Slashdot Mirror
Want a Science Degree In Creationism?
The Bad Astronomer writes "In Texas, a state legislator wants the ironically-named Institute for Creation Research to be able to grant a Masters degree in science. In fact, the bill submitted to the Texas congress would make it legal for any private group calling themselves educational to be able to grant advanced degrees in science. So, now's your chance: that lack of a PhD in Astrology and Alchemy won't hold you back any longer."
The Institute for Creation Research made a similar request to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board last year, but were shot down.
I guess my age is showing. I prefer to get my degrees through the more traditional approach: mail order.
is the antithesis of science.
The idea that one can't study or learn anything from the study of Creationism is just as closed minded and retrogressive as the area of study itself. There are Masters-level degrees awarded for all sorts of fields that most of us would dismiss as poppycock. Religion, Divinity, even Media Studies have advanced degree programs for students interested in the topics.
By bringing serious study and research to this field, we can shed light on it and evolve the field to be at least in line with current scientific thought. Beyond that, it would also be possible to expand the theological underpinnings of the theory and discover the rationale behind it. How much better off would we be if we finally cleared away all the religious baggage of Creationism and brought it inline with real science?
There are many Deists in the scientific community. Why wouldn't the theory of a Divine Clockmaker be a reasonable field of study?
As someone from Texas, I would appreciate the name of the legislator in the summary.
And now that you have made me read TFA, it doesn't mention the legislators name either. I guess Mr. Bad Astronomer felt like taking this opportunity to bash Texas without actually helping people get something done.
... the guy who proposed this bill:
http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=25464
and
http://texasliberal.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/censure-texas-state-representative-leo-berman/
When you try to justify anything by using religion, it opens the door to a huge number of problems. Science implies the use of the scientific method, and while they might open a new field of study into trying to prove the existence of God, that is the ONLY way that a science degree in creationism might be seen as legit, but with almost no chance of proving anything.
So, if they want to really study how God could create life, then they would have to go into all those areas that the religious groups are against, like cloning, genetic manipulation, etc.
Just trying to pawn off creationism as other than a way to deny evolution by this sort of stunt just shows how stupid some people can be.
I don't think this was meant to start a flamewar at all! Your opinion is both wrong and full of ignorance! It's people like you who are ruining Slashdot.
If this passes, I'm going to open up an Institute of Paranormal Studies in Texas, and hire every two bit crackpot psychic to be professors!
I'll make a fortune off the gullible who believe in every kind of pseudo-reality!
I'll have leprechaun pots full of gold fast!
*insert evil laugh here*
To all the people that already answered saying that it is people right to have a degree in Creationism, you are missing the point. The problem here is not the degree per se (there are already Theology advanced degree courses), but calling it a *Science* degree. Creationism is not science, and should not be equated to one. It is the same reason that makes the advanced degree in Philosophy to be a "Master of Arts", and not "Master of Science".
So, now's your chance: that lack of a PhD in Astrology and Alchemy won't hold you back any longer.
I miss the old Chaoseum. I have a couple polo shirts, alumni association mug, auto stickers (including the parking lot passes), multiple T-shirts and the Bachelors and Masters (Medieval Metaphysics) kits from "Old Misk". It was my understanding they got the word to cool it or they might get charged with being a diploma mill? At an IT training about a decade ago I was wearing the Miskatonic U, Dept of Astrology polo shirt and the instructor asked me, "Your university doesn't really have a department of astrology, does it?"
As for Texas, or Oklahoma or much of the South and Midwest, I've been saying on the political blogs that if Chuck Norris wants to lead a secession, let him. Give Bubba a reservation to run free so the rest of us can get on with progress -- and we can deny them visas to return.
Once you start shoveling out these bogus degrees, you get a pool of right wing religious nuts with 'credentials' that make them look like reasonable candidates for educational boards or other public offices. You can be sure that they won't provide any detail on where they got the degree in their campaigning, and the voting public will not be interested enough to check themselves.
"Oh look, Jebus McFearhim Phd is running for the Texas State Board of Education. That's just the kind of learned individual we need."
You can't even argue that creationism is a serious religious line of study. A good religious study is, at least in christian tradition, is deeply prayerful and meditative. It's a rejection of the flesh to try and understand the soul. It's not about this world, but the other. Becoming focused on the making of the earth and engaging in so called scientific debate as creationism does actually misses the point of religion in general and Christ in particular.
