Creationism is fine ‘as long as you don’t confuse it with actual science’

[Dot Com]

Creationism has no supporting evidence and just makes republicans look dumb.

fuck.you, progressive scum

He's right though. Creationism is just someone's mythology and demanding it be put in classrooms is not science and never will be. Slavishly putting it forward makes Republicans look stupid to people who know better, and I'm a Republican.

Barry Goldwater was right. Getting in bed with the Religious Right was horrible for the GOP.

good post.

My siggie also applies to this thread.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

What part of reality is the real movie 2012 like flood occurring a few thousand years ago and earth being only 6k years old???? Seems nuts.

Like most obnoxious atheists, you love to denigrate fundamentalists because it makes you feel superior.

Few Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old. Fewer still do not understand the significance of the story of Noah.

Obnoxious atheists actually have a great deal in common with the fundamentalists they so dearly love to trash in forums. Both groups have no aptitude for literary interpretation, accept most things at face value and shrilly insist that theirs is the only acceptable view of the universe.

I like the fundamentalists a little better. At least they're honestly trying to understand the universe around them.

There’s nothing ‘obnoxious’ about pointing out someone is factually wrong, nor does it have anything to do with ‘feeling superior.’

And the only time that happens is when Christians attempt to introduce ‘creationism’ into public schools, in violation of the First Amendment.

Otherwise, Christians are at liberty to believe whatever they want, unbothered and left alone, provided they acknowledge and obey Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Actually it is quite obnoxious, especially considering that it is not a violation of the First Amendment, but that is for another discussion. It is also obnoxious to insist that, somehow, the free practice of religion is negated by the Establishment Clause. It most assuredly is not. Discussing varying cosmologies does nothing whatsoever in the way of establishing a state religion. Nothing at all.

Atheists get their collective panties in a wad any time anyone opines that the universe is an act of creation. That theory is at least as scientifically valid as the notion that shit just happens.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I don't think they are the minority you believe they are...

Non sequitur. That poll is not asking about a 6,000 year old Earth. You will find that only about 20 percent of Americans believe in a Young Earth.

No, it asked 10k or less...

human beings.....not the Earth....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Atheism, clearly, is not consistent with the principles of a constitutional republic.

 

[Political Junky]

Creationism is fine ‘as long as you don’t confuse it with actual science’

More proof the evangelical nuts are trying to force religion into the government. Science is a religion too. String theory, dark matter, alternate universes are all faith based, they're not proven.

And many right wing politicians claim to believe those things in order to get their votes.

 

[hazlnut]

Wednesday on his radio show “Star Talk,” astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson addressed a reader’s query about the Creation Museum and the theory of a “Young Earth,” which is part of the Christian Creationist myth, the idea that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

“I visited the Creation Museum,” wrote the listener, “purely out of a sense of mystified curiosity. The recorded narration in their planetarium said that contemporary astrophysics predicted [sic] that certain stars were older than the known age of the universe and cited this problem as evidence against science and for Young Earth creationism.”

“I was hoping Neil might tell me a little bit more about the problem and its solution,” the note concluded.

“Which problem?” asked Tyson. “That the Creation Museum exists at all?”

He went on to say that while he has nothing against Creationism museums, per se, “just keep it out of the science classroom.”

“We live in a free country,” he continued, “and you can say whatever you want about whatever. That’s what it means to be free. Just don’t confuse it with actual science.”

Tyson explained that there was a time in the 1990s when astronomers had found evidence of stars that were older than the universe’s estimated 15 billion years. The stars appeared to be in the neighborhood of 18 billion years old.

“And you can’t be older than your mother,” he said.

The Hubble telescope has settled these arguments, said Tyson, insofar as 3 billion years constitutes an actual error in cosmology. That number, he said, is well within the margin of error when estimating objects’ ages in the billions of years.

However, now that we’ve had a better look at the furthest reaches of what we know, scientists concluded that the universe is around 18 billion years old.

The Great Neil Tyson has spoken. Creationism is not science save that shit for the camp fires and snake handling folks

Agreed.

The old Testament is essentially a collection of Jewish fairy tales and some tribal codes of conduct.

Fiction.

But that doesn't make the stories any less worth reading.

If there's one thing the story of Adam and Eve teaches us, it's that abstinence (even imposed by God himself) doesn't work. Humans will fuck. Put a candy bowl of plan in every high school nurses office and you'll solve a lot of problems. God is in that bowl.

