Theory of Creation?

[juliod]

The big problem in the debate over creation is the utter lack of a "theory of creation".

They never tell us the where and when or their theory, and never tell us the evidence that supports it.

For example, Genesis is true, then the three most important events in history are 1) The Creation, 2) The Flood, and 3) The Babel story.

Some creationists accept 4004 BC for the date of creation. But I have never seen anyone put a date on the other two.

The Babel story should be very easy to support, since all branches of linguistics should point to the location of the tower as the origin.

It's also remarkable that no creationist organization has yet built a replica ark and showed that it it seaworthy and capable of carrying a large number of animals, etc.

DanZ

[seventil]

So, the theory of evolution is testable and falsifiable, and therefore meets seventil's criterion.

Yes, yes yes. It is testable and falsifiable; and while I don't think it should be not-taught in schools (minus the baggage as said before) - I do think it should be taught less as fact and more as theory.

However, everything after those first moments fits with current known laws, so we'd have to conclude that God's role was, at most, to push the "start" button. Could be. It will be interesting to see what future scientists figure out as more data become available.

Eh, remember Jose - God did create the universe, and the laws that go along with it - so a better analogy would be "designed, created, then pushed the start button"

The point is not that we are saying "I don't know - but it's not God." We are saying that it is not a valid scientific conclusion to say "I don't know - therefore it must be God."

I agree. However, I feel sometimes like it is "I don't know - but it's not God".

Look at the anti-God and anti-religion we get here, a very civil debate site for the subject. I come with the view of "I don't know - it's God - but I want to find out how anyway" - and yet still people try to convince me my faith based belief is not viable because of a lack of tangible evidences. I know it's not many that do this, but I think the intolerance for ones beliefs on both sides of the table is a negative thing no matter how you look at it.

Enough of that rant...

Indeed, nothing will disprove God. But, it's interesting that you suggest that God is part of the natural world. He is referred to as a "supernatural" being, where "supernatural" means "above and beyond natural." Still, if this is the worldview of all creationists, then it might make more sense to me that there is such a clamor to move God into the science classroom. We have not done so because science, by its very nature, works with evidence from God's Creation, and seeks to reason from the data and not from prior knowledge of how and when God did what. The assumption is that, if God did it, then he'd leave us clues in what he created. Unfortunately, the clues are rather cryptic, and seem to point away from the biblical interpretation.

I've thought about the latter issue a lot. I agree that the clues do seem rather cryptic sometimes; dating methods, speed of light - to name my two biggest mysteries. I have come to the conclusion that we are currently viewing the universe with an inadequate instruction manual (scientifically). We have the moral and ethical manual, but we're still working out the details of the entire operation.

[Jose]

Yes, yes yes. It [evolution] is testable and falsifiable; and while I don't think it should be not-taught in schools (minus the baggage as said before) - I do think it should be taught less as fact and more as theory.

We're working on it. The educational machine is rather large, and has nearly infinite inertia. Still, I have hopes that we can nudge it in the right direction. Evolution is the most glaring example, but the same principle applies to most of science. It's not memorizing boring facts. Science is the fun stuff, finding out things, and trying to make sense of the data.

I agree. However, I feel sometimes like it is "I don't know - but it's not God".

Look at the anti-God and anti-religion we get here, a very civil debate site for the subject. I come with the view of "I don't know - it's God - but I want to find out how anyway" - and yet still people try to convince me my faith based belief is not viable because of a lack of tangible evidences. I know it's not many that do this, but I think the intolerance for ones beliefs on both sides of the table is a negative thing no matter how you look at it.

I think we're up against human nature. We tend to sort people into groups--usually us vs them. We tend to polarize discussions. We seem to be particularly good at it here in the US--witness the sordid election campaign, for example. It's funny...people seem to assume, automatically, that their view is correct. Often, when they can't get the other guy to agree, they resort not to better logic, but to saying the same things as before, just louder. So, there are those who say "I know it's not God," and there are those who say "I know it is God." Except that, for neither of them, is it likely that God told them one way or the other.

At least with science, there's hard data. We can argue all we like about how to interpret the data, but at least there's something factual to hang onto...even if it is, sometimes, rather cryptic.

[MagusYanam]

It's funny...people seem to assume, automatically, that their view is correct.

As human beings, it's just the way we're psychologically wired. We never seem to want to be proven wrong, especially when we've built a lot on our beliefs.

At least with science, there's hard data. We can argue all we like about how to interpret the data, but at least there's something factual to hang onto...even if it is, sometimes, rather cryptic.

Perhaps it's not so much the having of data, but how those data are used. To me it seems that science works best with questions of 'how'. Actually, check that. It works exclusively with questions of 'how'. Religion works exclusively with questions of 'why'. With apologies in advance for a Kantian worldview, I have to say that religion and science are of two completely different realms in a philosophical sense. For matters of science, logic and nature, we use disinterested Reason to explain. For matters of religion, morality and meaning, we use a passionately interested Understanding to describe.

