Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[daws101]

If this is true how can you make scientific predictions ?

I already answered that. Scientific method doesn't give weight to 'beliefs' which are of the kind which can never be proven - as a religious belief. It is simply not part of the field.

Sure it does there is plenty of conjecture in science,explanations are just that, a view or a belief.

 

[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).

If there is no God then everything came in to existence through naturalism. This is the philosophy of many evolutionists and where their presuppositions come from. To say scientists do not possess presuppositions is nonsense.

"If there is no God" is assuredly NOT a proper topic within science. Science is not about whether or not there is a Deity or Deities: it is about observation and testing of the physical(natural) world.

There is no such thing as 'an evolutionist': there are people who find the ToE the most comprehensive and accurate explanation for speciation, and the best description o the means by which it came about. That would be nearly all people with education and training in scientific method and various 'physical' sciences.

Your unverifiable speculations on the 'philosophy' you attribute to 'many' such scientists remains simply your single opinion. I am unable to calculate 'many' as a percentage, nor have you described your 'methodology' to arrive at that 'figure'..... (ie, Have you sent out questionnaires? How large was your sample, and how did you select the respondents?)

To say that scientists give free rein to 'presuppositions' *in their field of study* is a peculiarly insulting and demeaning assertion - particularly when there is no objective, verifiable, reproducible way to analyze the situation and attempt to arrive at any accurate result.

 

[daws101]

Learn your own theory if you are gonna discuss it.

The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:

I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.
II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.
III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.
IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.
V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.
VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).
VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.

Here again, you are deliberately omitting a link because you are dishonest and conniving.

You are cutting and pasting a portion of what you scoured from the ICR.

It really is sleazy how you will attempt to lie and cheat without a moments hesitation or second thought.

The link is here in the thread I guess you didn't read the article before you resorting to your rhetoric. I was just helping you with your theory here is a little more help for you naturalist.

Chemical evolution.

Chemical evolution | Define Chemical evolution at Dictionary.com

way to debunk your own shit!

chemical evolution definition

The formation of complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions in the oceans during the early history of the Earth; the first step in the development of life on this planet. The period of chemical evolution lasted less than a billion years.

Note : Many of the steps in chemical evolution can now be reproduced in the laboratory.

nothing about creation or design..!

 

[Hollie]

Learn your own theory if you are gonna discuss it.

The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:

I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.
II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.
III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.
IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.
V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.
VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).
VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.

Here again, you are deliberately omitting a link because you are dishonest and conniving.

You are cutting and pasting a portion of what you scoured from the ICR.

It really is sleazy how you will attempt to lie and cheat without a moments hesitation or second thought.

The link is here in the thread I guess you didn't read the article before you resorting to your rhetoric. I was just helping you with your theory here is a little more help for you naturalist.

Chemical evolution.

Chemical evolution | Define Chemical evolution at Dictionary.com

Biological evolution obviously conflicts with biblical tales and fables. There is, of course, no real argument among the relevant science community about the fact of evolution. It is only among (with near exclusivity), fundie christians who insist that it was through magic and supernatural events that all of existence was "poofed" into being.

Unfortunately, the fundies have only tales, fables and conspiracy theories aimed at science to support the stories in their bibles.

 

[dblack]

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?

Because 'supernatural' is an incoherent concept.

 

[MaryL]

A Christian presupposes he/she wants honest answerers? When did this happen? Facts aren't like religion, if you are open minded you see them in life, you aren't looking to reinforce or prove anything. They are just there bare and for anyone to see. Religious folks fear the "truth". It's called doubt. Allah and Jesus don't like that doubt stuff. Of course not, facts aren't part of that superstitious hoodoo. Heaven forbid we get the facts.

 

[daws101]

So that David might be allowed to marry the king's daughter, the king asks David to bring him 100 Philistine foreskins. David does the job right and brings the king not 100, but 200, foreskins of murdered Philistines.

 

[Youwerecreated]

'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).

If there is no God then everything came in to existence through naturalism. This is the philosophy of many evolutionists and where their presuppositions come from. To say scientists do not possess presuppositions is nonsense.

