Creation Science

[Butterfly99]

I hope so.

Why do you hope so?

 

[Butterfly99]

I prefer the term "creation science" as opposed to "creationism". The reason for this is that the original conception of a creationist was one that believes in a literal creation according to the Genesis account and based only on that account; i.e., no science to explain the creation events. These are people that I view as mainstream Christian creationists. However, since the mid twentieth century, there is a group of Christians that have started interjecting their ideas of science into the Genesis account to explain those events. Unfortunately, well accepted and understood (mainstream) science does not agree with creation science. I suggest three things that need to be understood with this conflict. First, there are very few actual scientists that actually write this literature. Second, of those who actually have some sort of scientific credentials, publish completely out of their field of expertise, with very little exception. Third, there is a huge amount of this science deliberately misrepresented. That is, they claim "mainstream" science says many things it does not, thus deliberately misleading their intended audience, which by the way is not the scientific community, rather an audience hugely ignorant of science hearing what they want to hear knowing they will never fact check anything.

Oh okay. Thanks for the explanation. Is there any valid scientific evidence for a literal creation? Cause yeah that goes against pretty much everything established.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is there any valid scientific evidence for a literal creation?

No.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You have an interesting and fairly non-standard definition of creationism. It is not what is being discussed in this thread.

In the last year mankind has learned MORE about Creation Science then they learned in the last 6,000 years. All of the traditional views need to be modified to take the new information and evidence into consideration. What remains "prevalent among the public" may not be relevant.

"When the structure of DNA was first discovered, scientists imagined it to be extremely chemically stable, which allowed it to act as a blueprint for passing the basic traits of parents along to their offspring. Although this view has remained prevalent among the public, biologists have since learned that the double helix is in fact a highly reactive molecule that is constantly being damaged and that cells must make unceasing repair efforts to protect the genetic information that it contains."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151029190840.htm