What is the creationist model

[mark kennedy]

For there to be a viable scientific theory there has to be a scientific model that is testable. I have some ideas about what I think the creationist model is but I am wanting to hear what other creationists think is the scientific kernel of creationism. Since the 17th century math has been the first philosophy of science so I would be interested in hearing what kind of a scientific model you would propose for creationism.

You don't have to boil it down to an equation really just give me some idea of how it is possible.

 

[Remus]

That's a very broad question. Any particular aspect of creation?

 

[mark kennedy]

That's a very broad question. Any particular aspect of creation?

I'm thinking of biology and the mechanism of evolution. I don't think that creationists are seriously arguing that evolution does not occur, what they seem most interested in is the extent to which it happens. Lets try Mendel for starters, he had a formula for predicting the expression of traits, how might this be applied to modern biology?

 

[Remus]

I'm thinking of biology and the mechanism of evolution. I don't think that creationists are seriously arguing that evolution does not occur, what they seem most interested in is the extent to which it happens. Lets try Mendel for starters, he had a formula for predicting the expression of traits, how might this be applied to modern biology?

I'll have to get back to you on this one. I 'googled' Mendel and found a few sites which should be good enough unless you know of a better source. Got to read now.

 

[California Tim]

....just give me some idea of how it is possible.

Notwithstanding the available evidence supporting a young earth, which, in turn would preclude the possibility of macro-evolution, even if such evidence was non-existent (for the sake of argument only)- then you could not discount creationism on scientific terms any more than you could disprove the feeding of the 5000 by Christ who only had a handful of food to start with. How would you recreate and observe that phenomenon to verify it scientifically? Since it cannot be verified by repeatable experiment, does that mean it never happened? Similarly creationism can no more be proven by formula any more than it can be disproven by lack of available formula to verify it. It was a "supernatural" (outside the laws of nature) event.

Ultimately the answer lies within scripture itself. First determine the order of importance between the Creator and His creation. Then decide if the Bible is the authoritative representation of the Creator's relevation to mankind. Finally take all it says in context. If the context dictates that the Genesis account was historical (and it does), then any scientific conclusion which cannot be reconciled with it, must be scrutinized - not the other way around. Science does not tell us how to read God's word, rather the accuracy of God's word is revealed through His creation. Therefore, true science is unable to disagree with the truths found in the Bible and is guided by the objective truth of the Word.

 

[Remus]

I doubt you'll get any argument here CT.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Creationists shouldn't say evolution occurs. Variation occurs but evolution implies that new information is being created which most creationists would disagree with. A bird losing the ability to fly certainly isn't gaining new information. An insect mutating and gaining an extra set of wings is information already there, just duplicated. Bacteria resistance is caused normally by a loss of information and never a gain of new information not already there.

I'm thinking of biology and the mechanism of evolution. I don't think that creationists are seriously arguing that evolution does not occur, what they seem most interested in is the extent to which it happens. Lets try Mendel for starters, he had a formula for predicting the expression of traits, how might this be applied to modern biology?

 

[Remus]

Lets try Mendel for starters, he had a formula for predicting the expression of traits, how might this be applied to modern biology?

I would think something like this could be used to investigate how the different human “races” diverged from Noah and his sons. If we take Genesis 10:25 to mean that Peleg’s day was when God scattered the people at the Tower of Babel, then we have an approximate date of when the people spread out.

 

[mark kennedy]

I would think something like this could be used to investigate how the different human “races” diverged from Noah and his sons. If we take Genesis 10:25 to mean that Peleg’s day was when God scattered the people at the Tower of Babel, then we have an approximate date of when the people spread out.

Actually that is an excellent point, I wish I had thought of that. Its a fact of science that when certain species are seperated by geography they become incapable of having fertile offsping a lot of times, this is called speciation. The definition for species is generally populations that can mate and produce fertile offspring. Ever notice how humans don't do this while it is pretty common among shrimp, Kolas and squirrells do?

In order to come up with a scientific model we would have to look at the data that no one is disputing. Then we would form a theory based on that, followed by a well ordered criteria for testing a series of hypothesis. If the theory were that mutations cause as many harmfull effects as beneficial ones then we must look elsewhere for the rise of new 'kinds' that are descended from the originally created 'kinds' mentioned in Genesis.

