Why Creation Science is Bogus

[Dale]

There is a strong movement to teach creation science in the schools. The name “creation science” is attached to a number of organizations and websites.

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

You don’t have to know much about science to know that serious science always uses mathematics. Any branch of physics or chemistry uses equations. As soon as you use mathematical formulas, there are always constants. As a chemist, I am very familiar with the gas constant. Astronomers make heavy use of the universal gravitational constant. The speed of light is one of the most well known constants. It is actually the speed of light in vacuum that is the real constant. The speed of light in water is about three-fourths of the speed of light in vacuum. There are many other constants. Physics texts list constants like the permittivity of free space. The rate of radioactive decay is a constant for each isotope.

Science always involves calculations and calculations always use constants, things that have been measured in the past. Constants are things that experience shows do not change. The problem is that creationists don’t believe in constants. If I say that the speed of light is constant, creationists say, no, the speed of light is wherever God left it the last time He got finished fiddling with it. It doesn’t occur to them that God made up His mind at the beginning and stuck with His decision.

One of the most basic, and obvious, arguments against creationism is that from earth we can see light that has been traveling through space for millions, even billions, of years. Creationists say that this is an illusion, that God changed the speed of light. There is no reason to believe that God works this way. Creationists simply believe whatever is convenient.

Since creationists don’t believe there are any constants in nature, creation science is not a meaningful term.

 

[eleos1954]

There is a strong movement to teach creation science in the schools. The name “creation science” is attached to a number of organizations and websites.

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

You don’t have to know much about science to know that serious science always uses mathematics. Any branch of physics or chemistry uses equations. As soon as you use mathematical formulas, there are always constants. As a chemist, I am very familiar with the gas constant. Astronomers make heavy use of the universal gravitational constant. The speed of light is one of the most well known constants. It is actually the speed of light in vacuum that is the real constant. The speed of light in water is about three-fourths of the speed of light in vacuum. There are many other constants. Physics texts list constants like the permittivity of free space. The rate of radioactive decay is a constant for each isotope.

Science always involves calculations and calculations always use constants, things that have been measured in the past. Constants are things that experience shows do not change. The problem is that creationists don’t believe in constants. If I say that the speed of light is constant, creationists say, no, the speed of light is wherever God left it the last time He got finished fiddling with it. It doesn’t occur to them that God made up His mind at the beginning and stuck with His decision.

One of the most basic, and obvious, arguments against creationism is that from earth we can see light that has been traveling through space for millions, even billions, of years. Creationists say that this is an illusion, that God changed the speed of light. There is no reason to believe that God works this way. Creationists simply believe whatever is convenient.

Since creationists don’t believe there are any constants in nature, creation science is not a meaningful term.

Not all christians believe what you stated.

There is a strong movement to teach creation science in the schools. The name “creation science” is attached to a number of organizations and websites.

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

You don’t have to know much about science to know that serious science always uses mathematics. Any branch of physics or chemistry uses equations. As soon as you use mathematical formulas, there are always constants. As a chemist, I am very familiar with the gas constant. Astronomers make heavy use of the universal gravitational constant. The speed of light is one of the most well known constants. It is actually the speed of light in vacuum that is the real constant. The speed of light in water is about three-fourths of the speed of light in vacuum. There are many other constants. Physics texts list constants like the permittivity of free space. The rate of radioactive decay is a constant for each isotope.

Science always involves calculations and calculations always use constants, things that have been measured in the past. Constants are things that experience shows do not change. The problem is that creationists don’t believe in constants. If I say that the speed of light is constant, creationists say, no, the speed of light is wherever God left it the last time He got finished fiddling with it. It doesn’t occur to them that God made up His mind at the beginning and stuck with His decision.

One of the most basic, and obvious, arguments against creationism is that from earth we can see light that has been traveling through space for millions, even billions, of years. Creationists say that this is an illusion, that God changed the speed of light. There is no reason to believe that God works this way. Creationists simply believe whatever is convenient.

Since creationists don’t believe there are any constants in nature, creation science is not a meaningful term.

No ... not all creationists believe what you stated .... have no idea where you got that from.

God uses no preexisting material to create the universe. God's act of creation causes matter, space, time, and even the very laws which govern the universe to exist.

God does not need the material to create.

So the divide in the beliefs will continue and always be debated.

 

[d taylor]

-​

Creation science promotes the same ole creation lie as pagan science minus Adam/Eve and a young earth. Creation science is against evolution and billion of years for earth age but that is basically it for their differences.

Neither one teaches the literal Biblical creation/descriptions found in Genesis 1 and other areas of The Bible.