Jesus doesn't care how old the earth is. It's here, and its a sufficient vehicle within Christianity for us to make our moral choices. Arguing whether or not its some age or another only serves to deflect from the purpose of a devout Christian's life - to live in accordance with the words of Jesus as son of god. IF Christ would have wanted us to worry about the earth, he would have given us a geologists report on the mount, rather than a sermon.
I would almost argue that creationism is actually satanic!
This is my sig.
This gives the rest of the world one more reason to giggle at us. I mean, really.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
... due to the snide, sophomoric, brain-washed, self-destructive, petty, clever fools who make up 98.317% of its posters.
[Bold added by me]. I'll take that as a compliment.
Sounds like a class where I can just make up answers out of absolutely nothing. It's a miracle anyone passes!
--
make install -not war
Yes, but the an important difference is that science can demonstrate beyond any doubt that pottery and baskets are in fact very real.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
I can now get the degree I've always wanted: a FSM Studies Science Degree
I just loved learning about His Noodly Appendage in high school and I want to pursue a higher education with a focus on Him.
All you nay sayers! Take notice there will be even more REAL scientist with science degrees now! The FSM will show us the way to true science and with it there will be no doubt. Because after all, we will have a degree to prove it.
The problem is that the only related field for such a degree is theology. Thus, it should be a Bachelor of Theology degree, not a Bachelor of Science.
There are three problems with this idea.
First, whatever your opinion of "poppycock" degrees, they are drastically different from this degree in creationism. A few examples:
Degree in Religion: You have studied and become an expert on the social phenomenon known as religion. You have studied a number of different religions. This degree requires that the student have an advanced understanding of history, philosophy, and anthropology.
Degree in Divinity: While typically granted by 'Christian' universities, this degree requires that the student have an advanced understanding of Christian texts and their interpretations and translations. In practice, it is only slightly different from having a degree in any the study of any ancient manuscripts.
Creationism: Creationism 'science' is essentially a list of poorly constructed arguments that attempt to refute evolution. The main requirement for any argument on this list is that they are 'convincing' rather than being accurate. There is no academic rigor to this field.
Creationism does not compare to other religious degrees.
Second, Creationism is currently operating under the idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity. They don't actually want to be 'accepted', they just want to grab as many headlines as possible. They want big, showy, and silly public debates with well-respected scientists. They don't want to sit down in a lab and prove anything. i.e. Creationists frequently argue that if you place an organism in observation and wait thousands of generations, that organism will not evolve new features. However, no creationist has even attempted to demonstrate this fact. It wouldn't even be particularly difficult to attempt. However, actual scientists have done this experiment and dedicated a massive amount of time to the work. They were rewarded with the exact opposite of the creationists predictions. If you want to know more about this research, please visit :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
The third, and biggest problem with Creationism is that it is a concept, not a field of study. You don't grant degrees in 'ideas'. We don't have a degree for perpetual motion machines, proving Goldbach's conjecture, or any other crackpottery you can imagine. A degree is rewarded for a field of study. What exactly are Creationists going to study?
I am not opposed to this "Degree in Creationism" in the same way I am opposed to Creationism. I want to admit that I think Creationism is absurd. However, I am even more opposed to a degree in creationism for the reasons stated above. I would be equally opposed to a degree is Deism, Skepticism, or any other idea I believe in.
Come off it - the people demanding the ability to grant degrees in "Creation Science" are the ones trolling the rest of the country, and trying to ruin the educatio system.
I have a better idea - if they get this "right" - get the degree, then publish about how creationism is total bullshit, and point to your "credentials" as someone with an "advanced degree in creation science." Make $$$ selling books, appearances on the idiot box/faux news, etc.
I have an even better idea - let them move to Jebus-land. What the rising waters don't get, global warming-driven hurricanes and droughts will. Problem solved.
Hey, let's start Star Fleet Academy in Texas!
That would be a degree in philosophy, not arts.
It looks to me as if it would straddle theology, philosophy of religion and sociology. But hey, it's the USA, so presumably it should go to a vote. (I was once in a standardisation meeting in which the US contingent forced a vote on whether pure Poisson processes are time-stationary. They didn't think they were, and decided that the correct way to resolve the issue was not to do analysis, not to consult the textbooks, but to vote on it. That taught me a lot about how science functions in a culture obsessed by democracy.)
