[_ Old Earth _] Science Topics

[mpok1519]

"Discuss science topics such as creation and evolution and how they relate to Christianity."

this line describes this section of the message board. What confuses me is how "Creation" is a science topic. Not only is there no evidence for it, no data, no empirical support, no testing, no credible hypotheses or theories, but it doesn't even qualify as fitting into the criteria of "scientific". "Scientific" generally describes a process which observes reality using the scientific method. And since there is no possible way to study the ideas told in Genesis using the scientific method, it is a safe bet to assume "creationism" is not a scientific topic. Scientific topics would be things like geology, anthropology, evolutionary-biology, physics, cosmology, et al.

What scientific evidence exists to suggest creationism is a scientific topic? And if it isn't, shouldn't the admins change that line to something more intellectually honest and ingenuous?

Shouldn't the line say "Discuss science topics and how they relate to Christianity?"

 

[tim-from-pa]

"Discuss science topics such as creation and evolution and how they relate to Christianity."

this line describes this section of the message board. What confuses me is how "Creation" is a science topic. Not only is there no evidence for it, no data, no empirical support, no testing, no credible hypotheses or theories, but it doesn't even qualify as fitting into the criteria of "scientific". "Scientific" generally describes a process which observes reality using the scientific method. And since there is no possible way to study the ideas told in Genesis using the scientific method, it is a safe bet to assume "creationism" is not a scientific topic. Scientific topics would be things like geology, anthropology, evolutionary-biology, physics, cosmology, et al.

What scientific evidence exists to suggest creationism is a scientific topic? And if it isn't, shouldn't the admins change that line to something more intellectually honest and ingenuous?

Shouldn't the line say "Discuss science topics and how they relate to Christianity?"

I see where you are coming from and perhaps it's poor wording on the part of the forum.

I think what they had in mind to create this forum is 1) interpretation of science from a creationist perspective, and 2) scientific findings to support creation. And then from these 2 points just mentioned, compare to the scientific (i.e. atheistic science) perspective. By sorting out the findings and hypothesis, it begs the question which makes more sense?

I am more into medical type stuff and I find that the same evolutionists suggest a lot of the medical theory out there, and it's mostly bunk (at least 50% of it) Proof cited: you have many sick people that don't respond to their treatments. However, there are people who follow biblical health laws and swear they are much healthier than when they went to doctors. If proof of a theory is in the evidence, then according to Christians, we think the bible is more on target.

I realize this is just an overview, but I wanted to put out the basic guidelines to your question.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Scientific topics would be things like geology, anthropology, evolutionary-biology, physics, cosmology, et al.

Looks to me like there are a lot of science-related topics here.

Shouldn't the line say "Discuss science topics and how they relate to Christianity?"

Not all of the topics here are framed like that. "The Big Universe" and "What is Time" are examples of pretty darn pure science topics, as far as I read them, anyway.

 

[mpok1519]

I see where you are coming from and perhaps it's poor wording on the part of the forum.

I think what they had in mind to create this forum is 1) interpretation of science from a creationist perspective, and 2) scientific findings to support creation. And then from these 2 points just mentioned, compare to the scientific (i.e. atheistic science) perspective. By sorting out the findings and hypothesis, it begs the question which makes more sense?

But, Science is independent of religious belief, or lack of religious belief. There is no such thing as "Christian science" or "atheistic science". Science is devoid of any religious belief. It simply is not necessary to the scientific method. Once you taint the word science with "christian" or "atheistic", it no longer is science, but just another branch of theology, and theology is never, ever, ever, dependent upon the scientific method for objectivity. There is no such thing as "christian" or "atheistic" science, at least from a truely objective scientific position, a position that should not be perverted lest one wishes to rename and rework the entire concept of science from the gound-up, throwing away thousands of years of human observation.

I am more into medical type stuff and I find that the same evolutionists suggest a lot of the medical theory out there, and it's mostly bunk (at least 50% of it) Proof cited: you have many sick people that don't respond to their treatments. However, there are people who follow biblical health laws and swear they are much healthier than when they went to doctors. If proof of a theory is in the evidence, then according to Christians, we think the bible is more on target.

However, those people are not tested in a purely scientificly objective and clinical enviornment; they simply say "I feel better by going to church than the doctor." Thats not truely objective; thats just taking the word of another on faith rather than empirical observation.

Looks to me like there are a lot of science-related topics here.

Yes, but creationism is not a science topic, however, the board would lead one falsley to believe it is. Creationism is a theological topic, and theology does not adhere to the objective standards of the scientific method. This is why creaitonism is not a scientific topic.

Not all of the topics here are framed like that. "The Big Universe" and "What is Time" are examples of pretty darn pure science topics, as far as I read them, anyway.

well, "Time" and "the cosmos" are science related topics. Creationism, however, is not.

 

[tim-from-pa]

But, Science is independent of religious belief, or lack of religious belief. There is no such thing as "Christian science" or "atheistic science".

You're debating from a natural philosophy end of things, which is only primarily interested in the hows. There are those who want to know the why's. Just because the hows do not answer the whys does not mean that they cannot interact. In other words one can still use the scientific method with the extrapolation of religious belief.

A hammer is only good for hammering nails, but that does not exclude other tools from building the house in conjunction with the hammer.

 

[mpok1519]

You're debating from a natural philosophy end of things, which is only primarily interested in the hows. There are those who want to know the why's. Just because the hows do not answer the whys does not mean that they cannot interact. In other words one can still use the scientific method with the extrapolation of religious belief.

Science does not need religion or lack of religion to explain the how and the why, however. Any extrapolation of relioous belief from scientific observation is simple speculation devoid of scientific objectivity.

A hammer is only good for hammering nails, but that does not exclude other tools from building the house in conjunction with the hammer.

But science is all the tools to buld the house; religion would be like the lemonade. It's not necessary to the process of building the house, but it does taste good. While fine and dandy and all, it's still not a necessary component to the construction of the house.

 

[tiwtiwtiw]

What confuses me is how "Creation" is a science topic. Not only is there no evidence for it, no data, no empirical support, no testing, no credible hypotheses or theories, but it doesn't even qualify as fitting into the criteria of "scientific"

Not everyone's definition of science is the same. Before begin discussion on how creation is scientific, both sides of the discussion must first agree the definition of science. Otherwise the discussion is meaningless and can reach to no conclusion.

I think no conclusion can be reached here simply because definition of science is not unified in the world.

 

[lordkalvan]

Not everyone's definition of science is the same. Before begin discussion on how creation is scientific, both sides of the discussion must first agree the definition of science. Otherwise the discussion is meaningless and can reach to no conclusion.

I think no conclusion can be reached here simply because definition of science is not unified in the world.

QWell, how about this one:

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

Source: Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mpok1519]

Not everyone's definition of science is the same. Before begin discussion on how creation is scientific, both sides of the discussion must first agree the definition of science. Otherwise the discussion is meaningless and can reach to no conclusion.

I think no conclusion can be reached here simply because definition of science is not unified in the world.

Science does have an objective and solid definition; creationists never seem to follow that objective definition.