 

[BPPLEE]

There is a strong movement to teach creation science in the schools. The name “creation science” is attached to a number of organizations and websites.

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

You don’t have to know much about science to know that serious science always uses mathematics. Any branch of physics or chemistry uses equations. As soon as you use mathematical formulas, there are always constants. As a chemist, I am very familiar with the gas constant. Astronomers make heavy use of the universal gravitational constant. The speed of light is one of the most well known constants. It is actually the speed of light in vacuum that is the real constant. The speed of light in water is about three-fourths of the speed of light in vacuum. There are many other constants. Physics texts list constants like the permittivity of free space. The rate of radioactive decay is a constant for each isotope.

Science always involves calculations and calculations always use constants, things that have been measured in the past. Constants are things that experience shows do not change. The problem is that creationists don’t believe in constants. If I say that the speed of light is constant, creationists say, no, the speed of light is wherever God left it the last time He got finished fiddling with it. It doesn’t occur to them that God made up His mind at the beginning and stuck with His decision.

One of the most basic, and obvious, arguments against creationism is that from earth we can see light that has been traveling through space for millions, even billions, of years. Creationists say that this is an illusion, that God changed the speed of light. There is no reason to believe that God works this way. Creationists simply believe whatever is convenient.

Since creationists don’t believe there are any constants in nature, creation science is not a meaningful term.

Is the speed of light slowing down?

 

[Saucy]

The fact that there are PhD-level scientists who are creationists and do research makes it a viable science. Only people who agree with constants can be scientists? The definition of science is: "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained"

The only difference with creationists is they factor in the existence of a supernatural God. If you want to put science ahead of faith in your life, that is your decision. You cannot serve two masters and decide certain parts of the bible is wrong because current theories created by fallible men and women disagree with it. Either the bible is God-breathed or it is not.

A supernatural God who spoke the universe into existence and stretches it with His hands has no problem bridging the time/space gap you think is problematic. None whatsoever. He put the stars, planets, and all other celestial bodies in place to be used throughout history so mankind can navigate and mark the seasons. If everything has to follow a constant or it can't exist, then how do you explain miracles? Or the dead coming to life? Or the soul? Or anything supernatural?

 

[Dale]

Not all christians believe what you stated.


No ... not all creationists believe what you stated .... have no idea where you got that from.

God uses no preexisting material to create the universe. God's act of creation causes matter, space, time, and even the very laws which govern the universe to exist.

God does not need the material to create.

So the divide in the beliefs will continue and always be debated.

Eleos: “God uses no preexisting material to create the universe. God's act of creation causes matter, space, time, and even the very laws which govern the universe to exist.”


I didn’t say that God started from preexisting material, so I don’t know what you think I said.

I use the term creationist only to refer to Young Earth Creationists. I don’t think it makes sense any other way.

 

[Dale]

Is the speed of light slowing down?

There is no reason to think so.

 

[Dale]

The fact that there are PhD-level scientists who are creationists and do research makes it a viable science. Only people who agree with constants can be scientists? The definition of science is: "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained"

The only difference with creationists is they factor in the existence of a supernatural God. If you want to put science ahead of faith in your life, that is your decision. You cannot serve two masters and decide certain parts of the bible is wrong because current theories created by fallible men and women disagree with it. Either the bible is God-breathed or it is not.

A supernatural God who spoke the universe into existence and stretches it with His hands has no problem bridging the time/space gap you think is problematic. None whatsoever. He put the stars, planets, and all other celestial bodies in place to be used throughout history so mankind can navigate and mark the seasons. If everything has to follow a constant or it can't exist, then how do you explain miracles? Or the dead coming to life? Or the soul? Or anything supernatural?

Saucy: “Only people who agree with constants can be scientists?”

I’ve never seen a scientific reason for disagreeing with a constant. Creationists simply disregard anything that doesn’t suit their fancy.

Saucy: << The definition of science is: "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained" >>

Science is a general term and there is no agreed definition on exactly what modern science is. The word “science” came from the Greek word for knowledge. Certainly testing theories against the evidence is not what creationists do.



Saucy: “The fact that there are PhD-level scientists who are creationists and do research makes it a viable science.”

No it doesn’t. There may be creationist colleges granting degrees but that doesn't tell us much.

 

[BPPLEE]

Eleos: “God uses no preexisting material to create the universe. God's act of creation causes matter, space, time, and even the very laws which govern the universe to exist.”


I didn’t say that God started from preexisting material, so I don’t know what you think I said.

I use the term creationist only to refer to Young Earth Creationists. I don’t think it makes sense any other way.

I'm not a YEC but I still believe the universe was created by God. People on this forum call me a creationist.

