Talk:Scientific creationism

Is this not an oxymoron?--TimS 08:43, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I agree. Creationaism is a religious concept and science should ahve no part in it.Tolerance 14:29, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Rationalists and scientists would have no quibble with Creationism whatsoever if it wasn't for the fact that it pretends to understand and even be science. If you were a carpenter, and the local florist started giving you advice on how to build a cabinet, you'd be pretty sceptical too. DogP 14:41, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

This goes back to NOMA. Scientific creationism is a term created by creationists. It is the creationists who break the overlap of NOMA with terms like this and then open themselves up to scientific criticism. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 14:43, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

To an extend I agree with you. Creationsm is a religious belief. It is based on faith. those who try to combine it with science only paly into the hands of athiests.Tolerance 14:50, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Exactly correct. If the religious would simply stop trying to somehow 'prove' religion with science, we'd all be fine. Religion fundamentally cannot be 'proved' by anything, so those who want to have Faith, go ahead - just don't try and make us want it, and don't try to force us to teach it to our kids. DogP 16:56, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Then perhaps we should reflect this in the Articles and point out that both Points of View are equally valid?Tolerance 13:27, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

(undent) I believe you need to supply a qualifier for their equal validity. For example, they would not be considered equally valid scientifically. On what level would you propose that they be considered equally valid? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 13:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

They are equally valid in that they have separate and independent ares of influence. One should not comment on the the other. In the words of SJG (I think) - one talks about the Age of Rocks and the other about the Rock of Ages. Tolerance 13:46, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

That is all well and good, but what it seems to always come down to is the areas where the religious side of NOMA break the overlap. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 13:59, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

That does happen. But is it not reasonable to initially give a Rational Answer rather than a Spiritual one? When asked about the Origin of the Universe many atheists will first ramble on about big bangs or branes before admitting they don't know.Tolerance 14:26, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Err, well we know the big bang happened, there is no "i do not know" in that. tmtoulouse ^torment 14:27, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

For me, it has always been: "what we know very well", "what we are beginning to know" and "what we don't know yet". --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 14:31, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

The big bang theory makes predictions about what the frequency of the cosmic microwave background is, the polarization of that radiation, the amount of matter in the universe, the existence of particles that unify the forces, and many other things. These are all testable and were suggested by theorists before the experimentalists started looking for them. The way to phrase it is "all evidence that we see today fits with these theories." For the story in Genesis to be useful, it must explain all of the existing observations and make some predictions that are different what other theories say that can then be tested. While you are at it, make sure that the predictions are different than those told in the Upanishads. If it cannot make testable predictions, it is a nice story or statement of faith. --Shagie 14:46, 11 April 2008 (EDT)