Can Creationists defend Creationism?

[Hollie]

We all know that they can attack evolution, but can they defend creationism?

Everything the criticize evolution for, goes double and triple for creationism.

Well, can you Creationists defend it?

For example, prove that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, or that God created man out of clay, or any other of the claims made that disagree with the facts as we know them.

a fuckin' useless exercise...

Perhaps but the point of this thread is to show that attacking evolution doesn't make creation true.

Sure, but attacking science is the only argument that creationists can further.

I don't want kids being taught religion in place of science because we live in a world of technology and we need critical thinkers in order to survive in this world. The USA is painfully unscientific enough as it is, and churning out generation after generation of dreamy-eyed "the gawds did it", morons who believe a god will scoop us all up and save us condemns us to a horrible fate. This is the kind of "Father Knows Best" nation we were in the 1950's when suddenly Russia started sailing Sputniks over our heads and believe me-- hearing from from Grandfather, the fear then was galvanizing. Now fundie Christians want us to go back into that womb of ignorance? I think not. This is a technological world and we better be up on it, or we'll be the peasants running around with decaying weapons, not knowing how to fix or use them, and running around stone icons and trampling one another to death to worship our desert gods. I want the USA strong in science because I want the USA strong. So keep your creationism where it belongs-- in your churches and your dinner tables, and let our kids learn science based upon knowledge and rational thought and evidence.

 

[Hollie]

We all know that they can attack evolution, but can they defend creationism?

Everything the criticize evolution for, goes double and triple for creationism.

Well, can you Creationists defend it?

For example, prove that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, or that God created man out of clay, or any other of the claims made that disagree with the facts as we know them.

I can a little. If I had another bookshelf, thousands more dollars for books, and paid as a pastor then I could defend it with limitations as atheists wouldn't allow Christians in the lab because of intolerance.

I chose to go the theology and evangelism route and get more experience there and try to catch up at a later point in time.

Are you suggesting that Christians in a science lab are going to prove your god(s)?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Can Creationists defend Creationism?

Yup, philosophically but not scientifically.

The proof systems are different for evolution and creationism.

 

[Hollie]

Can Creationists defend Creationism?

Yup, philosophically but not scientifically.

The proof systems are different for evolution and creationism.

It's true that "philosophical" answers to the diversity of life on the planet are different than those answers provided by science.

But ultimately, why would any qualification in philosophy be necessary? The issues surrounding evolution (as defined by paleo-biology, chemistry, etc.,) are not philosophical. Evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be discussed, explored and understood without any necessity of recourse to philosophy.

This is why anti-evolutionists tend to run screaming from actual discussion of the science involved and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.

Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.

 

[Chuckt]

Can Creationists defend Creationism?

Yup, philosophically but not scientifically.

The proof systems are different for evolution and creationism.

It's true that "philosophical" answers to the diversity of life on the planet are different than those answers provided by science.

But ultimately, why would any qualification in philosophy be necessary? The issues surrounding evolution (as defined by paleo-biology, chemistry, etc.,) are not philosophical. Evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be discussed, explored and understood without any necessity of recourse to philosophy.

This is why anti-evolutionists tend to run screaming from actual discussion of the science involved and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.

Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.

I actually have some books on Intelligent Design by a Christian who worked at a pharmaceutical company and another book from the college level that I bought at a college book store.

 

[Hollie]

Can Creationists defend Creationism?

Yup, philosophically but not scientifically.

The proof systems are different for evolution and creationism.

It's true that "philosophical" answers to the diversity of life on the planet are different than those answers provided by science.

But ultimately, why would any qualification in philosophy be necessary? The issues surrounding evolution (as defined by paleo-biology, chemistry, etc.,) are not philosophical. Evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be discussed, explored and understood without any necessity of recourse to philosophy.

This is why anti-evolutionists tend to run screaming from actual discussion of the science involved and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.

Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.

I actually have some books on Intelligent Design by a Christian who worked at a pharmaceutical company and another book from the college level that I bought at a college book store.

OK. So what's your point?

Let's see the material presented by the Christian ID'er in a peer reviewed journal.

 

[Chuckt]

It's true that "philosophical" answers to the diversity of life on the planet are different than those answers provided by science.

But ultimately, why would any qualification in philosophy be necessary? The issues surrounding evolution (as defined by paleo-biology, chemistry, etc.,) are not philosophical. Evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be discussed, explored and understood without any necessity of recourse to philosophy.

This is why anti-evolutionists tend to run screaming from actual discussion of the science involved and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.

Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.

I actually have some books on Intelligent Design by a Christian who worked at a pharmaceutical company and another book from the college level that I bought at a college book store.

OK. So what's your point?

Let's see the material presented by the Christian ID'er in a peer reviewed journal.

