Anyone up for a private debate on the merits of creationism as a science?

[LuDaCrIs]

I would like to challenge someone to a debate regarding the validity of creationism and/or ID as a science. This could mean a debate on whether or not it should be taught in a science class along side evolution or in more general terms. The exact topic will be left open until i get some feedback.

I am interested in taking the side of opposing creationism be taught alongside evolution in science and that creationism is not science.

Is anyone else interesting in taking the other side?

Thanks.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: LuDaCrIs I would like to challenge someone to a debate regarding the validity of creationism and/or ID as a science. This could mean a debate on whether or not it should be taught in a science class along side evolution or in more general terms. The exact topic will be left open until i get some feedback. I am interested in taking the side of opposing creationism be taught alongside evolution in science and that creationism is not science. Is anyone else interesting in taking the other side? Thanks.

I am willing to debate that topic with you. But I do not want to do it via e-mails and so how do you intend to do this in private?

I do not want to defend the Bible in this debate and would not expect you to have to look up biblical verses or chapters.

I have experience debating this topic from both sides of the coin - pro and con. I would like the private debate to be visible to the public.

[GSM:Xtreme]

It would be entertaining to read, and though it may be tempting to comment (or laugh at) some of the comments, I think everyone here is responsible not to interfere if you ask them?

Quote by: LuDaCrIs I am interested in taking the side of opposing creationism be taught alongside evolution in science and that creationism is not science. Is anyone else interesting in taking the other side? Thanks.

Sure, you take the easy side. Technosoul, good luck, and may the FSM guide you to the winning argument!

[Technosoul]

The first item would be to establish a thumb nail discription for the term "intelligent design". The word "creation" is already a well used word with dictionary meanings recorded.

We must also agree to overlook the fact that schools are underfunded and cannot afford to add new topics to the agenda. We will pretend like they have unlimited budgets.

In my last post in the thread on human evolution I suggested that evolution is about our DNA learning new tricks to re-design our body so that we can better survive. The DNA is basically like a intelligent designer and what it designs is later seen as an evolution.

I would need to meditate on that to link that evidence to some sort of larger scale designing force that keeps eco-systems evolving in harmoney to insure a balance for the survivial of nature in it's totality.

But are they ready for me and my ideas?

[Matt W]

This is what you want to look at:

Special Debates

Moving to appropriate forum.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Matt W This is what you want to look at: Special Debates Moving to appropriate forum.

Thanks for the infor about creating a private debate. It will be up to the OP poster to start the procedings with the person of her/his choice.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: LuDaCrIs I would like to challenge someone to a debate regarding the validity of creationism and/or ID as a science. This could mean a debate on whether or not it should be taught in a science class along side evolution or in more general terms. The exact topic will be left open until i get some feedback. I am interested in taking the side of opposing creationism be taught alongside evolution in science and that creationism is not science. Is anyone else interesting in taking the other side? Thanks.

Now that this post was moved from the science forum the debate might never happen if when LuDaCrls returns - as she/he will not longer be able to locate it in the science forum. And might have no idea of where his/her post vanished too.

[Matt W]

If you were paying attention you might've noticed LuDaCrIs posting in the thread about special debates. Also, there's a rather large redirect. Do look around before making assumptions...

[LuDaCrIs]

I think we should start off with defining the topic more specifically, so that we won't argue about it throughout the debate.

We've already established that you will take the creationist/ID side. I mentioned that I would like to argue its merits as a science. Whether or not it deserves a place in our schools science class' might not have been such a good idea on my part earlier. I certainly wouldn't mind debating that as well, but I feel we should establish whether it is science before schools even consider it. Also, it might be hard to settle on which curriculum we'd use; all of the states have similar, but not identical, ones.

I think we should agree on a definition of science. I tend to adhere to this explanation:

Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of falsifiable data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

If you have any objections please let me know.

Let me know what you tend to define as creationism or ID. I think that is important as well. Sometimes people interchange the two.

Should we go one post each, for the debate?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: LuDaCrIs I think we should start off with defining the topic more specifically, so that we won't argue about it throughout the debate. We've already established that you will take the creationist/ID side. I mentioned that I would like to argue its merits as a science. Whether or not it deserves a place in our schools science class' might not have been such a good idea on my part earlier. I certainly wouldn't mind debating that as well, but I feel we should establish whether it is science before schools even consider it. Also, it might be hard to settle on which curriculum we'd use; all of the states have similar, but not identical, ones. I think we should agree on a definition of science. I tend to adhere to this explanation: Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of falsifiable data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. If you have any objections please let me know. Let me know what you tend to define as creationism or ID. I think that is important as well. Sometimes people interchange the two. Should we go one post each, for the debate?

