Creation-ists view vs Science

[Zak33]

This is not truly a debate issue...it's an issue of UNFAIRNESS.

Lets take 2 sides: Those who believe that the world was created by God and probably is less than 7 days.....and those who believe in a Scientific view point, such as Big Bang, Tectonic Plate movement, the earth moving thorugh space,and Survival of the Fitest, with the odd bit of random gene devlopment chucked in.

I dont want to argue about who is right. Not today.

But I have a point to make. A SCIENTIST can be made to believe IF HE/SHE is shown hard fact.

So if a consortium of 50 holymen turned up at a Scientists convention and showed each of them, both individually and jointly, a series of provable scientific facts that PROVED the world was created in 7 days...

because they ARE SCIENTISTS.....and they live their life through hard fact and evidence and proof....

THEY WOULD BE CONVERTED.

But a Creationalist will NEVER BE SWAYED from their belief, either with or without evidence.

Which...in a wierd and slightly scary way....

leaves SCIENTISTS IN A WEAK POSITION.....where by they are in a million billion to 1 chance that someone MIGHT TURN UP AND SHOW THEM HOW IT HAPPENED in 7 days.

but the Creationists will never be swayed....ever....even with hard fact.

I have thought about that all weekend...its rocked me to my core. Cos I feel weakened by it.

What do you lot feel? NOT ABOUT WHICH IS RIGHT or wrong in the debate of Gods/Science's world....but in the lackof ability to convince people who are ......unconvinceable?

[joshwa]

That's part of the core fundamentals of a religion such as Christianity - to believe without doubt, to believe without seeing, to keep on believing year after year without seeing anything until you die.

Whereas with Science, it's all about being able to see something, to scientifically measure a fact and be able to demonstrate it over and over again. The facts that can be proved by science, I'm pretty sure the scientists who have proven those things will believe them 100% till someone shows them something different, and probably for the majority of things they can prove as 100%, they'll believe them till they die...

The 50 holymen probably wouldn't be able to find enough evidence and proof to convince the scientists though. There is a lot of evidence for a lot of the Bible stuff - but there's a lot of stuff against it, so believing in the Bible etc is still about a belief and faith in it, rather than science.

[Big RICHARD]

Does this mean that the Creationalists are narrow minded? That all religious bodies have narrow minded people to the core, who are unwilling to entertain the notion that their view MAY at some point be proven wrong (or inaccurate), where scientists (your definition) are much more open-minded and can allow for the fact that their explaination may have inaccuracies or shortfalls, but are willing to take on board different points of view if proof (evidence) can be shown?

[joshwa]

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
Does this mean that the Creationalists are narrow minded? That all religious bodies have narrow minded people to the core, who are unwilling to entertain the notion that their view MAY at some point be proven wrong (or inaccurate), where scientists (your definition) are much more open-minded and can allow for the fact that their explaination may have inaccuracies or shortfalls, but are willing to take on board different points of view if proof (evidence) can be shown?

no and yes. yes that's the whole point in religion, muslims believe their religion is the way. christians believe their religion is the way. it's difficult to explain, but it's not necessarily a bad thing for them to be "narrow-minded" as you call it, because that's what (the main 3) religion requires^.

.. the no bit - because a religious person is set in stone in their beliefs about creation (not all christians do necessarily*), doesn't mean they are narrow-minded about other areas of life...

* some christians believe definitely that 7 days was actually 7 days, some thing 7days doesn't mean 7 actual days, but they could have been much longer, eg a day could have been about 10/100/1000years etc

//edit ^ also, there are people who convert from christianity to islam, and vice versa, and the other religions too - so not everybody is set in stone, even though the main religions pretty much require it...

[nichomach]

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, Zak, I think you MAY be adopting a somewhat rose-tinted view of scientists; they are as subject to prejudice as anyone else and as prone to error and to the denial in the face of evidence of that error - Roy Meadows, anyone? What about the large number of scientists ready and willing to "prove" the inferiority of Jews for the Nazis?

Now, although I am a Christian, I am NOT a fundamentalist creationist - I just happen to think God did a fantastic job with evolution (there's an old proverb that "God writes straight with crooked lines") and I happen to believe that science is a good way to study that. That said, there are enough scientists out there who, while being unable to prove the non-existence of God, are all too ready to deride people of faith as being credulous fools or inadequates, citing their special status as scientists (

because they ARE SCIENTISTS.....and they live their life through hard fact and evidence and proof....

