A Few Questions For Creationists

I have some time on web so will attempt to answer a question or two, I thought number 6 was a very good question. Well, the claim of the ToE is that every design we see came from a common ancestor, that mutations can be added to make new morpholgies such as limbs etc.Rather than the fossil record, which itself is a circular argument, I would be convinced of the whole claim of the ToE, not by a bacteria flagelum example, but a real example which is equivalent to the claim.So a new limb, or a mutation which is an added information which produces a new design. Not more than five toes, not less than five toes - but infact a new functioning design.The extraordinary claim is that all designs can happen. A giraffe has a sponge in it's brain to stop it's head being drowned, and when it goes up, to stop it fainting. That is one example out of thousands, as to why mutations alone are a poor explanation, to me personally, because you need the whole design. If there are rudimentary mutations that are kept - where is this in the fossils, without the argument being;Evolution is true because of fossils showing it.This is fallacious because what we first have is the fact of the fossils - which don't support evolution.You can't use the fossils NOW that we all know of them. Where are examples of designs being dropped for new ones. Where are examples of the process that led to the giraffe design? It is not know to me. The bible says it was void and desolate, I have no idea if God used literal days or not, I have no way to discern. Again, I pretty much don't care, but the light seems to suggest billions of years. This is an evidence for an old universe, but that doesn't mean the earth had to be there. I just on't think it fits. He could have use it but this position immediately put the believer in the weak position and naturalism in the strong position. Disbelief has abounded because of throwing out what the bible says, but I believe the bible is true - and that special creation happened when God spoke. Because of the philosophy of first assuming that the present is the key to the past, as proposed by Lyell, (uniformatarianism).Infact the facts don't suggest this because physical processes such as fossilization and formations, don't require millions of years. Also the strata has no soil about the lines, which you would expect if there where many floods, but infact one giant flood causes this particular strata by which direction it is going. There is no proof only general consensus over a long period of time amongst scientists, which in itself isn't a strong logical position, just an appeal to popularity.No debating please, I have no time to answer, I might respond to the O.P creator if I can but I'm not getting into silly heated arguments.

