Comments on: Creationism Debate Exported to Britain http://offensivechristians.com/creationism-debate-exported-to-britain/ Encouraging the Church and Christians to be Offensive Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:33:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Tim Swanson http://offensivechristians.com/creationism-debate-exported-to-britain/#comment-53 Tim Swanson Wed, 26 Mar 2008 05:34:20 +0000 http://offensivechristians.com/creationism-debate-exported-to-britain/#comment-53 What else would the pioneers of modern science believe? You either had to be a member of a church or were essentially ostracized from significant portions of society. Thus, if you wanted access to material and "labs" you had better put your smiley face on and go with the program. Unfortunately that was the rule, not the exception. This idea also conflates correlation and causation and is entirely superficial. None of the guys in the 16th century wore jeans, lab coats or used Q-tips... The commonality between centuries is that despite philosophical or theological beliefs, following the step-by-step processes in the scientific method allows everyone to theorize and test observable phenomenon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) And the reason religious rhetoric is not inherently anti-science is because science in and of itself is an agnostic technique. It doesn't care what your preconceived notions are. As far as recreating life, among others, J. Craig Venter has essentially done just that: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1642 Why is it hard to believe that through eons of experimentation, natural processes were able to do the same thing he was? What would convince you that macroevolution can be tested? The fossil record has left many transitional fossils over the ages that show how one specie transformed into another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil And with Hugh Ross, that is something you are letting your theology get in the way of. Even among YECism there is no consensus on things like how Noah's flood supposedly occurred (Discovery versus AiG). Furthermore, why are you letting an interpretation of the bible be your guide to science? Do you plan on doing war with: Day-Age creationists Gap creationists Progressive creationists OEC Other YECs That sounds counterproductive. While there may be lots of disagreement about frameworks and models within the scientific community you don't see whole slews of biologists throwing out the scientific method just to satisfy their preconceived philosophical beliefs. They are open to change, which unfortunately is not something holy texts are allowed to do. What else would the pioneers of modern science believe? You either had to be a member of a church or were essentially ostracized from significant portions of society. Thus, if you wanted access to material and “labs” you had better put your smiley face on and go with the program. Unfortunately that was the rule, not the exception.

This idea also conflates correlation and causation and is entirely superficial. None of the guys in the 16th century wore jeans, lab coats or used Q-tips…

The commonality between centuries is that despite philosophical or theological beliefs, following the step-by-step processes in the scientific method allows everyone to theorize and test observable phenomenon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

And the reason religious rhetoric is not inherently anti-science is because science in and of itself is an agnostic technique. It doesn’t care what your preconceived notions are.

As far as recreating life, among others, J. Craig Venter has essentially done just that: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1642

Why is it hard to believe that through eons of experimentation, natural processes were able to do the same thing he was?

What would convince you that macroevolution can be tested? The fossil record has left many transitional fossils over the ages that show how one specie transformed into another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

And with Hugh Ross, that is something you are letting your theology get in the way of. Even among YECism there is no consensus on things like how Noah’s flood supposedly occurred (Discovery versus AiG). Furthermore, why are you letting an interpretation of the bible be your guide to science?

Do you plan on doing war with:
Day-Age creationists
Gap creationists
Progressive creationists
OEC
Other YECs

That sounds counterproductive. While there may be lots of disagreement about frameworks and models within the scientific community you don’t see whole slews of biologists throwing out the scientific method just to satisfy their preconceived philosophical beliefs. They are open to change, which unfortunately is not something holy texts are allowed to do.

]]> By: OC http://offensivechristians.com/creationism-debate-exported-to-britain/#comment-52 OC Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:14:11 +0000 http://offensivechristians.com/creationism-debate-exported-to-britain/#comment-52 Tim, Thanks again for coming over. I think its interesting that most of the pioneers of modern science were Christians. Their belief in a supernatural creator God did not hinder their research or the expansion of science. Religious rhetoric is not inherently anti-science. How can one recreate the original evolution of non-life to life? I don't think it can be done and yet that it evolved is accepted by scientists who deny God's existence. I don't see how macroevolution as taught today can be tested either. Hugh does a disservice to Christians by throwing aside his bible whenever current scientific opinion differs from the Word. OC Tim,

Thanks again for coming over. I think its interesting that most of the pioneers of modern science were Christians. Their belief in a supernatural creator God did not hinder their research or the expansion of science. Religious rhetoric is not inherently anti-science.

How can one recreate the original evolution of non-life to life? I don’t think it can be done and yet that it evolved is accepted by scientists who deny God’s existence. I don’t see how macroevolution as taught today can be tested either.

Hugh does a disservice to Christians by throwing aside his bible whenever current scientific opinion differs from the Word.

OC

]]> By: Tim Swanson http://offensivechristians.com/creationism-debate-exported-to-britain/#comment-51 Tim Swanson Tue, 25 Mar 2008 04:00:47 +0000 http://offensivechristians.com/creationism-debate-exported-to-britain/#comment-51 I figured since you were congenial enough to take the time to comment at mine, I should reciprocate. Not that I am a fan of public schools (or anything managed by the state), but lets looks at the statement "equal access for opposing views." Out of curiosity, just how many opposing views are there to modern science? I'd wager that there are many and that nearly all of them are steeped in religious rhetoric. And again, ID is no different than many listed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth). It does not offer a testable model or something you can recreate. So, by definition, it is not scientific. While they may reject a natural explanation for the origin of the species at least old earth creationists like Hugh Ross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist) aren't doing a disservice to their congregation for suggesting that ID is a valid scientific methodology. The same cannot be said for those misguided Britons. Cheers. I figured since you were congenial enough to take the time to comment at mine, I should reciprocate.

Not that I am a fan of public schools (or anything managed by the state), but lets looks at the statement “equal access for opposing views.”

Out of curiosity, just how many opposing views are there to modern science?

I’d wager that there are many and that nearly all of them are steeped in religious rhetoric.

And again, ID is no different than many listed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth). It does not offer a testable model or something you can recreate. So, by definition, it is not scientific.

While they may reject a natural explanation for the origin of the species at least old earth creationists like Hugh Ross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist) aren’t doing a disservice to their congregation for suggesting that ID is a valid scientific methodology.

The same cannot be said for those misguided Britons.

Cheers.

]]>