ACLU Vs Creationism

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Yep.

Moral teachings of the bible are not trumped by science. Science and morals are two different realms.

Peace

Tim

They are supposed to be but, like you said, if the science taught presupposes naturalism, then it too has a related moral worldview and it is mixing science and morals - thereby the frequent claims in science classes that religon is a silly construct of man to make himself feel better.

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

The problem we are arguing is not that the ACLU doesn’t want ID in science class - it is that the ACLU doesn’t want ID in ANY class.

I agree with that. I think that the ACLU is totally evil. That doesn’t, however, change my opposition to teaching ID in science class, because ID isn’t science.

Most scientists agree because evolution, if disproven by any discipline, would discredit a holy grail of science.

You are wrong there. Most scientists want science taught in science class.

Would you allow ID to be taught as, say, philosophy class, at 1:45 right after science class?

Absolutely. Heck, you can even teach it before science class if you want!

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

Then science shouldn’t be taught. If it takes a naturalistic premise (there is no God), then it is going to ignore large portions of reality that infinitely more relvant that the definition of gravity or the chemical components of sodium.

Using your logic, no subject other than religion should be taught, period, because the truth (God) is infinitely more relevant than, say, conjugating verbs.

The problem is is that science doesn’t teach that there is no God. Science is silent on the matter. It can neither prove nor disprove that God exists. Science doesn’t deal with the supernatural.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

No. I think science should be used to discount evolution as much as it is used to promote evolution. If the evidence leads to disproving it, it should be followed.

Agreed.

However, whenever a scientist proposes that evolution may not be true, they are condemned by the scientific community as not credible.

If their proposal is based on experimentation and their data collection and analysis is not flawed, they will succeed.

There is an unwritten “faith statement” that scientists and many other academiacs must sign to gain credibility.

Bull.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

miguel:

Hello Tim,
What about critiquing the idea that life evolved from inanimate matter? That idea has been proposed by scientists. I mean, what mechanism did inanimate matter use to construct itself into a living critter, with all the functions that a living critter would need (e.g., food capture, digestion, reproduction, etc.)? If science has demonstrated such a mechanism, I’m not aware of it. Inanimate matter would need a competent understanding of these functions to be able to do that. Of course this is absurd. But it’s a whole lot less absurd to believe that there had to have been an intelligence behind it.

Hi, Miguel.

I find it absurd as well. I understand that there is some research into this, but I am unaware of any real breakthroughs. As I think you know (based on our previous conversation), I believe that God created everything, including life. So I do believe in Intelligent Design as a philosophy, but I reject it as a science.

Peace

Tim

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

You are the one who proposed that God made things old to fool us athiestic scientists, not me. I agree, He’s not a deceiver. That having been said and agreed on, please explain the incredibly large volume of evidence pointing to an old universe and earth and towards biologic evolution.

Peace

Tim

I never said he made things to fool anybody. I also never said all scientists are atheists.

The incredibly large volume of evidence is all over the map. Parts of evolutionary theory I accept. The parts that say we came from apes I explain based on a false presupposition of naturalism.

An old universe I don’t necessarily disagree with. Again, it is you that put limitations on God(possibly creating an aged universe), not I that put limitations on science. But even if God did not create an aged universe, I still believe it can be old. I just don’t buy the dating schemes that think they can p(name removed by moderator)oint the age of things as old as a million years.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Brad:

Then science shouldn’t be taught. If it takes a naturalistic premise (there is no God), then it is going to ignore large portions of reality that infinitely more relvant that the definition of gravity or the chemical components of sodium.

Science doesn’t take the “naturalistic premise” there is no God. Science is useful for studying natural things which behave in a predictable way. That is not the same as requiring there is no God. In fact the scientific idea that nature behaves in a predictable way, and that we can observe and use reason to explain things is very much compatible with Christian thought. Compare that to the non-Christian notion that the universe is a chaotic, unpredictable place out to fool us and mess with us at every turn - science would not be useful in that case.

Oh, and the chemical components of sodium are… sodium!

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

They are supposed to be but, like you said, if the science taught presupposes naturalism, then it too has a related moral worldview and it is mixing science and morals - thereby the frequent claims in science classes that religon is a silly construct of man to make himself feel better.

Science may be taught that way, but science holds no moral view period. Any discussion of religion in science classes is inappropriate whether it is pro or con.

Peace

Tim

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Using your logic, no subject other than religion should be taught, period, because the truth (God) is infinitely more relevant than, say, conjugating verbs.

The problem is is that science doesn’t teach that there is no God. Science is silent on the matter. It can neither prove nor disprove that God exists. Science doesn’t deal with the supernatural.

Peace

Tim

Nope - I said science that mandates naturalism should not be taught. Do you believe in God and the possiblility of the supernatural? If so, then you cannot be a naturalist. Go to town on science then - just don’t start with the assumption that everything came out of nothing and that man evolved from apes because you are excluding other possibilities in science.

I understand science doesn’t teach there isn’t a God. That is not what many Christians are saying. The problem for Christians is that many scientists conclude there isn’t a God or there isn’t anything supernatural and then teach this to impressionable minds with free reign as competing philosophies are not allowed because they are too offensive.

