Creationism - Lazy Man's science?

[JohnR7]

Perhaps that's fitting when one considers that the very concept of "creation science" is a false premise.

What do you mean by creation science? Creationism means that God created us. There are surveys where up to 98% of the people say they believe in God and that makes them creationists.

I had a friend at a church I attended that said he did not believe in miracles. He got sick and he died. But the people I know that do believe in miracles are still alive. That perhaps is why amoung evangelical christians 98% believe in miracles.

There maybe some narrow forms of creation science that people do not want to associate with. But a few rotten apples does not make all of it wrong.

The overwelming vast majority of people believe in creation and science.

 

[kopilo]

... I thought the point of science was trying to be as logical and objective as possible (whilst the outcome may still be persuasive arguing)

Where as belief is something based on emotions, opinoins and thoughts..

"In order to be a realist you need to believe in miracles"- David Ben-Gurion

 

[Beastt]

What do you mean by creation science? Creationism means that God created us. There are surveys where up to 98% of the people say they believe in God and that makes them creationists.

"Creation science" usually refers to explorations in the physical realm, specifically geared to provide some level of support for the Bible. And that's where it all goes wrong. One cannot first draw the conclusion and then go in search of the evidence. Any time one proceeds in that order, the practice simply isn't science. So it's given another name; "creation science". But the word science is misplaced because the practice simply isn't science.

Believing in God doesn't make one a creationist, John. The term "creationist" usually describes beliefs that God created each of the species as they are. This is markedly different from theistic evolution.

I had a friend at a church I attended that said he did not believe in miracles. He got sick and he died. But the people I know that do believe in miracles are still alive. That perhaps is why amoung evangelical christians 98% believe in miracles.

Lance Armstrong doesn't believe in God or miracles. Yet he survived cancer of the ball, abdomen, lungs and brain. Then, just to ice the cake, he went on to win the Tour de France 7 consecutive times when no one in the 100+ year history of the race had ever won more than five times. 'Nuff said? Anecdotal evidence simply doesn't hold enough credibility to be held as suggestive of anything. Many studies have been done which attempt to find some correlation between prayer and outcome. So far, there has been no statistically significant finding in support of prayer.

There maybe some narrow forms of creation science that people do not want to associate with. But a few rotten apples does not make all of it wrong.

If you subscribe to "creation science" you must recognize that there is no science involved. Inferring that something is based in science when it isn't is simply deceptive and therefore, dishonest. If it's science then call it "science". If it isn't, then call it what it is; "theistic research". When people tack the word "science" to procedures which don't follow the scientific method, they're simply attempting to provide validity to their work by borrowing the name of a process which has been more fruitful to the discovery of knowledge than anything else in the history of man.

The overwelming vast majority of people believe in creation and science.

In the U.S., John. If you check the numbers globally, you'll find that the overwhelming majority believe in science, but not creationism.

 

[kopilo]

The overwelming vast majority of people believe in creation and science.

In the U.S., John. If you check the numbers globally, you'll find that the overwhelming majority believe in science, but not creationism.

If you check the numbers for anything that is meant to be telling us how many people do this or that, is a rough estimate at best. People are flexible and they can be flexible in their belief, furthermore it is not practical at this point in time to survey everyone all at once about a specific issue. Moreover the chance is that people die and are born each day, people learn about science and the bible each day, possibly each moment of every day.

It seems silly to me to try to claim the majority does something, so we should follow the majority because we are telling eachother to act like lemmings. When in fact we are humans, we are intelligent and are capible of thinking for ourselves.

 

[JohnR7]

In the U.S., John. If you check the numbers globally, you'll find that the overwhelming majority believe in science, but not creationism.

There is not that much difference. For example if you look at the nonreligious group half of them are still theist. So that means only 8% of the people are atheistic. If that were true across the board then that gives you at least 78% of the people on a world wide level that are creationists. So it could be lower then what it is in America, but in real life I do not think it is. I think the vast majority of people believe in God. The Hindu and Buddist religions may not teach about God, but they hear it from the Christians and other thiests.

Of course the problem is that we need to teach people about God. So they can make a choice if they accept Him or if they reject Him. That is why we have a Boeing 747, so we can get into various places in the world that we otherwise would not be able to get into.

