The problem with Creation Science

[ChrisS]

The truth is, we all have the same facts, we just interpret them differently. That's what it all comes down to.

 

[Scholar in training]

Creation "Science" starts with a preconceived concept or theory and then goes and looks for data and evidence to support it.

You're treading on dangerous ground. Some people would call God a preconceived concept and would apply your argument not only to YEC but to God's very existance.

 

[Vance]

You're treading on dangerous ground. Some people would call God a preconceived concept and would apply your argument not only to YEC but to God's very existance.

But that is the difference between science and faith. See my thread entitled Faith Presumptions.

 

[Smidlee]

Science, when done correctly, derives its concepts and theories *from* the data and evidence it finds.

Well this leave Darwin's theory out since the evidence was againest his theory from the very beginning. Even Darwin saw this but hope later the evidence would point in the other direction which didn't happen. In Fact , mendel's experiments was more on target than Darwin yet the world promoted Darwin's theory with the help of some deceivers with made false drawing and false skull. Of where would this theory be today without these liers in the past promoting TOE ? probably in the waste basket. I can't help but question anything that based on lies. I wonder how many liers and deceivers are promoting this theory today. (of course I not saying all evolutionists are liers yet a few good lies can deceive the masses).
I feel exactly the same with abortion since Roe vs Wade was build on lies. (the woman admited she was told to lie and say she was raped.)

Creation "Science" starts with a preconceived concept or theory and then goes and looks for data and evidence to support it.

This can be said of all science especially evolution. so do you believe scripture are evidence. They weren't written by rocket scientist but by Godly men. So is scientists with their super duper egos more creditable to you than Godly men who wrote scriptures?

Of course, when you go specifically looking for something to support your theory, and you are willing to analyze every evidence in the light most favorable to your theory, you will definitely find some bits and pieces here and there which seem to support your theory. You can even develop a form of "model" based on these bits and pieces which, when combined with your preconceived theory, sounds convincing to those who want to be convinced (but to no one else).

YEC’s will insist that science also starts with preconceived concepts, such as the basic tenets of evolution, or of gravity, or hundreds of other building blocks upon which they do their current work. And, to an extent, this is true. But there are a few major differences:

1. These theories or concepts first arose *from* the physical evidence and data. YEC’ist preconceptions arose from a particular reading of Scripture (and one that *only* YEC’s accept).

Darwins theory? Darwin went on nothing but appearance and nothing else. It was scientist who disagree with Darwin at first which why a few evolutionist had to make false evidence to influence the science world.

2. The entire scientific community is set up to encourage challenges and criticisms of theories and concepts. The YEC community states right up front that their preconceived starting points (an old earth, some limitation on God’s ability to create through evolution) are not up for debate.

What? Look what happen to Richard Sternberg. It's a known fact that either you support evolution , Big bang ,etc. or no money for you. hey, I love to learn about space and will eat this stuff up but IMO Big Bang is garbage and I believe scientists know it is. i feel the same with evolution. this is why groups like ID is a real danger.

3. Scientific theories will be abandoned if and when there is sufficient evidence and cogent analysis which shows that it can not be true. In short, the scientific community will go wherever the overwhelming evidence leads them, even if the path is not what they expected or if it upsets their comfort zones. The YEC community has placed a very specific line where they will not go, no matter what the evidence says.

science can easily become dogma just like any religious text. Scientific community has to go where the money leads also. I was watching Nova a few years ago and the reporter even commented that one scientist believes the other scientist are idiots. So scientific community will go where their egos ago too. The science community cannot admit the creationists was right no matter how strong the evidence since it would destroy many their egos.

HERE IS THE KICKER: if we took some intelligent investigators and magically took away all the preconceived ideas, simply wiped them out of their brains, then presented them with the world as it is, they would eventually come up with what science tells us now, or something very much like it. They would NEVER, EVER, come up with any theory which has been presented by a Creation "Scientist". An objective, independent view of our earth and universe would never come up with a global flood, a young earth, etc, etc.

So, in reality, the scientific community, as a whole, is seeking for truth about the natural world. The YEC community is seeking for support. Thus, Creation Science is apologetics, not science.

