"Creation science ... should be incorporated into every Biology book" in Texas

[Retro Rob]

The recognition of such a cause may provide certain things, but this recognition is a faith based recognition, which I do believe you mentioned in a prior post, so you are aware of that.

Yes, it is based on faith, but faith isn't arbitrary...I don't make stuff up and call it "faith". God is faith-based in the sense of believing he exists without having to see him...the evidence of his existence being what we see and his "creative power" in the organization of the material Universe which makes life possible.

You also mentioned that such a recognition shouldn't be in a science class since science, by its nature, can't deal with things that are undetectable unless they can be relevant in some indirect way where science suggests that they should be there, something like the Higgs Boson.

I cannot comment on the Higgs since I haven't looked into it really at all, but I am more along the lines that science isn't sole arbiter of what's real and what's not.

God has to be immaterial, because if he isn't, he cannot bring forth something he relies on for his own existence. I think the Universe had a beginning, and who/whatever began it, has to exist outside of what's required for the Universe to exist.

I don't see anything wrong at all with schools "teaching" or offering a class on intelligent design. I think if people want that then they should do it, but it can be its own class where people can speculate all they want about the subject in a structured way and the class can be like a philosophy/science-ish class or something. I'm sure others will disagree, but if the class is offered in a stand alone flavor then you can take it or not but it shouldn't be mixed in with dedicated science class and shouldn't be incorporated into science texts since it is not based on objective evidence.
Why can't it just be included in religious studies?

I agree, but since we're hard-wired to believe in a...shall I say "Greater Good", its more than speculation, especially since the 'God spot' has been disproven...I think we have legitimate reason to believe in a God of some sort.

Evidence shows that man has been worshipping things since the very beginning of man...so there is what I deem "strong circumstantial evidence" of a God.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Nice try twisting what I stated.

I haven't twisted anything. You believe that life had always existed. Of course, the definition of "life" becomes very important here, which is precisely why I insisted you supply a rigorous definition -- and your reluctance to do so has not gone unnoticed.

I said life can't come from non-living material, so what I am saying is that since life hasn't always existed on this planet, it had to come from something "living" already.

You made no stipulations about life "on this planet." You are again implored to define "life" in a rigorous way.

EDIT: To be clear, I do believe life began ON EARTH. Life, generally, has always existed (i,e God).

In what way is this "God" apparently "life"?

I am.

No you're not. You're contradicting yourself.

Coincidentally, science can't test "before life" (as in, before the Big Bang)

So it isn't the fact you claimed it was.

...so I am not surprised you aren't convinced...you rely almost exclusively on material explanations which molds how you think.

I rely on natural explanations because methodological naturalism is the only reliable method for developing explanations.

So are you saying living matter *can* possibly spring from non-living matter? On what are you basing this?

It doesn't present a logical contradiction, and I know that there isn't a clear differentiation between "living" and "non-living" matter that would preclude it.

More specifically, I'm saying that concluding "it can't happen" based on the fact that "we've never seen it happen" is the fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

 

[Retro Rob]

I haven't twisted anything. You believe that life had always existed. Of course, the definition of "life" becomes very important here, which is precisely why I insisted you supply a rigorous definition -- and your reluctance to do so has not gone unnoticed.

"Life", meaning, anything "living" that can replicate...per my definition.

You made no stipulations about life "on this planet." You are again implored to define "life" in a rigorous way.

See above.

In what way is this "God" apparently "life"?

God's life because he sprang life forth. This all goes back to there being no scientific experiment proving that life (my definition) can spring from something non-living.

In a nutshell, saying that we don't need life to bring forth life is inconsistent with what science cannot do...and that's provide evidence of life coming from non-life. Requiring me to define life "in rigorous terms" is a clear red-herring...and I think you know this.

No you're not. You're contradicting yourself.

How? I believe life on earth has a beginning.

So it isn't the fact you claimed it was.

Scientifically, no... it isn't fact.