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
No. Because in order to perform an experiment, you have to have a falsifiable hypothesis.
Creationism cannot form a falsifiable hypothesis because EVERY outcome could be "proven" by the words "God wanted it that way".
That is why it is not science.
That would depend upon what you mean by "religions".
I think you're confusing historical evidence with science. In order for it to be science, It must be able to be stated in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis that can be test by different scientists.
I propose a degree in Religious Engrineering. Here are example test questions:
Religious Engineering midterm exam. 5 questions, 60 minutes. You can use the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, and the Book of Mormon. In all questions, assume that Jesus is perfectly spherical and has an uniform density of G. Parying during the exam is forbidden.
1. (20 pts)
Adam and Bob are at rest. God loves them equally (L-0). Subsequently, Adam accelerates to 0.9c. From the point of view of Bob, how much more does God love Adam?
2. Stephan, a Catholic, is in a state of sanctifying grace. After some time he has an intercourse with a sheep S.
a) (8 pts) What is Stephan's retribution coefficient if the sheep S consented?
b) What is Stephan's retribution coefficient if the sheep S didn't consent, but it couldn't be said it had something against it?
3. (20 pts) The Holy Spirit's eternal, all-encompasing love is in the XY plane. The soul of Sue is at (0,0,5) at t = 0s, and its velocity vector is (0,0,5) m/s. The model was constructed according to rational positivism typical of the Enlightenement period. At what time tS will Sue's soul achieve salvation? (Hint: assume that souls are point-like).
4. (20 pts) Assume that the Ascension happens at the time t. Cameron, a saved human being in the state of sanctifying grace, at the time t has her head crushed in the jaws of an alligator. Calculate the mass of meat left for the alligator at the time t + 10s.
5. Isaac is a frictionless Jew of uniform density at rest. For his faith level, his sin factor is 11 Moseses. He subsequently eats 300 grams of pork, and he enjoys it. For this question, assume that Jews are always right.
a) (10 pts) What is Isaac's sin factor after eating the pork?
b) (10 pts) What is Isaac's heritage adjusted sin factor if he's from the tribe of Judah?
Bonus question.
25 g of wafer and 20 ml of cheap wine undergo transsubstatiation to become the flesh and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Calculate the amount of heat that is liberated during this process, in joules.
(note: originally this was a Polish text by an anonymous author)
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
"It does not in any way prove that given enough time, we can turn non living matter into man (macro evolution)" That's abiogenesis. And that isn't covered in the theory of evolution. How life begins is not defined in evolution. Although many hypotheses exist not have been proven. Creationist tend to go to the argument of micro and macro evolution. Evolutionist do not make such delineations. What you call macro evolution is the summation of many of what you call micro-evolutionary steps. Creationists will also point to the nonexistence of transitional forms of species. But is they don't exist, what do you call this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_fish
One of my old professors had a very poignant saying:
Science should explain how things happen, religion should explain why things happen. Every time either side has tried to cross this line, they were wrong.
Science is falsifiable. It produces specific predictions. Creationism/ID doesn't.
The one good thing about Creationism is that it forces teachers to present the scientific method to the students at a much earlier age. Often the nuts and volts of the skepticism that is the core process of science is skipped over in schools.
Children will say that my pastor showed me a picture of the dinosaurs and the cavemen living together. The teacher will explain that there is a difference between a painting and a photograph, and that with a certain skill, one can paint a picture of anything that looks reasonably like a near-photo.
Children will say that the earth was created in six days, 4000 years ago. Well we weren't there to witness this. But we can show records and artifacts (ones that weren't stolen from the Baghdad museum) that are over 4000 years old.
Creationism forces teachers to instill a spirit of skepticism in students. "I don't believe you, prove it" mentality that is more important that the facts themselves.
A "science" degree in creationism certainly isn't a degree in science. There is no way I would ever hire anyone with such a degree. If anything, I would see them as potentially being very disruptive in the workplace.
There is another way to filter on this than just schools in Texas since I would bet states like Arkansas are going to join in if it flies in Texas.
Filter on the year the degree was granted.
This might not be a bad idea anyway with all the stories of recent graduates needing to be constantly recognized for their "achievements" which is really nothing more than doing the minimum, their lack of attention to any task, little concern for quality, etc.
