Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[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? 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?

Hello. I just stumbled upon this thread, and haven't read it all the way through. So without getting into all of the other issues likely brought up, I would like to address the above. The answer to your first question is that there is nothing "supernatural". Either it occurs naturally or it doesn't. The term supernatural is just a made up concept given to something people don't understand or can't themselves explain. It is rooted in 19th century mysticism. Since there is nothing that is in this universe that cannot be explained by natural means, resorting to so-called supernatural agents is simply irrational and lazy thinking. Creationist views are left out of science for a very simple reason. "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything. Science is a process for understanding and explaining the world around us and within us. If "God did it" were all you needed to explain the world, we wouldn't have cars, television, cell phones, computers, and all the other technological conveniences that we enjoy. Moreover, we wouldn't understand how to breed cats, dogs, horses, and all of the animal we have created for our own purposes. And I say created because we most certainly have created them. The dog is a human bred species. It never existed in the wild. Same with modern cattle and horses and many other domestic animals. Artificial selection is the method we have used to create these animals. The only difference between artificial selection and natural selection is time, and the agent doing the selection, in this case, nature itself.

If an animal likes termites, but has a short snout and a short tongue, it is going to have to tough time getting at them to eat them. But if 1/3 of those animals have a snout with a tongue that is just long enough to reach the termites in their mound, they will be more successful in acquiring the food they like. And so over time, they will be more successful in breeding than the ones with shorter snouts, so eventually there will be more longer snouted critters eating termites. Today we call them aardvarks. No need to resort to a creator to explain their existence. No need to be lazy and say "god did it". This is how science works, how it has answered so many questions and so enriched all of our lives.

So to answer your last question - "God did it" - Doesn't explain anything, and is not scientific.

Yes it does it just gets ignored. No naturalistic processes can't account for origins of any object except through programmed information.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The 2nd law has a greater affect as time passes.

Can you prove it?

in a universe where entropy never decreases but over time only increases

An acorn growing into an oak tree decreases entropy in itself.

Sorry but that is absurd if you really believe in the 2nd law.

You still don't get it.

As time passes that oak tree will slip in to decay and die. That tree completed it's cycle.

No one denies that trees die and decay.
Only idiots claim the 2nd Law means things cannot get more complex.

No only idiots denies how complextity arises lol. You really not as intelligent as I first thought.

 

[Derideo_Te]

As time passes that oak tree will slip in to decay and die. That tree completed it's cycle.

No one denies that trees die and decay.
Only idiots claim the 2nd Law means things cannot get more complex.

No only idiots denies how complextity arises lol. You really not as intelligent as I first thought.

Ironic!

 

[daws101]

No one denies that trees die and decay.
Only idiots claim the 2nd Law means things cannot get more complex.

No only idiots denies how complextity arises lol. You really not as intelligent as I first thought.

Ironic!

 

[Hollie]

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?

Hello. I just stumbled upon this thread, and haven't read it all the way through. So without getting into all of the other issues likely brought up, I would like to address the above. The answer to your first question is that there is nothing "supernatural". Either it occurs naturally or it doesn't. The term supernatural is just a made up concept given to something people don't understand or can't themselves explain. It is rooted in 19th century mysticism. Since there is nothing that is in this universe that cannot be explained by natural means, resorting to so-called supernatural agents is simply irrational and lazy thinking. Creationist views are left out of science for a very simple reason. "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything. Science is a process for understanding and explaining the world around us and within us. If "God did it" were all you needed to explain the world, we wouldn't have cars, television, cell phones, computers, and all the other technological conveniences that we enjoy. Moreover, we wouldn't understand how to breed cats, dogs, horses, and all of the animal we have created for our own purposes. And I say created because we most certainly have created them. The dog is a human bred species. It never existed in the wild. Same with modern cattle and horses and many other domestic animals. Artificial selection is the method we have used to create these animals. The only difference between artificial selection and natural selection is time, and the agent doing the selection, in this case, nature itself.

If an animal likes termites, but has a short snout and a short tongue, it is going to have to tough time getting at them to eat them. But if 1/3 of those animals have a snout with a tongue that is just long enough to reach the termites in their mound, they will be more successful in acquiring the food they like. And so over time, they will be more successful in breeding than the ones with shorter snouts, so eventually there will be more longer snouted critters eating termites. Today we call them aardvarks. No need to resort to a creator to explain their existence. No need to be lazy and say "god did it". This is how science works, how it has answered so many questions and so enriched all of our lives.

