Creationist Error #5: Evolution = Religion

[Parsimony]

Until a classroom is able to teach absolute truth -and proof thereof..... should not a classroom explain all ideas that have not absolutely been proven false -thereby imparting an accurate view of the present state of understanding?

That would be exceedingly impractical. There are far too many unfalsified ideas about the world to possibly discuss in school.

 

[Etritonakin]

That would be exceedingly impractical. There are far too many unfalsified ideas about the world to possibly discuss in school.

OK -"explain all" was a bit much -perhaps "be open to discussing" -and "a classroom" would be better as "the educational system".

I'd imagine that simply asking questions such as "How can we know we were -or were not -created?" would be an awesome educational experience.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

OK -"explain all" was a bit much -perhaps "be open to discussing" -and "a classroom" would be better as "the educational system".

I'd imagine that simply asking questions such as "How can we know we were -or were not -created?" would be an awesome educational experience.

It would. So long as the correct scientific answers were given. Any question can be asked by students in the classroom. There is absolutely no rule against asking creationist based questions. The problem is that many teachers are afraid of offending their students, or more importantly their parents, to give honest answers against their belief systems.

 

[leibowde84]

That would be my point exactly. If it were down to random mutations only, natural selection would favor the least harmed, the least damaged version of it's predecessor.- Nothing demands net improvement by this process

The probability and ease of procreation demand it.

 

[Etritonakin]

It would. So long as the correct scientific answers were given. Any question can be asked by students in the classroom. There is absolutely no rule against asking creationist based questions. The problem is that many teachers are afraid of offending their students, or more importantly their parents, to give honest answers against their belief systems.

It is sad that many religious people are not open to considering scientific data -and that sort of thing also makes many steer clear of religion or God altogether.
Misguided religion has led many to err, and will continue to do so -but this is true of anything which involves humans. It is not as if science has not led many to err in its limited vision.

I'm not only talking about "creationism", though. That specific question need not even have anything to do with God -but how any other life form might have influenced the life we see around us what sort of evidence would be left -if any, etc...
and even considering that which was not can lead to increased understanding and capability.

If science has facts -and the known is separated from the presently unknown or assumed -it is valuable to all.

My experience was one of reading the bible -assuming that I knew what it meant -hearing what others thought it meant -and then being presented with scientific facts.
Fortunately, I was able to question my beliefs and was open to considering information.
Also fortunately, I did not simply reject the idea of creation because science proved some assumptions incorrect.
Science proved that creation did not happen a certain way. I had to acknowledge that it did -but also acknowledge what it had not done.
When I compared what the bible actually did say -to what was believed about it -then to scientific fact, I found that the whole controversy was quite unnecessary.
It is a bit like people worrying about the "true meaning of Christmas", when -from a biblical perspective -it actually has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ or the bible.
Some would accuse me of twisting scripture to mean what I wanted it to mean, but that is not what I did.
I considered what was written based on what the definitions allowed, and found that many assumptions about it were very incorrect.

So -the whole experience caused me to begin to constantly check everything against everything else.

I have more reason to believe in creation than some -and know that I cannot prove it scientifically to another.
I cannot recreate certain experiences at will for another which might change what they consider to be possible.

I also know that we cannot only consider what is known to be fact.
Even science steps out into the unknown in order to learn more facts -but as it involves humans, it is just as susceptible as religion to closing its mind at times -and blinding itself to what is obvious.

More importantly... life is dynamic, and it is rare that we have all of the facts -but we still have to make decisions based on beliefs, and things we know but cannot yet prove.

Therefore, considering all things -not necessarily accepting them -leads to being better prepared to make decisions.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Therefore, considering all things -not necessarily accepting them -leads to being better prepared to make decisions.

I think that questioning and allowing people to have these discussions will lead to better education. I don't think, however, we should introduce non-science to the science class. The questions are already open by law but there are teachers that are ill prepared to answer them.

 

[Etritonakin]

I think that questioning and allowing people to have these discussions will lead to better education. I don't think, however, we should introduce non-science to the science class. The questions are already open by law but there are teachers that are ill prepared to answer them.

That stands to reason. That would make it a Non-science class. Errant religion is not the only non-science, however. If a science class is used as an anti-religion or anti-God class it is just as wrong.

 

[gnostic]

It is sad that many religious people are not open to considering scientific data -and that sort of thing also makes many steer clear of religion or God altogether.
Misguided religion has led many to err, and will continue to do so -but this is true of anything which involves humans.

