Amazon.com Widgets

Science Is Far More Honest Than Creationism?

Asked by: Sagey
  • Science Is Entirely Evidence Based and States It Does Not Know About Things Without Evidence For Them, Where Creationism Makes Blind Assertions Without Evidence:

    EVOLUTION?
    Living organisms change over time due to genetic drift, mutations and genetic variation in sexual propagation, and these changes are affected and selected by environmental pressures, which is called Natural Selection.
    Darwin and Wallace saw how artificial selection produced changes in organisms, ( mustard to broccoli, wolves to domestic dogs) and wondered if nature happened to select for traits in a similar process, and found it did. This became the Theory of Natural Selection, now the major component of The Theory Of Evolution.
    All concepts of Evolution have come about through observation and comparison of morphology in species and the fossil record.
    Such as Birds share the same taxonomic Clade as Dinosaurs like the T-Rex, and recent findings make it appear very likely that the Pelican is a closer relative to the T-Rex than the Triceratops.

    This is an Honest appraisal of the Evidence as the Evidence demonstrates to Science.

    Yet Creationists criticize this and assert that God created all things according to their own Kind.
    Which there is absolutely no evidence for, only some writing in a Book by naive goat/sheep/camel herders who likely learned their knowledge from a Hallucination, possibly when the sufferer was overly dehydrated and tired. Yes, this can cause Hallucinations.

    Thus, Here, Science is more Honest.

    THE BIG BANG HYPOTHESIS/THEORY?
    The Big Bang is called a Theory because it is currently the best Hypothesis of many Hypotheses.
    It is the only one that explains why all bodies in our universe are accelerating away from a single point in space. It does not say that there was an explosion. The correct name for the 'Big Bang' is the "Big Expansion'. Nowhere in the Big Bang Hypothesis does it state that there was an explosion.
    The Hypothesis states that we do not know what actually happened or how the expansion actually initiated, it only states that the Expansion (which is obvious) exists.
    Observations and tracking of Cosmic bodies has confirmed this expansion, so it confirms the Big (Expansion) Bang.
    So the BBT is totally confirmed by the Evidence of 200 years of observation, tracking all the movements of Cosmic bodies (Galaxies) back to a single origin/point.

    Creationism has no such Observable Evidence.
    Science states it does not know how the Big Expansion started and has thousands of Hypotheses as to how it may have started, with none of them accepted as Gospel.
    Creationism accepts a God-Did-It explanation as Gospel, without any Evidence apart from something a Naive Sheep/Goat/Camel herder wrote 4000 years ago.

    Thus Science is far more honest with it's "We Don't Know What Started The Big Expansion Because We Were Not Around At The Time!"

    Than Creation with it's Extremely Less Honest "God Started The Universe Because a Book Says 'So!"
    How do they know God did it, because the Writers were not there and their hearing God talking to them is more likely from Schizophrenia.

    Thus Science is far more Honest and Truthful than Creationism.

  • Yes because scientists are actually trying to find out where earth came from, but creationists are leaving it to a book

    Scientists around the world are working hard to find out how life evolved and where it originally came from. I would like to think this kind of work was more valuable than preaching about creation. Creationists believe in a book which they cant prove who wrote it, but science is based on the pure theory and fact attained through proof.

  • By its very nature.

    Science, by its very nature, is honest in that it CANNOT lie.

    A theory can be presented that is wrong, but it's not wrong based on deceit, it's wrong based on estimations from limited information. And improved upon when possible.

    Creationism is an impossible concept from the very start, and has to twist and form reality to try and suit it's story, which is about as dishonest as it gets.

    Science, by it's very nature, is simply our fumbling about the reality of things until they come into perspective.

  • Supported by evidence

    In regards to certainty, science releases statements about findings after a vast amount of research has been conducted, when that research has supported the theory, when the validity and possible bias of the study is scrutinized by peer review, and when the results of the study are replicated by similar studies.
    Additionally, science includes a number with its findings that indicate the likelihood that the findings were due to chance. It's extremely difficult to falsify research with these safeguards in place.

