NationStates Jolt Archive

For a project at college we have to make a presentation leading into a debate on a topic which has two sides, either morally or philosophically.

I chose Evolution & Creation, which I find interesting, but we have to give arguments from both sides' point of view. This was going OK, except when I look for evidence supporting creationism, I generally get things like:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm

Does anyone have any good evidence (non-Biblical if possible) for either point of view, especially creationism?

For a project at college we have to make a presentation leading into a debate on a topic which has two sides, either morally or philosophically.

I chose Evolution & Creation, which I find interesting, but we have to give arguments from both sides' point of view. This was going OK, except when I look for evidence supporting creationism, I generally get things like:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm

Does anyone have any good evidence (non-Biblical if possible) for either point of view, especially creationism?
TalkOrigins has nice stuff. However, if you're looking for non-Biblical evidence for Creationism, you aren't going to find any. There isn't any.

Does anyone have any good evidence (non-Biblical if possible) for...creationism?

You're kidding, right?

<snip>
Does anyone have any good evidence (non-Biblical if possible) for either point of view, especially creationism?
No. Nobody has good evidence of creationism. If they did it would actually be a scientific debate instead of religious propaganda aimed at discrediting science in favor of faith.

Does anyone have any good evidence (non-Biblical if possible) for either point of view, especially creationism?No. There isn't any non-biblical evidence for creationism. But if you want to know which questions you shouldn't be asking, go here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp).

Does anyone have any good evidence (non-Biblical if possible) for either point of view, especially creationism?

Creationism is based on faith, not on scientific reasoning. Sorry... though you could propbably find some nice philosophical arguments for it.

Aside: saying there are two sides here is wrong. There are thousands - no: millions- of possible explanations for the diversity of life. Not just evolution and creationism. Most of those explanations however are just plain silly (the Giant ball of Spaghetti created us all with his noodly appendage for instance IS a valid explanation).

You could Google "Dembski" and "Behe" I suppose. They'd be the biggest proponents of Intelligent Design, which is creationism without God (though not really).

Trouble finding creationism arguments...lol...funny how that works...

You could Google "Dembski" and "Behe" I suppose. They'd be the biggest proponents of Intelligent Design, which is creationism without God (though not really).

The problem w/ them is that they both have made statements claiming the whole purpose of ID is to get Biblical Creationism in the classroom.

The problem w/ them is that they both have made statements claiming the whole purpose of ID is to get Biblical Creationism in the classroom.

That is not a problem as such. A valid argument is a valid argument, regardless of the motives of the person stating it.

Unfortunately the validity of Dembskis and Behes arguments is not that great.

The problem w/ them is that they both have made statements claiming the whole purpose of ID is to get Biblical Creationism in the classroom.
True, but I think they both pretend that that isn't the case, and there might be some secular-seeming arguments to be found.

That is not a problem as such. A valid argument is a valid argument, regardless of the motives of the person stating it.

Unfortunately the validity of Dembskis and Behes arguments is not that great.
Didn't say they made valid arguments, just that they made some which might appear non-religious.

Didn't say they made valid arguments, just that they made some which might appear non-religious.Then again, the OP is asking for good arguments, which implies that they would need to be valid.

Then again, the OP is asking for good arguments, which implies that they would need to be valid.

Hmm, that could be a problem.

You are asking NS general for creationism evidence. I pity you. There is no eveidence for biblical creation, but there are some good arguments for basic ID. Search for Intelligent Design on google and you will get pages demonstrating the huge complexities of things and how it is impossible to create them yourselfs etc...

Also I may be able to remember a name of a few biologists and physisists who converted to faith after studying the universe and the body. Look for the guy who broke the DNA code, he became a christian i believe.

You are asking NS general for creationism evidence. I pity you. There is no eveidence for biblical creation, but there are some good arguments for basic ID. Search for Intelligent Design on google and you will get pages demonstrating the huge complexities of things and how it is impossible to create them yourselfs etc...

Also I may be able to remember a name of a few biologists and physisists who converted to faith after studying the universe and the body. Look for the guy who broke the DNA code, he became a christian i believe.

I checked with the nice wikipedophiles at wikipedia. Looked up Watson and Crick. Couldn't find anything on their pages showing a conversion to christianity.

What are the good arguments for ID? Irreducible complexity? That's completely unproven and rather unscientific.

Search for Intelligent Design on google and you will get pages demonstrating the huge complexities of things and how it is impossible to create them yourselfs etc...

Flawed Creationists Argument Nr 1:
"If I cannot create it myself, God must have done it"

I checked with the nice wikipedophiles at wikipedia. Looked up Watson and Crick. Couldn't find anything on their pages showing a conversion to christianity.

What are the good arguments for ID? Irreducible complexity? That's completely unproven and rather unscientific.

There are no scientific arguments, but there are some convincing arguments in general that make you think. Now i'm rattling my brain trying to remember this famous scientist who discovered something very important with DNA and became a christian because of it. I will remember it shortly and post the article.

Behe confesses to "sloppy prose" as his irreducible complexity gets reduced by real scientists.

But Behe’s principal argument soon ran into trouble. As biologists pointed out, there are several different ways that Darwinian evolution can build irreducibly complex systems. In one, elaborate structures may evolve for one reason and then get co-opted for some entirely different, irreducibly complex function. Who says those thirty flagellar proteins weren’t present in bacteria long before bacteria sported flagella? They may have been performing other jobs in the cell and only later got drafted into flagellum-building. Indeed, there’s now strong evidence that several flagellar proteins once played roles in a type of molecular pump found in the membranes of bacterial cells.

Behe doesn’t consider this sort of “indirect” path to irreducible complexity—in which parts perform one function and then switch to another—terribly plausible. And he essentially rules out the alternative possibility of a direct Darwinian path: a path, that is, in which Darwinism builds an irreducibly complex structure while selecting all along for the same biological function. But biologists have shown that direct paths to irreducible complexity are possible, too. Suppose a part gets added to a system merely because the part improves the system’s performance; the part is not, at this stage, essential for function. But, because subsequent evolution builds on this addition, a part that was at first just advantageous might become essential. As this process is repeated through evolutionary time, more and more parts that were once merely beneficial become necessary. This idea was first set forth by H. J. Muller, the Nobel Prize-winning geneticist, in 1939, but it’s a familiar process in the development of human technologies. We add new parts like global-positioning systems to cars not because they’re necessary but because they’re nice. But no one would be surprised if, in fifty years, computers that rely on G.P.S. actually drove our cars. At that point, G.P.S. would no longer be an attractive option; it would be an essential piece of automotive technology. It’s important to see that this process is thoroughly Darwinian: each change might well be small and each represents an improvement.

Design theorists have made some concessions to these criticisms. Behe has confessed to “sloppy prose” and said he hadn’t meant to imply that irreducibly complex systems “by definition” cannot evolve gradually. “I quite agree that my argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof,” he says—though he continues to believe that Darwinian paths to irreducible complexity are exceedingly unlikely. Behe and his followers now emphasize that, while irreducibly complex systems can in principle evolve, biologists can’t reconstruct in convincing detail just how any such system did evolve.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact
So complex systems CAN evolve gradually. Where does that leave the whole idea of irreducible complexity?

Flawed Creationists Argument Nr 1:
"If I cannot create it myself, God must have done it"

Weather they are flawed or not is irrellivant, they are still arguments.

Creationism: The world is perfectly balanced, thus, it must have an intelligent designer. Imagine coming across a watch, even if you had never seen one before, you would know it has a purpose blah blah blaaaaaaaah.....

Evolutionism: IT ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE!!!

Weather they are flawed or not is irrellivant, they are still arguments.Yes, but the OP is expressly asking for "good" arguments, which implies that they be both valid and convincing, not flawed or irrelevant.

Behe confesses to "sloppy prose" as his irreducible complexity gets reduced by real scientists.



So complex systems CAN evolve gradually. Where does that leave the whole idea of irreducible complexity?

The idea is that although they can, each case would be so rare and they would be exceptions meaning that no new species could be made as there would only be one mutant in every one million animals to breed with. Well thats one of the ideas.

I don't agree with this. But i'm not interested in that type of ID. The ones that the stupid evangalists used to bash evolution.

If you're looking for scientifically valid arguments, you simply won't find any.

Now, if you want the "scientific" arguments they try to make, here are a few I have heard:

"The banana perfectly fits the human hand, so God must have designed it for us. The banana is the atheist's nightmare." You can find this one on YouTube.

"The sun is current shrinking. If we extrapolate back several million years at that same rate of shrinkage, it would have been touching the Earth and all the water would be boiling." Common Creationist church lecture.

"The magnetic field of the Earth is currently weakening. If we extrapolate back several million years, the gravitational pull of Earth would be so strong that nothing could walk on it." Common Creationist church lecture.

"The moon is currently moving away from the Earth. If we extrapolate back several million years, the moon would be so close that the tides would cover everything with water every day." Common Creationist church lecture.

"Oh, but we shouldn't assume that the half-lives of radioactive isotopes, which have never been seen to change, were the same for all of history." Common Creationist church lecture.

"The Great Flood explains all of the fossils and the formation of the Grand Canyon. Bigger things are on the bottom fossil layers because they couldn't swim very well and the run-off of all the water explains quick erosion to cause the canyon." Common Creationist church lecture.

"Dinosaurs were just big lizards that never stopped growing. Reptiles like iguanas never stop growing in their lifetimes if they have room, so all reptiles are like this too. There was no death in the Garden of Eden, so all the reptiles got very, very big and were the dinosaurs. After Eden, reptiles died so there were no dinosaurs." Hovind.

Flawed Creationists Argument Nr 1:
"If I cannot create it myself, God must have done it"

It's not so much "I can't create it myself" but rather "I don't understand how this could have evolved, therefore God (or ID) must have done it." Intelligent Design, because it tries to masquerade as science, is an insult to human intelligence.

It's not so much "I can't create it myself" but rather "I don't understand how this could have evolved, therefore God (or ID) must have done it." Intelligent Design, because it tries to masquerade as science, is an insult to human intelligence.

Actually, it is more like. If it is impossible, at our level of intelligence, to even recreate the very begginings of life. Then logically, something of higher intelligence must be needed if life is going to exist. A good IDist will never mention god or aliens or whatever.

The idea is that although they can, each case would be so rare and they would be exceptions meaning that no new species could be made as there would only be one mutant in every one million animals to breed with. Well thats one of the ideas.

I don't agree with this. But i'm not interested in that type of ID. The ones that the stupid evangalists used to bash evolution.

Irreducible complexity was meant to apply more to single celled organisms than to complex organisms. The early examples of "how can an eye form?" and "what good is half a wing?" were debunked long ago. Behe used the cillia of single celled organisms as his prime example. They don't reproduce sexually. One cell can, in the course of a couple of hours, become a whole shitload.

Irreducible complexity was meant to apply more to single celled organisms than to complex organisms. The early examples of "how can an eye form?" and "what good is half a wing?" were debunked long ago. Behe used the cillia of single celled organisms as his prime example. They don't reproduce sexually. One cell can, in the course of a couple of hours, become a whole shitload.

Oh right sorry I only read the bolded parts because I was busy doing coursework so yeah forget what I said there.

Actually, it is more like. If it is impossible, at our level of intelligence, to even recreate the very begginings of life. Then logically, something of higher intelligence must be needed if life is going to exist. A good IDist will never mention god or aliens or whatever.

I'm not talking at all about creating life or recreating life, but just understanding how life arose. We don't understand that yet. I think we will, someday. All the good IDists do is throw up their hands when presented with a problem they cannot solve, and say the Intelligent Designer did it. :rolleyes:

Oh right sorry I only read the bolded parts because I was busy doing coursework so yeah forget what I said there.

