The Creation Museum

[MaxBuck]

Secular scientific journals won't publish scientists who are known creationists even if their findings have nothing to do with evolution.

... But forget it. Creationists aren't scientists and aren't smart enough to understand evolution.

I'm getting pretty tired of this horse[Mark May]. First, scientific journals won't publish stuff that has no basis in science, so that's the explanation for not having theology published in AAAS journals and other peer-reviewed publications. Second, this whole pile of Mark May to the effect that "Creationists aren't smart enough to understand" evolution is out of your mouth, not ours.

I don't need to accept everything in the Bible as being literal fact in order to understand its truth. For those who cannot do that for whatever reasons, bless you, but keep your hands off my science curricula.

 

[Bucklion]

I guess my thing is I don't understand why science and theology have to somehow be either/or to some. I mean, if you believe in God, then he gave us cerebral cortices capable of reason and curiosity of how things work...seems pretty normal to me. Science is a process, a pursuit of knowledge based on demonstrable data collected under fixed conditions, or on analysis of data collected from past events. Theology is belief in God, and if you believe God created the universe, then that's cool too. But one doesn't have to have anything to do with the other, and yet they can both co-exist just fine. Science can explain a lot. It can't explain everything because you can't reproduce the creation of the universe in a test tube. Things from rings on trees to carbon dating can help determine ages, fossil records can help with time periods, etc. All of these things can co-exist. To many all of them do.

 

[Steve19]

I guess my thing is I don't understand why science and theology have to somehow be either/or to some. I mean, if you believe in God, then he gave us cerebral cortices capable of reason and curiosity of how things work...seems pretty normal to me. Science is a process, a pursuit of knowledge based on demonstrable data collected under fixed conditions, or on analysis of data collected from past events. Theology is belief in God, and if you believe God created the universe, then that's cool too. But one doesn't have to have anything to do with the other, and yet they can both co-exist just fine. Science can explain a lot. It can't explain everything because you can't reproduce the creation of the universe in a test tube. Things from rings on trees to carbon dating can help determine ages, fossil records can help with time periods, etc. All of these things can co-exist. To many all of them do.

QFT

 

[buckeyegrad]

Theology is belief in God, and if you believe God created the universe, then that's cool too.

Just to clarify, theology is not a belief in God. It is a process (or collection of processes) for knowing God. Let us remember that theology used to be considered the queen of the sciences (i.e. science=system of knowing).

 

[Bucklion]

Just to clarify, theology is not a belief in God. It is a process (or collection of processes) for knowing God. Let us remember that theology used to be considered the queen of the sciences (i.e. science=system of knowing).

Sorry, meant to say it is the study of the belief in God.

 

[muffler dragon]

Just to clarify, theology is not a belief in God. It is a process (or collection of processes) for knowing God.

Pedant that I am, I do not agree with the emboldened.

According to Merriam-Webster, theology is defined as:

:the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world

This doesn't mean that one can "know" G-d. Please elaborate if I'm misunderstanding your usage of the term.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Pedant that I am, I do not agree with the emboldened.

According to Merriam-Webster, theology is defined as:

:the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world

This doesn't mean that one can "know" G-d. Please elaborate if I'm misunderstanding your usage of the term.

By knowing, I do not mean to personally know, or know in the sense of a relationship; rather I mean to know about or to understand, or know in the sense of science (thus, theology being called the queen of the sciences).

And I would disagree considerably with the first part of Merriam-Webster's definition. The study of religious faith, practice, and experience falls under the broader category of Religious Studies. Theology, which is the combination of the Greek theus (god) and logos (word), literally means to discuss god. It is does not mean to discuss religion.


Here is OED's definition:

Theology--The study of science which treats of God, His nature and attributes, and His relations with man and the universe; 'the science of things divine'; divinity.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Just to clarify, theology is not a belief in God. It is a process (or collection of processes) for knowing God. Let us remember that theology used to be considered the queen of the sciences (i.e. science=system of knowing).

Since we're clarifying, isn't it fair to also note that the Bible was never intended to be a work of science nor is it's purpose to describe how the physical world works? Indeed, isn't it true that the purpose of the Bible is to explain spiritual principles, the nature of man, G-d and how man might have a personal relationship with that G-d?

In as much as you agree - what's all this "Creationism" hubbub about.

To the extent you disagree, what is your answer to the question - why would G-d give us reason, expect us to use it, and then deceive our senses by creating an earth and universe that looks quite old, but in fact, is not.

Is the retort that Man is really just that stupid?

 

[muffler dragon]

By knowing, I do not mean to personally know, or know in the sense of a relationship; rather I mean to know about or to understand, or know in the sense of science (thus, theology being called the queen of the sciences).

Got'cha.

And I would disagree considerably with the first part of Merriam-Webster's definition. The study of religious faith, practice, and experience falls under the broader category of Religious Studies. Theology, which is the combination of the Greek theus (god) and logos (word), literally means to discuss god. It is does not mean to discuss religion.

I can see that.

 

[Gatorubet]

I guess my thing is I don't understand why science and theology have to somehow be either/or to some. I mean, if you believe in God, then he gave us cerebral cortices capable of reason and curiosity of how things work...seems pretty normal to me. Science is a process, a pursuit of knowledge based on demonstrable data collected under fixed conditions, or on analysis of data collected from past events.