In the case of creationism, I think the creationists are trying to overstep their bounds. They are trying (unconvincingly in my opinion) to apply an answer to a 'how' question from the realm of the 'why'.

[Jose]

You remind me, Magus Yanam, of a time that I asked my students to answer the classic question, "why are there seasons." This is a classic because it has been used to demonstrate that misconceptions are extremely resistant to change. Most people conclude, sort of as an automatic thing, that we have summer when the earth is closer to the sun. (They don't think too hard about the fact that the other hemisphere is having winter at that time, though). Evern after instruction, they still keep this misconception.

So, I asked my students. About 25% of them gave the (correct) answer that it depends on the tilt of the earth's axis. About 40% gave the closer-to-the-sun answer. Most of the rest didn't give answers to "how" seasons come about, but to "why" seasons exist in the first place. These ranged from "plants need a period of rest, and we need to have a time of year when we feel renewed" to one odd one: "it's a marketing ploy, to sell new styles of clothes" (she was an Apparel Merchandising major). They felt that seasons had to have a purpose, and were unsatisfied with "just" mechanism.

We have a fundamental need to know "why" things are like they are. As you say, science can describe "how" but isn't appropriate for the "why" questions. If you were raised in a Christian tradition, and you think that God is part of the natural world, and you are among those who feel that there must be purposes for everything, then it is probably incomprehensible that a science class would omit the only reasonable way of figuring out "why." I wonder if this is part of the un-stated, and possibly un-recognized, reasoning behind wanting to move creationism into the classroom.

[juliod]

We have a fundamental need to know "why" things are like they are.

We need to keep in mind that there are two types of "why". The ordinary "why", which is very simlar to "how" and means "what was the cause of.." As in "Why did that bridge collapse?" or "Why do planes fly?". But also means "what is the reasoning behind.." As in "Why did you do that?"

The other "why" is the metaphysical "why?" It asks for reasoning or explanations for natural phenomena. As in "Why are we here?" and "Why does the universe exist?"

From a naturalist point of view, I feel that the metaphysical "why" doesn't exist. There are no explanations available for those things. Religion seeks to answer those non-existant questions, and so gives of the nonsensical answers we are dealing with on these forums.

DanZ

[Jose]

Interestingly, the evolutionary biologists I know consider "why" questions to be, basically, "what was the evolutionary history that led to the current situation?"

[juliod]

Interestingly, the evolutionary biologists I know consider "why" questions to be, basically, "what was the evolutionary history that led to the current situation?"

Yes, more like "In what way does this feature enhance the survival of the organism?" Unfortunately this sort of reasoning often comes out in terms of intent or volition on the part of the organism. Like "Bacteria do X because it helps them survive under certain conditions." It often sounds gramatically as if biologists are saying bacteria and reason and plan.

I think a lot of these purely grammatical features is responsible for the Intelligent Design philosophies.

DanZ

[old ag]

The theory of evolutiion does not concern itself with the origins of life on this planet
[/quote]

Well knock me over with a feather!!! Wish that were true!! Seems to me that's the MAIN object of the exercise!! What the heck was (the worthless and discredited) Miller-Utley (sp?) experiment all about??

Excuse me while I pick myself up from the floor!
Old Ag

[Jose]

The theory of evolutiion does not concern itself with the origins of life on this planet

Well knock me over with a feather!!! Wish that were true!! Seems to me that's the MAIN object of the exercise!! What the heck was (the worthless and discredited) Miller-Utley (sp?) experiment all about??

Excuse me while I pick myself up from the floor!
Old Ag

Well, you know, it's true. The Theory of Evolution describes the changes of life forms over time, by means of genetic mechanisms, and the interactions of individuals with each other and their environments. It does not include the creation of life, or the creation of the universe. Those are different issues, with their own theories.

The very useful and not discredited Urey-Miller experiment was aimed at the second question, the origin of life. It was not aimed at how that life changed once it arose. What it showed was that it is, indeed, possible for organic molecules of the types found in living things to be produced chemically without divine intervention. Many such experiments have been done since, under conditions that more closely approximate what we think the world was like at that time, and they come to the same general conclusion. See, for example, Aximili23's post in the Creation OR Evolution thread. There's lots of nice work being done, trying to figure out how it happened.

But again, that's the abiogenesis issue, not the evolution of life once it arose.

The typical anti-evolution creationist likes to lump the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and evolution into one catch-all that they call "evolution" because they can make more convincing-sounding arguments about scientists not knowing how it works. If they were to stick with the real Theory of Evolution, they'd be starting to sweat, since they've accepted nearly all of it by now. They're now quibbling with the evolution of different families or higher taxa, having accepted not only basic evolution but also speciation.

[juliod]

What the heck was (the worthless and discredited) Miller-Utley (sp?) experiment all about??

Organic chemistry.

DanZ