Creationism--Proof ?

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by daytonturner

There is no more proof that the universe is eternal than there is proof that it had a beginning.

Actually, there is all sorts of proof that at least our little pocket of the universe did have a begininng. Cosmic microwave background, past light cones, etc. Whether or not the entire universe did is something we can't really test for, but scientists tend to believe that there is nothing particularly special about our little pocket.
-Will

[daytonturner]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

, but scientists tend to believe. . . -Will

If belief is not proof in religion, it does not seem that it should qualify as proof in science.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by daytonturner

I just find it interesting that some feel it is scholarly to investigate only two of these possibilities – an eternal universe or the “it just happened” theory. I fail to find them any more or less plausible or provable or scientific than the concept that some intelligence caused it to happen.

Who says only two possibilities should be investigated? AFAIK there are tons of models for how the universe came into being and whether or not it is eternal. I have read numerous articles and books about this for years.

You need to distinguish between belief and faith. Belief in science has nothing to do with faith - it is related to experience and learning, and especially to experiment - than faith in a religious sense, which is irrational and needs to be so (because if we *knew* there was a god, then we would no longer need faith). In science we never really know things for sure. But given the evidence we are able to gather, we believe this or that to be true, unless otherwise proven wrong.

[GAHD]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

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

Actually that could be very interesting idea for a thread. perhapse devise an experiment? Shurely you can proove anger exists, why not love?

Originally Posted by daytonturner

perfectWeakness has provided a perfect definition of religion. However, it does seem to exclude Christianity which is based on a personal relationship with a Diety and is based not on rules and regulations, but merely on belief and trust. So simple a child can do it; so complex it is impossible to comprehend.

what are the ten commandments if not rules? I had thought that was a part of it all.

[questor]

Daytonturner, well reasoned and to the point. there is an obvious bias among some posters here who refuse to give any credence to the possibility of a creator or intelligent design. this is OK as far as an opinion. what is not OK is to summarily close threads only because they don't want to participate or have antipathy to the subject. this is a science forum and matters of the physical forces and inner workings of the universe are the very
basis of scientific enquiry. what greater discovery could be made in the history of science than to determine whether the universe was created by an all powerful force or ''just
happened''. when we have no clear understanding of gravity, black holes, dark matter, the thought process or life on the elemental particle level, how can we positively say there was no intelligent design? unfortunately, many posters here cannot separate the man made concept of a Diety, whether he be called God, Buddha, or Allah with the concept of
an elemental force which would be capable of creating the universe. we will not know the answer possibly for ages, but in my opinion the evidence points to intelligent design.

[daytonturner]

Well, Gahd, The 10 Commandments have nothing to do with salvation or belief or faith or trust in God. But that is a misunderstanding shared by many Christians and non-Christians alike.

One of the purposes of The 10 Commandments is to show us that we cannot live a perfect life and thereby gain God's favor. Who among us has not violated at least one of those commandments? Who among even those who claim to be Christians has not violated at least one of those commandments since becoming a believer?

The 10 Commandments, as well as many other "laws" in the Bible, when applied to real life, merely suggest generally productive and counterproductive actions we can take. Wherein the "laws" prescribe certain conduct, such conduct will generally prove to be productive. Wherein the "laws" proscribe certain conduct, such conduct will generally prove to be non-productive.

Unfortunately, does little to prove or disprove creationism.

As to Tormud's suggestion that there are more than two models -- I totally agree. However, reduced to their common denominators one is left with the eternal v. had-a-start groups of models with the had-a-start group again separated into intelligent causation v. happenstance causation. I do not mean happenstance as derogatory but merely as descriptive of a non-intellectual causation.

Tormud has also adroitly pointed out the problem of our language in which words have numerous nuances such that the faith one exhibits in sitting down in a chair he has never sat in before is not quite the same as faith he might have in the ability of a God to preserve his essense for eternity.

I can only suggest that those who believe and have faith in science to someday "fill in the gaps" display a faith which is similar to that displayed by those who have a belief and faith in some religious concept.

[perfectWeakness129]

If you just want the piont of all this, drop down to the bottom...

Well good, I think my leading statement and even more so, daytonturner's lengthy essay steered this thread in a good direction. The point I was aiming for is that Science is no less of a religion than Buddhism, Hinduism or many other philosophies. I think this is something we can all agree on. I like Wikipidia's passage about 'relating us to the universe’ (prphsed). Science in our society has become more than just a school subject. It is a structure of rules and philosophies that guide us in our quest to explain the unexplained, from sub-atomic chemistry to galactic physics. Many have become very absorbed in the scientific method, the 10 commandments if you will of Science. The analogies can go on and on.

The point of all this is not to 'dis' science as a religion, but to bring to light a truth regarding the original point of this thread. Evolution and The Bib Bang are sciences explanation of origins of life just as Creation is to Theist religions, and therefore are beliefs the government should not be imposing on our children as fact. I think there are interesting implications of evolution and 'happenstance', and I think the scientific observations can improve one's understanding of science, but it is still not fact.

I remember discussing string theory in High School, as well as various aspects of the theory of relativity. It was fun and interesting and educational but I never once heard that these ideas were fact because they weren't proven. None of this stuff can be proven like you can prove gravity. None of this stuff can be summed up in an equation or observed like chemical reactions. It is all too abstract, and therefore falls under Science the religion, and not science the academic subject.

