Quote:
|
Originally Posted by prosequence
There is some truth in your sarcasm. Atoms, as well as many other scientific rules are based on theories. Not proven, not factual, just predictable.
I guess the point I was trying to make is that evolutionists accept their theories to be true, not unlike the way creationists do. So instead of calling me names, try telling me why both philosophies can't be taught.
|
I didn't call you names, i stated some facts. If you feel they reflected poorly upon you, then maybe you should re-evaluate your position.
I'm not saying that they both shouldn't be taught. What i was getting at is that they can't be put on the same level in terms of backing by empirical evidence, importance or relevance. Part of science is constant reevaluation in light of emerging evidence. No scientist worth his/her salt will tell you that any theory is absolutely correct under all circumstances. Science is the process of creating useful constructs for explaining and predicting the way a certain system works. It exists because it is useful to know how things work.
Creationism has no functional use in this respect. The fact that there are myriad of equally valid creation stories is evidence of this lack of actual relevance to anything. I could claim that the world was created in a cloud of goblinfart, and it is equally as valid as the idea that god created the world in a week.
Science is based on a philosophy, creationism is not. I think creationism suffers from an absence of philosophy. Philosophy requires constant evaluation and critical thought and is based on logical reasoning. Creationism requires little more than the ability to read the bible and a good imagination. You could argue with an evolutionist, you can't argue with a creationist because there isn't anything to argue about. Either you believe it or you don't.