Should people debate creationism like it was real science?

Question

I propose a boycott on debating any of this propaganda science until a creation "scientist" publishes a paper that details testable proofs and provides hard evidence. This paper should be subject to review by the scientific community the same way every scientific theory is tested. If the creationists cannot do this then they are admitting that creationism is not science. If we debate this nonsense before they have provided any proof we give their argument an air of credibility that it doesn't deserve.

Either they give with the proof or we don't want to talk about it. When a creationist wins a nobel prize they can teach this crap in schools.

What science will be safe from biblical interpretation if we don't do something. First its evolution, now its the young earth thing with dinosuars and humans living together like the Flintstones. What's next? Another the flat earth is the center of the universe philosophy?

Answer 1

Your "boycott"'s been ongoing for decades, with many top scientists rightfully doing just as you "propose."

Answer 2

Even though I know creation is real, I don't feel it should be given a grade. However, I will give you some possibly convincing arguments. Creation is true because if you just examine something as small as a cell, it contains so much stuff like,cell walls, atoms, etc. Humans have complex speech,we can say words and learn new vocabulary. The galaxies are very complex, each contains numerous planets that are bunched by their own gravitational pull and each galaxy is apropriately sepraated from each other. Evolution teaches that all this complexity arose from nothing. It also teaches that we are like animals, but animals can't feel guilt otherwise they would think twice about what they are going to do or sit and contemplate about what they just did. Those skulls they found, are just normal human skulls because if you observe people, some have small heads, others with a big eyebrow arch, etc. The Big Bang isn't true either because how could a random blast produce all the planets and galaxies period. If evolutionist can believe that the big bang came out of nowhere and made the universe,why is it so hard to believe that Jehovah (God), who was always here, couldn't make the universe outta nothing . The cell theory isn't accurate either because even though sperm produce babies, it has that species information and that doesn't change over years. Personally, I believe neither should be force-fed to anyone, if they don't wanna accept the truth then that's their loss. I hope this info helps. P.S, the Bible said the earth was round thousands of years before people went to the moon.

Answer 3

People should ABSOLUTELY NOT debate creationism like it was real science because it absolutely is not science at all! The primary reason the matter is debated at all is because creationists like to make spurious arguments against science and then turn around and say their version is better.

Argument #1: "Evolution is only a theory, therefore any theory (including creationism) is just as good."

In science, a "theory" is a hypothesis that is supported by a *preponderance* of the available evidence and can reliably be used to explain and/or predict the results of experiments that fall under its purview. Evolution is a theory just like *gravity* is a theory. Creationism doesn't even come close.

Argument #2: "Evolution theory is always changing. It can't explain every shred of available evidence, and there isn't incontrovertible proof for every single nuance of the theory. Therefore, creationism is better."

First of all, creationism explains NONE of the available evidence, and the only existing "proof" for any of it is a spiritual text written down by human beings who were not around to witness the origin of Earth. Secondly, science is not an encyclopedia; it's a *process*. Hypotheses are proposed, tested, and then either rejected or improved. The evolution of evolution theory, if you'll pardon the expression, is part of the rigorous process of scientific research. It will ALWAYS be under construction.

I could go on forever, but the point here is that creationism absolutely does NOT belong in science classes. If you want to teach about it in religion classes or even history classes, that's fine, but it is not fine to pretend it is science. The only reason we argue the matter is because it is intellectually *dishonest* to allow these wrongheaded arguments to be made.

Answer 4

Running out of ways to debunk the "junk" Christians are presenting to you? Have you considered for even a moment they may have a point or two? Now a moratorium to shut them up?
Debate whatever you want. When you present it in an open forum, expect dissention. Handle your own doubts as you will.
I suspect the last thing you want to see is an army of scientists who believe in Christ entering the forum to debate your great understanding. Yet you are confident enough in yourself that you call for their necessity. There are many disciplines of science that would be represented.
Where, oh where, do you get off saying that if someone does not have a paper approved by a review board they, by default, lose a debate? But I do agree that we should keep the propaganda science out of the classroom. Stop teaching evolution.

Answer 5

I agree. The movie "Flock Of Dodos" touches on this, actually. The thing is, the scientific community, for the most part, is so unconcerned with these creationist nutjobs, that they haven't bothered to go prove them wrong, which they could easily do.

But they literally don't concern themselves with them, in much the same way as most people don't concern themselves with people who have a theory of where Santa Claus lives.

But the movie explores the fact that the nonchalance of the scientific community is the root cause of this insanity causing such an uproar in the political arena. It's basically a wake up call for scientists that they have a responsibility to correct this rather vocal minority.

Answer 6

No. Creationism is bad pseudo science. Anyone with a real education in real scientific methods can see through their flimsy arguments, proofs, and conclusions. If the pseudo scientific method use by creationist was applied to medical science, we would still be doing blood letting and placing garlic around the neck of sick people to ward off evil spirits.

Answer 7

Part of me agrees, but at the same time, it really is important to explain why it's not science, because a lot of people truly don't get it. It DOESN'T deserve attention, considering that less than a tenth of one percent of biologists believe in it, but the "Intelligent Design" people are spreading so many mistruths and outright lies that it's important to set the record straight. There truly is a misunderstanding about what science is, and you can't just ignore that. I agree, though, that it's frustrating.

Answer 8

Agreed. The next person to provide ANY hypothesis (let alone evidence) about creationism will be the first.

Answer 9

How else can we show how utterly ridiculous it is. For most of them the only information they get on the subject is Church. We need to be the source of real scientific information.

Answer 10

That'll never happen in America. The government uses religion as a herding device here- they would be nearly disabled without it.