What is creation science?

[Luckymoose]

The evidence is just fine unless we force people to believe one way or the other.

But you've been forced to believe one way or the other. If I give you one apple and then another, do you have two apples or the creation story?

 

[timtofly]

That makes no sense. No one is forcing any conclusions, the conclusions come from examining the evidence and its implications. You have already declared that you think the evidence is irrelevant, your position then is one of irrational belief, you are just trying to justify it.

Conclusions are just what the human mind wants them to be. Nothing more nothing less.

Saying a person's belief is irrational or even wrong, is a means of peer pressure to change such a belief.

I am not the one who keeps thinking the evidence is not relevant. If we keep rejecting that the evidence cannot have more than one interpretation, then we have no belief, no knowledge, but every mind has to be conformed to one choice.

I am going to go off on another limb and people are going to say "anti-science". If science ever gives humans their ultimate truth, it will stop being science and be just a belief system. If someone denies that, then science is already their belief system.

Why do well known scientist keep pointing out that science is replacing God, and then turn around and say that science is not a belief system? Science is either a belief system that is replacing the current religious one. Or science is not replacing any one's belief system about God. It is only a way to find out the natural universe that we live in, and not an explanation on what we believe. Or for the more liberal mind science is anything we want it to be.

If we are using evidence to remove all doubt and any opposing belief system would that not be means to force all humans to have only one mindset which nothing could ever change?

But you've been forced to believe one way or the other. If I give you one apple and then another, do you have two apples or the creation story?

I can change my belief any time I want to. I would be so bold as to say that God has forced me, and it has nothing to do with evidence or any thing that man has said from the dawn of men recording things. But that would be subjective and no one else is going to take that as fact, unless God does the same thing to them. I still retain my right to reject God, just like any other human on the earth.

 

[El_Machinae]

I can change my belief any time I want to. I would be so bold as to say that God has forced me

That raises a really interesting point. Can we change our beliefs if we really want to? And, are we essentially forced by our senses to believe certain things?

The best you can do is actively look for new information and for sources of bias. This will cause your beliefs to change over time, but I don't know if you can consciously change your beliefs. Maybe you can only be open to having them changed. That's a function of ephemeral personality traits, which I don't know if we choose either.

 

[warpus]

I really doubt that most people who have such an incorrect understanding of science and the world around us that they think that it is 6,000 years old will ever change their minds.

Imagine how much off track their understanding of reality must be if those are the things they believe. The evidence is presented to them, yet they continue to misunderstand what they are even arguing against... It's like trying to convince someone that 2+2=4 when they are convinced that 2+2=5... Nothing you ever say will convince most of them.

 

[peter grimes]

Conclusions are just what the human mind wants them to be. Nothing more nothing less.

So do you think that a non-human intelligence could reach a different conclusion when presented with the same observational evidence?

I agree that they could, but not all interpretations are necessarily correct.

Look at the history of theories on the solar system. Same observed motions in the night sky had a dozen or more different interpretations throughout human history. But only one conclusion was correct.

So, are you sure that Conclusions are just what the human mind wants them to be?

 

[El_Machinae]

I really doubt that most people who have such an incorrect understanding of science and the world around us that they think that it is 6,000 years old will ever change their minds.

Imagine how much off track their understanding of reality must be if those are the things they believe. The evidence is presented to them, yet they continue to misunderstand what they are even arguing against... It's like trying to convince someone that 2+2=4 when they are convinced that 2+2=5... Nothing you ever say will convince most of them.

Ehn, I used to be a YEC when I was younger. I guess the big difference is that I had an interest in science. And, in the modern world, you can easily get by without understanding science. Heck, I don't know how computers work, and it's like 99% of my job to use one.

 

[timtofly]

That raises a really interesting point. Can we change our beliefs if we really want to? And, are we essentially forced by our senses to believe certain things?

The best you can do is actively look for new information and for sources of bias. This will cause your beliefs to change over time, but I don't know if you can consciously change your beliefs. Maybe you can only be open to having them changed. That's a function of ephemeral personality traits, which I don't know if we choose either.

I would argue that it is possible that one could get into such a mind state that nothing could change it. That is probably what Warpus is arguing. (What he stated is actually what I have heard the creationist side argue against the naturalist side) It is interesting to hear it from the other side. That is why I think it is possible to use any argument and end up with the logic that is left as long as it seems opposite of what you are debating.

People change their belief system all the time. However most people never see the need to. You pointed out yourself that you changed yours over time. Now if you think that there are outside forces beyond our control that are forcing us, that is a different topic altogether. I would assume that most here think they are still the arbitrators of their own thoughts. We are still capable of figuring out what to do with any new thought that comes to mind. We either reject it without any more thought, or we keep sorting it out and then decide what to do with it.

