that you live then you die that you can’t accept it, so you buy into the lies told by clergymen, you’d rather believe this bs about going to heaven where all the women have nice boobs, you fear ‘burning in hell for all eternity’ while people like George W Bush capitalize on that stupidity. Forget about Reagan selling chemical WMDs to Saddam in the 80s. Saddam outlived his usefulness and wouldn’t allow his oil to be exported, that’s why Bush & Co cooked up false allegations against him to use as an excuse to invade.

  • Phil E. Drifter

    Gfish if you’re so sure about god why don’t you just kill yourself now?

  • Greg Fish

    “They dont bash macro evolution. They very professionally and creatively present their point of view, without any name calling.”

    No, they just called evolution a Nazi and a racist theory as you may have seen in my link. Other than that, no name calling at all.

    “When you take away God, you take away purpose, and the issue of what is right and wrong becomes hazy.”

    I’m sorry but that’s not even trying… Human purpose is what you define it to be and right and wrong is set by societal laws and rules. Which by the way have been around before being codified as religious edicts circa 3000 BCE. Oh and by the way, only two of the ten commandments are actually laws.

  • frenchbeliever

    What amazes me the most with anti-creationists is that they claim sticking to scientific facts to prove the solid base of their arguments but when it comes to refute the idea of an almighty God they turn out to use somehow simplified thoughts: “If God exists, why is it there are so many troubles with it’s creation? Why don’t you kill yourself to join him?” etc…

    The fact is that we cannot find any scientifc reason to refute the existence of something dwelling beyond the scope of the physical universe. Out of time, out of our dimensions, there is where God is, if he exists (yes, that’s all about faith, any problem with that?) How can you be so pretentious and pretend that since you’ve never seen him he cannot exist? He simply cannot be probed with human science, is it that complicated to comprehend?

    One again, you anti-creationists don’t be overconfident to the point of disdaining believers. They have their reasons.

  • loller

    lol! HAHAHAHA OH man. You Americans are SO funny. You do realise that we (i.e. the rest of the world) is sitting here laughing our arses off that you’re taking “creationists” seriously. These guys are bloody nutjobs that will only limit your capacity to advance technologically and/or scientifically.

    Seriously, stop having “debates” with them. They’re NOT reasonable people. Sure, have your freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean you need to take all the lunatics out there in earnest.

  • http://fashionista.vg robscott2007

    Erm, I think you missed their point with this bit:

    Ok, their grammer and punctuation aren’t great, but surely they are saying “…like gravity and aerodynamics (CAN be proved).” rather than that gravity cannot be proved. I’m pretty sure they aren’t gclaiming the apple doesn’t drop from the tree.

    Otherwise, I completely agree, its just that you did mention the word ‘strawman’ and that seems to be what the above is (i.e. putting words into their mouth, albeit by misconstruing their (poorly formed) sentence.

  • Waylander

    The author isnt disputing that maybe God is the answer he is saying that the teachings at this institute are the complete opposite of scientific theory making it not a true science degree. I personally am an atheist and do not believe in a higher power. While the ideas and morals written in the bible (shock horror i’ve read it) may be quite interesting and in some places ethically and morally guiding they are no more scientific than the belief that the world was flat, or the center of the universe, or the center of our galaxy, or (insert other now ridiculed but previously believed theory about the universe)

  • MATTHEW koss,MARK wise,LUKE skywalker, JOHN audubon

    How absurd,the word Science being used for nefarious reasons in the fight for religious freedoms, brought to light by those who feel slighted by the thought that this word can equate real science with anything other than that.

    The polarization of our society today has evolved into this mess of semantic silliness, where everyone feels there toes are being stepped on by an encroaching beast, from one side or the other.(science or religious beliefs, take your pick) This has the makings of a war that has been played out many times in our recent and ancient pasts. The funny thing is that when the zealots from either side get involved,there is no middle ground. Fanatics from both sides, with a few atheists thrown in, have been perpetrators in the control of minds/nations in order to build secular/religious bases that become pulpits/podiums for their own rise to power, and don’t be surprised that it starts in places just like this forum, where all have an opinion.

    We lose sight of the big picture when we narrow our vision to the obliteration of all other issues, in order to have our opinion heard.

    Popular religions of the day started out as an escape from the degradation of the human state in society, due to injustices practiced by the strong on the weak.

    We see now that religion has become strong, but with it, a reverse effect that has evolved over time. They are becoming the politically correct, and are usurping the power of the scientific community, as the answering body to the questions of Western society.

    Why did this happen, does it merit study, can it be a “Science”, shall the meek inherit the Earth?

    If you really want to see evolution and creationism working hand in hand, perhaps Political Science is the field of study that better reflects this insanity.

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

    except as a showing that creationism cant even get the simple things right -Ed Darrell

    => I am not creationism. I am a 15 year old girl in high school, trying to figure out what she is supposed to do with the rest of her life, and occasionally defending her viewpoint on the lack of transitional fossils and macroevolution. Of course I wont get everything right, you should see my PSAT scores.

    I don’t think you should take the rap for what other creationists tell you. That’s unfair to you. You are not creationism, and you shouldn’t take the blame for the sins of creationism — unless you adopt their views and push them.

  • Samie

    Can someone explain, in English (please), how there can be an explosion (Big Bang) out of nothingness? I just want to understand the whole process. And yes this is a serious question.

  • Greg Fish

    The idea that the Big Bang is an explosion out of nothingness is just something that creationists say because they don’t understand the concept. They just don’t let little things such as not knowing stop them from opining on it anyway.

