Creationism is unjustifiable pt2
Thanks again for the debate.
First, I believe we should stop trying to assume what the other thinks because we both seem to be getting it wrong.
Secondly, the rest of the debate should follow as: con must demonstrate the value of creationism on its own merits, pro must show why those merits either are not true, unrelated, or are still unjustifiable.
I am not debating on how to interpret genesis. Because interpretation is extremely important in every aspect of inquiry, you may debate how we interpret facts, how we connect facts in order to build a narrative, or construct a hypothesis. How we interpret Genesis is another debate. For instance, you may use a series of facts to construct a narrative within a creationist framework. I am not conceding that any facts you use and that the narrative you build are true or correctly produced.
Humans' relationship with apes should also be cleared up. It is true that science suggests that we are cousins with chimps, but it also suggests that we are both apes. The source is Dawkins, who is perfectly qualified to answer the question at hand, so do not bring up his beliefs about atheism because that would be irrelevant. I chose this source because it was the only reliable electronic source I could find.
Theory should also be made more clear. Here is a definition from a standard college text:
A widely accepted explanatory idea that is broad in scope and supported by a large body of evidence .
As you can see experience has nothing to do with it, so it is you who does not understand the concept of theory. Your example is of a hypothesis, not a theory. It was narrow in scope and had little explanatory power. Experiencing something has nothing to do with a theory. There is no hierarchy that knowledge has to pass through. My previous example did not produce a workable definition of theory; it only explained the relationship between facts and theory, and therefore, your criticism was unwarranted.
You were correct that science is always piling up evidence and constantly changing; however, I was not suggesting otherwise. You need to construct a workable definition of creationism and a workable criteria for that definition, so we may distinguish between what is creationism and what is not creationism. Moreover, you must tell us what is unique about creationism and how can it act as a knowledge producer: what can it give us that other fields of inquiry cannot? The definition and the criteria must beat my scrutiny. We are not debating about our knowledge of evolution, so there is no reason for you to bring it up. Keep creationism separate from it. For instance, physicists do not talk about biological evolution when they are trying to produce knowledge about physics. You are trying to produce knowledge about creation.
Our understandings about God seem to be different although I could not say either are wrong; therefore, you must construct a framework that can incorporate varying conceptions of God. How does God use science to create things? that is a question you must answer, but also you must answer why it necessitates this God and why it could not be unaided nature. We have never observed "nothing." The big bang was not a beginning but an expansion of sorts. For example, LaRocco and Rothstein say, "About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang" . Notice they use expansion, not creation. Remember though, that you need to show how god uses science to create things. You cannot simply ask us the very question you must answer.
These requests are minimal in creating a field of inquiry. There is nothing here that is unwarranted or unreasonable. If you cannot meet these requests, then creationism cannot be considered a justifiable belief. Any field of science or other inquiries such as social sciences must meet these requirements, so creationism should too.
 Essential Biology, Campell, Reece, and Simon ISBN: 0-8053-6842-6. This is a standard college text.
You have attempted to say that Creationism is unjustifiable. I have in turn suggested that since you have not defined what 'Creationism' is that it is open to reasonable interpretation according to ones own understanding of the act of Creation.
You suggest that the Creationism is not possible, I postulate the exact opposite and that based on science itself the creation and manipulation of a planet is possible. Point of fact, every single 'Theory' you have expressed simply adds to the foundation of knowledge that a BEING of some sort, call it what you will... COULD create a planet and institute life upon said world through use of scientific principle.
Let me postulate further that as mankind continues to evolve in its own knowledge of science. What would stop us from taking on that same kind of role? I believe you have a very misguided understanding of what God and the act of Creation is. That is not to say I myself do not disagree with MANY people out there spouting how Creation occurred, however this is in no way means that it did not occur, and in point of fact returning to the first chapter of Genesis since honestly that is all I can use as reference material that is not 'suspect' in terms of rebuttal it fits with the CURRENT THEORETICAL EVIDENCE of how the world was formed and brought about life.
You say that Creationism is UNJUSTIFIABLE I again state that it is not UNJUSTIFIABLE rather that it depends on your understanding of the nature of God and that is an entirely different set of metrics you must thereby measure your argument against.
