The science of creationism: where is it?

[Washington]

Consider the following taken from the opening paragraph of the article in Wikipedia explaining "Creation science."

"Creation science or scientific creationism is the movement within creationism which attempts to provide support for the religious Genesis account of creation, and disprove accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution."
​

So I would think that in order to "provide support for the religious Genesis account of creation, and disprove accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution" that one would have to marshal scientific evidence to make any kind of a case. Now there are scientists who are creationists. In fact, several creation web sites like to tout the credentials of their scientifically trained members; however, I have yet to find any peer reviewed work by any scientist, creationist or otherwise, whose findings support creationism to the detriment of evolution; to say nothing of any such scientific work that's been specifically aimed at doing so.

So I again ask: where is all this science that is suppose to give credence to the "science" by which these creationist like to identify themselves? As far as I can see this use of "science" is no more meaningful than had they called their enterprise, "Lollipop creationism." which just might be a more accurate label.

 

[BananaSlug]

Part of science is accepting the result even if you don't like it. Any creationist who says they won't accept anything that goes against [their interpretation of] the Bible is automatically discounted. That is not science.

 

[Washington]

Part of science is accepting the result even if you don't like it. Any creationist who says they won't accept anything that goes against [their interpretation of] the Bible is automatically discounted. That is not science.

You're absolutely correct. And this is why such people not only come off as misinformed (putting it as politely as possible) but as outright dishonest. Gotta wonder what they fancy their god thinks of such deception.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Eric Hovid. The name of his business is "Creation Science Evangelism." Says so right there in the name, must be true.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Actually, all they (creation "scientists") do is study existing journals and magazines and then try to find an anomaly which, if peered through the tainted glass of religiosity, may be construed as refuting some minor tenet of evolutionary biology. However, their go to tactic is to quote mine. They are superb at doing this.

In fact, Plilip Johnson (ID leader) has stated in writing that their goal is to "drive a wedge" between god and science, because once they can cause this disconnect, they are then free share the gospel of Jesus.

As far as peer reviewed primary research, I'm not aware of anything substantial. I think Dembski over at ID uses his math to prove against the odds of evolution, but other than that, just smoke and mirrors.

 

[Washington]

In fact, Plilip Johnson (ID leader) has stated in writing that their goal is to "drive a wedge" between god and science, because once they can cause this disconnect, they are then free share the gospel of Jesus.

And consider how the Discovery Institute approaches it.

"FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY

If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points.

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
source
​

A "science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." How nice to be able to pick and choose one's facts, and then have the temerity to call such a self-serving, deplorable operation, "science." No surprise of course, just creationist business as usual.

 

[AV1611VET]

Haven't we covered this topic already?

1

 

[Washington]

Haven't we covered this topic already?

1

yes

 

[AV1611VET]

yes

No problem --- I wasn't complaining --- I was just wondering if you wanted to reopen the discussion.

We get new people in here (YAY!), and they don't always see everything.

 

[Washington]

No problem --- I wasn't complaining --- I was just wondering if you wanted to reopen the discussion.

We get new people in here (YAY!), and they don't always see everything.

I was getting bored and decided to go fishing for a discussion. Obviously my memory was on holiday. Buuuut, if anyone wants to have a go at the issue please feel free. I'll be here---for while anyway.

 

[Alunyel]

Guess I'll add something, then.

The whole point of "creation science" is to blur the lines between science and religion. To make religion seem more scientific and to make science seem more of a religion.

Religion is not scientific and science is not religious.

 

[AV1611VET]

I was getting bored and decided to go fishing for a discussion. Obviously my memory was on holiday. Buuuut, if anyone wants to have a go at the issue please feel free. I'll be here---for while anyway.

Okie doke --- but remember --- you asked!

Question: Since when is the Creation scientific?

Here's the quote in your OP:

"Creation science or scientific creationism is the movement within creationism which attempts to provide support for the religious Genesis account of creation, and disprove accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution."

I totally disagree --- for two reasons:

1. The Creation can handle itself, and doesn't need our support.
2. If you're going to teach Creationism, then teach it, but don't branch out into trying to "disprove accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms", or you're going to [rightly] get sent packing.

There is no science involved in the Creation Week --- none whatsoever.

 

[AV1611VET]

The whole point of "creation science" is to blur the lines between science and religion.

That may be for some, but those who try and defend the Creation from a scientific standpoint usually --- if not always --- get pwned.

As they should, in my opinion.

There is no science in Genesis 1, and as Thaumaturgy pointed out: Genesis 1 is roughly 71% "God did it".

(Thank you, Thaumaturgy.)

 

[Washington]

Question: Since when is the Creation scientific?

It's not, which is one reason the term "creation science" is erroneous.

Here's the quote in your OP:

"Creation science or scientific creationism is the movement within creationism which attempts to provide support for the religious Genesis account of creation, and disprove accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution."

I totally disagree --- for two reasons:
1. The Creation can handle itself, and doesn't need our support.
2. If you're going to teach Creationism, then teach it, but don't branch out into trying to "disprove accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms", or you're going to [rightly] get sent packing.

But as the quote stands it is correct. That is exactly what Creation Science attempts to do:

"provide support for the religious Genesis account of creation, and disprove accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution."
​

That Creation can handle itself is beside the point of what Creation Science is attempting to do.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not, which is one reason the term "creation science" is erroneous.

I gotta agree with you, Washington.

As I have said before: Creation Science is a contradiction in terms.

 

[corvus_corax]

Creation Science is a contradiction in terms.

QFT

Now, can you convince all those who want Creationism taught as science? They might actually listen to a fellow believer and biblical literalist.

 

[AV1611VET]

QFT

Now, can you convince all those who want Creationism taught as science? They might actually listen to a fellow believer and biblical literalist.

I doubt I could, Corvus.

Science, as psychoheresy, has infiltrated our churches and poisoned our members.

The wheat and the tares are truly growing together.

 

[Alunyel]

I doubt I could, Corvus.

Science, as psychoheresy, has infiltrated our churches and poisoned our members.

The wheat and the tares are truly growing together.

Exactly!

How could mankind ever dare to examine evidence and draw logical conclusions from it?

BLASPHEMERS!

The Bible should be taken as the only truth, all this stuff about biology and physics and geology and chemistry and cosmology and paleontology is just wrong.

*Rolls eyes.*

 

[AV1611VET]

...all this stuff about biology and physics and geology and chemistry and cosmology and paleontology is just wrong.

You want biology in our churches?

• Start with a sermon on how God created the kinds.

You want physics in our churches?

• Start with a sermon on how God fed the five thousand.

You want geology in our churches?

• Start with a sermon on the Rock of Ages.

You want chemistry in our churches?

• Start with a sermon on what's eventually going to happen to the Periodic Table of the Elements.

 

[Alunyel]

You want biology in our churches?

• Start with a sermon on how God created the kinds.

That's not biology. That's mythology.

You want physics in our churches?

• Start with a sermon on how God fed the five thousand.

That's not physics, that's mythology.

You want geology in our churches?

• Start with a sermon on the Rock of Ages.

That's not geology, that's mythology.

You want chemistry in our churches?

• Start with a sermon on what's eventually going to happen to the Periodic Table of the Elements.

It'll get bigger as more elements are discovered?