The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

By all means continue to investigate and build upon the evidence for evolution ... but what isn't acceptable ... is the outright ban on 'origins' research into the 'God did it' hypothesis.

But you haven't shown any evidence of such a ban. You just keep claiming such a ban/censorship exists.

Your still throwing ad hominisms about.

How is an ad hominism to state the obvious. Creationism is a by-product of literally reading Genesis.

This isn't about Creationism ... it's about parity of esteem between the Theistic hypothesis that 'God did it' and the Atheistic hypothesis that 'life did itself'.
Currently only the Atheistic hypothesis is tolerated in conventional 'origins' science

To repeat myself, science isn't the property of any group. And how can there be parity of esteem when creationism is demanding to be treated on a par with evolution without providing the evidence as scientists (of all religious stripes) did for evolution? What you're suggesting is a scenario at odds with what your post says, i.e. "parity of esteem".

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

it's about parity of esteem between the Theistic hypothesis that 'God did it' and the Atheistic hypothesis that 'life did itself'.
Currently only the Atheistic hypothesis is tolerated in conventional 'origins' science.

JC, there's a remarkably easy tactic to make the world sit up and take a hypothesis/theory seriously, to grant it some measure of parity with competing hypotheses/theories - produce some evidence that supports it.

It's that simple.

Any 'conventionally-qualified scientist' knows this.

Apart from you. But then, we all know why that is.

Note: this does not qualify as an ad hominem attack, just in case you feel the need to throw your latest buzz word around.

J C

koth wrote: »

But you haven't shown any evidence of such a ban. You just keep claiming such a ban/censorship exists.

I've asked you for an example of funding/support being provided by conventional science for research into the 'God did it' hypothesis ... and so far you haven't come up with even one example.

koth wrote: »

How is an ad hominism to state the obvious. Creationism is a by-product of literally reading Genesis.

Your ad hominism was your unfounded allegation of dishonesty levelled against Creationism.

koth wrote: »

To repeat myself, science isn't the property of any group.

... that's how it should be ... so please exaplain why all of the funding goes to the Atheistic hypothesis that 'life did it itself' ... and none of the funding goes to the 'God did it' hypothesis ... if 'origins' science hasn't become the property of practical Atheism?

koth wrote: »

And how can there be parity of esteem when creationism is demanding to be treated on a par with evolution without providing the evidence as scientists (of all religious stripes) did for evolution?

I'm not asking for parity of esteem for Creationism ... I'm asking for parity of esteem for Theistic hypotheses ... including Theistic Evolution ... when the 'origins' issue is being scientifically researched.

The hypothesis that 'God did it' has just as much, if not more, legitimacy as the hypothesis that 'life did itself'.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

JC, there's a remarkably easy tactic to make the world sit up and take a hypothesis/theory seriously, to grant it some measure of parity with competing hypotheses/theories - produce some evidence that supports it.

It's that simple.

Any 'conventionally-qualified scientist' knows this.

Apart from you. But then, we all know why that is.

Note: this does not qualify as an ad hominem attack, just in case you feel the need to throw your latest buzz word around.

I agree that you have made no ad hominem ... for which I thank you.

I'm not asking for any parity for Creation or Creation Science ... the question I'm asking is why conventional 'origins' science has turned into an apparent creature of practical Atheism?
... with an a priori exclusion of any 'origins' hypothesis involving God ... when such hypotheses are just as amenable to forensic scientific investigation ... and are at least as credible as the 'life did it itself' hypothesis.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I've asked you for an example of funding/support being provided by conventional science for research into the 'God did it' hypothesis ... and so far you haven't come up with even one example.

But why do I have to disprove your unfounded claims of censorship? The burden of proof is on you to prove your case.

Your ad hominism what your unfounded allegation of dishonesty levelled against Creationism.

It's not unfounded. I don't regard working towards a conclusion you've already arrived at before investigation as honest investigation.