"If there is no God" is assuredly NOT a proper topic within science. Science is not about whether or not there is a Deity or Deities: it is about observation and testing of the physical(natural) world.

There is no such thing as 'an evolutionist': there are people who find the ToE the most comprehensive and accurate explanation for speciation, and the best description o the means by which it came about. That would be nearly all people with education and training in scientific method and various 'physical' sciences.

Your unverifiable speculations on the 'philosophy' you attribute to 'many' such scientists remains simply your single opinion. I am unable to calculate 'many' as a percentage, nor have you described your 'methodology' to arrive at that 'figure'..... (ie, Have you sent out questionnaires? How large was your sample, and how did you select the respondents?)

To say that scientists give free rein to 'presuppositions' *in their field of study* is a peculiarly insulting and demeaning assertion - particularly when there is no objective, verifiable, reproducible way to analyze the situation and attempt to arrive at any accurate result.

I was surrounded by it for a little over Eleven years. if you feel insulted i'm sorry not trying to insult you but those are the facts for many. Presuppositions do affect interpreting evidence. If you have the view that life arose spontaneously through natural processes are you saying that would not affect you while interpreting evidence and providing an explanation ? the current theories do reflect the views of naturalism I'm not sure how you can deny it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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?

Because 'supernatural' is an incoherent concept.

Apparently so is naturalism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So that David might be allowed to marry the king's daughter, the king asks David to bring him 100 Philistine foreskins. David does the job right and brings the king not 100, but 200, foreskins of murdered Philistines.

Stay on topic daws.

 

[MHunterB]

If there is no God then everything came in to existence through naturalism. This is the philosophy of many evolutionists and where their presuppositions come from. To say scientists do not possess presuppositions is nonsense.

"If there is no God" is assuredly NOT a proper topic within science. Science is not about whether or not there is a Deity or Deities: it is about observation and testing of the physical(natural) world.

There is no such thing as 'an evolutionist': there are people who find the ToE the most comprehensive and accurate explanation for speciation, and the best description o the means by which it came about. That would be nearly all people with education and training in scientific method and various 'physical' sciences.

Your unverifiable speculations on the 'philosophy' you attribute to 'many' such scientists remains simply your single opinion. I am unable to calculate 'many' as a percentage, nor have you described your 'methodology' to arrive at that 'figure'..... (ie, Have you sent out questionnaires? How large was your sample, and how did you select the respondents?)

To say that scientists give free rein to 'presuppositions' *in their field of study* is a peculiarly insulting and demeaning assertion - particularly when there is no objective, verifiable, reproducible way to analyze the situation and attempt to arrive at any accurate result.

I was surrounded by it for a little over Eleven years. if you feel insulted i'm sorry not trying to insult you but those are the facts for many. Presuppositions do affect interpreting evidence. If you have the view that life arose spontaneously through natural processes are you saying that would not affect you while interpreting evidence and providing an explanation ? the current theories do reflect the views of naturalism I'm not sure how you can deny it.

I don't have the view that you describe, because it would be unscientific to arrive at such a conclusion with nothing approaching proof. Nor have any of my relatives in the physical sciences formed such a firm conclusion, nor any of the faculty at several colleges whom I've heard speak on the topics.

The possible explanation of 'chemical evolution' to which you referred me included meteorites from outer space: that may OR may not include some 'intelligence'. Any scientist worthy of the name wouldn't rule out such 'extraterrestrial intelligence' (EXTI).......

The problem with 'EXTI' as an explanation is basically that we are unable to support it with any definite information. We haven't found anyone else out there, yet - that doesn't mean there isn't anyone.

 

[MHunterB]

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?

Because 'supernatural' is an incoherent concept.

Apparently so is naturalism.

Naturalism in Science

I think if you read this carefully, it will help explain the matter to you.

'Naturalism' is the ONLY way Science can proceed: it is not a 'denial' of God but an acknowledgement that Science is limited to the physical world, and does not claim to have all the answers.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"If there is no God" is assuredly NOT a proper topic within science. Science is not about whether or not there is a Deity or Deities: it is about observation and testing of the physical(natural) world.

