Should the BSA promote creationism?

[madkins007]

One of the historical underpinnings of Western science was the idea that God created an orderly universe, and that by learning the underlying 'rules', one could better understand God, AND be able to extrapolate other, more hidden 'rules'.

 

I am fascinated that we've come pretty much full circle, and there is a major movement afoot to throw out all of what we have learned over the last millenium in favor of the teachings of a few people who do not really seem to understand science OR the Bible really well.

 

Pro-creationists need to look at why most Christians around the world ignore their position, and at the background of the movement and founders.

[stlscouter]

firstpusk-madkins-I did not ask for the restatement of the scienctific method. I did not ask when it happened or where or what the first particle of light looked lke or what it was composed of.

My point is still valid-the reality of the facts are quite clear(?) the stuff that came to be the big bang came from somewhere, somehow-where? how?

Again a void means there is nothing. nothing, period. not even anything to big bang. Science does not even put forth a hypothesis as to where the stuff comes from, it starts with the hypotheseis that there had to be something which led to something else etc. I don't question science of its methods just that before there was anything there was something to cause everything.

 

[firstpusk]

Science addresses the questions that it can answer. The matter that was compressed into a singularity was there. Much like the answer God gave to Moses it may not satisfy our human couriousity but it is what it is.

 

One can believe that God created the universe and accept science but in order to be a creationist one must reject science.

[Trevorum]

Religion and science are not incompatible. They are merely different 'ways of knowing'. They pose fundamentally different kinds of questions. Religion provides answers to the kinds of questions that science can not address, such as ...

 

Why are we here?

 

Why is there evil?

 

What happens after we die?

 

[packsaddle]

stlscouter, I think I get your question regarding how everything came to be. Science can't answer it. We can make intelligent guesses and hypotheses but experimental tests are, for the time being, out of the question. Therefore, we logical positivists are left with a knowledge void regarding that and many other questions. Some of us are OK with the void and view it as a place of exploration and future discovery. Others of us try to fill the void with their faith. The latter approach is perfectly acceptable but it isn't science. My advice to students is to embrace the unknown and revel in it by exploring and discovering. There is much joy to be found in that as well.

[stlscouter]

firstpusk-I'm not sure about your last statement. things that science can't "prove" yet have workable theories or hypothesis for relies on the "faith of the scientific method and as more information is gathered the theories and hypothesis are changed; ie current thinking about some dinosaurs is that they didn't die out they merely adapted-the skeleton of a turkey very closely reslembles a T-Rex. But...that aside, my understanding of some "creationist" thinkers does not exclude science but provides a larger context for science. Again a void is nothing . random anything can not exist in it or it ceases to be a void and becomes something else. Perhaps if we think about scientificly-scienctists have a symbol for infinity yet they have no symbol for before the big bang(read started infinity). Might I suggest Alpha as in Alpha and Omega.

 

Not all creationists are literal BIBLE believers but all literal BIBLE believers are creationists. Llike the square /retangle thing. And scientifically no perpetual motion anything can exist because it had to be built and started somehow.

[Fuzzy Bear]

OK, I will bite. Here is the test. You must quote from a source book and your answer must make sense. Don't make it up and don't use your imagination. It must be definitive and the answer should lay to rest any doubts about the question. Remember, you have any religion or (g)God(s) to pick from since the first word was scratched on any wall or cave anywhere, anytime until the present modern day with all of the answers and the internet to boot. So, try it if you must.

 

Why are we here?

 

Why is there evil?

 

What happens after we die?

 

Good luck on your answers, you have fifteen minutes. You will be given no points for just trying either. You all are grown-ups and have more than enough education and religion to give a sensible answer. Simple answers are not the best and will be heavily discounted.

 

Bonus Question

 

If God is beyond infinity in knowledge and wisdom, is present anywhere even beyond the edges of the universe at anytime in the past, present and the future, and can accomplish, move or do anything even that which you can not even imagine and has absolutely no needs or desires, then why even bother?

 

FB

 

 

[stlscouter]

Fuzzy Bear-I guess your post is to me. Since the original Merlyn post refered to Phillip Johnson's article and related to should the BSA promote creationism his complete works are his. I don't remember which translation of the BIBLE he is using. Makes no difference. They are his thoughts and many are original.

 

Your bonus question is similar what I have been asking in a different way-putting it into a scientific pose.

 

answers to your other questions-how 'bout GOD said it, I believe it, that ends it-sorry no book reference.

