Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[PKJ]

Is YEC a scientific theory?



I say no.

(from wikipedia) In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, testable, and has never been falsified.


​

YEC does not correspond to that definition. It does seem to fit the definition of dogma:

(wiki again) Dogma is belief held by a religion to be authoritative


​

Also, YEC fails to satisfy the 6 conditions:

(from wikipedia) A scientific theory...

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory,
5. is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
6. is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Occam's Razor.

In conclusion, YEC has as much to do with science than science has to do with Gilgamesh (i.e. nothin).

 

[Loudmouth]

It can be summed up thus. Science gathers data and forms a conclusion. Creationism starts with a conclusion and accepts data that agrees with the conclusion. Creationism puts the cart before the horse.

 

[Calminian]

Asking if the biblical creation story is science is like asking if the resurrection of Christ is science. How can a miracle be science? Everyone know science starts with a naturalistic assumption and then proceeds to try to find only naturalistic answers.

I suppose whether or not ID is "science" is another matter. But as far a YEC I think the point is nothing in science contradicts it.

 

[Calminian]

oops, double post

 

[AngelusTenebrae]

If YEC were a scientific theory, it would be a very poorly constructed one, even if you ignore the contradictions. It would be rejected ultimately, but mostly because it fails to have any proper, physical evidence to support the idea, and it's not even based on an observation, not so much that it is contradicted. I say this because if you construct a good scientific theory, it can still be wrong, but because it was constructed well, you can still modify it within reason, and test them.

 

[Dragon02]

But as far a YEC I think the point is nothing in science contradicts it.

Except for everything.

 

[nvxplorer]

But as far a YEC I think the point is nothing in science contradicts it.

Incorporating miracles into a theory makes that theory unfalsifiable. As such, YEC explains nothing.

From a scientific standpoint, YEC is most certainly contradicted.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

...But as far a YEC I think the point is nothing in science contradicts it.

Are you serious? You do know that virtually EVERYTHING in science contradicts YEC, don't you?

 

[Calminian]

Are you serious? You do know that virtually EVERYTHING in science contradicts YEC, don't you?

Yet another skeptic that believe science falsifies miracles.

 

[AngelusTenebrae]

Miracles are just the way of looking at things. You look at an event and call it a miracle, and a scientist looks at it and goes, observation, prediction, hypothesis, experiment, repeat experiment, write report and distribute to peers for review.

 

[Calminian]

Miracles are just the way of looking at things. You look at an event and call it a miracle, and a scientist looks at it and goes, observation, prediction, hypothesis, experiment, repeat experiment, write report and distribute to peers for review.

Actually some scientists observe things and call it acausality. Their world view wont let them realize how illogical that is. And there are also scientists that believe in miracles. Science is merely a tool to help us understand our natural world. It's a useless tool in verifying or falsifying miracles. Other forms of investigation must come into play at that point.

 

[nvxplorer]

Science is merely a tool to help us understand our natural world. It's a useless tool in verifying or falsifying miracles. Other forms of investigation must come into play at that point.

And those forms of investigation would be? A particular reading of Genesis, I presume?

 

[AngelusTenebrae]

Only if you can define that event as a miracle. If it can be explained, it can't be called a miracle, and it is precisely what scientists intend to do--show that it's not a miracle by observing and being able to explain it.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Yet another skeptic that believe science falsifies miracles.

Nice try, but false.

 

[Valkhorn]

Yet another skeptic that believe science falsifies miracles

I think you're confusing many things. In terms of a global flood, a 6000 year old Earth, etc., there is no way the true physical evidence points to it. And, like it or not, no miracle on earth will ever cover up the evidence that points to the true age of the earth (~4.6 billion years) and the fact that there was no global flood.

And, even if you could miracle both into effect, do you honestly want a decieving god who creates the entire universe around naturalistic principles but would rather you believe in a literal version of how people thought 2000 years ago?

Think about it.

 

[dpatrick]

I think you're confusing many things. In terms of a global flood, a 6000 year old Earth, etc., there is no way the true physical evidence points to it. And, like it or not, no miracle on earth will ever cover up the evidence that points to the true age of the earth (~4.6 billion years) and the fact that there was no global flood.

And, even if you could miracle both into effect, do you honestly want a decieving god who creates the entire universe around naturalistic principles but would rather you believe in a literal version of how people thought 2000 years ago?

Think about it.

Point taken on "miracling everything into existence that contradicts with contemporary scientific thought" as a valid explanation. But I would suggest it is a materialistic premise that does not allow for the possibility of a Flood, not hard facts.

As to the question, "Is YEC Science?", it is like asking "Is Naturalism Science?" The answer to both is "No", but each is foundational to our interpretation of scientifically observable evidence.

 

[Jan87676]

Is evilution(evolution) science?

Science-the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

 

[McCracAttack]

Yet another skeptic that believe science falsifies miracles.

History shows that miracles are just phenomenon with explanations that are not known/understood at the time. Once an explanation is known then it is no longer a miracle. Science does this quite well.

 

[caravelair]

Is evilution(evolution) science?

Science-the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

yes.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Calminian - suppose someone claimed that their dog had been miraculously turned into a cat.

But looking at the dog, it's obviously a dog.

Wouldn't science (i.e. the observation that the animal is a dog) disprove the statement that there had been a miracle that turned it into a cat?

That's the sort of territory we're in here.