ACLU Vs Creationism

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

The important thing is that a scientific theory makes predictions that can be tested, and as those predictions are independently and repeatedly tested and verified, that scientific theory becomes more and more accepted by the scientific community.

There is no “magic point” at which a theory becomes a law, and no longer subject to falsification. Witness the upheaval of Newtonian physics (including Newton’s Laws of Motion and Law of Gravity) by Einstein’s special and general relativity.

In teaching science, the theory with the most supporting evidence at the time is the one that should be taught.

Based on this description of science, I don’t see any reason why science should be taught to our children but ethics, philosophy, and morals classes cannot be taught that use religious sources.

For example, why cannot we mandate that the Christian philosophy be taught in all schools, seeing as Jesus Christ must have been right - He rose from the dead - there is much more historical (factual) evidence that this is true than there is factual evidence that evolutionary theory is true. If He really rose from the dead, He has authority over the rest of us because none of us have - His teachings should have more weight over any scientific theory.

 

[Brad]

buffalo:

You will find consistent Catholic teachings:

1. the creation of the entire universe in the beginning of time by God
2. the special creation of the fiirst man
3. the formation of the first woman from the first man by God
4. the unity of the human race
5. the initial happiness of our first parents in the state of original justice.

The very first part of our creed states the same

Evolution is radically flawed as an attempt to answer questions primarily theological.

The Church in ancient times (as well as today) never denied that natural knowledge could contribute to the understanding of this world and its origins.** But in the case of conflict , the truths of Revelation could not be reinterpreted to fit the new theory. She stated that the theory has to be readjusted to fit the facts of Revelation certified by the Church. **

Theistic evolution is syncretism.

Thank you for a solid summation. Which part of the creed are you referring to?

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

No it doesn’t.

Saying that it is wrong because you don’t believe it doesn’t make the theory invalid.

True. But it does put a greater burden of proof on those pressing the theory. Again, 2+2 is not a theory - it is a fact. Evolution is a theory.

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

OK, you have shown that you know how to dis-prove a theory. That’s not what I asked. How do you PROVE a theory?

Peace

Tim

By showing repeatedly that the theory is true by observation of its application. We have zero observations of monkeys and humans evolving from a like ancestor. We have quite a few observations of the theory of addition and we can continually prove this theory every day.

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

He has not been able to get peer review as their is a great amount invested in evolution.

Do you say this based on first-hand knowledge or are you making an assumption?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

Ok. I’ve read enough of it to have a bunch of questions. I don’t know if we want to get into all these. I’m not really opposed to these dating techniques because of religion as the Catholic faith can accept and old earth or a young earth.

Questions are good. Never stop questioning. There are, I believe, numerous references in his paper. They are a bit involved, but you may find some answers there.

Not much of this contradicts the fact that God created us in His image and likeness. It’s when we take the leap that evolution of everything is guided by a purposeless chemical-based process that has no divine intelligence behind it, that I have a problem.

I agree.

Because many teachers and secularlists (and you may not call them “real” scientists - I’m not sure) seem to have any easy time concluding that God cannot exist under this framework and/or humans are not above animals in the grand scheme of things, I question the motivations of some involved in the process. When motivation is questionable, process becomes questionable. Remember, Darwin himself was looking for a way out of the “God” paradigm and he is the grandaddy of evolution.

I agree with what you are saying. However, the motivations of some scientists or even Darwin himself don’t falsify the theory.

Just wanted to level set as I’m not sure any of use has the time right now to be convinced either way regarding the accuracy of radiometric dating methods.

The science behind radiometric dating can be daunting when one is starting to study the subject. Just remember, the basis of the dating methods are rooted in those sciences so many involved in this discussion call real science - chemistry and physics.

---

I’ll throw out a few of my most pressing questions in the event you are interested:

You know I’m interested! I will pass on a point by point answer, though, because I don’t think this forum is the proper place for it. Take a look at the link again because most of what you are asking is either directly addressed or is included in a reference. Some of your questions are general geology questions that may take some more searching.

I also looked at this site, which attempts to refute young earth objectors:

my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/rad_dat.html

It says:

"The assumptions that are used in radiometric dating techniques are perfectly justified given current physics."

Ok, what happens when “current” physics changes?

Assuming that the physics does change, the methods will have to account for those changes.

