What Makes Creationism a Valid Scientific Alternative?

[Loudmouth]

Creationists often claim that scientists refuse to teach creationism as an alternative to evolution (and an old earth in some cases). So why should they teach creationism? What makes creationism a valid scientific alternative? Where is the research? Where are the useful predictions? Where are the creationist based search algorithms that one can use for DNA database searches? Where are there creationist biology departments at private christian schools that are turning out top notch research biologists?

If you can't show that creationism works as a science, then why should it be taught?

 

[juvenissun]

Creationists often claim that scientists refuse to teach creationism as an alternative to evolution (and an old earth in some cases). So why should they teach creationism? What makes creationism a valid scientific alternative? Where is the research? Where are the useful predictions? Where are the creationist based search algorithms that one can use for DNA database searches? Where are there creationist biology departments at private christian schools that are turning out top notch research biologists?

If you can't show that creationism works as a science, then why should it be taught?

Simple. Because the anti-creationism does not provide a full answer.

 

[CabVet]

Simple. Because the anti-creationism does not provide a full answer.

The only way it does not provide a full answer is if you refute it with faith-based beliefs, misinformation and lies.

 

[sfs]

Simple. Because the anti-creationism does not provide a full answer.

Evolutionary biology is not "anti-creationism".

 

[HitchSlap]

Simple. Because the anti-creationism does not provide a full answer.

Answers are only as good as the facts that support them.

 

[SkyWriting]

Creationists often claim that scientists refuse to teach creationism as an alternative to evolution (and an old earth in some cases). So why should they teach creationism? What makes creationism a valid scientific alternative? Where is the research? Where are the useful predictions? Where are the creationist based search algorithms that one can use for DNA database searches? Where are there creationist biology departments at private christian schools that are turning out top notch research biologists? If you can't show that creationism works as a science, then why should it be taught?

Your post content is not the same as your title.
What Makes Creationism a Valid Scientific Alternative?
It is not a valid scientific alternative.
It could be taught as a worldview to inform students of how people from different backgrounds see things differently. But that should be in the context of a survey of a number of philosophical viewpoints about science and reality and history.
But a worldview is not a valid alternative to mainstream science methodology.

 

[Loudmouth]

Simple. Because the anti-creationism does not provide a full answer.

If you would like, we can assume that evolution is false. It just isn't a part of this discussion.

In the absence of any theory, what makes creationism a valid scientific theory that can be used in science?

 

[Loudmouth]

Your post content is not the same as your title.
What Makes Creationism a Valid Scientific Alternative?
It is not a valid scientific alternative.

That is my conclusion as well, but others may disagree.

It could be taught as a worldview to inform students of how people from different backgrounds see things differently. But that should be in the context of a survey of a number of philosophical viewpoints about science and reality and history.
But a worldview is not a valid alternative to mainstream science methodology.

I would also agree that creationism would be a good fit for a World Religion course, or even as part of discussions in an Intro to Philosophy course.

However, science it is not.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We already have the 'cat'. Science is sifting through the litter box trying to find it.

 

[Loudmouth]

We already have the 'cat'. Science is sifting through the litter box trying to find it.

Is it any wonder why creationists are not taken seriously by scientists?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is it any wonder why creationists are not taken seriously by scientists?

My point is that spiritual folks have already found what is really important. Scientific knowledge is useful but not nearly as important as faith and belief, nor as valuable to humanity in the long term.

 

[Jro]

My point is that spiritual folks have already found what is really important. Scientific knowledge is useful but not nearly as important as faith and belief, nor as valuable to humanity in the long term.

Sez who?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sez who?

Common sense. Our problems are spiritual in nature. Science can neither explain nor solve spiritual problems. Science can help of course but must be subordinate to spiritual decisions.

 

[Jro]

Common sense. Our problems are spiritual in nature. Science can neither explain nor solve spiritual problems. Science can help of course but must be subordinate to spiritual decisions.

Whose common sense? Our problems are spiritual in nature?

 

[Loudmouth]

My point is that spiritual folks have already found what is really important.

Important to them, yes. I think we can all agree that what is important to one person may not hold the same importance to another person.

Also, creationist organizations are actively persuing legislation that would include creationism in the public school science classroom. Obviously, there are spiritual folk who do think that science is important.

Scientific knowledge is useful but not nearly as important as faith and belief, nor as valuable to humanity in the long term.

The actions of some creationists do not match up to your claims. If this were so, why are they actively trying to change the curriculum in the science classroom? Obviously, they see science as being superior to faith, otherwise what would be the point? If faith is superior to scientific knowledge then what is taught in Sunday School should overcome anything taught in science classes.

Even more, we see science curing illnesses that the faithful tried to cure with prayer for centuries, and failed. No amount of praying eradicated smallpox, but science did. Faith does not put men on the Moon, or probes on Mars. Faith does not develop life saving antibiotics, nor discover the mechanisms behind chronic diseases.

 

[Loudmouth]

Common sense. Our problems are spiritual in nature.

Based on what evidence?

Science can neither explain nor solve spiritual problems.

Science can't track Bigfoot, or explain why Santa's reindeer are able to fly, either. Want to guess why?

Science can help of course but must be subordinate to spiritual decisions.

Why?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science can't track Bigfoot, or explain why Santa's reindeer are able to fly, either. Want to guess why?

Because they're too busy looking for a YOUHOO from outer space?

 

[Loudmouth]

Because they're too busy looking for a YOUHOO from outer space?

Nope. Try again.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. Try again.

Because they're too busy celebrating on deck of an oil platform?

 

[Loudmouth]

Because they're too busy celebrating on deck of an oil platform?

Nope. Try again.

Why do you think science is not interested in figuring out how Santa's reindeer fly?