Is Creationism actually science?

[Frank Robert]

Of course. And as it becomes increasingly evident that a Creator was involved, one would hope that this would eventually be universally accepted.

If there is a creator and even if it becomes universally accepted, there still would not be any scientific evidence unless the creator provided it.

 

[renniks]

That may be, and we can hope and pray that it will come to pass. But a literal interpretation of Genesis will remain the eccentric belief of a few minority Protestant sects.

But there's no specification on what type of creationism the OP is referring to. So even theistic Evolution would be included.
As far as a literal interpretation of Genesis, it speaks about literal people doing literal actions. If it was part of the Psalms, perhaps you could claim it took poetic license with origins. But it goes on to talk about very specific genealogies.

 

[renniks]

If there is a creator and even if it becomes universally accepted, there still would not be any scientific evidence unless the creator provided it.

That's nonsense. Why can't you use scientific means to show the existance of the one who created scientific laws?

 

[trophy33]

Knowing how religions are build on the beliefs of previous religions, I suspect the Biblical account of Creation is pre-Jewish in nature.

It is not, its quite original in its monotheism and other things. It was obviously written inside Jewish religious cultural context.

But the reason for it written may be that it served as an alternative to surrounding pagan (summerian, babylonian) creation stories. "The beginning according to monotheism" - Genesis.

 

[Frank Robert]

That's nonsense. Why can't you use scientific means to show the existance of the one who created scientific laws?

Because, for whatever reasons, God made the supernatural inaccessible to scientific inquiry.

 

[trophy33]

Because, for whatever reasons, God made the supernatural inaccessible to scientific inquiry.

Depends on how you define the supernatural. The science today got so deeply into the fabric of creation that they can see and experimentally test the nature in a state that is not determined by any macro-world natural rules.

There are quite a few scientific hypothesis about this "supernatural world" that creates our natural world we see and live in.

 

[Speedwell]

That's nonsense. Why can't you use scientific means to show the existance of the one who created scientific laws?

What empirical evidence is there?

 

[dlamberth]

Oh ... only the dead rock and reel in pain?

Out of the dead rock dirt is made and of which the vibrancy of life is evolving.

 

[Speedwell]

But there's no specification on what type of creationism the OP is referring to.

True, but only YECs take issue with science the way you do. (And as a matter of custom, "creationism" as used in this forum generally refers to YECism.

 

[dlamberth]

That's nonsense. Why can't you use scientific means to show the existance of the one who created scientific laws?

If that were possible it would have happened by now.

 

[Frank Robert]

Depends on how you define the supernatural. The science today got so deeply into the fabric of creation that they can see and experimentally test the nature in a state that is not determined by any macro-world natural rules.

There are quite a few scientific hypothesis about this "supernatural world" that creates our natural world we see and live in.

I think that would supernatural by inference, much like Behe's "irreducible complexity" for design.

 

[AV1611VET]

Out of the dead rock dirt is made and of which the vibrancy of life is evolving.

What?

 

[Abide with me.]

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."​

What if...the Bible requires us to believe in the supernatural? So, what if, God came to earth with his superhumans who then went off to mate with early woman, kick starting mankind as we are, and brought with them angels who brought a higher intelligence than we had at that time, although I do have a hard time believing the entire earth was formed in 7 days in the entirety as we know it.

 

[dlamberth]

What?

It has to do with the ecology of the Earth. Before life evolved this planet was a rock. The rock broke down into dirt. It is from the dirt that the biosphere we live in evolved. It's all one big system.

Edited to add: It's called "Deep Ecology"

 

[renniks]

If that were possible it would have happened by now.

Not necessarily. New discoverys in quantum physics could change everything.

 

[renniks]

True, but only YECs take issue with science the way you do. (And as a matter of custom, "creationism" as used in this forum generally refers to YECism.

Old Earth creationists don't necessarily support the standard evolution model.

 

[Speedwell]

Old Earth creationists don't necessarily support the standard evolution model.

That's rather an obscure subset; we don't see them very often here. Most theistic evolutionists do, I believe.

 

[dlamberth]

Not necessarily. New discoverys in quantum physics could change everything.

It may possibly expand what we consider life.

 

[renniks]

That's rather an obscure subset; we don't see them very often here. Most theistic evolutionists do, I believe.

So? Wasn't there a movie that supports both old Earth and young simultaneously? From the perspective of someone in deep space ( God) the earth would be old but from the perspective if someone on it it's young. Time is relative.

 

[SelfSim]

Why can't you use scientific means to show the existance of the one who created scientific laws?

You can ..

The answer is: human beings created scientific laws.