I like science. I just don’t like scientists saying miracles did not occur or that God is a myth.

 

[Brad]

Bobby Jim:

Science doesn’t take the “naturalistic premise” there is no God. Science is useful for studying natural things which behave in a predictable way. That is not the same as requiring there is no God. In fact the scientific idea that nature behaves in a predictable way, and that we can observe and use reason to explain things is very much compatible with Christian thought. Compare that to the non-Christian notion that the universe is a chaotic, unpredictable place out to fool us and mess with us at every turn - science would not be useful in that case.

Oh, and the chemical components of sodium are… sodium!

For the 2nd time, I did not say that science takes the naturalistic premise. The poster said that science must presuppose naturalism, not me. Some scientists require this (especailly in academic institutions) and you are not taken as credible if you don’t take a naturalistic view - this then extends to our elementary schools - this is what I object too. I don’t object to good Christians engaging in science with an open mind

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Science may be taught that way, but science holds no moral view period. Any discussion of religion in science classes is inappropriate whether it is pro or con.

Peace

Tim

I agree.

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

I never said he made things to fool anybody.

So, what did you mean when you wrote this:

Another vast oversight by the scientific community (because mainstream science continues to undermine the existence of God - you may say you believe but you have to check much of this belief at the door and discount chunks of scipture to be a respected scientist today) is that they don’t consider the possiblility that the universe was created aged.

In other words, do you think, when God created trees, he created them all at 1 mili-second old? Certainly he could create rocks that appear to be 300,000 years old using our flawed human dating systems that science knows are flawed.

Why would God create an aged universe?

I also never said all scientists are atheists.

I agree and I retract that statement.

The incredibly large volume of evidence is all over the map. Parts of evolutionary theory I accept. The parts that say we came from apes I explain based on a false presupposition of naturalism.

But not based on science?

An old universe I don’t necessarily disagree with.

How does that reconcile with 1 & 2 Genesis?

Again, it is you that put limitations on God(possibly creating an aged universe), not I that put limitations on science.

I don’t put limitations on God. I just never consider Him to be intentionally deceptive.

But even if God did not create an aged universe, I still believe it can be old. I just don’t buy the dating schemes that think they can p(name removed by moderator)oint the age of things as old as a million years.

Did you read the link I gave you? That is a good, basic start. It gets much more complicated than that.

Do you have any scientific disagreements with dating methods or is it just that they don’t give you the ages you want?

Peace

Tim

 

[miguel]

Orogeny:

Hi, Miguel.

I find it absurd as well. I understand that there is some research into this, but I am unaware of any real breakthroughs. As I think you know (based on our previous conversation), I believe that God created everything, including life. So I do believe in Intelligent Design as a philosophy, but I reject it as a science.

Peace

Tim

But what about teachers who try to pass off this absurd idea in science class? Shouldn’t students and parents at least be able to challenge the absurdity of it without being accused of trying to establish religion?

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

Nope - I said science that mandates naturalism should not be taught. Do you believe in God and the possiblility of the supernatural?

Yes!

If so, then you cannot be a naturalist.

And yet, I am a scientist. Just proves that accepting science doesn’t require one to be a naturalist.

Go to town on science then - just don’t start with the assumption that everything came out of nothing

I don’t.

and that man evolved from apes because you are excluding other possibilities in science.

Well, humans and apes have a common ancestor, so I guess that, technically I will agree that humans didn’t evolve from apes.

I understand science doesn’t teach there isn’t a God. That is not what many Christians are saying. The problem for Christians is that many scientists conclude there isn’t a God or there isn’t anything supernatural and then teach this to impressionable minds with free reign as competing philosophies are not allowed because they are too offensive.

That is not a problem for this Christian since my children know that God created us.

Competing scientific theories should be taught in science classes.

I like science. I just don’t like scientists saying miracles did not occur or that God is a myth.

Once again, we agree!

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

miguel:

But what about teachers who try to pass off this absurd idea in science class? Shouldn’t students and parents at least be able to challenge the absurdity of it without being accused of trying to establish religion?

Well, I think that the beginning of life is a legitimate subject of scientific inquiry. I think that students and parents should be able to challenge it if they have valid scientific reasons to do so. In fact, I think that would be a great lesson in the scientific method - how do you challenge this idea?

Just an observation, but in my opinion, those students and parents who object to the teaching of abiogenesis will not be swayed by that teaching anyway.

Peace

Tim

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

So, what did you mean when you wrote this:

Why would God create an aged universe?

It seems like you are approaching this subject as if the Christians are out to get the scientists. That is not my objective. I never said God was trying to fool anybody. What I said is that God could create a universe that is already in progress - could He not if He is God? Why wouldn’t He? Just so scientists could figure out everything? Maybe He didn’t think it was important that we figure out everything.

Orogeny:

How does that reconcile with 1 & 2 Genesis?

You tell me. Do you not believe the Bible is God’s inspired Word?

There are many theological views on 1 & 2 Genesis - many say the 7 days could represent very long periods of time. I’m not saying this isn’t possible.

