creationism?

Cause creationism, at least to the beginning of the universe, is proven false. now, of course, God could have created the universe, but the bible's description of adam and eve is quite doubtful.

 

In my opinion, creationism is incredibly out of touch. There are hoards indisputable scientific evidence that natural selection and evolution has taken place. It may only be accepted as a "theory" now, but so is gravity and yet we experience gravity.

 

Do you mind me asking what part of creationism says that national selection and evolution doesn't exist?

 

Creationism says that it's "science", because the champions of Creationism know that that's the only way to get it into science classrooms. However, the Creationists refuse to submit it through the scientific process. All new scientific hypotheses are submitted into peer review, a process where other scientists verifiy evidence, reproduce experiments, and generally test the theory to see whether it is correct. If nobody has any beefs with the theory, i.e. if it's not disproven or shown to be wrong, then it's gradually added to textbooks and accepted into our body of knowledge. This process is not a quick one.

The Creationists aren't submitting their hypotheses for review (which is a necessary process). Instead, they want to skip all of the steps of review and go straight to classroom and textbook. They're trying to cheat the system. Why should every other new bit of science have to prove its worth, while Creationism gets to stroll right into the classroom untested? It's simply not fair.

Why are the Creationists refusing to have their stuff scientifically examined? It's pretty clear that they know it would never survive the review, as it's pure religion masquerading as science. It was only invented by Christians because Evolution supposedly conflicted with their biblical beliefs. Their beliefs so strong, they decided "Since my beliefs are obviously correct, then the science must be wrong" without even seeing whether their beliefs were wrong instead.

For more info as to why Creationism is losing the battle for the classroom, learn about the court case "Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District" where Intelligent Design was proven to be equal to Creationism, and Creationism was banned from the classrooms of Dover, PA in 2005.

 

Hey,

That's exactly the problem! :icon_bigg

Ok, first off, not knowing how or why we are here is completely unsatisfying and very frustrating.

But... Just because we cannot answer that... it does not follow at all that we should therefore make the situation truly unbelievable by making it arbitrarily more complex, without any evidence to do so.... which is what creationism does. (Lookup Occam's Razor)

Introducing the concept of a deity/greater being, required for creationism, does exactly that and it is an act of intellectual suicide to believe that it provides a satisfying, let alone any, explanation. It does not.

In my opinion, it is one of those questions that we just cannot answer.

I am definitely Atheist. Why? Well, I do not believe that a greater being exists...

Yes, I cannot be sure that one, or an infinite number, does not exist but...

As you cannot prove a negative, it is impossible for anybody to show that the Christan God, or anything for that matter - like a flying spaghetti monster, does not exist.

It certainly does not follow though that just because I cannot show that a greater being does not exist that one must exist, or that I should believe in one just in case! That would be patently absurd and I would do myself a huge disservice were I to do so.

It is illogical and completely irrational for anybody to structure their beliefs without evidence - and, in my view, doing so is tantamount to intellectual suicide. (Following that line of thought, somebody who is prepared to do so should believe in anything, no matter how absurd...)

 

"Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands."

That's an excerpt from a creationism textbook. I think that answers Anfronee's question, "Where does creationism say that [natural] selection and evolution don't exist?"

The excerpt also shows where Creationism conflicts severely with evolution, which is an established part of science and a proven theory. To be taught, Creationists would have to disprove evolution, which they haven't even scratched (though they like to think they have). If all the arguments for creationism were valid, you'd think that they'd come out of scientific review unscathed and lauded, at that.

Uh, but they haven't.

 

It doesn't work like that. It has to pass peer review...

The problem is that there is nothing for any scientist to review. There is no "evidence" for the existence of a greater being that holds up to scientific scrutiny.

I would recommend reading through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Ciao,

Nick

 

There's no one, big, special conglomerate of scientists that has the power to decide truth (it's not a bureaucracy) Correctness or incorrectness is determined many independent scientists all reproducing the same result. You usually give it to numerous independent experts in the same field. Professors of biology, for example.

 

According to Dictionary.com a belief is: 1. something believed; a conviction or an opinion. 2. confidence in the truth or existence in something no immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. 3. confidence; faith; trust.

Im just saying that beliefs don't need concrete proof. I am also saying that I am not unintelligent because I believe in God. It means I have faith and trust, and everything i have ever been presented with has fit, and it feels right.

 

So you're saying that because it is a religion, that it should be in a classroom. ever hear of separation of church and state? lol

 

He was not saying that it should be in the classroom. He was saying what I said Validated their point. I also would recommend you research "Church and state" laws and their origins. Not that I think one religion should be forced down peoples throats in school, but the extreme that phrase is being use now. It is about the equivalent of people saying we shouldn't mention the word Gay in schools Because some people might not be gay and thus offended.

 

Anfronee, I don't think many people support the belief that religion shouldn't be mentioned in school. That's about as stupid as not saying the word "gay" or not allowing children to say the word "beer," like in the old song "Ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall." (We were forced to say "pop")

Of course people should be allowed to discuss religion, differences between each one, and the origins of each.

It's just that a teacher and a curriculum need to be religion-neutral: never to advocate the belief in one religion over another, or religion in general over non-belief. That's for Sunday-school.

 

I don't see how a semantic discrepancy negates my point. The standards that others have for what they would term a belief are not mine.

I, of course, respect your right to believe in whatever you choose to believe in.

I was merely saying that, in my opinion, we do ourselves a disservice if we believe in something without any evidence, and therefore reason, on which to base that belief. (I hold myself to a higher standard than that...)

Carl Sagan has a great quote: