Creationists: "We don't have to prove anything!"

[PMM]

Creationists generally claim that their creationism beliefs are scientific and should be taught in science classrooms. Then, when they are asked for any evidence of creationism, they claim that God and the Bible are beyond the scope of science.

Can your views be verified scientifically, with empricial data?

If you answered yes, please post said empirical data.

If you answered no, please stop calling it science, because it obviously isn't science.

Let's break down these comments:
1. What is the agreed-on definition of science?
2. Creationists claim their creationism beliefs are scientific?
3. Creationists want creationism taught in science classrooms.
4. What is the evidence for creationism?
5. God and the Bible are beyond science.
6. Can you verify your views with empirical data?

ANSWERS:
1. Science is the total collection of knowledge gained by humans observing the physical world using one or more of their five senses (taste, smell, sight, hearing, touch) to investigate the world which only exists in the present and you can repeat your observations. Can we agree on that?

2. The investigation of the evidence is scientific. The beliefs are not.

3. Some do, some do not. I do not want creationism taught in the science class. I do not want evolutionism taught in the science class. Neither is observable; both are belief systems, hence religion.

4. Evidence for creationism is the same as evidence for evolutionism. The Grand Canyon, the human eye, fossils, etc. The difference between the two belief systems is the story they concoct based on the evidence. The evidence fits the creation model better, but that does not prove creation happened.

5. The mind of God is infinite; man can never understand it, hence yes, God and his living Word, the Bible, are beyond science. Science is to God as single-digit arithmetic is to Einstein.

6. Nothing is verifiable since neither creationist nor evolutionist can simulate origins in a test tube. All scientists can do is modify existing data (energy, matter, etc.) to create new data. If a scientists declares he has created life after 50 years dedicated research, billions of dollars of equipment and the finest scientific minds, all he has proven is it takes intelligent design to create life.

CONCLUSION:
What evidence are you prepared to believe? If a mathematician tells you there are not enough atoms in the universe to allow for billions of years, will you accept that? If a geologist offers an explanation for the 200,000 square miles of sedimentary layers partially exposed by the Grand Canyon, will you accept that?

The fact is that we are already biased. It's not a matter of whether you are biased or not: the question is, which bias is the best bias to be biased with anyway? Two scientists are going to pick up the same bone and conclude different stories. The stories are different. They could both be wrong, or one could be right. Your job is to determine which story fits the evidence best.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I'm not a scientist and don't understand those acronyms or anything, but do I know that there has been evidence that backs up the idea of creationism.

No, there has not been. Since you admit you're not a scientist and presumably have little scientific knowledge or training, why are you trying to debate science?

I also believe that you do have to have faith in it to believe it is true, but that is true with evolution as well.

No, it is not true with evolution. Evolution is based on evidence, not religoius belief.

 

[Matthew777]

Evolution is based on naturalistic metaphysics, not science.

 

[Hydra009]

Evolution is based on naturalistic metaphysics, not science.

Did I mention that attacking evolution isn't the same thing as providing positive evidence for creationism?

 

[Hands Open]

Let's break down these comments:
1. What is the agreed-on definition of science?
2. Creationists claim their creationism beliefs are scientific?
3. Creationists want creationism taught in science classrooms.
4. What is the evidence for creationism?
5. God and the Bible are beyond science.
6. Can you verify your views with empirical data?

ANSWERS:
1. Science is the total collection of knowledge gained by humans observing the physical world using one or more of their five senses (taste, smell, sight, hearing, touch) to investigate the world which only exists in the present and you can repeat your observations. Can we agree on that?

I'll agree on this one.

2. The investigation of the evidence is scientific. The beliefs are not.

This is far too simplistic to be taken seriously. Beliefs are made based upon the probability of my belief being true. I "believe" the sun will rise. But I base my belief on the scientific evidence that the sun always has risen and therefore I have good cause to believe it will do so in the future. If the evidence is ignored then one cannot claim to believe "scientifically."

3. Some do, some do not. I do not want creationism taught in the science class. I do not want evolutionism taught in the science class. Neither is observable; both are belief systems, hence religion.

Here you make a big mistake. Evolution is an observed fact. Things evolve, as history and science have proven. The only thing in question is the mechanism by which evolution occurs, not whether or not it exists and is observable. You also skew "belief" making it synonymous with "religion." Religion entails that there be worship and a thing that is worshiped, be it a god or a tree. Belief is simply holding the opinion that certain premises are true.

4. Evidence for creationism is the same as evidence for evolutionism. The Grand Canyon, the human eye, fossils, etc. The difference between the two belief systems is the story they concoct based on the evidence. The evidence fits the creation model better, but that does not prove creation happened.

Where you get the idea that evidence fits creation better is lost on me. As Irish has been asking, I would also like to see what this evidence is. On top of that I would like to see how creationism has as much scientific evidence as evolution. The difference between these two is not the storys that they tell, it is that one has science backing it up and the other does not.

5. The mind of God is infinite; man can never understand it, hence yes, God and his living Word, the Bible, are beyond science. Science is to God as single-digit arithmetic is to Einstein.

For the record:
No religious system can start without the nature of God and of man and the relations they bear to each other. But in order to judge the reality of these relations, we must have some idea of the divine nature. But everybody tells us that the essence of God is incomprehensible to man. At the same time, they do not hesitate to assign attributes to this incomprehensible god and assure us that man cannot dispense with the knowledge of this god, so impossible to conceive of. The most important thing for man is that which is the most impossible for him to comprehend. If God is incomprehensible to man, it would seem rational never to think of him at all. But religion concludes that man is criminal if he ceases for a moment to revere Him. So don't tell me that god is beyond man, cuz you seem to understand him well enough.

6. Nothing is verifiable since neither creationist nor evolutionist can simulate origins in a test tube. All scientists can do is modify existing data (energy, matter, etc.) to create new data. If a scientists declares he has created life after 50 years dedicated research, billions of dollars of equipment and the finest scientific minds, all he has proven is it takes intelligent design to create life.

This is a little off the mark. I can create chaos quite well. If I take all my clothes and throw them out of my closet I have created chaos as relates to my clothing. But I cannot therefore state that I have proven that chaos must be created by intelligent design. You are simply arguing from ignorance. Just because we can't do something right now doesn't mean it is logical to fill that gap in our knowledge with a god.

CONCLUSION:
What evidence are you prepared to believe? If a mathematician tells you there are not enough atoms in the universe to allow for billions of years, will you accept that? If a geologist offers an explanation for the 200,000 square miles of sedimentary layers partially exposed by the Grand Canyon, will you accept that?

I will accept those assertions that are backed up by experts and proofs. One man may pose an interseting idea but I will not accept it until it has been thouroughly tested and examined by those who are leaders in their field of study.

The fact is that we are already biased. It's not a matter of whether you are biased or not: the question is, which bias is the best bias to be biased with anyway? Two scientists are going to pick up the same bone and conclude different stories. The stories are different. They could both be wrong, or one could be right. Your job is to determine which story fits the evidence best.

This is all true. But you do not stop with those two scientists. You find more who have studied the bone in question and you then make you choice. I am not biased in the least, however. "How oftem have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -Sherlock Holmes. Any man who follows this reasoning cannot be biased as their opinions are based upon that which has been deduced and not by that which is thought to be "better."

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Evidence for creationism is the same as evidence for evolutionism. The Grand Canyon...

No, it's not the same. Creationists use a smaller data set than scientists do. Professional creationists, like those at AiG and ICR, sign statements of faith that require them to reach the conclusions of young earth creationism and ignore any contrary evidence.

The Grand Canyon is a good example to show that the evidence scientists use is more in depth than that of creationists (and items like the Grand Canyon are not relevant to the theory of evolution, by the way).

It's easy to say: The Grand Canyon exists and both scientists and creationists use it in their arguments, thus they use the same evidence. But you have to look deeper than that.

Scientists examine all the rocks there including features therein like sedimentary structures, trace fossils, and fossils. Additionally, they examine the different rock types present and how different they are and represent different depositional environments. Et cetera.

One common creationist argument about the Grand Canyon is to say, "look at the stuff surrounding Mt. St. Helens!" But they are not comparable--only on an extremely superficial level. The rock types, fossils, structures, and complexities of the Grand Canyon are not around Mt. St. Helens. They are nothing alike, and creationists ignore that evidence in the Grand Canyon, and thereby use a smaller data set.

If a geologist offers an explanation for the 200,000 square miles of sedimentary layers partially exposed by the Grand Canyon, will you accept that?

That depends on whether that geologist seeks to explain all available evidence. An explanation without evidence is mere storytelling, which is what young earth creationism almost always amounts to.

You'll find that scientists are open to other explanations provided they are (1) not already disproved, (2) have explanatory power with respect to all evidence, and (3) withstand scrutiny.

The bias problem you describe, a.k.a. automatic rejection of ideas, is restricted to creationists who are emotionally bound to YECism and refuse to consider anything that contradicts it.

If a geologist offers an alternate explanation for the Grand Canyon that meets basic requirements like those above, it will be given due consideration and possible acceptance.

On the other hand, if a geologist offers an explanation for the Grand Canyon that is alternative to young earth creationism, it will be automatically rejected.

Therein lies the difference. Your comparison and attempt at equating science to creationism is unfounded.

 

[Bradford]

*** MOD HAT ***


Everyone, let's check our insults at the door. They're not allowed in this forum, per the CF Rules

Also, let's keep the discussion on topic, please.

Thanks much.

*** MOD HAT ***