    In reality, the Big Bang would be a result of quantum fluctuations. The fabric of space and time moves and there are all sorts of energies underpinning it and you can actually get particles appearing seemingly out of nowhere. We know this from zero point and quantum mechanics experiments and observations.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com NoEasyAnswers

    To be simpler: we’re not all the way there on the origins of the Big Bang.

    Simply put, there are a few theories on the matter. One possibility is that all the matter in the universe was condensed into a singularity (infinitesimally small point). Enough gravity and yes, this is possible. Another theory (less popular) is the multiverse theory, that the Big Bang is the collision of two other universes, creating matter through interactions unknown to us. Which one’s right? We don’t know… we may never know. But we’re not afraid to say we don’t know.

    There was no “something out off nothing”. So scientist who knows what he’s talking about claims that. There was something before… just in what form, in what way, we don’t know. As we’re finding out every day, there’s a lot about physics we don’t know and don’t understand. I respectfully disagree with gfish that with sophisticated enough observation equipment we’ll someday be able to “see” the Big Bang (for reasons a bit lengthy to put here) but I do agree that we have proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was a Big Bang.

  • http://www.livlovelaugh.wordpress.com livvyjane

    “No, they just called evolution a Nazi and a racist theory as you may have seen in my link. Other than that, no name calling at all.”

    -It’s really the other way around. I DON’T think that evolution is a nazi theory, but that Hitler used the theory of evolution to further his slaughtering of the Jews. He told Germany that the Jews were less-evolved people- so that made the killings ok. The Nazis’ didn’t come up with evolution, just used it to further their cause. Evolution is not a Nazi theory. I don’t think that AIG said that either…..

  • http://www.livlovelaugh.wordpress.com livvyjane

    “I dont think you should take the rap for what other creationists tell you. Thats unfair to you. You are not creationism, and you shouldnt take the blame for the sins of creationism unless you adopt their views and push them.”

    =>I don’t see what who is blaming what on whom. I’m not “taking the blame” for anyone…. If you’d like to blame someone, blame God. Unless you don’t believe in God…. Then throw the blame where you like, I won’t catch it…..

    To put it you’re way– I have “adopted” the views of creationism. I am a creationist. If I saw that there was more proof for evolution, then I would definitely do some major rethinking of my beliefs, scientific views and morals. But until there comes a day when evolution is proved without a doubt, I’m sticking with I.D- it makes more sense to me.

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

    Hitler claimed the Jews were an inferior race, relying on Biblical interpretations then popular among some Lutherans and creationists. Hitler himself never referred to Darwin’s theory with any understanding, if at all. The Nazi’s though Darwin too English, and Hitler rather despised the English. Darwin’s works were marked for burning and were purged from the libraries.

    There is no logical connection between Darwin’s theories, which hold that humans are all brothers under the skin (a point upon which Darwin acted in his lifetime as an ardent advocate for the end of slavery in the British Commonwealth and as an strident anti-racist).

    The Nazi’s didn’t invent racism, nor did they need Darwin to further their racist motives. Luther was a profound anti-Semite who urged that Jews be driven out of Germany.

    Who do you think Germans would have followed more, Luther, their homegrown hero, or Darwin, from the hated British?

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/ Ed Darrell

    Oops: Should have been, “no logical connection between Darwin’s theories . . . and the policies of the Nazis.”

  • http://noeasyanswers.com NoEasyAnswers

    @livvyjane

    Wait wait wait… you’ve basically used yet another of the classic creationist lies. Hitler did not use evolution, nor was he an atheist as is often claimed. Hitler was a very clear Christian, at least a perverted form of Christianity. Germany Nazi decorations are filled with crosses, and Hitler called on the aid of God in many of his speeches. He said the Jewish people were less then people, not evolved as in evolution. But whether he believed in evolution or not is irrelevant. I’m fairly certain that the Taliban agree with physics, should we say its less meaningful?

    No, AiG doesn’t directly say its a Nazi idea, but they say that it is an idea of the Nazi’s (and communism and many other dictators), which would be like comparing a Russian to Stalin communism. It may be at best, vaguely related, but it is at least insulting and demeaning, which AiG has no lack of.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com NoEasyAnswers

    @livvyjane

    What are you looking at for “proof without a doubt”? Science is never 100%… but for example, 4x more historians think the holocaust didn’t happen then evolutionary scientists who believe evolution is false. If you’re willing to listen, we’d be more then willing to present you with plenty of evidence, and if you think that’s biased, I’d be more then glad to listen to why you think I.D. is a better idea. But if you’re looking for some clear, 100%, this is this kind of evidence, you’ll never find it, no more then you’ll find for anything else in science.

  • Greg Fish

    “Hitler used the theory of evolution to further his slaughtering of the Jews. He told Germany that the Jews were less-evolved people- so that made the killings ok.”

    No. Hitler used the Catholic Christ Killer Doctrine to justify killing Jews and instead of using the argument that they were less evolved, he portrayed them as spiritual and social pariahs and villains. Regardless of what revisionists say, he was a staunch Catholic and he was never excommunicated.

    “Evolution is not a Nazi theory. I dont think that AIG said that either”

    If you paid attention to the links I posted, you would’ve seen that the AiG lecture on evolution was titled “The Racist Roots of Evolution” so while you may not think that they called evolution a racist or Nazi theory, they actually did. Ken Ham and most creationist and ID blogs go out of their way tie evolution, hate groups and Nazis on a regular basis despite the fact that the most active racists are Christian Identity groups and the Nazis were very religious and believed they were on a mission from God.

    “If I saw that there was more proof for evolution, then I would definitely do some major rethinking of my beliefs, scientific views and morals.”

