 "Photo: Elizabeth Moskowitz/The Daily Texan")
Against a backdrop of space, Hugh Ross presented a creationist model of the universe to both religious and non-religious audience members.
The department of biomedical engineering sponsored a debate on Tuesday evening in Gregory Gymnasium between creationist scholars and evolutionary experts. The Austin chapter of the Christian think tank Reasons to Believe conducted the event. The Atheist Community of Austin and the Christian organization Hill House co-sponsored the event.
Ross, founder and president of Reasons to Believe, created a presentation to illustrate the organization’s creationist model of the universe.
The existence of “fine-tuned” and “just-right” space features and Earth’s features provide evidence for a creator, Ross said. In his presentation he cited statistics, phenomena and the interpretation of Bible passages.
“We’re presenting a positive case of creationism,” he said. “We’re not trying to bash
evolution.”
Fazale Rana, vice president of research and apologetics at Reasons to Believe, gave a detailed presentation on biochemical systems, genetics and early life.
Gene expression in brain tissue is unique in humans and different from chimps — evidence for the theory of creationism, Rana said.
Michael Shermer, executive director of the Skeptics Society, presented what he called logical fallacies against the argument for creationism and also cited religious literature.
“Ross is picking and choosing biblical passages after he knows what the evidence is,” Shermer said. “the Bible is a book of mythology and history, and people will misunderstand The Bible if they interpret it the way Ross does.”
During a technology snag at the beginning of his presentation, Shermer told the audience to stand up and stretch.
“You may have heard some nonsense tonight, and I’m set to disprove that nonsense,” he said.
Some students at the debate supported evolution as the correct model of the universe and the origins of life.
“Creationism relies primarily on belief in a creator, and that’s silly,” said philosophy senior Steven Warren.
Some students countered with creationist beliefs based on religion.
“I personally believe in divine intervention,” said Elizabeth Benedict, a biology and allied health professions freshman. “I hope to get better ways to defend what I believe in.”
In response to Shermer asking whether people would give up their Christian faith if the creation model presented by Reasons to Believe was disproved, several people yelled “no.”
“I believe that answers my question,” Shermer said.
Feel free to show how you know what Bob's level of knowledge is, or what his hopes are.So are you saying that Hugh Ross is deluded, or that he's a liar? (It's OK to say you don't know; that's a perfectly valid answer, scientists use it all the time. Only creationists are always certain about these matters - and, in my experience, invariably wrong.) Because if he knows how science works, he's misrepresenting creationism as being science when he knows better.
Nobody knows-yet. Nobody even knows if something never existed; that's your assumption. If you are comfortable with the idea of an intelligent being having existed with no beginning - no birth, no culture from which to learn language, values, love, and everything else an intelligent being learns - then why do you have a problem with the idea that matter may simply always have been present? Or maybe some sort of a repeating universal cycle?"There is no scientific way to answer that question."
Feel free to support that statement. How do you know what the limits of science are?"If nothing existed, then there can't even be empty space. There can be only nothing. In fact, there MUST at some time have been only nothing."
And you know this how?"But that is scientifically impossible."
Why?OK, that's enough, I think you get the idea.Shannon, do you see that you kept making assertion after assertion without the slightest shred of evidence to support any of them? I'm not even saying you're wrong, just that it isn't enough to just insist on something without evidence, even if ultimately it turns out that you're right.Science is about evidence and research, not faith or belief. Do some scientists hold onto their ideas more dearly than they should? Possibly. Probably. They're only human; you get a great idea you want to defend it, maybe more than you should.But this isn't about that. Evolution has been researched, questioned, argued over, refined and picked at for 150 years by thousands of scientists, and it only gets stronger as the evidence accumulates, including in other disciplines such as geology. There has never been any evidence to contradict it. None. Nada.And here's the kicker: even if evolution were falsified tomorrow, it still wouldn't mean that creationism was correct, because there's absolutely NO evidence to support it, and considerable evidence against it.
God easy. No think.
You write: "does evolution prove what existed before their big bang and what caused it? NO! "
Irrelevant argument. Evolution doesn't claim to address cosmology. Its a conceptual model of speciation consistent with observable facts. "Does evolution prove how the very first living cell came into being? NO! "
Same response. The argument is irrelevant to evolution. Evolution does't claim to address abiogenesis. Its a bogus argument. "So, evolution as is commonly hyped is their FAITH."
False. Your argument is hyped as informed thought. It is, evidently, statements of irrelevant uninformed nonsense. Your infrerence of evolution being based on faith is baseless and based on emotion, not reason. " And there is so much more that points to their faith and not science, i. e., true verifiable knowledge. "
Again, completely bogus argument and absence of fact. Your argument is the height of irrationality. This whole discussion seems wildly off topic. None of the issues discussed have anything to do with whether Darwin was right or wrong. The antropic argument, that the universe is fine tuned is merely an interesting question. No one has any way of knowing how existence came to be or how the universe's properties came about. Without evidence any discussion is pure speculation. The introduction of the notion of a deity doesn't answer anything. It just gives a name to the state of not knowing and the illusion of an answer. That may feel good to those challenged with existential angst and those so indoctrinated from youth that they can't or won't use their brains, but it provides no useful information whatever.