I totally disagree with you since the majority of this world really don't wants to hear the truth. It seems you got all more faith in these scientist and their knowledge than I do. ( I know a loved one who has a lot of faith in their doctor while I see it just like any business. later I warn her as I questioned the doctor and later she found out I was right.) While I not YEC as the planet earth has be be 6,000 years old i do believe the earth as we know it is. I'm personally Thank God for YEC even though I don't always agree with them since someone needs to stand up againest this ungodly world and their lies. If it wasn't for YEC , evolutionist would probably tell even bigger lies than the ones in the past. So atleast YEC help made evolutionist somewhat more honest which eventually lead to ID. I could easily see how bias scientist was even before I knew about ID ,ICR, etc. and was so happy to learn their were exactly other like me who saw a lot of these theory as bologna epecially Big Bang. the last series I saw on PBS on Big Bang was so bad I couldn't stop laughing.

 

[Vance]

What Darwin observed WAS evidence, it was data. He drew conclusions FROM that data. It all started there. So, you entire position is wrong from the first line.

 

[Smidlee]

What Darwin observed WAS evidence, it was data. He drew conclusions FROM that data. It all started there. So, you entire position is wrong from the first line.

Darwin even admitted the fossils records was againest his theory which was the reason why so many scientist reject it from the beginning.

 

[Vance]

Darwin even admitted the fossils records was againest his theory which was the reason why so many scientist reject it from the beginning.

You are misrepresenting Darwin. He said that we do not yet have enough evidence from the fossil record to support his idea, and what little we had didn't always fit. But the fossil record is only one TINY fraction of the total evidence upon which he based his conclusion. Have you actually read Origin of Species, or are you just relying on what Creationists tell you about what Darwin presented?

No, the scientific conclusions reached about the age of the earth, evolution, etc, all derive FROM the evidence. It may still be wrong, it can be an incorrect reading of the evidence, or based on too small a sample, etc. All science hold their conclusions only to the degree supported by the evidence. But any given current theory is based ON the evidence, not on some presumption independent of the evidence.

That is why Creation Science is NOT science. It is apologetics.

 

[ChrisS]

No, the scientific conclusions reached about the age of the earth, evolution, etc, all derive FROM the evidence. It may still be wrong, it can be an incorrect reading of the evidence, or based on too small a sample, etc. All science hold their conclusions only to the degree supported by the evidence. But any given current theory is based ON the evidence, not on some presumption independent of the evidence.

That is why Creation Science is NOT science. It is apologetics.

Once again, we all have the same facts, we just interpret them differently.

 

[Vance]

Once again, we all have the same facts, we just interpret them differently.

Not all interpretations are created equal. First of all, if you are interpreting facts with an admitted goal of finding facts to fit your theory, then you will almost assuredly interpret most of your facts incorrectly. Using a framework derived from earlier conclusions derived FROM THE EVIDENCE is acceptable to science, since it is a practical way of avoiding have to reinvent that wheel with every experiment. BUT, what Creation scientists do is interpret the evidence from a preconception that has nothing AT ALL to do with the evidence, but from their particular reading of Scripture.

This takes it entirely outside the realm of science, which is simply the study of how the natural world works.

Again, it is apologetics. It could still be correct, but that is not my point. It is NOT SCIENCE, and should not call it itself science or pretend to be science. It should not claim that its conclusions are scientific conclusions, or seek to have it taught AS SCIENCE.

 

[On the Narrow Road]

Not all interpretations are created equal. First of all, if you are interpreting facts with an admitted goal of finding facts to fit your theory, then you will almost assuredly interpret most of your facts incorrectly. Using a framework derived from earlier conclusions derived FROM THE EVIDENCE is acceptable to science, since it is a practical way of avoiding have to reinvent that wheel with every experiment. BUT, what Creation scientists do is interpret the evidence from a preconception that has nothing AT ALL to do with the evidence, but from their particular reading of Scripture.

This takes it entirely outside the realm of science, which is simply the study of how the natural world works.

Again, it is apologetics. It could still be correct, but that is not my point. It is NOT SCIENCE, and should not call it itself science or pretend to be science. It should not claim that its conclusions are scientific conclusions, or seek to have it taught AS SCIENCE.

Again, this sounds suspiciously like many scientists use of "facts" and evidence. For example: astronomy. Hmmm, let's theorize about a black hole, then find evidence for it. Maybe "dark matter" Evidence for a "black hole" is virtually non-existent and there are far better theories to explain the evidence they are using. Yet scientists continue to shape the evidence to support their theory of a black hole. Evolution seems to me a similar construct. Someone came up with a theory and went looking for evidence...

