Ten reasons why creation scientists don't believe in evolution

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-10-2005, 01:34

Creationism is not science.

Neither is evolution.

**Byzantine Prince** · 05-10-2005, 01:38

ev·o·lu·tion [èvvə lsh’n, və lsh’n]
(plural ev·o·lu·tions)
n
1. biology theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life.
On this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.

Biology is a science!

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-10-2005, 01:40

He voted for Bush, I don't think anything logical will sway him into the obvious truth.

There you go again MR Troll. First off I didnt vote for Bush. Secondly I believe in micro evolution . As far as macro evolution goes I dont see any more proof that its correct anymore than I do that creationist are correct. Im not picking either of them as the gospel truth. I feel the truth lies somewhere in between. You shouldnt speak on things you have absolutley no knowledge of.

Teach it in Sunday schools and religious classes along with other genesis stories, but it does not abide by the rules set forth by scientific method, and hence has no place in science classroom.

I never claimed it should be taught in science clas. But I also feel that they dont stress enough that what they are teaching is the THEORY of evolution not the science of evolution.

**hrvojej** · 05-10-2005, 01:48

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I never claimed it should be taught in science clas. But I also feel that they dont stress enough that what they are teaching is the THEORY of evolution not the science of evolution.

If you had more scientific education, you would have known that THEORY is yet again another semantic problem. But nothing more than that. Scientific theory is based on a certain methodology and associated selection processes. It's not pulled out of the thin air, or dreamt up by some delusional professor. Theory in scientific terminology means something different than theory in colloquial conversation. Just like SEAL does not really mean an all-capitalized pinniped when speaking in military terms.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-10-2005, 01:58

If you had more scientific education, you would have known that THEORY is yet again another semantic problem. But nothing more than that. Scientific theory is based on a certain methodology and associated selection processes. It's not pulled out of the thin air, or dreamt up by some delusional professor. Theory in scientific terminology means something different than theory in colloquial conversation. Just like SEAL does not really mean an all-capitalized pinniped when speaking in military terms.

Another one who thinks he is the only educated person among us. Ill have you know I understand therums and postulates as well if not better than most here. I averaged 100 in geometery and also got 100 on the regents and won a scholarship to college for it where I majored in of all things biology. I was studying to be a vet. I then joined the Marines and went through 3 years of electronics school. I understand science and its principles very well thank you. By a theory its meant that its not an exact science and is not provable beyond a doubt but that scientific evidence points to this as the right direction or idea.

**hrvojej** · 05-10-2005, 02:20

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Another one who thinks he is the only educated person among us. Ill have you know I understand therums and postulates as well if not better than most here. I averaged 100 in geometery and also got 100 on the regents and won a scholarship to college for it where I majored in of all things biology. I was studying to be a vet. I then joined the Marines and went through 3 years of electronics school. I understand science and its principles very well thank you. By a theory its meant that its not an exact science and is not provable beyond a doubt but that scientific evidence points to this as the right direction or idea.

If this is so, I wonder why do you insist on dogmatic perspective then? You surely must know that you cannot "prove" anything in science then as well, since "proofs" as this word is colloquially used are nonexistant in science. There are no absolute truths in science, and one should not look for them there, nor should one expect to find them there either, no matter how 'exact' the discipline is. You shouldn't be thinking in terms of the absolute, but rather thinking in terms of the probability then. There are no scientific disciplines that are exact to the point of the absolute.

**hrvojej** · 05-10-2005, 01:43

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Neither is evolution.

On that you are wrong. Evolution and associated research abides by the logic behind the scientific method and the scietific method itself, along with peer review and everything else that is included in that term. Therefore, it has every right to be included together with all other scientific disciplines - it plays by the rules, and the rigors associated with those rules. In that it's no different than any other scientific discipline - anything contrary would be like suggesting that, say, nuclear physics, biochemistry or calculus are not sciences either because some people don't believe in their postulates and/or conclusions.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-10-2005, 01:47

On that you are wrong. Evolution and associated research abides by the logic behind the scientific method and the scietific method itself, along with peer review and everything else that is included in that term. Therefore, it has every right to be included together with all other scientific disciplines - it plays by the rules, and the rigors associated with those rules. In that it's no different than any other scientific discipline - anything contrary would be like suggesting that, say, nuclear physics, biochemistry or calculus are not sciences either because some people don't believe in their postulates and/or conclusions.

You can apply the scientific method t almost anything including creationism. That doesnt make it a science. There are sciences and there are sciences. There are exact ones and others like those you mentioned.

**hrvojej** · 05-10-2005, 01:53

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

You can apply the scientific method t almost anything including creationism. That doesnt make it a science. There are sciences and there are sciences. There are exact ones and others like those you mentioned.

So, if I am a theoretical biologist by occupation, or an atomic physicist for that matter, that means that I'm the same as a magician or a priest when it comes to my expertise's relatedness to science?

You cannot apply scientific method to creationism. It is not science because it does not play by the book. End of story.

**Don Corleone** · 05-10-2005, 01:57

Technically speaking, calculus is a language not a science. It takes abstract concepts and gives them verbal and written form.

And don't be too sure about evolution, or any scientific branch for that matter, subjecting itself unflinchingly to the rigors of peer review, at least these days. Science has become pretty dogmatic itself of late. Stephen Hawking was branded a kook by said peers not because of flaws in his logic but because the big-bang theory smacked too much of creationsim.... ooooh, scary!

**hrvojej** · 05-10-2005, 02:10

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

And don't be too sure about evolution, or any scientific branch for that matter, subjecting itself unflinchingly to the rigors of peer review, at least these days. Science has become pretty dogmatic itself of late. Stephen Hawking was branded a kook by said peers not because of flaws in his logic but because the big-bang theory smacked too much of creationsim.... ooooh, scary!

There are zealots in biology as well as in any other occupation. Some people religiously believe that evolution is true, and it has become their creed in effect. When the scientific things start to get viewed as being the dogma, which they do sometimes and by some, they lose credibility in terms of scientific thinking.

It is not wrong to ask questions, and challenge the logic behind conclusions. In fact, it furthers our understanding of the issues to do so, even though not all questions necessarily have (satisfactory) answers (for now). However, when the answer to every question is "God", and it's that even before you have asked anything, that resoning cannot be claimed to be scientific, nor does it have place in the science classrooms.

**Papewaio** · 05-10-2005, 02:27

Creationism fails when the rigours of scientific theory/validation/methodolgy is applied.

The theory of evolution is itself evolving.

**Ironside** · 05-10-2005, 16:47

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

And don't be too sure about evolution, or any scientific branch for that matter, subjecting itself unflinchingly to the rigors of peer review, at least these days. Science has become pretty dogmatic itself of late. Stephen Hawking was branded a kook by said peers not because of flaws in his logic but because the big-bang theory smacked too much of creationsim.... ooooh, scary!

The scientiffic community has always been very conservative. The positive is that a new theory needs much ground to stand on. The downside is that most of the guys with good ideas will be celebrated post-mortum.