Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[rdean]

If angels, devils, ghosts, demons and spirits are real, why not sprites, fairies, leprechauns, and gnomes?

 

[Hollie]

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.

Your fundamentalist religious beliefs leave you poorly equipped to survive in a society / culture that evolves (<----purposeful term) away from how life existed 2,000 years ago. One of the profound difficulties religious fundamentalists have with reality in general (and science in particular) is that they are more complex than whipping out a handy verse or poem. Human existence does not consist strictly of ideals and opposites, but instead, of continua along multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious fundies that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

 

[MHunterB]

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.

Thanks for illustrating the "no zealot like a convert" situation. I'm sorry, but I couldn't really follow that part because it was so poorly written. (my curse: I was evidently designed to be a proof-reader.)

Yes, there is a problem with how we teach things in this country. The way we teach math in particular is equivalent to teaching cooking by showing students a 'recipe' which is basically a list of ingredients and showing them the finished dish in its ideal form. Math is actually quite 'messy' while it's being worked out, yet we don't teach that aspect of it below the graduate level....... and math is possibly the easiest of it all.

The short answer as to why 'naturalism' is pretty much Occam's Razor. Any other theory requires making assumptions which we are in no position to prove or disprove or test with scientific method - so it wouldn't be 'Science', now would it?

What "proof" do you presume to offer anyone that 'God' means the Christian understanding of Deity from the Biblical text, and none of the other representations of Deity which people venerate and worship?

 

[Youwerecreated]

If angels, devils, ghosts, demons and spirits are real, why not sprites, fairies, leprechauns, and gnomes?

False premise.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Thanks for illustrating the "no zealot like a convert" situation. I'm sorry, but I couldn't really follow that part because it was so poorly written. (my curse: I was evidently designed to be a proof-reader.)

Yes, there is a problem with how we teach things in this country. The way we teach math in particular is equivalent to teaching cooking by showing students a 'recipe' which is basically a list of ingredients and showing them the finished dish in its ideal form. Math is actually quite 'messy' while it's being worked out, yet we don't teach that aspect of it below the graduate level....... and math is possibly the easiest of it all.

The short answer as to why 'naturalism' is pretty much Occam's Razor. Any other theory requires making assumptions which we are in no position to prove or disprove or test with scientific method - so it wouldn't be 'Science', now would it?

What "proof" do you presume to offer anyone that 'God' means the Christian understanding of Deity from the Biblical text, and none of the other representations of Deity which people venerate and worship?

Lol, sorry I was in a hurry when posting that yesterday and did not read it before posting,for some reason it is not letting me edit the post.

 

[Hollie]

If angels, devils, ghosts, demons and spirits are real, why not sprites, fairies, leprechauns, and gnomes?

False premise.

Standard response when you're completely befuddled.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Thanks for illustrating the "no zealot like a convert" situation. I'm sorry, but I couldn't really follow that part because it was so poorly written. (my curse: I was evidently designed to be a proof-reader.)

Yes, there is a problem with how we teach things in this country. The way we teach math in particular is equivalent to teaching cooking by showing students a 'recipe' which is basically a list of ingredients and showing them the finished dish in its ideal form. Math is actually quite 'messy' while it's being worked out, yet we don't teach that aspect of it below the graduate level....... and math is possibly the easiest of it all.

The short answer as to why 'naturalism' is pretty much Occam's Razor. Any other theory requires making assumptions which we are in no position to prove or disprove or test with scientific method - so it wouldn't be 'Science', now would it?

What "proof" do you presume to offer anyone that 'God' means the Christian understanding of Deity from the Biblical text, and none of the other representations of Deity which people venerate and worship?

No I can't prove the existence of God, nor disprove the existence of God,so God is still in play as an explanation for origins but is denied because of the naturalistic views. We can prove very little,it seems foolish to rule out anything. As for which God clearly the bible is much more worthy than any ancient writing I have read and the bible represents the old testament God as well as Christ.

I do need to proof read more often because I am often criticized for my posts.

