Creation Science reason to believe ...

[McCulloch]

I choose to believe in creation scientist's accounts of the origin and present state of the world rather than neo-Darwinist explanations. The reason I make this choice is because neo-Darwinism doesn't take man's sinful nature into account when trying to describe the true nature of a fallen world either before the flood or afterwards.

Implicit in this statement, JCrawford is making the claim that man's sinful nature should be part of the scientific evaluation process. Questions for debate:

• Is there any scientific evidence of man's sinful nature?
• If so, does it have to have a supernatural origin?
• How should spiritual matters be used to evaluate scientific theories?

[juliod]

How should spiritual matters be used to evaluate scientific theories?

Obviously they shouldn't. One should evaluate a theory only in terms of evidence and support. It is fallacious to evaluate a theory based on one's opinions on the subject matter.

I think this point is a lot simpler than it appears. He has only done the typical old fallacy: assume his conclusions first and then view evidence in that light, rejecting real evidence that conflicts with the conclusion.

In reality there is nothing to discuss. Spiritual (whatever that might be) and supernatual things can be included in scientifi theories when there is evidence to support the existance and relevance of those things. And not before.

DanZ

[ShieldAxe]

Sin refers to religion which is supernatural. The supernatural is not part of science. Of course science cannot take into account man's sinful nature, it's scientifically meaningless.

[micatala]

The quoted statement is inferring that sin not only has a supernatural origin, but a particular supernatural origin.

By the same logic, we should dismiss all fields of study which do not take into account 'the fall' as a literal historic event. This seems to annhilate all of science as we know it, as well as any learning or scholarship that is not based on this particular interpretation of Genesis.

[QED]

I think it's pretty simple really... man evolves the smartest brain on the planet and starts thinking he must be something above and beyond all the mere "animals" around him. But then he notices that something is spoiling his new-found concepts of perfect grace and has to invent the notion of original sin to account for his occasional indiscretions.

Of course if he would only acknowledge that he had evolved from less graceful animals in the first place his notion of sin would not be such a mystery. Given that every so called sin can be seen acted out in the wild it's nonsense to suggest that it could be something altogether different in humans.[/i]

[micatala]

Given that every so called sin can be seen acted out in the wild it's nonsense to suggest that it could be something altogether different in humans

I'm not sure I buy this.

Do any animals, other than humans, go to war?

Which animals, if any, besides humans, practice killing for revenge?

What about vandalism?

Terrorism?

Is there any parallel in the non-human animal kingdom for the holocaust?

I would argue that man has shown he is capable of acts that are on a whole 'nother level of 'evil' than what occurs in the rest of the animal kingdom.

Perhaps this is the result of evolution and/or our intelligence. But it does seem to me that humans are, if not inherently different, then at least at such a different level on any spectrum of morality that we cannot really usefully apply the notion of 'sin' as it is understood in the human realm to the animal realm.

We may be biologically very much like the rest of the animal kingdom, but it does not necessarily follow from this that we are 'morally' (or shall I even venture to say, spiritually ) anything really like the rest of the animal kingdom.

[McCulloch]

Do any animals, other than humans, go to war?

I believe that there is a species of ant that conducts raids on other ant colonies.

Which animals, if any, besides humans, practice killing for revenge?

What is revenge but pre-emptive self-defence?

What about vandalism?

You have not met my cats.

Terrorism?
Is there any parallel in the non-human animal kingdom for the holocaust?

Not that I know of.

I would argue that man has shown he is capable of acts that are on a whole 'nother level of 'evil' than what occurs in the rest of the animal kingdom.

Perhaps this is the result of evolution and/or our intelligence. But it does seem to me that humans are, if not inherently different, then at least at such a different level on any spectrum of morality that we cannot really usefully apply the notion of 'sin' as it is understood in the human realm to the animal realm.

Agreed.

We may be biologically very much like the rest of the animal kingdom, but it does not necessarily follow from this that we are 'morally' (or shall I even venture to say, spiritually ) anything really like the rest of the animal kingdom.

So how do we use that to answer the questions, Is there any scientific evidence of man's sinful nature?; If so, does it have to have a supernatural origin? and How should spiritual matters be used to evaluate scientific theories?

[QED]

I'm not sure I buy this.

Do any animals, other than humans, go to war?

Which animals, if any, besides humans, practice killing for revenge?

What about vandalism?

Terrorism?

Is there any parallel in the non-human animal kingdom for the holocaust?

I would argue that man has shown he is capable of acts that are on a whole 'nother level of 'evil' than what occurs in the rest of the animal kingdom.