I know it's a sweeping generalization, but it would be the deciding factor all other things being equal. Just too many stories on how poor the recent graduates are to ignore. Throw in thinking creationism is a science and that makes them laughable.
Ask a solipsist.
No, I'd rather shoot a solipsist in the face. After all, the reality of my gun going off in their face is purely subjective, and if they decide that it's not "real" to them, they should be just fine.
It's one of those few situations where the old "I'm philosophically right because I'm still alive after the duel" argument is actually valid.
These solipsism arguments could also be called "argument from pretentious stupidity", and have no place in a discussion about the real world.
I agree with that interesting statement. Maybe the dilemma is in the "what." Science and religion both claim, as an extension of the why and how, what happens, what happened or what will happen.
All these wars and for what ?
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
I think the real question is not who is right or wrong, the real question is whether the morality that Christianity teaches is even remotely defensible. While it's nice that Christians agree with the rest of us that murder and theft are bad things, the core of their morality is that moral behavior is based on rules handed down from a higher authority.
I find that unacceptable as a basis for morality, and so do many other religions. In fact, both gnostics and Satanists view the Christian God as either confused or evil, and they are making a reasonable case for that view.
What's in an advanced degree? It's a piece of paper that says you're willing to swallow whatever the professor says and regurgitate it on to paper.
I have had science teachers that were very liberal and very conservative. Neither should be the basis of a science class. But if you agree with them and don't argue, you have a degree.
Personally, I don't think it's wrong to *believe* the world was created by God, or that the world evolved from a puddle of slime. Either way, there's no solid proof.
For one thing, I believe almost every word of the Old Testament, I see very little contradiction with science. However, the point I was making is that these schools are trying to pass off one thing as another. I cannot trust them.
If you think I'm harsh, then write to the Texas legislators and let them know that us harshies will be harsh on their graduates. It's them that will suffer.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
From one of those pages linked to: 'The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters' (Matthew 12:30). Any "God" who requires faith in order to be "saved" is sadistic.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I mean, real schools offer up degrees in philosophy, pottery, and basket weaving and who knows what.
Sure they do. What's wrong with that? But they don't offer a scientific degree in philosophy. They probably offer a masters of art in pottery or clay working. The question then really is, does anyone offer an M.S. in basket weaving? If so is it validly approached as scientific basket weaving?
Creationism isn't science, it's just religious propaganda. It's fine with me if they want to offer a religious or public relations degree in creationism... just not a science degree.
How on earth do you get a PhD in creationism? The whole point of creationism is that it is grounded in biblical literalism. To get a PhD you are supposed to make a substantial contribution to the field, which seems to be at odds with the idea of creationism.
Now, I think one should be able to get a PhD in other (existing, humanities and sciences) fields by providing an authoritative study of mythological patterns in Genesis 1-3 as well as textual constructions, philology, structural anthropology, etc. But that is hardly the same thing as a PhD in creationism. Even if you could get a PhD equivalent in creation theology, the proper venue is as a doctor of divinity.
I say this having made substantial contributions to the field of practical rune-magic.
Although I think Robert Zoller certainly does deserve an honorary PhD for his work on topics related to astrology (whether it is through the philosophy department or the history department is a question for others). However his contributions, discussing the Renaissance significance of the Arabic Parts, their roots in Neo-Platonism and the relationship between neo-Platonism in the Middle-East and that in the West, etc. is groundbreaking both from a historical and a practical perspective. Similarly his work looking at Scandinavian sky lore is extremely interesting.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
... I don't care if God exists. IMO, too much time, money and energy has been wasted on the topic. Time to move on.
If you post it, they will read.
In the "bible belt" you will be ostracized from your community if you mock religion (though it's acceptable to insult atheists). In other countries you can actually get killed for mocking religion.
Really, mocking religion on the internet is the only safe outlet a lot of people have.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
By that definition, evolution is not science either. It has never predicted anything and never will.
So tell me, does it hurt to be that stupid?
I've already discussed this in detail on Slashdot, and have archived the conversation here.
But I'll copy the most relevant part. There are several specific predictions that evolution makes:
That's what falsifiability means. There has to be some type of evidence which could, in principle, prove the theory wrong. I've linked to many many more tests in the conversation that list was taken from.
