The problem with Creation Science

[Vance]

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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 is seeking for truth. The YEC community is seeking for support. Thus, Creation Science is apologetics, not science.

 

[Meatros]

Bravo! Good post!

 

[Michali]

What he says is true.

Say, Vance, if tommorow the Church decided to put away all its differences and unite with the intention of seeking what is the truth in all areas of debate. Knowing God would not disregard the sole people he has influenced on the earth, we could say that, coupled with prayers, our choices are guided by the Spirit.

What would the settlement be with regard to the Creation? I think it would be great if they would throw down the preconceptions and simply say "we will do all we can to find out more about the subject by finding out what is false." Would people accept this thinking?

The only thing a Christian could remain constant on is a period of time spanning a little over 30 yrs. in which Jesus walked the earth. We don't know of anything about our beliefs, but what was taught to us by Jesus. With that as the only preconception, wouldn't the Church be much more like it was intended?

 

[Vance]

Yes, I think that Paul's original concept of the Church was one in which Faith and belief in the Salvation Message was paramount and things quickly branched off into dogmas from there.

But I do think that the Truth lies in more than just the "lowest common denominator" of belief among Christians. I think that many are wrong about a lot of stuff and some are right. Some may be right on a few things and wrong on others. Nobody has it all figured out. And I think we need to each continue to move forward toward a better understanding of all God has given us, even if a consensus can not be reached.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

That's why Creation Science is an oxymoron >=D


And yes, I had to agree. I have much more respect for the christians who go by faith, using the bible as a reference guide as how to live a pretty decent life. A set of philosophies and moral guidelines I have no problem with, so long as they don't try and enforce the sillier ones thru the government. But when some kook tries to pass off a half baked theory that goes against the evidence at hand while coming to his conclusion bassackwards I can't help but to call him a fool.

 

[Philosoft]

Any so-called scientist who can look at an Archaeopteryx fossil and say, "That there's just a bird!" is either delusional or just lying.

 

[Jet Black]

Any so-called scientist who can look at an Archaeopteryx fossil and say, "That there's just a bird!" is either delusional or just lying.

or just uneducated, which when it comes to the crunch, is what most creationists are.

 

[hubcaps777]

if it's not a bird then what is it? sure doesn't look like a fish................

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

if it's not a bird then what is it? sure doesn't look like a fish................

Well, what it most looks like is a reptile. We arbitrarily call it a bird because we've defined "bird" as being anything with feathers.

The point is not that Archie is not a bird - it is a bird - but that it is not "just a bird". It has a number of features that are reptilian, and not shared by other birds. Off the top of my head (because it's rather dull re-researching the same old stuff):

Equal length fib and tib (check the next chicken drumstick you eat. The thin one that doesn't make it all the way to the ankle joint is the fibula)

Gastralia - ribs in the abdomenal area.

Long unfused tail as opposed to a fused pygostyle

Teeth

 

[tankiawee]

Even if an entity was proved to have created the universe, where is the link, the parallel that shows that the God described in the Bible is the one who created? How, can YECs claim that a "young" Earth validates the Bible?

The argument that there is only one God falls because the only substantiation for that is the Bible, creating a circular argument.

 

[Vance]

Ah, but that is getting to a different issue altogether, and more appropriate for the apologetics or theology groups.

 

[atheist_in_canada]

The biggest problem with creation science is that the idea of creation itself makes no sense at all. Creation logic says that "everything" in the universe has to be a product of design and that it is "impossible" for something to come from nothing. By that same logic GOD HAS TO BE CREATED! It is impossible for god to just exist. Even when you explain the idea of creation to a child the first thing out of their mouths is usually "well then who created god?" It just doesn't make any sense. As long as this question is unanswered creation science itself is irrelevant!

 

[Arikay]

Well the normal answer is, "god just is" of course, they often ignore that for anything else and completly ignore the possibility that the "universe just is"

 

[Mike Flynn]

The biggest problem with creation science is that the idea of creation itself makes no sense at all. Creation logic says that "everything" in the universe has to be a product of design and that it is "impossible" for something to come from nothing. By that same logic GOD HAS TO BE CREATED! It is impossible for god to just exist. Even when you explain the idea of creation to a child the first thing out of their mouths is usually "well then who created god?" It just doesn't make any sense. As long as this question is unanswered creation science itself is irrelevant!

On the contrary, many creationists claim that the speciation in the cambrian age was a result of organisms 'popping in out of nothing' (but by the power of God of course).

Simply put, creation science isn't invalid because it can't prove God's origins (science has nothing to do with this)...its invalid because it isn't good science.

Ironically, the Bible says we need to come to God by faith. Which raises the question: why are creation 'scientists' so intent on establishing 'proof' He must have had a hand in creation? Sounds to me like the position of individuals whose faith could be somewhat tenuous.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Even if an entity was proved to have created the universe, where is the link, the parallel that shows that the God described in the Bible is the one who created? How, can YECs claim that a "young" Earth validates the Bible?