I think there is a possible way of testing this, there would have to be a limit on the number of mutations that were allowed. Instead of presupposing a mutated DNA strain we would go in the other direction, what might the original genome have looked like in its pristine form? Starting with what we know about how genes are expressed we could compare them to simular expressions found in the fossil record. That would tell us what had been lost and might just led to how what is left of the original genome can be preserved.

I may be off my rocker but I really think this has some merit if there is a way of reducing this to some kind of a mathmatical model. Believe it or not I think the answer to this is in Genesis and the various 'kinds' mentioned.

Here is a brain teaser for you; how many kinds are specificlly mentioned in the Genesis account? Specificlly what does it say about their attributes?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Remus]

I think there is a possible way of testing this, there would have to be a limit on the number of mutations that were allowed. Instead of presupposing a mutated DNA strain we would go in the other direction, what might the original genome have looked like in its pristine form? Starting with what we know about how genes are expressed we could compare them to simular expressions found in the fossil record. That would tell us what had been lost and might just led to how what is left of the original genome can be preserved.

Could you expand on this a bit?

Here is a brain teaser for you; how many kinds are specificlly mentioned in the Genesis account? Specificlly what does it say about their attributes?

I'm cheating and looking it up
So far, I've got birds, sea monsters, living water creatures, cattle, creeping things, and beasts of the earth. As for the attributes, all of these after their kind is the only thing that stands out.

 

[mark kennedy]

I trust the ones following this thread will forgive the use of satire in trying to make my point on here. I was responding to a thread in the creation/evolution debate area and I thought it might help to put things in perspective.

I followed the link to the human brain evolution wild goose chase and there was the use of evolution in a purely figurative sense. The evolution of education and learning environments, for example. Then I came to what was probably an interesting comparison of chimp and human genomes and genes but I really didn'nt have the time for something that technical. The abstract made reference to upregulation of the cerebral cortex and I dare say they have no clue how this is facilitated in evolutionary processes. For one thing the chimpanzee genome has yet to be mapped and we are just starting to find out what the various parts of the human genome is actually doing.

If the modern mystics are in awe of anything it would have to be the magical quality of single celled organisms to reinvent themselves. They managed to avoid the pitfalls of bottleneck effect that are a consequence of genetic mutation. They diversify into seperate functions that include tissue, heart, brain, bone...ad finitum. They somehow over the complex presumed natural history of living systems managed to upregulate the primordial brain of the Turkana boy, Mrs Ples, Lucy and Little Foot. The Encephalisation Quotient (EQ) over 6-7 million years to produce a brain that is 6 times as large as it should be for normal mammals. (Paraphrased from The Ancestor's Tale, by R. Dawkins)

All of this must occur on a cellular level and what happens when cells radically evolve is that there is a net loss of information. The emergence of this symbiosis and the more developed endosymbiosis is still a mystery to natural science and yet it is presumed that if you stretch the scenerio over a vast amount of time it's feasable.

An itinerant selfish gene
Said 'Bodies a plenty I've seen.
You think you're so clever
But I'll live for ever.
You're just a survival machine.
(The Selfish Gene, R. Dawkins)

I give you the author of life from the Darwinian warm little pond. The Blind Watchmakers creation in all its vast array. The red in tooth and claw primary first cause of a evolutionary relationships and functions. The Darwinian fundamentalists doctrine of the ininerant selfish gene.

In answer to the OP this is the only scientific explanation for the development of the human mind that natural science will even consider.

There is no need for this in natural science, we could do the exact same thing with a young earth as evolutionary biology has done with eons and more. Natural selection simply exterminates up to 90% of populations at times where catastrophe challenges their very survival. This creates a bottleneck effect and it makes much more sense to preserve what is left of the original creation.

A couple of examples might suffice for the time being since I'm a little frustrated with the whole subject right now. Foundry Cove in the Hudson Bay was a massive toxic dump where up to 25% of the mud on the bottom was laced with nickel-cadmium but the fauna still thrives there. According to scientists this is proof of evolution by natural selection and testing these plants would be a viable area for creationists to study adaptation. What would be really interesting is if there was a way of comparing genes being expressed there and elsewhere. For a creationist there is only one possible outcome of such trials, either a net loss of information or adaptation from the existing gene pool.

Again, forgive me for the satire but I was a little frustrated with the debate I read.

Grace and peace,
Mark