I rely on natural explanations because methodological naturalism is the only reliable method for developing explanations.

It's the only material method...I think humans are hard-wired to look beyond scientific explanations for stuff. Or are you of the opinion that if science can't test it, it must be false, or not worth considering?

More specifically, I'm saying that concluding "it can't happen" based on the fact that "we've never seen it happen" is the fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

No, it isn't...unless you're willing to include the conclusion drawn by atheists that just because we haven't scientifically proven/disproven God's existence, he simply is non-existent.

 

[moonbogg]

Yes, it is based on faith, but faith isn't arbitrary...I don't make stuff up and call it "faith". God is faith-based in the sense of believing he exists without having to see him...the evidence of his existence being what we see and his "creative power" in the organization of the material Universe which makes life possible.

We have common ground. I think that belief in god is rational. No matter what religion has to say and no matter what anyone has to say, belief in god is rational. Our experience of existing is enough to lead us to strongly suspect that there is a first and uncaused cause. We do our best to make sense of the world and no one can deny that god is and has been a leading candidate for the ultimate answer. A person can lean on god for understanding, or they can lean upon other things, like science, including a combination of the two. We all choose what makes the most sense to us and our minds are subject to change.
Regarding this thread and its topic, I think its misplaced of people to use science as a tool to answer non scientific questions. There are different approaches people take to answering questions. Religion is one way and science is another. Some people use both, but they are fundamentally different in their nature. A science class should remain a science class, regardless of whether or not science is capable of getting things right. If science fails, then it does so under its own weight, and it will be replaced with something better. But until that day comes, science will be science and should be taught as science and no attempt to mix with religion should be made in the context of a science class. If that happened, it would no longer be a science class.

 

[OverVolt]

Must be alot of Atheists living in Texas on this forum.

:/

Or are you guys making issues out of things that don't affect you again?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Must be alot of Atheists living in Texas on this forum.

:/

Or are you guys making issues out of things that don't affect you again?

Stupidity is worth fighting no matter where it rears its ugly head.

 

[moonbogg]

Stupidity is worth fighting no matter where it rears its ugly head.

Realizing that we are all ignorant to a staggering degree, and that no one should be looked down upon for being human, is worth even more.
Are you so different from those that had faith 500 years ago that you should judge them for their ignorance? Are you so much better than anyone in this thread that you should judge them for their audacity to try to make sense of the world?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Realizing that we are all ignorant to a staggering degree, and that no one should be looked down upon for being human, is worth even more.
Are you so different from those that had faith 500 years ago that you should judge them for their ignorance? Are you so much better than anyone in this thread that you should judge them for their audacity to try to make sense of the world?

500 years ago is not now. And I would very much like it if you left your 16th century beliefs where they belong, in the 16th century.

 

[dawp]

faith is not proof. there will never be proof of the existence of a god/creator. just as the ancient greek/roman gods went to the wayside so will the current one.

 

[moonbogg]

500 years ago is not now. And I would very much like it if you left your 16th century beliefs where they belong, in the 16th century.

Regarding my beliefs, you are about 1000 years off.

 

[lotus503]

500 years ago is not now. And I would very much like it if you left your 16th century beliefs where they belong, in the 16th century.

Here is the issue with your line of thinking. One thing that bothers me about religious folks, is the inherent need they have to help others see the world through their viewpoint, You frankly are doing the exact same thing.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Here is the issue with your line of thinking. One thing that bothers me about religious folks, is the inherent need they have to help others see the world through their viewpoint, You frankly are doing the exact same thing.

The difference is that my beliefs have not yet been shown to be demonstrably wrong by systematic investigation and research.

 

[Onceler]

Whose been proven wrong? The Catholic church(whom deliberately altered ancient texts to make them more believable to the simple farmers(the numbers were just too huge for these folks to fathom), or the Protestants whom did the same thing and both are guilty of pushing fairy tales to make kids believe,or is it atheists whom want all mention of God expunged from the records no matter how ridiculous their theories are(panspermia)?Note they don't have to get their theories right they just have to make it seem like the Christians are nut(which most of them are), they will ally themselves with (and often are found in the company of)anyone who is anti Christian even Satanists.

