I've had an epiphany of sorts.

First, let me say, This is mostly related to origins and creationism, but the recent 'changes' there have me unsure if I should post this in there. I'm posting here to be safe.

Something I realized a few days ago, that really changes my outlook on studying various scientific points regarding the idea of creationism/intelligent design.

I've tried to give all creationist arguments, for intelligent design, against evolution, against abiogenisis, creation of the universe, as much chance as I can. Even more than I would for others because I don't want the beliefs natural to me to bias what I accept.

In my opinion, you'd have to be deluded to think science is trying to disprove god. Scientists see evidence, reach conclusions, and refine the conclusions if new evidence ever surfaces. Basically, what I realized, the many of the arguments for Intelligent Design I've heard, there's a reason they don't get scientific merit. If these arguments held up to scrutiny, they would be recognized scientifically. The really informed people, who know about these topics, see the creationists arguments, and they don't convince them.

Then there's us. The people who don't know better, the people without the knowledge and facts to look at information in perspective. Not saying we're dumb, we just don't have years of experience in understanding these things. All the arguments are brought down to us. Claims like young earth, intelligent design, origin of the universe, irreducible complexity, no one argues these to the well informed people. These arguments go to us.

Not one article in favor of Intelligent Design has ever passed peer review. That goes beyond my expectations. I'd expect some arguments to at least be acknowledged as somewhat valid. They aren't though. In the scientific communities greater understanding, they see through arguments that I wouldn't be able to see anything wrong with myself.

Ultimately, to any creationist out there, the question leads. From a few articles and paragraphs regarding the subjects, do you think you're smarter than the entire scientific community with many years of built up understanding?

I'm not smarter in an area I study in pastime, than a scientist who's whole career revolves around it. And next time I read a pro-creationist case, I will ask myself "They make god seem like the only possible logical answer, why don't the more informed people believe them?"

~
Recently, someone posted an article in a topic claiming there were no records of any transitional forms of species. "Fossil record indicates that every creature known by mankind, emerged as-is when it showed up on earth", to paraphrase it. Alone it's pretty convincing, until the next 10 posters provided many examples of transitional species. The claim only made sense when you didn't know all the facts.

So the question is, are you sure you're smarter than the scientific community, when you don't even know if you have all the facts?

This is not an insult. I don't mean it to be. I just want to know what people think. Regarding scientific topics, how much credit must we give ourselves to decide we're capable of making a correct dissenting opinion? Isn't it arrogant to think you know better than people who are obviously more qualified?

This isn't about religion in general. This isn't about god's existence. This is only about people who claim that Evolution is scientifically unsound, or that evidence points to a young earth, ect.

What do you think?

Ultimately, to any creationist out there, the question leads. From a few articles and paragraphs regarding the subjects, do you think you're smarter than the entire scientific community with many years of built up understanding?

I'm not a creationist in the way that most people use that word, ie: the christian/jew version. I'm just open to the possibility of a creator. DNA is rather complex.

I'm not smarter than scientists. But scientists don't know either. They are just supposed to hunt down the facts without a personal agenda.

If they can ever show a true spontaneous generation of life, without any help from existing life forms, then they will have advanced, but not proven, the "no creator" argument. That has not happened yet.

reply to post by LHP666


I'm not saying science has dis-proven god, or even that it ever will. There is no scientific standpoint on if god exists or not.

I'm talking about topics science has a general agreement on. And people making claims, based on certain facts, on the contrary to it.

DNA Repair Disproves Evolution

A quick Google search provides a good example of what I'm talking about. And people who side with arguments such as what the article went for. I'm pretty sure all the studies leading to believing in evolution have taken into account the DNA repair system, not that 'bibleprophecyupdate' is privy to information scientists haven't considered. Just an example.

~
Abiogenesis, while off topic. My opinion is that, it's a clear example of "God of the Gaps". And considering how bioengineering is still in an "Infantile" stage, it's completely understandable how the Gap is still there.

No scientist see's the progress we're making in that department, and assumes we'll never be able to understand how godless abiogenesis would work.

Edit:
Just to add, I'm completely open to the possibility of a creator too. It just that I follow what seems most factual.

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Not one article in favor of Intelligent Design has ever passed peer review. That goes beyond my expectations.

...Wikipedia really isn't the place you want to look for information like that.

journals.witpress.com... - that's one example. Quick searches on ProQuest, the Directory of Open Access Journals and SpringerLink Contemporary Journals (all of which I have at my fingertips thanks to having alumni status at my University) show numerous articles on "design in nature".

