Is Biblical Creationism a pure science?

[Calminian]

I think those who do not see any evidence for the Genesis Flood are beginning with the wrong set of starting assumptions - as I said before, the assumption is that geological processes necessarily take millions of years. They fail to realize that the same evidence used by uniformitarians to argue that geological layers were laid down gradually over millions of years is the same evidence used by creationists to argue that geological layers were laid down by vast amounts of water over a short period of time.

The question is not "who has the best evidence?" but "how do we interpret the evidence?" The past is not something one can directly observe, so one has to make assumptions when dealing with it.

I agree with all the above. So the question for me becomes, is this a purely scientific matter, or should it be considered a broader epistemological matter that includes science, but isn't limited to it? Historical science just doesn't work without applying methodological naturalism to evidence. So, maybe we shouldn't call creationism, science? Maybe this is a broader philosophical issue which can't be restricted to scientific assumptions. Why not call it philosophical creationism? or maybe creation epistemology? This doesn't mean science is of no value nor plays no role, but let's face it, we believe creation ultimately to be an act of God, not the result of random natural (scientific) processes.

 

[Paul365]

Why do you claim that the time scale of geological processes is an assumption? For all I know it's not an assumption but an observation.

Radiometric dating methods, such as the Uranium/Lead method, use the decay rate of isotopes. The decay rate depends on fundamental physical constants, such as the electric constant or the Planck constant. In our universe those constants have just the value as to make heavy atoms stable and life possible. There are speculations of other universes with different physical constants, but in such universes stars, planets and carbon based life were impossible. The same were the case in our universe when the constants and the isotope decay rate had been different in the past.

 

[busterdog]

I agree with all the above. So the question for me becomes, is this a purely scientific matter, or should it be considered a broader epistemological matter that includes science, but isn't limited to it? Historical science just doesn't work without applying methodological naturalism to evidence. So, maybe we shouldn't call creationism, science? Maybe this is a broader philosophical issue which can't be restricted to scientific assumptions. Why not call it philosophical creationism? or maybe creation epistemology? This doesn't mean science is of no value nor plays no role, but let's face it, we believe creation ultimately to be an act of God, not the result of random natural (scientific) processes.

Science seems to admit that it can't investigate ghosts, miracles or an extra-dimensional God. So, there is apparently a big problem of epistemology to start with.

But, said otherwise, science can be to critique itself. In that sence, maybe it doesn't prove how things were, but it does prove the limits of science to prove anything. Again, we are back to your question of epistemology.

I think creation science is better at providing critique than solid conclusions about how things were. In some respects, that depends on your expectations. If you scale back your expectations, creation science works just fine.

One knock from TEs is that creation science is not valid until it provides viable models for things like origins. Given the epistemological problem, there is more chest beating there than solid logic.

In the way that the OP states the dilemma of working with the evidence, isn't it interesting that we get back to the question of whether man can indeed become like God in taking upon himself the task of discerning good from evil. You take the same evidence and all you get is a fight about whether the conclusions arising from that evidence are good or evil.

 

[FallingWaters]

I agree with all the above. So the question for me becomes, is this a purely scientific matter, or should it be considered a broader epistemological matter that includes science, but isn't limited to it? Historical science just doesn't work without applying methodological naturalism to evidence. So, maybe we shouldn't call creationism, science? Maybe this is a broader philosophical issue which can't be restricted to scientific assumptions. Why not call it philosophical creationism? or maybe creation epistemology? This doesn't mean science is of no value nor plays no role, but let's face it, we believe creation ultimately to be an act of God, not the result of random natural (scientific) processes.

Every so often I get on a "kick" like this when I realize the name of something gives a wrong impression of what it actually is. At this point in the game, even if everyone agreed it shouldn't be called Creation Science, is there even any way to take it all back and erase everything on video or audio that already has that name?

Be that as it may, I see it this way. Creationism encompasses the entire spectrum of our beliefs while creation science occupies a portion of that.

In my opinion "creation science" is the interpretation of scientific evidence from a creationist worldview. It differs from mainstream science in that the assumptions we begin with are different. We assume there is a God and the Bible is true, so what can we learn about the universe within those parameters? ( I hope I'm expressing that properly.)

An analogy would be all the different types of psychologists out there. Some are Jungian, some are not; apparently, there are many different "schools of thought", but I don't know all the names. The systems they use and operate from are different, but they're all psychologists.