So to answer your last question - "God did it" - Doesn't explain anything, and is not scientific.

Yes it does it just gets ignored. No naturalistic processes can't account for origins of any object except through programmed information.

Natural processes are the only processes we have any evidence for. Repeatedly, you have been tasked with defining a single occurrence (just one), of an un-natural or supernatural process or event and you have failed at every request.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes every object animate or inanimate decays over time.

And that proves evolution can't happen?

You poor boy. Your brain is decaying in this thread.

Thanks for agreeing with over time all objects are affected by decay which is the result of disorder that leads to death. What we exp over time is devolution. Things are not getting better or improving in complexity,that is what you need for evolution to trend upwards. You should know by now the basics of macro evolution. Micro-adaptations do happen but they are minor changes and the genetic information is already in the Genome to adapt.

It's true, the entropy of the universe is increasing.
At the same time things can get more complex.
Just look how complex your ignorance has become.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As time passes that oak tree will slip in to decay and die. That tree completed it's cycle.

No one denies that trees die and decay.
Only idiots claim the 2nd Law means things cannot get more complex.

No only idiots denies how complextity arises lol. You really not as intelligent as I first thought.

Complexity arises? Don't tell the creationists, they'll bring up the 2nd Law to deny it.

 

[daws101]

looks as if ywc is using the swoop in and swoop out method of posting ...it's popular with the "you're never gonna make me " crowd.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And that proves evolution can't happen?

You poor boy. Your brain is decaying in this thread.

Thanks for agreeing with over time all objects are affected by decay which is the result of disorder that leads to death. What we exp over time is devolution. Things are not getting better or improving in complexity,that is what you need for evolution to trend upwards. You should know by now the basics of macro evolution. Micro-adaptations do happen but they are minor changes and the genetic information is already in the Genome to adapt.

It's true, the entropy of the universe is increasing.
At the same time things can get more complex.
Just look how complex your ignorance has become.

U of A does not produce ignorance they educate so the educated can teach the ignorant. You are all here must have missed me.

 

[HUGGY]

looks as if ywc is using the swoop in and swoop out method of posting ...it's popular with the "you're never gonna make me " crowd.

It's "complex" ...

Alternating swooping and holding one's breath till he turns blue..

It would be hilarious if so many people were not involved in the same self deceit and so proud to show it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks for agreeing with over time all objects are affected by decay which is the result of disorder that leads to death. What we exp over time is devolution. Things are not getting better or improving in complexity,that is what you need for evolution to trend upwards. You should know by now the basics of macro evolution. Micro-adaptations do happen but they are minor changes and the genetic information is already in the Genome to adapt.

It's true, the entropy of the universe is increasing.
At the same time things can get more complex.
Just look how complex your ignorance has become.

U of A does not produce ignorance they educate so the educated can teach the ignorant. You are all here must have missed me.

U of A does not produce ignorance

Apparently they don't reduce it either.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's true, the entropy of the universe is increasing.
At the same time things can get more complex.
Just look how complex your ignorance has become.

U of A does not produce ignorance they educate so the educated can teach the ignorant. You are all here must have missed me.

U of A does not produce ignorance

Apparently they don't reduce it either.

No offense,but we are not talking about Alabama or Arkansas.

 

[Agent.Tom]

Natural processes are the only processes we have any evidence for. Repeatedly, you have been tasked with defining a single occurrence (just one), of an un-natural or supernatural process or event and you have failed at every request.

In passing, I just want to say that anything that happens for the very first time--not having been established prior as a 'natural process'--must therefore be described as supernatural. The first lightning bolt was supernatural, by definition. So was the first rainfall, the first tsunami, tornado, hurricane, fire, etc.

I think we--assuming no one will insist on being stubborn for the sake of avoiding real conversation--can all agree that at this very moment, not all possible "processes" have occurred. Other "processes" will surely occur in the future for the very first time, and again, by your definition, they must be labeled supernatural. Shouldn't we all agree that, by definition, supernatural processes can and will continue to occur?