I appreciate the very thoughtful OP replies from AlphaOmegaKid and ICANT. My sincere thanks to both of you (and to Rodibidably for a thoughtful OP). Because of what I've seen of AOK's opinions in other threads (esp. involving science education, here: Biogenesis), I'd like to follow up on the comments he made in the current thread. Understood. What needs to be added, though, is the fact that the Bible is the only source of evidence for its particular idea of creation. The person who accepts this or that literal interpretation of the biblical description of creation, in preference to a naturalistic theory of origins, does so only as a consequence of accepting a particular religious faith founded on the Bible. Let me try. Yes and Yes. There is nothing in our knowledge of physical existence to rule this out, so indeed, there can be some source(s) of energy that may be eternal and non-material. Our physical perceptions are limited. To the extent that our thinking is able to go beyond physical perceptions, any non-material "thing" is possible.The issue is: what relevance or impact do such non-material things have with respect to the physical world as we experience it? What unexplained physical observations can be attributed to and properly understood as the results of particular actions by particular non-material forces we can't directly perceive? And can (should) we really understand these these forces as being purposeful, with intentions that relate directly to human beings?You might assert that the Bible provides a sort of "direct short-cut" to the proper understanding of these things, but as I said above, accepting this view is contingent on accepting some entire religious framework that goes with it. Others would say there is no such short-cut to proper understanding of the world -- there's actually a lot of hard work involved. There may be a rather fine line between "delusion" and "interpreting evidence according to a paradigm". It depends on what kind of paradigm you're using. One kind acknowledges the notion of having to proceed on the basis of incomplete information: you draw the best conclusions you can based on available knowledge, and most importantly, you consider possible alternatives, you try to anticipate and allow for contingencies that might arise with new data, and you reinterpret previous evidence (adjusting your course of action) as you learn more.The other kind of paradigm is built on dogma, or a pre-existing assumption of complete understanding: certain conclusions are already taken as givens, accepted as valid and maintained without question; evidence seeming to contradict these conclusions will either be "interpreted" to mean something contrary to actual physical observations (i.e. misconstrued), or else it will simply be ignored.As for the particular situation and people in your example, I have no basis for a complete and accurate answer, but based on the information I've seen and the relative plausibility of the sources, my current answer would be that Bush #1 and Clinton had incomplete information, whereas Bush #2, building up a rationale for invading Iraq, lied. The U.N. and inspectors, who were not asserting presence of Iraqi WMD's in 2002, were not lying. Suggesting there was any sort of active role played by any sort of deity begs so many questions as to be a ridiculously useless notion. That's just my own opinion, but it's firmly based on what I consider, based on experience, to be the better paradigm for interpreting evidence. I think you missed the point of the question (and you didn't really answer it). The scientific view is the only one that can really be "singled out" in any way; all the others (including yours) are equivalent to one another, by virtue of being, at best, based on the latter paradigm of interpreting evidence that I mentioned above, or simply based on "making stuff up."If you feel that your own beliefs are being singled out in some way relative to "the scientific view", that's simply because you happen to be holding the particular beliefs that are being pushed by others (perhaps by you as well) to be some sort of supplement or replacement for science education. It does seem to be the case that no other religious faith on the planet is trying to make this assertion about its particular creation story.Anyway, perhaps this was not such a fruitful question for the OP to ask. Yes, I have seen a number of people make this assertion about science. As I see it, these are all people who are adamant about how their religious beliefs have equal or greater truth relative to scientific accounts that contradict this or that literal interpretation of the Bible. Not only are they all using the latter type of paradigm described above, but they are mistakenly asserting that there is no other paradigm. I've seen you make this assertion yourself repeatedly, so you seem to be rather firmly in this group.It reminds me a bit of the old quip, "to a kid with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" -- you have this way of looking at the world, it really works for you and satisfies you in a profound way, and you conclude that there is no other way to look at the world. Your particular religious faith works for you personally? Fine. So it'll work for everything/everyone else? No. There is more than one paradigm, despite your personal refusal to see it. Well, that is close to the crux, and your comment (which didn't answer the question) points toward the core of the matter: based on your personal "perception" (interpretation) of what is written in the Bible, using the dogmatic paradigm described above, you assert that those words are somehow unambiguous in defining the age of the earth to be less than 10,000 years, and that other interpretations are unreasonable and unacceptable.This sort of assertion can only be made on the basis of a personal decision to accept a particular religious framework (often including but not limited to: church attendance, tithing, acceptance of authority on other matters as determined and espoused by past and present church leaders, and so on).If you think religious freedom is a good thing, then you can't honestly assert that your personal religious beliefs should be included in science education, or that evidence-based theories contradicting your beliefs should be excluded.On the other hand, if you think religious freedom is a farce (or a sin), and everyone should believe as you do, then you can make whatever assertion you want, but you can't expect others to accept it. That's the crux.Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor grammar repair

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

I'm not surprised that you don't wish to debate, since this seems to be the usual piquant mixture of stuff you don't know, stuff you don't understand, and stuff you made up.Ah, that's some good creationism.

Here is one.

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)Species Name:
Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8),
Homo erectus (3, 4, 7),
Homo erectus ergaster (25)Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)See original source for notes:Source: Default 404 | Museum of Science, Boston