No problem. I post from work and I know all about the misunderstandings arising from multitasking.

If you're looking for scientifically valid arguments, you simply won't find any.

Now, if you want the "scientific" arguments they try to make, here are a few I have heard:

"The banana perfectly fits the human hand, so God must have designed it for us. The banana is the atheist's nightmare." You can find this one on YouTube.

"The sun is current shrinking. If we extrapolate back several million years at that same rate of shrinkage, it would have been touching the Earth and all the water would be boiling." Common Creationist church lecture.

"The magnetic field of the Earth is currently weakening. If we extrapolate back several million years, the gravitational pull of Earth would be so strong that nothing could walk on it." Common Creationist church lecture.

"The moon is currently moving away from the Earth. If we extrapolate back several million years, the moon would be so close that the tides would cover everything with water every day." Common Creationist church lecture.

"Oh, but we shouldn't assume that the half-lives of radioactive isotopes, which have never been seen to change, were the same for all of history." Common Creationist church lecture.

"The Great Flood explains all of the fossils and the formation of the Grand Canyon. Bigger things are on the bottom fossil layers because they couldn't swim very well and the run-off of all the water explains quick erosion to cause the canyon." Common Creationist church lecture.

"Dinosaurs were just big lizards that never stopped growing. Reptiles like iguanas never stop growing in their lifetimes if they have room, so all reptiles are like this too. There was no death in the Garden of Eden, so all the reptiles got very, very big and were the dinosaurs. After Eden, reptiles died so there were no dinosaurs." Hovind.

Those all pale before the might of a poster on IIDB who called himself Eternal.

"Did you know that all bulls are males? How can these bulls mate to have more bulls? It's your funeral evolutionists. Admit evolution is a pathetic fantasy created by scientists because they can't accept God."

"[After being told 'they mate with cows, you idiot']

Then, why don't the bulls that are born have some bull like features and cow spots? If a bull mates with a cow, wouldn't you get a female eventually? Evolution is dead water."

"The Argument from design.

Points on Earth which exhibits design.

1) Rotating Earth.
2) The sun shining on the earth at just the right angle to produce life and enough energy.
3) Just the right atmosphere needed for life.
4) Plants breathe out what we breathe in.
5) A cell can't form in one spot and then migrate to every place on earth to fill it with cells.
6) Ants can't do that either. How did ants get to different parts of the world?
7) Just the right atmosphere for the earth to produce grass for the cows to eat.
8) How did grass grow first? I don't see grass on any other planets. Hmmm. Thank God for that sun.
9) The miracle of childbirth. It can't just evolve like that.
10) The sun stays in the sky instead of falling down. Gravity should be pulling it down but it just stays right up there. Hmmmm...interesting.
11) We are smart. If we share a common ancestor with monkeys, I found it remarkable that we are so smart and they are so dumb. How did we get so smart?

These are all points for where a God is needed to explain them. No rational human being can think of a rational explanation for all of this. I hope I convinced someone."

"Penis and vagina as proof of God? I know it seems vague but think about it. The penis can pee and have semen come out of it. Only a good designer can make it this way. Did it just "evolve" this way? How is that even possible? It is complex. The way babies are made is truly beautiful. Do you think there is no God after watching a baby grow and develop in the womb? How can it just evolve like that?"

I'm not talking at all about creating life or recreating life, but just understanding how life arose. We don't understand that yet. I think we will, someday. All the good IDists do is throw up their hands when presented with a problem they cannot solve, and say the Intelligent Designer did it. :rolleyes:

And that is their right. As long as they do not pretend that it is anything more than a belief and do not try to fabricate evidence.

Creationism is based on faith. Nothing more, but certainly nothing less. No need to tell silly lies like "the facts support it".

And that is their right. As long as they do not pretend that it is anything more than a belief and do not try to fabricate evidence.

Creationism is based on faith. Nothing more, but certainly nothing less. No need to tell silly lies like "the facts support it".

I think that the argument presented is a fair argument. Just because it is not scientific, does not mean it is not reasoned.

You could Google "Dembski" and "Behe" I suppose. They'd be the biggest proponents of Intelligent Design, which is creationism without God (though not really).

Problem with them is the massive holes in their arguments, however, as well as unsound assumptions.

Really, you're going to have a very difficult time. Most arguments against evolution(Or for Creationism) tend to omit certain details.

For example, a popular argument focuses on clam shells which are found in some digsites, which when carbon-dated show ages that are several hundred years before the other remains of the site. This has lead some to argue that Carbon-dating is not sound, and is not accurate. However, this argument omits the fact of the clams diet which consists of long-dead material, which in turn means that their remains show to be older than they "should" be.

Such tactics are commonly used, and it is going to be extraordinarily difficult to find any sound evidence against evolution, or for creationism.

That being said, I wrote a large paper on "Unintelligent Design", not using any of the arguments of "This mechanism doesn't appear to be intelligently designed", rather so on the unsound methods used by proponents of Intelligent design. A huge part of it was on Behe(If I remember what he did, as I wrote this over a year ago), and how his calculations were based on assumptions, and ignored how certain proteins and such reactions occur naturally, to show that his calculations were drastically inflated.

So really, good luck. That's all I can say.

Here's a scientific proof you can use. Just substitute 'creationist' terms.
Theorem: All numbers are equal.
Proof: Choose arbitrary a and b, and let t = a + b. Then

a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b

So all numbers are the same, and math is pointless.

Here's a scientific proof you can use. Just substitute 'creationist' terms.

a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb
a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb
a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4
(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2
a - t/2 = b - t/2 this step could also be a - t/2 = -(b - t/2)
=> a = b and a = -b, that is only true if a = b = 0, and so t = 0

or so...

Seriously, you'd be better off finding valid arguments for Intelligent Falling than for creationism.

now now... the man (/woman?) asked for arguments for creationism not 3 pages of evidence against:headbang:

now for some background: i am a skeptic (aka i don't believe in either or any explanations given for the creation of the universe, life etc.) so next ill only present some arguments as i have encountered them in my Philosophy&Ethics AS:p

1) the assumption that you cannot find arguments for creationism is false... creationism has been around, in one form or another, for many thousands of years, while evolution has been around for 150. the fact that creationism survived so long even after evolutionism arose means there must be some sounds arguments behind it

2) you want to present valid arguments for creationism... you can use intelligent design and irreducible complexity - they are valid arguments even if people will disagree with them, i havent heard of anyone actually disproving them

3) the cosmological argument

- search the internet for the first 3 ways of Aquinas (out of five explanations for the existence of god out of which the latter 2 are design).

for the first way a nice little quote from an essay i've written: "The first way is based on motion and the argument ran on the observation that nothing moves by itself, but only if an exterior force intervenes. Based on movement being defined as the passing from potentiality to actuality, and the assumption that applying exterior force to make it happen cannot regress infinitely, it is concluded that there must have been an unmoved “prime mover” which marks the beginning of the Universe, called God. Kenny argues against this “way” on the basis of the principle of inertia (the first law of motion), by which all objects maintain their state of movement, which means that some objects do indeed move by themselves, when there is no exterior force applied to them. However “movement” here actually refers change of the state of movement in the physics understanding, and therefore the counterargument is invalid as the first law of motion does indeed state that an exterior force is needed to change an object’s state of movement."

the second way: "The second way is based on causation. Based on human understanding of nature (based in turn on observation) any event has a priori cause. Again assuming that the existence of the world cannot be characterised by an infinitely regressing string of causes it must be concluded that there must have been a first uncaused cause which marks the beginning of the Universe, called God. "

the third way: "The third way is based on contingency of matter in the Universe. Contingency refers to the fact that a state of matter can either exist or not, and that any existing state of matter has a point where it came into existence and a point where it must be removed from existence. Therefore, assuming that time was infinite, there must have been a point in time when nothing existed, and for anything to exist now there must have been something that brought everything into existence. This links to the second way in the need for a necessary cause, called God."

4) the kalaam argument: "The kalam argument on the other hand discusses the infinity of the universe. It argues that the Universe cannot be an actual infinity as it is being constantly redefined by new events of the present and therefore it is temporally limited by at least present. So the Universe it is finite, and a finite entity must also have a beginning, an original uncaused cause, God, just like Aquinas’ argument"

5) personally i would call this a scientific argument but not evidence: "But there are also problems with the random occurrence account, based on one of the driving principles of the Big Bang theory, the second law of thermodynamics, which states that in a closed system all things tend to entropy (and since the Universe encompasses all existence it is a closed system). This supports the Big Bang theory as the Universe is perceived to be extending (at an accelerate rate), which means that there must have a point from which it is extended and this process can be, and is, theoretically reduced (through induction) to the Universe initially being a point of infinite density and zero entropy. However if there was zero entropy there is no possibility to prompt the “random event” that caused the initial point to explode into the “Big Bang” and set everything in motion." - aka there must've been an initial "prime mover" in this case or god


+ a little bonus if you had the patience to get this far, my opinion on astronomy and the scientific conclusions drawn from it: "The general problem with the scientific explanations is in fact the scientific method, because it relies on empirically proving facts, and to prove something using the scientific method one relies on what he knows, which in the case of humans is invariably limited, by nature and means. All our suppositions about the universe are based on our observations of the “visible universe” of which we know for sure one thing: it is not the whole universe, so what we can assume is either that the actual Universe is a lot larger or in fact infinite in space. Either way any conclusions we come to about the Universe as a whole based on what we perceive are very unlikely to be useful, as it is safe to assume it is next to impossible to conclude all the patterns of matter, energy and movement (and the laws they subject to) from our limited view."

so yeah... there are some pretty good arguments for creationism out there if you look long enough or in the right places (aka philosophy of religion textbooks:p ). i hope this has brought a bit of balance to the thread... and dont forget: naturalism is also a religion - the only difference is that it asks for faith in the scientific method (and science) rather than god... faith that science is the path to ultimate truth (now why does this sound similar?:rolleyes: )

hope this helped;)

1) the assumption that you cannot find arguments for creationism is false... creationism has been around, in one form or another, for many thousands of years, while evolution has been around for 150. the fact that creationism survived so long even after evolutionism arose means there must be some sounds arguments behind it

Some people still believe the earth is flat. By your logic, there must be sound arguments for it.

Some people still believe the earth is flat. By your logic, there must be sound arguments for it.

Maybe one or two people do. Not two thirds of the world however.

I always love it when IDers bring up "The Earth is a perfect fit for us! It MUST have been designed for us, because what are the chances that it would just HAPPEN to end up allowing us to live." I love it because I can invoke one of the greatest men who ever lived, Douglas Adams, and quote a story in the Salmon of Doubt about a certain puddle...

Creationism is a dogmatic, strict and baseless interpretation of one religion entering a domain where it doesn't belong; I'm afraid there's nothing you can use to argue it because it simply doesn't belong in science. Evolution is an empirically verified explanation for the development of life on earth; theistic evolution works if you want to apply religion to the science, but personally I don't even think that's necessary.

However, you might be able to attack evolutionary psychology, which is a lot weaker, more faith-based and a lot less empirical than evolution.

(For that matter, science has nothing to do with religion either but that's a different debate...I don't want to hijack this thing).

I always love it when IDers bring up "The Earth is a perfect fit for us! It MUST have been designed for us, because what are the chances that it would just HAPPEN to end up allowing us to live." I love it because I can invoke one of the greatest men who ever lived, Douglas Adams, and quote a story in the Salmon of Doubt about a certain puddle...

Now, the anthropic principle is another concept altogether, but that's correct in regard to Earth.