So a Creation Scientist studies Science, but interprets it from a Biblical worldview, from a worldview that includes God.

Ultimately neither Creationism nor Evolutionism are experimentally provable or falsifiable. They both are accepted by faith - at least that is the stance of the Creationist.

 

[Sunrise78]

Ultimately neither Creationism nor Evolutionism are experimentally provable or falsifiable. They both are accepted by faith - at least that is the stance of the Creationist.

I think the key word is "experimentally."

A distinction is often made in creationist literature between "operational science" which deals with matters that are observable, testable and repeatable in the present, and "origins science" which requires starting beliefs/assumptions about the past since we cannot directly observe or test the past. The latter has more to do with interpreting historical events than does the former.

 

[Calminian]

Science seems to admit that it can't investigate ghosts, miracles or an extra-dimensional God. So, there is apparently a big problem of epistemology to start with.

This is because all these represent causal agents whose actions do not necessarily repeat. Therefore it's impossible to put together a hypothetical chain of predictable events leading you back to the starting point.

But, said otherwise, science can be to critique itself. In that sence, maybe it doesn't prove how things were, but it does prove the limits of science to prove anything. Again, we are back to your question of epistemology.

Well, you can come to dead-ends in science, like the BB, or QM phenomenon, or the inability to explain design, but you can also come up with scientifically valid natural explanations that are still not true. This is my main concern, because conventional thinking among many christians is, if you can explain something scientifically, then we should favor that over the supernatural.

Here's an illustration showing the problem with that. If a post event observer saw the jugs of wine after the Cana wedding, he could examine the evidence and put together a perfectly valid natural explanation for how the wine came to be (which would include time and natural processes). And since his explanation is scientifically valid, he would then be inclined to favor that over the testimonial evidence that this was a miracle of Jesus, which only happened a short time ago. His explanation would be scientifically valid, but historically untrue.

I think creation science is better at providing critique than solid conclusions about how things were. In some respects, that depends on your expectations. If you scale back your expectations, creation science works just fine.

I actually think creationist arguments are very good. The problem is, if you tout them as "scientific," you are puffing up this particular epistemological method which we all agree has limits. From there, millions of scientists start shaking their fists (somewhat justifiably) and sincere christians and theologians get swayed. They likely reason, "If science is the ultimate, end all epistemology, then maybe we're not reading the Bible correctly."

One knock from TEs is that creation science is not valid until it provides viable models for things like origins. Given the epistemological problem, there is more chest beating there than solid logic.

But are they even aware of the problem? Are creationists pointing out the fact that supernatural causation will confuse and almost always distort scientific interpretations? Creation arguments, I think, are logically sound, but do they undermining those arguments by calling them scientifically, sound?? In many minds, scientific means naturalistic.

In the way that the OP states the dilemma of working with the evidence, isn't it interesting that we get back to the question of whether man can indeed become like God in taking upon himself the task of discerning good from evil. You take the same evidence and all you get is a fight about whether the conclusions arising from that evidence are good or evil.

There's no doubt that people will always interpret evidence differently by their own choosing. But the tendency of christians to lean toward scientific naturalism seems much broader than it should be. I suspicion that many good creationist arguments aren't registering with the masses due to an equivocation of terms. Our side has one definition of science, there side has another. This will often lead to what logicians call the four-term-fallacies.

Creationists are establishing the premise,

Science (our particular meaning) will lead us to truth

So the masses reason,

Millions of years is the conclusion of science (their particular meaning)
Therefore millions of years is truth

Looks perfectly valid, but there are actually four terms in that syllogism. It must be limited to three to be logically valid.

But then from there,

Millions of years is true (or right)
An exegetical approach to Genesis does not allow for millions of years
Therefore, an exegetical approach to Genesis is not true (or not right)

This syllogism actually is valid. The premise is false and therefore the conclusion is false, but the argument is valid.

 

[Molal]

Forgive me for intruding; please remember science cannot prove anything. Proof belongs to mathematics and liquor. Science deals with a body/weight of evidence that increases the statistically probability that the theory is correct.

No theory has ever been proven this includes evolution, the theory of gravity, the germ theory, the atomic theory, etc; however, the accuracy and precision of the theories increase with the addition of data.

Hope this helps.

 

[FallingWaters]

I don't really get what the problem is with the miracle stuff. Yes, the Creation Week was a week full of miracles, but after that, weren't Laws set into motion which govern the Universe?