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I disagree. You have created a non sequitur. The cosmos, the earth, and life on earth do provide evidence in agreement with the Biblical account of creation. You may disagree with the interpretation of that evidence, but it still exists. I agree whole heartedly. I hope you also agree that a person who accepts mainstream scientific explanations does so as a consequence of accepting the limited paradigm of methodological naturalism which is a philosophical approach to knowledge and understanding. I hope you also agree that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. You answered well. I asked, "can there be"...... A question of probabilities. Now let me rephrase the question for you.Is there an infinite force in the universe that is non-material? Is there an energy source that is eternal yet non-material?That makes a difference doesn't it? I will be interested to here your answer. Again, you answered well. You recognize paradigms, which act as filters on the information (evidence) which is passed through the filter. When you made your opinion on Bush#1, Clinton, and Bush#2 you filtered your conclusion based on your political paradigm. I'm sure you understand that many people think that Bush #2 didn't lie. That's because their filter looked at the same evidence, but concluded otherwise.Now sometimes the evidence is overwhelming. And opposing paradigms can conclude the same things. For instance I agree that populations genetically change over time. That's evolution. I think the evidence for this is overwhelming, but I don't think that Darwin's theory that all species came from one ancestor does have overwhelming evidence. I think much of this evidence can easily be argued from an opposing paradigm.Your last two sentences are interesting. You have chosen a particular paradigm based on your experiences. Most Christians would use the same language. I think you are mistaken here because of your paradigm. Your paradigm does not allow supernatural or metaphysical explanations. So all other paradigms that do, are not recognized ipso facto. Your paradigm is the one with exclusivity without recognition of other paradigms.My paradigm recognizes the scientific paradigm as being legitimate. My paradigm also recognizes other religious paradigms. I then, as an individual, choose between these paradigms according to my own evaluation of the evidence. The paradigm I choose may indeed be exclusive because of its dogma. Not all religious paradigms are exclusive in their dogma. But my paradigm at least recognizes the other paradigms. Science doesn't recognize any religious paradigm. Again, I must disagree with you here. I may disagree with an OEC, but that does not eliminate him/her from my religious paradigm. OEC's believe in the same God as me, they believe in the same Savior as me. They generally try to do the best they can at following the teachings of Christ and God in the Bible. Their position on the age of the earth is certainly reasonable. We just disagree on the interpretation of the data. Scriptural data as well as scientific data. That doesn't exclude them from Christianity.Now certainly some other religions may be excluded, but I would never exclude a Christian over interpretation of scripture or science. I will let God make those exclusions as He deems fit. It is also a personal decision to accept the paradigm of philosophical naturalism.You are creating strawmen arguments on the education bit. I never have advocated for any kind of religious teachings in our public schools. Nor have I advocated that evidenced-based theories contradicting my beliefs should be excluded.I do advocate that the textbooks should be factual, and I advocate that contradictory evidence to theories be presented. Is that unreasonable? I don't. But don't you think that all people should agree with the "scientific mainstream". Isn't that what you are advocating? Isn't that the only thing you want to be allowed in the textbooks? Aren't you and others trying to squelch the dissent in the scientific community with ad hominen attacks, and accusations of "pseudo-science?" Do you like others in this forum call people "idiots", "misinformed", "ignorant" just because they interpret the evidence on a broader filter than philosophical naturalism. I think that is the crux.

This is an assertion. You do not support it anywhere. You do not show a complete alternative interpretation. You simply say they exist. This is partially true and partially a repeat of things you've said and not supported before. You might want to take specific "scientific explanations" to appropriate threads (or create one) and show what is wrong with them. Then take it to a Biological Evolution thread and show the evidenfce and how you "easily" argue it from another view. You have been getting off easily for too long AOK. Now you have to support what you say. This is not unreasonable one you show the contradictory evidence and support your interpretations. There are threads to support this. Time to use them.

That's very generous of you, and I'm sure he'll appreciate the license. Do any other creationists have answers to the questions in the O.P.?