So do you think that a non-human intelligence could reach a different conclusion when presented with the same observational evidence?

I agree that they could, but not all interpretations are necessarily correct.

Look at the history of theories on the solar system. Same observed motions in the night sky had a dozen or more different interpretations throughout human history. But only one conclusion was correct.

So, are you sure that Conclusions are just what the human mind wants them to be?

The facts do not reside in the mind. They are outside of it. That the mind decides is what one is going to settle as their belief. As I stated if humans want Science to make all the decisions for them, then they have stopped doing their own thinking and science is now their belief system. This does not mean they stop thinking and science does not advance, but their belief system will keep re-enforcing itself just like pointed out that any new information just justifies what one believes. That is what creationist are accused of, but I don't see how it does not go the same way with science.

I am not even denying that it may come to a point where anything about the Bible will make sense, and there will be no one to defend it at all. It is not even wrong to reinforce your belief system. Humanity would not advance without competent and fearless thinkers.

 

[peter grimes]

The facts do not reside in the mind. They are outside of it. That the mind decides is what one is going to settle as their belief. As I stated if humans want Science to make all the decisions for them, then they have stopped doing their own thinking and science is now their belief system. This does not mean they stop thinking and science does not advance, but their belief system will keep re-enforcing itself just like pointed out that any new information just justifies what one believes. That is what creationist are accused of, but I don't see how it does not go the same way with science.

Yet again, a serious misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. I don't even know why I still feel the need to point this out, since you seem incapable of understanding the fundamental difference between an a priori belief (like creationism) and a scientific 'belief' (like the sun-centered solar system).


Since you didn't actually answer my plain question, I'll ask it again:
Do you think that a non-human intelligence could arrive at an alternate conclusion given the same observable facts?

To be clear, when I say conclusion I mean a conclusion that is correct. Note in the example I used people *thought* they had the correct explanation, but were wrong - until some actual scientists came along and figured it all out. We know that the planets orbit the sun. That's a fact, it's not open to "conclusions that reside in the mind" or whatever it was that you were trying to say. Earth orbits the Sun full stop. Other explanations - other conclusions based on the same observations - are wrong.

This has nothing to do with beliefs in the religious sense (which I see religionists doing all over the place). Believing that the Earth revolves around Sun is not at all the same as believing in phenomena for which there is no physical evidence.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The facts do not reside in the mind. They are outside of it. That the mind decides is what one is going to settle as their belief. As I stated if humans want Science to make all the decisions for them, then they have stopped doing their own thinking and science is now their belief system. This does not mean they stop thinking and science does not advance, but their belief system will keep re-enforcing itself just like pointed out that any new information just justifies what one believes. That is what creationist are accused of, but I don't see how it does not go the same way with science.

Whoever said we want science to do our thinking for us? WE do our thinking for us, using the information that the scientific method has enabled us to gather, to make decisions.

 

[timtofly]

Yet again, a serious misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. I don't even know why I still feel the need to point this out, since you seem incapable of understanding the fundamental difference between an a priori belief (like creationism) and a scientific 'belief' (like the sun-centered solar system).

It has nothing to do with how science works. It is how one uses science to justify their belief system.

Since you didn't actually answer my plain question, I'll ask it again:
Do you think that a non-human intelligence could arrive at an alternate conclusion given the same observable facts?

That is a pretty opened ended question. It would seem to me that all the non-human intelligent life forms know what they know. They do not even need science to figure life out. They do not need to have an alternative conclusion. Humans seem to be the only intelligent life who keeps trying to find a way out of the situation they are in. Perhaps lab / experiment subjects are trying to do that, but it is humans who put them there, not nature. Is it natural to subject non-human life forms into the scientific process?

To be clear, when I say conclusion I mean a conclusion that is correct. Note in the example I used people *thought* they had the correct explanation, but were wrong - until some actual scientists came along and figured it all out. We know that the planets orbit the sun. That's a fact, it's not open to "conclusions that reside in the mind" or whatever it was that you were trying to say. Earth orbits the Sun full stop. Other explanations - other conclusions based on the same observations - are wrong.

This has nothing to do with beliefs in the religious sense (which I see religionists doing all over the place). Believing that the Earth revolves around Sun is not at all the same as believing in phenomena for which there is no physical evidence.

No one told humans that the sun rotated around the earth. That was an observed phenomenon, that led to that conclusion until humans had the capability of finding out that was wrong. I agree that the earth orbits the sun and that fact was not wrong before humans got the whole picture and it will not change unless either are removed from the fact. I am not sure that one can use that fact to draw a conclusion that God did not create the universe as recorded.