 

[Destroyer2]

Like most obnoxious atheists, you love to denigrate fundamentalists because it makes you feel superior.

Few Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old. Fewer still do not understand the significance of the story of Noah.

Obnoxious atheists actually have a great deal in common with the fundamentalists they so dearly love to trash in forums. Both groups have no aptitude for literary interpretation, accept most things at face value and shrilly insist that theirs is the only acceptable view of the universe.

I like the fundamentalists a little better. At least they're honestly trying to understand the universe around them.

There’s nothing ‘obnoxious’ about pointing out someone is factually wrong, nor does it have anything to do with ‘feeling superior.’

And the only time that happens is when Christians attempt to introduce ‘creationism’ into public schools, in violation of the First Amendment.

Otherwise, Christians are at liberty to believe whatever they want, unbothered and left alone, provided they acknowledge and obey Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Actually it is quite obnoxious, especially considering that it is not a violation of the First Amendment, but that is for another discussion. It is also obnoxious to insist that, somehow, the free practice of religion is negated by the Establishment Clause. It most assuredly is not. Discussing varying cosmologies does nothing whatsoever in the way of establishing a state religion. Nothing at all.

Atheists get their collective panties in a wad any time anyone opines that the universe is an act of creation. That theory is at least as scientifically valid as the notion that shit just happens.

The United States National Academy of Sciences states that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such." and that "the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested." According to Skeptic, the "creation 'science' movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics" and "seriously misrepresents the theory of evolution."

For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

• consistent (internally and externally)
• parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
• useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
• empirically testable and falsifiable
• based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
• correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
• progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
• tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is. If it meets two or fewer of these criteria, it cannot be treated as scientific in any useful sense of the word.

Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses. In 1987, the United States Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms. Most mainline Christian denominations have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins.

A summary of the objections to creation science by scientists follows:

• Creation science is not falsifiable: The act of creation as defined in creation science is not falsifiable because no testable bounds can be imposed on the creator. In creation science, the creator is defined as limitless, with the capacity to create (or not), through fiat alone, infinite universes, not just one, and endow each one with its own unique, unimaginable and incomparable character. It is impossible to disprove a claim when that claim as defined encompasses every conceivable contingency.
  
• Creation science violates the principle of parsimony: Parsimony favours those explanations which rely on the fewest assumptions. Scientists prefer explanations which are consistent with known and supported facts and evidence and require the fewest assumptions to fill remaining gaps. Many of the alternative claims made in creation science retreat from simpler scientific explanations and introduce more complications and conjecture into the equation.
  
• Creation science is not, and cannot be, empirically or experimentally tested: Creationism posits supernatural causes which lie outside the realm of methodological naturalism and scientific experiment. Science can only test empirical, natural claims.
  
• Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive: Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth", the "word of God," which is not open to change. Any evidence that runs contrary to that truth must be disregarded. In science, all claims are tentative, they are forever open to challenge, and must be discarded or adjusted when the weight of evidence demands it.

By invoking claims of "abrupt appearance" of species as a miraculous act, creation science is unsuited for the tools and methods demanded by science, and it cannot be considered scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined. Scientists and science writers commonly characterize creation science as a pseudoscience.

Sources:

Text - Creation science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which had its own sources:

Science, Evolution, and Creationism
Joyce Arthur, Skeptic (U.S. magazine), Vol. 4, No. 4, 1996, pp. 88–93
Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience? An Expose of Duane Gish
Edwards v. Aguillard
Denominational Views | NCSE
Root-Bernstein, Robert (1984). "On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered". In M. F. Ashley Montagu. Science and Creationism. USA: Oxford University Press.
Alston, Jon P. (2003). The Scientific Case Against Scientific Creationism. USA: iUniverse. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-595-29108-3.
Gallant, Roy A. (1984). "To Hell With Evolution". In M. F. Ashley Montagu. Science and Creationism. USA: Oxford University Press. p. 303. ISBN 978-0-19-503253-6.
'CREATION SCIENCE ' IS AN OXYMORON By Stephen Jay Gould Science, above all, is a methodolo
Sahotra Sarkar; Jessica Pfeifer (2006). The Philosophy of science: an encyclopedia. A-M. Psychology Press. p. 194. ISBN 978-0-415-93927-0.
Shermer, Michael (2002). The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience. ABC-CLIO. p. 436. ISBN 978-1-57607-653-8.
Gregory Neil Derry (2002). What Science Is and How It Works. Princeton University Press. p. 170. ISBN 978-0-691-09550-9.
Gregory J. Feist (2006). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. Yale University Press. pp. 219. ISBN 978-0-300-11074-6.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Wednesday on his radio show “Star Talk,” astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson addressed a reader’s query about the Creation Museum and the theory of a “Young Earth,” which is part of the Christian Creationist myth, the idea that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

“I visited the Creation Museum,” wrote the listener, “purely out of a sense of mystified curiosity. The recorded narration in their planetarium said that contemporary astrophysics predicted [sic] that certain stars were older than the known age of the universe and cited this problem as evidence against science and for Young Earth creationism.”

“I was hoping Neil might tell me a little bit more about the problem and its solution,” the note concluded.

“Which problem?” asked Tyson. “That the Creation Museum exists at all?”

He went on to say that while he has nothing against Creationism museums, per se, “just keep it out of the science classroom.”

“We live in a free country,” he continued, “and you can say whatever you want about whatever. That’s what it means to be free. Just don’t confuse it with actual science.”

Tyson explained that there was a time in the 1990s when astronomers had found evidence of stars that were older than the universe’s estimated 15 billion years. The stars appeared to be in the neighborhood of 18 billion years old.

“And you can’t be older than your mother,” he said.

The Hubble telescope has settled these arguments, said Tyson, insofar as 3 billion years constitutes an actual error in cosmology. That number, he said, is well within the margin of error when estimating objects’ ages in the billions of years.

However, now that we’ve had a better look at the furthest reaches of what we know, scientists concluded that the universe is around 18 billion years old.

The Great Neil Tyson has spoken. Creationism is not science save that shit for the camp fires and snake handling folks

Agreed.

The old Testament is essentially a collection of Jewish fairy tales and some tribal codes of conduct.

Fiction.

But that doesn't make the stories any less worth reading.

If there's one thing the story of Adam and Eve teaches us, it's that abstinence (even imposed by God himself) doesn't work. Humans will fuck. Put a candy bowl of plan in every high school nurses office and you'll solve a lot of problems. God is in that bowl.

You wouldn't make a pimple on a Jewish scholar's ass.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

There’s nothing ‘obnoxious’ about pointing out someone is factually wrong, nor does it have anything to do with ‘feeling superior.’

And the only time that happens is when Christians attempt to introduce ‘creationism’ into public schools, in violation of the First Amendment.

Otherwise, Christians are at liberty to believe whatever they want, unbothered and left alone, provided they acknowledge and obey Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Actually it is quite obnoxious, especially considering that it is not a violation of the First Amendment, but that is for another discussion. It is also obnoxious to insist that, somehow, the free practice of religion is negated by the Establishment Clause. It most assuredly is not. Discussing varying cosmologies does nothing whatsoever in the way of establishing a state religion. Nothing at all.

Atheists get their collective panties in a wad any time anyone opines that the universe is an act of creation. That theory is at least as scientifically valid as the notion that shit just happens.

The United States National Academy of Sciences states that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such." and that "the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested." According to Skeptic, the "creation 'science' movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics" and "seriously misrepresents the theory of evolution."

For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

• consistent (internally and externally)
• parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
• useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
• empirically testable and falsifiable
• based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
• correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
• progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
• tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is. If it meets two or fewer of these criteria, it cannot be treated as scientific in any useful sense of the word.

Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses. In 1987, the United States Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms. Most mainline Christian denominations have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins.

A summary of the objections to creation science by scientists follows:

• Creation science is not falsifiable: The act of creation as defined in creation science is not falsifiable because no testable bounds can be imposed on the creator. In creation science, the creator is defined as limitless, with the capacity to create (or not), through fiat alone, infinite universes, not just one, and endow each one with its own unique, unimaginable and incomparable character. It is impossible to disprove a claim when that claim as defined encompasses every conceivable contingency.
  
• Creation science violates the principle of parsimony: Parsimony favours those explanations which rely on the fewest assumptions. Scientists prefer explanations which are consistent with known and supported facts and evidence and require the fewest assumptions to fill remaining gaps. Many of the alternative claims made in creation science retreat from simpler scientific explanations and introduce more complications and conjecture into the equation.
  