    When you focus on denying the proof, you will never see more of it. Evolution has been proven over the last 150 years. It’s one of the most established theories in modern science, on par with gravity and general relativity. If you trust in gravity, you should know that the proof for evolution is just as strong. It’s just opposed by people who are more interested in ideology and semantics rather than science.

  • Eric

    If I saw that there was more proof for evolution, then I would definitely do some major rethinking of my beliefs, scientific views and morals.

    I have seen first hand evidence of evolution in labs. You can take the genetic code of a bacteria, or another micro organism, add an agent to kill them. Some of them will live. and reproduce. You can continue this several times, and eventually you will reach near 100% immunity, when originally it was only around 1%. Very interesting to do. And that is natural selection. There is different variations in species, that allow some to live and thrive, and eventually reproduce. While others are culled. The theory of evolution is just about 100% correct, it has been studies micro and macro scale (with moths).

    As for all of the god creating universe people, I am a physics major, I have seen, and done the proofs, and some of the experiments on things for the big bang. And I will tell you, that it is pretty damn amazing how accurate these theories are. The experimental and theoretical data are at times within 1% difference, and from deriving the equations of thermodynamics, quantum dynamics, quantum electro dyanmics, and general relativity, it just adds more and more credence to the theories. Yes there are some holes, but that is just because the math falls apart sometimes on the upper and lower bounds, but usually we can ignore those areas since they are special cases.

    Also, we have reproduced the big bang in laboratory settings, and will soon do it on a larger scale in the LHC, the systems are the same, only that the big bang was aroudn 10X10^1000 larger in terms of energy, something around there. So the big bang is not only feasable, but experimental, and agrees with observations.

    Next the creation of the earth is really not that difficult, its simply gravity, with a bit of thermo thrown in. The dust clouds and rocks in space hit eachother and stick ( especially metal since metals dont have oxidation, and essentially bond on contact.) The gravity holds it together, and eventually pulls it together. Plus we have some observations of exoplanets forming in ways we expect. These things have well founded theories, and are provable, and proven, stop ignoring them.

    Finally stop saying theories like its some kind of guess. A hypothesis is what you expect to happen, and what you test, again not just a guess. A Theory is what has been supported by experimentation, observations, mathematics (sometimes), and can be rigorously shown to be true, as variables are tested. Not only that but it is a repeatable experiment that others can do and achieve the same results. A theory is basically a damn fact.

  • PhysicsDude

    1- The Big Bang was not an explosion, it was the beginning of a process which is still occurring today: the expansion of the fabric of space-time. The cause of this expansion is a property of space-time itself, known as dark energy (Einstein called it the cosmological constant, denoted by lambda in the Friedmann equation, if you’d like to Google it). We know that the rate of this expansion depends on three known variables: radiation, matter, and dark energy. Currently, the composition of the universe is as follows:

    Visible matter: 4%

    Dark matter: 26%

    Dark Energy: 70%

    Radiation: 0.04%

    These obviously don’t add up to 100% because there are small errors in each calculation. Although dark energy and dark matter are currently theoretical components of the universe, the scientific community is in possession of a massive amount of data that supports these claims (look up rotational velocities of galaxies and redshift for dark matter, or vacuum energy for dark energy).

    2- The concept of God does not necessarily have to be seen as a polar opposite to science. Science and God are not enemies. HOWEVER, faith-based religion is the polar opposite of science. The scientific method starts with observations, leads to a falsifiable hypothesis, and may yield a theory if enough EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE exists. Religion starts with a belief, and works backwards to CREATE proof from nothing. The process of observation never occurs, because the religious zealot attributes “observation” to “spiritual sensation”.

    Religion is a doctrine, a system of beliefs. God is a concept. God and religion are not synonymous. Therefore I can state that I believe all modern religions have a severe separation from reality, because they denounce fundamental observations that can be tested and recreated. To claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old is just plain ignorant. Look up in the sky with a good telescope and a spectrometer to measure redshift, or measure the period luminosity in a distant type II supernova, and you will immediately see that LOOKING AT THE SKY IS EQUIVALENT TO LOOKING AT THE FACE OF A CLOCK. It is just pure observation.

    Anyways, I digress. My point is that the concept of God can coexist with science if you keep them separated. Do not use your deity to explain the fundamental laws of the universe. The laws exist, whether you believe them or not (nature could care less what we believe). However, if you want to believe that some omniscient being created our universe starting with the Big Bang, I’m completely cool with that.

    Perhaps when we make scientific observations, we are actually peering into the “toolbox” of a supreme being. I personally think the term “being” is inherently misleading though, because it implies some sort of individual existence apart from everything else. If some greater “thing” really does exist, it wouldn’t be a “thing” at all, rather it would be everything, every thought, every hydrogen atom, every stone, every drop of water, every possible energetic state in a charm-anticharm meson, every crime, every cabbage, every phone call, everyTHING.

    Wouldn’t it be healthier for everyone to just accept logic and rationale, but simultaneously embrace the natural spiritual aspect of the human species?

    Sorry that was kinda long, I have an abundance of passion when it comes to the fundamentals of nature.

  • PhysicsDude

    -EDIT-

    Sorry, I meant “type I supernova”. It happens in binary star systems where a white dwarf accretes enough mass to overcome the degeneracy pressure of the electrons inside the white dwarf (electrons cannot occupy the same energy level, due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle). This happens at exactly 1.4 x Mass of the Sun, so we can use it as a “standard candle” to determine how far away objects are.