And surely, you're not saying the Grand Canyon got here by a miracle? It got here by a natural event which happened as a result of Noah's Flood, right? Why shouldn't we try to figure out how that happened with a lot of water in a short period of time, rather than believing evolutionists who say it was carved by the Colorado River over millions of years?

Mount St. Helens was a godsend!

 

[Calminian]

Yes, the Creation Week was a week full of miracles, but after that, weren't Laws set into motion which govern the Universe?

Yes, but as theists we believe God intervenes from time to time.

And surely, you're not saying the Grand Canyon got here by a miracle? It got here by a natural event which happened as a result of Noah's Flood, right?

Well, actually no. Did the Flood affect the natural world? Yes. All miracles do. Was it caused by natural processes? No. Was it ended by natural processes? No, God brought it to an end.

The Flood came as a result of God acting in the natural world. The reason for God choosing to do it, was excessive sin on the earth. It had nothing to do with the natural processes that cause the floods of today. God tweaked some things here and there and who knows where else. I'm mean how do you get a world to completely flood that wasn't set up naturally to flood? All kinds of possible ways He did this have been proposed by creationists, but we aren't told in scripture exactly how. And then, once He flooded the world, how do you make the waters recede? Is this something that just happens naturally? Did He not do anything supernatural to cause this? We know He did, because scripture says He caused the waters to recede. Most creationists agree, including AiG. They believe He likely deepened the valleys in the oceans, and raised up the continents and mountains (makes a lot of sense). And then, more modifications are revealed after the Flood. What did God have to do to make rainbows appear? Would these have just happened naturally? What change did the earth have to undergo for this new phenomenon to start taking place? And what did God have to do to make animals fear man after the Flood? Again, another supernatural modification is implied. Not only was the Flood a miracle, but one of the greatest the world has ever experienced!

Why shouldn't we try to figure out how that happened with a lot of water in a short period of time, rather than believing evolutionists who say it was carved by the Colorado River over millions of years?

Huh? Where did I ever imply we shouldn't? I applaud the theories put out by creationist organizations. I always have.

Mount St. Helens was a godsend!

Agreed. (although there are probably a number of squirrel and owl families that didn't see it that way) Perhaps you're under the mistaken impression that I believe science has no place in the origins debate. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm as supportive of AiG and ICR as you are.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I think those who do not see any evidence for the Genesis Flood are beginning with the wrong set of starting assumptions - as I said before, the assumption is that geological processes necessarily take millions of years. They fail to realize that the same evidence used by uniformitarians to argue that geological layers were laid down gradually over millions of years is the same evidence used by creationists to argue that geological layers were laid down by vast amounts of water over a short period of time.

The question is not "who has the best evidence?" but "how do we interpret the evidence?" The past is not something one can directly observe, so one has to make assumptions when dealing with it.

I agree with all the above. So the question for me becomes, is this a purely scientific matter, or should it be considered a broader epistemological matter that includes science, but isn't limited to it? Historical science just doesn't work without applying methodological naturalism to evidence. So, maybe we shouldn't call creationism, science? Maybe this is a broader philosophical issue which can't be restricted to scientific assumptions. Why not call it philosophical creationism? or maybe creation epistemology? This doesn't mean science is of no value nor plays no role, but let's face it, we believe creation ultimately to be an act of God, not the result of random natural (scientific) processes.

Biblical Creationism, as it is commonly taught by Christian Fundamentalists today, is not biblical for the simple reason that the Bible does not teach creationism as it is commonly taught by Christian Fundamentalists today. Indeed, a careful reading of Gen. 1-11 strongly suggests that it is a series of epic tales and when this passage from Genesis is compared with other ancient Hebrew literature and the literature of other cultures in the ancient oriental world, we find very strong evidence that this is the case and the very large majority of Old Testament scholars today believe that Gen. 1 – 11 is, indeed, a series of epic tales.

And since over 99.95% of all biologists and geologists today who have earned at least a Ph.D. in a biological or geological science from an accredited college or university known for academic excellence in the respective science believe that the earth is at the very least hundreds of millions of years old, and the vast majority of them believe that it is about five billion years old, creationism is not a science but an archaic interpretation of Gen. 1 – 11 and several other passages in the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, creationism is neither biblical nor a science.

It is a well established fact that Genesis 6-8, if interpreted literally, is an historical account of actual events in history in which Noah’s family built an ark that was sufficiently large enough for representatives of 1.5 million or more genetically discrete populations of animals to come aboard and be maintained by Noah and his family for 150 or more days exclusively by natural means. Subsequent to those 150 or more days, the ark came to rest on a mountain and these representatives of 1.5 million or more genetically discrete populations of animals disembarked and found their way down the mountain and to the furthest corners of the earth and managed to survive that trip and their arrival even though every single land habitat had been completely destroyed by the flood.

It does not require a Ph.D. in biology from a prestigious university to see immediately that such an historic event never took place. Indeed, the completion of a high school biology class is all that is needed.

A few facts regarding Noah’s Ark that must be considered in evaluating the literalness of the account in Gen. 6–8:

• The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float.

• The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

• The amount of food required for the animals would weigh nearly as much as the animals and would require a vast amount of storage space.

• Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.

• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.

• The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.

• After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast amount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

• Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained on the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

• The Animals could not all be released all at once or in the same place because they would eat each other.

• The coming of the animals to Noah from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed a few special difficulties.

• After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

• Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.

• Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

• There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood.

• If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend.

Any man or woman with a high school education that included a course in biology can see at once that the story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that by the means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the water.

 

[Calminian]

Biblical Creationism, as it is commonly taught by Christian Fundamentalists today, is not biblical for the simple reason that the Bible does not teach creationism as it is commonly taught by Christian Fundamentalists today. Indeed, a careful reading of Gen. 1-11 strongly suggests that it is a series of epic tales and when this passage from Genesis is compared with other ancient Hebrew literature and the literature of other cultures in the ancient oriental world, we find very strong evidence that this is the case and the very large majority of Old Testament scholars today believe that Gen. 1 – 11 is, indeed, a series of epic tales.

And since over 99.95% of all biologists and geologists today who have earned at least a Ph.D. in a biological or geological science from an accredited college or university known for academic excellence in the respective science believe that the earth is at the very least hundreds of millions of years old, and the vast majority of them believe that it is about five billion years old, creationism is not a science but an archaic interpretation of Gen. 1 – 11 and several other passages in the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, creationism is neither biblical nor a science.

It is a well established fact that Genesis 6-8, if interpreted literally, is an historical account of actual events in history in which Noah’s family built an ark that was sufficiently large enough for representatives of 1.5 million or more genetically discrete populations of animals to come aboard and be maintained by Noah and his family for 150 or more days exclusively by natural means. Subsequent to those 150 or more days, the ark came to rest on a mountain and these representatives of 1.5 million or more genetically discrete populations of animals disembarked and found their way down the mountain and to the furthest corners of the earth and managed to survive that trip and their arrival even though every single land habitat had been completely destroyed by the flood.

It does not require a Ph.D. in biology from a prestigious university to see immediately that such an historic event never took place. Indeed, the completion of a high school biology class is all that is needed.

A few facts regarding Noah’s Ark that must be considered in evaluating the literalness of the account in Gen. 6–8:

• The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float.

• The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

• The amount of food required for the animals would weigh nearly as much as the animals and would require a vast amount of storage space.

• Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.

• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.

• The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.

• After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast amount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

• Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained on the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

• The Animals could not all be released all at once or in the same place because they would eat each other.

• The coming of the animals to Noah from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed a few special difficulties.

• After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

• Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.

• Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

• There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood.

• If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend.

Any man or woman with a high school education that included a course in biology can see at once that the story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that by the means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the water.

I can appreciate your passion, but this is totally off topic. Could you kindly start a new thread? That way we can address you without totally derailing the topic in this thread.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I can appreciate your passion, but this is totally off topic. Could you kindly start a new thread? That way we can address you without totally derailing the topic in this thread.

This thread begins with this question,

Is Biblical Creationism a pure science?

My post specifically answered that question,

And since over 99.95% of all biologists and geologists today who have earned at least a Ph.D. in a biological or geological science from an accredited college or university known for academic excellence in the respective science believe that the earth is at the very least hundreds of millions of years old, and the vast majority of them believe that it is about five billion years old, creationism is not a science but an archaic interpretation of Gen. 1 – 11 and several other passages in the Old and New Testaments.