• Creation science is not, and cannot be, empirically or experimentally tested: Creationism posits supernatural causes which lie outside the realm of methodological naturalism and scientific experiment. Science can only test empirical, natural claims.
  
• Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive: Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth", the "word of God," which is not open to change. Any evidence that runs contrary to that truth must be disregarded. In science, all claims are tentative, they are forever open to challenge, and must be discarded or adjusted when the weight of evidence demands it.

By invoking claims of "abrupt appearance" of species as a miraculous act, creation science is unsuited for the tools and methods demanded by science, and it cannot be considered scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined. Scientists and science writers commonly characterize creation science as a pseudoscience.

Sources:

Text - Creation science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which had its own sources:

Science, Evolution, and Creationism
Joyce Arthur, Skeptic (U.S. magazine), Vol. 4, No. 4, 1996, pp. 88–93
Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience? An Expose of Duane Gish
Edwards v. Aguillard
Denominational Views | NCSE
Root-Bernstein, Robert (1984). "On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered". In M. F. Ashley Montagu. Science and Creationism. USA: Oxford University Press.
Alston, Jon P. (2003). The Scientific Case Against Scientific Creationism. USA: iUniverse. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-595-29108-3.
Gallant, Roy A. (1984). "To Hell With Evolution". In M. F. Ashley Montagu. Science and Creationism. USA: Oxford University Press. p. 303. ISBN 978-0-19-503253-6.
'CREATION SCIENCE ' IS AN OXYMORON By Stephen Jay Gould Science, above all, is a methodolo
Sahotra Sarkar; Jessica Pfeifer (2006). The Philosophy of science: an encyclopedia. A-M. Psychology Press. p. 194. ISBN 978-0-415-93927-0.
Shermer, Michael (2002). The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience. ABC-CLIO. p. 436. ISBN 978-1-57607-653-8.
Gregory Neil Derry (2002). What Science Is and How It Works. Princeton University Press. p. 170. ISBN 978-0-691-09550-9.
Gregory J. Feist (2006). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. Yale University Press. pp. 219. ISBN 978-0-300-11074-6.

Interesting that all the arguments made against so-called "creation science" are applicable to the Theory of Evolution isn't it?

Evolution theory is not falsifiable, depends on parsimony, cannot be empirically or experimentally tested.

The following statement is a blatant lie: " Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth", the "word of God," which is not open to change."

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Destroyer2]

Actually it is quite obnoxious, especially considering that it is not a violation of the First Amendment, but that is for another discussion. It is also obnoxious to insist that, somehow, the free practice of religion is negated by the Establishment Clause. It most assuredly is not. Discussing varying cosmologies does nothing whatsoever in the way of establishing a state religion. Nothing at all.

Atheists get their collective panties in a wad any time anyone opines that the universe is an act of creation. That theory is at least as scientifically valid as the notion that shit just happens.

The United States National Academy of Sciences states that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such." and that "the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested." According to Skeptic, the "creation 'science' movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics" and "seriously misrepresents the theory of evolution."

For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

• consistent (internally and externally)
• parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
• useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
• empirically testable and falsifiable
• based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
• correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
• progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
• tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is. If it meets two or fewer of these criteria, it cannot be treated as scientific in any useful sense of the word.

Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses. In 1987, the United States Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms. Most mainline Christian denominations have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins.

A summary of the objections to creation science by scientists follows:

• Creation science is not falsifiable: The act of creation as defined in creation science is not falsifiable because no testable bounds can be imposed on the creator. In creation science, the creator is defined as limitless, with the capacity to create (or not), through fiat alone, infinite universes, not just one, and endow each one with its own unique, unimaginable and incomparable character. It is impossible to disprove a claim when that claim as defined encompasses every conceivable contingency.
  
• Creation science violates the principle of parsimony: Parsimony favours those explanations which rely on the fewest assumptions. Scientists prefer explanations which are consistent with known and supported facts and evidence and require the fewest assumptions to fill remaining gaps. Many of the alternative claims made in creation science retreat from simpler scientific explanations and introduce more complications and conjecture into the equation.
  
• Creation science is not, and cannot be, empirically or experimentally tested: Creationism posits supernatural causes which lie outside the realm of methodological naturalism and scientific experiment. Science can only test empirical, natural claims.
  
• Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive: Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth", the "word of God," which is not open to change. Any evidence that runs contrary to that truth must be disregarded. In science, all claims are tentative, they are forever open to challenge, and must be discarded or adjusted when the weight of evidence demands it.

By invoking claims of "abrupt appearance" of species as a miraculous act, creation science is unsuited for the tools and methods demanded by science, and it cannot be considered scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined. Scientists and science writers commonly characterize creation science as a pseudoscience.

Sources:

Text - Creation science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which had its own sources:

Science, Evolution, and Creationism
Joyce Arthur, Skeptic (U.S. magazine), Vol. 4, No. 4, 1996, pp. 88–93
Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience? An Expose of Duane Gish
Edwards v. Aguillard
Denominational Views | NCSE
Root-Bernstein, Robert (1984). "On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered". In M. F. Ashley Montagu. Science and Creationism. USA: Oxford University Press.
Alston, Jon P. (2003). The Scientific Case Against Scientific Creationism. USA: iUniverse. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-595-29108-3.
Gallant, Roy A. (1984). "To Hell With Evolution". In M. F. Ashley Montagu. Science and Creationism. USA: Oxford University Press. p. 303. ISBN 978-0-19-503253-6.
'CREATION SCIENCE ' IS AN OXYMORON By Stephen Jay Gould Science, above all, is a methodolo
Sahotra Sarkar; Jessica Pfeifer (2006). The Philosophy of science: an encyclopedia. A-M. Psychology Press. p. 194. ISBN 978-0-415-93927-0.
Shermer, Michael (2002). The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience. ABC-CLIO. p. 436. ISBN 978-1-57607-653-8.
Gregory Neil Derry (2002). What Science Is and How It Works. Princeton University Press. p. 170. ISBN 978-0-691-09550-9.
Gregory J. Feist (2006). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. Yale University Press. pp. 219. ISBN 978-0-300-11074-6.

Interesting that all the arguments made against so-called "creation science" are applicable to the Theory of Evolution isn't it?

Evolution theory is not falsifiable, depends on parsimony, cannot be empirically or experimentally tested.

The following statement is a blatant lie: " Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth", the "word of God," which is not open to change."

You should be ashamed of yourself.

1. Evolution is considered falsifiable.

2. Um, depending on parsimony is a good thing, not a bad thing. And yes, it does depend on parsimony; all other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that requires the fewest evolutionary changes.

3. It's also testable.

4. I was quoting, I'll admit that I really don't know too much about Creationism and how it works. It's still not scientifically valid though.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Sources:

Text - Creation science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which had its own sources:

Science, Evolution, and Creationism
Joyce Arthur, Skeptic (U.S. magazine), Vol. 4, No. 4, 1996, pp. 88–93
Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience? An Expose of Duane Gish
Edwards v. Aguillard
Denominational Views | NCSE
Root-Bernstein, Robert (1984). "On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered". In M. F. Ashley Montagu. Science and Creationism. USA: Oxford University Press.
Alston, Jon P. (2003). The Scientific Case Against Scientific Creationism. USA: iUniverse. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-595-29108-3.
Gallant, Roy A. (1984). "To Hell With Evolution". In M. F. Ashley Montagu. Science and Creationism. USA: Oxford University Press. p. 303. ISBN 978-0-19-503253-6.
'CREATION SCIENCE ' IS AN OXYMORON By Stephen Jay Gould Science, above all, is a methodolo
Sahotra Sarkar; Jessica Pfeifer (2006). The Philosophy of science: an encyclopedia. A-M. Psychology Press. p. 194. ISBN 978-0-415-93927-0.
Shermer, Michael (2002). The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience. ABC-CLIO. p. 436. ISBN 978-1-57607-653-8.
Gregory Neil Derry (2002). What Science Is and How It Works. Princeton University Press. p. 170. ISBN 978-0-691-09550-9.
Gregory J. Feist (2006). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. Yale University Press. pp. 219. ISBN 978-0-300-11074-6.

Interesting that all the arguments made against so-called "creation science" are applicable to the Theory of Evolution isn't it?

Evolution theory is not falsifiable, depends on parsimony, cannot be empirically or experimentally tested.

The following statement is a blatant lie: " Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth", the "word of God," which is not open to change."

You should be ashamed of yourself.

1. Evolution is considered falsifiable.

2. Um, depending on parsimony is a good thing, not a bad thing. And yes, it does depend on parsimony; all other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that requires the fewest evolutionary changes.