The Copenhagen interpretation is commonly viewed by physicists as a way to wave all the metaphysical issues raised by quantum mechanics off to the side. As Feynman once said, "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. [regarding quantum theory]"
It's true that interpretations of quantum mechanics aren't experimentally distinguishable (yet-- I've seen some proposals in this direction that seem interesting). But that's scarcely relevant because no undergraduate or graduate quantum mechanics class spends any significant time worrying about interpretations. Most physicists focus on the predictions, which have been verified to an absurd number of significant figures. Students work problems that give real, experimentally testable answers.
It's also true that popular science books give the impression that quantum physics is mystical, and that physicists spend all their time worrying about Schrodinger's Cat. We don't. I think it's an interesting question, and personally prefer the Everett-Wheeler interpretation, but it's not the central issue. Be careful not to let the interpretations of the equations obscure your view of the equation itself.
Throw in thinking creationism is a science and that makes them laughable.
I don't know, I'd be pretty impressed with a scientist that could describe mathematically how the universe was created in 7 days. Even more so if he could reproduce the results in a lab.
The Copenhagen interpretation is commonly viewed by physicists as a way to wave all the metaphysical issues raised by quantum mechanics off to the side. As Feynman once said, "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. [regarding quantum theory]"
It's true that interpretations of quantum mechanics aren't experimentally distinguishable (yet-- I've seen some proposals in this direction that seem interesting). But that's scarcely relevant because no undergraduate or graduate quantum mechanics class spends any significant time worrying about interpretations.
[snip]
It's also true that popular science books give the impression that quantum physics is mystical, and that physicists spend all their time worrying about Schrodinger's Cat. We don't. I think it's an interesting question, and personally prefer the Everett-Wheeler interpretation, but it's not the central issue.
Yes, I appreciate and agree with all of that. Which is why I've previously suggested on /. that in scientific terms most religious view points are actually interpretations. They're explanations of "how can it be like that", but you don't let them get in the way when you're doing your science.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
A man wonders whether sex is permitted on the sabbath. So he goes and asks the priest whether sex is work and thus prohibited on the Sabbath. The priest consults the Bible and concludes that it is. The man is not entirely satisfied by this because he is unsure whether a celebate man is the right person to give him this advice, so he asks a protestent minister. The minister consults the Bible and concludes that it is work and is thus prohibited on the Sabbath. Just to get one final opinion, the man goes and asks a rabbi.
The rabbi sits and thinks about the matter for a moment and says "Of course it is is not work!"
The man asks the rabbi how he can be so sure given the views from two other learned religious men, and he answers "If sex were work, my wife would have the maid do it."
Moral of the story is that arguments from authority aren't really all that great. If your belief in creationism is because of what is written in the Bible, that is fundamentally different from an argument based on experiments and tests concerning available data. While it is quite possible to believe that God created the world and used evolution as a means to create humanity, this is different from trying to choose bible vs science.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Also, an annoying idiot has gone away. That's a positive outcome in my books. It's not interpretation, it's cold hard reality - they're dead, and their argument has failed.
"you're degree is worthless."
Unlike you're's, I guess.
What is the practical difference between science and religion with respect to determining truth?
Observe this handy flowchart.
or that the world evolved from a puddle of slime.
This is exactly as informed and insightful an understanding of evolution as Ben Stein's description of "lightning striking a puddle of mud."
In other words, it's not actually about evolution, and it's also an incredibly poor understanding of abiogenesis.
Either way, there's no solid proof.
However, there is quite a bit more evidence to support abiogenesis, and a truly massive amount of evidence for evolution. Modern biology relies on evolution, in fact.
On the other hand, there is absolutely zero proof of the Bible's Genesis.
Oh, and for that matter:
if you agree with them and don't argue, you have a degree.
Even in high school, teachers rewarded me for asking questions, even if it led to a debate, so long as I was thinking.
Ultimately, no one really cares what irrational beliefs you hold -- the vast majority of scientists are religious. The important point is to understand the difference between an unfounded belief and actual science.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The problem is that the creationists look at the data, throw it out completely and then make up shit. That's not the scientific method leading to different conclusions, that's a conclusion looking for a way to reach it.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
A rabbit in the Cambrian. A fossilized dinosaur with a human skeleton in its stomach. Things of this nature are quite contrary to evolution's predictions.