) as probitive of their assertion, even though they cannot offer ANY evidence in support of it.

Blind obedience to religious doctrine may be dangerous, but I feel that blind acceptance of what a scientist says "because he's a scientist" may be at least as much so.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by nichomach
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, Zak, I think you MAY be adopting a somewhat rose-tinted view of scientists; they are as subject to prejudice as anyone else and as prone to error and to the denial in the face of evidence of that error - Roy Meadows, anyone? What about the large number of scientists ready and willing to "prove" the inferiority of Jews for the Nazis?

Now, although I am a Christian, I am NOT a fundamentalist creationist - I just happen to think God did a fantastic job with evolution (there's an old proverb that "God writes straight with crooked lines") and I happen to believe that science is a good way to study that. That said, there are enough scientists out there who, while being unable to prove the non-existence of God, are all too ready to deride people of faith as being credulous fools or inadequates, citing their special status as scientists ( ) as probitive of their assertion, even though they cannot offer ANY evidence in support of it.

Blind obedience to religious doctrine may be dangerous, but I feel that blind acceptance of what a scientist says "because he's a scientist" may be at least as much so.

Out of interest, can you explain your opinion regarding the big bang/big crunch theories and how they relate to your view of the creation of the world?

I almost studied the History and Philosophy of science at Uni, didn't in the end, but was good mates with a guy who did it at cambridge and was always interested in talking to him about it (mainly at music festivals when worse for wear ). The historic intertwining of science and religion is very interesting I think.

[nichomach]

Out of interest, can you explain your opinion regarding the big bang/big crunch theories and how they relate to your view of the creation of the world?

OK, I am emphatically NOT a physicist, but I have no problem with the idea of God setting a train of events in motion spanning billions of years, from Big Bang to Big Crunch, including the development of life, in the same way that I have no problem believing that every so often, he'll make adjustments to it.

In the same way that I don't believe that the course of our lives is foreordained (we have free will, and what we do with that determines to a large extent the course of our lives) I think God might create the preconditions for life to develop eventually, but to do so at its own pace and in its own way.

[Zak33]

Me .....ROSE TINTED......?

Nope...and I believe in Science .......but I must use HUGE SWEEPING BLANKET DESCRIPTIONS of groups of people. I have no doubt that the evil experimentation by "scientists" in Nazi war camps was done more out of pure evil and despicable cruelty...

I would rather avoid Nazi war crimes please.....if possible....I have read too much on the subject and it chills me to the bone and raises an anger I feel hard to check......but cos I know you dont mean it offensivley, but simply as constructive arguement, I shall use a crude but essential example.

Imagine a Nazi "Scientist" proved that a drug could cause a prisoner to fly.......actually FLY.......cos they were evil and cruel bastardsfrom hell, they would no doubt do it over and bloody over again....but it would PROVE IT. And we would ALL KNOW IT WAS POSSIBLE right now.

The Nazi insistence in proving the lowly value of Jews was never proven except within their own twisted world. No one else had it PROVEN...just the depravity and horror of the situation.

Imust use the definition of a Scientist as one who's SOLE AIM os for PROOF....in everything they do....and then to PROVE it to the unblievers UNTIL they believe too.

Electricity. Aircraft flight. Telephones. Internal Combustion.

Proof is what drives SCIENCE..well I think it is anyway.

But Creation is not provable.......

BUT IF IT IS....then the majority of Scientists will question it UNTIL ITS PROVEN TO THEM,,,,and then they will believe!

Cos its proven...with evidence and proof....

and yet that will never happen vice-a-versa

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by Zak33


But Creation is not provable.......

BUT IF IT IS....then the majority of Scientists will question it UNTIL ITS PROVEN TO THEM,,,,and then they will believe!

Cos its proven...with evidence and proof....

and yet that will never happen vice-a-versa

Very good point. That is where the whole problem with religion lies......

[Zak33]

it does.....the one sided arguement is quitea shame.

And wierdly I feel like the losing side is the side who would behappy to believe IF IT WAS PROVEN....

not the unprovable side

[nichomach]

The Nazi insistence in proving the lowly value of Jews was never proven except within their own twisted world. No one else had it PROVEN...just the depravity and horror of the situation.