 

[JohnR7]

"Creation science" usually refers to explorations in the physical realm, specifically geared to provide some level of support for the Bible. And that's where it all goes wrong. One cannot first draw the conclusion and then go in search of the evidence. Any time one proceeds in that order, the practice simply isn't science. So it's given another name; "creation science". But the word science is misplaced because the practice simply isn't science.

That is a very narrow view of Creation. Taken at face value a "Creationist" would argue for the existance of a God who was directly involved with the creation of the universe. I think that would be about 97% or more of the people in the world today. Science itself is agnostic. It can not prove nor deny the existance of God. There is nothing in the Bible that science can falsify. In fact, science can not really prove anything to be true. But they are able to falsify to some degree.

Your definition of "creation science" is a rather small subset and is not reflective of all that much.

 

[kopilo]

What is your point? How does world statistics make creatism any more of a science then belief?

 

[random_guy]

That is a very narrow view of Creation. Taken at face value a "Creationist" would argue for the existance of a God who was directly involved with the creation of the universe. I think that would be about 97% or more of the people in the world today. Science itself is agnostic. It can not prove nor deny the existance of God. There is nothing in the Bible that science can falsify. In fact, science can not really prove anything to be true. But they are able to falsify to some degree.

Your definition of "creation science" is a rather small subset and is not reflective of all that much.

JohnR7, due to the extremely negative connotations with the term Creationism and Creationists, I would hardly call myself either, even though I am a Christian. Please don't lump me into the same group with Kent Hovind, split gravity/light believers, and Gappers.

 

[kopilo]

In fact, science can not really prove anything to be true.

Do you know why this is the case for every scientific theory?

 

[JohnR7]

One cannot first draw the conclusion and then go in search of the evidence. Any time one proceeds in that order, the practice simply isn't science.

Actually, that is science. Scientists construct a hypothesis and then they conduct experments or in different ways they test their hypothesis. "Many experiments fail and most hypootheses turn out to be wrong." (Collins) Science tends to be progressive and self correcting. But the dream of every scientiest is to "make a observation that shakes up a field of science" (collins) That is what the nobel prize is given for.

One thing you have to realize is that science is a study of the natural world. All of science is a study of the world that God created. There has to be something said for the idea that God could have created all that He created, and Science puts as much effort and energy into the study of His Creation. Yet they can not seem to find any "scientific" evidence for a Creator?

 

[kopilo]

JohnR7, due to the extremely negative connotations with the term Creationism and Creationists, I would hardly call myself either, even though I am a Christian. Please don't lump me into the same group with Kent Hovind, split gravity/light believers, and Gappers.

What he said.

 

[kopilo]

Actually, that is science. Scientists construct a hypothesis and then they conduct experments or in different ways they test their hypothesis. "Many experiments fail and most hypootheses turn out to be wrong." (Collins) Science tends to be progressive and self correcting. But the dream of every scientiest is to "make a observation that shakes up a field of science" (collins) That is what the nobel prize is given for.

hypothesis and conclusion are two different things with scientific testing. The conclusion in science will state if the hypothesis is true or not for those tests as well as any other information that may seem important. Observations are also written down after the experiment and before the conclusion. (If I remember correctly).

 

[Beastt]

That is a very narrow view of Creation. Taken at face value a "Creationist" would argue for the existance of a God who was directly involved with the creation of the universe. I think that would be about 97% or more of the people in the world today.

How many people believed in a geocentric universe, based on scripture in the Bible, prior to the 1600s? Appeals to popularity, John? Surely you know the track record.

Science itself is agnostic. It can not prove nor deny the existance of God.

Science can't research anything for which there is no evidence. No evidence = no research. That's not such a difficult concept. So there are many things science can neither confirm nor deny. Among them would be the existence of unicorns, Leprechauns, flying reindeer, pink & purple metaphysical rattlesnakes, Gremlins, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and your God.

Does that somehow lend credibility to the proposed existence of God?

There is nothing in the Bible that science can falsify.

You keep making this claim and I keep showing you a number of things science has already falsified. You claim you have evidence which refutes my claims, then you refuse to present the evidence. It's tiring but it's not buying you any credibility. The Bible is quite soundly refuted by science, John. Unless you live on a flat planet, at the center of the universe, with stars, sun and a moon residing within your planet's atmosphere, where plants never freeze no matter how cold it gets, the Bible is quite thoroughly refuted.