On a biblical note... (Hopefully this won't close the thread as is so frequently done). For followers of God (Jews BC and Christians AD) this is not a new thing. People around God's children have always followed other religions be it Egyptians, Baal-followers, Greeks, Babylonians, etc. These religions had their own explanations of Life, before and after, and they all had gods. The god of science is the relatively new concept. There is no god. This does not mean, however, that science cannot be an idol itself, and this idol will compete with God just as Baal and Nebo competed with God 3000 years ago.

Point: Science is a system of beliefs, and in my book that is a religion.

PS: Is Christianity a religion? Yes, according to my definition it is, but as daytonturner stated above, the RELIGION is a sideffect of the RELATIONSHIP with God. Becuase one follows God, certain convictions about life come forth into the persons life. But as seen in the teachings of Jesus, if the religion starts to become the god, then the religion is useless. This is why 'The Way' is separate from any other religion on the earth. (Except for Judahism, they just don't know it)

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by perfectWeakness129

I remember discussing string theory in High School, as well as various aspects of the theory of relativity. It was fun and interesting and educational but I never once heard that these ideas were fact because they weren't proven. None of this stuff can be proven like you can prove gravity. None of this stuff can be summed up in an equation or observed like chemical reactions. It is all too abstract, and therefore falls under Science the religion, and not science the academic subject.

emphasis added by me

While it may be true that string theory can't be experimetnally tested right now, I'd point out that it is summed up in equations (as is all of physics). As to relativity, special relativity and general relativity have been subjected to all sorts of experiments, and passed with flying colors. Also, both theories are neatly encapsulated by equations. The difference betweern science and religion, the difference you fail to note, is that in science, after you've made your abstract predictions, you TEST them against nature. There is no way to test for religion.
-Will

[perfectWeakness129]

Real quick…
Define: Science (upper case) belief system of a scientist, religion if you will.
Define: science (lower case) Study of nature and the physical universe.

While I recognize your point, and it is very true, I hold that this idea of 'scientific method' (SM), or using experiments to define truth, is an aspect of Science the religion. Unfortunately we are now getting to the point where we are rebutting with "Infinity + 1" arguments. Or anything you say, I can turn into religion and anything I say you can turn into non-science.

Lets pretend for a moment that Science and theist religions can each in their own rite, fall under both belief, and testable fact. How you ask?

Both require a certain amount of faith. Religion is obvious. Science, however, will take some explanation. In Science and science one believes that
A)The SM approach is completely reliable
B) His/her approach to experiment is infallible
C)His/Her interpretation of results is accurate and final
These are inclusive of reproducibility and all that validation stuff.

In many cases in science, these are true and mostly indisputable (i.e. gravity), but in more abstract ideas, such as evolution and universal origins, this is much less rigid and begins to fall under that Science religion. Your proofs may not convince me, but for you and fellow scientists, you are convinced based on you 'faith' in the scientific absolute.

That being said, the same applies in reverse, providing an argument for religion as having scientific aspects. I can guarantee that most theists or philosophites (Buddhists, Taoists...) don't just try out what they here, see no response or truth to it, and keep after it regardless of their experience. The problem is that one's revealing experience can't be recorded in a 'scientific' manner.

I can tell you all day long about my testimony regarding salvation, redemption, and revelation from God. I can go on to tell you the things I have experienced that reveal to ME the existence of God. But only by faith can you believe me, and only by a greater faith can to pursue those truths yourself. The fact still remains that for me, I have proof. My maintenance of faith is not based on just on words alone.

So the difference I see between science (That's lower-case science) and religions is that scientific evidence can be published in a factual, real, reproducible, and widely acceptable way. And because we can all see these facts, it is easy for most people to accept. With religious truth, however, we can't all see what the other is talking about either because we don't understand or we don't want to understand.

Science (upper case) is the part that tries to explain away God, and in doing so uses explanation that we can't see. Not many people have seen evolutionary advances in their lifetime (adaptation being it's own topic of discussion). So it is very difficult for many to believe in evolution. There are some really creative/’smart’ people out there who are able to convince themselves of evolution and the big bang, but I tell you they have nothing more than personal evidence themselves.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by perfectWeakness129

The point I was aiming for is that Science is no less of a religion than Buddhism, Hinduism or many other philosophies. I think this is something we can all agree on....

Point: Science is a system of beliefs, and in my book that is a religion.

No, it is not something we can all agree on because science is not a system of beliefs based on faith.

Why is the sky blue? Do you think it's simply because you have faith that it is blue? No. We know the sky is blue because of the wavelengths of light absorbed by the molecules that make up our atmosphere. We observe the blue sky, we hypothesize that it is because of this absorption, we predict the colors we will see be passing light through the various gases that make up the atmosphere and we find in the end that our predictions based on our hypothesis which was based on out initial observations turn out to be true. That's science, not faith.

Part of science is producing theories we cannot currently prove to be absolutely correct because of current limitations on our abilities. Take the theory of relativity for example. There are portions of the theory that we can make predictions from but we haven't the technology to test them. Without this we cannot declare the Theory of Relativity to be the Law of Relativity. That doesn't make it a system of faith though. We believe it to be true because it matches our observations and the predictions we have been able to make and test, not because of faith.

There is much rigorous science that we know to be absolutely true by using the scientific method. Theories of the past that have been proven true, not just accepted as true because we thought they should be. This is not religion, it is science performed using the scientific method.

There is also theoretical science that we think could be true because it matches our observations. This stays a theoretical science though because we maintain a doubt as long as it cannot be proven. We never accept that these theories must be true just because we think they should be. Should we cross that line then we do so on faith and that would be religion.