Going a different way--supposing that you reserve the word "supernatural" to mean only "miraculous" processes brought about by an entity or entities with unimaginable power--I have to ask out of curiosity. Do you really believe that a being creating a universe must be supernatural and executing a supernatural process, when (see quantum physics) our universe could be virtual? Surely you realize that one day, assuming the human race continues to thrive, we will finally gain the ability to create virtual realities where everyone inside is either a "user" or an artificial intelligence? You know that is coming. Does the computer programmer that creates a virtual reality, a supernatural being? No. But would that programmer necessarily be defined as supernatural to the people inside that reality? Yes, absolutely.

Is it that difficult to imagine that the universe we experience is the result of a giant pile of--for lack of a better word--code. The Programmer, having all powers one could imagine, is no more supernatural in this scenario than a programmer that wrote The Sims.

FYI this theorem would go far in explaining so many formerly unexplainable things. For example: In our normal world, we as Christians imagine what God's dimension is like. We also wonder what God looks like, and wonder why He doesn't just materialize in our world and satisfy everyone's curiosity. OK -- now, imagine a character in The Sims, wondering the same thing. He knows what's going on around him in his virtual world that exists only as lines of code. You are playing The Sims and he is wondering what you look like, what your "dimension" is like, and wonders why you won't materialize in his world to prove your existence and satisfy his curiosity.

Please resist the temptation to laugh and marginalize me, saying I should be wearing a tinfoil hat because I claim we are all Sims. I am making no such claim. I am only trying to come up with real-life examples that could help us understand there is no need to dismiss creation as some impossible, "miraculous," "unscientific," "supernatural" event.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Natural processes are the only processes we have any evidence for. Repeatedly, you have been tasked with defining a single occurrence (just one), of an un-natural or supernatural process or event and you have failed at every request.

In passing, I just want to say that anything that happens for the very first time--not having been established prior as a 'natural process'--must therefore be described as supernatural. The first lightning bolt was supernatural, by definition. So was the first rainfall, the first tsunami, tornado, hurricane, fire, etc.

I think we--assuming no one will insist on being stubborn for the sake of avoiding real conversation--can all agree that at this very moment, not all possible "processes" have occurred. Other "processes" will surely occur in the future for the very first time, and again, by your definition, they must be labeled supernatural. Shouldn't we all agree that, by definition, supernatural processes can and will continue to occur?

Going a different way--supposing that you reserve the word "supernatural" to mean only "miraculous" processes brought about by an entity or entities with unimaginable power--I have to ask out of curiosity. Do you really believe that a being creating a universe must be supernatural and executing a supernatural process, when (see quantum physics) our universe could be virtual? Surely you realize that one day, assuming the human race continues to thrive, we will finally gain the ability to create virtual realities where everyone inside is either a "user" or an artificial intelligence? You know that is coming. Does the computer programmer that creates a virtual reality, a supernatural being? No. But would that programmer necessarily be defined as supernatural to the people inside that reality? Yes, absolutely.

Is it that difficult to imagine that the universe we experience is the result of a giant pile of--for lack of a better word--code. The Programmer, having all powers one could imagine, is no more supernatural in this scenario than a programmer that wrote The Sims.

FYI this theorem would go far in explaining so many formerly unexplainable things. For example: In our normal world, we as Christians imagine what God's dimension is like. We also wonder what God looks like, and wonder why He doesn't just materialize in our world and satisfy everyone's curiosity. OK -- now, imagine a character in The Sims, wondering the same thing. He knows what's going on around him in his virtual world that exists only as lines of code. You are playing The Sims and he is wondering what you look like, what your "dimension" is like, and wonders why you won't materialize in his world to prove your existence and satisfy his curiosity.

Please resist the temptation to laugh and marginalize me, saying I should be wearing a tinfoil hat because I claim we are all Sims. I am making no such claim. I am only trying to come up with real-life examples that could help us understand there is no need to dismiss creation as some impossible, "miraculous," "unscientific," "supernatural" event.

Certainly there is merit in your programmer/Sims scenario as a means to "explain" the universe. But if you are going to use this then you have to explain the inconsistencies too. If our universe is virtual then your programmer has written some really buggy code. That contradicts the notion of an omnipotent "programmer/creator".