With that said, it IS significantly more rare for creationists to have articles that have been peer-reviewed by secular journals. The reason for this is pretty simple; the majority of scientists do not regard creation science as a valid enterprise, and such articles wouldn't be accepted by a journal such as Nature, for example. As much as you might like to think that science is rational and impartial, it simply isn't that way... and that doesn't refer simply to creation science, but to many other things also. People with views that conflict with established theory rarely find a voice. I've seen and heard of many examples of this, ranging from archaeologists who found evidence for cannibalism among American Indians, to the numerous examples and widespread ridicule of UFO sightings and so on (which also lack credence among the scientific community, despite MOUNTAINS of evidence).

So, while you make a reasonable and logical argument, I think your premise is a little flawed. Acceptance and validity unfortunately do not go hand in hand, neither in science, nor anywhere else... and as much as we'd like to think that humans are rational human beings who can value the logic of an argument despite disagreeing with its conclusion... that's simply not how it works the majority of the time.

Creation science is an oxymoron. There is no creation science. How do you test creation? How do you test and verify the results repeatably? It isn't a science, it's a statement. It says, "god did this because a book says so," or "I can't think of any other way this could have happened so it must mean a god did it". You can't run a test to see if it is correct which is what science does.

reply to post by Awen24


Never took wikipedia as a reliable source, at least without following the citation and seeing how reliable that source is. I took the fact that it's been admitted in several court cases as a sign of it's validity. Someone trying to push Intelligent design, admitting there aren't any, left me assuming there weren't, as they would have brought up any that were.

To be honest, I don't know how to verify if that article is "Peer Reviewed". I did read it though. I really fail to see how anything connecting The second law of thermodynamics to evolution would be considered to have merit, that is the first thing I think of when I hear "Pseudoscience".

While I kind of understand your argument about things lacking credence in the scientific community. That still doesn't change the point. The things that do get attention, still have to prove themselves over any information that contradicts it.

Creation science used to be the only kind of science. Now it's getting taken less seriously than evolution science. Science adapted from creation to evolution, and I think there's a lot more than a stubborn mentality that's keeping us from going back. You present undeniable evidence against something, science will surely drop it.

You do make a good point though, but I can see your logic and disagree. I don't see where that last claim of yours comes from.

reply to post by Hydroman


Yes, you cannot prove, nor disprove, "creation". You can't really test something that supposedly happened only once long ago. We can look at the facts to see if they lead up to that kind of conclusion though, I don't really think there's a difference between creationism science and evolution science, they're intertwined in both understanding and disproving each other. Breakthroughs for evolution are creationism science, just not in favor of it. Hindrances to evolutionary theory, are creationism science support.

That's why I don't really buy the claim that creationism isn't supported because it's not taken seriously. It would still express itself as we continue to study evolution.

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
I don't really think there's a difference between creationism science and evolution science, they're intertwined in both understanding and disproving each other. Breakthroughs for evolution are creationism science, just not in favor of it. Hindrances to evolutionary theory, are creationism science support.

That's why I don't really buy the claim that creationism isn't supported because it's not taken seriously. It would still express itself as we continue to study evolution.

Evolution is a fact, it happens. It can and has been proven. Creationism on the other hand has not. You don't see things being created out of thin air. You can see things having evolved.

reply to post by Hydroman


I'm saying if creation happened, you could see the by-products of it, and/or see flaws in it's competitors. That creationism science fails for more reasons than just that it's not observable.

Yes, evolution is 'fact'. The point of this thread was that evolution(along with other issues) is established as fact by well scrutinized standards, and me kinda questioning how much credit you have to give yourself as an individual with limited knowledge to decide that creationism is more accurate over the deductions of scientists with much vaster knowledge on the topics.

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

Abiogenesis, while off topic. My opinion is that, it's a clear example of "God of the Gaps". And considering how bioengineering is still in an "Infantile" stage, it's completely understandable how the Gap is still there.

Agreed.

It does seem that our concepts of an ultimate "god" constantly shifts with advancing technology.

Not one article in favor of Intelligent Design has ever passed peer review.

Would one ever, if it was scientifically sound? I really doubt it.
I am not a scientist, but I have a decent understanding of human nature.
Showing what is factual and provable can take a distant 2nd place to preserving a persons reputation with their peers. That goes for both sides of the debate.