The problem with Creation Science

[Philosoft]

My Uncle Russ speaking in tounges on occassions makes it hard to tell me there is no God

How do you know what tongue he is speaking? Can anyone understand what he's saying?

 

[David Gould]

How do you know what tongue he is speaking? Can anyone understand what he's saying?

I went to a Pentacostal Church a few times. Speaking in tongues, laying on of hands - the whole works. There was immense pressure on me to respond to the altar calls on each occassion but the whole atmosphere weirded me out. Liberal Anglicanism for me, thanks very much, I thought.

As far as I could tell, the people were simply gabbling words and someone nearby was 'translating'. Difficult to tell without a good knowledge of languages, though.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

Good for you. Then it should be easy for you to accept that science is simply telling you how God created.

Onetruth, the problem is that science is the most reliable form of knowledge we have. Therefore it is always tempting for people -- theists and atheists alike -- to attempt to get that little extra "oomph" for their position by saying it is backed by science. So what we have most often here is a group of people who have come up with a scientific theory on how God created that they say will definitely show God to exist -- creationism. They try and tell us this is a valid theory and backed by science. In reality, science shows the theory to be false.

Now, listen carefully: that does not mean God does not exist. Only that the proposed mechanism for how God created is wrong.

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

And that evidence has convinced you. Fine. However, it has not convinced David. He doubts the validity of the evidence. 1. He has not directly felt the Holy Spirit in these circumstances and 2) since none of the 'tongues' were languages he recognized, he doubts that they really were speaking a language. I have to admit that always having someone there who also knows an obscure language and is able to translate also causes me to doubt. That seems a little bit too convenient to me.

Now, our doubt doesn't mean your evidence is wrong. We obviously haven't been at services you have been at and yours may have been different. So you have evidence that convinces you. Good.

As long as you state your evidence as convincing you, but don't state it as binding on us, then you are fine. You have some very convincing personal reasons for believing as you do.

 

[Mike Flynn]

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

Now we are getting somewhere! The real proof that God exists does not (and I believe will never) come from science. Ironically, people of faith see God everywhere in science (Hawking says the persuit of unified theory is like looking into the mind of God, for example). But faith comes first...science will not prove God for you.

While I have reservations about 'speaking in tounges' (I'm afraid I just don't see God's purpose in it), I have found that the most profound 'proof' that God exists comes when you take the simple step of accepting Christ...then watch what happens. I can't 'prove' it, neither can I qualify it by any scientific measure, but what I *can* do is witness it.

Look, for example to the *stunning* transformation seen in the disciples after the spirit comes down on them...a small group of men, lost, confused, and cowering in fear. Right to the end (of Jesus ministry), they didn't really 'get' what Jesus was saying....but then look at 'Acts' and witness the incredible transformation. Its hard to believe that Acts is talking about the same, 'bumbling' group of guys we see constantly tripping over themselves Gospels (Jesus calls them 'dull', among other things). And yet, the whole of the Church today owes its existence to what these few simple-minded men (fishermen and such) have witnessed. (of course, there are many more examples). In examples like these we find the real 'proof' that God exists...and where the true work of 'apologetics' is. However, we are now completely off the focus of this forum...

Here (on this forum), I think its important to stand firmly against the stumbling blocks that are put in place by theists and atheists alike when they envoke science to prove or disprove God. The simple truth is that science can't bring you to God (nor is it meant to), but neither can it take you from Him.

 

[atheist_in_canada]

ok, I see what your saying. but my point wasn't that Creation Science is irrelevant because it can't prove Gods origins. Creation Science isn't concerned with Gods origins. I believe that Creation Science is irrelevant because as long as Gods origins are unknown, the pursuit of proof that God created everything in the universe ......is simply useless. Creation logic implies that there is a creator who must have created God. So how can someone search for proof that God created everything when God himself must be created?

 

[Vance]

But see, you are setting up your own strawman. Nothing about Creationism implies that God must be created. It says that everything OTHER than God must be created since God is the only eternal "thing". He is outside any rules we can understand with our limited human understanding. What we can discover is that tiny fraction of the nature of God which communicates and interacts with his human creation.

 

[atheist_in_canada]

creation absolutely implies that god must be created. you can not say everything in the universe must be a product of design and then say well....except for god.....yeah he just is. that's completely absurd......and extremely convenient I might add. now I'm willing to accept the possibility of god just existing as long as you are willing to accept the possibility that the universe could just exist (without design or creation).

 

[lucaspa]

Creation logic implies that there is a creator who must have created God. So how can someone search for proof that God created everything when God himself must be created?

Creation logic doesn't imply this. Look, trace the cause and effect chain back and eventually you must get to an uncaused Cause that started the whole chain. This is First Cause. What theists claim (not just Creation Scientists here) is that God is First Cause. Therefore God does not require a cause.

Just like any of the OTHER candidates for First Cause don't require a cause! See, God isn't the only candidate for First Cause. There are 4 others. As an atheist, you must believe that one of the other causes is the real one. You may not know which, but one of them must because, if God really is First Cause, then you can't remain an atheist.

But now you are trapped in the same logic you are using against creationists. If Quantum Fluctuation, for instance, is First Cause, then you get "what caused quantum fluctuation?" And then your candidates for First Cause are just as screwed as you say the theists' candidate is. Sauce for the goose.

In order to keep your own beliefs possibly valid, you must acknowledge that the theists' belief is also possibly valid.

I believe that Creation Science is irrelevant because as long as Gods origins are unknown, the pursuit of proof that God created everything in the universe ......is simply useless.

First, Creation Science isn't the pursuit of proof that God created everything. It is a particular how that God created everything. So we can test the how. And this particular how is false.

However, everything science finds, including evolution, is also a particular how that God created everything.

Second, let's take that argument out of Christianity and apply it to science. I am most familiar with the story of bone morphogenetic protein. BMP was postulated to exist based on the observations the bone which had all the mineral removed was able to cause the formation of new bone when implanted under the skin of another animal. So Marshall Urist said there was a protein he called BMP that did this -- created bone.

Now, by your logic, the lack of origin of BMP in bone matrix made it useless to prove that BMP really did create new bone. See how nonsensical that is? Of course it was useful! As demonstrated by the use of first demineralized bone matrix and now purified BMP to treat fractures and non-unions in humans. And this was done before the tissue that made BMP or the gene responsible was known.

Bottom line: if your logic is valid, then everything we have done thru science disappears as invalid. Since science is valid, your logic isn't.

In science, we want to know how the universe works. Our knowledge of the universe can't be complete until we know whether the material (natural) processes we discover thru science work on their own or require the existence of a deity (God) to work. Nor is our knowledge complete until we discover whether a deity created the entire universe or it just happened on its own.

Unfortunately, the limitations of science are such that we may never be able to know this.

Creation Science is a falsified scientific theory. Just treat it as any other scientific theory and show how it has been falsified. It's invalid for creationists to try to turn science into the atheism vs theism debate. It's equally invalid for atheists to try to do so.

 

[lucaspa]

creation absolutely implies that god must be created. you can not say everything in the universe must be a product of design and then say well....except for god.....yeah he just is. that's completely absurd......and extremely convenient I might add. now I'm willing to accept the possibility of god just existing as long as you are willing to accept the possibility that the universe could just exist (without design or creation).

LOL!! Just what I said. Altho the situation is such that you must accept the possibility that God doesn't need a cause in order to have some other First Cause just exist without a cause.

 

[lucaspa]

creation absolutely implies that god must be created. you can not say everything in the universe must be a product of design and then say well....except for god.....yeah he just is. that's completely absurd......and extremely convenient I might add. now I'm willing to accept the possibility of god just existing as long as you are willing to accept the possibility that the universe could just exist (without design or creation).

Now, let's examine the rest of this post. Did you see the phrase "everything in the universe"?

Look at the First Law of Thermodynamics. It states that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only change form. This law applies only in the universe. It doesn't apply to getting the universe to begin with. Creationists often try to use FLOT to insist that God must have created. I have given you the rebuttal.

The problem for you is that the rebuttal works just as well against your argument and for theists here. God is said not to be IN the universe. Therefore it is very easy to say God is required to manufacture everything in the universe but not require something to manufacture God.

Just as we can say that all the furniture in your house had to be designed but you didn't. You are outside your house and can therefore make the house and all the furniture in it.

 

[atheist_in_canada]

all good points. but the problem I have is that when someone sets out a group of rules and then uses those rules to say that everything in the universe must be designed. why do those rules then somehow not apply to god? for example if I must be designed because I am too complex to just exist. the same must be said for god! Is god not complex?
it's true that cause and effect dictate that at some point something must have started all of this. At least with the big bang theory and evolution we aren't roped in to rules that we must then ignore so that we can bring a god in to the picture.

 

[Nathan Poe]

am i the only one who doesnt show that much interest in where they came from, just glad they here?

In a science forum, yep, it's pretty much just you.

Don't get me wrong, we're all glad to be here, but the whole point of science is to study and to learn. So we tend to say, "well, this a pretty good universe we got going for us here.... wonder how it works?"

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

What if it turned out that your Uncle Russ simply has epilepsy?

 

[Mike Flynn]

all good points. but the problem I have is that when someone sets out a group of rules and then uses those rules to say that everything in the universe must be designed. why do those rules then somehow not apply to god? for example if I must be designed because I am too complex to just exist. the same must be said for god! Is god not complex?
it's true that cause and effect dictate that at some point something must have started all of this. At least with the big bang theory and evolution we aren't roped in to rules that we must then ignore so that we can bring a god in to the picture.

The point is this: creation science is not in any way related to the study of the nature of God Himself. To refute your argument a creation science advocate could say something like this: in this reality, organisms had to be designed since the rules of this reality do not allow for the spontaneous formation of complex structures. However, in extra-dimensional space where God might exist...the rules in this reality simply do not apply. In short, why *should* those rules apply to a being that exists in a 'place' that is void of time, space, or whatever?

Your argument is weak because you are imposing *your own personal assumptions* about their beliefs onto their ideology...and then you are telling them that its invalid because of *your own formulation* of that ideology. In other words, you can't tell them how they must define God, and then argue against that definition.

I said this before, you don't need to produce convoluted philosophical arguments to deflate creation science. Its easily deflated becuase its *simply bad science*. We can't quibble about their definition of God becuase this is a simple matter of belief (how can you sensibly argue about the belief in the supernatural?).