Maybe one or two people do. Not two thirds of the world however.

What difference do the numbers make? There was a time when just about everyone in the USA thought Native Americans were inferior to whites. Just because a lot of people believe it doesn't make it true.

Creationism is a dogmatic, strict and baseless interpretation of one religion entering a domain where it doesn't belong; I'm afraid there's nothing you can use to argue it because it simply doesn't belong in science. Evolution is an empirically verified explanation for the development of life on earth; theistic evolution works if you want to apply religion to the science, but personally I don't even think that's necessary.

However, you might be able to attack evolutionary psychology, which is a lot weaker, more faith-based and a lot less empirical than evolution.

(For that matter, science has nothing to do with religion either but that's a different debate...I don't want to hijack this thing).

That depends on what you mean by creationism.

That depends on what you mean by creationism.

Creationism is generally defined as the belief that God had a direct, active role in the formation of life and the universe as described through the literal interpretation of Genesis.

You can believe God created the universe and not be a creationist; there is absolutely no conflict between evolution and religion if you put the effort in to reconciling them. In fact, I'd say the majority of religious people fall in to this spectrum, especially Catholics and most Jews.

Creationism is generally defined as the belief that God had a direct, active role in the formation of life and the universe as described through the literal interpretation of Genesis.

You can believe God created the universe and not be a creationist; there is absolutely no conflict between evolution and religion if you put the effort in to reconciling them. In fact, I'd say the majority of religious people fall in to this spectrum, especially Catholics and most Jews.

I always thought of creationism as just the idea that God created the world and is not exclusive to the genesis version of events.

I think that the argument presented is a fair argument. Just because it is not scientific, does not mean it is not reasoned.

True. Unfortunately the downside of this particular argument is that it is just as valid as "The flying spaghetti monsterism waved its noodly appendage and the midgets appeared".

Science offers a way to assign an objective value to statements. It doesn't mean the scientific answer is correct and a random other answer is wrong - but it does provide us with a way to select an answer. Evolution and Creationism are after all only two of the many, many possible options.

I think Behe, his arguments discredited as they are, is about as far as you're going to get with refined arguments against evolution. I would just go with that.

now now... the man (/woman?) asked for arguments for creationism not 3 pages of evidence against:headbang:

now for some background: i am a skeptic (aka i don't believe in either or any explanations given for the creation of the universe, life etc.) so next ill only present some arguments as i have encountered them in my Philosophy&Ethics AS:p

1) the assumption that you cannot find arguments for creationism is false... creationism has been around, in one form or another, for many thousands of years, while evolution has been around for 150. the fact that creationism survived so long even after evolutionism arose means there must be some sounds arguments behind it

No it doesn't. It just means that people knew no better.

2) you want to present valid arguments for creationism... you can use intelligent design and irreducible complexity - they are valid arguments even if people will disagree with them, i havent heard of anyone actually disproving them

3) the cosmological argument

- search the internet for the first 3 ways of Aquinas (out of five explanations for the existence of god out of which the latter 2 are design).

for the first way a nice little quote from an essay i've written: "The first way is based on motion and the argument ran on the observation that nothing moves by itself, but only if an exterior force intervenes. Based on movement being defined as the passing from potentiality to actuality, and the assumption that applying exterior force to make it happen cannot regress infinitely, it is concluded that there must have been an unmoved “prime mover” which marks the beginning of the Universe, called God. Kenny argues against this “way” on the basis of the principle of inertia (the first law of motion), by which all objects maintain their state of movement, which means that some objects do indeed move by themselves, when there is no exterior force applied to them. However “movement” here actually refers change of the state of movement in the physics understanding, and therefore the counterargument is invalid as the first law of motion does indeed state that an exterior force is needed to change an object’s state of movement."

the second way: "The second way is based on causation. Based on human understanding of nature (based in turn on observation) any event has a priori cause. Again assuming that the existence of the world cannot be characterised by an infinitely regressing string of causes it must be concluded that there must have been a first uncaused cause which marks the beginning of the Universe, called God. "

the third way: "The third way is based on contingency of matter in the Universe. Contingency refers to the fact that a state of matter can either exist or not, and that any existing state of matter has a point where it came into existence and a point where it must be removed from existence. Therefore, assuming that time was infinite, there must have been a point in time when nothing existed, and for anything to exist now there must have been something that brought everything into existence. This links to the second way in the need for a necessary cause, called God."

4) the kalaam argument: "The kalam argument on the other hand discusses the infinity of the universe. It argues that the Universe cannot be an actual infinity as it is being constantly redefined by new events of the present and therefore it is temporally limited by at least present. So the Universe it is finite, and a finite entity must also have a beginning, an original uncaused cause, God, just like Aquinas’ argument"

That's even worse. He needs good arguements, not "we don't know how it started so God did it."

5) personally i would call this a scientific argument but not evidence: "But there are also problems with the random occurrence account, based on one of the driving principles of the Big Bang theory, the second law of thermodynamics, which states that in a closed system all things tend to entropy (and since the Universe encompasses all existence it is a closed system). This supports the Big Bang theory as the Universe is perceived to be extending (at an accelerate rate), which means that there must have a point from which it is extended and this process can be, and is, theoretically reduced (through induction) to the Universe initially being a point of infinite density and zero entropy. However if there was zero entropy there is no possibility to prompt the “random event” that caused the initial point to explode into the “Big Bang” and set everything in motion." - aka there must've been an initial "prime mover" in this case or god
You of course realise that the material universe is the sole property of Eris, yes?

Maybe one or two people do. Not two thirds of the world however.

The U.S. isn't the world. Creationism is rejected in almost every other country on earth.

The U.S. isn't the world. Creationism is rejected in almost every other country on earth.

Notably, even by the Roman Catholic Church.

Creationism is a dogmatic, strict and baseless interpretation of one religion entering a domain where it doesn't belong

dogmatic as is naturalism... the latter only has the advantage to be in the domain where it belongs

I always thought of creationism as just the idea that God created the world and is not exclusive to the genesis version of events.

Well, the debate is between the Genesis/IDers and supporters of evolution. Creationism (emphasis on ism), is an ideology rather than just the belief that something was created. I mean, most people who believe God had a hand in the universe either simply don't care or can reconcile their beliefs with science.

Other forms of "creationism" like theistic evolution fit perfectly with evolutionary theory and holders of that belief are some of its strongest supporters. If we really wanted to get technical, the universe was created...we just can't know empirically for sure by what.

dogmatic as is naturalism... the latter only has the advantage to be in the domain where it belongs

Naturalism is a faith-based philosophy like any religion; it is not a scientifically tenable position because it tries to answer questions that are not empirically verifiable. The scientific position is not naturalistic; it believes that physical phenomena most likely have physical explanations and seeks to find them through empirical methods, but it has nothing to say on whether our entire existence is in the natural world.

Now, you can believe that all physical phenomena have natural causes without being a naturalist; the difference is whether you bring faith in to the equation.

The U.S. isn't the world. Creationism is rejected in almost every other country on earth.

No, thats not true at all. Unless you think creationism only refers to biblical creationism.

Trilby63;11961431']No it doesn't. It just means that people knew no better.

That's even worse. He needs good arguements, not "we don't know how it started so God did it."

You of course realise that the material universe is the sole property of Eris, yes?

greetings brother :))

well it might mean that people knew no better but its not THAT simple... i mean it was Aristotle who first proposed the concept of the "prime mover" in a sort of god with none of the antropomorphic characterstics of the christian god, and there were loads of other thinkers at the time... you cant dismiss all their ideas just because you happen to like evolution, without even considering them

and have you even read what ive written? its never a case of well we dont know so it must be god, but rather it can be inducted that this first entity existed and we can equate it with the biblical god, because it shares at least more than half of its atributes... not necessarily true but it is a good argument nonetheless

No, thats not true at all. Unless you think creationism only refers to biblical creationism.

The nations where the majority of the population embrace some kind of creationism are mostly poor, backward nations.

Naturalism is a faith-based philosophy like any religion; it is not a scientifically tenable position because it tries to answer questions that are not empirically verifiable.


Not true actually. The point of most types of naturalism (like natural law) is that it is not faith based (like divine command), but seeks to find objective reasons in nature. E.g. "abortion is wrong as it is killing human potential. This action is unnatural etc..." The idea of human rights, decloration of independence, the UN etc.. is all based on natural law which is a naturalist way of thinking.

now now... the man (/woman?) asked for arguments for creationism not 3 pages of evidence against:headbang:

I put up the commonly used arguments for it.

1) the assumption that you cannot find arguments for creationism is false... creationism has been around, in one form or another, for many thousands of years, while evolution has been around for 150. the fact that creationism survived so long even after evolutionism arose means there must be some sounds arguments behind it

We're talking about valid, non-religion based arguments. Religious arguments may be sound, or they may not be, but that is obviously not what the OP wants, and it is all that Creationism has.

2) you want to present valid arguments for creationism... you can use intelligent design and irreducible complexity - they are valid arguments even if people will disagree with them, i havent heard of anyone actually disproving them

That is because it is impossible to disprove them. We cannot disprove the idea that some entity or other designed the universe. It is empirically impossible, as it would necessitate measurement and observation of that which is supernatural - outside the universe.

3) the cosmological argument

- search the internet for the first 3 ways of Aquinas (out of five explanations for the existence of god out of which the latter 2 are design).

for the first way a nice little quote from an essay i've written: "The first way is based on motion and the argument ran on the observation that nothing moves by itself, but only if an exterior force intervenes. Based on movement being defined as the passing from potentiality to actuality, and the assumption that applying exterior force to make it happen cannot regress infinitely, it is concluded that there must have been an unmoved “prime mover” which marks the beginning of the Universe, called God. Kenny argues against this “way” on the basis of the principle of inertia (the first law of motion), by which all objects maintain their state of movement, which means that some objects do indeed move by themselves, when there is no exterior force applied to them. However “movement” here actually refers change of the state of movement in the physics understanding, and therefore the counterargument is invalid as the first law of motion does indeed state that an exterior force is needed to change an object’s state of movement."

the second way: "The second way is based on causation. Based on human understanding of nature (based in turn on observation) any event has a priori cause. Again assuming that the existence of the world cannot be characterised by an infinitely regressing string of causes it must be concluded that there must have been a first uncaused cause which marks the beginning of the Universe, called God. "

the third way: "The third way is based on contingency of matter in the Universe. Contingency refers to the fact that a state of matter can either exist or not, and that any existing state of matter has a point where it came into existence and a point where it must be removed from existence. Therefore, assuming that time was infinite, there must have been a point in time when nothing existed, and for anything to exist now there must have been something that brought everything into existence. This links to the second way in the need for a necessary cause, called God."

All of these have the issue of unsupported assumptions.

4) the kalaam argument: "The kalam argument on the other hand discusses the infinity of the universe. It argues that the Universe cannot be an actual infinity as it is being constantly redefined by new events of the present and therefore it is temporally limited by at least present. So the Universe it is finite, and a finite entity must also have a beginning, an original uncaused cause, God, just like Aquinas’ argument"

Once again, unsupported logical jumps. If the universe is finite, it must have a beginning, but there is no logical reason to believe that the cause must be an "uncaused cause."