... that's how it should be ... so please exaplain why all of the funding goes to the Atheistic hypothesis that 'life did it itself' ... and none of the funding goes to the 'God did it' hypothesis ... if 'origins' science hasn't become the property of Atheists?

So how do creationists pay the bills? What group has blacklisted creationists from engaging in scientific research? Why are scientists that support evolution not exclusively atheists? There are so many things that have to be ignored to accept your allegations of scientific corruption on a global level.

I'm not asking for parity of esteem for Creationism ... I'm asking for parity of esteem for Theistic hypotheses ... including Theistic Evolution ... when the 'origins' issue is being scientifically researched.

The hypothesis that 'God did it' has just as much, if not more, legitimacy as the hypothesis that 'life did itself'.

But all ideas aren't equal in science. Ideas gain esteem having evidence to support it and surviving rigorous peer reviews.

J C

koth wrote: »

But why do I have to disprove your unfounded claims of censorship? The burden of proof is on you to prove your case.

I've said that a hypothesis involving God isn't allowed in Conventional Science ... and you haven't denied it.
I have said that funding has never been provided by conventional science for 'origins' research into the 'God did it' hypothesis ... and you haven't denied it.
I have said that there is significant funding and support for the 'life did itself' hypothesis ... and you haven't denied this.

I'd call that proof of a bias within Conventional Science in relation to any 'origins' hypothesis involving God.

koth wrote: »

It's not unfounded. I don't regard working towards a conclusion you've already arrived at before investigation as honest investigation.

It's no more or less 'honest' than the working assumption of conventional 'origins' science that 'life did itself' ... and that all research should be directed to proving this idea.

koth wrote: »

So how do creationists pay the bills? What group has blacklisted creationists from engaging in scientific research?

The issue that I'm addressing has nothing to do with Creationism.
The issue I'm addressing is why there is no funding or support within 'origins' science for the 'God did it' hypothesis?

koth wrote: »

Why are scientists that support evolution not exclusively atheists?

That's a very good question. At one level I even 'support' evolution (using pre-existing genetic diversity). Indeed when it comes to day to day operative science issues, I'm a 'practical atheist' myself.
Other Theists will have to answer for themselves.

koth wrote: »

There are so many things that have to be ignored to accept your allegations of scientific corruption on a global level.

It isn't 'corruption' ... just bias ... which is legitimate and inevitable amongst us Humans.
We're all potentially biased ... its just that the Atheists on this thread seem to have a problem admitting that they could also be biased by their worldview.

koth wrote: »

But all ideas aren't equal in science. Ideas gain esteem having evidence to support it and surviving rigorous peer reviews.

It's very true that all ideas shouldn't get equal weight ... but that's no excuse for banning an idea outright ... especially when the idea that life had an Intelligent origin is a very credible idea indeed.
If you ban an idea outright ... you strangle it at birth, so to speak ... and it never gets the chance to 'evolve' into a better idea or to tigger an even better idea.
Science should be encouraging new/different ideas.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I've said that a hypothesis involving God isn't allowed in Conventional Science ... and you haven't denied it.
I have said that funding has never been provided by coonventional science for 'origins' research into the 'God did it' hypothesis ... and you haven't denied it.
I have said that there is significant funding and support for the 'life did itself' hypothesis ... and you haven't denied this.

I have stated that science follows the evidence. At worst, I've stated that evidence hasn't been provided to support creationism. That in no way means that I agree with your allegations of atheism perverting scientific inquiry.

I'd call that proof that there is an absolute ban within Conventional Science in relation to any 'origins' hypothesis involving God.

Would you care to provide links to a governing body of the relevant scientific body that has made such implemented such a ban?

It's no more or less 'honest' than the working assumption of conventional 'origins' science that 'life did itself' ... and that all research should be directed to proving this idea.

But that's not what happened. Creationism was the idea at one point in time, then evidence was gathered that proved otherwise. It wasn't an assumption but rather research that lead to evolution gaining acceptance in the scientific world.

The issue that I'm addressing has nothing to do with Creationism.
The issue I'm addressing is why 'origins' science appears to have become a creature of Atheism?

