Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[AV1611VET]

Nobody here would want to be an innocent
on trial when the jury abandoned all data

This reminds me of something I've said here before.

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

I can picture those standing before God at the Great White Throne Judgement, saying their evidence pointed to this, that, and the other thing not happening in the Bible; and God saying:

God: Show Me.

Academian: Sure. [turns around] Um. It was right here a minute ago.

 

[Frank Robert]

I don't think there is one single idea or way of thinking that should have a monopoly on what is considered science. Science needs to be open to alternative theories. It should be okay to challenge current theories and have discussions, even if some theories are based on faith. There are brilliant PhD-level scientists who are creationists and can explain certain phenomena within the creationist view. Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived believed in a Creator God. In many ways, current science has led some former atheists to consider the possibilities.

The universe is so finely-tuned that one cannot fully, totally deny the possibility that it was created by an intelligent being.

There are theistic theories that are open to empirical evidence that would qualify as science. For example there is a present discussion at Peaceful Science on the Legitimacy of the Shroud of Turin.

There is also a present discussion on Panda's Thumb on Breakthrough for Intelligent Design

 

[Saucy]

But alternatives to doing science. Alternative hypotheses is fine: abandoning the scientific method is not.

So the scientific method is perfect and cannot be questioned?

 

[Saucy]

If there was even the smallest possibility of a Creator, it changes everything, even science its methods of testing and data. You may not like that creationists use their faith to do science, but they can be right at the end of the day. The existence of a supernatural God means that He could have created in an instant what science says took millions of years to form. Saying there is no God and there is only observable processes is starting out no differently where a creationist is starting from. You're supposing all there is is all you see with no interference from a supernatural God.

Not even science can rule out the existence of God.

 

[Torah Keeper]

To all old Earthers, take a look at www.creation.com. It's a good start if you want to examine the evidence for YEC. Please understand what YEC is about before saying it contradicts science. Science contradicts itself already. Scientists have contradicted each other all through history, including today. Science is not infallible, because scientists are not infallible. Many times scientific theories have changed, and they continue to change the more we understand.

The scientific method only works with what we can test today, it doesn't work for events that may or may not have happened in the past. All we can do is look at what evidence we have remaining from ancient events, and make educated assumptions, known as theories, about what may have happened. The truth is, we were not there to see it happen.

The science of the past is ridiculed today. The science of today will be ridiculed in the future.

 

[Astrid]

So the scientific method is perfect and cannot be questioned?

It's religion that claims unquestionable
perfection.
Nothing could be further from what science
is about. Perfection doesn't even exist,
and all things are open to question.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It's religion that claims unquestionable
perfection.
Nothing could be further from what science
is about. Perfection doesn't even exist,
and all things are open to question.

Indeed. Asking whether the scientific method can be questioned is like asking whether a wrench (spanner) can be questioned.

 

[Frank Robert]

The science of the past is ridiculed today. The science of today will be ridiculed in the future.

Redefining science's ability to self-correct as ridicule does not make it so. There are plenty of free resources to learn the basics. Creation orgs like Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and RTB will send you

 

[Hans Blaster]

To all old Earthers, take a look at www.creation.com.

I'm aware of what they are selling, it isn't science.

It's a good start if you want to examine the evidence for YEC. Please understand what YEC is about before saying it contradicts science.

I am well aware of the YEC position. It is at best pseudoscience.

Science contradicts itself already. Scientists have contradicted each other all through history, including today. Science is not infallible, because scientists are not infallible. Many times scientific theories have changed, and they continue to change the more we understand.

That's how science works. It is the strength of science, not a weakness. (error correction)

The scientific method only works with what we can test today, it doesn't work for events that may or may not have happened in the past.

There are many ways to examine the past through the clues it leaves today. In astronomy, the finite speed of light means you are *always* looking live at things in the past, often the deep past (hundreds, thousands, millions, billions of years).

All we can do is look at what evidence we have remaining from ancient events, and make educated assumptions, known as theories, about what may have happened. The truth is, we were not there to see it happen.

There are many aspects of life that require examination of past events without someone to directly observe or record and event as it happens. Most crime investigation relies on such techniques.

The science of the past is ridiculed today. The science of today will be ridiculed in the future.

<eyeroll>

 

[Astrid]

Redefining science's ability to self-correct as ridicule does not make it so. There are plenty of free resources to learn the basics. Creation orgs like Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and RTB will send you

View attachment 323981​

The resort by to gross misrepresentation is
sadly typical, but with no facts, fiction has to
serve those whom it serves.

 

[Kylie]

I don't think there is one single idea or way of thinking that should have a monopoly on what is considered science. Science needs to be open to alternative theories. It should be okay to challenge current theories and have discussions, even if some theories are based on faith.

I agree.

If there is some alternative to science, let's see what it can do. And if it can do the job of describing the way the universe works BETTER than science, let's switch to that.

So far, I've not seen any faith based options that can do the job better than science.

Can you present such an alternative? If so, can you show us how it provides a better explanatory capacity than science does?

 

[Kylie]

If there was even the smallest possibility of a Creator, it changes everything, even science its methods of testing and data. You may not like that creationists use their faith to do science, but they can be right at the end of the day. The existence of a supernatural God means that He could have created in an instant what science says took millions of years to form. Saying there is no God and there is only observable processes is starting out no differently where a creationist is starting from. You're supposing all there is is all you see with no interference from a supernatural God.

Not even science can rule out the existence of God.

Bear in mind, science can't rule out the existence of leprechauns either. Science can't rule out anything if that thing is unfalsifiable. And the problem with unfalsifiable things is that it makes no difference whether they exist or not.

 

[Astrid]

Bear in mind, science can't rule out the existence of leprechauns either. Science can't rule out anything if that thing is unfalsifiable. And the problem with unfalsifiable things is that it makes no difference whether they exist or not.

Bear in mind too that the existence of some God
changes exactly zero in science.

 

[Astrid]

Redefining science's ability to self-correct as ridicule does not make it so. There are plenty of free resources to learn the basics. Creation orgs like Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and RTB will send you

View attachment 323981​

It's not even ridiculed. Why should it be?
Sincere people doing their best have no ridicule
coming. Often people hundreds of years ago
we're marvelously insightful.
Newton and Plato got a lot of things wrong.
Nobody ridicules them.
The whole idea is just invidious nonsense.

 

[Larniavc]

So the scientific method is perfect and cannot be questioned?

It’s not perfect. It’s the best way to find out about the world we have.

 

[Astrophile]

There are brilliant PhD-level scientists who are creationists and can explain certain phenomena within the creationist view.

Who are these brilliant PhD-level scientists, what is their evidence for creationism, and which phenomena can they explain within the creationist view?

 

[driewerf]

If there was even the smallest possibility of a Creator, it changes everything, even science its methods of testing and data. You may not like that creationists use their faith to do science, but they can be right at the end of the day. The existence of a supernatural God means that He could have created in an instant what science says took millions of years to form. Saying there is no God and there is only observable processes is starting out no differently where a creationist is starting from. You're supposing all there is is all you see with no interference from a supernatural God.

Not even science can rule out the existence of God.

In a different thread and slightly different context I once wrote the following essay that I think is useful here too:


Good fences make good friends, or as the late (and still so inspiring!) Stephen Jay Gould said, religion and science are Not Overlapping Magisteria. NOMA. Fine. Let religion squabble about the nature of the soul, the difference between Purgatory and Hell, the question whether someone can be safed by good works or by grace alone. Let the spiritual be religion’s Magisterium.

Science’s job is to describe and explain the physical. The material, the real world. And science has strict rules when dealing with the physical: empirical evidence is the ultimate arbiter. Not authority, not revelation, not disbelieve. Empirical evidence.

You guys want to debate the question of “Once Saved Always Saved”. Good. Fine. But the moment you cross the fence and make statements about the physical world, you enter science’s realm and play by science’s rules.

The Flood? A physical event, hence where is the empirical evidence?

The changing of water into wine at the Wedding of Cana? A very material thing, hence you play by science’s rules.

The Creation Week? Again, a statement about the material Universe. You enter Science’s playground so again empirical evidence shall be the only accepted argument.


If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. If you don’t want to stick with these rules, then don’t cross the fence. Stay in your safe space or echo chamber, aka your church, mosque, synagogue or Sunday School.


Good fences make good friends, or at least, they clarify the rules by which the discussions are to be held.

 

[Frank Robert]

If there was even the smallest possibility of a Creator, it changes everything, even science its methods of testing and data. You may not like that creationists use their faith to do science, but they can be right at the end of the day. The existence of a supernatural God means that He could have created in an instant what science says took millions of years to form. Saying there is no God and there is only observable processes is starting out no differently where a creationist is starting from. You're supposing all there is is all you see with no interference from a supernatural God.

Not even science can rule out the existence of God.

What would prevent the Creator from creating the laws of nature and giving humans intelligence to discover them through science?

Amazing Scientific Insights of the Bible

The scientific concern of science and the supernatural​

"The creationist can easily explain any phenomenon by simply saying 'God did it.' This approach, though it
may be perfectly correct in the absolute sense, does not foster further inquiry and is therefore intellectually
emasculated." (William Stansfield, The Science of Evolution, 1977)​

Biblical Basis for Study of Science and the Bible​

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” (Matthew 22:37,
NIV)​

“For the Lord gives wisdom, and from His mouth come knowledge and understanding.” (Proverbs 2:6, NIV)​

“Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science
falsely so called.” (1 Timothy 6:20-21, KJV)...​

​

Read that entire article for more insights from bible to science...​

​

​

​

​

 

[Astrid]

Who are these brilliant PhD-level scientists, what is their evidence for creationism, and which phenomena can they explain within the creationist view?

No fair

 

[Torah Keeper]

Who are these brilliant PhD-level scientists, what is their evidence for creationism, and which phenomena can they explain within the creationist view?

You can find some of them, and their articles, on www.creation.com.