5) personally i would call this a scientific argument but not evidence: "But there are also problems with the random occurrence account, based on one of the driving principles of the Big Bang theory, the second law of thermodynamics, which states that in a closed system all things tend to entropy (and since the Universe encompasses all existence it is a closed system). This supports the Big Bang theory as the Universe is perceived to be extending (at an accelerate rate), which means that there must have a point from which it is extended and this process can be, and is, theoretically reduced (through induction) to the Universe initially being a point of infinite density and zero entropy. However if there was zero entropy there is no possibility to prompt the “random event” that caused the initial point to explode into the “Big Bang” and set everything in motion." - aka there must've been an initial "prime mover" in this case or god

This isn't a scientific argument, as it presumes to extend scientific theory outside the confines of the universe (ie. before the universe existed). By definition, scientific investigation is limited to the natural - the universe - and cannot be used outside of it.

+ a little bonus if you had the patience to get this far, my opinion on astronomy and the scientific conclusions drawn from it: "The general problem with the scientific explanations is in fact the scientific method, because it relies on empirically proving facts, and to prove something using the scientific method one relies on what he knows, which in the case of humans is invariably limited, by nature and means. All our suppositions about the universe are based on our observations of the “visible universe” of which we know for sure one thing: it is not the whole universe, so what we can assume is either that the actual Universe is a lot larger or in fact infinite in space. Either way any conclusions we come to about the Universe as a whole based on what we perceive are very unlikely to be useful, as it is safe to assume it is next to impossible to conclude all the patterns of matter, energy and movement (and the laws they subject to) from our limited view."

How does this provide any evidence for Creationism? All it says is, "We don't know everything."

Maybe one or two people do. Not two thirds of the world however.

While this wouldn't matter anyways, do you have some sort of evidence that two thirds of the world's population reject evolutionary theory in favor of some form of Creationism (generally, a literal Biblical interpretation)?


I always thought of creationism as just the idea that God created the world and is not exclusive to the genesis version of events.

The OP is talking about doing two contrasting viewpoints. The idea that God created the world is not at all contrasting to evolutionary theory, so it obviously is not the definition being used here.

Not true actually. The point of most types of naturalism (like natural law) is that it is not faith based (like divine command), but seeks to find objective reasons in nature. E.g. "abortion is wrong as it is killing human potential. This action is unnatural etc..." The idea of human rights, decloration of independence, the UN etc.. is all based on natural law which is a naturalist way of thinking.

The only problem is that natural law requires faith in order to stand. If you reduce it, you will eventually reach a set of axioms that are taken on faith to be self evident. Another problem is the naturalistic fallacy; claims of ethics can't be justified by appealing to natural properties in and of themselves. There has to be a self-evident axiom that says those properties are good, and that axiom is ultimately faith based in that it is self-evident and true.

We can't justify natural law through reason alone; we can discover it, but we can't justify it through reason.

Naturalism is a faith-based philosophy like any religion; it is not a scientifically tenable position because it tries to answer questions that are not empirically verifiable. The scientific position is not naturalistic; it believes that physical phenomena most likely have physical explanations and seeks to find them through empirical methods, but it has nothing to say on whether our entire existence is in the natural world.

Now, you can believe that all physical phenomena have natural causes without being a naturalist; the difference is whether you bring faith in to the equation.

i might get this the wrong way but do you mean a scientist should bring into equation his "faith that all physical phenomena have natural causes, and can be demonstrated by empirical enquiry"?... coz it sure sounds like naturalism to me:p

The nations where the majority of the population embrace some kind of creationism are mostly poor, backward nations.

Thats still most of the countries in the world. I'm still not sure what you mean by creationism though, do you mean creationism that also tries to disprove evolution?

No, thats not true at all. Unless you think creationism only refers to biblical creationism.

There are 6.8 billion people on Earth. If I can name more than 1/3 of that who reject creationism, you must concede your point.

Here goes.

The Catholic Church: 1 billion
Most of Islam: ~ 1 billion
Atheists, Agnostics, and Secular Humanists: >1 billion
Hindus: 900 million
Buddhists: 300 million

I'm not even warmed up, and I have 4.2 billion.

Thats still most of the countries in the world. I'm still not sure what you mean by creationism though, do you mean creationism that also tries to disprove evolution?

That's the only form of creationism that there is. Maybe you don't know what creationism means.

The nations where the majority of the population embrace some kind of creationism are mostly poor, backward nations.

and what sort of superiority do you have over them, other than economical? (note that the concept of education is culturaly relative)

There are 6.8 billion people on Earth. If I can name more than 1/3 of that who reject creationism, you must concede your point.

Here goes.

The Catholic Church: 1 billion
Most of Islam: ~ 1 billion
Atheists, Agnostics, and Secular Humanists: >1 billion
Hindus: 900 million
Buddhists: 300 million

I'm not even warmed up, and I have 4.2 billion.

You and I have totally different opinions on what creationism actually means.

Not true actually. The point of most types of naturalism (like natural law) is that it is not faith based (like divine command), but seeks to find objective reasons in nature. E.g. "abortion is wrong as it is killing human potential. This action is unnatural etc..." The idea of human rights, decloration of independence, the UN etc.. is all based on natural law which is a naturalist way of thinking.

well actually natural law was proposed by Aquinas... the nice little christian monk :rolleyes:

That's the only form of creationism that there is. Maybe you don't know what creationism means.

Like i said earlier, I always assumed that it's just the idea of God creating the earth. Anything added to that is religion.

well actually natural law was proposed by Aquinas... the nice little christian monk :rolleyes:

Nice try lol. Firstly, it was Aristotle that started natural law. However Aquinas was a catholic monk who believed in Divine command but also believed in Natural law as another way of finding out what is right and wrong. He states that you do not need to be religious to follow natural law, it is just a reflection of the eternal law that is found in nature. Divine command is an eternal law found in religion. They are two different things. Aquinas actually supported science and finding out as much as you can about the world.

Like i said earlier, I always assumed that it's just the idea of God creating the earth. Anything added to that is religion.

No, it's not. Creationism is the belief that God created the universe and everything in it, and engineered everything. Creationism holds that evolution is false. It is almost nonexistant aside from some sects of Christianity and Islam.

and what sort of superiority do you have over them, other than economical? (note that the concept of education is culturaly relative)

I don't believe in cultural relativism. Education is not relative. If your educational system teaches religious fairy tales instead of math and science your educational system is inferior. It doesn't produce anything of tangible value. If your nation doesn't have free, universal access to education it's inferior. Ignorant masses cannot ever realize their full human potential.

I put up the commonly used arguments for it.



We're talking about valid, non-religion based arguments. Religious arguments may be sound, or they may not be, but that is obviously not what the OP wants, and it is all that Creationism has.



That is because it is impossible to disprove them. We cannot disprove the idea that some entity or other designed the universe. It is empirically impossible, as it would necessitate measurement and observation of that which is supernatural - outside the universe.



All of these have the issue of unsupported assumptions.



Once again, unsupported logical jumps. If the universe is finite, it must have a beginning, but there is no logical reason to believe that the cause must be an "uncaused cause."



This isn't a scientific argument, as it presumes to extend scientific theory outside the confines of the universe (ie. before the universe existed). By definition, scientific investigation is limited to the natural - the universe - and cannot be used outside of it.



How does this provide any evidence for Creationism? All it says is, "We don't know everything."



While this wouldn't matter anyways, do you have some sort of evidence that two thirds of the world's population reject evolutionary theory in favor of some form of Creationism (generally, a literal Biblical interpretation)?



The OP is talking about doing two contrasting viewpoints. The idea that God created the world is not at all contrasting to evolutionary theory, so it obviously is not the definition being used here.

uhm... how did you miss exactly the part where i said i didnt believe in any of the stuff and these were just arguments he could use... the OP needs to present both parts of the argument and most of these have been dominant ideas before the rise of evolutionism... and besides we should probably have a different topic to discuss the value of these arguments, but i repeat the conclusion to that essay is that neither the scientific nor the religious arguments provide a satisfactory answer to the beginning of the universe

A person can't seem to find any valid arguments for creationism/intelligent design.

Sort of a microcosm of the human experience on the issue...

Like i said earlier, I always assumed that it's just the idea of God creating the earth. Anything added to that is religion.

The kind of creationism opposed to evolution is usually much more specific than that. Your version is more of a basic divine origin that leaves room for religion, while Creationism argued for as a theory contains certain "facts", such as the 6,000 year old Earth, the immediate creation of all living things in such a way that evolution never took place, etc.

Nice try lol. Firstly, it was Aristotle that started natural law. However Aquinas was a catholic monk who believed in Divine command but also believed in Natural law as another way of finding out what is right and wrong. He states that you do not need to be religious to follow natural law, it is just a reflection of the eternal law that is found in nature. Divine command is an eternal law found in religion. They are two different things. Aquinas actually supported science and finding out as much as you can about the world.

ah... aristotle started it in that aquinas borrowed the concept of good as in something that fulfills if purpose, but it was aquinas who formulated natural law, as a combination of christian belief and observation of the world (as empirical as it would get at the time)... they are two different things now but they weren't back then.

greetings brother :))

well it might mean that people knew no better but its not THAT simple... i mean it was Aristotle who first proposed the concept of the "prime mover" in a sort of god with none of the antropomorphic characterstics of the christian god, and there were loads of other thinkers at the time... you cant dismiss all their ideas just because you happen to like evolution, without even considering them

and have you even read what ive written? its never a case of well we dont know so it must be god, but rather it can be inducted that this first entity existed and we can equate it with the biblical god, because it shares at least more than half of its atributes... not necessarily true but it is a good argument nonetheless


Prime mover is fine. That's quite a good arguement for that. It's just the step from Prime mover to biblical god is quite a big, unsubstantiated leap. As you say, Aristotle didn't identify this prime mover with god. Why should anybody else?

There are no good arguements for creationism. Not that that matters though. If god is your thing then you take it on faith. You can try to understand the world around you but don't bother trying to prove your god. It can't be done. It's as likely as scientist disproving it. It bothers me when religious people attack science. I don't think science is superior but I do think these people are compensating for their lack of faith.

i might get this the wrong way but do you mean a scientist should bring into equation his "faith that all physical phenomena have natural causes, and can be demonstrated by empirical enquiry"?... coz it sure sounds like naturalism to me:p

Well, that's a kind of faith, but it's not exclusivist. Yes, you're making the assumption that there are natural explanations for physical phenomena, but it's not the kind of exclusivisim that naturalism entails. But at the same time, that position would switch in a heartbeat if there were evidence to the contrary; it's not a position but rather a default.

The naturalist position would be like saying: all phenomena (notice that this doesn't specify physical) have natural explanations and therefore the supernatural doesn't exist.

I don't believe in cultural relativism. Education is not relative. If your educational system teaches religious fairy tales instead of math and science your educational system is inferior. It doesn't produce anything of tangible value. If your nation doesn't have free, universal access to education it's inferior. Ignorant masses cannot ever realize their full human potential.

so its a matter of faith... very objective, scientific and according to what your "superior" education system emphasizes

Trilby63;11961715']Prime mover is fine. That's quite a good arguement for that. It's just the step from Prime mover to biblical god is quite a big, unsubstantiated leap. As you say, Aristotle didn't identify this prime mover with god. Why should anybody else?

It seems all of the logically rigorous interpretations of God tend to support the prime mover concept (mainly Taoism, Buddhism, Deism, and the various Greek interpretations of Plato and Aristotle). And that's why I think that's probably pretty close to the truth if absolute truth exists.

Like i said earlier, I always assumed that it's just the idea of God creating the earth. Anything added to that is religion.

Which is a perfectly respectable view. And just as valid as the idea of us being the accidental byproducts of a god giving himself a blowjob (ancient Egyptians), existing in a computer simulation or beeing seeded here by aliens.

The main problem is that most people that adhere to such religious explanations are unwilling to admit their idea is only one of many possibilities, while scientific theories like evolution started with that in mind.