It only appears that way to you because it's "Creationism or atheism" for you.

That's a very good question. At one level I even 'support' evolution (using pre-existing genetic diversity).
Other Theists will have to answer for themselves.

It isn't 'corruption' ... just bias ... which is legitimate and inevitable amongst us Humans.
We're all potentially biased ... its just that the Atheists on this thread seem to have a problem admitting the they could also be biased by their worldview.

And that creates a problem for you regarding all the religious scientists that accept evolution. Their worldview would create a bias in opposition to evolution by your reasoning, yet the are able to accept it.

It's very true that all ideas shouldn't get equal weight ... but that's no excuse for banning an idea outright ... especially when the idea that life had an Intelligent origin is a very credible idea indeed.

Yes, but creationism is a step further than just an intelligence creating life. It's the claim that the Christian God as found in the bible created humans and the universe. The idea is banned, it's just that people understand that creationism is a fundamentalist Christian belief rather than a result of scientific research.

J C

koth wrote: »

I have stated that science follows the evidence. At worst, I've stated that evidence hasn't been provided to support creationism. That in no way means that I agree with your allegations of atheism perverting scientific inquiry.

Atheism isn't perverting science ... its' just succeeded (possibly beyond its wildest dreams) in dominating 'origins' research.
When you think about it, it isn't surprising that a worldview for which science is a natural ally has come to dominate science.

koth wrote: »

Would you care to provide links to a governing body of the relevant scientific body that has made such implemented such a ban?

Its a working principle in operative science that hypotheses involving superatural phenomena are excluded ... and I have no proplem with this foundational principle in day to day operative science.
... but 'origins' science isn't operative science ... it is a forensic science that is evaluating evidence at a distance of time and space ... a very long distance ... if you believe in an 'Old Earth'.
... and when it come to the 'origins' of life there are two strong competing hypotheses ... that 'life did itself' ... and 'God did it'.

koth wrote: »

But that's not what happened. Creationism was the idea at one point in time, then evidence was gathered that proved otherwise. It wasn't an assumption but rather research that lead to evolution gaining acceptance in the scientific world.

You are correct that Evolution had to initially 'earn' its reputation and a lot of hard work was put into doing this and Evolution is now the dominant scientific theory of 'origins'.
... However, nothing stands still, and Evolution is not the only 'origins' theory ... and other scientists haven't been sleeping either ... and thus the 'God hypothesis' is now a very serious competitor to the 'it did it itself' hypothesis.

koth wrote: »

It only appears that way to you because it's "Creationism or atheism" for you.

It appears that way because it is that way ... because the only thing conventional 'origins' science does is to study and test various 'it did it itself' hypotheses.

koth wrote: »

And that creates a problem for you regarding all the religious scientists that accept evolution. Their worldview would create a bias in opposition to evolution by your reasoning, yet the are able to accept it.

The commitment of Theists to one particular worldview is logically less than that of Atheists ... because there is only 'one game in town' if you are an Atheist and that is 'life did itself' ... whereas if you are a Theist ... there is a continuum of worldviews that you can hold to ... and move between (whilst still being a Theist) ranging from Direct Creation right through to the idea that God 'lit the fuse' of the Big Bang and then went off for a (very) long game of Golf ... and everything in-between. This is why Theists may be either Evolutionists or Creationists ... but you never find Atheists who are Creationists.

koth wrote: »

Yes, but creationism is a step further than just an intelligence creating life. It's the claim that the Christian God as found in the bible created humans and the universe. The idea is banned, it's just that people understand that creationism is a fundamentalist Christian belief rather than a result of scientific research.

... and that is why I wouldn't expect that Conventional Science would do Creation Science research ...
... but I would expect that Conventional Science would be pursuing some research into the 'God did it' hypothesis ... even in relation to biogenesis and evolution, for example.

Masteroid

J C wrote: »

I've asked you for an example of funding/support being provided by conventional science for research into the 'God did it' hypothesis ... and so far you haven't come up with even one example.