There is no such thing as 'an evolutionist': there are people who find the ToE the most comprehensive and accurate explanation for speciation, and the best description o the means by which it came about. That would be nearly all people with education and training in scientific method and various 'physical' sciences.

Your unverifiable speculations on the 'philosophy' you attribute to 'many' such scientists remains simply your single opinion. I am unable to calculate 'many' as a percentage, nor have you described your 'methodology' to arrive at that 'figure'..... (ie, Have you sent out questionnaires? How large was your sample, and how did you select the respondents?)

To say that scientists give free rein to 'presuppositions' *in their field of study* is a peculiarly insulting and demeaning assertion - particularly when there is no objective, verifiable, reproducible way to analyze the situation and attempt to arrive at any accurate result.

I was surrounded by it for a little over Eleven years. if you feel insulted i'm sorry not trying to insult you but those are the facts for many. Presuppositions do affect interpreting evidence. If you have the view that life arose spontaneously through natural processes are you saying that would not affect you while interpreting evidence and providing an explanation ? the current theories do reflect the views of naturalism I'm not sure how you can deny it.

I don't have the view that you describe, because it would be unscientific to arrive at such a conclusion with nothing approaching proof. Nor have any of my relatives in the physical sciences formed such a firm conclusion, nor any of the faculty at several colleges whom I've heard speak on the topics.

The possible explanation of 'chemical evolution' to which you referred me included meteorites from outer space: that may OR may not include some 'intelligence'. Any scientist worthy of the name wouldn't rule out such 'extraterrestrial intelligence' (EXTI).......

The problem with 'EXTI' as an explanation is basically that we are unable to support it with any definite information. We haven't found anyone else out there, yet - that doesn't mean there isn't anyone.

I am sorry in my experience at the University of Arizona where I received my degree,it was very anti design and creation and everything was the product of chance and naturalism. Later in the lab I worked in,it to was the same way. I was once an atheistic evolutionist and I was spoon fed like any other that chooses a field of science to major in.Nature reveals purposeful design but is rejected because of the views naturalism. Later in the lab I worked it was the same as when I was in college. I was once an atheistic evolutionist I started to find out how much I was taught either was demonstrated in any fashion nor could be.


We can look at many things and understand they were not the result of naturalism but yet that is the proposed method of origins why ?why is it diffrent when it comes to let's say biological organisms. There are far to many things that are a necessity for life to exist and for this planet to flourish with living organisms to simple write it off as it had to happen through natural processes. The question is and should why do so many things give the appearance of design but we choose to reject thet view and say it happens through natural processes.

The meteorites are to hard and they were hardened because they were heated and then cooled. I believe that is a really bad hypothsis.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Because 'supernatural' is an incoherent concept.

Apparently so is naturalism.

Naturalism in Science

I think if you read this carefully, it will help explain the matter to you.

'Naturalism' is the ONLY way Science can proceed: it is not a 'denial' of God but an acknowledgement that Science is limited to the physical world, and does not claim to have all the answers.

Thank you but I understand naturalism Quiet well. You by definition rule out the possibility of purposeful design and I believe this why you lack data to support origins of life. You see natural recurring acts of nature and extrapolate from that for your views of naturalism. What is not considered is what are the chances of amino acids bonding in just the right sequence to produce the right proteins. How come there is not a mixture of both right handed and left handed amino acids.

What are the chances of enymes being produced to repair copying errors in Dna ? the funny thing these enzymes are produced by a living organism so how without life could these enzymes arise naturally to produce life to begin with.

Evidences point to life being a product of design not natural processes. This natural process seems intelligent to me if this was the method in which life was produced. Where is the rationale in science since they think everything is the the product of naturalism ?

 

[Hollie]

If this is true how can you make scientific predictions ?

I already answered that. Scientific method doesn't give weight to 'beliefs' which are of the kind which can never be proven - as a religious belief. It is simply not part of the field.