 

[Scholar in training]

You are misrepresenting Darwin. He said that we do not yet have enough evidence from the fossil record to support his idea, and what little we had didn't always fit. But the fossil record is only one TINY fraction of the total evidence upon which he based his conclusion.

I realize that many fossils have been found in the present day - more than Darwin could vouch for when he was alive - but there still aren't enough fossils to support the theory of evolution. If evolution were true, then we should see millions of fossils depicting all the discreet changes in mammals' bone structure throughout their lifespans on earth; but are they there? No, as far as I know. There aren't nearly as many fossils as one would expect there to be.

 

[Biliskner]

I realize that many fossils have been found in the present day - more than Darwin could vouch for when he was alive - but there still aren't enough fossils to support the theory of evolution. If evolution were true, then we should see millions of fossils depicting all the discreet changes in mammals' bone structure throughout their lifespans on earth; but are they there? No, as far as I know. There aren't nearly as many fossils as one would expect there to be.

i second that.

bump.

 

[Biliskner]

Again, this sounds suspiciously like many scientists use of "facts" and evidence. For example: astronomy. Hmmm, let's theorize about a black hole, then find evidence for it. Maybe "dark matter" Evidence for a "black hole" is virtually non-existent and there are far better theories to explain the evidence they are using. Yet scientists continue to shape the evidence to support their theory of a black hole. Evolution seems to me a similar construct. Someone came up with a theory and went looking for evidence...

dark matter. love the theory to bits. but what a farce ad hoc outright lie.
it's so good it COULD MAYBE BE true.
reminds me of something else here...

 

[Biliskner]

What Darwin observed WAS evidence, it was data. He drew conclusions FROM that data. It all started there. So, you entire position is wrong from the first line.

what he saw was a couple of BIRDS.

data is something you collate and analyse.

i'm not collecting data by going on a rainforest walk and spotting rosellas, and neither was darwin.
don't fool yourself mate.

 

[Biliskner]

YECism is honest? How many times have I noticed a YEC misuse the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Or perhaps say that the theory of evolution says that humanity came from apes? That's honesty? If so, then I may as well chuck out the passages in the Bible where it says "do not falsely accuse your neighbor."

1Peter3 says 8 humans were saved on Noah's Ark. why don't you throw that one out as well while you are at it...

hang on a minute !!!

 

[Biliskner]

The truth is, we all have the same facts, we just interpret them differently. That's what it all comes down to.

bump bump bump bump bumpety bump, bump bump bump bump bumpety bump, bump bump bump bump bumpety bump...


ooo... is that against forum rules? sorry i thought this quote was worth the repeated typing

 

[Biliskner]

Once again, we all have the same facts, we just interpret them differently.

B U M P

U

M

P

 

[Biliskner]

the last series I saw on PBS on Big Bang was so bad I couldn't stop laughing.

LOL



was that ROFL?

 

[SBG]

ah man, too funny!

This is taking a page out of Vance's book of bumping threads up.

 

[Vance]

Again, this sounds suspiciously like many scientists use of "facts" and evidence. For example: astronomy. Hmmm, let's theorize about a black hole, then find evidence for it. Maybe "dark matter" Evidence for a "black hole" is virtually non-existent and there are far better theories to explain the evidence they are using. Yet scientists continue to shape the evidence to support their theory of a black hole. Evolution seems to me a similar construct. Someone came up with a theory and went looking for evidence...

Wrong, they saw the phenomenon that exists, and developed a theory to fit the evidence. Show me a theory that better fits the evidence. Better, show the scientific community a better theory and, if it IS better, they will eventually accept it after a thorough peer review, debate, consideration, etc.

Further, the scientific community only holds such theories to the degree that it is well-supported by data. Some theories (like many in astronomy) are not held very strongly because there is not much evidence. So, the theories are held tentatively, and are basically "working ideas" as the evidence develops. The more data comes in that supports a theory, the more it is accepted. That is why evolution is now accepted SO strongly. Because it simply has that level of evidence to support it. Now, the details of the mechanics are not held AS strongly because those are still tentative (but growing stronger as they come to be supported by more data). But the idea that evolutionary development has actually happened over billions of years is now discussed as a virtual fact. Not because of any presumption, but simply based on the degree of evidence.

The Creationists simply CAN'T let themselves believe this because it would destroy their personal view of how Scripture is meant to be read. But there it is.