How is this science?

[Gishin]

Answers in Genesis is hosting a science fair, but it's science in name only. Look at these rules.

1. Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
2. The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
3. The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
4. The 'gap' theory has no basis in Scripture.
5. The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into 'secular' and 'religious', is rejected.
6. By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

And people wonder why no one takes creationists seriously.

 

[AV1611VET]

Answers in Genesis is hosting a science fair, but it's science in name only. Look at these rules.

1. Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
2. The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
3. The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
4. The 'gap' theory has no basis in Scripture.
5. The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into 'secular' and 'religious', is rejected.
6. By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

And people wonder why no one takes creationists seriously.

I would think that some would be honored that we would even think of including science in with our explanations; but some people are hard to please.

1. True
2. True
3. I'll somewhat agree
   
4. No comment
5. Good
6. True

 

[Michael]

Answers in Genesis is hosting a science fair, but it's science in name only. Look at these rules.

I think even many "Christians" would tend to agree with you actually. Note that Protestant and Catholic branches tend to have very different views as it relates to 'science' and how to 'interpret' the Bible.

Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.

The term "recent" is entirely subjective. It implies something that the Bible does not actually state and that many 'Christians' (including the whole Catholic branch of Christianity) do not agree with. That concept is a personal and very subjective "interpretation" of the Bible.

The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.

Same answer as above. This is more of a statement of faith based upon a subjective interpretation not a statement of scientific fact.

The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

Hmm. Well, the "but not all' disclaimer seems to leave a great deal of wiggle room. What can I say?

The 'gap' theory has no basis in Scripture.

Same answer as given to points one and two. That is a "subjective interpretation" not scientific fact.

The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into 'secular' and 'religious', is rejected.

I would actually tend to agree with that statement, but probably not the way the author intended. In other words 'truth' has nothing to do with one's "subjective interpretation' of any single book or piece of data, and everything to do with science and scientific fact.

By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

The implication however is that the author (or some other "authority") is "infallible" as it relates to their personal 'subjective interpretation' of the Bible. That is a logical contradiction. If humans are "fallible", then then this statement must also apply to any and all human "interpretation' of the Bible as well.

And people wonder why no one takes creationists seriously.

I hear you.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

By definition, this is not science in any meaningful or applicable way. It's just an exercise in confirmation bias and pointless for any reason other than that.

 

[pgp_protector]

Did you read their Top 10 Reasons.
Top 10 reasons why you should go to the Creation Museum Science Fair in 2010 at Creation Museum News

 

[pgp_protector]

Double Post, So adding other info
http://creationmuseum.org/special-events/science-fair/guidelines/

# All projects should be clearly aligned with a biblical principle from a passage or verse.

* The student should be able to explain why the verse or passage selected relates to their project. (Students should read the article “God and Natural Law” by Dr. Jason Lisle for an explanation of this concept.)
o Students should consider the context of the verse(s) they are using.
o The verse chosen does not have to directly apply to the project topic (e.g., Scripture does not directly address radio waves), but may simply relate the project to the Creator of the universe.
o Students should read the article “God and Natural Law.”

 

[thaumaturgy]

I think I'm going to open a church called "The First Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ" and I part of my church will rely on the concept that there is no reason to believe in God.

Sure some people who don't know any better might walk in thinking it is a regular Christian church, but that's OK. I'll just hand out written things during the service explaining this.

 

[Penumbra]

Calling something science makes it sound more legitimate.

 

[Michael]

I think I'm going to open a church called "The First Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ" and I part of my church will rely on the concept that there is no reason to believe in God.

I was thinking of doing something similar with the dead inflation deity and 'dark energy'.

 

[Super_Rational]

By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

But of course the bible itself has never been subject to interpretation by "fallible people." But AIG can't be blamed for their rules...without them there would be a bunch of 7th graders picking apart their wimpy "science." I almost have sympathy for the 12th graders taking part in this, though. They are old enough to know better, but they're going to have a rude awakening when they take a real natural sciences class in college.