If science has facts -and the known is separated from the presently unknown or assumed -it is valuable to all.

Finally! Now I can agree with that.

Even science steps out into the unknown in order to learn more facts -but as it involves humans, it is just as susceptible as religion to closing its mind at times -and blinding itself to what is obvious.

Yes, scientists are human too, but if they use methodology to find these "facts", then it no longer about just human perception or personal belief. These facts involved being able to test the predictions made by the theories or hypotheses. Facts also involved finding evidences that will either validate or invalidate those hypotheses or theories.

Scientific theory is very much dependent on falsification and scientific method, important parts of science. And both falsification and scientific method involved any theory or hypothesis being "refutable", meaning that it can be tested or being testable.

Unfalsifiable statements are considered unscientific or pseudoscience.

Of course, not all scientific theory are testable, but they can be "provable" through mathematical and logical models, like super-string theory or M-theory. These are grouped as theoretical physics, because they can be proven from mathematical equations or mathematical models. Theoretical physics used and relied on mathematical proof, not evidences, while most other science rely on evidences and less on proof.

The whole idea of "Creator" and "creation" is "unfalsifiable", and therefore unscientific.

Similarly, Intelligent Design is also unfalsifiable too, because no one can test this "Designer". Designer is pretty much saying the same thing as "creator" or "god".

In science, any statement must be testable or refutable. Test can either be done either by observation (which is evidence or experiment) or done by like theoretical physics, through mathematical proof (which is mathematical equations or model).

Sure, whether a person can be religious or a scientist (or both), can make mistakes like any other human, but it is evidence that separate science from religion. A religious person would rely more on faith, especially in regards to the existence of a god (hence theism).

Faith rely solely on a person's opinion, desire, wish or belief, not upon evidences or facts.

 

[Etritonakin]

Finally! Now I can agree with that.


Yes, scientists are human too, but if they use methodology to find these "facts", then it no longer about just human perception or personal belief. These facts involved being able to test the predictions made by the theories or hypotheses. Facts also involved finding evidences that will either validate or invalidate those hypotheses or theories.

Scientific theory is very much dependent on falsification and scientific method, important parts of science. And both falsification and scientific method involved any theory or hypothesis being "refutable", meaning that it can be tested or being testable.

Unfalsifiable statements are considered unscientific or pseudoscience.

Of course, not all scientific theory are testable, but they can be "provable" through mathematical and logical models, like super-string theory or M-theory. These are grouped as theoretical physics, because they can be proven from mathematical equations or mathematical models. Theoretical physics used and relied on mathematical proof, not evidences, while most other science rely on evidences and less on proof.

The whole idea of "Creator" and "creation" is "unfalsifiable", and therefore unscientific.

Similarly, Intelligent Design is also unfalsifiable too, because no one can test this "Designer". Designer is pretty much saying the same thing as "creator" or "god".

In science, any statement must be testable or refutable. Test can either be done either by observation (which is evidence or experiment) or done by like theoretical physics, through mathematical proof (which is mathematical equations or model).

Sure, whether a person can be religious or a scientist (or both), can make mistakes like any other human, but it is evidence that separate science from religion. A religious person would rely more on faith, especially in regards to the existence of a god (hence theism).

Faith rely solely on a person's opinion, desire, wish or belief, not upon evidences or facts.

That is not an accurate description of the faith described in the bible, but is accurate when describing the so-called faith of many.

I do not believe the whole idea of a creator or creation is inherently unfalsifiable (depending on one's idea of it, perhaps), as it should be able to be proven true or false at some point. It is unfalsifiable from a certain perspective, but enough data would eventually allow it to be proven true or false.

(The miraculous would not be beyond understanding, but beyond present understanding.)

Science increasingly collects data about an unknown reality, and enough data would eventually reveal what could and could not have happened -did and did not happen at various points -in regards to a creator of some description.

It would not be completely impossible to prove -scientifically -the existence of a creator which did exist through models -given enough data.
(Likewise, the complete absence of any creator prior to life on earth)

Our perspective must always be considered -as must the fact that it constantly changes.

Science has proved that a specific set of things did not happen concerning the emergence of life -and also that a specific set of things did happen.
Scientific proof that the Earth is not 6,000 years old was a building block of my own faith.
That proof is the substance of that which is not seen (we did not see it, but we can know it) concerning that subject.
It made my overall view of things more certain.
True faith in God is actually no different at all.
It includes some things which can be tested, modeled, shared, reproduced, etc.
However, it involves some things which are impossible to share, reproduce, test, etc.