To wit: the supporters of creationism and ID are unwilling to "teach the controversy".

Trilby63;11961715']Prime mover is fine. That's quite a good arguement for that. It's just the step from Prime mover to biblical god is quite a big, unsubstantiated leap. As you say, Aristotle didn't identify this prime mover with god. Why should anybody else?

There are no good arguements for creationism. Not that that matters though. If god is your thing then you take it on faith. You can try to understand the world around you but don't bother trying to prove your god. It can't be done. It's as likely as scientist disproving it. It bothers me when religious people attack science. I don't think science is superior but I do think these people are compensating for their lack of faith.

where did you get the impression i was religious?:confused: ... my point is that science is little better, if at all, to religion because its based on some assumptions which can only be substantiated through faith in a similar manner to religion

Well, that's a kind of faith, but it's not exclusivist. Yes, you're making the assumption that there are natural explanations for physical phenomena, but it's not the kind of exclusivisim that naturalism entails. But at the same time, that position would switch in a heartbeat if there were evidence to the contrary; it's not a position but rather a default.

The naturalist position would be like saying: all phenomena (notice that this doesn't specify physical) have natural explanations and therefore the supernatural doesn't exist.

yeah, my only problem with this default stance is that you cannot empirically prove/disprove the opposite... so sayint that it is oppen to criticism and willing to self-correct isn't accurate

To wit: the supporters of creationism and ID are unwilling to "teach the controversy".

uhm... scientists dont seem that eager either... oops, i meant naturalists:p

Trilby63;11961715']...but don't bother trying to prove your god. It can't be done. It's as likely as scientist disproving it.Well, if this distant invisible silent god would finally come forward and reveal himself publicly all the speculation would be over. Is it not strange that today no such appearences take place as are rendered in the bible? Why does god have to hide? Remember how John Paul 2 half a year or so before he died complained about god's silence?

uhm... scientists dont seem that eager either... oops, i meant naturalists:p

True scientists by definition are. Proving ideas wrong and exploring possibilities is what they do for a living ;)

Well, if this distant invisible silent god would finally come forward and reveal himself publicly all the speculation would be over. Is it not strange that today no such appearences take place as are rendered in the bible? Why does god have to hide? Remember how John Paul 2 half a year or so before he died complained about god's silence?

uhm... sorry to spoil your fun but this isnt a bible bashing topic, but rather discussing creationist arguments:p

uhm... sorry to spoil your fun but this isnt a bible bashing topic, but rather discussing creationist arguments:p

Here at nationstates, they are the same thing.

True scientists by definition are. Proving ideas wrong and exploring possibilities is what they do for a living ;)

:fluffle: if only the majority of them were true scientist... my preconception (there... i admit) is that they arent... ergo my cynicism:p

yeah, my only problem with this default stance is that you cannot empirically prove/disprove the opposite... so sayint that it is oppen to criticism and willing to self-correct isn't accurate

Well, science by definition is an empirical method for understanding the natural world. We have to assume by default that the most likely explanation for a physical phenomenon is natural in order to investigate it. Otherwise, we couldn't investigate anything scientifically.

A scientist should always be open to criticism and they should always be willing to change by virtue of their discipline; if there is independently verifiable proof of a particular concept, a scientist should adjust their views accordingly. Dogmatism has no place in science.

Here at nationstates, they are the same thing.

im not sure if i am amused or frustrated... or maybe just puzzled as to what does literature (be it based on history) got to do with anything:p

where did you get the impression i was religious?:confused: ... my point is that science is little better, if at all, to religion because its based on some assumptions which can only be substantiated through faith in a similar manner to religion

Is that how it came out? That's not what I was trying to say. I was trying to explain my view of what the difference between ordinary science and creation science and intelligent design. One is a desire to explain the world around us and the other is a sympton of lack of faith.

Though I agree with what you say about science needing faith.

Well, science by definition is an empirical method for understanding the natural world. We have to assume by default that the most likely explanation for a physical phenomenon is natural in order to investigate it. Otherwise, we couldn't investigate anything scientifically.

A scientist should always be open to criticism and they should always be willing to change by virtue of their discipline; if there is independently verifiable proof of a particular concept, a scientist should adjust their views accordingly. Dogmatism has no place in science.

but the dogmatic manner in which we assume by default stuff, where my argument about the religious manner of science, is perfectly acceptable no?

where did you get the impression i was religious?:confused: ... my point is that science is little better, if at all, to religion because its based on some assumptions which can only be substantiated through faith in a similar manner to religion

I think the problem is that we are comparing apples and oranges; they're totally different concepts that are based on completely different mechanisms. Science deals with the natural world and religion deals with the spiritual world; they're simply non-overlapping, or shouldn't be.

uhm... scientists dont seem that eager either... oops, i meant naturalists:p

Because there is no controversy in science, and when it comes to teaching science, the evidence overrules the public.

I think the problem is that we are comparing apples and oranges; they're totally different concepts that are based on completely different mechanisms. Science deals with the natural world and religion deals with the spiritual world; they're simply non-overlapping, or shouldn't be.

no they shouldn't and no one here is responsable for the antagonism going on between them, but they are overlapping in the fact that both claim to give a full explanation of the world and everything in it and neither will accept any other alternative (they be called meta-narratives:p )

but the dogmatic manner in which we assume by default stuff, where my argument about the religious manner of science, is perfectly acceptable no?

If we didn't make that assumption, nothing could be accomplished scientifically.

Everything is based on fundamental, faith-based assumptions; that's not really a disputed statement. Simply holding a belief isn't dogmatic, however. Dogmatism is using your beliefs to stifle new ideas; for example, believing that the sun goes around the Earth is not dogmatic if you were presented with evidence for heliocentrism and changed your position. However, dismissing the evidence for heliocentrism based upon your belief system is dogmatic.

Dogmatism is an unwillingness to discuss or consider other ideas regardless of evidence because of your beliefs.

Because there is no controversy in science, and when it comes to teaching science, the evidence overrules the public.

uhm... no controverse in science?:confused: ... either you are living in a cave or i'm schizophrenic and can't distinguish imagination and reality

oh and evidence would be overruling the public with the same sort authority the pope could just say stuff and make them true in the middle ages (im thinking some ideas suddenly becomming heretic and such)

no they shouldn't and no one here is responsable for the antagonism going on between them, but they are overlapping in the fact that both claim to give a full explanation of the world and everything in it and neither will accept any other alternative (they be called meta-narratives:p )Science claims to give a full explanation of the world? When the fuck did that happen? :confused:

uhm... no controverse in science?:confused: ... either you are living in a cave or i'm schizophrenic and can't distinguish imagination and reality

Well, looks like you're schizophrenic then, because there is no controversy whatsoever in science. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science, as they make no predictions and are not falsifiable.

no they shouldn't and no one here is responsable for the antagonism going on between them, but they are overlapping in the fact that both claim to give a full explanation of the world and everything in it and neither will accept any other alternative (they be called meta-narratives:p )

What they need to do is accept that neither can explain everything and go from there, and agree to simply leave each other to their particular discipline. Science deals with the natural world, and religion with the spiritual.

Well, looks like you're schizophrenic then, because there is no controversy whatsoever in science. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science, as they make no predictions and are not falsifiable.

Are you crazy? Scientific ideas are constantly getting disproven, changed every year. Was it not controversial when scientists said that black people were lesser humans etc...?

What they need to do is accept that neither can explain everything and go from there, and agree to simply leave each other to their particular discipline. Science deals with the natural world, and religion with the spiritual.

see? and that's why you are smart. is that really you in the pic in the pic thread?.....if so Sarkhaan is no longer the hottie around here.... *hides*

For arguments in favor of creationism I would turn to the 17th and 18th century religous philosphers, particularily the Deists. The easiest and most accesible that I can think of is Smith's On The Origin of The Moral Sentiment, but there are a quit a few other reason based arguments in favor of creationism from the same period. If you can take the time Pascal's Thoughts or Pensees (same book) contains a few good starting points from which to develop your own arguments in favor of creationism.

I also would look at theistic evolutionists, Anthony Flew may finally have come out with some better codification of his arguments in favor of it but if not you can always go to the old-timers, Seaton and Darwin for arguments about it if Flew doesn't work for you. While this might not help you directly in writing about the disagreements in the point of views it does provide an insight into how to reconcile 2 oft considered irreconcilable viewpoints. If I were wrinting a paprer such as yours this is where I would start and from this position examine the arguments of creationists and evolutionsists against theistic eveolution (although I cannot think of any except the Creationist arguments for literal bible interpertation, hmm i know the atheists must have an objection it but have never encountered it, strange). I wonder how your prof would treat a paper just arguing in favor of theistic evolution . . ..

Flew is also probably your best bet for a recent argument non-scripture based for creationism although he is really a follower of Deistic thought from the 17th and 18th centuries, although I must admit that I haven't really had the time to more than superficially follow the creationism/evolution debate in the past few years.

Other forms of "creationism" like theistic evolution fit perfectly with evolutionary theory and holders of that belief are some of its strongest supporters. If we really wanted to get technical, the universe was created...we just can't know empirically for sure by what.

What do you mean with theistic evolution? The important thing Darwin discoverd was that evolution is blind. There is no reason for our existence or the existence of all the other animals and plants.

A theory like: "The animals evolved, but our good god has interfeared to get the right direction!" is plain ID.

Or do you mean something like this: "God created the basic physical and chemical laws, and afterwards he just let the evolution happen." This could fit to Darwin, but of course - which kind of God would just do nothing? Perhaps this is the reason that some very religous people hate the idea of evolution.

Well, looks like you're schizophrenic then, because there is no controversy whatsoever in science. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science, as they make no predictions and are not falsifiable.

There is controversy, just not between evolution and ID. Scientific controversies deal with conflicts between scientific theories.

If we didn't make that assumption, nothing could be accomplished scientifically.

Everything is based on fundamental, faith-based assumptions; that's not really a disputed statement. Simply holding a belief isn't dogmatic, however. Dogmatism is using your beliefs to stifle new ideas; for example, believing that the sun goes around the Earth is not dogmatic if you were presented with evidence for heliocentrism and changed your position. However, dismissing the evidence for heliocentrism based upon your belief system is dogmatic.

Dogmatism is an unwillingness to discuss or consider other ideas regardless of evidence because of your beliefs.

wiki says Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted.

so the dominant idea... i.e. that the fundamental assumption behind science is justified is indeed dogma (or in your example the fact that the solar system is heliocentric), regardless of proof

but yeah... what i was getting at is that every significant thought system is based on fundamental undisprovable assumptions and therefore none is superior to the other and science is not superior to religion. the fact that you are making that assumption renders any claim of superiority over religion void.

Science claims to give a full explanation of the world? When the fuck did that happen? :confused:

oh sorry... it's "we dont know but we will some day but it's defenetly not as religion says it is" :headbang:

uhm... sorry to spoil your fun but this isnt a bible bashing topic, but rather discussing creationist arguments:pI always say that absence of evidence is no evidence of absence. However Creationists really have nothing to show at all.

What they need to do is accept that neither can explain everything and go from there, and agree to simply leave each other to their particular discipline. Science deals with the natural world, and religion with the spiritual.

finally... wisdom :D :fluffle: (so why have we been arguing if we agreed all along?:rolleyes: )

wiki says

so the dominant idea... i.e. that the fundamental assumption behind science is justified is indeed dogma (or in your example the fact that the solar system is heliocentric), regardless of proof

but yeah... what i was getting at is that every significant thought system is based on fundamental undisprovable assumptions and therefore none is superior to the other and science is not superior to religion. the fact that you are making that assumption renders any claim of superiority over religion void.Very well. You may live in your world and conclude that science and religion are not superior to each other, and I'll live in mine, where science is more likely to give me a good answer to a disease than religion.

