Why Creation Science is Bogus

[The Barbarian]

I have read Starlight and Time by Humphreys. It is not easy reading. I don't have the book, so this is from memory. Basically what he says is that when the universe rapidly expanded (as is describes in the Bible as God stretched out the heavens like a curtain Isa 40:22) that it caused a white hole (opposite of a black hole) and that as the white hole imploded, that time on each side of the event horizon is different. While the earth experienced 7 days, the outside imploding event horizon experienced a much different time scale, explaining both the light travel and the appearance of age.

If one is allowed to insert an unbiblical miracle to cover up any problems in one's ideas, then all idea are equally likely.

On a different note, I observe in evolutionary science that there is an acceptance of scientific data that supports a very old time scale. Some process or observation must be at least as old as the oldest observable data point would suggest. Those who look at the same data and look at the youngest observable data point and make the claim that "this thing can't be older than ..." are ridiculed as being unscientific.

Denial of evidence would be unscientific, yes.

As an illustrative example. Suppose one finds a watch in a cave. The metals would date very old using radiometric dating. The leather strap would date much younger using C14 dating. The one who objects saying the watch can't be more than 10 years old because it is still ticking is ridiculed for his bad science.

No, and that's demonstrably false. For example, we have snails that we know only live a few years. Yet a C-14 test will "show" them to be thousands of years old. It's because they get much of their carbon from geological (and therefore ancient) sources. And like the watch, scientistsl look at apparently contradictory information to figure out what's going on.

 

[mindlight]

Does creation science have a sensible basis? Can an idea that came out of religion be turned into a science? Not really.

Creation science is as much guesswork as mainstream science when it comes to origins. But both have a theological/philosophical basis.

Creation science has a literal view of scripture and goes looking for evidence to support that.

Theistic Evolution has a non-interventionist (Deistic or atheistic) assumption about God that looks for purely naturalistic explanations for phenomena but in actual fact does not prove the bulk of its conclusions by proper use of the scientific method.

So both are ultimately based on a view of God as either involved or absent in the process. The credibility of either view cannot be demonstrated by science so maybe neither should be taught in schools at all.