Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
this is their newest article which I will analyze point-by-point with a critical view
Anyone familiar with the creation/evolution debate should know that anti-creationists love to lob the accusation that creationists are “anti-science” or that they “reject science.” Evolutionists frequently label creationists “flat-earthers” and even go as far as suggesting that consistent creationists should deny the law of gravity!
well I woulden't go so far as to say that creationists must deny gravity, at least not until part 2 of cdk007's video "why creationists must deny gravity" is finished
What’s more, these assertions are sometimes made with the implication (or outright allegation) that creationists are openly anti-science.
quite a few creationists are openly anti-science. Ken Ham has explicity stated his anti science agenda quite a few times
So, for those who haven’t already made up their minds before hearing us out—or reading what we’ve written many times on this website—are we truly against science?
yes you are because you're methods are the anti-thesis of science.
Not at all! Answers in Genesis (like other creationist groups) affirms and supports the teaching and use of scientific methodology, and we believe this supports the biblical account of origins. So why all the disagreement?
well because you wish to invoke a supernatural explanation, but methodological naturalism is tentamount ot modern science
Starting Points
Much of the problem stems from the different starting points of our divergence with Darwinists. Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths.
such as... thing is evolution is based on a very wide body of evidence from many biological sciences.
This starting point, whatever it is, can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning (since an infinite regression is impossible).
evolution is certainly not based on faith, but evidence gathered, much like all good science is.
Two Kinds of Science
Also causing confusion is the simple distinction some try to make between “faith” and “science.” Answers in Genesis believes this dichotomy is in error, because some form of faith (in a religion) is required to believe in creation or evolution.
not true. AIG has firmly stated that the bible is inerrant and literal. this is based purely on faith. the methods by which truth are obtained by science is the antithesis of faith.
Both creation and evolution make claims about an unrepeatable past that was not observed by humans.
you need not directly observe an event to deduce that it did happen. all you need is evidence, which is something evolutionists have an over-abudance of, and something creationists severely lack. why do you think creationism was rejected by scientists over a century-and-a-half ago?
This is distinctly different from normal science, which is a methodological system governing directly observed, repeatable results (such as laboratory experiments).
evolution has been repeated in laboratories several times. however, this cannot be done when trying to deduce the history of something. a much better method of assertaining whether a theory is scientific is whether or not it is testable and falsifiable
"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
If you decide the conclusion beforehand, you're not doing science. Period.
__________________ We are men, not gods. The choice therefore is not between the wisdom of man and the wisdom of God, but between man's wisdom and man's folly. If we reject the former, we will surely fall into the latter.
“Much of the problem stems from the different starting points of our divergence with Darwinists. Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths.”
What those folks don’t seem to get is that the axioms, postulates and assumptions that we start with can produce logical consequences that can be checked against the observable world. Science does this. If we cannot reconcile our assumptions with reality, we change our assumptions.
If we assume for no good reason that evolution is a fact, we nevertheless find that this is not falsified by real world observations.
Creationism is not supported by real world observations. The only way that real world observations can be made conformable with creationism is to invoke “omphalos”, “last Thursdayism”, or “goddidit”, all untestable assumptions.
__________________ "A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a superstition." - Jose Bergamin
"You can't trust an honest man." --- Anonymous
"He does not believe who does not live according to his belief." -- Thomas Fuller
"The fact that the author thinks slowly is not serious, but the fact that he publishes faster than he thinks is inexcusable." -- Wolfgang Pauli
"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" -- Micah 6:8
"It is because we believe absurdities that we are able to commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli
"Je ne suis pas marxiste." -- Karl Marx
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."-- Mark Twain
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit& amp; amp; lt;B R&am p;amp;gt ;Reconci liatio n Team
Join Date: 9th February 2007
Location: United States of America
Posts: 5,818
Blessings: 27,741
My Mood
Reps: 215,721,347 (power: 215,729)
There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of science and what science is.
For me, I find it difficult to understand why this misunderstanding exists. Does it stem from school - is the education system failing at science education? Is it because people have a good education and are indoctrinated into a biblical interpretation? Is it because people don;t care and want to believe what they wish?
I am very concerned at how this ideology will progress in America and how it will effect the science and technology progression of this country.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Have any suggestions? Got a complaint? Click To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. !
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it.
Science is an all or nothing religion.
There is no room for a Christian to disagree with any of it.
the problem isnt when christianity disagrees with any of it, it's when it disagrees with the foundations of entire basic sciences in the face of overwhelming evidence.
__________________ "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky
Linear Mode