Are you crazy? Scientific ideas are constantly getting disproven, changed every year. Was it not controversial when scientists said that black people were lesser humans etc...?

thank you :)

There is controversy, just not between evolution and ID. Scientific controversies deal with conflicts between scientific theories.

Well, yeah. I was talking about evolution. If I was mistaken in doing so, then so be it.

Ken Hamm has some truly inspiring arguments, all based on Genesis, regarding why evolution is bunk, and most of mordern geology, too :p So, if you're looking for some "Earth is only 6000 year old" creationism tribble, look him up :headbang:

For arguments in favor of creationism I would turn to the 17th and 18th century religous philosphers, particularily the Deists. The easiest and most accesible that I can think of is Smith's On The Origin of The Moral Sentiment, but there are a quit a few other reason based arguments in favor of creationism from the same period. If you can take the time Pascal's Thoughts or Pensees (same book) contains a few good starting points from which to develop your own arguments in favor of creationism.

I also would look at theistic evolutionists, Anthony Flew may finally have come out with some better codification of his arguments in favor of it but if not you can always go to the old-timers, Seaton and Darwin for arguments about it if Flew doesn't work for you. While this might not help you directly in writing about the disagreements in the point of views it does provide an insight into how to reconcile 2 oft considered irreconcilable viewpoints. If I were wrinting a paprer such as yours this is where I would start and from this position examine the arguments of creationists and evolutionsists against theistic eveolution (although I cannot think of any except the Creationist arguments for literal bible interpertation, hmm i know the atheists must have an objection it but have never encountered it, strange). I wonder how your prof would treat a paper just arguing in favor of theistic evolution . . ..

Flew is also probably your best bet for a recent argument non-scripture based for creationism although he is really a follower of Deistic thought from the 17th and 18th centuries, although I must admit that I haven't really had the time to more than superficially follow the creationism/evolution debate in the past few years.

yes... there are plenty arguments for creationism out there but they are rather marginalised in favour of evolutionism... the fact that they are seemingly easy to dismiss does not render them valueless

TalkOrigins has nice stuff. However, if you're looking for non-Biblical evidence for Creationism, you aren't going to find any. There isn't any.

*chuckles* check the Qur'an? I'd advise other religions, but hinduism and buddhism are about the nature of consciousness, and don't claim to know anything about physical reality...not even all christians took genesis literally, even back in the middle ages. the eastern orthodox church seems to consider it metaphorical, at least if Bp. Kallistos Ware's writing (which is excellent) is any indictation.

There is controversy, just not between evolution and ID. Scientific controversies deal with conflicts between scientific theories.Such as? I only know of one real conflict in Physics. Everywhere else there's just minor differences in the theories (i.e. elaborate and well-tested models).

What do you mean with theistic evolution? The important thing Darwin discoverd was that evolution is blind. There is no reason for our existence or the existence of all the other animals and plants.

A theory like: "The animals evolved, but our good god has interfeared to get the right direction!" is plain ID.

Or do you mean something like this: "God created the basic physical and chemical laws, and afterwards he just let the evolution happen." This could fit to Darwin, but of course - which kind of God would just do nothing? Perhaps this is the reason that some very religous people hate the idea of evolution.

well not the kind of god abrahamic religions worship but there are many interpretations of god out there

*chuckles* check the Qur'an? I'd advise other religions, but hinduism and buddhism are about the nature of consciousness, and don't claim to know anything about physical reality...not even all christians took genesis literally, even back in the middle ages. the eastern orthodox church seems to consider it metaphorical, at least if Bp. Kallistos Ware's writing (which is excellent) is any indictation.The Qu'ran is subsumable under "biblical".

What do you mean with theistic evolution? The important thing Darwin discoverd was that evolution is blind. There is no reason for our existence or the existence of all the other animals and plants.

It appears to be blind to us. Appearance is not proof, however, and appearances are often deceiving or limited by what we can see. Appearance and empirical proof are not the same thing. Our senses are limited in their ability to interpret the physical world, and so any understanding we have of it will be fundamentally limited. We can't understand everything, and so we can't say if properties are blind or not. That is a judgement based upon our interpretation, not an objective fact in itself.

As a result, evolution cannot know if there is a purpose to it because it may be an emergent property on a scale that is a lot larger than us.

What do you mean with theistic evolution?

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#The_creation_history)

Or do you mean something like this: "God created the basic physical and chemical laws, and afterwards he just let the evolution happen." This could fit to Darwin, but of course - which kind of God would just do nothing? Perhaps this is the reason that some very religous people hate the idea of evolution.

For that matter, what kind of God would do something? If he's perfect, he might know from the beginning that nonintervention is the best plan after all. I mean, we're speculating with a highly limited ability to comprehend abstraction; to try and understand the mind of something more advanced than us is futile.

In this case, God doesn't anything because that is inherently in conflict with free will; our purpose in this case would be to discover those laws to get a better understanding of God and our place in the universe. Morality may have been hardwired as a property that emerges as part of our consciousness, along with the supernatural existence of the soul.

Perhaps the soul is one of the ultimate epiphenomena and our purpose is to develop it in order to achieve some unknown end. However, none of this is scientific and has nothing to do with science. Science conversely has nothing to say about it.

Such as? I only know of one real conflict in Physics. Everywhere else there's just minor differences in the theories (i.e. elaborate and well-tested models).

Don't get inbetween gradualists and puncuated equilibriumists.

It appears to be blind to us. Appearance is not proof, however, and appearances are often deceiving or limited by what we can see. Appearance and empirical proof are not the same thing. Our senses are limited in their ability to interpret the physical world, and so any understanding we have of it will be fundamentally limited. We can't understand everything, and so we can't say if properties are blind or not. That is a judgement based upon our interpretation, not an objective fact in itself.

As a result, evolution cannot know if there is a purpose to it because it may be an emergent property on a scale that is a lot larger than us.



Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#The_creation_history)



For that matter, what kind of God would do something? If he's perfect, he might know from the beginning that nonintervention is the best plan after all. I mean, we're speculating with a highly limited ability to comprehend abstraction; to try and understand the mind of something more advanced than us is futile.

In this case, God doesn't anything because that is inherently in conflict with free will; our purpose in this case would be to discover those laws to get a better understanding of God and our place in the universe. Morality may have been hardwired as a property that emerges as part of our consciousness, along with the supernatural existence of the soul.

Perhaps the soul is one of the ultimate epiphenomena and our purpose is to develop it in order to achieve some unknown end. However, none of this is scientific and has nothing to do with science. Science conversely has nothing to say about it.

epiphenomena ?

Epiphenomenon [n] a secondary phenomenon that is a by-product of another phenomenon

I always say that absence of evidence is no evidence of absence. However Creationists really have nothing to show at all.

again... none of the arguments i have presented on page 3 are of that nature... all infer an original entity equated with god that caused everything into existence... there is no issue of absence...therefore

Such as? I only know of one real conflict in Physics. Everywhere else there's just minor differences in the theories (i.e. elaborate and well-tested models).

Well, I put no quantifier on what a controversy is. A minor controversy is still a controversy; the point is that scientific knowledge does change as new discoveries are made. New theories are proposed, tested, and adopted and tested all the time...that's what makes science alive and changing.

Very well. You may live in your world and conclude that science and religion are not superior to each other, and I'll live in mine, where science is more likely to give me a good answer to a disease than religion.

uhm... but we weren't talking practicalities were we? and besides religion does not deny science (well it may have burnt a few "witches") it just denies the scientific understanding of the origins of the universe and champions for the necessity of god in existance:p

Well, I put no quantifier on what a controversy is. A minor controversy is still a controversy; the point is that scientific knowledge does change as new discoveries are made. New theories are proposed, tested, and adopted and tested all the time...that's what makes science alive and changing.Unlike creationism which is dead and constant? No knowledge to gain there anymore?

Don't get inbetween gradualists and puncuated equilibriumists.

Are there even any gradualists left? Punk eek has been accepted for years now.

Or do you mean something like this: "God created the basic physical and chemical laws, and afterwards he just let the evolution happen." This could fit to Darwin, but of course - which kind of God would just do nothing? Perhaps this is the reason that some very religous people hate the idea of evolution.

just do nothing? that's like saying someone who sets up one of those massive complex lines of dominoes and then flips one is "doing nothing" - if a plan is good enough to require no interference, that doesn't mean the planner hasn't done anything - it means what they set up was done so well that it didn't need to be re-done. I don't necessarily believe this is the case, but it's kind of unfair to say that, had god done this in the first place, it would quaifly as "just doing nothing"...

epiphenomena ?

Pluralized.

Epiphenomenon [n] a secondary phenomenon that is a by-product of another phenomenon

Yes, that's correct. Our consciousness may produce the soul, or consciousness may allow our soul to interact with the physical world. The physical brain may produce the capability for consciousness, which the soul may use to interact with the physical world.

Or, perhaps, our conception of the soul really reflects the transition of our selves from physical persons to existence in the collective unconscious. We neither survive as ourselves after death or pass in to nonexistence (in that case, it's not an epiphenomenon, but a completely different idea).

Unlike creationism which is dead and constant? No knowledge to gain there anymore?

Correct. Creationism offers nothing, and uses nonscientific arguments to argue something it should not be involved in. In fact, it stifles free inquiry by automatically establishing an unquestionable and inflexible truth as the basis for its arguments.

Again, religion deals with the spiritual, and science the physical.

*chuckles* check the Qur'an? I'd advise other religions, but hinduism and buddhism are about the nature of consciousness, and don't claim to know anything about physical reality...not even all christians took genesis literally, even back in the middle ages. the eastern orthodox church seems to consider it metaphorical, at least if Bp. Kallistos Ware's writing (which is excellent) is any indictation.

i can second that through my background (been baptised eastern orthodox at birth). creation as per genesis is seen as a sort of metaphorical history of evolution. as to why this has come to be i'm quite at a loss, although it may have something to do with the high regard in which evolutionism (and science in general) was held in communist countries and the fact that the easter orthodox church was the only religion tolerated... and since it was merely tolerated it probably blended the two accounts to survive

For that matter, what kind of God would do something? If he's perfect, he might know from the beginning that nonintervention is the best plan after all. I mean, we're speculating with a highly limited ability to comprehend abstraction; to try and understand the mind of something more advanced than us is futile.

In this case, God doesn't anything because that is inherently in conflict with free will; our purpose in this case would be to discover those laws to get a better understanding of God and our place in the universe. Morality may have been hardwired as a property that emerges as part of our consciousness, along with the supernatural existence of the soul.

Perhaps the soul is one of the ultimate epiphenomena and our purpose is to develop it in order to achieve some unknown end. However, none of this is scientific and has nothing to do with science. Science conversely has nothing to say about it.

yes, we are not speaking here in the strict biblical god context

science has indeed nothing to say about it but its champions do... they dismiss god solely on the basis of faith because there is no evidence to the contrary (even if there is no evidence for either)

science has indeed nothing to say about it but its champions do... they dismiss god solely on the basis of faith because there is no evidence to the contrary (even if there is no evidence for either)

Which is a faith-based and unscientific argument. Science is nontheistic; it simply has nothing to say on the matter and does not take it in to account. It can show through empirical investigation that physical phenomena are not divine in origin, but it cannot say whether or not supernatural phenomena exist.

Pluralized.



Yes, that's correct. Our consciousness may produce the soul, or consciousness may allow our soul to interact with the physical world. The physical brain may produce the capability for consciousness, which the soul may use to interact with the physical world.