I agree to the outline you have presented so far. We should be polite if someone oversteps those boundries but should attempt to stay within those boundries.

Creationism would be the title for a study program that would be formulated for the purposes of those interested in finding out if any of the evidence collected by science is supportive of the idea that a original intelligence created life on earth or the universe, and how that was done.
Intelligent Designer is a name given to that original source. Finding evidence of designs in nature that make sense would be one of many kinds of evidence, used to make that case. Sometimes going outside of just science and employing logic or reasoning. The title "intelligent designer" is also used in place of other names for a "god" so that the material can be presented in a way that is not supportive of any given religion. Sort of a secular name for what some believe is a divine identity. That is my personal explaination which might not conform to what some of the big organizations that are promoting their version might say.

I cannot find a single webpage link that contains a difinition for which I can agree with as Creationism (totally) So I made up my own.

I hope all this is not too confusing?

I believe that a Creationist presentation must not sway away form the presentations of sound science unless they can present a more logical way to interpret the evidence used by science.

[Technosoul]

Can I start yet?

We now have evidence that genetics plays a role in biological evoultion.

That our DNA strand contains codes or instructions that more or less make us whom we are, as an individual.

The DNA is able to get feed back from our biological system and then can learn what the strongest traits are, etc. Depending on the in-put from our body (and perhaps our mind) the DNA can even re-design our body to overcome weaknesses (or whatever). From within.

That often does not happen in just one individual but over a span of generations.

Now I am not claiming that DNA is a god. But only pointing out that it is evidence that intelligent designing is possible and can be detected via scientific research.

We have different senses (seeing, smelling, etc) used for intelligence collecting from our environment, which data provides bio-feed back to the DNA strand. If disinformation or poor information is collected then evolution can take the wrong turn, but if correct information is collected and interpreted by the brain/mind correctly then that data is passed on to the DNA, which remembers, and then acts on that information in an intelligent way via gene manipulation to re-design the body for evolution or it will maintain the strong parts so they will be passed on to the next generation.



Now if I were a scientist I could put all that in the proper scientific terminology for a school book.

There is little doubt that intelligent designing is a reality. Humans can design all kinds of inventions.

That is not of course is only a platform for building my case, not the complete house.

[LuDaCrIs]

Ok, wow, there was a lot to chew on in that last post.

The DNA is able to get feed back from our biological system and then can learn what the strongest traits are, etc. Depending on the in-put from our body (and perhaps our mind) the DNA can even re-design our body to overcome weaknesses (or whatever). From within. That often does not happen in just one individual but over a span of generations.

I am not really sure what you mean in the above statement. How does our DNA "learn" what our strongest traits are? As for the "re-designing" our body to overcome weakness is a bit misleading if I am reading it the right way. Are you saying that DNA changes itself through a thought process of some kind or randomly. If it is random, then it would seem to be overcoming weakness as if it was somehow cognitive?

We have different senses (seeing, smelling, etc) used for intelligence collecting from our environment, which data provides bio-feed back to the DNA strand. If disinformation or poor information is collected then evolution can take the wrong turn, but if correct information is collected and interpreted by the brain/mind correctly then that data is passed on to the DNA, which remembers, and then acts on that information in an intelligent way via gene manipulation to re-design the body for evolution or it will maintain the strong parts so they will be passed on to the next generation.

This is where I have to point out that we should also provide sources. I mean, is this going to be a debate between our ideas or between a more general consensus of some sort? Do ID'ers believe this as well or is this your personal view? Is there any literature, on the topic above, that supports this?

Now if I were a scientist I could put all that in the proper scientific terminology for a school book.

Well, I am not expecting a book, but some sort of citation would be just as good.

As for what I am expecting from you is this:

For ID and creationism to be considered science it has to, and as a consequence you have to, show what the process of design is, why a designer would design in such a way, what is the methodology behind the design, what experiments are being performed to prove a designer and how these experiments are falsifiable.


Why don't you start by explaining what exactly you think, or what the consensus among ID'ers is, a "designer" is.