Thank you, AOK. It's dialog like this that makes the EvC forum valuable to me. Perhaps I wasn't being clear or specific enough. The issue for me actually involves particular ideas about creation and the history of life on earth that YECs propose, based on their particular interpretations of Biblical texts. Because of something that Jesus and/or several apostles and/or NT authors say, the OT texts must be interpreted as literal historical fact; then, because of that conclusion: (a) the earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old, and (b) there had to have been a global flood at some point, wiping out all humanity and land-based fauna except for the occupants of Noah's ark. Those are the points for which the only evidence in existence is (the YEC interpretation of) the Biblical text. As is pointed out frequently in the science threads here, this assertion does not hold up for the YEC interpretation of the Biblical account. Voluminous physical evidence of many kinds in many fields of study all contradict the YEC assertions about time depth and the flood; this evidence is clear, unambiguous, and easy to understand. When I say "unambiguous", I mean that "interpreting" such evidence so as to somehow support YEC would be, at best, a serious mistake of misinterpretation. (If you rebut with something like "uniformitarianism/dating techniques/etc are wrong", that's not "interpretation of the data" -- it's just denial of the data, without providing other evidence to objectively falsify what is being denied.)Other interpretations of the OT do not force such irreconcilable conflicts with observable evidence, and do allow for a sustainable coexistence of the religious and scientific paradigms. The potential variety of such Biblical interpretations is still quite wide, and it's up to each individual to choose his/her path through that maze. Quite so. But I don't view the limitations as being "philosophical" so much as being simply logically necessary, in order for scientific discourse to progress effectively and steadily. (More on this below.) Yes, it does make a difference. Is there such a force? I personally do not know. I personally can live my life without absolutely needing to know, let alone ever asserting that I absolutely do know.If such an energy source does exist, does it concern itself directly with the actions and thoughts of humanity? For me, that is imponderable. If there is such an energy source and it cares about people and about what they do and think, does it also exert purposeful influence on the physical events that I hear about and experience? Even more imponderable.For me, it makes more sense to understand things as they are. When there's not enough information for real understanding, some amount of imagination is warranted -- that's part of reasoning under uncertainty. But what I decide to imagine today will be contingent tomorrow (or at any later time) on new evidence.I can imagine that some as-yet unperceived, non-material force is affecting things, but that's only useful to me if it helps me understand what happens tomorrow and at any later time, or (just as important) if it helps me to understand, through reinterpretation of evidence, things that happened previously and were unexplainable or misconstrued. (In the latter case, the value is still relative to how this understanding will help in the future.)When my imagined explanation does help, I believe I have more information about something non-material that seems to be affecting my material world -- this is entirely plausible, and really great. When it doesn't help, I know at the very least that my imagination needs some tweaking, but it would be better to improve my understanding of material causation. Perhaps you and I are both guilty of making statements from misunderstanding -- it sort of looks as though each of us is accusing the other of the same offense. Not much point in that, is there?I was assuming that someone who accepts 10,000 years as the age of the earth and universe would be inclined not to accept natural/materialistic explanations for anything. But you say you accept the reality of evolution (within certain limits -- fine). So my assumption appears to be wrong, though I'm still puzzled about your stance regarding all the diverse sources of age measurements that far exceed 10,000 years.Meanwhile, you may have been assuming that the insistence in science for natural/materialistic explanations is a matter of dogma and philosophical belief. But it isn't that at all -- it's simply the essential, inescapable constraint on how hypotheses are formed and how conclusions are expressed, because to base hypotheses and conclusions on any supernatural factor is simply, logically equivalent to saying "there is no physical, objective, confirmable evidence to directly support this."The practice of science does not bar a person from holding his/her own personal beliefs about the possibility of non-material or supernatural causation -- a person's own imagination need not be constrained by the scientific method. But in scientific discourse, beliefs and imagination without supporting evidence are rightly labeled as speculation. It's not that speculation is worthless -- quite the contrary, if it is presented with good ideas for further study and future observations that would shed more light on the matter. Perhaps I misunderstood this bit from Message 82and shortly thereafter, Message 84: and yet again in that thread, Message 287: I can appreciate the position that theories (or "proposals") of abiogenesis, as they currently stand, are not at all convincing or even plausible in your view -- fine. But you appear to be attributing some philosophical, anti-religious animus to the people making the proposal, and my whole point here is that such an attribution is unjustified and improper. Your seeming vendetta to keep it out of the science classroom is inconsistent with the stance that you profess in the current thread.Abiogenesis is an attempt to explain the material procedures that can produce a very fundamental and simple form of life where life had not previously existed; the goal of the explanation is to arrive at the point where the ToE comes into play, and to do so in accordance with the logical necessities of scientific discourse. Some of it, at present, is speculation, but it is being presented in such a way that the speculation will eventually lead to more detailed and firmly established evidence.There are interpretations of Biblical text that can accommodate such an explanation, with a simple conclusion like "this is how God did it." It does not attempt to directly deny, disprove or invalidate religious paradigms in general (though it does directly contradict the specific beliefs of some particular religious groups). It makes no direct claims as to the non-existence of any non-material force. It is not a presentation of a religious doctrine, any more than animal husbandry is a matter of religious doctrine. It should be okay to present it in science classrooms. Was that last statement a question? Yes, I think everyone should agree with the scientific mainstream -- because it's a helluva lot harder getting folks to agree on any sort of religious "mainstream". Yes, only science should be allowed in science text books (other subjects need other kinds of material, and everyone should learn about religions, too). No, I am not trying to squelch dissent in the scientific community -- I just want to see that arguments about science topics are conducted in accordance with the logical necessities of scientific discourse.If you find any example of ad-hominem attacks or insulting language in my posts, show me, and I'll make restitution. I do maintain a careful distinction between evaluating evidence in alternative ways (okay) vs. making stuff up for the sake of calling an OT story true in some counterfactual way. Folks who pursue the latter, impervious to reality, are entitled to some good-natured ridicule, but that's as far as I'll go.Last minor point, probably off-topic, but close enough (with regard to filtering information through paradigms): I do understand that many hold the other opinion. It's not at all clear to me that they have looked at the same evidence that I did in reaching my conclusion. To the extent that the same evidence has been seen by both sides, the different conclusions are reached by assigning different weights to particular items -- in effect, this amounts to deciding which pieces of evidence to discount, set aside, and basically ignore. Do the two sides use the same principles in assigning weights to evidence? Assuming different principles are used, which set (if either) is more objective?That brings us back closer to my sense of "the crux." (Good evening, folks, and welcome to championship crux-ping-pong...)Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor repairs