 

[corvus_corax]

Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.

Yes it does, according to a certain neo-interpretation of (a specific) set of scriptures

The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.

According, again, to a neo-interpretation of (specific) scriptures.

The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

May have been a significant geological event, but does NOT at all take into consideration the fossils as have been found so far. Period.

The 'gap' theory has no basis in Scripture.

According to AIG, and other "literalists".
AIG and literalists can take a hike.
And the "gap" theorists, if they had the spine to say it, would agree with me.

The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into 'secular' and 'religious', is rejected.

Yeah,
Cause the bible TOTALLY accepts the "secular" Germ Theory regarding sickness (O wait it doesn't, the Bible says to pray for the sick), and TOTALLY describes the Theories of Gravity (wait, it doesn't do that either), and TOTALLY explains how black holes come into existence.
O wait...
Yeah there IS a difference between secular knowledge and "religious" knowledge.

By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

I've quote AIG's statement of faith time and time again
And it moves YEC's not one whit, despite the obvious "I have reached a conclusion before the evidence is in" state of mind that AIG has taken

And people wonder why no one takes creationists seriously.

Actually, Creationists (YEC, OEC, GAP, DSP, EA) take each other seriously.

Or, at least, despite their WIDELY varying POV's regarding their personal interpretations of the Bible, they refuse to debate amongst themselves (you know, "variance" and all that ......although I have another word for it )

 

[milkyway]

Calling something science makes it sound more legitimate.

Yes, it's very telling how so many superstitious / religious folk happily reject science when it doesn't fit their myths, but are desperate to have the label 'scientific' attached to their explanations (sic) of the same fairy stories.

I really can't think why...

 

[marktheblake]

And people wonder why no one takes creationists seriously.

No one?

Well in that case, nobody will turn up to this Science fair, and you will be feeling rather smug.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, it's very telling how so many superstitious / religious folk happily reject science when it doesn't fit their myths, but are desperate to have the label 'scientific' attached to their explanations (sic) of the same fairy stories.

I really can't think why...

Oh, the irony --- I love making this point:

May I remind you where these 'fairy stories' came from?

​

 

[Cabal]

Oh, the irony --- I love making this point:

May I remind you where these 'fairy stories' came from?

Fix'd.

 

[ReverendDG]

Oh, the irony --- I love making this point:

May I remind you where these 'fairy stories' came from?

​

i don't get it how is this "ironic"?
england didn't invent the fairy stories, the hebrew people did 3000 years ago.
is this another kjvo belief you have AV?

 

[ReverendDG]

Did you read their Top 10 Reasons.
Top 10 reasons why you should go to the Creation Museum Science Fair in 2010 at Creation Museum News

i have to wonder how dumb people are that would be willing to call this propaganda in building form, a museum when they have to sign a document to not make fun of it.
i've never been to a museum that makes you sign anything to enter it, much less a document that says you can't call nonsense, nonsense or you might hurt some poor souls beliefs.

the last museum i went to was the chicago natural history museum, never once did i have to sign anything saying i wouldn't call evolution a lie or stupid, i even found a tract in the evolution section! it was full of the same junk they have been saying for the last 40 years and i made fun of it.

i find the fact that they entice people to come, for prizes! thats just hilarious.

 

[AV1611VET]

i've never been to a museum that makes you sign anything to enter it...

I can't speak for them, but perhaps it was done to avoid a concentrated group from disrupting a presentation on cue?

QV please: Bob Larson vs. Winnipeg.

 

[Gishin]

No one?

Well in that case, nobody will turn up to this Science fair, and you will be feeling rather smug.

No one with a brain.

 

[Washington]

i have to wonder how dumb people are that would be willing to call this propaganda in building form, a museum when they have to sign a document to not make fun of it.
i've never been to a museum that makes you sign anything to enter it, much less a document that says you can't call nonsense, nonsense or you might hurt some poor souls beliefs.

I believe those requirements were only for those who wanted to enter the science fair competition.