Creationism as a Science: Probability of Creation/Evolution side by side?

[Harpuia]

I'm currently watching a show called Creation in the 21st Century on TBN. He does these shows weekly to try to prove that creationism is right and evolution is wrong and has scientific and geological evidence to back it up.

My question is, how valid (and please do not trash it automatically just because he's Christian) are these guys viewpoints?

I found the site of this guy:

http://creationevidence.org/

Would you consider his views valid enough to be scientific for a school textbook?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Would you consider his views valid enough to be scientific for a school textbook?

Nope. That website is even a step below organizations like Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research in terms of quality. It uses arguments based purely on wishful thinking and even uses long refuted arguments.

 

[Harpuia]

And would ya know it... I found an article for it.

Creationist: Darwinists Growing Desperate to Defend Faulty Theory

By Jim Brown
May 12, 2005

(AgapePress) - Intelligent design advocates are drawing attention to what they call a "smoking gun" memo that outlines the strategy of pro-Darwinian forces in the debate over science standards in Kansas.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/122005b.asp

-------------------------------------------------------

On top of it, I wasn't looking for blind rejection/admiration of this evidence. I'm just wondering how one would refute it from it ending up in a school textbook (provided creationism is a non-religious theory).

 

[Alarum]

Oh my god, look at the first one of his evidences!

http://creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/coal/se_coal.html

It's Polonium Halos! Nevermind the fact that we've documented that vegitation slowly becomes Peat (which is used as fuel) and then slowly changes into coal. POLONIUM HALOS!

Other aspects of this nonsense are just roflcopters:

However, this theory can not answer why such large amounts of original vegetation without soil can be found in the areas that are now coal seams...

The fact that there's large amounts of vegitation in areas that are coal seams disproves the theory that vegitation becomes coal!

Finally, coal seams such as those found in the Powder River Basin of Gillette, Wyoming, ranging from 150 to 200 feet in depth, point to a rapid coalification process. "These coal seams run remarkably thick and unsullied by other material. Usually, unwanted sediments, such as clay, washes over a deposit before coal seams can get very thick. This leaves scientists with the baffling question of how the seams get so massive and still remain undiluted by influxes of clay and other impurities before they thicken."

Summary: Anything that's confusing is evidence that WE'RE RIGHT!

The Biblical description of the fountains of the great deep breaking up gives strong reference to volcanic activity in the pre-Flood basins.5

Coal!

Yes, because Volcanic activity is known to very quickly form flammible materials

 

[kranich]

Would you consider his views valid enough to be scientific for a school textbook?

No I do not. In fact I dont find most of them suitable for Sunday school either.

 

[notto]

On top of it, I wasn't looking for blind rejection/admiration of this evidence. I'm just wondering how one would refute it from it ending up in a school textbook (provided creationism is a non-religious theory).

Creationism can't be defined as anything but a religious theory. Its conclusions fly in the face of 200 years of well established science and its conclusions have been repeatedly falsified. It has no more validity than any other creation belief. We always hear about telling 'both' sides of a story. There are more than that - there are hundreds. Why only teach the literalist Christian one? Why not the rest.

Best to stick with science in the science classroom.

Creationists and ID proponents only have politics on their side. They are not in the labs doing research but instead the 'leaders' in the field spend time in churches, school board meetings, and at the capitol. Why is that? If they are scientists, why aren't they doing science?

The article you posted from Agape is a great example of this. It suggests that those opposed to the poor science of creationism and ID can 'only sling mud'. Problem is, those opposed to the poor science have thousands of pages or research and an actual, teachable, falsifiable theory on their side. That's a bit more than slinging mud.

ID and Creationism are not science until they can produce a testable, teachable, repeatable methodology that can explain evidence better than our current mainstream theories. They have skipped this step and instead went right for the school boards. It is actually fairly disgusting when you think about it or awhile.

