127
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 52:
Line 52: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct? (view source)
Revision as of 20:58, May 27, 2008
, 20:58, May 27, 2008no edit summary
: The fact (assuming it's true; I hadn't heard that one before) that some people incorrectly attributed an event to a supernatural cause does not mean that the natural and the supernatural are the same thing.
: The fact (assuming it's true; I hadn't heard that one before) that some people incorrectly attributed an event to a supernatural cause does not mean that the natural and the supernatural are the same thing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:57, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:57, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
The example of the Aurora Borealis was intended to show that we ascribe supernatural descriptions to things without knowing for sure that there is no natural explanation. Granted, something cannot be simultaneously both natural and supernatural, but what I meant to argue was that, while we might believe at one time that something is supernatural because nothing natural could cause such a phenomenon, we might later find that there really is no logical gap, and that the explanation is natural after all.
"Creationism was held as a belief before people knew anything about modern science, and therefore is unscientific..." That is pure quote-mining. You analyzed this statement without the qualifying clause that followed.
I will reiterate that the THEORY of evolution is not taught as truth, but as a theory. I was never told in a classroom that evolution is the truth, only that it is the most widely-accepted theory to explain the origin of species. As for the personal beliefs of evolutionists, these may vary. Evolution does not necessarily negate God; such alternative views include theistic evolution. The existence of the “alternative” to which you refer is not taught because it is not testable. You may argue the same of evolution, but if this is the case, why practice science at all?
"But creationism, even when cloaked with the phrase "creation science," does not follow the scientific method." Why is this a substance-free assertion?
“And yet you admit—and attempt to justify—that only one view (and not the creationary one) is being taught!” This does not amount to discrimination against creationists. Creationism is taught as a possible explanation in classes that deal with religion, but not in science classes.
"...it will perpetually claim that science only appears to indicate otherwise" Do you therefore argue that creationism is falsifiable? If so, what criteria would you see as necessary for this to occur?
“That's a loaded question, because it (falsely) presumes that the record of natural history shows an evolutionary view.” No, it presumes that the record of natural history indicates an Earth that is much older than 6,000 years. To claim otherwise requires a denial of fundamental scientific epistemology. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:58, 27 May 2008 (EDT)