 

[sandorski]

Whose been proven wrong? The Catholic church(whom deliberately altered ancient texts to make them more believable to the simple farmers(the numbers were just too huge for these folks to fathom), or the Protestants whom did the same thing and both are guilty of pushing fairy tales to make kids believe,or is it atheists whom want all mention of God expunged from the records no matter how ridiculous their theories are(panspermia)?Note they don't have to get their theories right they just have to make it seem like the Christians are nut(which most of them are), they will ally themselves with (and often are found in the company of)anyone who is anti Christian even Satanists.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

"Life", meaning, anything "living" that can replicate...per my definition.

can't really use the word to define itself, you basically just said anything that is "alive" is life...brilliant.

obviously you understand the problem here, because stars and computer viruses would fit part of your definition of life as they replicate, which is clearly why you knew you had to throw in the safety net of "living" things and thus they would not fit...so what is a "living" thing?

 

[Retro Rob]

obviously you understand the problem here, because stars and computer viruses would fit part of your definition of life as they replicate, which is clearly why you knew you had to throw in the safety net of "living" things and thus they would not fit...so what is a "living" thing?

You're more than welcome to provided a more accurate definition as I will concede that I may not know how to define what "life" is.

You can also continue to distract from the overall point of science not being able to provide evidence of something "living" coming from non-living material under the guise of me not being able to say life cannot come from non-life unless I first define what life is.

Like I said, this is a BS red-herring designed to dodge the inevitable conclusion you're trying so hard to avoid.

 

[PowerEngineer]

We have common ground. I think that belief in god is rational. No matter what religion has to say and no matter what anyone has to say, belief in god is rational.

I suggest that it's more accurate to say that a belief in god can be rational to the extent that that belief is structured in an internally consistent way (i.e. no internal logical contradictions) and doesn't run counter to what the world demonstrates to us. It can also be rational not to believe in god if you think that there's inadequate evidence to warrant it.

Our experience of existing is enough to lead us to strongly suspect that there is a first and uncaused cause. We do our best to make sense of the world and no one can deny that god is and has been a leading candidate for the ultimate answer. A person can lean on god for understanding, or they can lean upon other things, like science, including a combination of the two. We all choose what makes the most sense to us and our minds are subject to change.

Popularity, past or present, has little to do with the likelihood of an answer's truth.

I agree that "a person can lean on god" for explanations of things for which we have no better answers, however it seems that these faith-based explanations are not easily "subject to change" when better answers do come along (e.g. evolution of life).

The rational mix for science and philosophy/religion is one with no overlaps. IMHO this means that answers based on philosophy/religion have to yield to those answers provided by the expanding scope of science.

Regarding this thread and its topic, I think its misplaced of people to use science as a tool to answer non scientific questions. There are different approaches people take to answering questions. Religion is one way and science is another. Some people use both, but they are fundamentally different in their nature. A science class should remain a science class, regardless of whether or not science is capable of getting things right. If science fails, then it does so under its own weight, and it will be replaced with something better. But until that day comes, science will be science and should be taught as science and no attempt to mix with religion should be made in the context of a science class. If that happened, it would no longer be a science class.

I agree (although I don't expect science to be replaced any more than religion will be).

In a nutshell, philosophy/religion should not be used to answer questions that science can address, and science can not be used to answer questions other than those about the observable nature of the physical universe (e.g. no "why" questions).

You're more than welcome to provided a more accurate definition as I will concede that I may not know how to define what "life" is.

You can also continue to distract from the overall point of science not being able to provide evidence of something "living" coming from non-living material under the guise of me not being able to say life cannot come from non-life unless I first define what life is.