Sure it does there is plenty of conjecture in science,explanations are just that, a view or a belief.

You’re unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities. And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as “conjecture”, to be used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism is frankly little more than an intellectual drop ten and punt. It is the equivalent of a petulant child taking his football and going home.

I know the methods of science (and the principles of the Scientific Method) have been explained to you repeatedly and tediously. Your refusal to advance any understanding of that methodology suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.

That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your cutting and pasting from Haun Yahya, the ICR and other Christian ministries explicitly false.

Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not “encompassed” by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a “true” understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise.

So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gawds to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of “objective reality” has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is “true.”

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that creationism is religion, not science:

Edwards v. Aguillard

 

[Hollie]

Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that creationism is religion, not science:

Edwards v. Aguillard

Well, yes, that and the obvious understanding that “creation science” isn't a science at all.

When reviewing the backgrounds of the most vocal proponents of “creation science”, they inevitably have connections with one or more of the Christian ministries hawking their wares.

It’s actually laughable how the Christian creationist purveyors have revised and re-branded Christian fundamentalism as “creationism”, “intelligent design” and even “intelligent design creationism”. It seems that each time the Christian fundamentalists are given the Bum’s Rush out of court in another failed attempt to introduce fundamentalist Christianity into the public school system, they slap a new name on their fundamentalist beliefs.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that creationism is religion, not science:

Edwards v. Aguillard

Well, yes, that and the obvious understanding that “creation science” isn't a science at all.

When reviewing the backgrounds of the most vocal proponents of “creation science”, they inevitably have connections with one or more of the Christian ministries hawking their wares.

It’s actually laughable how the Christian creationist purveyors have revised and re-branded Christian fundamentalism as “creationism”, “intelligent design” and even “intelligent design creationism”. It seems that each time the Christian fundamentalists are given the Bum’s Rush out of court in another failed attempt to introduce fundamentalist Christianity into the public school system, they slap a new name on their fundamentalist beliefs.

The supreme court what do they really know about science ? They are anti God you didn't get the memo. They made it ok for gay marriage and abortion. The heck with the supreme court decisions.

 

[Hollie]

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that creationism is religion, not science:

Edwards v. Aguillard

Well, yes, that and the obvious understanding that “creation science” isn't a science at all.

When reviewing the backgrounds of the most vocal proponents of “creation science”, they inevitably have connections with one or more of the Christian ministries hawking their wares.

It’s actually laughable how the Christian creationist purveyors have revised and re-branded Christian fundamentalism as “creationism”, “intelligent design” and even “intelligent design creationism”. It seems that each time the Christian fundamentalists are given the Bum’s Rush out of court in another failed attempt to introduce fundamentalist Christianity into the public school system, they slap a new name on their fundamentalist beliefs.

The supreme court what do they really about science ? They are anti God you didn't get the memo. They made it ok for gay marriage and abortion. The heck with the supreme courts decisions.

Were you aware that the courts interpret and enforce the law?

A basic principle of US law is the separation of church and state. That principle is manifested in the disallowance of religious indoctrination in public schools.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, yes, that and the obvious understanding that “creation science” isn't a science at all.

When reviewing the backgrounds of the most vocal proponents of “creation science”, they inevitably have connections with one or more of the Christian ministries hawking their wares.

It’s actually laughable how the Christian creationist purveyors have revised and re-branded Christian fundamentalism as “creationism”, “intelligent design” and even “intelligent design creationism”. It seems that each time the Christian fundamentalists are given the Bum’s Rush out of court in another failed attempt to introduce fundamentalist Christianity into the public school system, they slap a new name on their fundamentalist beliefs.

The supreme court what do they really about science ? They are anti God you didn't get the memo. They made it ok for gay marriage and abortion. The heck with the supreme courts decisions.

Were you aware that the courts interpret and enforce the law?

A basic principle of US law is the separation of church and state. That principle is manifested in the disallowance of religious indoctrination in public schools.

They are biased politicians and I don't really care. I pay unto caesar what is Caesars but Caesar needs to stay out of my business. You can't serve two masters and I have chosen God.