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

Thank you Otto, I agree. However, I hope you realize that you and I have mainly been having a philosophical discussion. And I hope you recognize that AdminNosy has admonished me in this forum for not putting forth evidence in a philosophical discussion. Therefore, I will try to bring forth evidence as it is requested, and expound upon philosophy when it is required. You are partially correct. I stated earlier very clearly, that the YeC interpretation is a matter of faith. Not Science. I cannot, and will not ultimately argue the YEC position from a scientific pardigm. It is an impossibility by definition. Science by current definition does not consider the biblical account period, because of the concept that "God" is the causal agent.If you actually read websites like AIG and others, you will see similar declarations. Believing the Bible is a matter of faith not science.However, that doesn't mean that there is not any scientific evidence that is in support of the biblical account.There is scientific evidence that the universe has a beginning. The bible declared this 3500 years ago. There is scientific evidence that animals and plants can be grouped according to "kinds" or taxa. We do this today. There is scientific evidence that animals and plants reproduce according to their "kind". This evidence is abundant everywhere. The law of biogenesis is scientific evidence that is consistent with the biblical creation model. The seven days of the week that are recognized worldwide thru all ages are evidence of the creation story. There is scientific evidence of one land mass in the past as indicated in the creation story. There is scientific evidence that seasons, days, and years are calculated based on the sun and moon as indicated in the creation story. The bible indicates that souls (nephesh) are both animal and human and that the delineation from plants is breathing. Science has shown that all animalia breathe. There is scientific evidence that man rules over all organisms as the creation story indicates. Now all of this is positive evidence for creation and not evidence against evolution or BBT.Now I have listed several pieces of evidence that are in agreement with the biblical account of creation. I could do the same for the flood. (that's an assertion, if you want positive evidence of the flood story I will provide it) Now certainly there is scientific evidence against the creation story. But my claim is that there is evidence. And that evidence is scientific or empirical. I also could site many creationist websites that argue that the earth is young. I have not chosen to do this, because the Bible itself gives no declaration as to the earth's age. YeCism is my conclusion based on my interpretation of the evidence. Some of that evidence is empirical and some of it is not. It is faith based, not science based. Yes, for the most part, you are correct. But the biblical account of creation is not a scientific theory. It cannot be scientifically falsified. I know of no scientific theories that the earth is 6-10,000 years old. I know of no theories stating a six day creation. Now this is a philosophical argument. You cannot on one hand argue that creationism is pseudo-science, and then on the other hand claim to falsify creationism. That's a paradox. Science does not allow the possibility of a "God" cause. OK, agreed. But you are philosophically arguing that it is OK to have multiple biblical interpretations, but it is not OK to have different interpretations of physical evidence or observations.I would also argue that the OEC position forces irreconcilable conflicts with scripture.Philosophically, it is argued that the Bible is an invention/creation of man. OK. Isn't science and methodological naturalism also an invention/creation of man? Both are logical constructs. They have compatibilities and they have incompatabilities. But you can't have scientific discourse about the Bible. You can only have scientific discourse about hypotheses and theories. The Bible is a logical paradigm. Science is a logical paradigm. The science paradigm of philosophical naturalism excludes the possibility of a Biblical paradigm by definition. However the Biblical paradigm does not exclude the scientific method. It just broadens the scientific paradigm to allow for the metaphysical. That's why certain people call themselves Creation Scientists, and others call them Pseudo-Scientists. I posed this