Even if Creationism were proven, it still wouldn't be science

[OdwinOddball]

Ok, suppose Creationism were proven true. Would it be science?

Well, what would it teach us? The god created us, all life, the earth, and the universe as a whole. OK, so, how can we utilize this knowledge? What does this allow us to predict?

The answer, nothing. It tells us the why, but gives us no information on the how. Without direct conversation with God, we could not divine the methods involved, as they remain supernatural in origin, and thus untestable in our universe. Life is no longer related biologcially, it is all merely transformed dust.

In reality, if Creationism were proven true, it still is not science. It still does not meet any of the requirements of science, as it is not falsifiable or testable in anyway. You can't falisfy God. And how would you test God? Doesn't he command you not to anyway?

No, Creationism is not science. By its very nature it is exluded from this classification, true or not. It is metaphysics and philosophy.

It cannot be used to create new data, as you cannot recreate Creation unless you are God.

Thought of this while re-reading Michio Kaku's Hyperpspace tonight and wanted to get it down before bed. Not intending this to be a post and run, but going to be gone most of the weeked. I'll get back to it Sunday/Monday if any interest developes.

 

[Mocca]

I agree. Good post.

I mean, creationism is just so useless, to use Pete Harcoff's siggy argument.

 

[tocis]

Absolutely useless indeed.
After all, science strives to describe the observable universe. Yeah, what a precise description: "a Divine force is in control and can do whatever he/she/it wants, whenever, wherever, so you can never be sure what happens next".

Even if it would be true, how could this ever be science?!

What a waste of bandwidth to even post this. Shame on me.

 

[Asimov]

Ok, suppose Creationism were proven true. Would it be science?

Of course it would be....

Well, what would it teach us? The god created us, all life, the earth, and the universe as a whole. OK, so, how can we utilize this knowledge? What does this allow us to predict?

It allows us to realize that Jesus is our Saviour, and to predict that he will come back at some point in time.

The answer, nothing.

Says you!

It is metaphysics and philosophy.

Technically, science is a part of philosophy. Methodological Naturalism.

 

[Edx]

I dont like the way you phrased this.

How would you prove something that can be scientificaly demonstrated?

 

[Edx]

Oh and Asimov, we know you're joking. I can see the atheist sign for one

 

[Asimov]

Me??? Joke!?!......NEVER!

 

[LoG]

Ok, suppose Creationism were proven true. Would it be science?

When we find out the complete truth of anything that is currently under scientific investigation, is it then still a science? The only way to determine if Creationism is true or false is through scientific investigation, correct? It is therefore currently a science.

Well, what would it teach us? The god created us, all life, the earth, and the universe as a whole. OK, so, how can we utilize this knowledge? What does this allow us to predict?

Well for starters it will give us the ability to predict what happens after we die. That could be important thing to know.
It would allow mankind to stop wasting millions if not billions of dollars in trying to prove that there is no God.
We could all stop arguing the evolution and creation debate and live in peace and harmony....or find something else to fight over.

The answer, nothing. It tells us the why, but gives us no information on the how. Without direct conversation with God, we could not divine the methods involved, as they remain supernatural in origin, and thus untestable in our universe.

Not true. Mankind has made huge strides in determining various aspects of what constitutes life. Without having to waste anymore time on evolution, the process would be streamlined and the ultimate answer more quickly discovered.

Life is no longer related biologcially, it is all merely transformed dust.

Well doh, doesn't take an evolutionary scientist to figure out we are dust. The group Kansas told us that All we are is dust in the wind.

In reality, if Creationism were proven true, it still is not science. It still does not meet any of the requirements of science, as it is not falsifiable or testable in anyway. You can't falisfy God. And how would you test God? Doesn't he command you not to anyway?

We test God all the time but He is so subtle of a presence that you don't often realize it. Somewhat like oxygen. As long as it's around its cool. When it is all gone you're dead before you realize what is missing.

No, Creationism is not science. By its very nature it is exluded from this classification, true or not. It is metaphysics and philosophy.

In a number of scientific disciplines, the metaphysical component is seen as the next evoutionary step in their studies and testing equipment has and is being developed to measure it.
Have you ever stopped to think what the scientists will be studying in 100, 500, 1000 years from now if we continue to progress at the rate we have been for the last 100 years? The physical is finite and there will come a time when humans know whatever there is to know about it. The boundary has and will continue to be stepped over by the scientific community more and more as time goes on because the metaphysical component is a "natural" part of the physical.

It cannot be used to create new data, as you cannot recreate Creation unless you are God.