    Conversely, Creationism needs only one source, and it perpetuates claims through steadfast faith in that source and denial of evidence to the contrary. Even the well-thought arguments against evolution (such as the Blind Watchmaker, Why Monkeys still exist even though we evolved from them, and Irreducible Complexity) have all been shown to be Strawman Fallacies, proposed without full understanding of what theories of evolution are actually claiming.

  • 'Honest' is a strange word to use but ok.

    First and formost, an assumption is defined as something you CANNOT know. Every being with higher cognition AKA humans require to assume these three things at all times: 1.) the observable universe is real. 2.) we can interact with said universe 3.) certain mechanisms in this universe allow predictable outcomes, therefore enabling us to expect. Religion arrogantly breaks all three requirements by stating their beliefs as fact. No one can truly know or even prove to me that they are real, or that they are not a figment of my imagination. No one can prove to me that this universe is stagnant and unchanging because I see myself interacting with this universe and vice versa. No one can truly know that free will exists. It's all an illusion. http://www.debate.org/debates/Free-Will-Is-Quite-Illusory/1/ So by the end of the day, science is science and creationism is intellectually dishonest.

  • Yes it is

    With science, you can actually find and confirm answers. With creationism, you can invent your own myths and call it science. We know science works, that's why we trust it so much. If science makes mistakes then those mistakes can be fixed using science. Science requires humility, creationism requires blindness .

  • Science is definitely more honest.

    Science does not care how politically correct the answers are, nor how many people will be offended. The scientific method serves to help us understand our world, not censor the unwanted or disturbing parts. On top of that, science has no trouble admitting that there are things that are unknown.

  • Yes of Course.

    Science is evidence and experiment based. The things that arent known arent known. And if science wouldnt be honest, then we are talking about believing. Meanwhile religion isnt based on evidence, but on myts,peoples faughts and unknowledge... Science cant be expressed as honest because science are just facts, religion are all myths.

  • Pure science is blind & so is pure religion

    For one to just state that it was all science or all religion, is ignorant. This is best put by a great philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche who states that science becomes a religion. In a way, this is true. Both have a preaching
    "In the name of science or science says so." than on a religion aspect "In the name of God or God says so.". Both follow setup guidelines, try to answer the universe, have "books" etc. .

    For one to more honest than the other is inane. One tries to find the answer, while the other has the solution. Science has been wrong countless times through the course of events. The definition of Honest is as follows "free of deceit and untruthfulness; sincere." I would like to highlight the word sincere. In Science nothing is proven. Everything must be questioned, and anything can change. For the longest time we believed we were the center of the Universe, which of course was wrong. Thus Science is never "honest", but rather trying to be honest, and so is religion.

    EVOLUTION:
    I would also like to answer the that Evolution can fit with religion. Like myself, I would say that evolution does occur, but through God's will. People should not focus on word for word in the Bible, there are hidden meanings, and personal opinions as well, just like in any other book. To focus on pure extremists, would silly.

    BIG BANG
    Science has not been able to give a definitive answer on the Big Bang, works. I would like to quote Sagey that says "We Don't Know What Started The Big Expansion Because We Were Not Around At The Time!" Then again we were not there for the Big Bang so I can we know for sure? Yes of course the expanding Universe etc., for proof, but then again isn't the existence reality, and physical being from nothing shows that God exists before existence itself? That we were created from nothing by God's works? Don't think that religion things that everything magically appeared, but rather Science is the study of God's work.

    In the end we must question everything, that nothing is for certain. There is always a chance that something could happen, like your chair turns into a cow. We have theories from Multi-Universe to "nothing being real".
    Then there could be a chance that God exists is not so preposterous.