Or, perhaps, our conception of the soul really reflects the transition of our selves from physical persons to existence in the collective unconscious. We neither survive as ourselves after death or pass in to nonexistence (in that case, it's not an epiphenomenon, but a completely different idea).

explain to me how the bolded are not contradictory...

otherwise a rather aristotelian view of the soul to which i would agree but for the fact that it makes defining the soul as different to the mind useless

Correct. Creationism offers nothing, and uses nonscientific arguments to argue something it should not be involved in. In fact, it stifles free inquiry by automatically establishing an unquestionable and inflexible truth as the basis for its arguments.

Again, religion deals with the spiritual, and science the physical.Why the distinction between the spiritual and the physical?

Correct. Creationism offers nothing, and uses nonscientific arguments to argue something it should not be involved in. In fact, it stifles free inquiry by automatically establishing an unquestionable and inflexible truth as the basis for its arguments.

and i thought we finally came to agree... i mean WTF??? if religious creationism should not be involved in exploring the origins of the universe then why should a posteriori scientific inquiry? after all it hardly gives any relevant information for technological development. religion on the other hand needs creation theories (which i have to inform you do change) to justify divine purpose...

Which is a faith-based and unscientific argument. Science is nontheistic; it simply has nothing to say on the matter and does not take it in to account. It can show through empirical investigation that physical phenomena are not divine in origin, but it cannot say whether or not supernatural phenomena exist.

you mean non divine in immediate cause right? because all my argument stands on the fact that you cannot infer back to original cause through regression of causes (what i understood by your "origin")

i can second that through my background (been baptised eastern orthodox at birth). creation as per genesis is seen as a sort of metaphorical history of evolution. as to why this has come to be i'm quite at a loss, although it may have something to do with the high regard in which evolutionism (and science in general) was held in communist countries and the fact that the easter orthodox church was the only religion tolerated... and since it was merely tolerated it probably blended the two accounts to survive

actually, the only eastern church I ever heard it from was Antiochian, which has never had anything to do with communism. the tradition of interpreting the old testament as metaphorical is very very old - it actually pre-dates biblical literalism, at least in the christian church. most catholics and orthodox christians see the burning bush as a sort of backwards echo in time representing the Blessed Virgin Mary - and I know the Orthodox in particular have never taken the same attitudes towards sin and the fall of man that the west has (they compare the tree of knowledge to adult food we didn't have teeth for yet, and the explusion from eden as an almost medical necessity, not punishment...) so I don't think it has anything to do with communism.

oh, and as an aside, to say the eastern orthodox church was "tolerated" is being generous. the soviets slaughtered entire monastaries, turned most churches into warehouses, or in the case of the gorgeous St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg, a "museum to atheism" - I've heard about a russian priest who drenched a huge, building-sized propaganda banner of stalin with kerosine, lit it on fire, and then yelled "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images!" through a loudspeaker before he was arrested, tortured, and killed by the soviet government. during the same period an entire monastary was made to line up in front of a ditch. the soviets asked the first monk "are you a christian?" he replied "yes", and was shot in the forehead. they went down the line of dozens of people, and every single one of them answered "yes" and was killed. to say that the eastern orthodox church has enjoyed any kind of friendly relations with communism is to severely stretch the truth. after the soviets killed off most of the russian church hierarchy, they replaced them with puppet bishops in the pay of the KGB...to this day there are two russian orthodox patriarchs...the one was set up by the soviets and the other spent most of his life in hiding for fear of being killed. traditional orthodox worshippers consider the Tsar and his family to be martyrs, as they were killed by militant atheists. I don't think it's even remotely likely that communism influenced orthodox theology...it went to great pains to try and control the church, but it didn't succeed in changing anything about it other than the hierarchy, and it forcing the vast majority of its followers into either martyrdom or apostasy. the tendency towards metaphorical understanding of the scriptures in the orthodox church has more to do with the fact its theology has undergone nearly no change since the 6th century - not as a result of outside influence.

explain to me how the bolded are not contradictory...

They're not if you don't consider the self and the soul to be one and the same.

you mean non divine in immediate cause right? because all my argument stands on the fact that you cannot infer back to original cause through regression of causes (what i understood by your "origin")

Yes. It goes as far back as we can know, and before that there is nothing we can say.

Why the distinction between the spiritual and the physical?

preconditioned naturalistic thinking... direct questioning is highly unlikely to shatter such preconceptions so the answer would be something along the lines of "just because"... (this is the frame withing which we are arguing:p )

Why the distinction between the spiritual and the physical?

Because the physical is empirically verifiable, and the spiritual isn't. They're totally different things existing in two different spheres of reality.

preconditioned naturalistic thinking... direct questioning is highly unlikely to shatter such preconceptions so the answer would be something along the lines of "just because"... (this is the frame withing which we are arguing:p )

"Because" is a good enough reason for anything.

Unless, of course, it isn't.

and i thought we finally came to agree... i mean WTF??? if religious creationism should not be involved in exploring the origins of the universe then why should a posteriori scientific inquiry? after all it hardly gives any relevant information for technological development. religion on the other hand needs creation theories (which i have to inform you do change) to justify divine purpose...

I'm speaking solely of strict, literal-interpretation creationism. It says "Genesis is the infallible word of God and anything that contradicts it is false".

Trilby63;11962205']"Because" is a good enough reason for anything.

Well, almost. More accurately, "these axioms have to be accepted as true in order for the universe to function".

Unless, of course, it isn't.

Not in science, which is why Dawkins' just-so line of arguments about the origin of the universe and God are unscientific (or even worse, pseudoscientific).

actually, the only eastern church I ever heard it from was Antiochian, which has never had anything to do with communism. the tradition of interpreting the old testament as metaphorical is very very old - it actually pre-dates biblical literalism, at least in the christian church. most catholics and orthodox christians see the burning bush as a sort of backwards echo in time representing the Blessed Virgin Mary - and I know the Orthodox in particular have never taken the same attitudes towards sin and the fall of man that the west has (they compare the tree of knowledge to adult food we didn't have teeth for yet, and the explusion from eden as an almost medical necessity, not punishment...) so I don't think it has anything to do with communism.

oh, and as an aside, to say the eastern orthodox church was "tolerated" is being generous. the soviets slaughtered entire monastaries, turned most churches into warehouses, or in the case of the gorgeous St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg, a "museum to atheism" - I've heard about a russian priest who drenched a huge, building-sized propaganda banner of stalin with kerosine, lit it on fire, and then yelled "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images!" through a loudspeaker before he was arrested, tortured, and killed by the soviet government. during the same period an entire monastary was made to line up in front of a ditch. the soviets asked the first monk "are you a christian?" he replied "yes", and was shot in the forehead. they went down the line of dozens of people, and every single one of them answered "yes" and was killed. to say that the eastern orthodox church has enjoyed any kind of friendly relations with communism is to severely stretch the truth. after the soviets killed off most of the russian church hierarchy, they replaced them with puppet bishops in the pay of the KGB...to this day there are two russian orthodox patriarchs...the one was set up by the soviets and the other spent most of his life in hiding for fear of being killed. traditional orthodox worshippers consider the Tsar and his family to be martyrs, as they were killed by militant atheists. I don't think it's even remotely likely that communism influenced orthodox theology...it went to great pains to try and control the church, but it didn't succeed in changing anything about it other than the hierarchy, and it forcing the vast majority of its followers into either martyrdom or apostasy. the tendency towards metaphorical understanding of the scriptures in the orthodox church has more to do with the fact its theology has undergone nearly no change since the 6th century - not as a result of outside influence.

my experince was not of soviet russia but rather romania where orthodoxy was tolerated to almost encouraged, as opposed to greek and roman catholicism, and all the german protestant churches.

and besides that was mere speculation but i have noticed some small influences especially in romania (i mean the orthodox church did receive all the possesions of the other churches when they were banned)

Because the physical is empirically verifiable, and the spiritual isn't. They're totally different things existing in two different spheres of reality.

visit an experienced yogi or an ab'orisha ceremony, or a sufi school, and then say that physicality and spirituality don't intermix. "it's psychosomatic" can only go so far for people dragging knives or broken glass across their skin without bleeding, touching fire for extended periods of time without being burned, levitating, going without food for months at a time, mind reading...these things have been attested in writing as long as people have known how to write, and even in film now, not that those sources are scientifically verifiable. still, visit one of those without disturbing the practitioners and tell me there's a divide between the physical and spiritual world. the practices of these people can no more be reproduced in a cynical, sterile environment than a hurricane can be reproduced in a soda bottle, but it's plain as day that this shit happens all the time.

Because the physical is empirically verifiable, and the spiritual isn't. They're totally different things existing in two different spheres of reality.How can there be more than one reality? What spheres??

They're not if you don't consider the self and the soul to be one and the same.

aha... a mere preconception on my account. still what else could the soul be if not the essence of one's individuality? (this is not rethorical)

so its a matter of faith... very objective, scientific and according to what your "superior" education system emphasizes

Nope. It's not a matter of faith. I don't believe in cultural relativism because of evidence. Some cultures advance economically, technologically and in terms of liberty for their people. Some lag behind. Some cultures attract immigrants from nations with different cultures. Some lose citizens to nations with other cultures.

my experince was not of soviet russia but rather romania where orthodoxy was tolerated to almost encouraged, as opposed to greek and roman catholicism, and all the german protestant churches

ahhhhh ok - my bad. must've been an ethno-national identity bolstering thing - generally the slavic churches are in communion with the greek church - technically they acknowledge eachother's priests as interchangable...as far as sacramental validity and apostolic succession is concerned, at least.

Yes. It goes as far back as we can know, and before that there is nothing we can say.

you mean nothing science can say, but religion does speculate? and therefore religion would have more legitimacy over this particular domain.

I'm speaking solely of strict, literal-interpretation creationism. It says "Genesis is the infallible word of God and anything that contradicts it is false".

uhm... we weren't talking here in the strict creation as per genesis in a looong time:rolleyes:

yes... there are plenty arguments for creationism out there but they are rather marginalised in favour of evolutionism... the fact that they are seemingly easy to dismiss does not render them valueless
Well the difficulty is finding non-sciptually based creationist arguments. If we define creationism some ways ( a belief in the literal word of Genesis in the nature of the origin of existance for example), there are no non-scriptually based arguments for creationism.

The Rationalists who examined the nature of creation absent a belief in sciptural correctness tended to come to Deism, and while there have been many attempts to counter the arguments of the rationalists over the past few centuties, they are not easily disproven. There is a tendecy to disprove scripture based creationism/creationists and contend that this is enough to discredit all creationism/creationists (a classic straw man argument), I supose this makes them "easily dismissed" but not disproven. Even though Sartre spent a goodly portion of his life trying to disprove the existance of a creator, his arguments can be boiled down to a reversal of Pascal's Wager.

you mean nothing science can say, but religion does speculate? and therefore religion would have more legitimacy over this particular domain.Of course. Just as those people of long past times who speculated what was beyond the earth's rim... :headbang:

How can there be more than one reality? What spheres??

stupid questions... may i suggest reading on dualism? :headbang:

Nope. It's not a matter of faith. I don't believe in cultural relativism because of evidence. Some cultures advance economically, technologically and in terms of liberty for their people. Some lag behind. Some cultures attract immigrants from nations with different cultures. Some lose citizens to nations with other cultures.

your cultural superiority is just one of many possible reasons... why do people from similiar or identical cultures immigrate to another country? (say in the anglo-saxon world) :rolleyes:... oh and tell me your culture is superior when china and india will take you over economically and technologically, even when in india at least the education system is poor in comparison to the western world. (i wouldn't include liberty for people in here... cultural relativism doesn't get more obvious than that)

Of course. Just as those people of long past times who speculated what was beyond the earth's rim... :headbang:

ah... but the science of the time did not deny the existence of the edge of the world did it?:rolleyes:

Well the difficulty is finding non-sciptually based creationist arguments. If we define creationism some ways ( a belief in the literal word of Genesis in the nature of the origin of existance for example), there are no non-scriptually based arguments for creationism.