The creationists and evolutionists BELIEVE a different set of witnesses.
The funny thing is, the creationsts' "witnesses" were a bunch of humans who wrote a book a few hundred years ago.
The evolutionists' "witnesses" are extrapolation from known scientific principles.
Put another way: Is it possible to know experimentally or observationally that a black hole exists? You can't see it, you can only see the way it affects the space around it. And you clearly can't experiment on it. Yet most of us agree that they exist.
I suppose it depends what you mean by "observation", then, right? I can clearly observe what appears to be a black hole, or a quasar, or a supernova. I can also observe what appears to be an accurate carbon-dating. In both cases, I'm looking at some particles being detected well after the fact -- and I'm not even looking at those directly, I'm looking at what my instruments tell me they are.
It's also worth mentioning: Evolution actually does conform to basic laws of physics, at least as far back as the Big Bang, and we're starting to understand that, too.
Creation really doesn't, unless we assume that the universe suddenly popped into being with everything set up just so, just to tempt the faith of scientists in the future by making it appear that there was evolution, and that the universe is billions of years old. But we actually have no evidence except some really questionable testimony that there is a being capable of doing that -- whereas we have all the evidence in the world (so to speak) that evolution did happen.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
How did the sign get smashed to pieces? There is some material left on it, that looks like paint. My theory is that a blue car or truck struck it and drove away.
How did the sign get smashed to pieces? There is some material left on it, that looks like paint. Last week crazy Carl told me there is a giant, invisible whale that flies through the air. Further it can tell the future. He says it whispered to him and said the "smurfiness was smithereens". How could he have known a week ago? See the smurfiness is the blue color and smithereens means little pieces, but usually refers to things being broken or destroyed, like the sign is destroyed (though not in pieces). My theory is that a giant invisible, flying whale destroyed the sign.
Since no one saw the sign be damaged there is no proof. We don't know. Does that mean we should regard both theories equally? What about after we take samples of the leftover blue material and it exactly matches the color from stock GM vehicle paint in 2001? Are they both still equal? After all we can't prove the invisible flying whale didn't leave paint identical to the color on automobiles, although it did not make that prediction either.
My point is, just because we're not 100% sure does not matter. The scientific method isn't about finding absolutes but about applying a formal method for determining the most likely truth. It works and if you don't like it fine, but don't call not applying it science or expect rational people to "just believe" something that doesn't match up with what science determines is the likely answer.
Ultimately, no one really cares what irrational beliefs you hold -- the vast majority of scientists are religious. The important point is to understand the difference between an unfounded belief and actual science.
I didn't state a belief on scientists being religious or not. I agree with you that people need to understand the difference between an unfounded *belief* and scientific *proof*.
Math has proofs, not science. Science has hypothesis and experiments and theories and peer review. A rational scientist believes the most supported theory is the most likely truth and performs predictive experiments to add or remove support from theories. Evolution is a theory with a lot of correct predictions from experiments. There are several abiogenesis theories each with some level of correct predictions from experiments. Creationism refers to a vague belief held in different ways by different religions. It does not refer to a scientific theory supported by experimentation. Believing it is not rational. That's fine with me you can hold irrational beliefs, just don't try to convince others they are rational or scientific or should be taught in schools as science.
Don't be too quick to jump on the "it's proven" bandwagen[sic].
This is your fundamental misunderstanding. Science is not proving things. It is determining the most likely truth rather than trying to defend a belief by finding facts to support it after you've already made up your mind. Science is a rational process. It isn't infallible and is constantly refined, but the process works a whole lot better than anything else we've tried which is why it is held in such high regard and why people are so eager to try to convince others some belief they have is scientific when it is not.
....Please cite a peer-reviewed journal article ...
I don't need to cite a &*^%$##$% journal article written by some evolution believer, but I can do a simple experiment. I could take any number of living organisms of any type size or shape and put it them in any number of places anywhere on the planet and see if any of them becomes a fossil.
If you are honest, you would admit, because the ubiquitous presence of microbial life, you will never get a fossil unless you sterilize the formerly living matter.
(...What I'm saying is that if DNA was different in every organism...)