My biggest hang up is, I can't imagine a necessity after necssity being produced time after time to what we observe today. From single celled organisms to multicelluar organisms showing complexity that is beyond our understanding. When harmful mutations could have just as easily been passed through the population as beneficial mutations.

The chances of almost all life containing left handed amino acids and not right handed amion acids with no mixture seems like a very unrealistic view to have happened by chance. Defense mechanisms; natural processes would think to provide such mechanisms to protect the organism that to me is a huge reach of the imagination. There are so many other things like pointed out that just screams a designer not naturalism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If angels, devils, ghosts, demons and spirits are real, why not sprites, fairies, leprechauns, and gnomes?

False premise.

Standard response when you're completely befuddled.

Befuddled no,nonsense and false premise yes.

 

[hobelim]

False premise.

Standard response when you're completely befuddled.

Befuddled no,nonsense and false premise yes.

lets say God does exist as defined in scripture, the only existing being whose existence is absolute having no visible shape or physical form.

Is it your belief that God is triune and edible?

Is it your belief that a fully human Jesus was or became God either before during or after his physical existence?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Standard response when you're completely befuddled.

Befuddled no,nonsense and false premise yes.

lets say God does exist as defined in scripture, the only existing being whose existence is absolute having no visible shape or physical form.

Is it your belief that God is triune and edible?

Is it your belief that a fully human Jesus was or became God either before during or after his physical existence?

I believe God and the angels are spiritual beings having a human like form that can materialize at any time.

Do not believe in a trinity I believe God revealed himself in the form of an angel and a human. Edible have no idea why you have such a view.

I believe Christ was fully human and took his origional form of God Almighty once back in heaven. Immediately after his resurrection Jesus was in a lesser form that man could look upon.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I will check back have to get ready for church.

 

[Hollie]

False premise.

Standard response when you're completely befuddled.

Befuddled no,nonsense and false premise yes.

Befuddled, yes. Epically and eternally.

 

[editec]

Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

Because scientific method demands empirical evidence to make an assertion and naturalism (a term I seldon hear anyone use, I note) starts with the supposition that all things that are exist in the real world and therefore ARE ...em·pir·i·cal

/em&#712;pirik&#601;l/
Adjective
Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
Synonyms
empiric - experiential - experimental

How, then, is creationism&#8212;as opposed to &#8220;naturalism,&#8221; defined as &#8220;a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted&#8221;&#8212;scientific?

Why?

Because while both agree that "you were created" (the evidence for your existence IS empirical) creationism seeks to explain WHY and HOW without any empirical evidence to support its explanation.

Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define &#8220;scientific.&#8221; Too often, &#8220;science&#8221; and &#8220;naturalism&#8221; are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition.

Naturalism is NOT scientific method. Naturalism is a belief system, scientific method is an approach to problem solving.

Such sophistry (suggesting that naturalism IS science is sophistry, amigo) is an interesting exercise in playing a rhetorical game but essentially worthless in doing anything to support the theories of CREATIONISM.

Why?

GIGO...you started out with a supposition that was false...naturalism is NOT science, neither is it scientic method.

Naturalism is a philosophy that one might say springs from science without in any way BEING science

 

[rdean]

If angels, devils, ghosts, demons and spirits are real, why not sprites, fairies, leprechauns, and gnomes?

False premise.

Why? Isn't the evidence "equal"?

 

[Hollie]

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.

Thanks for illustrating the "no zealot like a convert" situation. I'm sorry, but I couldn't really follow that part because it was so poorly written. (my curse: I was evidently designed to be a proof-reader.)

Yes, there is a problem with how we teach things in this country. The way we teach math in particular is equivalent to teaching cooking by showing students a 'recipe' which is basically a list of ingredients and showing them the finished dish in its ideal form. Math is actually quite 'messy' while it's being worked out, yet we don't teach that aspect of it below the graduate level....... and math is possibly the easiest of it all.

The short answer as to why 'naturalism' is pretty much Occam's Razor. Any other theory requires making assumptions which we are in no position to prove or disprove or test with scientific method - so it wouldn't be 'Science', now would it?

What "proof" do you presume to offer anyone that 'God' means the Christian understanding of Deity from the Biblical text, and none of the other representations of Deity which people venerate and worship?

