5 ms·

Creationism, but with a science-y spin this time.

by icapybara 3y ago

cgriswald 3y ago
I'm not sure in what sense this would be Creationism at all.
- o_____________o 3y ago
  > intelligent life engineering them in a way
  - cgriswald 3y ago
    Creationism is about creation. I’m talking about intelligent life spreading through a galaxy and manipulating it over the course of billions of years. Is an iphone creationism?
  - Ensorceled 3y ago
    Creationism is LITERALLY the belief that the universe and was created by a supernatural and divine being(s). Supposition that intelligent life may have developed the technology to modify things at a galaxy scale in no way implies a divine being.
strogonoff 3y ago
Within the framework of falsifiable natural science, of the following three viewpoints two are hopelessly incoherent and one makes rational sense; can you spot which one that is? A. “Per our understanding of the universe, which is now finally provably correct and complete, no intelligent life whatsoever could have been causally involved in the emergence of various stellar objects or humanity itself.” B. “Since our understanding of the universe is most likely incorrect and/or incomplete, some kind of intelligent life we are not yet aware of may or may not have been causally involved in the emergence of various stellar objects or even humanity itself.” C. “We were made by fantasy abstract creature(s) not subject to any physical laws of this universe. We should probably worship them.”
- kjs3 3y ago
  Well, sure, if you throw in something like "which is now finally provably correct and complete", you get to be right. Of course, that's not how science works, but I guess you have some audience you need to polish your anti-science creds to.
  - strogonoff 3y ago
    I merely defend the comment that claimed a perfectly scientifically valid (if far-fetched) possibility. With a sarcastic comment likening that idea (B) to creationism, you implicitly adopt A, and let me tell you—it is closer to actual creationism (C) than you might like.

Creationism, but with a science-y spin this time.

cgriswald 3y ago

I'm not sure in what sense this would be Creationism at all.

o_____________o 3y ago
> intelligent life engineering them in a way
- cgriswald 3y ago
  Creationism is about creation. I’m talking about intelligent life spreading through a galaxy and manipulating it over the course of billions of years. Is an iphone creationism?
- Ensorceled 3y ago
  Creationism is LITERALLY the belief that the universe and was created by a supernatural and divine being(s). Supposition that intelligent life may have developed the technology to modify things at a galaxy scale in no way implies a divine being.

strogonoff 3y ago

Within the framework of falsifiable natural science, of the following three viewpoints two are hopelessly incoherent and one makes rational sense; can you spot which one that is? A. “Per our understanding of the universe, which is now finally provably correct and complete, no intelligent life whatsoever could have been causally involved in the emergence of various stellar objects or humanity itself.” B. “Since our understanding of the universe is most likely incorrect and/or incomplete, some kind of intelligent life we are not yet aware of may or may not have been causally involved in the emergence of various stellar objects or even humanity itself.” C. “We were made by fantasy abstract creature(s) not subject to any physical laws of this universe. We should probably worship them.”

kjs3 3y ago
Well, sure, if you throw in something like "which is now finally provably correct and complete", you get to be right. Of course, that's not how science works, but I guess you have some audience you need to polish your anti-science creds to.
- strogonoff 3y ago
  I merely defend the comment that claimed a perfectly scientifically valid (if far-fetched) possibility. With a sarcastic comment likening that idea (B) to creationism, you implicitly adopt A, and let me tell you—it is closer to actual creationism (C) than you might like.