Comments on: The Euro, the economy and creationism

By: wolf

wolf — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:41:42 +0000

Not really about creationism but in connexion with the Obama fest a US economist implied that the conclusion the US drew from the Great Depression was the need to make wars on the rest of the world as the Second World War was the path to true recovery for the US.Makes sense to a lot of people.

By: colin

colin — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:56:06 +0000

To equate Creationism and Darwinian Evolution as scientific theories is quite innapropriate.

Creationism offers no science based evidence for it’s ideas. It merely asserts that Biblical texts provide the literal truth of the origin & development of life on earth.

As a faith based position I suppose that is at least worthy of discussion-though not in science classes for obvious reasons.

But Creationism goes further and attempts to offer “proof” that the panoply of scientific discovery in the sciences of the History of Earth & Life upon it are “wrong”. Some of these “proofs” are risible-eg the age of the earth.Some of them are simply a priori assertions-eg that the subjective notion of complexity in living forms is “evidence” of a creator’s hand.

By contrast scientific postulations are based on empirical evidence which is the very antithesis of a priori assertion.

By: Malcolm Hewson

Malcolm Hewson — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:23:35 +0000

It is perfectly possible not to believe in creationism and still believe that a) it should be taught, and b) that it should not be discussed in school purely to debunk it.

I regard creationism as flat wrong, but I would still have difficulty agreeing with proposition b).

Science method says: what is the evidence that your theory is better than alternative theories – and are you prepared to change your mind if the evidential balance shifts. Remember, what was once taught as science is sometimes found to be wrong.

Given this, even a science teacher is entitled to be concerned at shutting discussion out completely.

By: Steve Wheeler

Steve Wheeler — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:01:39 +0000

Osbak,

My comment wasn’t addressed at you in particular. I know from my own conversations (usually with my sister who is a creationist) that it’s very easy to get a bit overheated about these things – I just thought I’d try to cool things down a bit.

By: colin

colin — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:47:18 +0000

“How else can one explain the marvels and intricate design (whoops, there’s that word again) of the human body, the solar system, undersea life etc.”

Quite rationally, and easily & credibly-if you open your mind, read relevant scientific literature, go to reputable Science Museums, examine Paleontological collections & the fossil record,consider the true age of the earth & the scope it provides for physiological complexity from multiple small changes, ,consider the distance between galaxies, think about the effects of 4bn years of Global Climate change on earth, assimilate Plate Tectonics, read about the properties of DNA and the science of Genetics, put the Book of Genesis into it’s proper editorial & historic context-but most of all open your mind to these things without fear that doing so in any way invalidates your faith in your version of God.

Bob I just had to respond to your question , but really don’t want to open a debate on this here with you, because I know from experience that it will be long & probably inconclusive…..and we are deviating from the purpose of this website and need to stop now.

Best wishes