    I finally want to clear up "Why does God not save us from terrorists or hunger etc.?" I want you to remind that God gives free will to people. That people are able to chose their own destiny. If God came down and ended world hunger, we would lose free will. We would all know God exists, and the rely on him to fix everything and do everything. God would be breaking his own promise to us. That is why God doesn't fix everything, it gives us free will, and with free will comes evil.

  • Too funny !!!

    Science has become politicized, to the point that scientists are blacklisted for disagreeing with the majority consensus. Scientists don't even have to mention Creation. If they disagree with uncle Darwin. They get the boot. It's happened many times. A quick Google search will confirm this. You are full of SH*T.

  • Both Abiogenesis and Creationism both hold some similar degree of truth

    Abiogenesis is the scientifically accepted theory of origin. Creationism may be considered by some a science, however, this is debatable. Creationism, I believe is more of a philosophy. When I speak of creationism, I am not referring to young earth creationism, but simply the idea of a being that created or led to the creation of the universe or the creation of lifelife. In this interpretation, these two theories do not conflict in any way. The only truth that is questionable, is whether or not another being caused the first life to appear. The logic of both sides are reasonable. Creationists believe God led to the events which caused life, and it's opponents believe that a series of chemical reactions happened by chance.

    Posted by: Nawl
  • No it isn't

    Science is not more "honest." Both serve as a mean to understand mysteries in our universe. Both are very passionate in their understanding. To say it's more honest, means the other is lying or in the more accurate case, hiding something. Creationism isn't hiding anything. It spells it out in Black and White what happened and Science is often in a constant battle to disprove it.

    Science has a lot of holes, therefore making it less honest. Evolution is a widely accepted solution but it has flaws as evolution has never been recorded to occur between two species, only different variants of the same species through natural selection.

    Both sides will argue the flaws of the other but to say Science is more honest with what it says is false by it's ability to change and it's common holes in it's theories

  • Science engages in just as much misinformation than religion.

    At times it may not be as much as religion, but science can be dishonest. Your senses and observation can lie to you.

    For example the theory of the Four Humors as a theory for human physiology was wrong, but was practiced for hundreds of years which resulted in many deaths by the practice of bleeding.

    Mount Everest is not the tallest mountain in the world. Mauna Kea in Hawaii is 4,000 feet taller than Mount Everest when counting the part that hidden underwater.

    Information can also be easily manipulated.

    Polls are a good example of this. Poll results not only lie most of the time, but are poorly conducted amongst the test groups by using vague questions.

    Science needs to be kept under check least it becomes a religion.

  • Science engages in just as much misinformation than religion.

    At times it may not be as much as religion, but science can be dishonest. Your senses and observation can lie to you.

    For example the theory of the Four Humors as a theory for human physiology was wrong, but was practiced for hundreds of years which resulted in many deaths by the practice of bleeding.

    Mount Everest is not the tallest mountain in the world. Mauna Kea in Hawaii is 4,000 feet taller than Mount Everest when counting the part that hidden underwater.

    Information can also be easily manipulated.

    Polls are a good example of this. Poll results not only lie most of the time, but are poorly conducted amongst the test groups by using vague questions.

    Science needs to be kept under check least it becomes a religion.

  • Evolutionism is a theory, not scientific law

    Science is essentially a human explanation and/or observation of our perception of the universe. True, gravity can be proven, true that you can find links between us and human, but we can not entirely base our opinions based on a few correlations. Science in the past has been wrong many time such as the spontaneous generation theory of life. So we cannot percieve that science is any more reliable and honest if it is constantly morphing from our past and learning. Before we find the complete percieved truth in science about our origins, creationism is your best bet.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
LogicalLunatic says2014-08-17T00:21:40.487
Pfft...
Sagey says2014-08-17T11:02:11.507
The Creationist comments in these Opinions only exposes their lack of scientific knowledge, I find it funny how Creationists continually attack the one Subject they Cannot Understand: Evolution. They know absolutely Zip about Evolution.
Maybe they would be better accepted and less ridiculed if they actually opposed something they understood.