Like I said, this is a BS red-herring designed to dodge the inevitable conclusion you're trying so hard to avoid.

It's fair to say that science has demonstrated that some of the so-called "building blocks" of life can be formed through natural processes, which certainly gives some support to the idea "life" came into existence out of interactions amongst "non-living" constituents.

I recognize that this falls far short of the "evidence" you're looking for to prove that it did/can happen. On the other hand, you certainly haven't provided any evidence (other than your own opinion) that something "living" can NOT come from non-living material. It seems to me that your insistence that there's only one side to this coin is "a BS red-herring designed to dodge the inevitable conclusion" that this question has not been scientifically answered yet.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

God created evolution as part of His universe. Evolution is simply one method God uses to create life.


Science is man's way of discovering more about God's creation and the wondrous methods He uses.


Science points to God.

 

[sandorski]

God created evolution as part of His universe. Evolution is simply one method God uses to create life.


Science is man's way of discovering more about God's creation and the wondrous methods He uses.


Science points to God.

Your first 2 points can be argued reasonably. The last point can not.

 

[Retro Rob]

It's fair to say that science has demonstrated that some of the so-called "building blocks" of life can be formed through natural processes, which certainly gives some support to the idea "life" came into existence out of interactions amongst "non-living" constituents.

"Some" is not "all"...as we have yet to prove all ofthe "building blocks" can come from natural processes. Secondly, no one can say what the earth's conditions were like before life began, so the artificial atmospheric lab environments could simply be off.

Its an article of faith.

At any rate, I believe these building blocks are arranged in such a way that life can begin...I think it takes a huge leap of faith to say these can all be formed through natural processes, and arrange in such a fashion to allow life to come into existence all on its own.

Then, I wonder if science is busy trying to prove it, in essence, "forcing the evidence to say something it doesn't."

I recognize that this falls far short of the "evidence" you're looking for to prove that it did/can happen. On the other hand, you certainly haven't provided any evidence (other than your own opinion) that something "living" can NOT come from non-living material. It seems to me that your insistence that there's only one side to this coin is "a BS red-herring designed to dodge the inevitable conclusion" that this question has not been scientifically answered yet.

Fair enough. I will say, then, that I don't believe life can come from non-life.

 

[moonbogg]

I suggest that it's more accurate to say that a belief in god can be rational to the extent that that belief is structured in an internally consistent way (i.e. no internal logical contradictions) and doesn't run counter to what the world demonstrates to us. It can also be rational not to believe in god if you think that there's inadequate evidence to warrant it.



Popularity, past or present, has little to do with the likelihood of an answer's truth.

I agree that "a person can lean on god" for explanations of things for which we have no better answers, however it seems that these faith-based explanations are not easily "subject to change" when better answers do come along (e.g. evolution of life).

The rational mix for science and philosophy/religion is one with no overlaps. IMHO this means that answers based on philosophy/religion have to yield to those answers provided by the expanding scope of science.



I agree (although I don't expect science to be replaced any more than religion will be).

In a nutshell, philosophy/religion should not be used to answer questions that science can address, and science can not be used to answer questions other than those about the observable nature of the physical universe (e.g. no "why" questions).

Just trying to find solidarity with those who believe in god. Trying to let them know I don't think they are stupid or crazy. I'm trying to let them know that my respect for them as a fellow person overrides my personal desire to be correct on a forum, but I will clarify when I feel necessary. I knew my words would get noticed and corrected in meticulous detail. How exhausting to be quite honest. This back and forth game of nit pick.

 

[Retro Rob]

Just trying to find solidarity with those who believe in god. Trying to let them know I don't think they are stupid or crazy. I'm trying to let them know that my respect for them as a fellow person overrides my personal desire to be correct on a forum, but I will clarify when I feel necessary. I knew my words would get noticed and corrected in meticulous detail. How exhausting to be quite honest. This back and forth game of nit pick.

It is perfectly natrual to believe in a Creator God, in my opinion. I'd say we are predisposed to it naturally.