There isn't one because science is funded.

Science should be funded, religion shouldn't.

J C

Masteroid wrote: »

There isn't one because science is funded.

Science should be funded, religion shouldn't.

If that is going to be the position then operative science (the kind of work that cures cancer, builds better cars, etc.) should be funded ... and 'origins' science that is currently exclusively focussed on shoring up the Atheistic religious premise that 'life created itself' should receive no more Theist tax dollars ... or at least no more money until parity of funding is given to the Theistic 'origins' hypothesis that 'God did it'.

Delirium

JC, I want to ask you the following to get an idea as to what you want scientists to do differently.

To take a simple example, scientists have a working knowledge of how an electric kettle boils water. Why should they also investigate to see if an (as yet) undetectable cosmic agent is involved? And if they shouldn't investigate if God is boiling the water, why not? How has Gods involvement in the boiling process been ruled out?

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

They're not spending 'big money' .... they're spending no money on the hypothesis that 'God did it'... and the argument that it is 'against accepted science' is a circular one, if the 'God did it' hypothesis has never been properly investigated, in the first place.

Nobody spent any money either on relativity until after Einstein came up with it and showed how it better modelled the universe than previous theories.

Didn't stop it quickly becoming widely accepted and standard.

doctoremma

JC, whether you have "conventional qualifications" in a scientific discipline is by the by. What's clear is that you are not scientific, and nor do you have any experience of acquiring funding to support scientific research.

Research funding is not handed out willy-nilly by any funding body, even, dare I say it, those sponsoring "creation science". To apply for money, you need:
1. a hypothesis
2. pilot data to justify and support your hypothesis
3. a clear outline of the research you will conduct to build your hypothesis into a solid theory
4. an important impact in the research area (we'll assume that any "god dunnit" research would have this!)

You then submit what you think is a sure thing to a funding body and get it rejected. Then rinse and repeat several times, until someone takes pity on you and gives you a quarter of the money you asked for to do twice as many experiments....

koth wrote: »

To take a simple example, scientists have a working knowledge of how an electric kettle boils water. Why should they also investigate to see if an (as yet) undetectable cosmic agent is involved? And if they shouldn't investigate if God is boiling the water, why not? How has Gods involvement in the boiling process been ruled out?

This is an excellent analogy and it would be interesting to see your response. And with Koth's permission, let's take it a bit further.

So, to go with Koth's analogy, let's say that as part of my research, I start to notice that the electrical>thermal energy created by a kettle (while accounting for known inefficiencies in the system) isn't sufficient to boil the water i.e. there must be another input. This is an interesting observation. I start to search for the source of the unknown input. I run several experiments, maybe checking to see I've created some new electrical>thermal transfer system because the element in my kettle has decayed into some previously unknown metal alloy. Or whatever - you get my point.

So, maybe I'm thinking "This is odd, I can't seem to identify what this extra input is, perhaps it's god".

How on this very earth do you propose to write up that hypothesis and pilot data for a funding body, hoping that they'll give you money to demonstrate that the extra input is god? What experiments would you design? How can you prove it's god and not some as yet undiscovered natural process?

The answer is: you can't. You would be submitting an entirely unscientific and untestable work proposal and that's why "god dunnit" research doesn't get funded or published in mainstream science. "God dunnit" is not "experimental research", it's "interpretation". And the only space it can occupy is in the gaps in our knowledge.

doctoremma

I will also add to the above, there ARE examples where the (inferred) existence of god has been tested in mainstream science, in aspects where there are quantifiable outcomes. For example, the impact of prayer has been studied, because we can formulate a hypothesis, design an experiment and form a conclusion.

J C

koth wrote: »

JC, I want to ask you the following to get an idea as to what you want scientists to do differently.

To take a simple example, scientists have a working knowledge of how an electric kettle boils water. Why should they also investigate to see if an (as yet) undetectable cosmic agent is involved? And if they shouldn't investigate if God is boiling the water, why not? How has Gods involvement in the boiling process been ruled out?