question on purpose to help you see that the paradigm of science ultimately reaches similar thought processes that are found in the scripture. It was unimaginable for you that such descriptions existed, and even affected you personally when science has already reasoned them.There is indeed an infinite force in the universe that is non-material. And science has discovered it, and defined it to some extent. It is Gravity.According to BBT, In the begining was gravity.... The source of gravity was infinite in magnitude at this singularity. Yet science is able to reason a non-material entity which has infinite power (all powerful omnipotent).Science has also discovered a huge energy source that is "eternal" yet non-material. It is light. Light was a consequense of the BB. It's speed in a vacuum is considered a universal constant. Yet time is relative to the speed of travel. Time dilates relative to the speed of travel as well as relative to gravity. The fundamentals of physics are entertwined. Technically, time stood still before the singularity. That would be eternity from a philosophical viewpoint. Now here again, science has been able to discover two fundamental forces/particles/waves??? which are non-material.What then is to prevent additional fundamental entities from being defined over time in science? I believe from the Bible that life has something physically fundamental about it. In the case of animalia, I believe it is spiritual. (related to breath/respiration)That's a thread of its own.But the fact remains that non-material entities exist and are identified by science. And the fact also remains that these fundamentals do affect every aspect of your life and your observations. Both entities of gravity and light continually affect the material world.I will continue to answer the rest of you post in my next reply. That is, if I don't get in trouble for this reply...Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : Added a few words for clarification

I don't want to get into another full fledge debate about abiogenesis. However, you answered my concerns with your statement in yellow. There are logical necessities within the methodological naturalism of science. Abiogenesis (that life can come from non-life) is an a priori philosophy. It is a rationalization founded on naturalism and not based on any known natural phenomena. The suggestion (rationalization) that life came from a series of chemical reaction comes from the a priori acceptance that the supernatural doesn't exist. That is atheism. That is a philosophical faith as denoted by Thomas Huxley himself who advocated chemical evolution into life. (all of this is documented in the Biogenesis thread.) I oppose the parading of abiogenesis as science when it is not based on evidence or phenomena, but soley on pilosophical reasoning.(a priori)I am not opposed for science to proceed with these invesitgations. People can spend their money wherever they want. I am opposed as to it being taught as a philosophical faith until such time that there are natural phenomena that might make a hypothesis plausible. Why do you care? Should everyone learn how to read and write and do arithmetic? We are failing at teachng these things. How are you going to convince all those uneducated that science is the best paradigm when science changes all he time. I think most of religious agreement comes from education. Science is no different. I certainly don't think that scientists agree on many things, and I'm not sure who defines the "mainstream". No disagreement here, but some do try to squelch dissent in every logical paradigm. I don't recall any ad hominen attacks from you, but as you know I have encountered a few. Quite frankly I have trouble with some Christians who represent a very limited scientific foundation. However, many creation scientists are very highly educated and they offer dissent. That doesn' make them "impervious to reality". The purpose of the RATE roject was with recognition that many of the fundamental assumptions of radiometric dating methods are indeed reasonable. Well that's up to the jury which sits between your two ears to decide. I learned a long time ago, that people have different mental processes. I once was a manager in a union situation. Union people think differently than management. Scientific people think differently than religious people. Women think differently than men.If they didn't, then we wouldn't need these forums. That is realy the crux, isn't it?

I'll forego a trivial number of minor quibbles in your two replies, because here is something that brings us squarely back to one of the important questions in the OP: First point (a not-so-minor quibble): the presentation of abiogenesis in a science classroom is not intrinsically a matter of teaching a philosophical faith. The proposals are actually compatible with a diverse range of philosophical faiths (various conceptions/beliefs involving one or more supernatural powers), in addition to being compatible with a purely materialistic/naturalistic world view (which, please note, is not faith-based, under what most people and dictionaries consider the normal definition of "faith").Of course, as you have amply demonstrated, there are some philosophical faiths (e.g. the one you hold) with which abiogenesis is not compatible. Be that as it may, you are not justified (solely on the basis of holding to such an incompatible belief system yourself) in demanding that abiogenesis be barred from science classes on the grounds that is establishes one specific faith, because the fact of the matter is that it does not do this.Second point (perhaps not the "crux", but pretty important for this thread): In the portion of your statement that I highlighted in yellow, you indicate what condition will need to be met in order to change your opinion about the plausibility of the materialistic world view.If/when researchers are able to demonstrate the beginning of a new life form from inanimate components (either by observation or by experimentation), it will be time for you to reassess your beliefs, and change your opinion of what should and should not be taught in science classrooms. This amounts to a promise that if/when such a scientific milestone is reached, you will accept it, rather than condemn it as a sinful, sacrilegious, dooming the practitioners (or all mankind) to destruction and/or eternal damnation, etc. Have I got that right?Many of us are speculating that to reach such a milestone is not only plausible, but very nearly inevitable.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

Yes, I thought you might want to avoid some of those "minor" quibbles...Now, I am going to respond to you post out of sequence, because context is important: Evidently you have missed my original answers to the OP. In case you did, here is one of them.... Now you can clearly see that that this creationist is not opposed to the proper evaluation and interpretation of evidence. Now I am very specific in what I say here, because the chemichal reactions and self-organization must be spontaneous. They cannot be intelligently engineered by man. And they must be observable and repeatable. That my friend is science. Observable and repeatable. Many? I would say it's the mainstream in science. I would say that is the vast majority in the scientific field. (that's an assertion, I do not have evidence except a preponderance of what is published).But look at your statement. You have a hope (an "inevitable" "speculation"), an expectation for the unseen future. A conviction of what that future holds. That is the definition of a Christian's faith... What you have just stated so clearly is a matter of religious conviction. The religion is ultimately atheism, but it is shrouded in philosophical naturalism. This is why, at this level, this dogma should not be taught. Now, that transitions nicely to your first comments.... O really? Here is Merriman Webster on faith: What part of abiogenesis and your statements in this post do not apply the the definitions in yellow? Abiogenesis is faith based. It is an a priori rationalization of philosophical naturalism. Thomas Huxley was at least wise enough to realize this when he described modern day abiogenesis hypotheses over 130 years ago.... Message 12 Biogenesis ThreadHuxley envisioned the primordial past. He evisioned "simpler" life forms. He envisioned these "simpler" life forms coming from chemicals. He envisioned these "simpler" life forms evolving into the life we recognize today. All of the current OoL hypotheses have the same a priori rationalizations. But at least he recognized it as philosophical faith.Today, we have nothing more than some of these "building blocks" of life spontaneously generating under certain atmospheric conditions which may or may not be likened to early earth. The extreme complexity of the simplest known life forms is known. The spontaneous assembly and evolution of these "simpler' life forms is vacuous. And scientists know it is vacuous, so they are beginning to equivocate on what life is. That's fallacious. It is still a philosophical faith.If you want to present more than one philosophy about OoL, that's fine. But to present only one, is faith based and religious. That is my position.