[LuDaCrIs]

Oh, by the way, sorry if I am replying a bit slower than expected. I am kinda busy with some schoolwork and my job. I hope it isn't an issue if I reply once every two days or so. Let me know please.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: LuDaCrIs Oh, by the way, sorry if I am replying a bit slower than expected. I am kinda busy with some schoolwork and my job. I hope it isn't an issue if I reply once every two days or so. Let me know please.

No problem, continue at you own pace. School studies come first.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: LuDaCrIs Ok, wow, there was a lot to chew on in that last post. I am not really sure what you mean in the above statement. How does our DNA "learn" what our strongest traits are? As for the "re-designing" our body to overcome weakness is a bit misleading if I am reading it the right way. Are you saying that DNA changes itself through a thought process of some kind or randomly. If it is random, then it would seem to be overcoming weakness as if it was somehow cognitive? This is where I have to point out that we should also provide sources. I mean, is this going to be a debate between our ideas or between a more general consensus of some sort? Do ID'ers believe this as well or is this your personal view? Is there any literature, on the topic above, that supports this? Well, I am not expecting a book, but some sort of citation would be just as good. As for what I am expecting from you is this: For ID and creationism to be considered science it has to, and as a consequence you have to, show what the process of design is, why a designer would design in such a way, what is the methodology behind the design, what experiments are being performed to prove a designer and how these experiments are falsifiable. Why don't you start by explaining what exactly you think, or what the consensus among ID'ers is, a "designer" is.

I hope you do not mind if I comment on your last remarks first, and work back up to the top..

I like your last remark.

Is it possible if I can debate this as two people? My ideas and then the ideas that conform to the ID'ser consensus?

Before I do this I must point out that the ID'ser movement has broken down into sub-groups of people. The Christian group. The Eastern religons have their group, and we even have a secular version, and perhaps a Jewish sub-group. The Pope is getting involved and is constructing his group that might hold views not shared by the Christan group that first coined the term "intelligent design".

Because it is the Christian group that wants Creationism introduced into the school textbooks I would take their side of the debate, in a 3rd party sense, because the Christian group is also the most dominate. Plus in a seperate section my personal opinons on the topic.

My difinition of what a designer is. "anything or any being that can design something" A Intelligent Designer is a Mind.

The IDers difinition of a designer is someone (human) or a supernatural being. Needless to say humans did not create the universe or life on earth, therefore they hold the position that a supernatural being created and designed the earth. Just like humans created and designed a automoble.

Not a design like we an draw on some paper, but a design where you have different parts working together in harmony to fullfill some purpose or task. A "operational design".

Establishing proof is the hard part.

First you need a scientist that has a very high I.Q. or you need to have lots of money for labs, a large number of qualified people to conduct experiments and so forth. I do not have such resources personally. Mainstream science has thousands of people all over the world helping to confirm the theory of evolution. The ID people have a small insitute of research, and a couple of scientists on board.
Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry

Once I or the ID Christians come up with a theory then they must get a peer review of it and have it published. The peer review would be done by scientists already working in the fields of biology or whatever, and I honestly do not think they would give the theory of Creationism two thumbs up. As you might of noticed this topic has been moved from the science forum to this forum, the same thing would happen if you attempted to get Creationism accepted in the scientific community, they would still view it as something mythological, etc. The "keep out" sign was already posted on the doors that hold the titles of science. In other words, you would be debating a low-budget version sub-group of mainstream science. Or my personal opinons.

So question is: Must it be concidered as science by mainstream science, or just concidered as science by laymen and a minority of scientists?

Now back to the questions and remarks at top of your response.

Before beginning I must admit that this idea was hatched by me this week. Details would be forthcoming as we go along as needed.

1. How does DNA "learn" what our strongest traits are?

Evolution is descent and modification (change).
The genes in the our DNA are due to descent, passed on to us by our parents ( same with most animals ). Those genes pre-determine many things about how we will be like as adults, and stages in-between.
The collective genes make up the DNA stand which operates like a informational data base. Like our memory does in our mind (brain).

Now stronger traits are often determined by mating rituals in animal populations, the strongest male gets the female after they duke it out.
In other birds and animals a number of factors might come into play to determine what traits will dominate and therefore be passed on by descent.

In the case of humans that only rarely plays a role. (hope you do not mind if I ramble a bit), as a girl might pick a guy who is very rich, rather then for his physical abilities. etc.

If a animal (meaning also us humans) is to change or evolve then it would be because of one of two reasons I can think of (presently).

Because of the combination of two sets of genes from the mother and farther who represent a much larger gene pool, which might be diverse or limited.

Or because of new imputs from the environment or "stress".

