|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 09/06/2004 : 16:17:41 [Permalink]
|
According to creation "science" arguments, molecules fall together randomly (the "tornado in a junkyard" argument), thus disagreeing with basic principles in chemistry (and the physics underlying those principles).
They also disagree with:
Cosmology - Big Bang theory, age of universe in general
Linguistics - Language evolution vs. the "tower of babel" story
Anthropology - Longevity of some civilizations
Archeology - Ditto
Computer Science - Genetic algorithms
The list could go on and on. They don't seem to be averse to electronics in general, except those few who think they should avoid all forms of entertainment, for fear of encountering 'sin' accidentally. Most also appear to appreciate indoor plumbing.
One thing I'm glad the creationists disagree with is postmodernism, or the idea that since science is a human cultural phenomenon, it has no more ability to produce correct "knowledge" than any other epistemology, including religion. Of course, the creationists think that most scientists are wrong, but at least they're not arguing that they've "just got a different way of knowing the truth." Unlike the postmodernists, I'll give the creationists credit for having the courage of their convictions, even if I think they're misguided. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2004 : 20:14:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Computer Science - Genetic algorithms
This intrigues me... I don't know much about genetic computer algorithms. Can you please elaborate on how they disagree? I mean, genetic algorithms in computer science should be fairly easy to support with experiments? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2004 : 04:47:32 [Permalink]
|
I'm sort of at a loss here. I've always been of the mind that YEC's, (OEC's may differ}, for the most part accept any science up to the point that it contradicts their own beliefs. For instance, they don't discount anatomy until we begin to discuss the mechanisms which are responsible for the existence or function of a particular organ. They won't complain about chemistry until we use it to explain the basic building blocks of life, or the chemical processes involved in age dating. They even accept psychology as long as it doesn't contradict biblical teaching, or at least their present interpretation of biblical teaching. Even biology and botany are embraced up to the point when we begin to consider origins.
I feel that they embrace most sciences, as long as they can twist them to fit their own belief systems. And, that's the problem. They do not do very much real science. They try to reshape the science of others to fit into their own preconceptions. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2004 : 06:05:21 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse wrote:quote:
This intrigues me... I don't know much about genetic computer algorithms. Can you please elaborate on how they disagree? I mean, genetic algorithms in computer science should be fairly easy to support with experiments?
What the creationists deny about genetic algorithms is that they can create any new information through their processing. Clearly, a programmer writing a genetic algorithm lays out a starting point, creates rules through which the "genes" can change, and also specifies "selection criteria" which discard "less fit" solutions for better ones. But genetic algorithms have - and will continue to - come up with truly novel solutions to the problems they're fed. Solutions which can take much study to understand, meaning the programmer(s) didn't have those solutions in mind when setting up the tools available. Creationists insist that these solutions were pre-programmed into the code.
Tim wrote:quote:
I feel that they embrace most sciences, as long as they can twist them to fit their own belief systems. And, that's the problem.
No, the problem is that a large majority of creationists don't realize just how many different fields of science their beliefs contradict in some way or another. Most of them think that their disagreement with evolution and/or age-of-the-Earth measurements are limited to just sub-sets of biology and geology, respectively. However, as the famous quote goes, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Evolution is the core knowledge in biology now. Deny evolution, and you're denying the basis for the entire field.
Just as, if you think that molecules are created in a completely-random fashion, you're denying the basis for chemistry. There are "rules" through which atoms and molecules combine, which are discarded in favor of ludicrous "probability" calculations by creationists. But if mainstream scientists discarded those rules, the entire field of chemistry would ceast to exist.
Similarly, were physicists to do away with the constancy of what are now thought to be universal laws - as creationists would have it - they would be unable to do physics.
These things aren't cases where the creationists simply disagree with tiny subsets of these large fields of knowledge, but their positions imply disagreement with the core of those fields. If creationists were correct, we wouldn't even have the words geology, biology, cosmology, etc., as the universe would be so capricious that there could be no science. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2004 : 06:31:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Creationists insist that these solutions were pre-programmed into the code.