[NJCubScouter]

Fuzzy Bear, perhaps not expecting anyone to actually agree with his devils-advocate question, says:

 

If God is beyond infinity in knowledge and wisdom, is present anywhere even beyond the edges of the universe at anytime in the past, present and the future, and can accomplish, move or do anything even that which you can not even imagine and has absolutely no needs or desires, then why even bother?

 

My answer: That's a good question, and I have a follow up (or more) back to you:

 

How likely is it that a God, meeting your description, would actually bother to write (or even inspire) a book (or books) to explain himself to the inhabitants of one specific dinky blue-green planet, probably one of thousands or millions or billions of inhabited worlds in its (or His if you wish) creation? And, since God is infinite in time and space (meaning, among many other things, that he can read very, very fast) how many times do you think he has picked up the Bible and gotten a chuckle from the pretentiousness of a species quoting God as saying "Let us make man in our own image"? If God really is as described above, it seems highly unlikely that we look anything like him, if indeed he actually looks like anything we could see.

 

I don't mean to offend anyone, so if my statement offends anyone, I'd ask that they not read it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

stl,

Yes, there is a shared understanding but the questions are open to anyone, even scientists who don't know about evil. These are basic questions that mankind has asked since thought first appeared on dry land and these questions were also cited as being rudimentary to religionists.

 

NJ,

God and man may have things in common but I am unsure as to what characteristics God was referencing, if any. God is known to be kind.

 

Since most everyone here believes in God and I am not attempting to leave out Merlyn, this should be a personal challenge. Young people have these questions stuck in their craw. So, seemingly it might be important that we don't sound like idiots when answering. Give it a whirl!

 

FB

[firstpusk]

stlscouter,

 

Let's start by not comingling theories. The big bang is the standard theory to explain the current condition and history of the universe. Evolution is the theory that explains the development and diversity of life. It is of utmost importance to keep clear what each theory addresses.

 

The big bang can explain what happened after the bang but not tell you what was there before. Evolution can tell you about what happened after life began, but it does not address the origin of life. I don't believe that faith is required at all to accept either theory.

 

I view creationism as the denial of evolution. Creationists may or may not deny an ancient universe or an old earth. The evidence that supports the theory of evolution grows with each passing year. There is too much science that must be denied to deny evolution. That is the basis of my statement. You are free to disagree. But if we start to talk about what specifically a creationist will accept or deny, I think that you will begin to see my point.

[packsaddle]

Gee thanks, this gives me the opportunity to repeat (Ronald Reagan would be saying something like, "..there you go again, Packsaddle") a statement that a guy I know likes to make. I'll shoo the chickens off the sofa to visit and this overweight, beer-guzzling, often-unwashed person who still has some of his teeth and a Confederate flag flying in front of his house, says gleefully as he takes another swig just after he spits tobacco, "God made me in His own image" and then he breaks into maniacal laughter. And I have to laugh with him too, what a card! Who knows, maybe he knows something we don't.

 

Edited part: firstpusk, I think creationism is a denial of science in general.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[firstpusk]

Pack, I agree that creationists have to deny science in general. However, I don't think that they often understand just how much science they are denying to hold to there beliefs.

[packsaddle]

I agree completely.

[stlscouter]

firstpusk says-"Let's start by not comingling theories. The big bang is the standard theory to explain the current condition and history of the universe. Evolution is the theory that explains the development and diversity of life. It is of utmost importance to keep clear what each theory addresses.

 

The big bang can explain what happened after the bang but not tell you what was there before. Evolution can tell you about what happened after life began, but it does not address the origin of life. I don't believe that faith is required at all to accept either theory.

 

I view creationism as the denial of evolution. Creationists may or may not deny an ancient universe or an old earth. The evidence that supports the theory of evolution grows with each passing year. There is too much science that must be denied to deny evolution. That is the basis of my statement. You are free to disagree. But if we start to talk about what specifically a creationist will accept or deny, I think that you will begin to see my point."

 

I stated earlier that creationists are not necessarily (Bibical)literalists, but that literalists are creationists. And it is not evolution = natural selection. Your comingling comes at the big bang and that which you call evolution is not natural selection.

 

So the science which you seem to deny-physcis, chemistry, math-can not and do not have theories, hypothesis, or formuli to account for that which was before the big bang. In a void there is nothing and science does not even portend a clue as to where that infinate matter that was compressed into a finite space orgininated. It had to come about somehow-ask a creationist because scientists don't even have a theory....