Discrimination exists. One of the lab assistants in my Physics class worked at a planetarium and he was fired because a newspaper reporter misquoted him on science and religion. He was able to make his case that the reporter misquoted him and they gave him his job back.

 

[Hollie]

I actually have some books on Intelligent Design by a Christian who worked at a pharmaceutical company and another book from the college level that I bought at a college book store.

OK. So what's your point?

Let's see the material presented by the Christian ID'er in a peer reviewed journal.

Discrimination exists. One of the lab assistants in my Physics class worked at a planetarium and he was fired because a newspaper reporter misquoted him on science and religion. He was able to make his case that the reporter misquoted him and they gave him his job back.

I don't think discrimination is the correct term.

In the realm of the ID creationists, there's just no reason to accept vacuous claims of gods or supernatural agents as the reason for life on the planet.


Here's something to consider:

By Jeffrey Shallit on November 30, 2009 8:37 AM| 81 Comments

The Fruitlessness of ID "Research" - The Panda's Thumb

The Fruitlessness of ID "Research" - The Panda's Thumb

Scientists point out, quite rightly, that the religio-political charade known as “intelligent design” (ID) is not good science. But how do we know this?

One of the hallmarks of science is that it is fruitful. A good scientific paper will usually lead to much work along the same lines, work that confirms and extends the results, and work that produces more new ideas inspired by the paper. Although citation counts are not completely reliable metrics for evaluating scientific papers, they do give some general information about what papers are considered important.

ID advocates like to point to lists of “peer-reviewed publications” advocating their position. Upon closer examination, their lists are misleading, packed with publications that are either not in scientific journals, or that appeared in venues of questionable quality, or papers whose relationship to ID is tangential at best. Today, however, I’d like to look at a different issue: the fruitfulness of intelligent design. Let’s take a particular ID publication, one that was trumpeted by ID advocates as a “breakthrough”, and see how much further scientific work it inspired.

The paper I have in mind is Stephen Meyer’s paper “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, CSC - Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
which was published, amid some controversy, in the relatively obscure journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in 2004. Critics pointed out that the paper was not suited to the journal, which is usually devoted to taxonomic issues, and that the paper was riddled with mistakes Meyer's Hopeless Monster - The Panda's Thumb and misleading claims. In response, the editors of the journal issued a disclaimer repudiating the paper.

Putting these considerations aside, what I want to do here is look at every scientific publication that has cited Meyer’s paper to determine whether his work can fairly said to be “fruitful”. I used the ISI Web of Science Database to do a “cited reference” search on his article. This database, which used to be called Science Citation Index, is generally acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive available. The search I did included Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Even such a search will miss some papers, of course, but it will still give a general idea of how much the scientific community has been inspired by Meyer’s work.

I found exactly 9 citations to Meyer’s paper in this database. Of these, counting generously, exactly 1 is a scientific research paper that cites Meyer approvingly.

 

[Chuckt]

I don't think discrimination is the correct term.

In the realm of the ID creationists, there's just no reason to accept vacuous claims of gods or supernatural agents as the reason for life on the planet.

Ok. Thank you for that information.

I just don't see any reason to believe you.

 

[Hollie]

I don't think discrimination is the correct term.

In the realm of the ID creationists, there's just no reason to accept vacuous claims of gods or supernatural agents as the reason for life on the planet.

Ok. Thank you for that information.

I just don't see any reason to believe you.

That's fine.

I should acknowledge that one of the lab assistants in my Physics class worked at the planetarium where your lab assistant worked. The lab assistant identified in your comment was never fired because a newspaper reporter misquoted him on science and religion.

Actually, you made up that story, right?

 

[Chuckt]

I don't think discrimination is the correct term.

In the realm of the ID creationists, there's just no reason to accept vacuous claims of gods or supernatural agents as the reason for life on the planet.

Ok. Thank you for that information.

I just don't see any reason to believe you.

That's fine.

I should acknowledge that one of the lab assistants in my Physics class worked at the planetarium where your lab assistant worked. The lab assistant identified in your comment was never fired because a newspaper reporter misquoted him on science and religion.

Actually, you made up that story, right?

I didn't make up the story. I heard the story told once or twice. He told it many years ago.

 

[PredFan]

We all know that they can attack evolution, but can they defend creationism?

Everything the criticize evolution for, goes double and triple for creationism.

Well, can you Creationists defend it?

For example, prove that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, or that God created man out of clay, or any other of the claims made that disagree with the facts as we know them.

I can a little. If I had another bookshelf, thousands more dollars for books, and paid as a pastor then I could defend it with limitations as atheists wouldn't allow Christians in the lab because of intolerance.

I chose to go the theology and evangelism route and get more experience there and try to catch up at a later point in time.

I'm pretty sure I don't understand what you are trying to say there.