Assume God exists for a moment.... And is able to show certain things to certain people at certain times -and also hide certain things from others -even to instantaneously give packets of data or hide data from humans -to show incredible power of manipulation of the natural world -or to not.
From the perspective of many modern humans, the events of the bible seem ridiculous. However, it would not be the case if they experienced similar.

Then imagine an atheist scientist experiencing similar.
They may have experienced evidence, but sharing it is another story.

When I learn something, I add that known to all other knowns -some of which concern the subject of the miraculous (beyond present capability or understanding) and spiritual (non-flesh intelligence/activity).

I, personally, have not experienced all that was written in the bible, but I have experienced things which cause me to not doubt that they are possible.
I also have enough personal experience and collected evidence to make certain other determinations about the bible -and not simply based on blind belief, wishes, desires, etc.

Faith and scientific method are essentially the same thing at their core, but faith includes things not easily shared -and an intelligence not interested in revealing all things to all men at once.

(A bit off the subject, but...... I was just remembering part of a TV show where an actor playing a geeky type was trying to do the math necessary to hit a baseball with a bat out loud, and cause his body to enact the results. The person trying to teach him to hit the ball told him something like "just feel it".
My point is that we can actually know things we don't really understand, just as our minds are able to do math that we don't even understand.
Not even sure why I was thinking it..... perhaps as an illustration of the fact that sometimes a "feeling" is much more than just a feeling -and not being able to prove something is not necessarily the same thing as not knowing it.
The mind models and processes without our conscious effort -but it does utilize collected data to do so more accurately.)

(Off subject -just watched a documentary about radiation. It was suggested that not only have we evolved to tolerate low-dose radiation, but that low-dose radiation may be responsible for evolution, as it is known to cause mutations.
Sweeeeeeet)

 

[gnostic]

That is not an accurate description of the faith described in the bible, but is accurate when describing the so-called faith of many.

I do not believe the whole idea of a creator or creation is inherently unfalsifiable (depending on one's idea of it, perhaps), as it should be able to be proven true or false at some point. It is unfalsifiable from a certain perspective, but enough data would eventually allow it to be proven true or false.

Sorry, but can you supply any EVIDENCE that conclusively and categorically verify that God's existence is TRUE, other than through your belief?

If you can't, then that just faith, which is no better than your personal opinion or personal taste.

Falsifiability is the ability to refute any statement, logic or claim, and that mean - you or anyone else should be able to test them. And you can't test the existence of god. And if you can't test, then you can't test if god is involve in the creation of the natural world. That's what I'd call a DOUBLE WHAMMY - both of them are unfalsifiable, therefore both god and its creation myth of the bible is nothing more than pseudoscience or unscientific.

 

[Etritonakin]

Sorry, but can you supply any EVIDENCE that conclusively and categorically verify that God's existence is TRUE, other than through your belief?

If you can't, then that just faith, which is no better than your personal opinion or personal taste.

Falsifiability is the ability to refute any statement, logic or claim, and that mean - you or anyone else should be able to test them. And you can't test the existence of god. And if you can't test, then you can't test if god is involve in the creation of the natural world. That's what I'd call a DOUBLE WHAMMY - both of them are unfalsifiable, therefore both god and its creation myth of the bible is nothing more than pseudoscience or unscientific.

As I thought I made clear, but perhaps did not.... I'm not actually saying you are incorrect. What you are saying is presently true overall -and from your perspective.
That is not to say that it will always be true -or that your perspective (or humanity's overall perspective) will never change (by discovering or being provided with evidence that either God does or does not exist and did or did not).

I am saying that not all evidence of all things can be provided at will.
Some things are what I call unusual arrangements of ordinary things which are not easily reproduced -and I use the example of rogue waves. Rogue waves were considered myth -but only for a time. It's just water -but an unusual arrangement.

To address the double whammy....
Proof of the involvement -or lack of involvement -of another intelligence in our creation could be determined with enough understanding of our environment -just as the incorrect belief of a young earth was shown to be false.
We -overall and collectively -just aren't there yet.

We may yet determine -and should be able to eventually determine -beyond doubt that an intelligence must have been -or could not have been -involved in our creation or the creation of the universe -because increased evidence would eventually provide the necessary data.

Proof of the existence of God -an individual personality with specific capabilities, etc., -could require all to experience firsthand that unusual arrangement of things known as God -though if one knew all else, once could discern that which was not yet known.