 

[Youwerecreated]

Natural processes are the only processes we have any evidence for. Repeatedly, you have been tasked with defining a single occurrence (just one), of an un-natural or supernatural process or event and you have failed at every request.

In passing, I just want to say that anything that happens for the very first time--not having been established prior as a 'natural process'--must therefore be described as supernatural. The first lightning bolt was supernatural, by definition. So was the first rainfall, the first tsunami, tornado, hurricane, fire, etc.

I think we--assuming no one will insist on being stubborn for the sake of avoiding real conversation--can all agree that at this very moment, not all possible "processes" have occurred. Other "processes" will surely occur in the future for the very first time, and again, by your definition, they must be labeled supernatural. Shouldn't we all agree that, by definition, supernatural processes can and will continue to occur?

Going a different way--supposing that you reserve the word "supernatural" to mean only "miraculous" processes brought about by an entity or entities with unimaginable power--I have to ask out of curiosity. Do you really believe that a being creating a universe must be supernatural and executing a supernatural process, when (see quantum physics) our universe could be virtual? Surely you realize that one day, assuming the human race continues to thrive, we will finally gain the ability to create virtual realities where everyone inside is either a "user" or an artificial intelligence? You know that is coming. Does the computer programmer that creates a virtual reality, a supernatural being? No. But would that programmer necessarily be defined as supernatural to the people inside that reality? Yes, absolutely.

Is it that difficult to imagine that the universe we experience is the result of a giant pile of--for lack of a better word--code. The Programmer, having all powers one could imagine, is no more supernatural in this scenario than a programmer that wrote The Sims.

FYI this theorem would go far in explaining so many formerly unexplainable things. For example: In our normal world, we as Christians imagine what God's dimension is like. We also wonder what God looks like, and wonder why He doesn't just materialize in our world and satisfy everyone's curiosity. OK -- now, imagine a character in The Sims, wondering the same thing. He knows what's going on around him in his virtual world that exists only as lines of code. You are playing The Sims and he is wondering what you look like, what your "dimension" is like, and wonders why you won't materialize in his world to prove your existence and satisfy his curiosity.

Please resist the temptation to laugh and marginalize me, saying I should be wearing a tinfoil hat because I claim we are all Sims. I am making no such claim. I am only trying to come up with real-life examples that could help us understand there is no need to dismiss creation as some impossible, "miraculous," "unscientific," "supernatural" event.

Certainly there is merit in your programmer/Sims scenario as a means to "explain" the universe. But if you are going to use this then you have to explain the inconsistencies too. If our universe is virtual then your programmer has written some really buggy code. That contradicts the notion of an omnipotent "programmer/creator".

Example please.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Natural processes are the only processes we have any evidence for. Repeatedly, you have been tasked with defining a single occurrence (just one), of an un-natural or supernatural process or event and you have failed at every request.

In passing, I just want to say that anything that happens for the very first time--not having been established prior as a 'natural process'--must therefore be described as supernatural. The first lightning bolt was supernatural, by definition. So was the first rainfall, the first tsunami, tornado, hurricane, fire, etc.

I think we--assuming no one will insist on being stubborn for the sake of avoiding real conversation--can all agree that at this very moment, not all possible "processes" have occurred. Other "processes" will surely occur in the future for the very first time, and again, by your definition, they must be labeled supernatural. Shouldn't we all agree that, by definition, supernatural processes can and will continue to occur?

Going a different way--supposing that you reserve the word "supernatural" to mean only "miraculous" processes brought about by an entity or entities with unimaginable power--I have to ask out of curiosity. Do you really believe that a being creating a universe must be supernatural and executing a supernatural process, when (see quantum physics) our universe could be virtual? Surely you realize that one day, assuming the human race continues to thrive, we will finally gain the ability to create virtual realities where everyone inside is either a "user" or an artificial intelligence? You know that is coming. Does the computer programmer that creates a virtual reality, a supernatural being? No. But would that programmer necessarily be defined as supernatural to the people inside that reality? Yes, absolutely.

Is it that difficult to imagine that the universe we experience is the result of a giant pile of--for lack of a better word--code. The Programmer, having all powers one could imagine, is no more supernatural in this scenario than a programmer that wrote The Sims.

