Now, if the discussion were about teaching anthropomorphic climate change instead of the “God is making it warmer”, then that example might be relevant.

The theories used to explain how evolution occurs have far more testing and far more data than do the theories explaining climate change. There is no dispute in the scientific community that evolution occurs.

As long as we are also teaching children the fundamentals of the scientific method, there is no problem with teaching the current scientific understanding with the caveat that with new data, those theories might change. We should still teach Newtonian physics even through in some circumstances they are flawed.

There were also models for global warming with claims of settled science and we all know what nonsense that turned out to be.

As we have learned models are not proof of anything other than what theory needs hyping at the moment.

Yes, which means at present we have models which fit the accumulated data. However, that does not mean we might not get new data that contradicts the models and that would be cause new hypotheses to be devised. Further, none of this provides any credence to the idea that man “popped” into existence fully formed. Thinking that a revision of models or quantum mechanics might provide such support is folly.

“Highly ordered does not by definition equate to proof of a designer.”

I agree. However, there is no question that the standard big bang model, which claims that there was nothing, then something, is a scientific theory. In this instance, a highly ordered physical reality comes about virtually instantaneously. Compare that theory to quantum theory, which allows for fantastically improbable events to happen. For example, quantum mechanically, is it possible for the Red Sea to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7). The answer to that question is yes.
http://everythingimportant.org/quantumcreationism/

While the second statement has some truth, it in no way supports the first statement. Highly ordered does not by definition equate to proof of a designer. There are many molecules that exist in nature that are highly ordered which are not created. My statement still stands: there are no scientific theories of creationism. Creationism is not science.

(Also from #41)
As you suspect, the whole debate about the validity of creationism is really about the definition of science.

This statement is also false. There is very clear delineation from what is considered science and what is not. Penrose has, I’m sure, proposed a falsifiable hypothesis which requires new data to be gathered. That data will either support his hypothesis in which case the cosmological community will change their mind, or cause his hypothesis to be rejected at which point he’ll evaluate the new data and change his mind.

(Also from #51)
Tell that to the vast consensus of mainstream physicists that teach that the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness

That cosmologists change their opinions about how the universe was created in no way supports the idea of a creator nor suggests that mainstream physicists are wrong or right. They either have hypotheses that fit the data or they do not.

We don’t yet know about the validity of Penrose’s hypothesis to which he himself admitted. He needs more data. In your link, he even mentioned that many theories have been proposed about the nature of the beginning and ending of the universe. At one point, leading cosmologies felt that the universe would end with a big crunch. With new data, they now no longer believe that.

So that brings us back to #76 (and #81). You appear to be hinting that “highly ordered” = “created”. This of course does not follow. Something can occur naturally and be highly ordered. I understand Penrose’s idea. What I fail to see is how it supports any position you have proposed in this thread.

I don’t know where it best fits, but the big bang is irrelevant in a discussion of creationism whether it was organized or not, or any other adjective that might be applied.

Religion/God==belief regardless of facts.

Science==belief based on best evidence of reproducible events.

You do the math, or keep the faith.

Sir Roger Penrose was discussing the standard big-bang model. Did you understand what he meant by a “highly ordered” beginning followed by death and non-existence?

That was dodgeball. You got bruised but bad. He he he.

What was once unfathomable becomes understood, unless you apply religion to it which requires mysticism and a great dollop of non-think.

It appears to me that you’re arguing that species devolve instead adapt and evolve to the environment. This means there was a race of superhuman beings in the distant past and we’re on a steady decline to what?

Just as the universe began in an unfathomably great, highly ordered state and is in the process of decaying into inevitable extinction and non-existence (Sir Roger Penrose is right about that), so too will all life on this planet become extinct.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that points towards a single creator or even single non-Terran species.

I’m not arguing for the existence of a Creator. I’m only pointing out what mainstream physicists teach. You either understand Sir Roger Penrose or you don’t. What is your objection to his 2-minute comment referenced in post # 41?

You often see this argumentative tactic by the pro-creation lobbyists. When you hear them say “You choose not to believe” then you know you have them on the ropes.

On the other side, I have time for people with real, honest to God, faith. I think it’s part of the human condition and I find it fascinating. Nonsense like Dr Dodd spouts is pure religious dogma and has very little to do with anyone’s faith.

For example, I have faith in family in friends. Some people have faith in a higher being or a cause. That doesn’t preclude curiosity. Lot’s of people have religion. There is only one way to put on a Broadway show. There is only one way to God. You need IBM if you’re going to run a company. When you have religious outlook, you’ve already made up your mind before you hear the facts or see the world.

That’s why people say they can see God in everything around them. Atheists who are actual skeptics (and I think you fit that mold) say “please convince me”. Religious types would be far better off taking a common sense approach to arguments rather than tired scholastic types of silliness. I would recommend they read The God Beyond Belief by Nick Trakakis except that it’s over priced. Or maybe John Loftus’ book Why I Became an Atheist. Both authors have a deep religious background.