There are no arguments between Theists and Atheists over how a kettle boils water.

Such investigations are carried out using operative science ... and I've already said that supernatural causes don't need to be considered for these day to day issues ... and as an operative scientist myself, I have no problem with this foundational principle of operative science.
... but 'origins' science isn't operative science, like measuring how a kettle boils water ... it is a forensic science that is evaluating evidence at a distance of time and space ... a very long distance ... if you believe in an 'Old Earth'.
... and when it come to the 'origins' of life there are two strong competing hypotheses ... that 'life did itself' ... and 'God did it'.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Nobody spent any money either on relativity until after Einstein came up with it and showed how it better modelled the universe than previous theories.

Didn't stop it quickly becoming widely accepted and standard.

The Atheistic or Theist worldviews weren't substantially affected by Einstein or his theories ... so why wouldn't the evidence be dispassionately evaluated.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

I will also add to the above, there ARE examples where the (inferred) existence of god has been tested in mainstream science, in aspects where there are quantifiable outcomes. For example, the impact of prayer has been studied, because we can formulate a hypothesis, design an experiment and form a conclusion.

This is fairly 'light' stuff ... benefits from prayer may be due to any number of reasons, including placebo effects.
It's a good idea to do it ... but the issue that has the really serious implications for both the Atheistic and Theistic worldviews is the 'origins' issue.

If it can be proven that everything 'did itself' then it is only a matter of time until we all become Atheists/Agnostics ... and if it can be proven that 'God/an Intelligence did it' ... then this is a serious difficulty for Atheism ... doubly so, when objective physical observation (the very stuff that Atheism is grounded on) is proving that 'God did it'.
The stakes could not be higher ... and when they are that high ... its only eqitable that both sides be given the same resources ... and neither worldview should be favoured.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

There are no arguments between Theists and Atheists over how a kettle boils water.

Such investigations are carried out using operative science ... and I've already said that supernatural causes don't need to be considered for these day to day issues ... and as an operative scientist myself, I have no problem with this foundational principle of operative science.
... but 'origins' science isn't operative science, like measuring how a kettle boils water ... it is a forensic science that is evaluating evidence at a distance of time and space ... a very long distance ... if you believe in an 'Old Earth'.
... and when it come to the 'origins' of life there are two strong competing hypotheses ... that 'life did itself' ... and 'God did it'.

But science works on investigating how things work. You can't just arbitrarily decide which avenues of research require searching for influence of God and which don't. Science should investigate everything to the same standard.

You're delineating an area of investigation that must search for God purely because evolution is contentious for creationists. This, IMO, is a bad basis for science to operate under.

Masteroid

J C wrote: »

If that is going to be the position then operative science (the kind of work that cures cancer, builds better cars, etc.) should be funded ... and 'origins' science that is currently exclusively focussed on shoring up the Atheistic religious premise that 'life created itself' should receive no more Theist tax dollars ... or at least no more money until parity of funding is given to the Theistic 'origins' hypothesis that 'God did it'.

You are saying it all wrong.

'People' apply for science funding and 'boards' make the decision whether to grant it or not.

Now, everyone wants money and many people will go to great lengths to get that money so the 'board' has to be discerning.

Some people even make spurious claims in order to get their hands on money.

Your problem is with 'boards', not science.

So really, you are accusing the boards of being atheistic and allocating funding only to science that supports the atheist position.

A bit like how government will only fund scienctists whose conclusions can be used to justify 'green taxes'.

Okay, I would concede that bias of the board will have an effect on allocation priorities but even a biassed board would occasionally have to appear unbiassed and award money to projects that the board do not support or their bias would be exposed.

They would have to. If they didn't then mainstream science would eventually get up in arms about it and insist on a change of management and an investigation into corruption.

Christian scientists, Muslim scientists and Jewish scientists alike would notice such a bias if it existed and would respond with a majority voice.

It appears then that the boards have managed to hide their bias by appearing to treat all religions equally. Every now and then they throw a bit of funding into projects run by religiously disposed scientists to throw us off the scent.

It might be that he bias of the board allows them to award funds to 'atheist science' in spite of the fact that their application is scientifically invalid but a scientificall invalid application is all they need in order to refuse funding.

And creationists make it easy to refuse funding.

'Hypothesis - Goddunnit

Evidence to Support Hypothesis - It says so in the bible whose truth is beyond the scope of the investigation and whose conclusions are intrinsically valid. Also, I can feel it in my gut.

Usefulness - Since evolutionary biology contradicts the hypothesis and since the bible contains only facts then the modern scientific view is mistaken in its understanding of God.

Methodology - We intend to collect many geological samples which we will carbon-date. We will create two age categories and divide the samples into two piles. One pile will be samples that are 10,000 years or younger and there will be nothing in the other pile. This will prove the earth is only 10,000 years old exposing current biology as the heresy it is in the minds of all God's children.'

Sorry J C but you will have to go back to the old method of obtaining free wealth and dust off your collection plate and pass it among the ignorant masses.

What's next, funding into research of the supernatural reason that tarot cards appear in a different order each time they are shuffled and dealt?

Masteroid

J C wrote: »

... and when it come to the 'origins' of life there are two strong competing hypotheses ... that 'life did itself' ... and 'God did it'.

Not true. Science has not determined that life did itself or that God didn't do it.

Science looks at what is and asks, 'How?'

Creationists already know 'How?' so why investigate further?

I wish you would stop putting these false dichotomies out.

The 'Goddunnit' hypothesis is weak, it has no evidential support outside of the bible and simply does not deserve to be considered a hypothesis at all.

The board is entirely right to refuse your nonsense application.

J C

koth wrote: »

But science works on investigating how things work. You can't just arbitrarily decide which avenues of research require searching for influence of God and which don't. Science should investigate everything to the same standard.

You're delineating an area of investigation that must search for God purely because evolution is contentious for creationists. This, IMO, is a bad basis for science to operate under.

It isn't arbitrary ... the 'origins' issue is a totally separate area of science ... that goes to the heart of both Theist and Atheist belief systems. This isn't 'ordinary' operative science like investigating how a kettle boils.

The 'God did it' hypothesis is contentious for Atheists ... and guess what ... conventional science has never funded any 'origins' research on this hypothesis.
This is prima facie evidence of Atheist ideas dominating this area of conventional scientific research.

Delirium

So what data do creationists have to justify funding their continued investigations into how God did it?

Funding is given, as mentioned above, not by scientists but by boards. If creationists are unable convince the boards to fund their research that would mean their evidence is lacking (or missing entirely).

Science isn't operating on an atheist agenda as you keep incorrectly claiming. Where is the evidence to justify the funding? Why can't they get a board anywhere in the world to fund the research?

J C

Masteroid wrote: »

Not true. Science has not determined that life did itself or that God didn't do it.

Science looks at what is and asks, 'How?'

Creationists already know 'How?' so why investigate further?

I wish you would stop putting these false dichotomies out.

The 'Goddunnit' hypothesis is weak, it has no evidential support outside of the bible and simply does not deserve to be considered anhypothesis at all.

The board is entirely right to refuse your nonsense application.

You are prejudging every Theistic proposal as 'nonesense' ... which is simply your Atheist bias coming out.
The only way it will be discovered whether it's all 'nonesense' or not, is if it is allowed to be scientifically evaluated ... in an open-minded environment ... where Theist beliefs are treated with equal respect to Atheist ones.

Masteroid

And funding creationism would expose the board's bias towards creationism.

J C

koth wrote: »

So what data do creationists have to justify funding their continued investigations into how God did it?

Funding is given, as mentioned above, not by scientists but by boards. If creationists are unable convince the boards to fund their research that would mean their evidence is lacking (or missing entirely).

Science isn't operating on an atheist agenda as you keep incorrectly claiming. Where is the evidence to justify the funding? Why can't they get a board anywhere in the world to fund the research?

Creationists are lucky to have independent funding for their research.
My question isn't why Creationist research isn't funded by Conventional Science ... we neither need nor want such funding ... and we wouldn't get it, even if we did.
My question is why Conventional Science hasn't funded other 'God did it' 'origins' research ... if it isn't dominated and controlled by the ideas of practical Atheism?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Creationists are lucky to have independent funding for their research.
My question isn't why Creationist research isn't funded by Conventional Science ... we neither need nor want such funding ... and we wouldn't get it, even if we did.
My question is why Conventional Science hasn't funded other 'God did it' 'origins' research ... if it isn't dominated and controlled by the ideas of practical Atheism?

what other 'God did it' research? I'm only aware of creationism. Can you give a list of these other 'God did it' ideas/groups?

J C

koth wrote: »

what other 'God did it' research? I'm only aware of creationism. Can you give a list of these other 'God did it' ideas/groups?

Intelligent Design Advocates and Theistic Evolutionists are two of these groups ... but it is a bit of a 'chicken and egg' ... if the 'God did it' hypothesis is never funded or allowed to develop ... it doesn't usually develop.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Intelligent Design Advocates and Theistic Evooutionists are two of these groups ... but it is a bit of a 'chicken and egg' ... if the 'God did it' hypothesis is never funded or allowed to develop ... it doesn't usually develop.

ID (usually) is creationism rebranded (due to to legal problems in the US regarding religion in schools).

What evidence is there for theistic evolution? This would mean that God is at some point an active agent in a stage of evolution.

If either of these groups had compelling evidence I don't see why they wouldn't get funding. Have you evidence that such a thing has happened?

Masteroid

J C wrote: »

You are prejudging every Theistic proposal as 'nonesense' ... which is simply your Atheist bias coming out.
The only way it will be discovered whether it's all 'nonesense' or not, is if it is allowed to be scientifically evaluated ... in an open-minded environment ... where Theist beliefs are treated with equal respect to Atheist ones.

Atheists know that if its proven that 'life didn't do itself' ... the 'game would be up' for Atheism ... so they have deftly applied the 'no supernatural causes' condition of operative science to the forensic 'origins' sciences as well ... and, by this simple manoeuvre, a Theistic foot isn't allowed inside the funding doors that they control.

Of course, Theists are allowed inside institutions that are controlled by Atheists on their terms to do research that they approve of ... which always excludes any 'God did it' hypotheses.
All the better to keep Theist tax money of flowing smoothly ... when you have plenty of Theists working away on 'Atheist-safe' projects. Its a 'win-win' for Atheism ... it gets the Atheist-friendly work done ... and paid for!!!

Whew! Now that I've stopped laughing I can say how ridiculous your most recent rant is.

Your hypothesis has been scientifically evaluated as scientifically unevaluable and as such does not reach the criteria required to receive funding from a board that is concerned with the administration of monies ear-marked for the scientific disciplines.

You are not entitled to funds allocated to science in the same way that you are not entitled to funding from the athletics association or the arts council. It is not the responsibility of the science funders to fund research into creationism any more than it is the responsibility of the World Wildlife Fund or OxFam.

Science is not in bed with atheism, evolution simply allowed for a symbiotic relationship to develop between them and this relationship is Naturally Selected.

Creationism is like a poodle in this respect, it has come to an evolutionary dead-end.

I wonder if I could get funding in order to show the truth of my last statement. :P

J C

koth wrote: »

ID (usually) is creationism rebranded (due to to legal problems in the US regarding religion in schools).

What evidence is there for theistic evolution? This would mean that God is at some point an active agent in a stage of evolution.

If either of these groups had compelling evidence I don't see why they wouldn't get funding. Have you evidence that such a thing has happened?

I am unaware of any Conventional Science funding for either Intelligent Design or Theistic Evolution research.
This is prima facie evidence of a bias against both of these Theist 'origins' hypotheses within conventional science.