Is "Creationism" Anti-Science? - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Nemo · #46 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has ruled that “Intelligent Design” is not science; and under the Lemon test has no place in the school curriculum. See Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005). If it had any philosophical merit, one might be able to suffer it; but it is religious nonsense.

Donkey_Left · #47 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malvolio

Perhaps God created evolution?

No shit.

Hank · #48 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by IIIX

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

Keeping it simple....an article I read questions the early precepts of evolution...for instance the development of vision, i.e. eyes..........the development of flagellum in microorganisms... etc..

Do I throw away the concept of evolution, in favor of a higher power? no, but there are legitimate questions ....

Hey yea!!! How did mother nature know smells existed so she could design us a nose???

I am not particularly qualified in biology, but even I can try to explain this.

Smelling is only a different way to taste; instead of getting the sensation from a chemical reaction of food on your tongue, it comes from a chemical reaction of air in your nose.
I guess some odours were so strong that you could taste them - snakes, for example, smell with their tongues. Perhaps smelling evolved from that.

But they don’t really have any similarities as far as design goes, smell molecules fit into nerve cells shaped like puzzle gaps exactly matching puzzle shapes of farts and stuff. Taste comes from specialized cells that react to chemicals that communicate to nerves.

Quote:

These problems are difficult to solve (my solution is just a hypothese I made up for this thread), because they require both imagination and a good study of the existing fossils to check hypothesis; and we don't have fossils of every single animal.

I know what you mean, we don’t have any gaps
Every date of our existence has undisputable scientific evidence and documentation. The bible even tells us that large dinosaurs were to big to survive on hard ground. They lived in swamps and marshes:

noahath · #49 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007

[quote=Hank;987377]The bible even tells us that large dinosaurs were to big to survive on hard ground. They lived in swamps and marshes:
/QUOTE]

You and I must have read different Bibles then Hank, as I can't recall dinosaurs being mentioned anywhere.

Captain Trips · #50 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

No you have not..everything can be explained..theres no such thing as mysticism, paranormal activity or ‘things that cannot be explained...

Everything can NOT "be explained".

You've explained your beleif that everything CAN. That doesn't make it so.

Captain Trips · #51 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Agreed. I think a (perhaps over simplistic) division is that science asks "how" and religion asks "why".

Yes, this sounds right. Simplistic, maybe, but often simple IS right :-)

Captain Trips · #52 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

I would say this... Creationism, that is to say, the idea that a supernatural being was involved in the creation of our universe and everything in it.

As such, creationism is not anti science. However, many, many creationists are.

Nicely stated.

Captain Trips · #53 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malvolio

Perhaps God created evolution?

Yes.

And, why NOT ?

We were created from the mud (according to a certain book).

From the mud we crawled (according to evolution). "Crawled" being a relative term meaning that over millions of years :-)

Captain Trips · #54 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank

Aaha. I knew that was you...

Yes, it's me. Yeah, used to be known as "Thane" here. Still me :-)

Captain Trips · #55 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemo

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has ruled that “Intelligent Design” is not science; and under the Lemon test has no place in the school curriculum. See Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005). If it had any philosophical merit, one might be able to suffer it; but it is religious nonsense.

Yes, we're all aware of your faith in nothing and your hatred for people that HAVE faith in a "God" or a greater "meaning".

We've repeatedly seen your hate for them covered up with attempted disguise, by your use of pleasantries and seeming "logic".

Imperator · #56 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I might have to get back to you on this, but I read something on this subject some time ago that was pretty interesting. It talked about the development of intra-dependent mechanisms (like the eye) and how certain advanced computer models had simulated their spontaneous development. I don't have a link at the moment - I'll probably have to dig around a little.

Edit: For reference, this is what ID champion Behe has termed "irreducible complexity". A google search on Behe and his cute term might yield all sorts of interesting takes from both sides of the issue.

Certainly. The day we run out of legitimate questions is the day of the death (or completion, I suppose) of the scientific method.

yes and in addition there are a lot of questions as to why there are NO archeological examples of the cross over......no examples of species that display the evolution towards sight etc......in biological sense.....admittedly regards protozoa, evidence of the development of movement would be extremely hard to find, but regards sight? I would think there would be examples of graduated evolution towards this development...

Donkey_Left · #57 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007

Even very basic organisms are often light sensitive. Sight, if I am not very very very wrong, is just highly advanced light sensitivity.

Mrs. M · #58 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samantha

Adam and Eve are not scientific theories. Evolution is.

The question was "Why do some assume that Christians who don't believe in evolution are anti-science?"

Donkey_Left · #59 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

The question was "Why do some assume that Christians who don't believe in evolution are anti-science?"

As somebody above stated, it is very often the case. Christians who don't believe in evolution are generally Bible-literalists, and as such, have rather odd views on the role of science vs. religion.

Imperator · #60 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

Even very basic organisms are often light sensitive. Sight, if I am not very very very wrong, is just highly advanced light sensitivity.

well agree to an extent....sunlight as opposed to darkness of the depths? what about sense of smell? is that necesarry" How did "smell" start? did every organism start out with a sense of smell? If, as I have read, all life started here with a deposit of amino acids from a meteor etc.....how did we get from there to here? I have to say, despite the millions of years, that’s some serious re-tooling...It just seems to me a long way from awareness to mechanical ability....on the scale we enjoy now...photosynthesis, flowers bending towards the light is one thing but my god..ooops no pun intended...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode