Is Creationism actually science?

[trophy33]

It is God's account of creation.

Wrong. Its Jewish account of creation.

Read carefully. Its not "I, God, in the beginning...", but "In the beginning God (3rd person) created...".

Its not God's account, obviously.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is Creationism actually science?

No.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you criticizing science for being self-correcting.

How can it be self-correcting, when it replaces one wrong answer with another wrong answer?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Wrong. Its Jewish account of creation.

Read carefully. Its not "I, God, in the beginning...", but "In the beginning God (3rd person) created...".

Its not God's account, obviously.

In addition, if there is a god who created then surely that god's account of creation is creation itself.

 

[Rachel20]

Faced with the scientific impossibility of chance, the only rational ...

Creationism is a non-empirical theory, but so are many physics theories today (multiverse, ...). In those cases they look for assumptions so constrained there aren't any alternatives. Statistical impossibility would be such a constraint imo

 

[Larniavc]

Edgar a creationist wrote at Peaceful Science

"Creationism is actually science. By now, empirical science has made it perfectly obvious that viable life is so functionally complex that it could not possibly have happened by chance.
In effect, Abiogenesis-by-Chance has officially been declared a superstition - not to mention, an insult to human intelligence.

Faced with the scientific impossibility of chance, the only rational - and therefore, scientific - explanation for the origin of life is design, or more specifically, divine creation. Voila! … Creation is science. Get used to it."​

Opinion sans evidence is not science. Like creationism- an unsupported opinion.

 

[Larniavc]

Creationism was considered science for the better part of two millennium

"So is swinging through trees. Digging for roots with a blunt stick. Progress, my good major; progress."

Points if you get the quote.

 

[Larniavc]

But at what cost if you consider that belief in the ever-changing functions of science have largely replaced belief in the holiness and work of God?

No cost.

 

[adderbolt]

"So is swinging through trees. Digging for roots with a blunt stick. Progress, my good major; progress."

"The real, measurable world doesn't care what you believe." - Joe Halderman.

 

[adderbolt]

No cost.

Spoken like a true Agnostic.

 

[Larniavc]

"The real, measurable world doesn't care what you believe." - Joe Halderman.

Brilliant. Did you know it or did you look it up?

 

[Larniavc]

Spoken like a true Agnostic.

Atheist. But I do lean to agnosticism.

 

[lesliedellow]

Edgar a creationist wrote at Peaceful Science

"Creationism is actually science. By now, empirical science has made it perfectly obvious that viable life is so functionally complex that it could not possibly have happened by chance.
In effect, Abiogenesis-by-Chance has officially been declared a superstition - not to mention, an insult to human intelligence.

Faced with the scientific impossibility of chance, the only rational - and therefore, scientific - explanation for the origin of life is design, or more specifically, divine creation. Voila! … Creation is science. Get used to it."​

Even if it is objectively true that the first single cell organisms was created directly by God, it still wouldn’t be science, because there is no way of reasoning from empirical facts to the conclusion “Therefore the Christian God.”

It will always be a matter of faith, no matter how suggestive the facts may be.

 

[Frank Robert]

How can it be self-correcting, when it replaces one wrong answer with another wrong answer?

Try, try again!

 

[dlamberth]

Let's not mention "views and explanations" and stick to the Bible.

And as translations differ the creation account basically remains the same: yesterday, today and tomorrow whereas the thousands of years old science scene is largely irrelevant.

Science has opened the window into a new Creation story that has become completely relevant to the Earth and life on it.

 

[adderbolt]

Brilliant. Did you know it or did you look it up?

“Anyone who sees clearly sees chaos everywhere."

 

[dlamberth]

It is God's account of creation.

Nope.
The Biblical Creation story is how an ancient middle-eastern people understood their cosmology.

 

[Frank Robert]

Science has definitely improved our lives and added greatly to our life-span. But at what cost if you consider that belief in the ever-changing functions of science have largely replaced belief in the holiness and work of God?

To most Christian there is no costs. For creations there would be costs to a literal interpretation of the bible.

BTW, the only function of science is pursuit of knowledge by understanding the natural world using the scientific method.

 

[adderbolt]

Science has opened the window into a new Creation story that has become completely relevant to the Earth and life on it.

The Big Yang?

 

[adderbolt]

The Biblical Creation story is how an ancient middle-eastern people understood their cosmology.

How did they get it so right?