Jump to content
Science Forums

Creationism--Proof ?

Recommended Posts

Since we are now starting the second round of the Scopes monkey trial and schools are being forbidden to even mention the fact there may have been a creator of the universe, it may be pertinent to ask why this supression of free speech should be allowed to exist, when there is no proof of the absence of a creator? in fact there is much more evidence that there was and is intelligent design than that it does not exist. while the argument seems to be crystalized between the believers and unbelievers of the theory of evolution,this is an extremely narrow view of the subject of creation and only speaks to one small part of the overall activity ( and maybe an unimportant one ) of the cosmos.

it seems to me that the ''scientists'' who are so cocksure that there was no creator stand on shaky ground when there is no proof either way. i would say we know far less about the workings of the universe than some posture. why don't we get on firm ground about forces we don't understand such as gravity,before we take an indefensible stand which could easily be incorrect. if someone has proof about the non existence of a creator, i

would like to hear it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

damocles, this is going to come as a great shock to you, but you are wrong!

Just because it seems logical doesn't mean that it's so. You're making an assumption that a force is needed to induce order. You should not assume, presuppose or leap to any conclusions based on obser

damocles: I'm glad you ask.   1. You are wrong in continuing to hold that this thread is about creationism. It is also about proof and what kind of proof is relevant to not only creationism but, ult

You are opening yourself up for attacks by using fallacious arguments here. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist.


The US has a strict separation between church and state. I wonder why on earth you pitch this as a freedom of speech thing. It would mean that every teacher in the country can teach that Jesus was gay as much as they want, since it is impossible to prove that he wasn't.


On the same note, it will by your reasoning be fully okay to teach kids about fairies in biology because it is impossible to prove they do not exist.


It is the ID movement that is pitching this as a "creationism vs evolution" debate. But it is not about evolution at all. It is about whether teaching religious views in science classes in state funded schools is okay.


Evolution is being used as a strawman argument by the ID movement with the claim that "it is faith based, just like religion". Since this becomes a semantic issue rather than a scientific issue, it is in fact misleading. The real question is not whether evolution is correct or not, but whether ID is a religion or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why should anyone attack me for asking simple questions? attacks usually originate from persons with an agenda opposite to the one proposed. the fact is that you don't believe in creation although you cannot defend that position scientifically. the truth also is that the politically correct movement and the ACLU are trying to drive religion out of our society, when the very laws and societal mores we live by were founded on these principles. the result will be a poorer society rather than a better one, with fewer curbs on bad behavior.

the word science derives from the Latin word meaning ; to know. i am not playing

semantical games here, i am saying neither you nor i know the origin of the universe, you're taking the non-creational position with no facts to back it up, i'm assuming there is a

possibility of a creator, and the evidence i see points in that direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
have you ever seen any type of evidence that would indicate to you that there is an Easter bunny?

When I was a wee lass, every Easter Sunday, there was a huge basket of candies on the table. And there was also a bunch of colored eggs. Nobody had any idea how they got there, I asked every single year. Does this prove that the Easter Bunny exists? If so, my children will be so excited. (especially the boys- they'd love to lay inwait with their guns so we could have rabbit stew. yummy!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
have you ever seen any type of evidence that would indicate to you that there is an Easter bunny? do you view the physical evidence of the mathmatical precision of the operation of the universe as proof there is no intelligent design ?


Actually, when I was a kid, on Easter. When I would wake up, these strange colored eggs would appear all over my lawn. I tried to think of some scientific explaination for it, but I just couldn't come up with any. Therefore, by proof of the inability to disprove: the Easter Bunny does exist. Now to find out if he had anything to do with the creation of the universe, hmm, I don't think I can disprove it, so it MUST be true! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
if your garage had scales and dragon droppings around it, and you heard noises, you may conclude a dragon was there, but you couldn't be sure until you investigated.


It is a reference to this: http://www.users.qwest.net/%7Ejcosta3/article_dragon.htm


However, that is the point. There is no direct evidence of a creator, there are no scales, or droppings, or noises. It is most reasonable to thus conclude that there is no creator, thus creationism must be treated as being false.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...There is no direct evidence of a creator, there are no scales, or droppings, or noises. ...
There is no evidence if a Creator (currently) supported by the scientific method. That is only a subset of alll evidence. It is, however, the subset that we discuss on this site.


Most folks would readily concede that love exists. It is not demonstrable by the scientific method either. But that is not a science topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I propose a definition...


Religion: A structure of beliefs and convictions based upon a determined set of rules, regulations, or dogma that influances or sometimes dictates one's descision outside of his or her own logic.


I entered 'define: religion' in Google and found that all of its definitions required a supernatural being (god or diety) to complete the religion. We know this to rare as many existing religions don't even include diety(i.e. Buddahism), and most that do, don't even center on it/them(i.e. Hindu).


This definitions implies religion is not limited to a god, is not limitied to after-life ideals, or even good vs. evil, though many include these ideals in their cannon/systemology.


I would like to see if anyone finds fault in this definition before a go on to make any further point. Don't worry, I'm not setting anyone up for some cliche attack on Creationism or Evolution, but I think what I am getting at will level the playing field for this apples vs. oranges argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...