A major goal of creation science is to point out the weakness of evolutionary theory, because basically there are only two alternatives for how we got here, and if naturalistic processes are incapable of the task, then special creation must be the correct answer. On the positive side, creation scientists are developing alternative models and theories in many areas to help our understanding of how the universe works. It should be noted that much of day to day scientific activity is not heavily influenced by either evolutionary or creation assumptions, but much scientific energy has been wasted over the last century in the search for evolutionary evidences and experimental proofs, which have been unsuccessful so far and will continue to be. I WONDER,How much further might we be in some areas of scientific understanding if a model of special creation had been the working hypothesis?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
I Wonder?
- Thread starter Freedom777
- Start date
basically there are only two alternatives for how we got here, and if naturalistic processes are incapable of the task, then special creation must be the correct answer.
Really? so you mean to say that there couldnt be a third theory? How do you know?
It should be noted that much of day to day scientific activity is not heavily influenced by either evolutionary or creation assumptions
Maybe not, however there are plenty of day to day scientific activities that use the same things that are evidence for evolution to create new medicines. Like DNA research and Mutation research, etc.
Of course, there are also those young minds who are just learning biology and its important to teach them correctly.
I WONDER,How much further might we be in some areas of scientific understanding if a model of special creation had been the working hypothesis?
Well, first of all, it would mean that the evidence supported special creation as a working hypothesis.
As you have seen, much of the "evidence" AIG has, isnt evidence at all.
Really? so you mean to say that there couldnt be a third theory? How do you know?
It should be noted that much of day to day scientific activity is not heavily influenced by either evolutionary or creation assumptions
Maybe not, however there are plenty of day to day scientific activities that use the same things that are evidence for evolution to create new medicines. Like DNA research and Mutation research, etc.
Of course, there are also those young minds who are just learning biology and its important to teach them correctly.
I WONDER,How much further might we be in some areas of scientific understanding if a model of special creation had been the working hypothesis?
Well, first of all, it would mean that the evidence supported special creation as a working hypothesis.
As you have seen, much of the "evidence" AIG has, isnt evidence at all.
Upvote
0
The problem there is that evolution isn't the only possible naturalistic explanation. It's the one that explains the data at the moment, but that might not always be the case. This is what creationists seem to be incapable of understanding - if the theory of evolution is ever completely demolished, it'll be replaced by another scientific theory, which will be naturalistic by definition. Creationists think that by discrediting the theory of evolution, they'll be able to insert "Goddidit" by default. Science doesn't work that way. Science is about explaining things, and the absence of an explanation isn't the same as an explanation.
As long as your "Goddidit" explanations aren't based in the laws of nature, they aren't testable and they aren't theories.
Nonsense. They'll only be unsuccessful for creationists, and that's because creationists have a Bible-based need for them to be. That isn't a scientific objection.
We'd be totally at a standstill because this special creation stuff, as in "Goddidit by overriding the laws of nature and using unspecified methods that aren't available today" isn't a testable hypothesis. The need to use the Bible as the basis for explaining natural phenomena in geology is the reason why the science of geology was held back for so long, because the facts didn't fit the story and nobody was ready to give up the story because it was in holy scripture. If that was the case in biology, we'd be back in the 18th century.
Upvote
0
Quote:
Well, first of all, it would mean that the evidence supported special creation as a working hypothesis.
As you have seen, much of the "evidence" AIG has, isnt evidence at all.
That is an opinion based on your Bias
Well, first of all, it would mean that the evidence supported special creation as a working hypothesis.
As you have seen, much of the "evidence" AIG has, isnt evidence at all.
That is an opinion based on your Bias
Upvote
0
Nope, that would be my opinion based on the evidence.
and science is quite often about evidence.
and science is quite often about evidence.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
*RANT MODE ON*
...while offering nothing useful on its own except for "Goddidit."
So creation science isn't really much of a science at all, merely a religous agenda to discredit a specific branch of science it disagrees with. Old news.
False Dilemma Fallacy
Except that Evolution by Natural Selection isn't the only "naturalistic process" possible. It just happens to be at the top of the list.
most of which get shot down about about 30 seconds of analysis.
Why not surf on over to talkorigins and see how "unsuccessful" the search has been?
Probably as far as using leeches on plague victims, and beating mental patients with sticks to drive out the demons. Yep, that's progress all right.
*RANT MODE OFF*
...while offering nothing useful on its own except for "Goddidit."
So creation science isn't really much of a science at all, merely a religous agenda to discredit a specific branch of science it disagrees with. Old news.
False Dilemma Fallacy
Except that Evolution by Natural Selection isn't the only "naturalistic process" possible. It just happens to be at the top of the list.
most of which get shot down about about 30 seconds of analysis.
Why not surf on over to talkorigins and see how "unsuccessful" the search has been?
Probably as far as using leeches on plague victims, and beating mental patients with sticks to drive out the demons. Yep, that's progress all right.
*RANT MODE OFF*
Upvote
0
"...Basically there are only two alternatives for how we got here, and if naturalistic processes are incapable of the task, then special creation must be the correct answer."
Oh, please. You know the false dichotomy fallacy, surely. Not only is there more than one naturalistic approach, even if ALL naturalistic approachs fail (which they don't), you don't have to resort to 'special creation.' You can resort, for example, to 'accidental creation.' God farted, and we now exist. God didn't notice the fart, however.
Oh, please. You know the false dichotomy fallacy, surely. Not only is there more than one naturalistic approach, even if ALL naturalistic approachs fail (which they don't), you don't have to resort to 'special creation.' You can resort, for example, to 'accidental creation.' God farted, and we now exist. God didn't notice the fart, however.
Upvote
0
Creationism was the working hypothesis for centuries. However, it was tossed out about 200 years ago because the evidence did not fit.
Keep in mind, this doesn't mean God didn't create. Rather, the method by which he created appears to be different than a literal Biblical interpretation.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