 

[NBB]

people who believe humans didn't evolve are also called creationists, and oh boy, evolutionists have it so wrong, God created man, an amoeba didn't evolve into a banana and a human, we have a SOUL inside that with the discernment of the Holy spirit you can even detect, that can't happen if it is how evolutionist say it is.

 

[eleos1954]

Eleos: “God uses no preexisting material to create the universe. God's act of creation causes matter, space, time, and even the very laws which govern the universe to exist.”


I didn’t say that God started from preexisting material, so I don’t know what you think I said.

I use the term creationist only to refer to Young Earth Creationists. I don’t think it makes sense any other way.

If one tries to meld creation and evolution theories or parts thereof then it conflates what is written in His Word.

We have collected data .... and there are many interpretations of that data .... I believe in young earth and it does make sense to me.

 

[Job 33:6]

I really like the whole heat problem topic that young earthers have. They understand that their global flood belief defies physics in such a way that the friction generated by the motion of continents in a young period of time would generate so much heat that the crust of the planet would become molten several times over.

The YEC justification for still holding a belief in such a thing?

Well, it was a miracle of course. Haha!

Yup, and pigs fly! Because...miracle.

But it becomes even more sad when we recognize that Genesis and scripture as a whole itself just doesn't support YECism.

 

[Job 33:6]

If one tries to meld creation and evolution theories or parts thereof then it conflates what is written in His Word.

We have collected data .... and there are many interpretations of that data .... I believe in young earth and it does make sense to me.

Have you read Paul Seelys article, the firmament and the water above?

 

[Dale]

people who believe humans didn't evolve are also called creationists, and oh boy, evolutionists have it so wrong, God created man, an amoeba didn't evolve into a banana and a human, we have a SOUL inside that with the discernment of the Holy spirit you can even detect, that can't happen if it is how evolutionist say it is.

Evolution has no position on the soul. Where do you get your idea of what evolutionists believe?

I used to go to church with a man who was a professor of taxonomy, he devoted his life to classifying living things. Someone asked him how science and Christianity come together. He said that he believed that at some point, when humans were evolving, God supplied them with souls.

 

[Dale]

people who believe humans didn't evolve are also called creationists, and oh boy, evolutionists have it so wrong, God created man, an amoeba didn't evolve into a banana and a human, we have a SOUL inside that with the discernment of the Holy spirit you can even detect, that can't happen if it is how evolutionist say it is.

I think it would be more correct to say that a banana tree evolved from bacteria than an amoeba.

Keep in mind that the Bible doesn’t say how long this process took. Many commentators regard the “days” in Genesis One to be more like dividers or section headings than literal days.

The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
-Genesis 1:12 NIV


It says the “land produced vegetation.” That means that rocks and sand produced vegetation, living things that reproduce. Is that so different from what science tell us?

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.”
-Genesis 1:20 NIV

Living creatures, animals, emerged in the seas. Again, this is not so different from what science tells us.

 

[The Barbarian]

I really like the whole heat problem topic that young earthers have. They understand that their global flood belief defies physics in such a way that the friction generated by the motion of continents in a young period of time would generate so much heat that the crust of the planet would become molten several times over.

The YEC justification for still holding a belief in such a thing?

Well, it was a miracle of course. Haha!

Yup, and pigs fly! Because...miracle.

The problem is, if you get to call in a non-scriptural miracle every time your idea runs into difficulties, then any story becomes equally plausible. So it really solves nothing. It means "anything is equally likely."

 

[The Barbarian]

I think it would be more correct to say that a banana tree evolved from bacteria than an amoeba

Yeah. Amoebae are too highly evolved to have given rise to plants. It is just about certain that there is a common eukaryote ancestor of amebae and banana plants. But it's also certain that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes (which include bacteria), so your statement is correct.

 

[SkyWriting]

There is a strong movement to teach creation science in the schools.

Or they could teach kids at home where they should be learning everything anyway. It's not the job of unbelievers to teach religious based concepts.

 

[The Barbarian]

Since the First Amendment prohibits government establishment of religion, religions like creationism cannot be taught in public schools. Fine for private schools, of course.

 

[NBB]

Evolution has no position on the soul. Where do you get your idea of what evolutionists believe?

I used to go to church with a man who was a professor of taxonomy, he devoted his life to classifying living things. Someone asked him how science and Christianity come together. He said that he believed that at some point, when humans were evolving, God supplied them with souls.

That doesn't make sense because the soul is not a unformed gas floating in your body, it actually is compatible with the body, and work together, God designed us like he wanted, we are no product of random mutations, which is ridiculous something could be built like complex good stuff like that.