No I can't prove the existence of God, nor disprove the existence of God,so God is still in play as an explanation for origins but is denied because of the naturalistic views. We can prove very little,it seems foolish to rule out anything. As for which God clearly the bible is much more worthy than any ancient writing I have read and the bible represents the old testament God as well as Christ.

I do need to proof read more often because I am often criticized for my posts.

My biggest hang up is, I can't imagine a necessity after necssity being produced time after time to what we observe today. From single celled organisms to multicelluar organisms showing complexity that is beyond our understanding. When harmful mutations could have just as easily been passed through the population as beneficial mutations.

The chances of almost all life containing left handed amino acids and not right handed amion acids with no mixture seems like a very unrealistic view to have happened by chance. Defense mechanisms; natural processes would think to provide such mechanisms to protect the organism that to me is a huge reach of the imagination. There are so many other things like pointed out that just screams a designer not naturalism.

It’s already been established that “supernaturalism” as the cause of existence is more a function of your limited imagination than a meaningful description of reality.

Your arguments are nothing more than a reiteration of the Michael Behe arguments later stolen and modified by Stephen Meyer. The creationist use of the silly “left handed / right handed amino acids” nonsense, the sillier “harmful / beneficial mutations slogans and the still sillier “the chances of this happening…”, have all been debunked long ago.

The last gasping breath of the creationist ministries resolves to failed attempts at discrediting science to bolster the Christian gawds. This is why creationists, who have nothing worth contributing to the scientific community, invariably appeal to their fellow creationists. They have found it necessary to publish their anti-science agenda in web based blogs or creationist web pages because none of the hundreds of legitimate scientific journals find their work meeting the standards for peer review. Creationist literature serves as a rallying point for the christian faithful, not as a means for critical evaluation of the bibles.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

Because scientific method demands empirical evidence to make an assertion and naturalism (a term I seldon hear anyone use, I note) starts with the supposition that all things that are exist in the real world and therefore ARE ...em·pir·i·cal

/em&#712;pirik&#601;l/
Adjective
Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
Synonyms
empiric - experiential - experimental

How, then, is creationism&#8212;as opposed to &#8220;naturalism,&#8221; defined as &#8220;a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted&#8221;&#8212;scientific?

Why?

Because while both agree that "you were created" (the evidence for your existence IS empirical) creationism seeks to explain WHY and HOW without any empirical evidence to support its explanation.

Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define &#8220;scientific.&#8221; Too often, &#8220;science&#8221; and &#8220;naturalism&#8221; are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition.

Naturalism is NOT scientific method. Naturalism is a belief system, scientific method is an approach to problem solving.

Such sophistry (suggesting that naturalism IS science is sophistry, amigo) is an interesting exercise in playing a rhetorical game but essentially worthless in doing anything to support the theories of CREATIONISM.

Why?

GIGO...you started out with a supposition that was false...naturalism is NOT science, neither is it scientic method.

Naturalism is a philosophy that one might say springs from science without in any way BEING science

Great post.

Yes, natural recurring processes can be observed does not mean the processes happened naturally. The question should be is how these natural processes that recur over and over got started.

My point is why do they look to explain that everything is a product of naturalism when their is no natural process that can be observed that could account for origins of life Or origins of any kind . The natural recurring processes that are observed have all the necessities already in place.

I do disagree with one of your points However.Creation is a process of design which can be observed in nature.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If angels, devils, ghosts, demons and spirits are real, why not sprites, fairies, leprechauns, and gnomes?

False premise.

Why? Isn't the evidence "equal"?

Because there is evidence for spiritual entities,There is no evidence for fairies,leperchauns,and gnomes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Thanks for illustrating the "no zealot like a convert" situation. I'm sorry, but I couldn't really follow that part because it was so poorly written. (my curse: I was evidently designed to be a proof-reader.)

Yes, there is a problem with how we teach things in this country. The way we teach math in particular is equivalent to teaching cooking by showing students a 'recipe' which is basically a list of ingredients and showing them the finished dish in its ideal form. Math is actually quite 'messy' while it's being worked out, yet we don't teach that aspect of it below the graduate level....... and math is possibly the easiest of it all.

