- Dec 20, 2003
- 13,624
- 2,675
- Country
- Germany
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
All Christians are Creationists in the sense that they believe that God created the universe.
"We believe in One God, Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen" as the Nicene Creed declares.
There is a considerable amount of mystery in the biblical accounts as to the how and when of Gods creation and most scientific controversy surrounds these two questions.
The last American election really worried me however as a lot of people who share my own Young Earth Creation outlook are clearly vulnerable to non scientific conspiracy theories and fake news. The ways in which we approach evidence needs to be honest and authentic and there is nothing wrong with the scientific method, as far as it goes.
So I wanted to create a thread outlining the different approaches to Creationism based on how science is regarded. There are a number of scientific approaches that could be taken.
1) PURE SCIENCE ONLY (My position): Only what is demonstrable, by repeatable scientific experiments, properly peer reviewed, can be regarded as scientific evidence. All models and theories beyond this are speculative, with varying degrees of plausible probability. Thus "Big Bang", "Abiogenesis", and "Macro Evolution" are not pure science but rather speculative, as they cannot be demonstrated. I am a creationist because I regard the science to say next to nothing useful about our origins and therefore simply accept the revealed account, interpreted in its own terms, and in line with traditions in the church, most true to the original languages. I would use science in a creation discussion simply to show that a position was actually speculative not proven.
2) MAINSTREAM SCIENCE: Scientific models do not have to be demonstrated, only explain the evidence better than all alternatives, to be the mainstream position. Facts established by the scientific method are integrated into models of evaluation that make more sense and are best consistent with the evidence available. This is the way most Theistic Evolutionists use science but so also the ways that the best Creationist scientists try and counter the dominant model. My critique of this approach is that it reaches beyond what it can actually say from the provable evidence.
3) POLITICAL SCIENCE: I would argue this was the approach that interpreted the evidence according to ideological goals and to required outcomes. So a Creationist scientist might misuse science to assert 6 day creation and a young earth or an atheist evolutionist might use science to try and forward his own anti-Christian agenda. Discussions between political scientists are assertions yelled at each other not proper debates in the main.
4) NO SCIENCE: Scientists today are too compromised and the institutions they work for so thoroughly governed by false ideological commitments and deceitful assumptions that little they say is of any value. A radical distrust of scientists and their credentials.
A lot of the fake news outlets and stories about fraud in the elections take approaches 3) and 4)
Which approach do you take to a study of our origins and why do you think it is the best approach?
"We believe in One God, Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen" as the Nicene Creed declares.
There is a considerable amount of mystery in the biblical accounts as to the how and when of Gods creation and most scientific controversy surrounds these two questions.
The last American election really worried me however as a lot of people who share my own Young Earth Creation outlook are clearly vulnerable to non scientific conspiracy theories and fake news. The ways in which we approach evidence needs to be honest and authentic and there is nothing wrong with the scientific method, as far as it goes.
So I wanted to create a thread outlining the different approaches to Creationism based on how science is regarded. There are a number of scientific approaches that could be taken.
1) PURE SCIENCE ONLY (My position): Only what is demonstrable, by repeatable scientific experiments, properly peer reviewed, can be regarded as scientific evidence. All models and theories beyond this are speculative, with varying degrees of plausible probability. Thus "Big Bang", "Abiogenesis", and "Macro Evolution" are not pure science but rather speculative, as they cannot be demonstrated. I am a creationist because I regard the science to say next to nothing useful about our origins and therefore simply accept the revealed account, interpreted in its own terms, and in line with traditions in the church, most true to the original languages. I would use science in a creation discussion simply to show that a position was actually speculative not proven.
2) MAINSTREAM SCIENCE: Scientific models do not have to be demonstrated, only explain the evidence better than all alternatives, to be the mainstream position. Facts established by the scientific method are integrated into models of evaluation that make more sense and are best consistent with the evidence available. This is the way most Theistic Evolutionists use science but so also the ways that the best Creationist scientists try and counter the dominant model. My critique of this approach is that it reaches beyond what it can actually say from the provable evidence.
3) POLITICAL SCIENCE: I would argue this was the approach that interpreted the evidence according to ideological goals and to required outcomes. So a Creationist scientist might misuse science to assert 6 day creation and a young earth or an atheist evolutionist might use science to try and forward his own anti-Christian agenda. Discussions between political scientists are assertions yelled at each other not proper debates in the main.
4) NO SCIENCE: Scientists today are too compromised and the institutions they work for so thoroughly governed by false ideological commitments and deceitful assumptions that little they say is of any value. A radical distrust of scientists and their credentials.
A lot of the fake news outlets and stories about fraud in the elections take approaches 3) and 4)
Which approach do you take to a study of our origins and why do you think it is the best approach?