You would have to admit that - given the requirement for a belief in an inerrant Bible* - that most people would have a very hard time displaying a curiosity of how things work, let alone interpreting data collected under fixed conditions, or analyzing data collected from the past - if the unavoidable flow and result of that curiosity and analysis was the rejection of one's core religious beliefs (which are often the result of a lifetime of teaching and social interactions from one's parents, family, friends and ministers) if the data or analysis was in contradiction of the biblical story.

There are some that can redirect their minds and emotions and say, "Well, screw all of that fallout from friends and relatives and my church family - I'm going with the dino to bird theory". But that, IMO, would be the unusual approach. A more likely approach would be to ignore or shape the facts to a point of view that fits one's Bible-as-Fact-and-the-Word-of-the-Living God model. Which is why the creationists are known as data miners.

Simply put, biblical inerrancy as a core belief should make for a [censored] poor-scientist as a mater of basic human psychology.

*Among the groups most involved in YE and Creation Science advocacy

 

[Brewtus]

I guess my thing is I don't understand why science and theology have to somehow be either/or to some. I mean, if you believe in God, then he gave us cerebral cortices capable of reason and curiosity of how things work...seems pretty normal to me. Science is a process, a pursuit of knowledge based on demonstrable data collected under fixed conditions, or on analysis of data collected from past events. Theology is belief in God, and if you believe God created the universe, then that's cool too. But one doesn't have to have anything to do with the other, and yet they can both co-exist just fine. Science can explain a lot. It can't explain everything because you can't reproduce the creation of the universe in a test tube. Things from rings on trees to carbon dating can help determine ages, fossil records can help with time periods, etc. All of these things can co-exist. To many all of them do.

I agree that both can co-exist if one is a deist (belief in a creator, but not a personal god that interferes in our day-to-day lives and suspends the laws of nature), however if one is a theist (belief in a personal god) I don't see how the two can be compatible. Christians (and Jews and Muslims) by definition are theists and I don't see how one can believe that a supernatural being regularly interacts with our natural world while conforming to the tenets and requirements of the scientific method.

 

[Bucklion]

You would have to admit that - given the requirement for a belief in an inerrant Bible* - that most people would have a very hard time displaying a curiosity of how things work, let alone interpreting data collected under fixed conditions, or analyzing data collected from the past - if the unavoidable flow and result of that curiosity and analysis was the rejection of one's core religious beliefs (which are often the result of a lifetime of teaching and social interactions from one's parents, family, friends and ministers) if the data or analysis was in contradiction of the biblical story.

There are some that can redirect their minds and emotions and say, "Well, screw all of that fallout from friends and relatives and my church family - I'm going with the dino to bird theory". But that, IMO, would be the unusual approach. A more likely approach would be to ignore or shape the facts to a point of view that fits one's Bible-as-Fact-and-the-Word-of-the-Living God model.

Simply put, biblical inerrancy as a core belief should make for a [censored] poor-scientist as a mater of basic human psychology.

*Among the groups most involved in YE and Creation Science advocacy

Errr...I wasn't really commenting on that at all, but OK

 

[Bucklion]

I agree that both can co-exist if one is a deist (belief in a creator, but not a personal god that interferes in our day-to-day lives and suspends the laws of nature), however if one is a theist (belief in a personal god) I don't see how the two can be compatible. Christians (and Jews and Muslims) by definition are theists and I don't see how one can believe that a supernatural being regularly interacts with our natural world while conforming to the tenets and requirements of the scientific method.

I guess this is the point I was making...you seem to be one of those who believes that if one believes in religion (as you describe it there) they can't believe in science...I would vehemently disagree.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Since we're clarifying, isn't it fair to also note that the Bible was never intended to be a work of science nor is it's purpose to describe how the physical world works? Indeed, isn't it true that the purpose of the Bible is to explain spiritual principles, the nature of man, G-d and how man might have a personal relationship with that G-d?

In as much as you agree - what's all this "Creationism" hubbub about.

To the extent you disagree, what is your answer to the question - why would G-d give us reason, expect us to use it, and then deceive our senses by creating an earth and universe that looks quite old, but in fact, is not.

Is the retort that Man is really just that stupid?

Based upon what I wrote about theology, I don't see how this is asking me clarify anything I said.

Okay, non-smartass remark: I've retired from the evolution-creationism discussions on these boards--though I still like to comment from time to time on the discussion itself. From my perspective most people in this discussion, here and elsewhere, really aren't interested in holding a conversation and trying to understand the others' points of view. So, yes, I could respond to your question, and in doing so, point out where I see incorrect assumptions in the very question you ask. But at the end of the day, to what benefit? Are we really seeking to understand and inform each other or are we just trying to demonstrate what we think are the errors in the perspectives of those with whom we disagree?

 

[Gatorubet]

Errr...I wasn't really commenting on that at all, but OK

You said

But one doesn't have to have anything to do with the other, and yet they can both co-exist just fine.

To which I replied a post that refutes that statement - with the caveat that I was only referring to those that take a pledge of innerancy. As a non-literal Bible believer, thinking that the Colorado River wound its way through the Grand Canyon for a million years would not in any way interfere with my faith like it would in some. In some literalists, it not only would not co-exist "just fine", it would lead to a crisis in faith, and require a rejection of the core belief of my religion.