3. It's also testable.

4. I was quoting, I'll admit that I really don't know too much about Creationism and how it works. It's still not scientifically valid though.

Evolution, by its very nature, is not falsifiable. Everyone knows this. Popper knew it.

For some reason, the scientific establishment has decided it is falsifiable, though know one knows why. It certainly does not meet the classic parameters of falsifiability.

Evolution is not testable. Never has been never will be, unless one travels back in time.

It's not observable, either.

There is no doubt in my mind that environment affects the genes of populations. I can buy that. I am equally sure that mechanism does not account for the diversity of life we see on this planet. Evolution implies limitless genetic elasticity. It just isn't so.

No, the real reasons that creationists are excluded whenever possible from the scientific community are philosophical (an inherent bias toward materialism) and political (pressure from interest groups).

There is no good reason that people who believe the universe is an act of creation cannot do science.

 

[Destroyer2]

Evolution, by its very nature, is not falsifiable. Everyone knows this. Popper knew it.

You sure about that?

Karl Popper, who more than any other scientific philosopher promoted falsifiability, initially regarded Darwinian evolution as only a metaphysical research program, because it was too difficult to test. Most of the claims by creationists and others regarding falsifiability derive from these comments by Popper. But subsequently Popper reversed his position, saying, "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation."

Thanks for proving you didn't read.

For some reason, the scientific establishment has decided it is falsifiable, though know one knows why. It certainly does not meet the classic parameters of falsifiability.

There is a possibility of it being proven false, therefore it is falsifiable. Compare to creationism, which starts with an assumption that in and of itself cannot be proven false.

Evolution is not testable. Never has been never will be, unless one travels back in time.

It's not observable, either.

Again, you really should read links. It actually describes specifically experiments done for evolution.

No, the real reasons that creationists are excluded whenever possible from the scientific community are philosophical (an inherent bias toward materialism) and political (pressure from interest groups).

There is no good reason that people who believe the universe is an act of creation cannot do science.

Creationism is not science as defined by the main principles of science! There's no bias involved here.

Creationists can certainly perform science if they want to, I am sure of that; creationism itself, however, is not science. It is religion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually it is quite obnoxious, especially considering that it is not a violation of the First Amendment, but that is for another discussion. It is also obnoxious to insist that, somehow, the free practice of religion is negated by the Establishment Clause. It most assuredly is not. Discussing varying cosmologies does nothing whatsoever in the way of establishing a state religion. Nothing at all.

Atheists get their collective panties in a wad any time anyone opines that the universe is an act of creation. That theory is at least as scientifically valid as the notion that shit just happens.

The United States National Academy of Sciences states that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such." and that "the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested." According to Skeptic, the "creation 'science' movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics" and "seriously misrepresents the theory of evolution."

For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

• consistent (internally and externally)
• parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
• useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
• empirically testable and falsifiable
• based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
• correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
• progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
• tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is. If it meets two or fewer of these criteria, it cannot be treated as scientific in any useful sense of the word.

Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses. In 1987, the United States Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms. Most mainline Christian denominations have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins.

A summary of the objections to creation science by scientists follows:

• Creation science is not falsifiable: The act of creation as defined in creation science is not falsifiable because no testable bounds can be imposed on the creator. In creation science, the creator is defined as limitless, with the capacity to create (or not), through fiat alone, infinite universes, not just one, and endow each one with its own unique, unimaginable and incomparable character. It is impossible to disprove a claim when that claim as defined encompasses every conceivable contingency.
  
• Creation science violates the principle of parsimony: Parsimony favours those explanations which rely on the fewest assumptions. Scientists prefer explanations which are consistent with known and supported facts and evidence and require the fewest assumptions to fill remaining gaps. Many of the alternative claims made in creation science retreat from simpler scientific explanations and introduce more complications and conjecture into the equation.
  
• Creation science is not, and cannot be, empirically or experimentally tested: Creationism posits supernatural causes which lie outside the realm of methodological naturalism and scientific experiment. Science can only test empirical, natural claims.
  
• Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive: Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth", the "word of God," which is not open to change. Any evidence that runs contrary to that truth must be disregarded. In science, all claims are tentative, they are forever open to challenge, and must be discarded or adjusted when the weight of evidence demands it.

By invoking claims of "abrupt appearance" of species as a miraculous act, creation science is unsuited for the tools and methods demanded by science, and it cannot be considered scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined. Scientists and science writers commonly characterize creation science as a pseudoscience.