Do you not find it extraordinary that a people 3,000 years ago basically nailed the process whereby this planet was formed and Initiated life? That our scientist rather than finding that these things are untrue only add to the scientific body of evidence that it occurred almost exactly as written? Once again bear in mind the brevity of the chapter, the cultural understanding of the people, and the loss of knowledge as to direct versus interpreted understanding in today's world and language.
Since a Being ( lets call him God ) could organize a planet using scientific principle i.e. natural sciences, your postulation that Creationism is unjustifiable is not true. Rather SOME postulations of Creationism are unjustifiable. But then many scientist create postulations that are later discredited over the course of time, that is simply the nature of understanding. Would you throw out the entire concept of evolution simply because one scientists suggest that the fossilized remains of a 'prehistoric' man turn out to be a cousin rather than a direct descendant? Of course not.
I fear I have become too wordy, sorry, and I also fear I am beating a dead horse, ( I apologize to the horse though if indeed it is dead I suppose it does not care ) but rather than attempt to discuss the actual center of my argument that the story of Creation in Genesis is accurate you have attempted to bait me into playing a discredit science game, of which I have not and still do not believe is correct for my God is a God of Science. Hence why discredit something that is unworthy of discredit. That does not mean that I think evolutionary theory has figured everything out ( else why continue to study it ) I am all for the concept and idea that evolution has occurred, you have not scored any points there, move on and explain where I am wrong in saying that the way Genesis describes the creation of the world is incorrect and thereby unjustifiable bearing in mind that portions of it may be out of order.
Usually Creationism implies some sort of "literal" interpretation of the Bible, at least Genesis. Sorry for not making this clear; however, this has explicitly been the stance of most creationist outfits in the US. You seem to have a varying interpretation; nonetheless, you still define yourself as a creationist, which is fine.
“You suggest that the Creationism is not possible, I postulate the exact opposite and that based on science itself the creation and manipulation of a planet is possible. Point of fact, every single 'Theory' you have expressed simply adds to the foundation of knowledge that a BEING of some sort, call it what you will... COULD create a planet and institute life upon said world through use of scientific principle.”
This entire section underscores the problem I am trying to argue against, especially “call it what you will…”. Creationism implies by its very name and by the words it is associated with such as creation science that it is a field of inquiry that produces knowledge of creation. Creationism’s goals are the same regardless if one interprets creation differently. If we are free to “call it what we will,” it is no longer a field of inquiry but faith, which requires no justification and could actually be unjustified. Everyone has unjustifiable beliefs. They can become problematic in this case when we pass them along as a form of inquiry, or even as science.
“Since a Being (lets call him God) could organize a planet using scientific principle i.e. natural sciences, your postulation that Creationism is unjustifiable is not true.”
This simply does not follow. You are assuming the very thing you are trying to prove. How can God create things using science? That is the question you must answer. Again, creationism implies that this can be known without faith. If you want to have faith in this (whichever God you choose), that is fine, but you cannot pass it off as a field of inquiry. Creationism is unjustifiable in addition to the points I have already addressed because it disguises faith as inquiry, or empirical knowledge.
You have still failed to create some sort of criteria that can distinguish creationism from other kinds of knowledge production (why is creationism unique? What does it give us that other forms of knowledge production do not?). It cannot be viewed as something that incorporates all knowledge in order to produce a conception of God because it must stand on its own merits (evidence, hypotheses, etc.) and it must be unique from other forms of knowledge production such as sociology, biology, or metaphysics. Postulating that one can prove creation, then simply step-aside and claim that the creator is conceived through faith is intellectually dishonest. Creationism must be able to demonstrate how the universe was created and who created it. Notice that I used demonstrate because it implies that one uses empirical evidence and creates a testable hypothesis. You must show how creationism can create testable hypotheses to prove its claims (keep in mind that any answer you get must be uniquely creationist, meaning that you used some sort of unique criteria to evaluate your evidence). You have suggested Genesis; however, that is not testable. Creationists have failed to do what is expected of all fields of inquiry; therefore, it is an unjustifiable belief.
Innocent forfeited this round.
"Do you not find it extraordinary that a people 3,000 years ago basically nailed the process whereby this planet was formed and Initiated [sic] life? That our scientist [sic] rather than finding that these things are untrue only add to the scientific body of evidence that it occurred almost exactly as written?"
Innocent forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|