The short answer as to why 'naturalism' is pretty much Occam's Razor. Any other theory requires making assumptions which we are in no position to prove or disprove or test with scientific method - so it wouldn't be 'Science', now would it?

What "proof" do you presume to offer anyone that 'God' means the Christian understanding of Deity from the Biblical text, and none of the other representations of Deity which people venerate and worship?

No I can't prove the existence of God, nor disprove the existence of God,so God is still in play as an explanation for origins but is denied because of the naturalistic views. We can prove very little,it seems foolish to rule out anything. As for which God clearly the bible is much more worthy than any ancient writing I have read and the bible represents the old testament God as well as Christ.

I do need to proof read more often because I am often criticized for my posts.

My biggest hang up is, I can't imagine a necessity after necssity being produced time after time to what we observe today. From single celled organisms to multicelluar organisms showing complexity that is beyond our understanding. When harmful mutations could have just as easily been passed through the population as beneficial mutations.

The chances of almost all life containing left handed amino acids and not right handed amion acids with no mixture seems like a very unrealistic view to have happened by chance. Defense mechanisms; natural processes would think to provide such mechanisms to protect the organism that to me is a huge reach of the imagination. There are so many other things like pointed out that just screams a designer not naturalism.

It’s already been established that “supernaturalism” as the cause of existence is more a function of your limited imagination than a meaningful description of reality.

Your arguments are nothing more than a reiteration of the Michael Behe arguments later stolen and modified by Stephen Meyer. The creationist use of the silly “left handed / right handed amino acids” nonsense, the sillier “harmful / beneficial mutations slogans and the still sillier “the chances of this happening…”, have all been debunked long ago.

The last gasping breath of the creationist ministries resolves to failed attempts at discrediting science to bolster the Christian gawds. This is why creationists, who have nothing worth contributing to the scientific community, invariably appeal to their fellow creationists. They have found it necessary to publish their anti-science agenda in web based blogs or creationist web pages because none of the hundreds of legitimate scientific journals find their work meeting the standards for peer review. Creationist literature serves as a rallying point for the christian faithful, not as a means for critical evaluation of the bibles.

Your conjecture filled theories have done nothing of the sort. Wishful thinking on your part.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

Because scientific method demands empirical evidence to make an assertion and naturalism (a term I seldon hear anyone use, I note) starts with the supposition that all things that are exist in the real world and therefore ARE ...em·pir·i·cal






Why?

Because while both agree that "you were created" (the evidence for your existence IS empirical) creationism seeks to explain WHY and HOW without any empirical evidence to support its explanation.

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.

Naturalism is NOT scientific method. Naturalism is a belief system, scientific method is an approach to problem solving.

Such sophistry (suggesting that naturalism IS science is sophistry, amigo) is an interesting exercise in playing a rhetorical game but essentially worthless in doing anything to support the theories of CREATIONISM.

Why?

GIGO...you started out with a supposition that was false...naturalism is NOT science, neither is it scientic method.

Naturalism is a philosophy that one might say springs from science without in any way BEING science

Great post.

Yes, natural recurring processes can be observed does not mean the processes happened naturally. The question should be is how these natural processes that recur over and over got started.

My point is why do they look to explain that everything is a product of naturalism when their is no natural process that can be observed that could account for origins of life Or origins of any kind other than the natural recurring processes that are observed with the all the necessities already in place.

I do disagree with one of your points However.Creation is a process of design which can be observed in nature.

If you can "observe in nature" the "process of design" in "creation" then YOU must be able to provide plenty of examples since your premise is that ALL LIFE was "created", right?

So now here is your big opportunity to prove once and for all that everything is the result of "creation".

Provide irrefutable examples of this alleged "process of design" that YOU can "observe in nature".

 

[Derideo_Te]

False premise.

Why? Isn't the evidence "equal"?

Because there is evidence for spiritual entities,There is no evidence for fairies,leperchauns,and gnomes.

Please provide irrefutable "evidence" for "spiritual entities".