Perhaps my answer was not worded plainly enough to be understood by some, especially with the documentation that followed to prove the correctness of my answer. Therefore I shall answer the question more simply. Biblical Creationism, as it is commonly taught by Christian Fundamentalists today, is not a science, pure or otherwise. It is nothing but an archaic interpretation of Gen. 1 – 11 cloaked with claims regarding curious, anomalous data that is imagined by some to provide scientific evidence in support of that archaic interpretation.

 

[SecularHumanist08]

To answer your question, Biblical Creationism is not scientific. Firstly it starts with an unprovable hypothesis - that a prime mover created the universe, and the earth 6000 years ago. Secondly all creation science is, and always has been..is a desperate attempt to teach genesis in american public schools. To teach religious belief as fact violates the first amendment, therefore Creation Science was established in order to convince the judges that Biblical Creationism could be scientifically verified..that is evidence could be found that would prove genesis actually occured..however none could be found...that is why we are having this discussion. Intelligent Design was a bastardisation of creation science, probability, and molecular biology and found the same fate.

I apologise if i seem harsh..but i do not know where u get the idea that the REAL scientific community considers evolution to be just a theory...Evolution is fact, it has been for over a hundred years, it reconciled many scientific problems from the 19th century, and has mountains of evidence that could be googled or found in any textbook.
Shall we analyse the difference between established scientific fact and the creation account

creationism believes the earth to be 6000 years old:
this is after the agricultural revolution
this violates all the geological data that is proven fact - forget your massive flood, there isnt enough water on earth - no miracles...that is against scientific principle as it is unmeasurable

Creationists follow a book written in the bronze age
No evidence could ever be found that would confirm or deny anything written about the miracles, about jesus.
However, historical data can find no evidence of the existence of a garden of eden, the existence of Moses or the apparent accepted belief that the israelites were captured by the egyptians.

Adam and Eve violates genetics
In order to have a stable gene pool (for humans) requires around 10,000 people..if just two people were created by god, within 10 generations there wud be sterility, cancer and mental retardation. You need genetic variety otherwise you will stagnate and your species die. THESE ARE FACTS PROVED BY EXPERIMENT AND DATA

Noahs flood
Inherently unprovable, if this happened a few thousand years ago for 40 days..there would be no life on earth able to survive except for oceanic life, it wouldnt be long enough to create the variety of land based life we have today...and the same issues fall into play for noah and his family, and for the simple fact that the billions of species on earth at this time could not have fitted into one boat.

All the theories of creation science fall flat on their face. You could experiment with the grand canyon...simple thought experiment

take the rate at which erosion works, take all the weight of the sea and place it psi on the canyon - unformed of course at this time - see what happens over 40 days....you'll find nothing will have happened. Erosion - scientifically proven by observation - is a slow process, working in geological time.

No science, just supposition.

 

[ClearSky]

And since over 99.95% of all biologists and geologists today who have earned at least a Ph.D. in a biological or geological science from an accredited college or university known for academic excellence in the respective science believe that the earth is at the very least hundreds of millions of years old, and the vast majority of them believe that it is about five billion years old, creationism is not a science but an archaic interpretation of Gen. 1 – 11 and several other passages in the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, creationism is neither biblical nor a science.

The fact that 99.95% of all scientists believe that the earth is about five billion years old does not make this a true fact. The scientists believe that just because most of their data supports that.

However, the supernatural creation of the earth described in Scripture can very well have left evidence that points to a five billion years old earth. God created the earth and all life on it, but He also obviously allowed for a natural explanation.

Now you will ask of course: How do we know that our interpretation of Scripture is correct and the universe was indeed created 6000 years ago, even though this obviously contradicts 99% of all scientific data?

The answer: We do not know that for certain, but some very good arguments support the 6000 years theory.

a) The book Genesis is quite clear about the 6000 years. God inspired Scripture and would probably have intervened when the author (or authors) of Genesis had described the creation in a wrong and misleading way, with a wrong time scale.

b) The purpose of creation was creating people able to worship God. God is omnipotent, so there would not have been a reason for him after universe creation to wait 15 billion years until habitable planets were available. An omnipotent God can easily create the universe, solar systems and planets right away.

 

[synger]

Please be reminded of the Creation Forum-specific Guidelines (FSGs). Unless you are a Creationist, you are limited to posting fellowship posts in this forum. If you wish to discuss the merits and flaws of Creationism, you should take the discussion to the Origins forum instead.

