Is Creationism actually science?

[Frank Robert]

Edgar a creationist wrote at Peaceful Science

"Creationism is actually science. By now, empirical science has made it perfectly obvious that viable life is so functionally complex that it could not possibly have happened by chance.
In effect, Abiogenesis-by-Chance has officially been declared a superstition - not to mention, an insult to human intelligence.

Faced with the scientific impossibility of chance, the only rational - and therefore, scientific - explanation for the origin of life is design, or more specifically, divine creation. Voila! … Creation is science. Get used to it."​

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Is Creationism actually science?

I'm going to go with the classic...

short answer: No.
Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooo.

 

[trophy33]

I do not think so.

 

[adderbolt]

Science is constantly in a flux. Everything taught to me about the human cell in high school and college science courses in the 1950s turns out to be pathetically wrong.

And science lies: about when life begins in the womb; about gender reassignment; about Darwinism, etc., etc.

Creationism was considered science for the better part of two millennium and it offers consistent answers and not the ever-changing consensus of the 'modern' scientific community.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Edgar a creationist wrote at Peaceful Science

"Creationism is actually science. By now, empirical science has made it perfectly obvious that viable life is so functionally complex that it could not possibly have happened by chance.
In effect, Abiogenesis-by-Chance has officially been declared a superstition - not to mention, an insult to human intelligence.

Faced with the scientific impossibility of chance, the only rational - and therefore, scientific - explanation for the origin of life is design, or more specifically, divine creation. Voila! … Creation is science. Get used to it."​

God is the creator of everything . He created science as the vehicle to understand, unveil and unravel the intricacies of His creation. So I give a resounding yes!

 

[The Transcendentian]

Edgar a creationist wrote at Peaceful Science

"Creationism is actually science. By now, empirical science has made it perfectly obvious that viable life is so functionally complex that it could not possibly have happened by chance.
In effect, Abiogenesis-by-Chance has officially been declared a superstition - not to mention, an insult to human intelligence.

Faced with the scientific impossibility of chance, the only rational - and therefore, scientific - explanation for the origin of life is design, or more specifically, divine creation. Voila! … Creation is science. Get used to it."​

If Creationism is not science then Evolution-ism is not science. If Evolution-ism is science then Creationism is also science. They're both doing the same thing from opposite perspectives, which is: starting with a given assumption about reality and then trying to use science to prove that assumption.

Both Creationists and Evolutionists firmly believe that their theories are unshakeable and 100% proven and the absolute truth. Both have some scientific evidence to back their claims up, both also have lack of scientific evidence, which they both ignore.

In order to properly do science, one has to make assumptions to start with. There is no such thing as an objective scientist. There are no scientists who can be trusted to handle scientific facts objectively, everyone thinks they're so high and mighty, that they're right and everyone else is wrong. There is such a thing as absolute Truth, but I don't think it can be obtained by the scientific method.

 

[Frank Robert]

Science is constantly in a flux. Everything taught to me about the human cell in high school and college science courses in the 1950s turns out to be pathetically wrong.

And science lies: about when life begins in the womb; about gender reassignment; about Darwinism, etc., etc.

Creationism was considered science for the better part of two millennium and it offers consistent answers and not the ever-changing consensus of the 'modern' scientific community.

Are you criticizing science for being self-correcting.

 

[adderbolt]

Are you criticizing science for being self-correcting.

Science is constantly self-correcting and remember we aren't talking about building a better mousetrap or artificial heart. Like a new automobile that loses a fair chunk of its value when you drive it off the dealership lot, science is the same only its parts lose credibility much more quickly. Today's science is tomorrow's giggle.

Whereas the Holy Bible's creation account is 'the same yesterday, today and tomorrow'.

 

[Belk]

Science is constantly self-correcting and remember we aren't talking about building a better mousetrap or artificial heart. Like a new automobile that loses a fair chunk of its value when you drive it off the dealership lot, science is the same only its parts lose credibility much more quickly. Today's science is tomorrow's giggle.

Whereas the Holy Bible's creation account is 'the same yesterday, today and tomorrow'.

<Looks at the modern world compared to the dark ages>

OK then.

 

[adderbolt]

<Looks at the modern world compared to the dark ages>

Science has definitely improved our lives and added greatly to our life-span. But at what cost if you consider that belief in the ever-changing functions of science have largely replaced belief in the holiness and work of God?

 

[Belk]

Science has definitely improved our lives and added greatly to our life-span. But at what cost if you consider that belief in the ever-changing functions of science have largely replaced belief in the holiness and work of God?

<looks at modern religions around the world>


I do not find your claims credible.

 

[dlamberth]

"Creationism is actually science.​

Nope, it's not science.

By now, empirical science has made it perfectly obvious that viable life is so functionally complex that it could not possibly have happened by chance.

The creative power of life in itself is all that's needed.

 

[trophy33]

Whereas the Holy Bible's creation account is 'the same yesterday, today and tomorrow'.

Actually, it is not. Sources differ and translations differ too. Not to mention views and explanations.

 

[adderbolt]

<looks at modern religions around the world>


I do not find your claims credible.

You're getting off easy if that's the only cross you bear.

 

[Belk]

You're getting off easy if that's the only cross you bear.

What an odd response.

 

[adderbolt]

Actually, it is not. Sources differ and translations differ too. Not to mention views and explanations.

Let's not mention "views and explanations" and stick to the Bible.

And as translations differ the creation account basically remains the same: yesterday, today and tomorrow whereas the thousands of years old science scene is largely irrelevant.

 

[trophy33]

Let's not mention "views and explanations" and stick to the Bible.

To read it as a literal technical scientific description of creation is just a view, Bible never says its literal or scientific.

And as translations differ the creation account basically remains the same: yesterday, today and tomorrow whereas the thousands of years old science scene is largely irrelevant.

No. Just compare Septuagint and masoretic text. Not to mention that the words used are so ambigous thats its practically just a tradition to translate it in the way you are used to read it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Typical (YE) creationism is pseudoscience. It pretends to the trappings of science, but it is all a sham with a predetermined outcome.

 

[adderbolt]

What an odd response.[/QUOTE

I do not find thatcredible.

To read it as a literal technical scientific description of creation is just a view, Bible never says its literal or scientific.

It is God's account of creation.

Science gives you guesses that lean on other guesses or nothing at all.

 

[adderbolt]

Typical (YE) creationism is pseudoscience. It pretends to the trappings of science, but it is all a sham with a predetermined outcome.

Eye of the beholder. The Bible pretends nothing.