Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory. I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.

Both models.

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

 

[daws101]

I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory. I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.

Both naturalism and creationism is merely philosophy and the full tenets of both can't be tested through the scientific method.

The day is coming when the courts will be fully educated to make an adequate decision concerning both views.

so if creationism to you is only a "mere" philosophy then it must be flawed...

 

[Youwerecreated]

While the final answer is still to be found and no, you don't have it, the scientific process is moving ever closer to the point where that is going to be discovered. Already the origins of the building blocks of life are known. The rest is just a matter of time and effort. All of the current evidence points towards a natural origin.

They do know the building blocks of life but they will never be able to demonstrate origins in a naturalistic setting. Even if they find a way for life to be formed through these building blocks it was accomplished through intelligence not naturalism.

way to rationalize !
thing is IT WON'T BE THE KIND OF intelligent you're wishing for..

Where does knowledge come from daws ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory. I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.

Both naturalism and creationism is merely philosophy and the full tenets of both can't be tested through the scientific method.

The day is coming when the courts will be fully educated to make an adequate decision concerning both views.

Your ignorance is boundless.

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world."[1] Adherents of naturalism (i.e. naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws.[2]
"Naturalism can intuitively be separated into a [metaphysical] and a methodological component."[3] Metaphysical here refers to the philosophical study of the nature of reality. Philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. Such an absolute belief in naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism.[4]

The ignorance is not mine.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory. I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.

Both naturalism and creationism is merely philosophy and the full tenets of both can't be tested through the scientific method.

The day is coming when the courts will be fully educated to make an adequate decision concerning both views.

so if creationism to you is only a "mere" philosophy then it must be flawed...

I believe that both are philosophies and both can be tested but not totally tested got it ?

 

[MHunterB]

Did you not see that poll that a very high number of Democrats believe in God and creation.

What this has to do with this discussion is beyond me.

What is beyond you is understanding statistics. There is an old saying that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Just as there is no correlation between what a majority of Republicans still believe about WMD's and reality there is no correlation between your poll results and the existence of your deity either. That you are gullible enough to believe that there is says volumes. Have a nice day.

Gullible many are but I would say the most gullible would be the ones believing life came from non-life lol.

Since you can't tell the difference between 'evolution' and 'abiogensis' - you are obviously ignorant on the topic, likely so ignorant that your opinion is not fact-based in this instance.

 

[daws101]

They do know the building blocks of life but they will never be able to demonstrate origins in a naturalistic setting. Even if they find a way for life to be formed through these building blocks it was accomplished through intelligence not naturalism.

way to rationalize !
thing is IT WON'T BE THE KIND OF intelligent you're wishing for..

Where does knowledge come from daws ?

not from you, that's a fact..
knowledge is part experience part instinct and part testing.
those are it's sources.
let not forget schools, libraries, the net, even some churches...

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory. I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.

Both naturalism and creationism is merely philosophy and the full tenets of both can't be tested through the scientific method.

The day is coming when the courts will be fully educated to make an adequate decision concerning both views.

Your ignorance is boundless.

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world."[1] Adherents of naturalism (i.e. naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws.[2]
"Naturalism can intuitively be separated into a [metaphysical] and a methodological component."[3] Metaphysical here refers to the philosophical study of the nature of reality. Philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. Such an absolute belief in naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism.[4]

nat·u·ral·ism

/ˈnaCHərəˌlizəm/



Noun


1.(in art and literature) A style and theory of representation based on the accurate depiction of detail. Naturalism rejected the idealiza...
2.A philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual...


nat·u·ral·ism (nchr--lzm, nchr-)
n.
1. Factual or realistic representation, especially:
a. The practice of describing precisely the actual circumstances of human life in literature.

b. The practice of reproducing subjects as precisely as possible in the visual arts.

2.
a. A movement or school advocating such precise representation.

b. The principles and methods of such a movement or of its adherents.

3. Philosophy The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

4. Theology The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.

5. Conduct or thought prompted by natural desires or instincts.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Gullible many are but I would say the most gullible would be the ones believing life came from non-life lol.

While the final answer is still to be found and no, you don't have it, the scientific process is moving ever closer to the point where that is going to be discovered. Already the origins of the building blocks of life are known. The rest is just a matter of time and effort. All of the current evidence points towards a natural origin.

They do know the building blocks of life but they will never be able to demonstrate origins in a naturalistic setting. Even if they find a way for life to be formed through these building blocks it was accomplished through intelligence not naturalism.

Once again you are demonstrating the arrogance of religion. Once the process is identified there is every possibility that they could then find it occurring in the "naturalistic setting". Unless you know what you are looking for how can you expect it to find it? Your erroneous assumption that "intelligence" was involved in the "creation" of the first "cell slime" that was capable of reproducing is based upon nothing but your "blind faith".

 

[daws101]

Both naturalism and creationism is merely philosophy and the full tenets of both can't be tested through the scientific method.

The day is coming when the courts will be fully educated to make an adequate decision concerning both views.

Your ignorance is boundless.

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world."[1] Adherents of naturalism (i.e. naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws.[2]
"Naturalism can intuitively be separated into a [metaphysical] and a methodological component."[3] Metaphysical here refers to the philosophical study of the nature of reality. Philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. Such an absolute belief in naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism.[4]

The ignorance is not mine.

there's an extremely high probability that it is..