My point was not that it was proven or unproven objectively, but that it was given a spurious credibility because a "scientist" said it, in the same way that in recent criminal cases regarding sudden infant death syndrome (Trupti Patel et al) some very ropey statistical evidence from Roy Meadows was given undue credibility because a "scientist" said it. There is a tendency among both the ordinary run of people and among scientisits themselves to assume that, not the scientific process or method, but scientists themselves are possessed of absolute undisputable authority, and it's this tendency which I would argue is dangerous.

Imust use the definition of a Scientist as one who's SOLE AIM os for PROOF....in everything they do....

Unfortunately, there is a significant disparity between the number of people who describe themselves as scientists and the number of people who would fulfil that criterion...

As I have said, I am not myself a fundamentalist creationist, and I do not disparage science or the scientific method, but there seems all too often to be an unquestioning acceptance of and obedience to the pronouncements of scientists that can be as damaging as, and virtually indistinguishable from, unquestioning acceptance of and obedience to fundamentalist religious doctrine.

[TiG]

god is asleep

Here is a very nice little theory, its light hearted and interesting.

But I think that is one of the nicest theories on the subject out there.

I think the question highlights more about personal belief about what is out there than anything, do you have faith that there is more than the physical form.

Personally I believe in God and the existance of an afterlife, there is too much that we can't explain that makes me believe this, as in i believe because you can't prove me wrong.

TiG

[Zak33]

Originally posted by TiG
Personally I believe in God and the existance of an afterlife, there is too much that we can't explain that makes me believe this, as in i believe because you can't prove me wrong.

TiG

But, cos I know roughly the kind of person that you are, if I DID prove something to you, I think you would then believe it. It doesn't matter whether that "thing" is the working of a handbrake or the existence in God....if I proved it to you, so that you understood and acknowledged it, you would be a believer.

Because you are a "Scientist" at heart.

But what I am saying is that if I could prove that there WAS NO GOD......and NO AFTERLIFE, then you would also take that on board...obviously I can't, so its all hypothetical...but if you go with me on it, and I DID prove it to you, that God didnt exist and we were all alone, I think that, in theory at least, you WOULD belive, because it had been explained.

That's where Creationalists fail to join in the Party....even if we had evidence to totally reject the 7 day thing-umy.....they wouldnt have any of it.

Which is sad, cos it means we aren't EVER gonna be able to tie this thing up,and lots of people on ONE side might swing over to the otherside, but the other way around is NEVER gonna happen.

One way street.....and irony is what this debate is all about....

[ZeroTheHero]

There is a famous story about Gallileo.

He announced that he had discovered the rings around Saturn (other observers had just seen the planet as an oval shape due to their primitive telescopes). A leading Church official immediately went to see him and told him that such talk was heretical. Gallileo pointed to his telescope and asked the churchman if he would like to use the telescope and see for himself. The offer was refused and the priest left, still threatening the scientist with dire consequences.

I can't help feeling that this attitude still persists

[TiG]

Yes Zak i'm a scientist, you know that and you are quite correct that if you could put down the evidence in front of me to show the god didn't exist i'd follow that, (the fact that this will never be proved either way doesn't make this as interesting to me)

But lets take something that exists in real life,

How about a lump of coal, this lump of coal is like every other lump of coal, fairly hard, burns well, but its White, (its not really white - its black)

But i'm not going to show you this lump of coal as its my special lump of coal, can i convince you of this fact?.

To me this sums up human nature much more than anything else, are you guible, am I convincing enough for you to believe. Or do you believe in me enough to trust me on faith, or do you not believe me at all because you can't see it?.

You've got to believe in something and thats the important thing, I've got a lot of time for someone who has a fixed view, I don't believe because I can't see it, I believe it because I have faith, I believe because X taught me it was the way.

However if you've got no view - don't really care about it - thats the really poor thing.

TiG

[Zak33]

I dont want to believe or NOT believe in the colour of the coal....I just want someone to AGREE that if it is proven, that they WILL AGREE if its incontrovertible.

I want to be on a debate where you might one day win....

not one where you must give up because you are debating with a person with closed ears.

I am often wrong....I hate it but it happens...so long as I can FINALLY admit to being worng IF ITS PROVEN TO ME that I am worng, then I am still a person worthy of discussion.

BUT....if I stead fastly refuse FOREVER ......irrespective of the proof, that your coal is white because I AM UNABLE to admit something......then I have failed.

it makes me sad...because one of mankinds best attributes is discussion...and it also causes the most arse ache.

And religion aside.....even faith aside.......to debate with a non-debatable opposition, is a waste of time.