But the fact of the matter is that the INFORMATION stored in DNA is different, for example, in every human being, making it possible to uniquely identify you out of all 6+ billion people on the planet. The DNA is simply the storage medium for the four level digital codes which are unique to every living creature. It is the increasing information contained in the more complex life forms that falsifies evolution of reptiles into birds and monkeys into people. It's not DNA in and of itself that does so.
There is also a big difference between intelligent design and creationism. ID simply looks at the universe and sees evidence of purpose. We know from our human experience, that purpose is associated with persons. Creationism ascribes such purpose to the person of God for the universe as a whole.
All theory is gray
There. Fixed that for you. Generalising like that never does an argument any good.;)
Same as mainstream science really. A couple of bad roses in every bunch.
It's not a generalisation. Look at creationism, and it can be seen that, by definition, creationism is throwing out the evidence and inserting Biblical dogma instead.
Well, that's the hardest part of falsifying any prediction.
When do you say "We've searched long enough, the prediction is most probably wrong"?
For instance, when do we stop looking for the Higgs boson if LHC can't find it?
Do we say the prediction of the particle is wrong or do we build a more powerful accelerator?
The most important prediction made by evolution is that we should see genetic differences between different generations of a species, that a species or race should be able to change over time and that we, with long enough observation (a small detail religious people often fail to comprehend), should be able to witness the appearance of totally new species.
I fail to see how evolution would be falsified by having dinosaurs found alongside humans or by having fossils older than we previously thought possible anyway.
That would mainly give problems to some theories regarding geology, decay of radioactive isotopes, archeology and such.
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
perfect chance meeting of various bits of 'life goo'
Without actually researching it, this seems plausible. Consider that the oceans -- that is, most of the planet's surface -- were literally teeming with the basic building blocks of life. All it takes is one single-celled organism, no matter how crude, and suddenly, you have tons of life, seemingly out of nowhere.
Describing this as a "puddle of slime" is kind of like claiming that a single drop of water can cover the world.
What created the earth? Ok, what created the universe? Ok, what created the big bang
It is actually quite possible that the big bang had no cause, at least not in our own kind of time. Hawking had a cool model of the Universe as a perfect space-time sphere, meaning time had a beginning and end, at opposite sides of the sphere. He actually disproved it later, but it gives you an idea.
As to how that sphere came into existence? "I don't know" is the acceptable scientific answer; "God did it" is an alright religious theory, just don't be too disappointed if it's disproven. In fact, Hawking did later disprove that whole sphere idea.
Ultimately, I don't really mind the thought of God creating the big bang. At least that is actually compatible with science, even if it's not itself science. If that's what you're teaching your children, at least they'll pay attention in science class, instead of asking stupid questions about Intelligent Design.
Eventually, it boils down to "We're not sure".
Fundamentally, yes. But there's a lot of certainty before that, and these are things we can eventually understand.
For instance, quantum theory gives us a better understanding of subatomic dynamics -- but before that, we pretty much knew an atom is made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and how many were in each. I'm not even sure we knew about quarks before we used that basic knowledge of the atom to build bombs and nuclear reactors.
That in no way leads to your claim of:
In other words, there's no proof of how it happened.
However, up to a few very tiny fractions of a second before the Big Bang, there's quite a lot of evidence for how it happened.
In light of the history of how science tends to refine its understanding of the universe, it seems somewhat unlikely that we will find the pieces we don't know filled in with "God did it", and it seems ludicrous to think that we would be so entirely wrong as to find out that the world is actually six thousand years old.
Don't be too quick to jump on the "it's proven" bandwagen.
I wasn't. I actually spent most of my life believing that science was so often wrong, that there might be this one thing I was more knowledgeable about than them. It would vary, of course, what I assumed that one thing to be...
So I did my homework, and came to the conclusion that they tend to know what they're talking about. In general, when you have a group of people who have each dedicated their life to thinking critical about a particular problem, and they overwhelmingly arrive at the same conclusion, they're probably right, or at least close to right.
Take gravity. You might say that newton was wrong -- in fact, he was merely not as accurate as he could've been.
And when creationists attack evolution, the statements that don't immediately get them laughed out of the discussion are vagaries like "There's debate about evolution! People disagree on some of the finer details!" Well, yes, they do -- in the hopes that they can refine the theory. There seems little chance anyone will be able to wholly disprove it -- just as Mercury doesn't disprove Newton gravity, it just requires Relativity to refine it a bit.
It's also worth mentioning that we're talking abo
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!