**

“Woodmorappe listed 350-odd aberrant dates, and claimed that there are many, many more. What he did not say is that those 350 were winnowed out of tens of thousands of radiometric dates which do give more reasonable results”

The author goes on to make the ridiculous assertion that because the creation scientist only listed 350 odd aberrant dates, it is nothing next to, say, 10,000 dates, it is a tiny error percentage. This doen’t refute Woodmorappe’s claims. He simply listed 350 verified examples - that doesn’t mean that there are not more and it is also a convenient defense in that there are only so many rocks where we are going to know the ages before the tests. I think if this has been done 350 times, it requires a better defense as to why each of these failed the test - in some cases dramatically.**
Woodmorappe (a pseudonym by the way) has been refuted in many places. Here are a few links:
talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-geochronology.html
home.austarnet.com.au/stear/hiding_the_numbers_woody_henke.htm
home.austarnet.com.au/stear/woody_isotope_earth_kh.htm

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

You cannot presuppose anything based on evidence. You can only presuppose based on philosophy, logic, religion, what other people have told you etc. That’s what makes it a presupposition – if you had hard, clear evidence that you understood, you would not be presupposing – you would be asserting.

Understood. I only used that term to quote you.

Would the peer review journal publish it or would it claim that it is bad science based on presuppositions?

If his metholdolgy is sound, he will find a publisher and pass peer review.

Interesting. I can’t either. Are you presupposing the dating methods are correct or are you convinced based on evidence you have explored – you are indicating you are unconvinced except by what others have told you.

I accept the results of radiometric dating procedures based on my training and acceptance of the science. I am not an expert in radiometric dating.

Peace to you too! Especially at this time of year!

Amen.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

I think the statement of faith is agreed upon collectively based on their investigation of the facts – of course we can both go round and round saying the other group is presupposing rather than looking at the facts and we probably won’t get far. I would just say that you cannot exclude the arguments refuting dating methods simply because they believe in the Bible in a certain way. You need to refute their arguments using science – I haven’t seen effective arguments against the odd aberrant dates. Why won’t the science showing odd aberrant dates be allowed in public education?

Their arguments have been refuted by science many times over. The frustrating thing is that they keep repeating what they know (or at least have been shown) to be untrue.

By the way, dates that fall out of the expected ranges are reported. Allowed in public education? Do you mean like in high school? How many high school science classes ever even get into radiometric dating?

By undergraduate, I meant college, just not at the masters level.

I understood you. I was suggesting that the scientific method should (and in my son’s cases was) be taught in elementary school.

Still don’t know why arguments opposing dating methods cannot be classified as science using the scientific method.

They can be, but they must withstand scrutiny. So far, none of the challenges that I am aware of has.

They didn’t teach me the scientific method.

That’s a shame, and I mean that sincerely.

How about scientific arguments against evolution or old earth dating?

Sure. Once again, as long as it can withstand scrutiny and the methodology is sound, it should be taught as science. Too bad there isn’t any examples of either.

Peace

Tim

 

[Catholic2003]

Brad:

Chemical composition of water etc. can be proven and work 100% of the time.

Actually, I could come up with a theory of “intelligent chemistry” that is just as valid as intelligent design, because no one has ever observed a single atom or a single molecule. Running an electric current through water produces hydrogen and oxygen because God (the intelligent chemist) performs a miracle and transforms the true structure of water every time this is done. The scanning tunneling microscope reconstruction of electrons orbiting an atom is only interpreting the gathered data according to the “accepted” physics theories, and is therefore also fooled.

The only problem is that I can’t get this published because the scientific community is discriminating against me, because my degree is in computer science and they don’t want to hear about how God is a necessary part of any chemical reaction. They just want to stick with their God-less, naturalistic explanations of chemical behavior.

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

If you would allow human biological origins to be taught in a science class but exclude ID from discussion, you are engaging in viewpoint discrimination based on religous association. I don’t believe there is any solid scientific evidence that explains how the evolutionary process that lead to humans got kicked off nor how certain organs of the human person evolved to such a complex level.

Nope. Science does not deal with the supernatural. Any intelligent designer would have to be supernatural, therefore, science doesn’t go there. No discrimination.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

The lack of peer review articles (not saying there are none - I’m just not on any such mailing lists) is consistent with my theory that “opposing” viewpoints are not allowed in the scientifc community - or, at least, that which controls the money flow to the scientific community. However, remember, this is only a theory - not scientific fact.