I also reject the claim that God even operates in a religious context. Religion is a human concept and has nothing to do with how God actually operates. One can get bogged down in religion and God is not even thought of, because the thought is human derived. God does not need a church or religion any more so than he can work through a single human.

I don't know what one would call a human who actually knows and has experienced God. We seem stuck with the term "believer". But there is a difference in one who believes in what they have never experienced and actually experiencing something. There are some people who experience certain phenomenon and still do not accept it or perhaps do not even understand it.

Just like thoughts, experiences still have to be rationalized and accepted or rejected.

I am not denying that the age of the earth appears to be 4.3 billion years old. I am not even rejecting the evidence. I am just not making the conclusion that it is, because there is a fact that a being said it was not. There are lots of stories that are similar, and other people have accepted them. If no one had ever written down anything about the event, would humans have even questioned such things? I don't think that it is a given that we would be at the same conclusions we are today, because humans may not even have seen the need to figure out how things formed. Some here may view that differently because they assume that humans have always questioned their origins. We only know that from the records we have, but if we did not have any records it is not a given that we would know that.

Whoever said we want science to do our thinking for us? WE do our thinking for us, using the information that the scientific method has enabled us to gather, to make decisions.

Is science the only tool that is the final authority on what is or what is not the truth?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

That is a pretty opened ended question. It would seem to me that all the non-human intelligent life forms know what they know. They do not even need science to figure life out. They do not need to have an alternative conclusion. Humans seem to be the only intelligent life who keeps trying to find a way out of the situation they are in. Perhaps lab / experiment subjects are trying to do that, but it is humans who put them there, not nature. Is it natural to subject non-human life forms into the scientific process?

Non-human intelligent life forms not needing science to figure life out... I'd go along with that if you're talking about whales, dolphins, or elephants. But you have no evidence to make such a claim about extraterrestrial intelligences.

No one told humans that the sun rotated around the earth.

Of course not. The Sun rotates on its axis, and revolves around the center of the Milky Way galaxy.

I also reject the claim that God even operates in a religious context. Religion is a human concept and has nothing to do with how God actually operates. One can get bogged down in religion and God is not even thought of, because the thought is human derived. God does not need a church or religion any more so than he can work through a single human.

I don't see how you can make the logical claim that religion is a human concept, yet still insist that God actually exists.

Is science the only tool that is the final authority on what is or what is not the truth?

That depends on which kind of truth you're talking about.

 

[timtofly]

I don't see how you can make the logical claim that religion is a human concept, yet still insist that God actually exists.

I don't see how any one can make the logical claim that God does not exist and is just a religious idea. I think that I can see their position. I did not have a religious background in any meaningful sense of the common usage of the term. I read the Bible and it was read to me, but there was no religious connotation and it was more like reading a book on history. I realize that most think that can only happen in a religious setting where one is indoctrinated by a teacher who is just teaching what they have been taught. I reject the claim that one can only understand the Bible when they are taught by another human.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't see how any one can make the logical claim that God does not exist and is just a religious idea. I think that I can see their position. I did not have a religious background in any meaningful sense of the common usage of the term. I read the Bible and it was read to me, but there was no religious connotation and it was more like reading a book on history. I realize that most think that can only happen in a religious setting where one is indoctrinated by a teacher who is just teaching what they have been taught. I reject the claim that one can only understand the Bible when they are taught by another human.

Humans created both religion and God (or Allah, Zeus, or any of the other millions of deities humans have created throughout prehistory and later).

I've read the bible. I've been to Sunday school a whopping TWO times, and I vaguely recall the teacher telling us about Hagar and Ishmael, and all the while I kept wondering where that bush came from if they were lost in a desert with no water. Through most of my life ('60s to now) most people around here took it for granted that the Old Testament was also a history book. In my Grade 12 English class we did debates, and I was assigned to argue in the affirmative that history should not be taught in school. I told the teacher that was a stupid thing to debate - of course history should be taught in school, because where else would people learn it?

As I found out, she was all for doing it in church. This English teacher would assign us stuff from the Jerusalem Bible, and when we did poetry interpretation, we soon learned to put a religious spin on it to get a better mark. This was in a public school. In the Q&A portion of the debate, she asked, "What about the Bible? That's history."

My response was that most of the world did not believe that. She had no answer to that, but had to give my partner and me a passing grade.

She got me back later, though. She assigned me to be a judge for the creation vs evolution debate, knowing full well which side I personally supported and that the students arguing that side were two of the most inept researchers in the class. They did such a crappy job of presenting their arguments, without all the information they should have used, that I had to judge that the creation side had won.


As for the Old Testament being actual history, we've already had this conversation in OT. Neither the geologic record, dating methods, archaeology, or primary written sources support more than the tiniest smidgen of either of the Testaments being an accurate historical record.