  • Pingback: Of Foolishness and Memories « Fragile Things

  • greenglow

    One of two things WILL happen:

    1. We’ll find out what all this means when we die, because the human soul is eternal.

    -OR-

    2. We won’t find out anything when we die, because there is no soul and we’re just dead.

  • Zar

    Wow. Lots of creationist activity on this thread.

    I didn’t know that many creationists could write. Clearly they can’t read, because if they could they wouldn’t be creationists any more.

  • garth

    has anyone seen a testable hypothesis for god? ever?

  • me

    can anybody say bandwagon?

  • Danno

    im glad im not a christian anymore. Not because i have a problem with the christian god, i have a problem with his followers. You guys are all hypocritical nutjobs. Although only a handful of you will ever come to realize how brainwashed you all are, i wish you all the best of luck breaking free and coming to your senses nonetheless.

  • Anath

    Got linked here through your shameless plug on the Texas school board article. Good stuff, and great work in the fight against the Creationist nonsense.

  • Big Al

    Wow. Lots of wasted effort displayed above. Those that think will never be swayed by believers, and vice-versa. Call a truce, already.

  • Clare

    I’m a Christian and I agree that creationists mostly just need their heads examining…

  • frenchbeliever

    Whoever, beeing an evolutionist but yet claims – as Clare does for example – that he is a Christian, needs to read what Jesus said in Mark ch. 10 verse 6: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”, or in Matthew ch. 19 verse 4, when refering to the book of Genesis he told to the pharisees: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female”.

    So if one says that evolution is the natural process by which God produced such a great living variety, I’m OK with that (well to a certain extent at least). If now he says that life came up from nothing at all (I’m not talking about evolution here but about the very origins), by sheer chance, and yet claims he is a Christian, I think this person should reconsider his position

  • Some Jew

    Just wanted to put in a few sense worth:

    @gfish:
    You got it right about the whole Nazi biz and I thank you for being well informed on the subject because it seems to me that Christians love to throw the term “Nazi” around but they quickly forget that Hitler was a Christian and used Christian theology to explain why my people had to be destroyed. And as far as I’m concerned the Christian community in it’s whole has not accepted their responsibility on the role of allowing him to do it (with the Catholics being the only denomination to ever issue what could be called an “apology”.

    On another note:

    It seems one has to be on one side of the fence or the other. I for one am on both sides of the fence (because….screw you Einstein ! lol). I don’t have a problem with evolution and scientific theories. As far as all of humanity can be concerned science probably has a good deal of it figured out or is on the right track at the least. However, if I choose to believe that G-d made the big bang happen, that’s my right. Likewise though, I’m not calling it science. My beliefs of G-d are just that and as much as the Christian community or any other theological community wants to think otherwise no group has a 100% solid consensus of beliefs from every person in that group. What I’m getting at is that the Christian community cannot hope to force everyone into belief by shoving it down people’s throats as science if they can’t even get a solid doctrine down believed by all it’s members.

    Those are my ramblings…again ty gfish

  • Sean

    So, I just spent about an hour reading most of these posts just so I could put off my o-chem homework a little longer and now I feel like I really need to put in my own two cents.

    What the fuck is wrong with all of you people? Seriously, why does it matter if one person believes in God and another believes in the Big Bang? For that matter, why does it matter if someone wants to call his or her theology degree a science degree? Seriously, how would that hurt anyone?

    Now, somewhere in the middle of the post someone mentioned the gravitational anomaly with the Pioneer probes, well here’s a link to that for anyone that cares http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_041018.html.

    Now I can’t really weigh in on any of this physics stuff because I’m a biochem major and my physics knowledge is comprised of a high school physics class and the absolute minimum number of physics credits I need for med school, but I’ve never read had a physics textbook that was able to say “Hey, this is how things definitely are and we know this because…” Seriously, ten years ago the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe was caused by dark energy, now it turns out that time might not be so constant and the effective acceleration might be caused by time slowing down. So to everyone bashing the Creationists, if you aren’t sure your side has all the answers what gives you the right to ridicule another person’s beliefs?

    Now, to you Creationists, why would you even try to argue your side from a scientific standpoint? Especially since some of the people posting on your side lacked even a basic understanding of the scientific theories involved. Seriously, you will just lose. You guys really need to take a step back and look at what you’re trying to argue for. Creationism is something that can not and will not ever be proven so why bitch at people for having different beliefs. Why isn’t it enough for you to just say to yourself “Hey, this is what I believe..” and leave it at that. You will never convert the people that are arguing with you, so just let them believe what they will.

    As far as I can see, the only people who would seriously argue about this are angry petty people who are completely insecure in their own beliefs. Or people like me who have actually mastered the art of procrastination. Seriously though, if there is a higher power I bet he just spends all day on his divine computer and reads through these posts and laughs at the assholes on both sides.

  • jeff

    religious theories/ideas explain what we can’t with what we define as science atm, e.g. the old myths about some dude on a chariot pulling the sun across the sun or some crap
    at that time it was important, and shit those old people prolly had their own argument about how things fall down and a chariot cant fly, and the people on the other side of the fence saying well then how is there a sun
    as long as arguments concerning how things work in life exist, there will also exist people who try to prove/disprove them and really in essence that’s how the humans advanced.
    imo let this creationism thing be a scientific degree, why not, as long as people taking the course/obtaining the degree are actually doing some sort of real research and continuing this debate, it will force whoever is on the evolution side to also continue with research.
    the more debate/discussion/interest there is in a topic the quicker it advances, prolly one of the reason technological advancements tend to advance very quickly during wars, simply because their is an interest in it, and whoever advances quicker wins.
    frankly if everyone accepted every theory for granted just because the majority of people believed in them e.g evolution, science would never have developed.