FYI this theorem would go far in explaining so many formerly unexplainable things. For example: In our normal world, we as Christians imagine what God's dimension is like. We also wonder what God looks like, and wonder why He doesn't just materialize in our world and satisfy everyone's curiosity. OK -- now, imagine a character in The Sims, wondering the same thing. He knows what's going on around him in his virtual world that exists only as lines of code. You are playing The Sims and he is wondering what you look like, what your "dimension" is like, and wonders why you won't materialize in his world to prove your existence and satisfy his curiosity.

Please resist the temptation to laugh and marginalize me, saying I should be wearing a tinfoil hat because I claim we are all Sims. I am making no such claim. I am only trying to come up with real-life examples that could help us understand there is no need to dismiss creation as some impossible, "miraculous," "unscientific," "supernatural" event.

I would have to say that was a well thought out response Tom.

 

[Derideo_Te]

In passing, I just want to say that anything that happens for the very first time--not having been established prior as a 'natural process'--must therefore be described as supernatural. The first lightning bolt was supernatural, by definition. So was the first rainfall, the first tsunami, tornado, hurricane, fire, etc.

I think we--assuming no one will insist on being stubborn for the sake of avoiding real conversation--can all agree that at this very moment, not all possible "processes" have occurred. Other "processes" will surely occur in the future for the very first time, and again, by your definition, they must be labeled supernatural. Shouldn't we all agree that, by definition, supernatural processes can and will continue to occur?

Going a different way--supposing that you reserve the word "supernatural" to mean only "miraculous" processes brought about by an entity or entities with unimaginable power--I have to ask out of curiosity. Do you really believe that a being creating a universe must be supernatural and executing a supernatural process, when (see quantum physics) our universe could be virtual? Surely you realize that one day, assuming the human race continues to thrive, we will finally gain the ability to create virtual realities where everyone inside is either a "user" or an artificial intelligence? You know that is coming. Does the computer programmer that creates a virtual reality, a supernatural being? No. But would that programmer necessarily be defined as supernatural to the people inside that reality? Yes, absolutely.

Is it that difficult to imagine that the universe we experience is the result of a giant pile of--for lack of a better word--code. The Programmer, having all powers one could imagine, is no more supernatural in this scenario than a programmer that wrote The Sims.

FYI this theorem would go far in explaining so many formerly unexplainable things. For example: In our normal world, we as Christians imagine what God's dimension is like. We also wonder what God looks like, and wonder why He doesn't just materialize in our world and satisfy everyone's curiosity. OK -- now, imagine a character in The Sims, wondering the same thing. He knows what's going on around him in his virtual world that exists only as lines of code. You are playing The Sims and he is wondering what you look like, what your "dimension" is like, and wonders why you won't materialize in his world to prove your existence and satisfy his curiosity.

Please resist the temptation to laugh and marginalize me, saying I should be wearing a tinfoil hat because I claim we are all Sims. I am making no such claim. I am only trying to come up with real-life examples that could help us understand there is no need to dismiss creation as some impossible, "miraculous," "unscientific," "supernatural" event.

Certainly there is merit in your programmer/Sims scenario as a means to "explain" the universe. But if you are going to use this then you have to explain the inconsistencies too. If our universe is virtual then your programmer has written some really buggy code. That contradicts the notion of an omnipotent "programmer/creator".

Example please.

Viruses, famine, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, genetic diseases, asteroids, etc, etc.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

U of A does not produce ignorance they educate so the educated can teach the ignorant. You are all here must have missed me.

U of A does not produce ignorance

Apparently they don't reduce it either.

No offense,but we are not talking about Alabama or Arkansas.

Your ignorance is nation wide.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Certainly there is merit in your programmer/Sims scenario as a means to "explain" the universe. But if you are going to use this then you have to explain the inconsistencies too. If our universe is virtual then your programmer has written some really buggy code. That contradicts the notion of an omnipotent "programmer/creator".

Example please.

Viruses, famine, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, genetic diseases, asteroids, etc, etc.

Signs of the fault of humanity and disorder which we have been discussing. The only way those problems would have never been experienced was for man to obey God.

 

[Youwerecreated]

U of A does not produce ignorance

Apparently they don't reduce it either.

No offense,but we are not talking about Alabama or Arkansas.

Your ignorance is nation wide.

I don't deny I am ignorant of many issues. Are you suggesting you have all the answers and possess no ignorance ?