Really? You sure of that? What about 500 years from now or a 1000?

Thought of this while re-reading Michio Kaku's Hyperpspace tonight and wanted to get it down before bed. Not intending this to be a post and run, but going to be gone most of the weeked. I'll get back to it Sunday/Monday if any interest developes.

Hope you're having a good weekend.

 

[Silent Bob]

The only way to determine if Creationism is true or false is through scientific investigation, correct?

Yes.

It is therefore currently a science.

No. A science is a principle that follows the scientific method creationism by definition does not. Astrology and aromatherapy are more scientific than creationism in that regard. At least they try to come up with some kind of an explanation other than Goddidit/Thefalldidit.

Well for starters it will give us the ability to predict what happens after we die. That could be important thing to know.

Errrm not really. It depends what flavour of creationism was proven.
If we found evidence of a global flood then who can say that it was really the Biblical flood and not Zeus' flood? Furthermore what you accept as true is not unique to the Christian faith. The Koran, the Torah and the Bible all describe a very similar creation account, even if it was accepted as true that would still leave three major religions each with a different idea of what happens when you die. Finally even if the Biblical account and only that was proven without a shadow of a doubt, you are not taking into account the extremely broad spectrum of Christian beliefs with some denominations claiming TULIP(s), others rependance and even some who speak of universal salvation through Christ's sacrifice without the need to believe or follow any rules. Even if it was proven, as we say in my country, all we did is a hole in the water.

It would allow mankind to stop wasting millions if not billions of dollars in trying to prove that there is no God.

Quoi!?!

In a number of scientific disciplines, the metaphysical component is seen as the next evoutionary step in their studies and testing equipment has and is being developed to measure it.

Like?

 

[KittyPryde]

Yeah. Like what Silent Bob said.

 

[LoG]

No. A science is a principle that follows the scientific method creationism by definition does not. Astrology and aromatherapy are more scientific than creationism in that regard. At least they try to come up with some kind of an explanation other than Goddidit/Thefalldidit.

The confusion here rests with the Godidit factor. That is strictly a biogenesis factor and therefore just as irrelevant to the hypotheses as abiogenesis is to ToE . The hypotheses is that life as we know it today started in a week or so period between 6-10,000 years ago.
That by strict definition is falsifiable, as I'm sure many evolutionists would be more than happy to claim has already been done.

Errrm not really. It depends what flavour of creationism was proven.
If we found evidence of a global flood then who can say that it was really the Biblical flood and not Zeus' flood?

Different names for the same event spoken by different cultures.

Furthermore what you accept as true is not unique to the Christian faith. The Koran, the Torah and the Bible all describe a very similar creation account, even if it was accepted as true that would still leave three major religions each with a different idea of what happens when you die. Finally even if the Biblical account and only that was proven without a shadow of a doubt, you are not taking into account the extremely broad spectrum of Christian beliefs with some denominations claiming TULIP(s), others rependance and even some who speak of universal salvation through Christ's sacrifice without the need to believe or follow any rules. Even if it was proven, as we say in my country, all we did is a hole in the water.

But at least all these religions are in agreement that there is life after death of some kind. Life without a spiritual component does not allow any room for that.

Quoi!?!

The money spent in funding research and scientists trying to find proof of evolution is not free. That money is coming from somewhere.

 

[Adriac]

The confusion here rests with the Godidit factor. That is strictly a biogenesis factor and therefore just as irrelevant to the hypotheses as abiogenesis is to ToE . The hypotheses is that life as we know it today started in a week or so period between 6-10,000 years ago.
That by strict definition is falsifiable, as I'm sure many evolutionists would be more than happy to claim has already been done.

Nyet. Like last-thursdayism, a young earth created with the appearance of age is unfalsifiable.

 

[tocis]

The only way to determine if Creationism is true or false is through scientific investigation, correct? It is therefore currently a science.

Creationism, as well as the intelligent design movement, doesn't play by the rules of science, and its proponents don't even try to. All they try to is make their stuff look like science.

If I want to join a football game with a baseball bat in hand, would you let me? What would you say if I pointed out "I do play football here, really - just with the addition of the bat!"?

Well for starters it will give us the ability to predict what happens after we die.

How does creationism do that, scientifically?
Maybe there's the christian heaven or hell when we die. Or maybe there's Nirvana. Or Valhalla, Niflhel, and all the other destinations offered by my faith. Or... or... we don't know. How is creationism supposed to provide an answer to all that, considering that it doesn't even try to?