Example: You might have a small legged horse, but suddenly it must deal with wolves as a preditor, so it must run away for self survivial, as a result the legs are stressed and over generations the legs become much longer for faster get-aways. So how did the genes learn to re-design longer legs for the horses. It learns in part by the experience of descent and modification. Learning by experience. Somehow the stress becomes information that is passed on to the genes that reports "hey, we need longer legs" (hmm, a silly way to put that - but perhaps you still get the point?).

None the less, you have a whole system that is learning and making modifications based on that in-put. A self-contianed system of reprograming the genes to pass down the most intelligent pathway to follow. Evidence of intelligent designing becuase it would b stupid to have the horses grow shorter legs, or to remain the same, so the wolves would be able to eat them all.

Did I say that DNA changes it's self by a thought process or some kind of random process?

Thinking is a process that involves a lot of random thoughts. This we know already by our personal experience. Even can be a bee's nest of confusion. So we cannot seperate random-ness from any kind of thinking process per-say. Selection then becomes the key factor.
Selecting the best thoughts or ideas. We often select the most dominate thought to manifest a process out of. The thoughts that survive are the thoughts that are used.

Now DNA does not think like we might think in our awakened state, it is not aware of the fact that it is interpreting data nor does it sit around and try to think what would be the best way to evolve. It is more like an automated system of processing information, in my opinion. Besides selection we also have a process involving thought processing where we take two ideas and put them together to create a new idea. The mating of two ideas that give birth to another individualized idea... baby makes three. Reproductive thought.

But automative thought processing can still produce intelligent determinations. The program is only as good as the Programer.
Even a computer can produce an intelligent determination with the right data being programed into it from the outside.

[Technosoul]

Here is a sample of what a "creationism textbook" might read like.
http://www.fhu.com/pdf/gravity_abstract.pdf

[Technosoul]

Do you want to start with the Big Bang or do you prefer to stick with life on earth ( aka - evolution and it's orgin ) ?

I had a close friend who is a Creationist and he talked about it a lot and used to give me those pampets.

I noticed that the majority of the articles were about finding fault with the theory of evolution and other theories science is teaching.

Only the one that I presented in the above link came up with a new theory which might confirm the age old beliefs held by religion. I do not have that book but was able to hear a speech about it.

Where is the scientific theory of Creation by a supernatural intelligence? It is in bits found here and there, but as far as I know no textbook has been written or prepared so that we can know what we are defending or attacking.

The big issue that people are now focusing on is the "single source theory".

Here is a Creationist's point of view.

Y-Origins Connection :: Intelligent Design For Everyone

Here is my simple viewpoint. If we count backwards we go 4-3-2-1-0.

Zero is the orgin out of which 1 would be relative too.

Otherwise we are left with the question, who or what caused the Big Bang. or, how did God come into existance. (what created God).

1 is 1 relative to 0 which then opens up the potential for 2, and 2 is relative to the fact you already had 1.

That is not as brainy as what they do with physics, but math is math.

If we assume that our single source came from another dimension, then we are stuck with the question, where did that other dimension come form? Sooner or later we must trace it all back to nothing-ness. (science dislikes the word "nothingness"). But if I were to create a theory, the source would be nothing - ness.

Then I would demonstrate a process or explaination about how something - aka the Single Source - came into being from nothing.

[LuDaCrIs]

Do you want to start with the Big Bang or do you prefer to stick with life on earth ( aka - evolution and it's orgin ) ?

Well, that depends entirely on you. If the idea of creation encompasses the beginning of the universe, then by all means include it. It all depends on what your side has chosen to do.

One question, does your side, and I am saying "your" in the sense of the creation consensus, agree with evolution or does it try to run up alongside it? Is evolution a part of the creation model? Or does it try and make it a substitution?

Once I or the ID Christians come up with a theory then they must get a peer review of it and have it published. The peer review would be done by scientists already working in the fields of biology or whatever, and I honestly do not think they would give the theory of Creationism two thumbs up. As you might of noticed this topic has been moved from the science forum to this forum, the same thing would happen if you attempted to get Creationism accepted in the scientific community, they would still view it as something mythological, etc. The "keep out" sign was already posted on the doors that hold the titles of science. In other words, you would be debating a low-budget version sub-group of mainstream science. Or my personal opinons.

Is that because it's not scientific or because you think scientists, in general, have it out for creationism? A conspiracy?

So question is: Must it be concidered as science by mainstream science, or just concidered as science by laymen and a minority of scientists?