  • Greg Fish

    “Seriously, why does it matter if one person believes in God and another believes in the Big Bang?”

    Because the Big Bang is an idea based on extensive evidence. Deities are ideas based on personal feelings and desires. Separately, it’s no big deal, whatever makes you happy. But when the subject of education comes up, ideas based on evidence have more sway than personal opinions.

    “Why does it matter if someone wants to call his or her theology degree a science degree?”

    For the same reason that an artist gets a different degree than a chemist. Or do you think that someone who only studied how to draw is suited to walk into a biochem lab and start working away?

    “Seriously, ten years ago the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe was caused by dark energy, now it turns out that time might not be so constant and the effective acceleration might be caused by time slowing down.”

    That’s a totally unproven idea that appeared in one journal and has not been matched to any observable evidence. Dark energy is as relevant of a concept as it has been from the start. See here as to why.

    You need to do more work on physics. Really. Because there are plenty of concepts that physicists understand extremely well in stark contrast to your assertion.

    “…if you aren’t sure your side has all the answers what gives you the right to ridicule another person’s beliefs? “

    Because we have more answers and actual evidence to put behind those answers. Not just declaring our personal opinions and traditions as fact.

    “…the only people who would seriously argue about this are angry petty people who are completely insecure in their own beliefs.”

    And those who want to teach religion in science class in order to make sure people believe what they want them to regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Hence the articles ridiculing their position and attempts at science.

  • KAsey

    As far as I’m concerned, no theory of life has hard evidence at all. I do not believe in anything that is not proven and has not been repeated by hundreds of researchers. For instance, gravity is still a theory, and there are flaws in that theory. blindly believing in God and blindly believing in unproven theories are the same things.

  • ds

    I belive that sceince is reacing new levels of theory and being able to help explane what makes up our planet. But heres the thing with those who dont want a God or belive in him. Dont you think for one moment that these r the last days we will pay for all that we all have done to our brothers our sister Even our own parents in the name of what we want and how we want it! When u look down upon ur own child knowing full well they will have to fight to stay alive everday!! And then its blame god becouse ther is none. Wrong the nation that forgets god it shall die!! U dont have to belive but the signs of the times will. My honey does not belive in a greater force I know that there is alot of bad in this world I do intend to be a light stand up for my faith in god christ jesus who died for my sins so I dont ever live my life in regret. But in peace and the love for others as Christ our lord loves us. I know there will be one or more who will tell me what i can do with the way I belive. And u know what its ok. U say god is the reason for war. Wrong!! religion is the reason for war. And if u knew the bible u would know.God. Hates religion Man has made this. I will say this im seeing a falling away from and all that is pure and holy. judging one another is not of god. Not for color of skin race sexuel ways of life religion or anyother form of judging. I am not anyone just like u im human and all I can do is thank god for everyday im given and to be a light in the path of those who want to know why I am the way I am. I do belive in a higher power. these r the end of days we r meant to be led down this path like lambs to the slaughter blinded by our own understandings which will be the demise of our very souls. sooo easy. Science its all in a days work.

  • MrSmee

    Christians (the sane ones, not the zealots) know that there IS such a thing as genetics, and that creatures DO change to meet their environmental needs. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, was a catholic after all. There are three main points as to why evolutionists and christians don’t agree: how old the earth (and universe) is, how it was all made, and the obvious debate over the existence of god.
    Believe it or not, there IS science involved in creationism. For instance, with Noah’s Ark; the Holy Bible tells us that up until that point it had not rained on Earth. This leads us to believe that there was enough moisture in the air to sustain plants, and through eating plants and animals, enough water was transferred up the food chain. Now when the whole earth flooded, two of each animal was put into the ark and some time later they were let loose to repopulate the world. Now, what happens when you have animals with similar parents mate? The normal thing to happen is mutation, and since the entire world is a lot drier than it used to be, what with all the water evaporated into clouds and whatnot, having animals (at the time dinosaurs and other animals) change to suit their environment seems much more better, and merciful, than just leaving them all to rot and starting over.
    So there is science involved. Besides, when you die, if the christians are right and there is an all loving, all knowing god, then they go to heaven and you go to hell. If you’re right, then you still lose because there doesn’t seem to be an afterlife as far as most atheists are concerned. If there is one, I would love to hear about it, since the world has apparently been around for 4.5 billion years it doesn’t seem like its gonna end anytime soon.

  • Geoff

    This stuff is hilarious. I could spend days laughing at the ridiculousness of the arguments that go on in the comments of these articles, but then I realize, ‘Oh right. I HAVE A LIFE.’

    PLEASE. Go outside and do something more interesting and useful than arguing for days on end over something that NOBODY will ever know happened, even 5 years from now, not to mention 100 years in the future. This is why our society is doomed to collapse, because nobody gets off their asses to fix problems anymore. Thanks, guys.

  • chiglet

    Hilarious ds, are you a stand up comic you should be on tv!!! If not could you send me the address for whatever mental institution you are incarcerated in so i could maybe get some ideas for new material from you?

  • Lindsay

    I loved reading this and all the arguments. Thank you, Greg. You are one smart cookie.

  • Bruce Coulson

    Here’s my theory of Creation (cribbed from a French philosopher). God created everything 5 minutes ago. Including all evidence indicating the Universe has existed for 15(?) Billion years, evolution happened, etc. So, Jesus never actually existed; the biblical ‘evidence’ was all put there by God 5 minutes ago.