 

[Agent327]

She assigned me to be a judge for the creation vs evolution debate, knowing full well which side I personally supported and that the students arguing that side were two of the most inept researchers in the class.

I hear about such 'debates' every once in a while: having an 'evolution vs creation' debate is like having a math vs gymnastics debate. They are basically topics from different scientific disciplines. The basic premiss is flawed: evolution does not exclude creation, and creation does not mean there is no evolution. It is really a pointless subject.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I hear about such 'debates' every once in a while: having an 'evolution vs creation' debate is like having a math vs gymnastics debate. They are basically topics from different scientific disciplines. The basic premiss is flawed: evolution does not exclude creation, and creation does not mean there is no evolution. It is really a pointless subject.

I was talking about my Grade 12 English class, which occurred over 30 years ago, with a teacher who was absolutely not prepared to listen to reason about that whole stupid assignment.

 

[brennan]

I don't see how any one can make the logical claim that God does not exist and is just a religious idea.

Why? You presumably believe that every God represented in human cultures throughout history (bar one) is a work of fiction.

 

[peter grimes]

It has nothing to do with how science works. It is how one uses science to justify their belief system.

You mean being rational?

That is a pretty opened ended question. It would seem to me that all the non-human intelligent life forms know what they know. They do not even need science to figure life out. They do not need to have an alternative conclusion. Humans seem to be the only intelligent life who keeps trying to find a way out of the situation they are in.

it's not an open ended question at all, I think. You had said something that made me think you treat alternative Conclusions based on the same data as equally valid, and it's just the mind that decides which is real. I don't think that's the case in the non-quantum realm.

I also think you're wrong that non-human animals don't try to improve their situation. We see that all the time! Animals (and plants, funghi, bacteria - all life) works to modify its environment. Trial and error is actually a scientific method.

 

[timtofly]

Why? You presumably believe that every God represented in human cultures throughout history (bar one) is a work of fiction.

If I were to say what I believe, it would be that there is only one God. I already said that it does not matter what has been written or not.

It's not an open ended question at all, I think. You had said something that made me think you treat alternative Conclusions based on the same data as equally valid, and it's just the mind that decides which is real. I don't think that's the case in the non-quantum realm.

I also think you're wrong that non-human animals don't try to improve their situation. We see that all the time! Animals (and plants, funghi, bacteria - all life) works to modify its environment. Trial and error is actually a scientific method.

It is open ended unless there is no difference between what a non-human thinks and a human just defining the non-human as anthropomorphic. Whether are not humans think that non-humans draw the same conclusions is an unknown because there is no open exchange of information between humans and non-humans. Are we projecting ourselves onto them? If we do teach them to communicate would they just repeat back what we taught them, or could they give us new insight that we have never had before?

I did not mean that animals are not programmed to make their life efficient and give the appearance of improvement. Do they know that they are making their life better, or is all of that already programmed into their instinctive behavior? I think that animals can be domesticated. They can even adapt to do the same things that humans can. It still is not a given that they do it because they think about it, or that they are just good at imitation. Even humans use trial and error and do not always equate that with the scientific method. That it does a great job was one of the reasons that it was formulated within the scientific method. Are you saying that humans have always practiced the scientific method?

You mean being rational?

I would have it no other way.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Are you saying that humans have always practiced the scientific method?

Not all humans have done so in the past, or even today. But throughout human existence there have been some who went through the requisite steps, even if they didn't know what to call it. Even making stone tools involved a process of using observation and testing to figure out what worked and what didn't, and the knowledge gained meant that technology improved.

 

[Berzerker]

1) Before Heaven and Earth were formed the world was dark and covered by water - thats a good description of the solar system's freeze line. Its a logical place for a planet to form very early on and its where we find the asteroid belt now. Guess where researchers think our water came from...? The planet came from there too.

2) The "Light" of creation was given a name in Genesis, its called "Day" and it was separated from the darkness which became Night. That describes a spinning world. Light = rotation, light was a collision.

3) Heaven is placed amidst the waters, the asteroid belt divides the solar system. But Heaven is not water, its something "firm" - its the hammered bracelet. An apt description of the asteroid belt.

4) The waters below the Heaven are gathered together to form Seas and the dry land appears - this dry land is called "Earth". Heaven and Earth are not the universe or this planet.

5) The dry land (Earth) is seeded with life, vegetation appears.

6) Heavenly luminaries are given their roles in the new sky with the Sun and Moon dominating day and night

7) Creatures fill the seas, air and dry land followed by people.

The sequence of life doesn't appear entirely consistent with current science, but there is a sequence nonetheless and it aint far off. A primordial water covered world further from the Sun collided with another object and the result was life on Earth.