 

[kermit]

Creationism is not science. It lacks one major component of any scientific theory; scientific theories must be falsifiable. To faslify Creationism you must falsify God. It's not possible to falsify God. Creationism is an important theological concept, but it's not science.

 

[SpidermanTUba]

I'm currently watching a show called Creation in the 21st Century on TBN. He does these shows weekly to try to prove that creationism is right and evolution is wrong and has scientific and geological evidence to back it up.

My question is, how valid (and please do not trash it automatically just because he's Christian) are these guys viewpoints?

I found the site of this guy:

Would you consider his views valid enough to be scientific for a school textbook?

Creationism is not a science. The book of Genesis isn't even self consistent - one part of it says man came before beast, the other says beast came before man. Any decent scientific theory must at least not contradict itself.

 

[Vylo]

There needs to be an elective theology class offered in schools with a section on origins, so that creationism can be introduced to people without cluttering up science classes.

 

[xMinionX]

There needs to be an elective theology class offered in schools with a section on origins, so that creationism can be introduced to people without cluttering up science classes.

Word life.

(I just wanted to say that)

 

[WalksWithChrist]

Word life.

(I just wanted to say that)

"The degree that a person talks about being a Christian is inversly proportional to the degree that they act like one." Never heard this one before. I like it...

 

[Harpuia]

I'm just trying to figure out this evidence that the person went through to get creationism to be true. I'm quite certain that this guy has plenty of people believing it, right?

Anyway, if you read the site, according to them, they do practice science. They don't spend all their time in the church.

 

[xMinionX]

Anyway, if you read the site, according to them, they do practice science. They don't spend all their time in the church.

They don't practice science. They imitate it. Consider the scientific method:

1. Observation.
2. Question.
3. Hypothesis.
4. Prediction.
5. Experiment.
6, Analysis.
7. Decision

These people have, quite simply, already made their decision. Their ultimate hypothesis is the same as their decision. It will not, and cannot, change. Therefore, it is not science. It's.... something else.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I'm just trying to figure out this evidence that the person went through to get creationism to be true. I'm quite certain that this guy has plenty of people believing it, right?

A lot of people will believe it when (1) they don't know any better, (2) don't think critically or examine the claims by looking at scientific sources, and (3) he appeals to their religious beliefs (e.g., saying a particular interpretation of the Bible must be true and you aren't a True Christian if you don't believe it).

Anyway, if you read the site, according to them, they do practice science. They don't spend all their time in the church.

You cannot be practicing science if you assume a fixed, infallible conclusion, ignore anything to the contrary, and use long refuted arguments to support your claims.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Creationism isn't a science, can't be a science, never will be a science. But I've always wondered why they've tried to attack Darwin instead of looking at all the advances in microbiology in the past 50 years that are definitely based on concepts of evoltuon.

 

[Alarum]

I'm just trying to figure out this evidence that the person went through to get creationism to be true. I'm quite certain that this guy has plenty of people believing it, right?

Anyway, if you read the site, according to them, they do practice science. They don't spend all their time in the church.

You forget, CLAIM. Now I can CLAIM to be able to levitate, and I can CLAIM to have proof, and many stage magicians have done a darn good job making stuff that looks awfully much like proof. But they're stage magicians.

 

[Harpuia]

Maybe if those of you that haven't watched the program could watch it if you have TBN one time, and see if you don't have a more open mind afterwards.

I for one think many of his claims are false, but he does talk a good game.

 

[sadams03]

Creationism cannot be a science because it seeks to find evidence for a presupposed hypothesis instead of looking at the available evidence and then trying to find the best hypothesis for why the evidence is what it is. Creationism bothers me not on a religious or moral level (I don't care what other people think about Darwin) but on a scientific level- teaching kids that this is science is a bad idea. Next the geocentrists will want in on the action.

 

[Mongoose]

Taking a conclusion and then finding the premises for it is not only unscientific, but it's also illogical.