    The point is, such a ‘theory’ is not science; it cannot, by its very nature, be subjected to any sort of proof or disproof. And, rail against as they would, Creationists can’t disprove it either, for the same reason. So, I COULD be right; we’ll never know. It’s a matter a faith. But using faith to answer scientific questions never works.

  • Anonymous

    Has any religious people out there ever thought that maybe…just maybe, the universe is God, and therefore, God is the universe?

  • Too funny

    It’s funny how every religion is always right about their god(s). The big bang may not be true, but I’m not saying that it’s the truth, just the most reasonable explanation. Scientific evidence is better than a bunch a yahoos talking to the sky because a book told them to. If you believe in Jesus, but you think ghost stories are silly, maybe you should stop and think about it.

  • Guest

    If you just scrolled to the end like i did to comment.

    There is nothing wrong with religion, its the people. If all chirstians commited charitable acts out of the kindness of their hearts the world would be near on perfect. It might get annoying when 4 christians are at a checkout and they are all insisting on one person going first.

    Attending church dosnt make you a good person. I am not religious but i hope there is a heaven and hell. You cant just ‘repent’ and ask for forgiveness. Dosnt work like that. You are either a cunt. or a good person. 99% of people i meet arnt good people.

  • BusterFixxitt

    “Even more amazing is the HISTORICAL FACT that the creator” blah blah blah Jesus was God because the gospel written furthest from his actual life said he was even though the previous three gospels somehow neglected to mention it.

    *sigh* Words have specific meanings, you know. ‘Historical Fact’ isn’t something that you can redefine to suit your purposes. Of course, if they understood this, then we’d have no more ‘Just a theory’ comments. And I’m sure we’d all feel that loss very keenly.

  • dimondwoof

    @guest – Actually, there IS something fundamentally wrong with religion. When people pattern their brains to force themselves to believe ludicrous and obviously completely false stories despite at least lack of evidence (and actually despite mountains of evidence proving that their religion is false), how can you expect these people to live rational lives or use any kind of common sense on a day to day basis? Religion teaches people that they MUST take concepts on faith, even though these concepts are coming from hypocritical, bigoted, pedophile, ignorant priests. And the people put these idiotic priests on pedestals and trust them with their souls! Why do you think there are so many problems with our government? It’s because religious people rule the country and these people vote based on their feelings and religious views rather than any kind of intelligent, intellectual decision making process. Why would they not trust politicians at their word as long as that politician is the same “faith” as they are. If a person is a “good xian” (just like their priest), that person would never lie! So there is no need to actually check into that person’s background. Religion makes people into sheeple and that is why it is so incredibly bad for our country and humanity as a whole.

  • jon

    Ok I am a christian (and i know I’m going to get bashed for it), and I do think that this degree is just unrealistic and should not actually be offered. Had to say that just to clarify one argument occurring.

    Also what the argument for creationists often is, is that believing in God takes faith (which it does), but so does any scientific belief.

    and here’s your queue to say but it takes a lot to become a theory in the scientific world and it is
    strongly based on evidence.

    Yes that is true, and you will still have the ignorant creationists say but it is still JUST a theory. but that isn’t my view. I believe that we cannot take things so literally and the work of God is all interpretation for each individual.

    And to those who group all creationists as one, you are just proving your ignorance. That is like saying since Obama did not do well as president all liberals are awful presidents. And if you look at history that’s not true. So you cannot just group masses of people together.

    So as to which belief is true, I don’t know because every single one depends on what they think is logical. Everyone is different and thinks different and different things make more sense to others. So to think yours is above any other is wrong.
    And im sure you are going to say well then why are there missionaries. Well that is because Christianity is a hopeful religion where when your time comes you ascend to heaven and live in eternal bliss. And is it wrong to wish that blissful idea upon others. I don’t think so, but we all think differently so others may believe it is. And i also believe it is wrong for you to try and destroy someone’s entire belief system because that completely screws with the human mind and can lead to chronic depression and possibly suicide.

    There are many things I have left unsaid. or even incompletely thought out but I will end with this. People will believe what they want, some people will be open to change and some won’t. So there’s no point in trying to change those who won’t so dont bother.

  • stuart

    I like how god created the universe, the earth THEN created light …. so he did all that universe & earth creating stuff while workng in the dark – rather fantastic but then you’d expect that from a diety.

    Of course he had special goggles on but still … fantastic stuff.

  • Adam

    God is everywhere. There is plenty of proof. Most of us just don’t take the time to seek it.

    Science is part of the workings of the universe, but it isn’t the reason for the existence of the universe.

  • Jeremy

    There is no way of knowing if there is a god or not so why debate it? You can call it god or you can call it random chance. Same difference:it cannot be proved.To believe something just because somebody said it or wrote it down is preposterous. To believe something based on evidence sounds more logical. “Where did we come from?”, “Why should I be good?” are some of the questions that started religion. We made up stories to answer those. We created god to make us feel important. Where you live determines what you were told to believe and if you decided to not believe then you were not part of “decent” society. Human nature is to want to belong and we took the path of least resistance. Religion has its merits: morals, etc. but we must embrace all religions as trying to answer the unanswerable. Not to shun others because of pride. Just live by the golden rule and understand that not all things are able to be or need to be answered and you will find peace.

  • Rennat

    I would like to thank all of you, you have written my augmentative essay on “Evolution vs. Creationism” for me. Also, i’m arguing for scientific theory and evolution as I see that there is much more palpable proof of it given.