Sources:

Text - Creation science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which had its own sources:

Science, Evolution, and Creationism
Joyce Arthur, Skeptic (U.S. magazine), Vol. 4, No. 4, 1996, pp. 88–93
Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience? An Expose of Duane Gish
Edwards v. Aguillard
Denominational Views | NCSE
Root-Bernstein, Robert (1984). "On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered". In M. F. Ashley Montagu. Science and Creationism. USA: Oxford University Press.
Alston, Jon P. (2003). The Scientific Case Against Scientific Creationism. USA: iUniverse. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-595-29108-3.
Gallant, Roy A. (1984). "To Hell With Evolution". In M. F. Ashley Montagu. Science and Creationism. USA: Oxford University Press. p. 303. ISBN 978-0-19-503253-6.
'CREATION SCIENCE ' IS AN OXYMORON By Stephen Jay Gould Science, above all, is a methodolo
Sahotra Sarkar; Jessica Pfeifer (2006). The Philosophy of science: an encyclopedia. A-M. Psychology Press. p. 194. ISBN 978-0-415-93927-0.
Shermer, Michael (2002). The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience. ABC-CLIO. p. 436. ISBN 978-1-57607-653-8.
Gregory Neil Derry (2002). What Science Is and How It Works. Princeton University Press. p. 170. ISBN 978-0-691-09550-9.
Gregory J. Feist (2006). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. Yale University Press. pp. 219. ISBN 978-0-300-11074-6.

Interesting that all the arguments made against so-called "creation science" are applicable to the Theory of Evolution isn't it?

Evolution theory is not falsifiable, depends on parsimony, cannot be empirically or experimentally tested.

The following statement is a blatant lie: " Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth", the "word of God," which is not open to change."

You should be ashamed of yourself.

As already correctly noted, as a fact of Constitutional case law ‘creationism’ is indeed religion, not ‘science,’ and as the Court held in Edwards v. Aguillard, to attempt to introduce such religion into public schools is un-Constitutional.

 

[deltex1]

Wednesday on his radio show “Star Talk,” astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson addressed a reader’s query about the Creation Museum and the theory of a “Young Earth,” which is part of the Christian Creationist myth, the idea that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

“I visited the Creation Museum,” wrote the listener, “purely out of a sense of mystified curiosity. The recorded narration in their planetarium said that contemporary astrophysics predicted [sic] that certain stars were older than the known age of the universe and cited this problem as evidence against science and for Young Earth creationism.”

“I was hoping Neil might tell me a little bit more about the problem and its solution,” the note concluded.

“Which problem?” asked Tyson. “That the Creation Museum exists at all?”

He went on to say that while he has nothing against Creationism museums, per se, “just keep it out of the science classroom.”

“We live in a free country,” he continued, “and you can say whatever you want about whatever. That’s what it means to be free. Just don’t confuse it with actual science.”

Tyson explained that there was a time in the 1990s when astronomers had found evidence of stars that were older than the universe’s estimated 15 billion years. The stars appeared to be in the neighborhood of 18 billion years old.

“And you can’t be older than your mother,” he said.

The Hubble telescope has settled these arguments, said Tyson, insofar as 3 billion years constitutes an actual error in cosmology. That number, he said, is well within the margin of error when estimating objects’ ages in the billions of years.

However, now that we’ve had a better look at the furthest reaches of what we know, scientists concluded that the universe is around 18 billion years old.

The Great Neil Tyson has spoken. Creationism is not science save that shit for the camp fires and snake handling folks

And this has what to do with politics?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wednesday on his radio show “Star Talk,” astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson addressed a reader’s query about the Creation Museum and the theory of a “Young Earth,” which is part of the Christian Creationist myth, the idea that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

“I visited the Creation Museum,” wrote the listener, “purely out of a sense of mystified curiosity. The recorded narration in their planetarium said that contemporary astrophysics predicted [sic] that certain stars were older than the known age of the universe and cited this problem as evidence against science and for Young Earth creationism.”

“I was hoping Neil might tell me a little bit more about the problem and its solution,” the note concluded.

“Which problem?” asked Tyson. “That the Creation Museum exists at all?”

He went on to say that while he has nothing against Creationism museums, per se, “just keep it out of the science classroom.”