In fact, science can not really prove anything to be true. But they are able to falsify to some degree.

This is because science doesn't deal in proofs. It deals in evidence. And the evidence indicates quite strongly that many of the claims in the Bible are simply without credibility.

Your definition of "creation science" is a rather small subset and is not reflective of all that much.

Well, I can provide you with the operational stance of AiG, which is a "creation science" website. CRS and ICR work the same way. Do you know of one that doesn't?

 

[JohnR7]

JohnR7, due to the extremely negative connotations with the term Creationism and Creationists, I would hardly call myself either, even though I am a Christian. Please don't lump me into the same group with Kent Hovind, split gravity/light believers, and Gappers.

You just did. They call themselves a Christian, you call yourself a Christian. Just because in your opinion they give the word "creationism" a bad name does not mean I am going to take a pair of scissors and cut that word out of my dictionary. Christians believe that God created the natural world and that makes them creationists. Science is a study of the natural world that God created. They can not deny God any more than they can deny the natural world.

 

[kopilo]

Christians believe that God created the natural world and that makes them creationists.

That does not mean they do not believe evolution may have some truth to it, however it may mean they don't believe in the big bang theory...

 

[Beastt]

Actually, that is science. Scientists construct a hypothesis and then they conduct experments or in different ways they test their hypothesis.

Look up the definition of "hypothesis" in a scientific context, John. Let me know when you read about the necessity of a scientific premise. You can't simply make something up, without evidence, and properly call it a "hypothesis". And any concept which is already soundly refuted by the evidence can't properly be called a hypothesis.

"Many experiments fail and most hypootheses turn out to be wrong." (Collins) Science tends to be progressive and self correcting. But the dream of every scientiest is to "make a observation that shakes up a field of science" (collins) That is what the nobel prize is given for.

There you go, John. "make an observation". Those are very important words and they're not refering to reading theology out of an old book.

One thing you have to realize is that science is a study of the natural world.

This statement is fine.

All of science is a study of the world that God created.

This one dives right off the deep end. You can't properly conclude that God created anything until you can provide conclusive evidence.

There has to be something said for the idea that God could have created all that He created, and Science puts as much effort and energy into the study of His Creation.

You did it twice in this one. See how you go from the existence of the physical to "God's creation" without an iotta of evidence to tie the two together? That's why you can't seem to grasp the concepts of science.

Yet they can not seem to find any "scientific" evidence for a Creator?

Bingo! No evidence - no research - no conclusion. Then up comes a bunch of theologists, they put together some procedures decidely unlike science and call it "creation science". Then you try to tell us it's science.

 

[JohnR7]

How many people believed in a geocentric universe, based on scripture in the Bible, prior to the 1600s?

Zero as far as I am concerned, show me your evidence what do you have? Belief for a heliocentric universe goes back a long way before Christ. As far as I am concerned it goes all the way back to the beginning of science.

If you look at stonehedge and other ancient monoliths it is obvious that man from the very beginning had a interest in the solor system. If for no other reason then to know when to plant his crops. From the very beginning it was given for a sign and a season. Even stone age man had ways to determine the equinox twice a year.

Genesis 1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night;
and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

 

[kopilo]

And so starts the circle again Can we just accept that we believe different things and shake hands?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Belief for a heliocentric universe goes back a long way before Christ.

do you have any references to read about this proposition?

 

[JohnR7]

Look up the definition of "hypothesis" in a scientific context, John. Let me know when you read about the necessity of a scientific premise. You can't simply make something up, without evidence, and properly call it a "hypothesis". And any concept which is already soundly refuted by the evidence can't properly be called a hypothesis.

Their hypothesis is based on the Bible. This was the beginning of geology and archeology. For example they would read the story of Noah's flood in the Bible then they would form a hypothesis about that flood. Then they created geology in an attempt to prove their hypothesis. Their hypothesis about Noah's flood failed, but geology is still with us today. Others have found it very useful. For example the oil and gas industry finds geology very useful and they are mostly the ones funding it.

Geologists Walter Pitman and William Ryan have created a hypothesis about Noah's flood and they have enjoyed some limited success with that. Both PBS & National Geographic have no problem to be associated with them.