The Rationalists who examined the nature of creation absent a belief in sciptural correctness tended to come to Deism, and while there have been many attempts to counter the arguments of the rationalists over the past few centuties, they are not easily disproven. There is a tendecy to disprove scripture based creationism/creationists and contend that this is enough to discredit all creationism/creationists (a classic straw man argument), I supose this makes them "easily dismissed" but not disproven. Even though Sartre spent a goodly portion of his life trying to disprove the existance of a creator, his arguments can be boiled down to a reversal of Pascal's Wager.

so there are more of us who agree that the argument is more balanced than people admit? good, i feel i can go to sleep now after 8 pages of offtopic:D

stupid questions... may i suggest reading on dualism? :headbang:you may but i won't
i've seen enough star trek episodes i am familiar with all kinds of parallel universes etc. that's still just one reality. and no god needed.

you may but i won't
i've seen enough star trek episodes i am familiar with all kinds of parallel universes etc. that's still just one reality. and no god needed.

There are many, many realities...the one we perceive as "real" is just the consensus reality. Each of our subjective experiences creates a reality for us, and its interaction with the consensus reality shapes our worldview and that of others.

Even the "consensus reality" is indeterminate in itself; we have no idea if our perception of reality is real to begin with. So, everything falls apart and we realize that we have no idea what exactly the truth is other than in terms of how it fits our consensus reality.

stupid questions... may i suggest reading on dualism? :headbang:

he was making a point, I think. if not, he should've been. everyone is familiar with dualism - but he was challenging the assumption thereof.

There are many, many realities...the one we perceive as "real" is just the consensus reality. Each of our subjective experiences creates a reality for us, and its interaction with the consensus reality shapes our worldview and that of others.

Even the "consensus reality" is indeterminate in itself; we have no idea if our perception of reality is real to begin with. So, everything falls apart and we realize that we have no idea what exactly the truth is other than in terms of how it fits our consensus reality.

*applauds*

your cultural superiority is just one of many possible reasons... why do people from similiar or identical cultures immigrate to another country? (say in the anglo-saxon world) :rolleyes:... oh and tell me your culture is superior when china and india will take you over economically and technologically, even when in india at least the education system is poor in comparison to the western world. (i wouldn't include liberty for people in here... cultural relativism doesn't get more obvious than that)
There are other considerations besides culture in deciding where to live, but culture is a factor.

China's economic future is dim. They're overpopulated and their population is ageing. In the US we're going to have a little trouble when the baby boomers retire. In China it's going to be a nightmare. Plus oil is getting more expensive. It's going to be a huge drag on their economy. Their educational system isn't all that great either.

India, yeah, they're going to be a superpower. They're also a fairly westernised nation with regards to their culture's economic, government and civil rights components.

Those all pale before the might of a poster on IIDB who called himself Eternal.

"Did you know that all bulls are males? How can these bulls mate to have more bulls? It's your funeral evolutionists. Admit evolution is a pathetic fantasy created by scientists because they can't accept God."

"[After being told 'they mate with cows, you idiot']

Then, why don't the bulls that are born have some bull like features and cow spots? If a bull mates with a cow, wouldn't you get a female eventually? Evolution is dead water."

"The Argument from design.

Points on Earth which exhibits design.

1) Rotating Earth.
2) The sun shining on the earth at just the right angle to produce life and enough energy.
3) Just the right atmosphere needed for life.
4) Plants breathe out what we breathe in.
5) A cell can't form in one spot and then migrate to every place on earth to fill it with cells.
6) Ants can't do that either. How did ants get to different parts of the world?
7) Just the right atmosphere for the earth to produce grass for the cows to eat.
8) How did grass grow first? I don't see grass on any other planets. Hmmm. Thank God for that sun.
9) The miracle of childbirth. It can't just evolve like that.
10) The sun stays in the sky instead of falling down. Gravity should be pulling it down but it just stays right up there. Hmmmm...interesting.
11) We are smart. If we share a common ancestor with monkeys, I found it remarkable that we are so smart and they are so dumb. How did we get so smart?

These are all points for where a God is needed to explain them. No rational human being can think of a rational explanation for all of this. I hope I convinced someone."

"Penis and vagina as proof of God? I know it seems vague but think about it. The penis can pee and have semen come out of it. Only a good designer can make it this way. Did it just "evolve" this way? How is that even possible? It is complex. The way babies are made is truly beautiful. Do you think there is no God after watching a baby grow and develop in the womb? How can it just evolve like that?"


Though I know you're being sarcastic, those points will really help in my presentation, thanks!:)

you mean nothing science can say, but religion does speculate? and therefore religion would have more legitimacy over this particular domain.

But which religion has the most legitimacy ?

As I said before, most creationists only focus on attacking science. They completely forget that Genesis and Christianity are not the only religious views on this planet.

So is this solely an argument between the school of creationism and the school of evolutionism? Is there something thats in between?

So is this solely an argument between the school of creationism and the school of evolutionism? Is there something thats in between?

It is more accurate to say there are several thousands - nay, millions of competing ideas of which creationism and evolution are only two.

However, creationists do not want you to say that.

For a project at college we have to make a presentation leading into a debate on a topic which has two sides, either morally or philosophically.

I chose Evolution & Creation, which I find interesting, but we have to give arguments from both sides' point of view. This was going OK, except when I look for evidence supporting creationism, I generally get things like:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm

Does anyone have any good evidence (non-Biblical if possible) for either point of view, especially creationism?


I highly recommend In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. Presents some interesting perspective, all based on the point of view of 50 scientists with Ph.Ds within their respective field of study. Interesting, if nothing else.

It is more accurate to say there are several thousands - nay, millions of competing ideas of which creationism and evolution are only two.

However, creationists do not want you to say that.

Neither, incidentally, do evolutionists.

Neither, incidentally, do evolutionists.

Correct. However, scientists that adhere to the theory of evolution do.
The scientific method after all exist to find out which of those possibilities (albeit it cannot test all) is least wrong ;)

Correct. However, scientists that adhere to the theory of evolution do.
The scientific method after all exist to find out which of those possibilities (albeit it cannot test all) is least wrong ;)

Indeed. :)

Though I know you're being sarcastic, those points will really help in my presentation, thanks!:)

Unless your presentation is entitled "Creationists are Drooling Morons", it really won't. Each one of those quotes was chosen for being completely and utterly wrong, in a way that even a drunken, lobotomised hobo could point out.

1) Rotating Earth. ??
2) The sun shining on the earth at just the right angle to produce life and enough energy. The earth is a globe. The sun shines on it in every angle between 0° and 90°.
3) Just the right atmosphere needed for life. Life produced the atmosphere that other life now needs.
4) Plants breathe out what we breathe in. see above
5) A cell can't form in one spot and then migrate to every place on earth to fill it with cells. A cell doesn’t form in one spot. It divides from another cell. In the oceans where most single-cell organisms live it is pretty easy to (passively) travel with the currents and reach any place in the oceans.
6) Ants can't do that either. How did ants get to different parts of the world? Indeed ants don’t form in one spot. But they can travel on driftwood.
7) Just the right atmosphere for the earth to produce grass for the cows to eat. What if grass only adapted to the atmosphere or if grass only came into existence when or because the atmosphere was already there?
8) How did grass grow first? I don't see grass on any other planets. Hmmm. Thank God for that sun. Have you been on any other planets?
9) The miracle of childbirth. It can't just evolve like that. It obviously does.
10) The sun stays in the sky instead of falling down. Gravity should be pulling it down but it just stays right up there. Hmmmm...interesting. That’s because the earth doesn’t stand still but moves through space and around the sun, which also moves around the center of the galaxy, which also moves through space in gravitational interaction with other galaxies.
11) We are smart. If we share a common ancestor with monkeys, I found it remarkable that we are so smart and they are so dumb. How did we get so smart?There has been lingering doubt as to the smartness of the human species. Sometimes it seems only a small step from an ape’s intelligence to a human’s. Basically it’s the food.

Did you even bother reading my post, where I said I was quoting someone stupid?

For a project at college we have to make a presentation leading into a debate on a topic which has two sides, either morally or philosophically.

I chose Evolution & Creation, which I find interesting, but we have to give arguments from both sides' point of view. This was going OK, except when I look for evidence supporting creationism, I generally get things like:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm

Does anyone have any good evidence (non-Biblical if possible) for either point of view, especially creationism?


If GOD created the singularity point which in turn created the universe which in turn created planets in which evolution took place, didnt GOD create stuff via evolution?

If you're looking for scientifically valid arguments, you simply won't find any.

Now, if you want the "scientific" arguments they try to make, here are a few I have heard:


All of which are easily explained. For instance:


"The banana perfectly fits the human hand, so God must have designed it for us. The banana is the atheist's nightmare." You can find this one on YouTube.


This is only because we try to find similarities and how things can be used by us. However, if one were to try to explain in evolutionary terms, it is far easier. I won't go into it now, as I have work in half an hour.


"The sun is current shrinking. If we extrapolate back several million years at that same rate of shrinkage, it would have been touching the Earth and all the water would be boiling." Common Creationist church lecture.


Of course, this is not taking into consideration the life span of stars and how they work. They often go through shrinking and growing states, and do not grow or shrink at linear rates.


"The magnetic field of the Earth is currently weakening. If we extrapolate back several million years, the gravitational pull of Earth would be so strong that nothing could walk on it." Common Creationist church lecture.


Of course this is considering that the magnetic field shrinks, which it does(it grows and shrinks at different rates), and that it happens linearly, which it does not.


"The moon is currently moving away from the Earth. If we extrapolate back several million years, the moon would be so close that the tides would cover everything with water every day." Common Creationist church lecture.


However, the moon has not been moving away at a constant rate. The further it gets away from the Earth, the less gravitational force the Earth has, and thus it quickens. The rate it moves now is not the same as it was millions of years ago.


"Oh, but we shouldn't assume that the half-lives of radioactive isotopes, which have never been seen to change, were the same for all of history." Common Creationist church lecture.


However, when using several different methods, and they all line up, it tends to make one believe that it is accurate.


"The Great Flood explains all of the fossils and the formation of the Grand Canyon. Bigger things are on the bottom fossil layers because they couldn't swim very well and the run-off of all the water explains quick erosion to cause the canyon." Common Creationist church lecture.

Now this is golden. Big animals can swim quite well. Infact, it would be the small animals that would have a harder time, as the currents would carry them off much easier than larger ones. And actually, the further down you go, the smaller the fossils get.


"Dinosaurs were just big lizards that never stopped growing. Reptiles like iguanas never stop growing in their lifetimes if they have room, so all reptiles are like this too. There was no death in the Garden of Eden, so all the reptiles got very, very big and were the dinosaurs. After Eden, reptiles died so there were no dinosaurs." Hovind.
That explains the vast differences between most of the dinosaurs and reptiles of today, or since then. There is nothing like a Tyrranosaur or a Brachiosaur, anywhere, today.

Huh... that was easy. Creationists are idiotic at times.

That explains the vast differences between most of the dinosaurs and reptiles of today, or since then. There is nothing like a Tyrranosaur or a Brachiosaur, anywhere, today.

Nessie is offended by that ;)