Oh, then I get it. The Intelligent Design approach.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2004 : 06:52:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
These things aren't cases where the creationists simply disagree with tiny subsets of these large fields of knowledge, but their positions imply disagreement with the core of those fields. If creationists were correct, we wouldn't even have the words geology, biology, cosmology, etc., as the universe would be so capricious that there could be no science.
Dave, you're absolutely correct, but I don't think that the creationist is ever going to see it until they begin to grasp the weaknesses of their own arguments. They're like drunks that hit the bottle every day, but never see anything wrong while their house caves in around them.
I agree that their beliefs aren't consistent with science, but they still know and accept the basic premises of observable phenomena. They realize that burning fuel for energy is a chemical reaction--It's observable. Even speciation is observable even though they choose a fantastic explanation over a more obvious one. But, if science works, and it gives them a brand new microwave oven, they don't care that the science may conflict with their belief system. All they care about is that they can jap dinner, and that's good science.
I think that they accept and believe in science, but their belief is limited. Or, perhaps, maybe I should say that they accept the bennefits and products of science, but would rather attribute it's fundamentals or it's origins to the supernatural.
But that's probably bone pickin'. What it comes down to is that it is unlikely creationists are going to make any significant contribution to science or the improvement of our lives in general, but they'll have no problem reaping the rewards of science while bitching about the setbacks and mistakes.
However, there's still nothing saying that an indidual creationist cannot do good science, either. One may make a very good botanist, but just so long as he or she works in the here and now and in the directly observable. However, I agre that that may be unsustainable in the long run because they've built their house on a bad foundation which they simply can't see through the bottom of their bottle of superstition.
Did that make any sense? |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2004 : 10:15:44 [Permalink]
|
It makes sense, Tim, and I'm agreed that the creationists' disagreement with many aspects of science doesn't stop them from taking advantage of the technologies resulting from that science, nor does it prevent them from doing science. Actually, I had an idea for an article here about how, taken to its logical extreme, the creationist position on fundamental physical laws should have them shunning automobiles and radios as impossibilities borne of Satan, but realized the article would be pretty short.
But this thread isn't about that stuff, really. Ricky isn't trying to get a game going in order to convince creationists of their folly. He's just trying to make the implications of creationist thought a little more entertaining, and also trying to find some branch of science which is not contradicted by their odd views. Consider it a challenge wherein you think of some word ending in "-logy," and see if its premises and/or conclusions are rendered "invalid" by some part of the tons of creationist argumentation over the decades. If you can't find anything, you'll have answered Ricky's second question. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2004 : 10:44:35 [Permalink]
|
| Ohh, Ohh, I know!!!! Creation Science! LOL |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2004 : 13:09:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Consider it a challenge wherein you think of some word ending in "-logy," and see if its premises and/or conclusions are rendered "invalid" by some part of the tons of creationist argumentation over the decades.
Okay,I got one--Theology! Does that count? |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2004 : 14:40:59 [Permalink]
|
| Philosophy-- Truth is absolute and the absolute truth can be discovered by us mere mortals |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2004 : 19:06:06 [Permalink]
|
Thermodynamics.
The 2nd law is mangled almost beyond recognition when a creationist gets ahold of it. What is it about the concepts of a closed system, and an overall increase in entropy within that system, that is so freakin' difficult to grasp? What you usually get is some nonsense about "disorder always increases" from someone who's never cracked a thermo' textbook in his life. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2004 : 22:52:42 [Permalink]
|
I agree that Creationists do not have the answers to go against most or any science questions, but what has science actually come up with? I have heard a lot about theories, and what is the best answer for some big questions but never any absolutes. It seems to me that science has become an entity of itself. Where as science is the god and it's faithful worshippers sheilding it from potential harm.
Im not saying that science will not come up with life's biggest answers, and can prove it as FACT............Im saying until such time maybe tone it down a little.......you little gods |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