“We live in a free country,” he continued, “and you can say whatever you want about whatever. That’s what it means to be free. Just don’t confuse it with actual science.”

Tyson explained that there was a time in the 1990s when astronomers had found evidence of stars that were older than the universe’s estimated 15 billion years. The stars appeared to be in the neighborhood of 18 billion years old.

“And you can’t be older than your mother,” he said.

The Hubble telescope has settled these arguments, said Tyson, insofar as 3 billion years constitutes an actual error in cosmology. That number, he said, is well within the margin of error when estimating objects’ ages in the billions of years.

However, now that we’ve had a better look at the furthest reaches of what we know, scientists concluded that the universe is around 18 billion years old.

The Great Neil Tyson has spoken. Creationism is not science save that shit for the camp fires and snake handling folks

And this has what to do with politics?

Obviously you’ve not been paying attention for the last 40 years:

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.

Berry Goldwater

 

[Old Rocks]

Creationism is fine ‘as long as you don’t confuse it with actual science’

More proof the evangelical nuts are trying to force religion into the government. Science is a religion too. String theory, dark matter, alternate universes are all faith based, they're not proven.

Fellow, do you understand what hypothesis means in science? It is far differant than theory, and bears no relation to belief. Sad to see that you are so ignorant.

 

[Old Rocks]

Interesting that all the arguments made against so-called "creation science" are applicable to the Theory of Evolution isn't it?

Evolution theory is not falsifiable, depends on parsimony, cannot be empirically or experimentally tested.

The following statement is a blatant lie: " Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth", the "word of God," which is not open to change."

You should be ashamed of yourself.

1. Evolution is considered falsifiable.

2. Um, depending on parsimony is a good thing, not a bad thing. And yes, it does depend on parsimony; all other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that requires the fewest evolutionary changes.

3. It's also testable.

4. I was quoting, I'll admit that I really don't know too much about Creationism and how it works. It's still not scientifically valid though.

Evolution, by its very nature, is not falsifiable. Everyone knows this. Popper knew it.

For some reason, the scientific establishment has decided it is falsifiable, though know one knows why. It certainly does not meet the classic parameters of falsifiability.

Evolution is not testable. Never has been never will be, unless one travels back in time.

It's not observable, either.

There is no doubt in my mind that environment affects the genes of populations. I can buy that. I am equally sure that mechanism does not account for the diversity of life we see on this planet. Evolution implies limitless genetic elasticity. It just isn't so.

No, the real reasons that creationists are excluded whenever possible from the scientific community are philosophical (an inherent bias toward materialism) and political (pressure from interest groups).

There is no good reason that people who believe the universe is an act of creation cannot do science.

Obviously, you have never studied evolutionery science at all. I suggest that you read Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Meyr to correct your obvious ignorance.

 

[Seawytch]

Non sequitur. That poll is not asking about a 6,000 year old Earth. You will find that only about 20 percent of Americans believe in a Young Earth.

No, it asked 10k or less...

Ah. So it did. Mea culpa.

Well, it is a good thing the truth and reality are not dependent on popular vote. Otherwise, the moon might be made of cheese!

Praise Cheesus!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Atheism is a religion, based on faith just like creationism.

Science of the other hand is based on empirical data.

No comparison at all, for either set of nuts.

Creationism in the liberal arts and evolution in the sciences.

Now go to bed without dessert.

 

[healthmyths]

All of you that are spouting such great scientific terms in denouncing the good old snake handlers that believe have faith in Creationism..
YOU still haven't with all your mumbo jumbo explained WHY you can't count?
YOU support as "scientifically" oriented idiots the joke you make of creationism BUT none of you have YET to answer MY simple math question!
How is there 46 million "uninsured" that caused the ACA bill to be passed when after subtracting 10 million illegals counted as uninsured,
14 million that don't know ALL they need do is register with Medicaid and the gigantic hyperbolic inclusion of 18 million that don't want
health insurance! That leaves 4 million when you subtract 42 million from 46 million!

So all you idiots poking fun of people that believe in creationism... HOW in the f..k do you keep supporting the myth of 46 million?

This thread is about quote "scientific" reasoning that creationism is a myth!
46 million uninsured is a REAL LIFE MYTH that is affecting EVERYONE's pocket book today!
If you call your self intelligent i.e. poking fun of "creationism" THEN WHY do you support a MYTH of 46 million uninsured?
MAKES NO sense!