Creation science or Humanistic science?

[Guest CreatnScienc]

I have noticed some relevancy between some members posts/replies and creation science. That got me wondering about member's beliefs.

Do you believe in Creation Science or Huministic (Evolutionary) Science (the 'big bang')?

[In My Memory]

Do you believe in Creation Science or Huministic (Evolutionary) Science?

I believe in turtles all the way down.

[BenSon]

I believe in turtles all the way down.

Just wait, WTF did I read that before?

 

~Scott

[JaKiri]

Do you believe in Creation Science or Huministic (Evolutionary) Science (the 'big bang')?

 

What exactly is "Creation Science"?

 

Just wait' date=' WTF did I read that before?

 

~Scott[/quote']

 

All over the place. I've encountered it in (if memory serves) Douglas Adams, Feynmann and Pratchett.

[swansont]

I have noticed some relevancy between some members posts/replies and creation science. That got me wondering about member's beliefs.

Do you believe in Creation Science or Huministic (Evolutionary) Science (the 'big bang')?

 

Define how you are using "belief."

[Hellbender]

Do you believe in Creation Science

Which isn't true science, but pseudoscience

or Huministic (Evolutionary) Science (the 'big bang')?

Which is true science, but I fail to see how it relates to humanism.

(BTW, biological evolution and big bang theory are both seperate theories)

[Hellbender]

Define how you are using "belief."

Exactly. Real science does not require belief, so please clear this up.

[Guest CreatnScienc]

JaKiri: The term "Creation Science" is the belief that there IS a Creator, and that all things came to be by creation, not "natural selection" or humanistic evolutionary science.

 

swansont: The word "belief", according to The American Heritage Dictionary states: "Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons."

Every person believes in either creation or evolution.

 

Hellbender: You call the evolutionary theory "true science"? The word theory is properly defined as:

1. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

2. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

"True science" is something that could be tested and demonstrated. Evolution cannot be tested or demonstrated.

 

This is turning from an opinionated poll of beliefs, to a debate on what true science is. So, I would like to curb the debate before it happens. Let me define what science is. Science is an experiment that is testable and demonstratable. That's it. Both of the "sciences" that I am refering to are theories that cannot be tested or demonstrated. Sorry guys, but evolution is a theory.

[Nicholas]

Einstein was a creation scientist in a way:

 

"I want to know how God created this world.

I want to know his thoughts. The rest are just

details."

[ydoaPs]

(BTW, biological evolution and big bang theory are both seperate theories)

and neither are mutually exlusive with intelligent design, no matter what creationist tell you.

[abbadon]

Do you believe in Creation Science or Huministic (Evolutionary) Science (the 'big bang')?

 

evolution? its just a theory! PERIOD!

[swansont]

swansont: The word "belief"' date=' according to The American Heritage Dictionary states: "Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons."

Every person believes in either creation or evolution.

[/quote']

 

The important distinction is why one accepts it as being true.

 

Merriam-Webster's definition of belief is "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"

 

Creation is not accepted based on critical examination of evidence.

 

faith is listed as a synonym, with this note: FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>.

 

Using these definitions, people have faith that creation is correct, or believe that evolution is.

 

M-W's defintion of believe shows the problem in a little sharper focus: "1 a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept as true, genuine, or real"

 

Belief in scientific results is not religious in nature - it's not faith - when it is because of evidence. To try and apply the same definition of belief/believe to both viewpoints is to succumb to (or attempt to exploit) the fallacy of equivocation.

[swansont]

evolution? its just a theory! PERIOD!

 

Whenever someone says that X is just a theory, it always raises the question, in my mind, if they understand what a theory is. Theory is the pinnacle in science, so it's an odd juxtaposition. Like, "it's just the Nobel prize," (said as if it's no big deal, i.e. not as sarcasm)

[In My Memory]

CreatnScienc,

 

Hellbender: You call the evolutionary theory "true science"? The word theory is properly defined as:

1. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

2. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

That is the definition of "theory" in everyday speaking - however' date=' that definition has nothing to do with the way scientists use the word "theory". A theory in science is a large group of related facts, observations, and laws to describe natural phenomena (think General Theory of Relativity, germ theory, gravitational theory, plate techtonics theory, theory of electrolyte solutions etc.)

 

If you want to talk about science, use its terminology in a scientific context.

 

"True science" is something that could be tested and demonstrated. Evolution cannot be tested or demonstrated.

Evolution makes lots of testable conclusions, it is demonstrated every year when we observe bacterial resistance to antibiotics and insect resistance to pesticides, and it has been demonstrated in the lab (see here).

 

According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Creationism, "true science" is defined according to a few characteristics:

It is guided by natural law;

It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;

It is testable against the empirical world;

Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and

It is falsifiable.

[Sayonara]

What does humanism have to do with evolutionary theory, or the big bang?

[Hellbender]

Hellbender: You call the evolutionary theory "true science"? The word theory is properly defined as:

Theories are a big part of real science. I'm afraid biological evolution theory has been tested for over a century and has a lot of evidence behind it, which is something you would know if you just put down the Gish and pick up the Gould.

2. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

"True science" is something that could be tested and demonstrated. Evolution cannot be tested or demonstrated.

Wrong again. It has been tested for over a century, and is demonstrated every time you go to the supermarket and buy things like seedless watermelons and turkeys so dumb and fat that they drown in heavy rain.

Both of the "sciences" that I am refering to are theories that cannot be tested or demonstrated.

You are half right. Creationism is a theory that can't be tested or demonstrated. It is taken on faith and that is not science. Evolution is a theory that can be and has been tested, numerous times, for over a century.

Sorry guys, but evolution is a theory.

You make it seem like "theory" is something someone dreamt up after being drunk all night. See, biological evolution a fact as well as a theory. You are probably wondering how something can be both. The notion that organisms change over time and all share a distant common ancestor happens to be a fact. The theory part is a way to explain this fact.The reason it remains a theory and isn't conclusively proven is becuase a theory is a work in progress, it always has to remain so to make room for new evidence.

[Hellbender]

What does humanism have to do with evolutionary theory, or the big bang?

Thats what I was wondering.

[swansont]

"What does humanism have to do with evolutionary theory' date=' or the big bang?"

 

Thats what I was wondering.[/quote']

 

 

Nothing, of course. It's an attempt to smear science by painting it a certain way. Guilt by association. A not-dissimilar tactic as the equivocation of using two different definitions of belief.

 

"[Creationists] haven't cornered the market on intellectual dishonesty, but it's not for lack of trying." (me)

[Skye]

"True science" is something that could be tested and demonstrated. Evolution cannot be tested or demonstrated.

Of course it can. Evolution is a process, and you can obviously test whether a process occurs or not, and demonstate it if it does. Read talkorigins.org, as an example, the speciation FAQ:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[-Demosthenes-]

The term "Creation Science" is the belief that there IS a Creator' date=' and that all things came to be by creation, not "natural selection" or humanistic evolutionary science.

[/quote']

"Creation Science" is exclusive from natural selection?

You call the evolutionary theory "true science"?

Not the "theory is only a guess" thing again... It gets so old, and no matter how many times you use it, a theory is still a theory, and definitely not a guess. A theory has enough evidence to show that it is true with only the slightest amount of room for doubt.

[fuhrerkeebs]

I'm assuming by Humanistic Evolutionary Science you mean naturalism? I don't see what humanism has to do with it though...

[Mokele]

The term "Creation Science" is the belief that there IS a Creator, and that all things came to be by creation, not "natural selection" or humanistic evolutionary science.

 

That's a belief, not science. Science is facts, evidence, logic, and the scientific method. Creationism doesn't even come close. It deserves the title of "science" as much as I deserve the title of "Lead singer of the Rolling Stones".

 

Every person believes in either creation or evolution.

 

Believing in evolution is like believing in gravity. Jump off a building to see how much effect your disbelief has on reality. Evolution is fact, and therefore not subject to belief.

 

Hellbender: You call the evolutionary theory "true science"? The word theory is properly defined as:

1. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

2. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

"True science" is something that could be tested and demonstrated. Evolution cannot be tested or demonstrated.

 

You clearly have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Learn something, then we might not dismiss you as a crackpot.

 

Oh, and FYI, evolution not only can be tested and demonstrated, it *has* been. So many times that denial of it can only arise from either ignorance or willful denial to the point of intellectual dishonesty. Which category are you in?

 

This is turning from an opinionated poll of beliefs, to a debate on what true science is. So, I would like to curb the debate before it happens. Let me define what science is. Science is an experiment that is testable and demonstratable. That's it. Both of the "sciences" that I am refering to are theories that cannot be tested or demonstrated. Sorry guys, but evolution is a theory.

 

You really, truly don't have a clue, do you?

 

Theories *ARE* science, and evolution has been *observed* empirically, in the lab and in the wild. Not just at the small scale; we've witnessed *dozens* of speciation events.

 

Your ignorance is actually painful.

 

Einstein was a creation scientist in a way:

 

Welcome to one of the many things that earned you a ban.

 

evolution? its just a theory! PERIOD!

 

So is gravity. I suggest you test this theory for us, preferably by hurling yourself from the top of a tall building. It will simultaneously demonstrate the theory of gravity *and* the theory of evolution.

 

 

I swear, we need to make "It's just a theory" a bannable offense.

 

Mokele

[Hellbender]

I swear, we need to make "It's just a theory" a bannable offense.

I agree. I was throwing around the idea in my head that we should post a sticky refuting the most common and downright bad creationist arguments, or maybe copy and sticky the article "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense".

[Phi for All]

I was throwing around the idea in my head that we should post a sticky refuting the most common and downright bad creationist arguments, or maybe copy and sticky the article "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense".

Working on that, actually. Dak had the idea and Mokele is helping. I'm along to help with Dak's spelling and Mokele's expletives where creation science is concerned.

 

Did the OP really want the poll to close after just a few days?

[Hellbender]

Working on that, actually. Dak had the idea and Mokele is helping. I'm along to help with Dak's spelling and Mokele's expletives where creation science is concerned.

Excellent. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.