The problem with testable evidence/proof of God is that he has a will and much power.
Apart from learning all else and determining God must exist that way, it would essentially require that God show up for the test.
Or..... As the return of Christ -the revealing of the glory of the Lord -is described.... "And all flesh shall see it together"

If that does not happen, there will not be that evidence. If it does happen, all who see it will have that evidence -but those who were not alive to see it will still not.

If I tell you Christ will return, stand on the cloven mount of Olives with his "glorious body", and destroy the armies of the earth which will turn to fight him.... You would likely think it ridiculous.

If you saw it happen, you would likely think something to the effect of "Oh, OK" (but probably with more enthusiasm).

So -if you, personally, experienced something -a rogue wave, the appearance of an angel, a miracle, God granting you an audience with him.......
You would have a certain amount of evidence -but it would not easily be shared -would not necessarily be testable by others -but it would be more than just belief.

A rogue wave was eventually recreated in a lab -but the subjects of creation, Angels, God, miracles, etc., are more complex -but that is not to say that evidence will not eventually be found or provided to all.

Some of what is called faith is blind belief, but that is not actually the faith described in the bible.
There were few in the bible who did not experience (according to the account, if you will) some freaky or unusual things which got their attention and made them realize that there was something greater than they had known was happening.

At some point -just as with physical events, -enough evidence can be collected and experienced -even applied to models -to be certain of things which have not yet happened -or certain that things described as happening in the past were quite possible.

Generally speaking, universally-known, accepted and demonstrable proof of the existence of God, and any involvement in creation -or the opposite, is only presently unfalsifiable due to the present overall state of human understanding.

Job is quoted as saying the following.
It IS possible for him to KNOW it -not just believe it -but not possible for him to cause you to know it.
Then again -he experienced things which you have not -or have not yet.
He had a different overall experience than yourself.

25For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

We can know/predict the scientific future scientifically -and we can know the spiritual future spiritually (though incomplete or misunderstood evidence can temporarily mislead in either case)
They are not different -they deal with different sorts of evidence.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That stands to reason. That would make it a Non-science class. Errant religion is not the only non-science, however. If a science class is used as an anti-religion or anti-God class it is just as wrong.

I can assure you that there is not a single public high school science teacher that is pushing anti- religion. The reason I know this is because they would be sacked rather quickly. Now if people consider it anti-religious to state that evolution happened then that is the fault of the religion for being wrong at that point.

 

[Etritonakin]

I can assure you that there is not a single public high school science teacher that is pushing anti- religion. The reason I know this is because they would be sacked rather quickly. Now if people consider it anti-religious to state that evolution happened then that is the fault of the religion for being wrong at that point.

I would imagine there is likely at least one.
As with many things, that which is prohibited is often still done in subtle ways.
It is also true that the science class is only one part of a system which does prohibit some religious expression -which is part of a society in which anti-religious sentiment is growing -so those things likely find their way into classrooms.

Partly in response to religion ignorantly sticking its nose where it does not belong, the pendulum is generally swinging too far the other way -as is the case with most issues.

Pure science is something which essentially can not be faulted, but wrongs are often committed by all in the struggle over which ideas can and should be expressed -where, how and when they can and should be expressed -regardless of the subject matter.
In defense of blameless science, people can and sometimes do infringe upon the rights of the religious, just as religion has often infringed upon the rights of people. The same is true for all issues -and it will likely be so until we all agree (which is essentially impossible given a constantly-refreshed population.)

I do not believe it is anti-religious to state that evolution happened, and do believe that religion has no place in a science class in particular unless it can add something which relates to science. That is not impossible, but would be appropriate in discussion rather than course material.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I would imagine there is likely at least one.
As with many things, that which is prohibited is often still done in subtle ways.
It is also true that the science class is only one part of a system which does prohibit some religious expression -which is part of a society in which anti-religious sentiment is growing -so those things likely find their way into classrooms.

If it is done so subtly that no parent gets into a hissy over it then I am quite confident that the subtle anti-religious messages will have little to no effect on the mountains of religious indoctrination that individuals are usually subject to.

Partly in response to religion ignorantly sticking its nose where it does not belong, the pendulum is generally swinging too far the other way -as is the case with most issues.

Most?

Pure science is something which essentially can not be faulted, but wrongs are often committed by all in the struggle over which ideas can and should be expressed -where, how and when they can and should be expressed -regardless of the subject matter.
In defense of blameless science, people can and sometimes do infringe upon the rights of the religious, just as religion has often infringed upon the rights of people. The same is true for all issues -and it will likely be so until we all agree (which is essentially impossible given a constantly-refreshed population.)