  • Rennat

    ^And that definitely wasn’t meant to say “Augmentative”. Argumentative, rather

  • Thedude

    There are two major imaginary creatures that people on earth believe in. God and aliens. There have been absolutely zero god sightings since we have had people able to write. There are thousands of UFO sightings and alien abductions reported every year. This can only mean that there is more credence to aliens being among us than that there is a god. There is indisputable evidence of evolution. So in order it goes:

    1. Science
    2. Alien life
    Distant 3: god

    Leaving us with a strange end result: There is actually more evidence to support alien life on Earth with us, so creationism should only be considered after every person who believes in aliens is allowed to post their opinion as their opinion is more valid. (I do not believe in aliens, just proving a point. To believe in something without ANY proof at all is insanity. We are rational creatures, us humans!) It will ALWAYS be science FTW! Unless all the Crazy religious people kill all the scientists (which is entirely possible!) I don’t know if there feeble, easily manipulated minds can handle being wrong all the time. Religion is a nice fable to make people feel better about things, but is nowhere near being real for a second.

  • http://gpwillard@gmail.com RaggMopp

    First I must say a prayer of thanksgiving for the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. I knew there are educated, conscientious and courageous people in Texas, but due to the efforts of the Texas State Board of Education, that statement seems doubtful to many of my fellow Americans. Why do you think the Institute for Creation Research proposed this travesty in Texas? Because they figured Governor Rick Perry could jerk the Coordinating Board around. I’ll bet the story of the infighting would be a thriller.

    Boy, Greg, this topic seems to have stirred up a hornet’s nest. And it was fun for an old culture warrior like me to read all the comments. Most seemed cogent, some even thoughtful. Curiously there seems a deep current of desire to classify anyone who is not a creationist as an atheist. This is a dispute between secular science, which term says nothing whatsoever about one’s religion, and a Christian fundamentalist drive to use government to muzzle whatever science they find unsettling to their dogma.

    I was shocked by the number of comments that advocated a position right on the fence. “You can’t prove there is no God, but we can’t prove there is; so let’s just forget it.” This has to be the latest creationist ploy. Scientists don’t care what creationists think. It’s the creationists who are seething with hostility, specifically about the descent of man, which issue they typically obscure with advertisements about “creation science.” “Scientists believe in evolution, we believe in creation according to God’s word.” Scientists don’t “believe in” a goddamned thing, at least not as it refers to their science. Some are deeply religious. But in a science, everything is open to refutation, at any minute, so you better not get too attached to this or that theory. As to the “forget it” option, scientists would be tickled to extract such an agreement, in writing, from creationists. That will come when pigs fly.

    But what was really frightening about the response was that virtually the entire 215 comments prior to mine dwelt on the issue of science/evolution against creationism/Christianity. Nobody, at least none I saw, noted the reason for this controversy: The sustained, well financed and deviously clever attack of the fundamentalist wing of the Christian church on science education in the public secondary schools. I don’t care what you believe. I’m an American; believe whatever the hell you damned well please to believe! But don‘t try to shove your beliefs up my nose, and for damned sure, don’t come at me proposing to divert my tax dollars to teaching your religion to my kids in their public high school science classes! Nor any other classes for that matter.

  • Bruce Coulson

    Teaching a religion (or tenet/belief/doctrine/dogma thereof) in publically financed schools is a violation of the Constitution. And despite the best efforts of the South, the Constitution applies to all public schools, everywhere in the country. So, the teaching of Creationism (under any guise it cares to assume) is un-Constitutional, and a violation of the rights of citizens NOT to listen to religious teachings.

    If you want to teach religion, spend the money to send your child to a private school.

  • http://gpwillard@gmail.com RaggMopp

    @Bruce Coulson: Well said, and Amen. But your response seems sublimely, insularly, comfortable, as if this issue were all settled. Or perhaps there’s somebody up there somewhere who simply enforces the constitution. Do you know the history of this contest? Can you recite the dozens of court cases, the criminal convictions, the state laws struck down, the odessy of our forebears? Do you acknowledge the courage of people who stepped forward at risk of their peace and quiet if not their lives. Ever hear of John Scopes or Madelyn Murray O’Hare? And do you know of the service rendered to the constitution by the the ACLU, financed by ten dollar donatons? Didn’t you love Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al? Do you think that the opinion of Judge John E. Jones, III should, in parts, like Hamlet’s soliloquies, be hensforth memorized by generations of school children?

    OK, you got me. I can’t fill that bill either. It’s not just that it’s too much for my little pea brain; it’s that I am nearly always overcome with emotion, tearful admiration for these stalwarts. I doubt I could, much less would, step up to that plate and swing for the bleachers. Ever wonder what it might be like to step out on your front porch and get glares and even threats from your next door neighbor? Think about the courage!

    My point was that this is not a debate about the merits of religion vs. science. It’s not about faith, or the psychological merits thereof, as opposed to skepticism’s cold comfort. It is a concerted and protracted attack by the forces of religion upon our cherished but delicate grasp of science and truth. And science is not a participant; rather more an onlooker. Science does not fight religion, individual citizens come forward to redress religion’s victories over science, and once in a while science might provide some expert testimony when it really counts. Little else.

  • Bruce Coulson

    The same, of course, can be said for those who attack scientific findings; it is not religion, but rather the fanatical (and unthinking) adherents of a church who are insisting upon their version of reality, in defiance of all facts and reason.

    If it is difficult for those dedicated to scientific method to defend their findings against the opprobrium of their neighbors, imagine how much more difficult it must be for those raised in the church to defy their religious/spiritual leaders?

    There are a lot of reasons why organized faiths attack (selectively) science and discoveries; maintaining power and authority, creating a common foe to rally against, outrage at being challenged. None of the reasons are good; but none of them will suddenly disappear in the light of reason, either.