The argument that there is only one God falls because the only substantiation for that is the Bible, creating a circular argument.

I know this isn't the forum for this, but huh?

If you are highlighting a circular argument between monotheism and Christianity, I don't see it.

 

[lucaspa]

Vance, altho this is a good post in general, there are a couple of problems with it.

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

Not always. Hypotheses and theories are imaginative leaps to begin with. The imagination is most often triggered by some bit of data, but initially a scientific hypothesis or theory is not derived from data.

Instead, what happens is that the hypothesis is immediately tested against data to show, if possible, that it is wrong!

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

The problem here is that Creation Science cannot be allowed to be shown wrong.

The only rule of the scientific method is that we must discard any scientific statement if the evidence of our senses shows it to be wrong."
Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business, A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, pg. 27-28.

Creation Scientists will never allow Creation Science to be shown to be wrong.

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.

Yep. If you look only for supporting data, you will always find some. That's why falsifying data is so important.

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).

This isn't the problem. It doesn't matter where the inspiration for theories comes from. You have to start somewhere. What matters is how you test the theory after you have it. The great 18th and 19th century creationists -- most of the famous early names in geology -- started with creationism, did genuine science, and falsified creationism.

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.

Right. And the scientific community started as YEC and found sufficient evidence to show that YEC could not be true. So they completely abandoned YEC by 1831. This is the point ommitted when YECers claim scientific bias. Since YEC was the accepted scientific theory, it's hard to claim bias against it.

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".

The scientists did come up with YEC as a theory. And then showed it to be false. Since all these scientists were also theists, and, in many cases, ministers, you can't accuse them of a bias against God.

An objective, independent view of our earth and universe would never come up with a global flood, a young earth, etc, etc.

Say, rather, that the objective independent view would never think that a global flood, young earth, etc. are valid.

The YEC community is seeking for support. Thus, Creation Science is apologetics, not science.

Not quite. Creation Science, as the scientific theory, is science but a falsified scientific theory. Creation scientists are engaging in apologetics.

An idea is separate from the people that advocate it. It's often difficult to separate the idea from the advocates, but it must be done.

 

[lucaspa]

The biggest problem with creation science is that the idea of creation itself makes no sense at all. Creation logic says that "everything" in the universe has to be a product of design and that it is "impossible" for something to come from nothing.

I'm sorry, but that is not an accurate description of creationism.

1. God is not "in" the universe.
2. Creationism states that biological organisms are designed. It does not state that "everything" in the universe is designed.
3. The "something from nothing" claim is separate from the design claim. That one is a misstatement of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Creationists use that one to have God be First Cause.

By that same logic GOD HAS TO BE CREATED! It is impossible for god to just exist.

This does not follow at all. When Dawkins broached this argument he was using it against a narrow creationist claim: complex entities cannot arise by chance. If complex entities cannot arise by chance, then there is no way for the creationist to get God. God also has to be created, which leads to an infinite regress. The creationist can avoid this simply by giving up the claim about chance never giving rise to complex entities.

As long as this question is unanswered creation science itself is irrelevant!

Only if you want to throw out science. It is invalid to use an unanswered question on a lower layer to invalidate the answer on a higher layer.

Science works in layers. As soon as you answer one question, 3 or 4 new ones pop up out of the answer. Not being able to answer the new questions doesn't mean the first answer is wrong.

Question 1: where did the desing in biological organisms come from?
Answer 1: Deity manufactured all biological organisms and gave them their designs.

New question 2: Where did deity come from?
Answer 2: We don't know.

Not being able to answer question 2 does not invalidate answer 1. If that were the case, then all science has to be thrown out.

As just one example, Darwin's natural selection depended on inheritance. But Darwin didn't know how inheritance worked at the time. Did not having the answer to how inheritance worked invalidate natural selection as the answer for the origin of design in biological organisms? Of course not. So your argument here isn't valid either.

 

[lucaspa]

Simply put, creation science isn't invalid because it can't prove God's origins (science has nothing to do with this)...its invalid because it isn't good science.

Put another way, creation science is falsified not because it can't show God's origins. Creation science is falsified by the same criteria as every other false theory has been falsified: it is contradicted by the data.

 

[onetruth]

am i the only one who doesnt show that much interest in where they came from, just glad they here? I dont need scientific proof to prove anything. I can see the Holy Spirit moving through my church and people in it. My Uncle Russ speaking in tounges on occassions makes it hard to tell me there is no God

 

[David Gould]

am i the only one who doesnt show that much interest in where they came from, just glad they here? I dont need scientific proof to prove anything. I can see the Holy Spirit moving through my church and people in it. My Uncle Russ speaking in tounges on occassions makes it hard to tell me there is no God

I am glad I am here and I am interested in where I came from.