Orogeny:

I don’t put limitations on God. I just never consider Him to be intentionally deceptive.

I don’t either. Simply because human dating mechanisms and Aristotle might possibly be wrong for a thousand years does not mean that God is deceptive. It means He created a complex universe.

Orogeny:

Did you read the link I gave you? That is a good, basic start. It gets much more complicated than that.

Don’t have the time to give it proper attention right now but I will.

Orogeny:

Do you have any scientific disagreements with dating methods or is it just that they don’t give you the ages you want?

With carbon dating - yes. By extenstion - with radioactive dating - possibly. Dating measure tend to lose reliability as the ages increase - so when we get into hundreds of thousands of years and beyond - let’s just say I’m skeptical. I’m not lloing for any particular age of the universe - I really don’t care how old it is. What I have more of a conflict with from faith is that humans and their predecessors have been strolling around for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Brad:

For the 2nd time, I did not say that science takes the naturalistic premise. The poster said that science must presuppose naturalism, not me. Some scientists require this (especailly in academic institutions) and you are not taken as credible if you don’t take a naturalistic view - this then extends to our elementary schools - this is what I object too. I don’t object to good Christians engaging in science with an open mind

Sorry, I don’t want to attribute that thought to you if it wasn’t really yours - I just wanted to add my 2 cents disagreeing with it.

As a scientist-in-training at a secular academic institution, I must say that the majority of the everyday work of most scientists never touches on questions that could even be conceived of having any bearing on whether or not God exists. In my own department and others, I know plenty of scientists who are practicing Christians, and I have never heard any scientists at my institution who are openly hostile to the practice of Christianity, nor have I ever known any of the Christians to be sneered at by other scientists for professing a belief in God. That may be the case in some humanities or philosophy departments, but not so much in science.

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Well, I think that the beginning of life is a legitimate subject of scientific inquiry. I think that students and parents should be able to challenge it if they have valid scientific reasons to do so. In fact, I think that would be a great lesson in the scientific method - how do you challenge this idea?

Just an observation, but in my opinion, those students and parents who object to the teaching of abiogenesis will not be swayed by that teaching anyway.

Peace

Tim

They should be able to challenge if they have valid philosopic reasons to do so as well. Here again you are saying that science trumps other disciplines - I disagree. Divine Revelation and human reason are as real as any experment and more accurate.

But, even if you disagree with this in principle. the fact remains that scientists are not allowed to challenge evolution using science without loss of credibility. This needs to change.

 

[Brad]

Bobby Jim:

Sorry, I don’t want to attribute that thought to you if it wasn’t really yours - I just wanted to add my 2 cents disagreeing with it.

As a scientist-in-training at a secular academic institution, I must say that the majority of the everyday work of most scientists never touches on questions that could even be conceived of having any bearing on whether or not God exists. In my own department and others, I know plenty of scientists who are practicing Christians, and I have never heard any scientists at my institution who are openly hostile to the practice of Christianity, nor have I ever known any of the Christians to be sneered at by other scientists for professing a belief in God. That may be the case in some humanities or philosophy departments, but not so much in science.

That’s good. What would happen if started challenging evolutionary theory on scientific grounds?

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

It seems like you are approaching this subject as if the Christians are out to get the scientists.

Nope, since I am one of each!

That is not my objective. I never said God was trying to fool anybody. What I said is that God could create a universe that is already in progress - could He not if He is God? Why wouldn’t He? Just so scientists could figure out everything? Maybe He didn’t think it was important that we figure out everything.

I think that God gave us our intellect so that we can seek Him in His creation. If He created the universe in a way that our intellect would percieve it to be different than it really is, He would be deceiving us. I don’t believe God would do that. Could He? Yes. Would He? No.

You tell me. Do you not believe the Bible is God’s inspired Word?

Yes.

There are many theological views on 1 & 2 Genesis - many say the 7 days could represent very long periods of time. I’m not saying this isn’t possible.

I’m saying the earth was not created in 7 calendar days 6,000 years ago.

I don’t either. Simply because human dating mechanisms and Aristotle might possibly be wrong for a thousand years does not mean that God is deceptive. It means He created a complex universe.

You have not made any argument about the accuracy of the different dating methods used to date things other than that they are flawed. Do you have any idea what the science of dating really is? Have you looked at the math, chemistry and physics behind it? Have you disproved the mathematics?

Don’t have the time to give it proper attention right now but I will.

Good, I think you will find it very helpful.

With carbon dating - yes. By extenstion - with radioactive dating - possibly.

Let’s revisit this after you read Dr. Wiens’ paper.

Dating measure tend to lose reliability as the ages increase - so when we get into hundreds of thousands of years and beyond - let’s just say I’m skeptical.

This statement is based on what?

I’m not lloing for any particular age of the universe - I really don’t care how old it is. What I have more of a conflict with from faith is that humans and their predecessors have been strolling around for hundreds of thousands of years.

What evidence have you looked at? I don’t have a problem with you not believing based on your faith (in fact, I commend you on that), but the scientific evidence is there.

Peace

Tim