Evolution or Creation

I am a very strong believer that God, and ONLY God, created our universe and everything in it. But I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

I have no burden of proof because I am not trying to prove anything. If you don't buy it, fine with me. I'm not affected one way or the other.

And since you are unable to respect others who disagree with you, I see no reason to continue this. Neither of us will change, and I don't intend to argue with you.

 

Olivier, I will find you a site that outlines the theory. Usually, it is only found in parts and not as a unified whole which troubles me as well.

Thanks, Palpazzar. I'll be happy to have a look at those sites.

btw, you called abiogenesis and macroevolution "absurd". This word suggests more than mere doubts about their validity, but rather the refusal to consider them as possible explanations. Why is it so?

Let's consider abiogenesis, for example. There is clearly not enough evidence (yet?) for scientists to consider this theory as a trustworthy model of how life arose. Yet some experiments have shown that proteins could be formed under certain conditions (even if those conditions are not considered to be the actual conditions on earth at that time). What, then, makes you think that this theory is "absurd"?

 

Palpazzar: I respect everyone's opinion... though I'm not required to agree with it... neither by my scientific disciplines nor my religious doctrine.

I'm not claiming I'm right... I'm simply debating that Creation theory, which itself is based on various mistranslations of vague passages in one scripture does not have any merit in the scientific world as an explanation for how life evolved on this planet. Creation and evolution are two different processes... Furthermore, I am not debating the origins of the universe or whether or not they were put into motion by a higher power. I am simply stating that creation theory, as a counterpoint to evolutionary science, has no basis upon which it can prove itself, irrespective of whether or not it accomplishes to disprove the competing theory... which it hasn't anyway.

You were attempting to prove evolution theory wrong, were you not? In your effort to do so, was it not your goal to prove creation theory right? There is no scientific validity to claim proof of a theory by disproving competing theories.

You appear to take every one of my rebuttals personally... as if there's some grave consequence if you happen... IF you happen to be wrong. I'm not saying it's my intent to prove you wrong... but what are you so damned afraid of when a person presents as strong a scientific case as I have? I have also made every effort to cite every single expert source I have quoted... whereas you haven't cited anything except the Bible. Not once have you cited the sources of any of the random studies or discoveries or historical accounts that purportedly validate Creation/Intelligent Design theory, or any that purportedly directly disprove Evolution theory.

When I present new scientific evidence on macroevolution... you think I'm disrespecting you, rather than just presenting an argument to rebut your assertions about evolutionary science.

Maybe you're so afraid that if you're wrong there's going to be some divine consequence and you're going to burn in hell for all eternity or something... and therefore, you must be right, at any cost. This sort of faith by fearmongering usually preys on the miserable, the gullible and the ignorant... but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I assume you're more intelligent, otherwise I wouldn't even waste my time debating with you. I'm sorry that you feel that you have to take rebuttals to Creation theory so personally as if you thought up creation yourself.

It's as if you have a bad case of Pascal's Wager... you're deathly afraid that if you're wrong, you're confined to a life in hell... when in reality, there's no reason to be worried that the evolutionists might actually have a point (god forbid!). I'm not trying to convince you to personally stop believing in Jesus Christ. I'm not asking you to believe wholly in evolution, and concurrently not believe in creation... but I've demonstrated that Creation theory in and of itself has no basis upon which it can claim to be a better explanation than evolution theory for how we got here... and nowhere is it written exactly that your being a Christian is not dependent on your acceptance of the vagaries of the Creation story as literal truth. This is also backed up by witness of the fact that thousands, maybe even millions of Christians who believe in the allegorical/moral relevance of Genesis as well as the scientific relevance of evolution theory.

I would like to note that I don't believe you'll go to hell, or that there's a right or wrong way to believe in god... consequently, I don't believe that being a Christian is so contingent upon accepting Creation story literally... especially when no Christian denominations can agree on the particulars of Creation themselves, and in the face of numerous Christians working in the scientific field who accept evolution theory as the most likely explanation for how life evolved on this planet, and considering that the only vague passages that refer to Creation were themselves mistranslated.

Even the "direct translations" t

 

Palpazzar:
"kinds" are most likely on the phyla level. Forgive the Hebrews for not having our classification system.

What do you mean by "most likely"? I hope that you are not merely avoiding being held to a specific definition. Of course, I have to wonder why the creation "scientists" have not defined this term better than that. Anyhow, let's start with phyla: the evolution of birds from dinosaurs would then be "evolution within kinds" since both dinosaurs and birds (and lampreys) are in the same phylum. Is that what you mean by "micro- evolution"?