So, nothing should be taught about the expansion of the universe, the formation of the solar system, or the planet, or the Rocky mountains, the oceans and many other things which are now taught. We could teach about the formation of volcanic islands in general, because the phenomenon can actually be witnessed, but not about the past formation of a particular one, because that would not be observable and repeatable. Interesting. Historical science is not science, to you then. To scientists, of course, it is.Why, I wonder, do natural explanations for natural phenomena require faith or some grand philosophy? As they are the only type of explanations that have ever turned out to be correct, and as we have no evidence of the existence of the non-natural, then they would seem to fit the description of common sense built on experience.In the same way that a small child, jumping repeatedly off a small chair and continually landing on the floor will come to the conclusion that landing on the floor appears to be the norm, and if flying through the window to reach the sky does happen, it must be a rare exception. The more jumping done, the rarer the possible exception appears to be, and the less likely the child is to spend time and energy seriously considering the "reaching the sky" alternative.We've done a lot more jumping off chairs since Huxley's time, and we do not need a philosophy to tell us that, faced with any natural phenomenon, a natural explanation is statistically by far the most likely. That's built on observation. He also could not know that he was not in a steady state universe, in which case, eternal life would have been a plausible alternative to abiogenesis, abiogenesis being a logical conclusion in a universe in which life would have once been impossible.In Huxley's time, it arguably required faith to firmly believe that the sun could burn for billions of years, as no-one could conceive of a kind of combustion that would make that possible. Some old-earthers concluded that God must be responsible, but hindsight tells us that such conclusions are unwise, Alpha.

Your whole argument is a strawman. The expansion of the universe is observable. Those observations are repeatable. It is not just a rationalization based on the philosophy of naturalism. The formation of the solar system, planets, and the Rocky Mountains are theories. Theories have a vast array of evidentiary support which is observable and those observations are repeatable. Theories make predictions about unknown things. Those unknown things are often observed later which helps elevate hypothetical explanations to those of a theory. Theories are what should be and are taught in science class. And all science and all science theories are based on philosophical naturalism which is fine.You don't have that with abiogenesis and the hypotheses within. You have hypotheses based on a priori ( a priori definition rationalizations relative to philosophical naturalism. Science is a posteriori rationalizations.Abiogenesis has evidence of spontaneous generation of the building blocks of life. However, we have all of these all around us today. When it comes to the spontaneous organization of the building blocks into a building that is vastly more complicated than most buildings that we know of, the evidence is non existent. And then even a non-complicated "simple proto cell" with some sort of RNA spontaneous organization must find the ability to spontaeously replicate, mutate, and be naturally selected to upwardly evolve into the simplest life form we know today. Those mechanisms are non existant. Abiogenesis is a long ways away from plausibility and from having a logistical theory. Only the philosophical faith makes it probable to those believers of that faith. They don't. That's how science works. When you have a phenomenon, you observe it. That obsevation or one similar to it must be repeatable. Then you hypothesize about that phenomenon. Then you test the hypothesis. What is the phenomenon that suggests life came from chemicals? Before you answer to quick, ask yourself if the phenomenon is observable and repeatable. In abiogenesis it is arationalization based on the philosophy of naturalism that yields the hypotheses. That is a priori knowledge or rationalization. It is faith based. What you have just stated is a tautology. Natural solutions are the only explanations that have ever turned out to be correct, because science is built on philosohical naturalism. Gravity which is all powerful and non-material must be natural by definition. The bible idicates that God holds all things together. Light which is eternal and non-material must be natural by definition. The Bible indicates that God is Light. Your argument is based on your fallacy of creating a tautology. Please explain how under philosophical naturalism you can discover any entity which is not natural. It is a circular impossibility.If you had an observable repeatable phenomenon, then I would agree with you. But you don't. That's the problem.

No it isn't.It would be faith based only if the finding was declared positive proof of, in which there could be no possible otherwise account of, thus nonfalsifiable. Therefore it would not be science and would be faith based. That is why science relies on theories not proof.Edited by bluescat48, : punctuation & syntax

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969