Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

Estrid said:

Nobody here would want to be an innocent
on trial when the jury abandoned all data

Click to expand...

This reminds me of something I've said here before.

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

I can picture those standing before God at the Great White Throne Judgement, saying their evidence pointed to this, that, and the other thing not happening in the Bible; and God saying:

God: Show Me.

Academian: Sure. [turns around] Um. It was right here a minute ago.

Saucy said:

I don't think there is one single idea or way of thinking that should have a monopoly on what is considered science. Science needs to be open to alternative theories. It should be okay to challenge current theories and have discussions, even if some theories are based on faith. There are brilliant PhD-level scientists who are creationists and can explain certain phenomena within the creationist view. Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived believed in a Creator God. In many ways, current science has led some former atheists to consider the possibilities.

The universe is so finely-tuned that one cannot fully, totally deny the possibility that it was created by an intelligent being.

Click to expand...

There are theistic theories that are open to empirical evidence that would qualify as science. For example there is a present discussion at Peaceful Science on the Legitimacy of the Shroud of Turin.

There is also a present discussion on Panda's Thumb on Breakthrough for Intelligent Design

Larnievc said:

But alternatives to doing science. Alternative hypotheses is fine: abandoning the scientific method is not.

Click to expand...

So the scientific method is perfect and cannot be questioned?

If there was even the smallest possibility of a Creator, it changes everything, even science its methods of testing and data. You may not like that creationists use their faith to do science, but they can be right at the end of the day. The existence of a supernatural God means that He could have created in an instant what science says took millions of years to form. Saying there is no God and there is only observable processes is starting out no differently where a creationist is starting from. You're supposing all there is is all you see with no interference from a supernatural God.

Not even science can rule out the existence of God.

To all old Earthers, take a look at www.creation.com. It's a good start if you want to examine the evidence for YEC. Please understand what YEC is about before saying it contradicts science. Science contradicts itself already. Scientists have contradicted each other all through history, including today. Science is not infallible, because scientists are not infallible. Many times scientific theories have changed, and they continue to change the more we understand.

The scientific method only works with what we can test today, it doesn't work for events that may or may not have happened in the past. All we can do is look at what evidence we have remaining from ancient events, and make educated assumptions, known as theories, about what may have happened. The truth is, we were not there to see it happen.

The science of the past is ridiculed today. The science of today will be ridiculed in the future.

Saucy said:

So the scientific method is perfect and cannot be questioned?

Click to expand...

It's religion that claims unquestionable
perfection.
Nothing could be further from what science
is about. Perfection doesn't even exist,
and all things are open to question.

Estrid said:

It's religion that claims unquestionable
perfection.
Nothing could be further from what science
is about. Perfection doesn't even exist,
and all things are open to question.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Asking whether the scientific method can be questioned is like asking whether a wrench (spanner) can be questioned.

Torah Keeper said:

The science of the past is ridiculed today. The science of today will be ridiculed in the future.

Click to expand...

Redefining science's ability to self-correct as ridicule does not make it so. There are plenty of free resources to learn the basics. Creation orgs like Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and RTB will send you

Torah Keeper said:

To all old Earthers, take a look at www.creation.com.

Click to expand...

I'm aware of what they are selling, it isn't science.

Torah Keeper said:

It's a good start if you want to examine the evidence for YEC. Please understand what YEC is about before saying it contradicts science.

Click to expand...

I am well aware of the YEC position. It is at best pseudoscience.

Torah Keeper said:

Science contradicts itself already. Scientists have contradicted each other all through history, including today. Science is not infallible, because scientists are not infallible. Many times scientific theories have changed, and they continue to change the more we understand.

Click to expand...

That's how science works. It is the strength of science, not a weakness. (error correction)

Torah Keeper said:

The scientific method only works with what we can test today, it doesn't work for events that may or may not have happened in the past.

Click to expand...

There are many ways to examine the past through the clues it leaves today. In astronomy, the finite speed of light means you are *always* looking live at things in the past, often the deep past (hundreds, thousands, millions, billions of years).

Torah Keeper said:

All we can do is look at what evidence we have remaining from ancient events, and make educated assumptions, known as theories, about what may have happened. The truth is, we were not there to see it happen.

Click to expand...

There are many aspects of life that require examination of past events without someone to directly observe or record and event as it happens. Most crime investigation relies on such techniques.

Torah Keeper said:

The science of the past is ridiculed today. The science of today will be ridiculed in the future.

Click to expand...

<eyeroll>

Frank Robert said:

Redefining science's ability to self-correct as ridicule does not make it so. There are plenty of free resources to learn the basics. Creation orgs like Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and RTB will send you

View attachment 323981​

Click to expand...

The resort by to gross misrepresentation is
sadly typical, but with no facts, fiction has to
serve those whom it serves.

Saucy said:

I don't think there is one single idea or way of thinking that should have a monopoly on what is considered science. Science needs to be open to alternative theories. It should be okay to challenge current theories and have discussions, even if some theories are based on faith.

Click to expand...

I agree.

If there is some alternative to science, let's see what it can do. And if it can do the job of describing the way the universe works BETTER than science, let's switch to that.

So far, I've not seen any faith based options that can do the job better than science.

Can you present such an alternative? If so, can you show us how it provides a better explanatory capacity than science does?

Saucy said:

If there was even the smallest possibility of a Creator, it changes everything, even science its methods of testing and data. You may not like that creationists use their faith to do science, but they can be right at the end of the day. The existence of a supernatural God means that He could have created in an instant what science says took millions of years to form. Saying there is no God and there is only observable processes is starting out no differently where a creationist is starting from. You're supposing all there is is all you see with no interference from a supernatural God.

Not even science can rule out the existence of God.

Click to expand...

Bear in mind, science can't rule out the existence of leprechauns either. Science can't rule out anything if that thing is unfalsifiable. And the problem with unfalsifiable things is that it makes no difference whether they exist or not.

Kylie said:

Bear in mind, science can't rule out the existence of leprechauns either. Science can't rule out anything if that thing is unfalsifiable. And the problem with unfalsifiable things is that it makes no difference whether they exist or not.

Click to expand...

Bear in mind too that the existence of some God
changes exactly zero in science.

Frank Robert said:

Redefining science's ability to self-correct as ridicule does not make it so. There are plenty of free resources to learn the basics. Creation orgs like Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and RTB will send you

View attachment 323981​

Click to expand...

It's not even ridiculed. Why should it be?
Sincere people doing their best have no ridicule
coming. Often people hundreds of years ago
we're marvelously insightful.
Newton and Plato got a lot of things wrong.
Nobody ridicules them.
The whole idea is just invidious nonsense.

Saucy said:

So the scientific method is perfect and cannot be questioned?

Click to expand...

It’s not perfect. It’s the best way to find out about the world we have.

Saucy said:

There are brilliant PhD-level scientists who are creationists and can explain certain phenomena within the creationist view.

Click to expand...

Who are these brilliant PhD-level scientists, what is their evidence for creationism, and which phenomena can they explain within the creationist view?

Saucy said:

If there was even the smallest possibility of a Creator, it changes everything, even science its methods of testing and data. You may not like that creationists use their faith to do science, but they can be right at the end of the day. The existence of a supernatural God means that He could have created in an instant what science says took millions of years to form. Saying there is no God and there is only observable processes is starting out no differently where a creationist is starting from. You're supposing all there is is all you see with no interference from a supernatural God.

Not even science can rule out the existence of God.

Click to expand...

In a different thread and slightly different context I once wrote the following essay that I think is useful here too:


Good fences make good friends, or as the late (and still so inspiring!) Stephen Jay Gould said, religion and science are Not Overlapping Magisteria. NOMA. Fine. Let religion squabble about the nature of the soul, the difference between Purgatory and Hell, the question whether someone can be safed by good works or by grace alone. Let the spiritual be religion’s Magisterium.

Science’s job is to describe and explain the physical. The material, the real world. And science has strict rules when dealing with the physical: empirical evidence is the ultimate arbiter. Not authority, not revelation, not disbelieve. Empirical evidence.

You guys want to debate the question of “Once Saved Always Saved”. Good. Fine. But the moment you cross the fence and make statements about the physical world, you enter science’s realm and play by science’s rules.

The Flood? A physical event, hence where is the empirical evidence?

The changing of water into wine at the Wedding of Cana? A very material thing, hence you play by science’s rules.

The Creation Week? Again, a statement about the material Universe. You enter Science’s playground so again empirical evidence shall be the only accepted argument.


If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. If you don’t want to stick with these rules, then don’t cross the fence. Stay in your safe space or echo chamber, aka your church, mosque, synagogue or Sunday School.


Good fences make good friends, or at least, they clarify the rules by which the discussions are to be held.

Saucy said:

If there was even the smallest possibility of a Creator, it changes everything, even science its methods of testing and data. You may not like that creationists use their faith to do science, but they can be right at the end of the day. The existence of a supernatural God means that He could have created in an instant what science says took millions of years to form. Saying there is no God and there is only observable processes is starting out no differently where a creationist is starting from. You're supposing all there is is all you see with no interference from a supernatural God.

Not even science can rule out the existence of God.

Click to expand...

What would prevent the Creator from creating the laws of nature and giving humans intelligence to discover them through science?

Amazing Scientific Insights of the Bible

Astrophile said:

Who are these brilliant PhD-level scientists, what is their evidence for creationism, and which phenomena can they explain within the creationist view?

Click to expand...

No fair

Astrophile said:

Who are these brilliant PhD-level scientists, what is their evidence for creationism, and which phenomena can they explain within the creationist view?

Click to expand...

You can find some of them, and their articles, on www.creation.com.