Oddly enough, we don't have any definite observations or data from the beginning of the world.

On the contrary, we have lots of definite observations of rocks that were formed early on.

We have certain facts which can be seen as you want it to be.

If you mean ?you have certain facts that you choose to ignore in favour of a religious text" then I agree with you.

Creation theory is actually a very indepth [sic] and scientific field with a cross of biology, geology, geography, astrophysics, physics, and chemistry.

So-called "creation theory" is not science at all. It generates no empirically testable hypotheses, and explains nothing. If you disagree, just provide a single empirically-testable hypothesis generated by "creation theory."

Peez

 

Jealous_of_Natalie:
I am a very strong believer that God, and ONLY God, created our universe and everything in it. But I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion! People who believe that a god or gods were involved in the creation of the universe are very much entitled to their opinions, just as are those who believe that aliens from space created us, or those who believe that the earth is hollow, or even those who believe that the universe was created yesterday (complete with memories and the appearance of greater age). On the other hand, there is no necessary conflict between believing that a god created the universe and evolution. For example, a priest that I knew taught evolution as part of his biology class. Don't go claiming that he was not a "real" Christian, as if you have some kind of monopoly on the term: he studied the bible and accepted Jesus Christ as the son of God and his lord and savior. And he accepted evolution. Beyond the issue of one person's opinion vs another, evolution is science and creationism is not. Creationism, therefore, does not belong in a science classroom. It is as simple as that.

Peez

 

Darth_Snowdog,

Great posts, and very well sourced. Unfortunately, you know what they say about leading a horse to water...


Peez

 

Now, I realize that this is off-topic, but I have to comment on Darth_Snowdog's post regarding the Virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah 7:14...

Word actually used in Hebrew scriptures is "almah" (="young woman").

Correct. However, almah is always used to refer to a young, unmarried woman. If women were unmarried, in the Jewish culture, it was assumed that they were virgins anyway. Jewish girls married very early, usually in their early teens. There?s not a single instance, either in the Bible or outside, where "almah" is used to refer to a married woman. So virginity is implied anyway.


Hebrew word which could have been used, but wasn't, was "bethulah" (="virgin").

Correct. Bethulah does mean virgin. But it also tells us nothing at all about age. It could refer to a 70 year old spinster.

Something to note about "Bethulah" is that whenever Isaiah uses it (about 5 or 6 times) it is always in reference to a metaphorical, not a real, virgin. "Virgin daughter of Zion" or "Virgin daughter of Babylon" ? never a real person. If he used "bethulah" again in the prophecy it might confuse the reader into thinking he was not talking about a real woman.


The Septuagint is a version of the Old Testament prepared in the 3rd century BC by Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek for the Greek-speaking Jewish community. In translating for the Septuagint, "almah" was translated as "parthenos" (="virgin").

This is correct. But remember that the Septuagint translators had no bias at all. Christians now obviously want it to mean virgin, and others who are against Christianity would prefer it not to mean virgin.

The Old Testament Hebrew uses "almah" many times and it uses "bethulah" many times. They knew how to translate these words. Depending on context, "almah" would either be "maiden" or "virgin". I think it is very telling that a group of totally unbiased scholars rendered "almah" as "virgin" because of its context.

They didn?t mistranslate "almah" anywhere else in the Old Testament. Why would they in this particular case?


And now, back to the topic...

 

monkey:

A. You're cleverly masking the fact that it is not consistently clear that Mary was always referred to as a virgin in the sexual sense.

B. You're also diverting attention away from my actual point about Genesis not being correct (although I may be at fault for including a digression about the vagueness of Isaiah...). My intention was to show that even these "certainties" are not so certain.

C. Would you please post the sources or references from the scholars/experts whom you state as being in disagreement with the scholars who did point out Biblical inconsistencies such as the aforementioned?

EDIT: Because virginity is implied by one's usage of "almah" does not mean that it is certain... but implied. One of the sources I quoted asks that if there was at that time a word that literally meant virgin, why use in reference to Mary the one that sometimes, but not always, implied it? It's implied that because I'm Indian I'm statistically most likely to be Hindu... but I could also be Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Atheist.

 

A. You're cleverly masking the fact that it is not consistently clear that Mary was always referred to as a virgin in the sexual sense.

Not sure I understand your point. It's very clear from Matthew and Luke's accounts that Mary was a virgin. She asks the angel how she can be pregnant since no man has ever been with her. Or maybe I'm just not understanding your question properly.