Without having to waste anymore time on evolution...

How is it a waste of time to do good science?

 

[tocis]

The hypotheses is that life as we know it today started in a week or so period between 6-10,000 years ago.
That by strict definition is falsifiable, as I'm sure many evolutionists would be more than happy to claim has already been done.

I suggest you keep up with the last decades, well no, the last few centuries of science. Hint: Dating methods. Your above statement has been falsified literally centuries ago.

 

[LoG]

Nyet. Like last-thursdayism, a young earth created with the appearance of age is unfalsifiable.

=tocis]I suggest you keep up with the last decades, well no, the last few centuries of science. Hint: Dating methods. Your above statement has been falsified literally centuries ago.

Neither of you read my statement clearly, or if you did it was with preconceived ideas of where I was coming from.

"The hypotheses is that life as we know it today started in a week or so period between 6-10,000 years ago."

I'm not a YEC, so I'm not referring to the age of the Earth but only life-forms as we know them today.

 

[LoG]

Creationism, as well as the intelligent design movement, doesn't play by the rules of science, and its proponents don't even try to. All they try to is make their stuff look like science.

Check the history books, Creationist scientists were playing by the rules of science before Darwin was even a gleam in his fathers eye.

How does creationism do that, scientifically?
Maybe there's the christian heaven or hell when we die. Or maybe there's Nirvana. Or Valhalla, Niflhel, and all the other destinations offered by my faith. Or... or... we don't know. How is creationism supposed to provide an answer to all that, considering that it doesn't even try to?

Because creationism allows for the possibility and even liklihood of a spiritual aspect. Evolution being a naturalistic process could not allow for that component without some type of designer.

How is it a waste of time to do good science?

Would you not consider it a waste of time to flog a dead horse? Evolution is dead and has been for a while. I guess you didn't get the memo.

 

[Asimov]

Check the history books, Creationist scientists were playing by the rules of science before Darwin was even a gleam in his fathers eye.

Check your history books, the creationists of yesteryear aren't the same creationists of today.

Would you not consider it a waste of time to flog a dead horse? Evolution is dead and has been for a while. I guess you didn't get the memo.

Uh-huh...maybe you need to back up your statements before you shoot yourself in the foot, and not after.

 

[Micaiah]

Ok, suppose Creationism were proven true. Would it be science?

Well, what would it teach us? The god created us, all life, the earth, and the universe as a whole. OK, so, how can we utilize this knowledge? What does this allow us to predict?

The answer, nothing. It tells us the why, but gives us no information on the how. Without direct conversation with God, we could not divine the methods involved, as they remain supernatural in origin, and thus untestable in our universe. Life is no longer related biologcially, it is all merely transformed dust.

In reality, if Creationism were proven true, it still is not science. It still does not meet any of the requirements of science, as it is not falsifiable or testable in anyway. You can't falisfy God. And how would you test God? Doesn't he command you not to anyway?

No, Creationism is not science. By its very nature it is exluded from this classification, true or not. It is metaphysics and philosophy.

It cannot be used to create new data, as you cannot recreate Creation unless you are God.

Thought of this while re-reading Michio Kaku's Hyperpspace tonight and wanted to get it down before bed. Not intending this to be a post and run, but going to be gone most of the weeked. I'll get back to it Sunday/Monday if any interest developes.

That is a bit of an odd ball argument. What you are essentially saying is that if God creatd the universe, it would be bad because we wouldn't be able to derive any benefit from a scientific explanation of origins.

A more sensible approach would be rather than getting lost in endless futile explanation about origins, if God created the world, we should listen to what He says to us. That has more far reaching implications than any scientific theory or discovery.

 

[LoG]

Check your history books, the creationists of yesteryear aren't the same creationists of today.

Their methodology is the same except for any improvements that the educational system may have imparted. The same that was taught to the evolutionary scientists.

Uh-huh...maybe you need to back up your statements before you shoot yourself in the foot, and not after.

Sorry, but I'm not into a PRATT debate. You've been around long enough to know it wouldn't go anywhere that would be of benefit to either side.

 

[Asimov]

Their methodology is the same except for any improvements that the educational system may have imparted. The same that was taught to the evolutionary scientists.

Yes, and their beliefs changed as they followed the methodology. The problem with creationists now is they have beliefs that creationists previously didn't even have.

Sorry, but I'm not into a PRATT debate. You've been around long enough to know it wouldn't go anywhere that would be of benefit to either side.

IOW, you can't back up your claims. Put up or...well you know the alternative.