As far as I am concerned there is only one science. The one which involves peer-review and is subject to testing and replication.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: LuDaCrIs Well, that depends entirely on you. If the idea of creation encompasses the beginning of the universe, then by all means include it. It all depends on what your side has chosen to do. One question, does your side, and I am saying "your" in the sense of the creation consensus, agree with evolution or does it try to run up alongside it? Is evolution a part of the creation model? Or does it try and make it a substitution? Is that because it's not scientific or because you think scientists, in general, have it out for creationism? A conspiracy? As far as I am concerned there is only one science. The one which involves peer-review and is subject to testing and replication.

Creationists would agree that some of the evidence supporting evolution is true and makes sense. But they draw a line in the sand. They do not agree that one type of animal could evolve into a totally different kind of animal. They agree that a particular kind of animal can change and evolve a new appearence via adaptation. But that they do not agree, for example, that fish evolved into reptiles. Or that a lizard could evolve into a bird. More so, they do not agree that a pig could evolve into becoming a horse. Or that humans evolved from a monkey or some common denominator. They feel there is a lack of evidence to support such extreme changes. They think that change can happen via breeding, but they do not think a human can breed with a pig and make a new kind of animal, a "pigman". They pretty much base everything on mating and claim that evidence shows that animals of one kind do not mate with animals of another kind to produce a new kind of animal.

I do not think that scientists have it out for anyone ( well, some of them dislike Christians as can be obseved here at Volconvo) but I do not think that is what I was suggesting. Many scientists have difficulty getting an new theory or idea into the mainstream. It takes a lot to make science change it's mind about their established viewpoint. If a new idea conflicts with an interpretation of data they have already agreed upon then it is very hard to get a good peer review. Because they would say that the older, established date does not confrim or support the new data, or the reinterpretation of the older data. And frankly, the Creationists often add on something about God or whatever that should not be part of their communications with scientists. Clearly the ID or Creationist is bias from the get go and that they want to undo any idea that God did not create the universe, and humans. Creationism would of course mean that a Creator is involved.

Is evolution a part of Creation model? Now things get a little complex and you might get some mixed signals about that from different people who advoate creationism. Evolution would be suggestive of designing a final product. So some ID people might make that point. Some Creationists would suggest that the Creator guided the processes of evolution via some sort of supernatural influence. In much the same way as humans have influenced the evolution of our technology. It is clear that an airplane did not evolve from a car, but we can see an evolution of ideas that would link a car to an airplane. Or even a bow and arrow to a rocket ship. Take the horse and wagon, the idea for the Model T Ford is like the idea for a wagon but would be an advancement of that idea, the Ford would have more horse power. A evolution of ideas being put into effect or manifested.

That might sound logical to some readers, but how could they get that notion past a sceintific peer review? First they would say that biology has nothing to do with human inventions. You have no physical evidence to prove that a God is thinking up ideas. No phyics to demonstrate that ideas can evolve from each other. etc.

Having only one science is like saying there is only one God. But I will allow you that. So part of the work of the creatonist movement is find evidence about some theory that has already passed a peer review that would show that the peer review can be doubted, and that another peer review is needed due to those new discoveries or because some questions or objections are unanswered, in the hopes that the new review would be more supportive of their objectives.

Even some of our greatest scientists believe in a Creator because they think it makes sense, and although they could produce a theory about relativity they could not produce a theory about creationism. It is not an easy project to undertake. But I will try.

[Technosoul]

So have I dodged the question?

We have of number of different kinds of sciences. Some of them can be trusted with nearly absolute confidence in the results.

Testing in a lab is pretty darn good science, science and biology.

Collecting lots of data and making up stats based on that data, as done in the science of epidemiology, is not so good due to ramdom errors and potential bias on the part of researchers.

Fosil research along with geneology, etc. is important, but might have some drawbacks. Early methods of carbon dating has come into question.

The science of creating a theory via physics. The math might be right but we still have unanswered questions beyond the limited span of what it was attempting to proove.

Plus the natural "novelty" of reality that cannot be factored into a explaination based on math or physics.

None the less science could be used to make a case for creationism if we are allowed to use every kind of science for the purposes needed.

It should be noted that as of this moment the creationists have not had anything peer reviewed and actually published in a scientific journal.

Problem is they are more interested in promoting the idea then doing it, because they can make a living from donations, so they just publish their own little pamplets and sell them to advocates of getting it into public schools.