Man's history is full of 'worship' in some shape or form. Its like we have an in-born capacity, an uncontrollable desire, to look to someone/something greater than the human mind.

This is probably the direct cause of religion, organized worship, sacrifices to please the "gods", etc.

 

[moonbogg]

It is perfectly natrual to believe in a Creator God, in my opinion. I'd say we are predisposed to it naturally.

Man's history is full of 'worship' in some shape or form. Its like we have an in-born capacity, an uncontrollable desire, to look to someone/something greater than the human mind.

This is probably the direct cause of religion, organized worship, sacrifices to please the "gods", etc.

Exactly. When I came to realize the nature of my beliefs, after much searching, I was finally comfortable saying to myself I was atheist/agnostic/free thinker whatever you want to call it. And so, I embarked on a journey of assholeism and treated anyone who didn't think like me as if they were stupid and not enlightened like me.
After realizing I wasn't as free as I thought I was, due to my false pride, I stopped being mean and lost the overwhelming desire to try to correct people. Now I embrace what I am. I'm human just like you with similar impulses and thought tendencies. I still look for signs of pattern and agency in the world, but now I get to embrace it, let it flourish and sort of observe my own behavior and enjoy it while trying to remain objective. I have fun with my thoughts now instead of taking them so damn seriously.

 

[Retro Rob]

Exactly. When I came to realize the nature of my beliefs, after much searching, I was finally comfortable saying to myself I was atheist/agnostic/free thinker whatever you want to call it. And so, I embarked on a journey of assholeism and treated anyone who didn't think like me as if they were stupid and not enlightened like me.

Interesting. I've seen plenty of believers who are the same way.

I just think people who rely soley on what science can/cannot test and address think that there is no other path to "truth", which fosters the above attitude, in my opinion. They are, at times, just as dogmatic.

After realizing I wasn't as free as I thought I was, due to my false pride, I stopped being mean and lost the overwhelming desire to try to correct people. Now I embrace what I am. I'm human just like you with similar impulses and thought tendencies. I still look for signs of pattern and agency in the world, but now I get to embrace it, let it flourish and sort of observe my own behavior and enjoy it while trying to remain objective. I have fun with my thoughts now instead of taking them so damn seriously.

:thumbsup:

I agree, and I think there are too many unknowns for us to eliminate non-scientific possibilites. Humans are complex, physical, and spiritual beings...I think we require a bit more than material explanations, especially when "why" questions come up, which are important to discuss.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Just trying to find solidarity with those who believe in god. Trying to let them know I don't think they are stupid or crazy. I'm trying to let them know that my respect for them as a fellow person overrides my personal desire to be correct on a forum, but I will clarify when I feel necessary. I knew my words would get noticed and corrected in meticulous detail. How exhausting to be quite honest. This back and forth game of nit pick.

Well, I'm glad to know that I fulfilled your prediction. And here I thought I was finding some "solidarity" with you.

I agree wtih you that mutual respect needs to be reflected in everyone's posts, but IMHO that doesn't mean that we need to somehow obfiscate our actual thoughts in order to better get along. Perhaps it would be even disrespectful to do so.

I'm sorry my "meticulous detail" comments have exhausted you. I'll look forward to your "nit picks".

It is perfectly natrual to believe in a Creator God, in my opinion. I'd say we are predisposed to it naturally.

Man's history is full of 'worship' in some shape or form. Its like we have an in-born capacity, an uncontrollable desire, to look to someone/something greater than the human mind.

This is probably the direct cause of religion, organized worship, sacrifices to please the "gods", etc.

I think that what's natural is our desire to find explanations for what we experience in the world around us (i.e. curiousity?), and better yet identify actions we can take to influence that experience. The scientific method has proven to provide us with many practical explanations, but also leaves many unanswered questions. It seems to me that religion provides its believers with answers to some of these questions, along with actions meant to influence some outcomes.