Evidence for the Creationist Model

Hi Press and thx for your kind words :)

Perhaps we should as well . . . see science in religion and religion in science, so to speak. I stretch the analogy (as all analogies are stretched), but I think that oil and water are not so exclusive as I first suggested
Click to expand...
.

I cant help but note that amongst some here there is a pretty low regard for your average scientists capacity to understand issues of Faith. To be honest I really dont know as I am not an academic or scientist but a humble artist of the palate. I did once consider developing my education into the sciences but never got beyond a foundation 1 year course of home learning through the UK's Open University,( and another 1 year open learning
course in Arboriculture/silviculture which I did in my youth while I was working on a farm in Greece). I have however met quite a few scientists and those whom I have got into philosophical discussion with were in no way athiestic. I was maybe just lucky though.
Its my opinion that people of Faith tend to focus on their derision of the prominent career athiests and apply it across the board to all science. Scientists as a whole tend to be specialists in a narrow field and for many I think this intensive study of the minutia brings them a strong feeling that things are not here by chance alone. This is certainly the impression I have been given.
So I do not in any sense feel that Faith and Science should be uneasy partners. But Religeon and Science almost always are. But then again I think the same of Religeon and Faith. In my short time on this forum I have come to revisit and share the thoughts of myself and others in a new way for me. Its been quite an intense experience and I am thankful to ALL contributors. It seems that I am an antidissestablishmentarianist ,(lol, I've always wanted to use that word), but I have come to see how much closer my core faith is to that of so many others. And I hope that what I have to say will open some eyes to the fact that science is not against faith. And maybe that it is even beneficial in that it helps to root out the erronous and fraudulent from religeons. One can but live in hope. :p:D:p

Thanks again for your post :)

Regards

TE
 
Tao_Equus said:
So I do not in any sense feel that Faith and Science should be uneasy partners. But Religeon and Science almost always are.
Click to expand...

I like the distinction you point out, TE. I think it's a good way to look at the "issue." (Quotation marks because what you're saying, I think, is that the fact that there is an issue at all is due to just a few career atheists.)

peace,

press
 
presser_kun said:
I like the distinction you point out, TE. I think it's a good way to look at the "issue." (Quotation marks because what you're saying, I think, is that the fact that there is an issue at all is due to just a few career atheists.)
Click to expand...

And probably many more career religionophiles :D


Regards

TE
 
If evolution is all about random mutation over time how could it evolve in symmetry design?? For the convergence of modern science and faith go to; reasons.org
 
A testable creation model. The merging of modern science (14 billion year old universe that had a beginning at the big bang) and faith.

reasons.org/about/our-creation-model-approach
 
Interesting site, well put together. The overall problem I see so far is the positing of the Anthropocentrism (the assumption, pure and simple, that the universe exists to facilitate humanity). While there are lots of testable "parts", the overall thesis is not. What that means is the entire ediface is a house of cards built on an unfalsifiable assumption. Hence, pseudoscientific.

This is especially evident in the physics postings (especially about multiverses). The strong bias leads not to a scientific evaluation, but a listing of statements by physicists that expressly say "multiverse or G!d".

Filled with strawman arguments. For example the problem of chirality (the overwhelming right-handedness of DNA molecules) is just hammered to death a proof of a designer (a leftover notion from anthropocentrism). But as Alexander Rich (one of the really really important academic geneticists) points out, it is quite like the matter/anti-matter problem. Once a "choice" is made in the development (and this could be caused by random events, but the probability calculations are quite lengthy), of course the universe developes that way.

Let me expalin this clsim. If anti-matter had a slight advantage over matter, we would have a universe made of anti-matter (which would be our matter) with matter being anti-matter. When RNA helixes began, they had three choices: left-handed, right-handed or Z-type (a combination). Once the first strands were made, the perponderance (again, could have come from random events) of RNA was left-handed. So at the genetic level "right-handedness" became dominate (to live and replicate in a right-handed universe).

These are not huge mysteries. Again, interesting site. But do not take it as G!d's own truth. Overall great idea, but tethered to (primarily Catholic) antropocentrism. A similar problem exists in philosophy with "Questions that Matter", a hugely popular intro philosophy text that displays this same methodology (antropocentrism and strawman attacks).
 
My simplistic take on this satisfies both ends Creationist/Evolution.
I skimmed through the thread and don't believe anyone hit on this concept.

Existence is an evolving meme. The meme evolves by happenstance, yet it is guided by the most suitable channel in order to survive, which is the first and foremost mechanism of existence.

My belief is that there isn't an outside god entity making choices for the existence of something, rather it is the god within that is.

**We're all a bunch of unawakened little gods running around trying to find that Light :D
 
Good call, EM. The site (like most in the west) is caught in Creationist versus Scientist paradigm where "personal old man god in the sky"=Creationist and "nothing but material stuff"=Scientist.

The truth (if it exists) is probably between the two ("god within us" or "god as creativity" or "god as universe"...take your choice).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top