Thank you.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The fact that 99.95% of all scientists believe that the earth is about five billion years old does not make this a true fact. The scientists believe that just because most of their data supports that.

However, the supernatural creation of the earth described in Scripture can very well have left evidence that points to a five billion years old earth. God created the earth and all life on it, but He also obviously allowed for a natural explanation.

Now you will ask of course: How do we know that our interpretation of Scripture is correct and the universe was indeed created 6000 years ago, even though this obviously contradicts 99% of all scientific data?

The answer: We do not know that for certain, but some very good arguments support the 6000 years theory.

a) The book Genesis is quite clear about the 6000 years. God inspired Scripture and would probably have intervened when the author (or authors) of Genesis had described the creation in a wrong and misleading way, with a wrong time scale.

b) The purpose of creation was creating people able to worship God. God is omnipotent, so there would not have been a reason for him after universe creation to wait 15 billion years until habitable planets were available. An omnipotent God can easily create the universe, solar systems and planets right away.

I am a creationist, but I am not a creationist because there is a science that supports that belief—I am a creationist exclusively for religious reasons. As a biologist, I know for an absolute, incontrovertible fact that the earth is much more than 10,000 years old, and no one has ever been able to name even one biologist who has earned, in recent years, at least a Ph.D. in one of the biological sciences from an accredited, secular college or university known for academic excellence in that biological science who believes that the earth is only thousands of years old. And the same is over 99.95% true of geologist as well.

We know for an absolute proven fact that the Genesis flood did not occur. There is no question about this whatsoever except from fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who, based upon a non-academic interpretation of Genesis 6-8 and the related passages in the New Testament, think that it is necessary to discount the results of genuine scientific enquiry in order for the Bible, as they interpret it, to be true. And they not only discount the results of genuine scientific enquiry, they also discount all of the very many literary studies of Genesis 6-8 and the related passages in the New Testament that very strongly favor the interpretation that Gen. 1 – 11 (with the sole exception of Gen. 1:1) is a series of epic tales.

The manipulation of scientific data in the hope of finding support for one’s interpretation of the Bible is not pure science or any other kind of science—it is the practice of religion. I respect everyone’s right to believe as they choose, but calling the practice of religion genuine scientific enquiry is to deny the true nature of both science and religion.

 

[Calminian]

This thread begins with this question,

Is Biblical Creationism a pure science?

My post specifically answered that question,



Perhaps my answer was not worded plainly enough to be understood by some, especially with the documentation that followed to prove the correctness of my answer. Therefore I shall answer the question more simply. Biblical Creationism, as it is commonly taught by Christian Fundamentalists today, is not a science, pure or otherwise. It is nothing but an archaic interpretation of Gen. 1 – 11 cloaked with claims regarding curious, anomalous data that is imagined by some to provide scientific evidence in support of that archaic interpretation.

But unfortunately you didn't read the body of the OP which explained the thread title. This is not about whether science supports creationism, but whether science as an epistemology is sufficient to address issues like miracles, the supernatural, etc.. I'd like to keep this thread focused on that. So please start a new thread. I'm asking very nicely.

 

[Calminian]

As a biologist, I know for an absolute, incontrovertible fact that the earth is much more than 10,000 years old, and no one has ever been able to name even one biologist who has earned, in recent years, at least a Ph.D. in one of the biological sciences from an accredited,

Then why not address the issue raised in the OP? This issue is not whether science supports creationism or a young earth (both myself and clearsky agree with you to a certain extent), but whether science, as an epistemological tool, is able to investigate origins. Do you believe scripture conveys our origin to be natural or supernatural. If the latter, do you believe science can investigate supernatural causation? If so why? 99.9% of all scientists would disagree with you. Science must presuppose methodological naturalism. Are you familiar with that term?

 

[Calminian]

What's funny is, this guy is so intense on getting out his message that he doesn't realize he's actually supporting the argument of my OP (which he didn't read).

Any man or woman with a high school education that included a course in biology can see at once that the story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge miracles would have been necessary...

Oh well. He didn't mean to help me out, but this is the essence my point. The Creation, the Curse and the Flood were caused by supernatural acts of God (miracles), just as the Bible says. Therefore, science has an epistemological handicap in attempting to investigate it. It would be like using science to examine the wine Jesus created.

 

[Molal]

I agree, the supernatural is not within the realm of science.

The problem arises when creationists imply that physical evidence of a literal genesis interpretation can be observed.