    One of the ways to combat these trends is to point out the essential hypocrisy of such a religious stand. That far from supporting ‘the American Way of Life” and defending ‘Freedom’, such attacks are instead the acts of bullies and tyrants. They are not defenders and martyrs to the truth; they are engaging in power politics far worse than any King or Caesar, who merely demands obedience to unjust laws. Far from upholding the ideals of their Saviour, their actions mark them as those would have been the first to crucify Him for challenging established order and thought.

    Well, all that, and donating money to worthy groups who are willing to take a stand and fight for things that should be accepted as common sense. But there’s too much power and money and stake for common sense.

  • http://gpwillard@gmail.com RaggMopp

    Organized. That’s the decicive word. How could science ever be organized? That’s why I referred to science and objective truth as cherished but delicate. Thus has it ever been, and the church has never hesitated to intimidate or even fry the proponents. History has only limited the power of the inquisition as a direct function of the power of the church. I think I’ll go back to the transition from the civilization and majesty of Rome to the ignoranceand misery of the Dark Ages, and spend more time studying it.

  • Aliqs Suguitan

    Everyone should be taught basic logic in high school, the same way as geometry is a required subject. What is more important than the ability to think right.

    Even many theologians seem incapable of simple logical thinking. Had they taken logic 101 and never forgot what they were taught, they would spot forthright-immediately the fallacy of circular proof – that is, in short – “A therefore A”. I assume there is God, therefore there is God. I assume that Everything was created, therefore Creation is a true, a reality.

    A basic concept of logic called “tautology”, and sometimes written as ” P v –P” in symbolic logic, which is usually read “P or not P”. This is usually written as the equivalent concept: “P ) P”, which is read as “P implies P” or “If P then P”. Replace “P” with “there is God” and what do you get? “If there is God, then there is God”. They confused tautology with circular reasoning. To unconfuse them they should read ” P implies P” as “if P is true then P is true”.

    Are those PhDs, Docs. of Divinity, Docs. of Theology really that ignorant (Don’t ever, ever, say Lame-Brain), or are they intentionally trying to pull our collective leg?

    Institute of Theological Research? HAH! “Reasearch” requires proof. They don’t have any.

    Try to find the fallacy in the following:
    Everything that exists has a beginning. There was a time when there was nothing in existence, except God. Then God said “Let there be light” – and from that came everything. Disprove this. Can you?

    You say They can’t prove it. They say You cannot disprove it.

    They say God does not need to be proven because God, by definition, is the cause of everything. Which they call “the causeless Cause”. They say you do not need to prove something you define. “Things exist, therefore something must have caused them to exist. Therefore God exists. God created everything.”

    Well yes, you need not prove when you define. Still the mere definition of anything is not proof of the existence of the thing, or concept, defined. That is the circular logic they try to pass as “research”.

    ATHEISTS OF THE WORLD ARISE! You have nothing to lose but your blinders.

  • http://gpwillard@gmail.com RaggMopp

    @Aliqs Suguitan: Bravo! I’m just an ignorant old enjunir with no training in logic, but I must rise to your bait. First a silly quibble: Did you offer the “Institute of Theological Research” as a substitute for the “Institute for Creation Research?” If you did, that explains why you shot so wide of the mark. And that’s not to suggest that you are wrong in any particular, just off point.

    Substantially more important: I know of no SCIENCE that presumes to seek first causes. A favorite creationist diversion revolves around “the origin of life.” Where in the hell did that come from? There may be one actual scientist per 100,000 who seems to devote some of his time to trying to produce “life” in a “test tube.” (Jesus, what if they succeed! Would that be a kick in the head, or what?) The other 99,999 spend their time on something worthwhile like the tertiary speciation of jellyfish (that’s offered as my silly-ass idea of humor. Knowing that you needed no such sign post, but recognizing that others may read this thread as well.) But would the apparent development of life in a laboratory settle anything about first causes. I doubt it.

    Why? Because science is different from philosophy. And in my humble opinion philosophy is as bankrupt as psychology. Science confines itself to the falsifiable. If you have no chance to disprove my idea, then my idea is not science. I’m still thinking about theology. There are theologians who pursue their field with the rigor or science. If you’ve read none of the “higher” biblical criticism of the last two centuries, you’ve greviously neglected your education. And our current crop of fundamentalist christians are coming from so far behind as to be comical. There was a giant blowout about biblical criticism over a hundred years ago, and there were those who thought that imbroglio was over just like disputation of the Darwinian Synthesis.

    I guess there’s nothing new under the sun.

  • Justin

    Sozo, I think you’re the one who doesn’t understand. Take your fingers out of your ears and stop humming. If you would do this, maybe you wouldn’t sound like such a fucking idiot.

  • DOG

    Mythology and superstitions have been used throughout history to gain and maintain power, its called religion.. christianity says give all your money to the poor, people starve while the roman catholic church amasses its jewels, the church of england collects land like some people collect stamps, both islam and christianity believe the worst thing a person can do is kill another.. oh but its ok if its a war, particularly if people are told its to defend our superstition.

    Brainwashing thats all it is , its the 21st century and still people fall for it, humanity in many ways has come so far it is amazing but in other ways has made no progress at all , i despair..

  • http://user.qzone.qq.com/1289611512/infocenter happyday67

    So in jest they are portraying what we as good parents and as humans should teach our youth.

  • TomB

    The difference between science and religion is that science is perfectly comfortable with admitting it was wrong or that it doesn’t know everything. Religion on the other hand simply prefers to ignore substance and material evidence and conclude that all things can simply be explained by God. Science has never started a war. Science has never seen thousands slaughtered in its name.