Did he try to publish or just assume that he couldn’t make the grade?

My theory has greater weight when you notice the tremendous volume of academic criticism interspersed with personal attacks on Denton for daring to question the theory.

Let’s refute the naysayers claims - that would go a long way to making evolution more believable than just labeling naysayers as Christians or ideologues of one kind or another. Denton was not a Christian - what was his incentive to oppose the theory except he didn’t see it as believeable?

The naysayers claims have been refuted. You may not accept the refutations, but they have been refuted. Over and over and over and over…

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

There’s arguments against radiometric dating methods that include the method not always working for rocks of known ages. This is proof of a position that doesn’t seem to have been refuted effectively by the scientific community.

Those types of results are obtained because either the wrong method was used or an improper sample was tested. I believe that was covered in Dr. Wiens’ paper.

If radiometric dating methods are not valid then evolutionary theory has not been proven.

Radiometric dating is valid and is not related to evolutionary theory.

If 2+2=4 85% of the time but =7 15% of the time, you better come up with a new math method.

If 1 part Hydrogen and 2 parts Oxygen make don’t make water 90% of the time - they make water 100% of the time.

Where did this come from?

Evolutionary theory is not factual to this degree - it is theoretical - and until it is factual to this degree, any refutation is valid for discussion - it is not up to dissenters of evolution to prove all of the theory is wrong - it is up to those that want to teach evolution as fact to prove all dissenters wrong. This should be pretty easy to do if you have enought real evidence.

So, evolution must be arithmetic or chemistry to be valid?

For example, you don’t hear any Jewish people around the year 40 AD claiming that Jesus did not really perform supernatural miracles. They simply claimed they were of an evil source. They could not claim they didn’t happen - there was too much evidence that they did happen. They could be refuted too easily by Christians to make such a claim - they would look silly.

What??? You mean like claiming that “evolutionists” are evil because there is too much evidence that evolution is real?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

True. But it does put a greater burden of proof on those pressing the theory. Again, 2+2 is not a theory - it is a fact. Evolution is a theory.

2+2 is arithmetic. What is the point? That if evolution is not arithmetic, it cannot be true?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

By showing repeatedly that the theory is true by observation of its application. We have zero observations of monkeys and humans evolving from a like ancestor. We have quite a few observations of the theory of addition and we can continually prove this theory every day.

Sorry, but that is not proof. That is observations supporting the theory. Exactly what we have with evolution.

What is this “theory of addition” you refer to?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Brad:

Thank you for a solid summation. Which part of the creed are you referring to?

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

 

[Trelow]

I just think it’s kinda sad the evolution is the best story science can make up. Kinda points out that the answer isn’t even in the realm of science.

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

I agree with what you are saying. However, the motivations of some scientists or even Darwin himself don’t falsify the theory.

I don’t remember the exact problems Darwin had with his own theory (I will probably find them again as I continue to read up on this) but he did have at least 2 problems with his own theory that he could not resolve - which bothered him quite a bit (I can relate to that being in a discipline that requires exactness).

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

Actually, I could come up with a theory of “intelligent chemistry” that is just as valid as intelligent design, because no one has ever observed a single atom or a single molecule. Running an electric current through water produces hydrogen and oxygen because God (the intelligent chemist) performs a miracle and transforms the true structure of water every time this is done. The scanning tunneling microscope reconstruction of electrons orbiting an atom is only interpreting the gathered data according to the “accepted” physics theories, and is therefore also fooled.

The only problem is that I can’t get this published because the scientific community is discriminating against me, because my degree is in computer science and they don’t want to hear about how God is a necessary part of any chemical reaction. They just want to stick with their God-less, naturalistic explanations of chemical behavior.

Sarcasm aside, your hypothesis doesn’t hold water

You can show me water and you can show me how it is oxygen and hydrogen. You can’t show me a human and show me the human’s great great great great great… great great grandfather is something other than human. That is not observable. It does make for an epic and extraordiarily fascinating story however.

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Nope. Science does not deal with the supernatural. Any intelligent designer would have to be supernatural, therefore, science doesn’t go there. No discrimination.

Peace

Tim

Any designer of the evolutionary process must have been intelligent - therefore science… goes there???

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

Any designer of the evolutionary process must have been intelligent - therefore science… goes there???

Nope.

Peace

Tim