Perhaps this is the result of evolution and/or our intelligence. But it does seem to me that humans are, if not inherently different, then at least at such a different level on any spectrum of morality that we cannot really usefully apply the notion of 'sin' as it is understood in the human realm to the animal realm.

We certainly have to take into account our heightened powers of imagination and technology. These impress a great deal of amplification on the 'basics' and I'm sure will lead to certain amount of embroidery, but it very much seems to me that all the essential sins of the animal kingdom are at the root of our own.

We may be biologically very much like the rest of the animal kingdom, but it does not necessarily follow from this that we are 'morally' (or shall I even venture to say, spiritually ) anything really like the rest of the animal kingdom.

Surely the difference is that we do a lot of thinking about it. We have the capacity to contemplate an enormous amount of information and observation and this leads us to see the difference between what might be attained in the way of perfection and what we are capable of.

[ST88]

While I somewhat agree with your basic premise, i think you choose the wrong examples to play with:

Do any animals, other than humans, go to war?

Chimpanzee tribes war with one another -- even eating one another during wartime and not at any other time.

Alligator tribes will battle with one another.

Ant colonies will war with one another and other insect groups.

Which animals, if any, besides humans, practice killing for revenge?

Female lions that are pushed out of the pride -- for whatever reason -- have been documented coming back to kill the cubs -- and only the cubs -- of the other females that pushed her out. This happens with wolves also. Elephants have been known to hold grudges against specific humans.

What about vandalism?

Many animals urinate over the scent marks of other animals. Sometimes this is to assert territory, but other times this is a smaller or weaker animal trying to pretend to be stronger than it is. This type of behavior can be witnessed in dogs, especially male dogs. Small terriers will point their "stream" as high as they can on posts and walls. This is purportedly so that larger predators will not seek them out when they catch their scent.

Some types of crabs "decorate" their shells with living anemones and other sea life, probably as a means of both symbiotic food relationships and camouflage. Other crabs will sometimes steal these decorations, but not use them for themselves, but simply discard them.

Male bowerbirds will steal objects from each other's nests in order to enrich their own nests, and will even destroy other males' nests.

Terrorism?

That's a funny word. What exactly is "terrorism"? Sure, there is no other animal that plants bombs on itself, for example. But what are the goals of terrorism? Inflicting terror is something that animals do to each other all the time -- whether it's two male antelopes jousting, snakes inflating their hoods, cats arching their backs, or birds spreading their wings at a predator.

Is there any parallel in the non-human animal kingdom for the holocaust?

Introduced male cats will kill all kittens of which they are not the fathers. But even so, "holocausting" someone is not a specific sin -- killing is (or murder or whatever). Do animals kill when it isn't for food? Sure they do. Disputes over territory, mates, dominance... sound familiar?

I would argue that man has shown he is capable of acts that are on a whole 'nother level of 'evil' than what occurs in the rest of the animal kingdom.

Humanity has shown that it is more efficient at killing than other species. But the reasons remain.

it does seem to me that humans are, if not inherently different, then at least at such a different level on any spectrum of morality that we cannot really usefully apply the notion of 'sin' as it is understood in the human realm to the animal realm.

The only reason that "sin" is different with humans is that we have the ability to punish ourselves on a mental and emotional level.


"The only thing that separates us from the animals are mindless superstitions and pointless rituals." - Latka Gravas (Taxi)

[Jose]

• Is there any scientific evidence of man's sinful nature?
• If so, does it have to have a supernatural origin?
• How should spiritual matters be used to evaluate scientific theories?

Maybe it's the other way to. As noted above, animals do all of the things micatala mentioned. Each can be supported on the basis of biological rationale. It's only in humans that we seem to have institutionalized such sinful actions, perhaps because we're the ones with the most advanced vocabulary.

What I'm wondering here is whether our genetic instinct to "trust our own group" and be suspicious of other groups combines with our instincts as social creatures, thereby creating cultures--ways of distinguishing My Group from Others. One of the most successful group-association methods turns out to be religion, which not only builds in recommended behaviors, but also builds in punishments for not toeing the line. Such punishments include the social stigma of being labeled a sinner, and the threat of eternal damnation.

So. Are these things supernatural in origin? I rather doubt it. There are too many different religions to imagine that this could be possible. It makes a lot more sense if they are of human origin, each group developing their own Tribal Wisdom. In this context, the supernatural is of human origin.

Which means that using the spiritual (human-origin oral history) to evaluate scientific theories is, shall we say, unwarranted.