 

[daws101]

Both naturalism and creationism is merely philosophy and the full tenets of both can't be tested through the scientific method.

The day is coming when the courts will be fully educated to make an adequate decision concerning both views.

so if creationism to you is only a "mere" philosophy then it must be flawed...

I believe that both are philosophies and both can be tested but not totally tested got it ?

ahhh ..slapdick, testing is testing it's an all or nothing proposition..
it not like you could dissect either one and only test part of it..
well, maybe be you could.. but that would be bias and any results would be invalid.

 

[MHunterB]

'Creationism' specific to the Christian Bible is NOT 'scientific' because its roots are in a religious document and not observation as informed by science.

'Intelligent design' would have to include *other* possible agents than the Christianity Deity- an 'alien race', multiple deities, etc...... So far, all of the 'ID' proponents seem to be limiting their speculation to Deity as described by Christian theologians.

Science is not 'opposed' to religion - but it is a completely different field.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory. I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.

Both models.

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

Your source has ZERO credibility.

 

[Agit8r]

How, then, is creationism—as opposed to “naturalism,” defined as “a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted”—scientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define “scientific.” Too often, “science” and “naturalism” are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.

Is creationism scientific?

There is no scientific debate over the validity of creation myths, if that is what you are asking. This is because scientific debates involve evidence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Both naturalism and creationism is merely philosophy and the full tenets of both can't be tested through the scientific method.

The day is coming when the courts will be fully educated to make an adequate decision concerning both views.

Your ignorance is boundless.

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world."[1] Adherents of naturalism (i.e. naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws.[2]
"Naturalism can intuitively be separated into a [metaphysical] and a methodological component."[3] Metaphysical here refers to the philosophical study of the nature of reality. Philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. Such an absolute belief in naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism.[4]

nat·u·ral·ism

/ˈnaCHərəˌlizəm/



Noun


1.(in art and literature) A style and theory of representation based on the accurate depiction of detail. Naturalism rejected the idealiza...
2.A philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual...


nat·u·ral·ism (nchr--lzm, nchr-)
n.
1. Factual or realistic representation, especially:
a. The practice of describing precisely the actual circumstances of human life in literature.

b. The practice of reproducing subjects as precisely as possible in the visual arts.

2.
a. A movement or school advocating such precise representation.

b. The principles and methods of such a movement or of its adherents.

3. Philosophy The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

4. Theology The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.

5. Conduct or thought prompted by natural desires or instincts.

Why did you omit the link and edit the philosophical definition?

 

[Youwerecreated]

While the final answer is still to be found and no, you don't have it, the scientific process is moving ever closer to the point where that is going to be discovered. Already the origins of the building blocks of life are known. The rest is just a matter of time and effort. All of the current evidence points towards a natural origin.

They do know the building blocks of life but they will never be able to demonstrate origins in a naturalistic setting. Even if they find a way for life to be formed through these building blocks it was accomplished through intelligence not naturalism.

Once again you are demonstrating the arrogance of religion. Once the process is identified there is every possibility that they could then find it occurring in the "naturalistic setting". Unless you know what you are looking for how can you expect it to find it? Your erroneous assumption that "intelligence" was involved in the "creation" of the first "cell slime" that was capable of reproducing is based upon nothing but your "blind faith".

I don't believe life came from slime in water. Life begets life how hard is that to understand ?

 

[MHunterB]

'Naturalism' is not the same as 'evolution' - evolution is what is taught in schools, not 'naturalism'. Again, the OP seems to be confusing two terms.

Science limits itself to what can be tested, proven, replicated: it has no means to observe the nonphysical world.

It does not deny the metaphysical or spiritual exists, it simply does not cover the topic. That's what religion is all about: we don't need science to cover the spiritual.

It appears the OP is unaware of the many theists who find the Theory of Evolution the best explanation for the area it legitimately describes: the 'origin of species'. (note that this does not include abiogenesis).

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your ignorance is boundless.

nat·u·ral·ism

/ˈnaCHərəˌlizəm/



Noun


1.(in art and literature) A style and theory of representation based on the accurate depiction of detail. Naturalism rejected the idealiza...
2.A philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual...


nat·u·ral·ism (nchr--lzm, nchr-)
n.
1. Factual or realistic representation, especially:
a. The practice of describing precisely the actual circumstances of human life in literature.

b. The practice of reproducing subjects as precisely as possible in the visual arts.

2.
a. A movement or school advocating such precise representation.

b. The principles and methods of such a movement or of its adherents.

3. Philosophy The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

4. Theology The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.

5. Conduct or thought prompted by natural desires or instincts.

Why did you omit the link and edit the philosophical definition?

Like I stated the ignorance is not mine.

Google

naturalism - definition of naturalism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory. I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.

Both models.

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

Your source has ZERO credibility.

But atheist sites that get quoted do ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

They do know the building blocks of life but they will never be able to demonstrate origins in a naturalistic setting. Even if they find a way for life to be formed through these building blocks it was accomplished through intelligence not naturalism.

Once again you are demonstrating the arrogance of religion. Once the process is identified there is every possibility that they could then find it occurring in the "naturalistic setting". Unless you know what you are looking for how can you expect it to find it? Your erroneous assumption that "intelligence" was involved in the "creation" of the first "cell slime" that was capable of reproducing is based upon nothing but your "blind faith".

I don't believe life came from slime in water. Life begets life how hard is that to understand ?

What you don't BELIEVE is completely irrelevant.