Science is a process. I don't know how we blame a process. We amend processes all the time to make it work better but we don't fault the wheel we only make it better.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Dunno why it did that. I can't edit the ending quote marks that pop up.

 

[Etritonakin]

If it is done so subtly that no parent gets into a hissy over it then I am quite confident that the subtle anti-religious messages will have little to no effect on the mountains of religious indoctrination that individuals are usually subject to.

The whole thing with subtlety is to do things while avoiding others.

Not on the subject of science (though forwarding science is sometimes used as part of a guise), but related to schools.... Children are being affected quite adversely all over -very subtly -to the point that little can be done about it in individual cases and perhaps nothing can be done about it overall given the present situation and an unwillingness to change. Some of it is anti-religious, some is pro-witchcraft/sorcery or pro- various other groups -with parents being able to do little about it.
Being able to just learn science without religious influence would be awesome compared to what is actually going on in schools (and everywhere else).

Ironically, one cannot completely understand or counter what is actually happening without a proper religious perspective.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The whole thing with subtlety is to do things while avoiding others.

Not on the subject of science (though forwarding science is sometimes used as part of a guise), but related to schools.... Children are being affected quite adversely all over -very subtly -to the point that little can be done about it in individual cases and perhaps nothing can be done about it overall given the present situation and an unwillingness to change. Some of it is anti-religious, some is pro-witchcraft/sorcery or pro- various other groups -with parents being able to do little about it.
Being able to just learn science without religious influence would be awesome compared to what is actually going on in schools (and everywhere else).

Ironically, one cannot completely understand or counter what is actually happening without a proper religious perspective.

I would say that less than 1% of it is towards anti-religion. Very very very very near if not 0% is for witchcraft and sorcery. I know this second one is probably zero because people that do follow religions or occult paths that deal with serious attempts at magic don't have any inclination or desire to spread it. In fact many take pride in how secret they are with it. This concept of witchcraft to seduce the minds of the young is a fable created in the middle ages out of fear of witches.

About 99% of the sublte influences in our school system, and many times not so subtle, is in the direction of conservative or fundamentalist Christianity.

 

[Etritonakin]

I would say that less than 1% of it is towards anti-religion. Very very very very near if not 0% is for witchcraft and sorcery. I know this second one is probably zero because people that do follow religions or occult paths that deal with serious attempts at magic don't have any inclination or desire to spread it. In fact many take pride in how secret they are with it. This concept of witchcraft to seduce the minds of the young is a fable created in the middle ages out of fear of witches.

About 99% of the sublte influences in our school system, and many times not so subtle, is in the direction of conservative or fundamentalist Christianity.

I understand that everyone has their own perspective, but on this subject I must say you really have no clue whatsoever. Been many places -seen it everywhere.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I understand that everyone has their own perspective, but on this subject I must say you really have no clue whatsoever. Been many places -seen it everywhere.

As have I. I have never seen anyone come close to the amount of sheer skill and effort to usurp science by conservative Christian fundamentalists. No one even close. The jury isn't out. Evolution is fact. Yet now we have several states where it isn't treated that way. Where the evidence is not allowed to be talked about because it is too controversial. I mean there really is no contest.

I don't know what else it is that you are alluding to. I hope its not the sorcery and witchcraft. I really want to see at least one example of how this is a thing.

 

[Etritonakin]

As have I. I have never seen anyone come close to the amount of sheer skill and effort to usurp science by conservative Christian fundamentalists. No one even close. The jury isn't out. Evolution is fact. Yet now we have several states where it isn't treated that way. Where the evidence is not allowed to be talked about because it is too controversial. I mean there really is no contest.

I don't know what else it is that you are alluding to. I hope its not the sorcery and witchcraft. I really want to see at least one example of how this is a thing.

I did go off on a tangent there to make a point about subtlety -the point being that it is difficult to see/understand/prevent.

Evolution is a fact -but there is far more going on in the world -and relating to the issue between evolution and creationism -than a desire to state facts.
However, those other things are often not the main focus -sometimes by design.
Few issues are unaffected by other issues, and controversies are often used as an opportunity to further or promote other agendas.
Passions/strong emotions and stances can also make people easy to manipulate.

You might have to really look for what you really want to see ...and look where people don't want you to look, don't give you opportunity to look or where and when they don't schedule you to look from above, below, within, without or all around.

They'll be aware of when you become aware -then it's a matter of surrounding, misdirecting, misrepresenting, shuffling, removing, etc.....