Creationism = Science Illiteracy

[Nomaster]

Got Questions?
http://www.talkorigins.org
http://www.skeptics.com.au

[youjustcomplain]

Genetic entropy exists just like every other kind of entropy. If you see a brick wall, it was built by someone.

Yes, Brick walls are built by humans. So are 747's. So are wrist watches. There is quite a long list of things built by humans. Does that mean that everything everywhere was built by a human? No. Why is it that your logic suggests that because some things had an intelligent creator, that you can jump to the irrational conclusion that all things had an intelligent creator? It just isn't based on evidence. Which is not to say you're wrong; only that you're not forming an opinion on evidence.

If you see a complex structure of DNA it was built by an external force.

An external force to what? Again, just because humans built a brick wall, doesn't imply that some god build DNA.

There are scientists who can explain DNA. If it actually interests you, you could spend some time reading about it, or even watching youtube videos on the subject. However, if you're just rehashing all of Ken Ham's excuses for his faith, then enjoy.

[youjustcomplain]

...but creationism understood within the context of science is a synergy that can shed new light on the nature of the cosmos.

New light. Yes, that's what it is. Someone can understand creationism and that same person can understand science. The two are not related. It's like suggesting that quilting understood in the context of basketball is a synergy that can shed new light.... No. Quilting and basketball together don't make anything interesting at all. They're both interesting on their own. (maybe it's a bad example because really.... Basketball and quilting aren't all that interesting at all) lol

[36Drew]

It wasn't that long ago that scientists thought the Earth was flat, even though there was no proof to back it up.

You're correct. 300 BC wasn't that long ago.

What's worse, however, is even thought scientists and mathematicians consumed new data and discovered the earth is spherical, many still refused to accept the data and continued their entirely unfounded belief the earth is flat.

Those people are the topic of this thread.

[Glacier]

To say creationism = science illiteracy is illiterate (even though many creationist are scientifically illiterate). Hugh Ross and many others are quite literate in the realm of science. The main reason people like to call others illiterate, deniers, Monsanto GMO Shills, etc. is to shut people up without actually discussing any science. Science is very good at experimentation and observation in the present, but when dealing with predicting the future or trying to recreate the past, conclusions will always be reached by using assumptions open to interpretation.

[fluffy]

It wasn't that long ago that scientists thought the Earth was flat, even though there was no proof to back it up.

Those were the days when everyone thought the world was flat. Except for a few free thinkers who thought there might just be something more to the story, and didn't let themselves be discouraged by the criticism of the rest who clung to the old (and ultimately wrong) ideas.

[OREZ]

If creationism = scientific illiteracy, how come so many scientists of the past were bible believing men of faith?
I could give you a list but it's very long.

[fluffy]

And it is also possible to be a "person of faith" without holding a literalist view of the bible. It's hard to paint this debate in black and white with so many shades of grey on both sides. It comes down to what form of god you hold in your mind when deciding whether to believe or not, and just how accurate your view is when it comes to visualizing something that is light years beyond our understanding.

[Farmmaa]

Science is very good at experimentation and observation in the present, but when dealing with predicting the future or trying to recreate the past, conclusions will always be reached by using assumptions open to interpretation.

Which would be exactly what you're doing.
You are assuming that because you don't happen to think that theories such as the Big Bang are possible because they do not follow the present rules of thermodynamics, and that DNA is too complex to have happened by any other means than creation - you are applying what amounts to very new, very young theories in science to events that took place billions of years ago.
These events took place in a different time, under very different conditions in a very different universe - you simply can not apply the limited knowledge that humans have acquired in the past few thousand years and call it a done deal.

The mysteries of the universe and how it was formed is light years ahead of any science we presently know.

[Glacier]

The theory of the Big Bang was invented by a Catholic, so any good atheist wouldn't buy that theory.

Anyway, science is about testing hypotheses, and seeing if the results match the theory. If you cannot test something, then you cannot say with scientific certainty that it happened. We know life happened at some point. Whether naturalistic processes gave rise to this life or whether an external force did (God, Extraterrestrials, etc.) falls outside the field of testable science. I obviously have less faith than you because I can't accept that naturalistic processes spawned life without some sort of coherent explanation of how it could have happened. The theory made a lot more sense 100 years ago when we didn't know how complex even a single cell is, but today we know that a single cell is more complex and orderly than a rocket ship.

Folks a lot smarter than me have come to this same conclusion. Even evolutionists that spent their careers studying biology have, after seeing the amazing complexity of life, concluded that the science points to a creator. Here is one book that has changed my mind on a quite a few things that I recommend reading with an open mind: https://www.amazon.ca/Genetic-Entropy-J ... 0981631606

[Nomaster]

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%)say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."

Got facts?
https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4

Why Creationism Isn't Science!
A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic – i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles – cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate. Once one has concluded a miracle has occurred, there is nothing more that can be done. The proposal that a miracle happened can explain absolutely any imaginable scenario with equal ease, which is the same as saying that it really does not explain anything at all. On this score, there is abundant evidence that creationism in all its forms is not naturalistic, and indeed is absolutely dependent upon miracles, as creationists themselves admit - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat ... tDbuI.dpuf

[Glacier]

No one in this thread has said that humans, plants, and animals haven't evolved over time by natural processes.

[Nomaster]

The evidence is overwhelmingly positive FOR Evolution. Creationism doesn't explain anything, other than your bias for your particular 'holy book.'

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... eationist/
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

[OREZ]

Charles Darwin didn't even identify himself as an atheist. He believed in God at the time he was writing "Origin Of Species"

That seems to be a huge juxtaposition for some atheists and some theists but it isn't that way for everyone.

[Nomaster]

An absolute lie.
On the voyage of the Beagle he remained orthodox and looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution, but towards the end of the voyage began to doubt that species were fixed.[4][5] By this time he was critical of the Bible as history], and wondered why all religions should not be equally valid. Source:WIKIPEDIA


Charles Darwin loved his wife very much and didn't want to hurt his wife. Later in life he'd walk his entire family to church but not enter it himself.

Darwin continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the local church,[13] but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.[14] Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an [b]Agnostic[/b]would be the more correct description of my state of mind."[7] He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe there has ever been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."[15] SOURCE: WIKIPEDIA