B. You're also diverting attention away from my actual point about Genesis not being correct (although I may be at fault for including a digression about the vagueness of Isaiah...). My intention was to show that even these "certainties" are not so certain.

As you said, you brought up the Isaiah reference, so I was just correcting your point. I wasn't trying to divert anything, as I wasn't even involved in the discussion prior to the Virgin birth comments.


C. Would you please post the sources or references from the scholars/experts whom you state as being in disagreement with the scholars who did point out Biblical inconsistencies such as the aforementioned?

I didn't quote or refer to any scholars (apart from the ones who translated the Septuagint). I've answered this question before as I have wondered about it myself. I've researched into the Greek and Hebrew meanings of the words. I've looked up myself how both "almah" and "bethulah" are used in the Old Testament, including how Isaiah used them.

I've considered the arguments against "almah" meaning virgin. I've researched it myself and come to my own conclusions. Anyone who have debated with me can say that I stress the importance of doing your own thinking.


Because virginity is implied by one's usage of "almah" does not mean that it is certain... but implied.

As I said, completely unbiased translators rendered it virgin because of its context.


One of the sources I quoted asks that if there was at that time a word that literally meant virgin, why use the one that only, sometimes but not always, implied it in reference to Mary?

I answered this. "Bethulah" says nothing about age and Isaiah used this word exclusively to refer to metaphorical, not real, virgins (eg Virgin Daughter of Zion etc)

 

It's very clear from Matthew and Luke's accounts that Mary was a virgin.

It's not clear whether Matthew and Luke are legitimate references that can actually validate the rest of the Biblical accounts... Furthermore, it is rather peculiar that one could attempt to imbue legitimacy in Matthew and Luke on the basis that these two accounts agree with each other when many scholars are pointing at the fact that they really weren't two separate accounts to begin with. There are numerous scholars who argue that Matthew and Luke themselves only agree with each other for no other reason than they both were derived from the same book of sayings, often referred to as "Quelle" or "Q". Furthermore, many scholars debate the assumption of the gospels and the Pentateuch that they were written by the authors for whom they were named (i.e. Matthew, Mark... and Moses' Pentateuch). But then I'm not trying to debunk the origins of the entire Bible, so let's move on...

I didn't quote or refer to any scholars (apart from the ones who translated the Septuagint).

So on what basis am I to I assume your interpretation is more correct than the many scholars who agree with my viewpoint? If they're biased, so are you... which is why I asked for you to present me with a neutral source other than the Septuagint.

I answered this. "Bethulah" says nothing about age and Isaiah used this word exclusively to refer to metaphorical, not real, virgins (eg Virgin Daughter of Zion etc)

My point is precisely this... if "almah" does not explicitly mean "virgin" in the sexual sense, literally, and "bethulah" also doesn't consistently explicitly mean this... then the usage of either to refer to Mary can not be taken literally to mean
that she was, in fact, a virgin in the sexual sense. My greater point is that this is only one of many examples of the vagaries of the language used in the Bible and the numerous inferences that have to be made, contextually or otherwise, to arrive at any certain conclusions about the stories in the Bible... including Genesis.

Of course, you didn't debate my point about Genesis... but I'm not going to assume that by your silence we are in agreement, because it would be foolish for me to infer that without knowing exactly. I'm also not going to assume that you went with the Mary argument simply because you had no basis for debating my point about Genesis being mistranslated and misleading... of course, I probably should infer that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to tell me, or not tell me, whether you really did have any objections to my overall conclusions about Creation theory in that regard.

 

Reading through the replies, I get a sense that Creation theory is misunderstood. Perhaps I should clarify the point.

Essentially Creation science is the search for scientific fact behind the Bible. As anyone would freely admit, the Bible is not a science textbook and was not meant as such. The terms are vague as far as scientific definition goes. The point is not to take a theory and support it exactly. The point is to find the science behind what is described. By definition, Creation is not out to duplicate mainstream work in that there is no experimental element. Rather, it employs scientific principles and techinques in the search for truth. Rather than creating a theory then testing it, there is an inherent theory and it is being tested as far as possible. It is still science because it follows that method.

As to abiogenesis, perhaps absurd is harsh. But one of the principles of cell biology is that living cells only come from other living cells. Pasteur in 1860, began the work that determined life does not come from lifeless substances. Even the famous study introducing electricity into a gas mix (forgot the researchers) failed to produce life. It did produce amino acids, but these are not life. For abiogenesis to exist, it appears that it requires more than a natural environment. Considering the history of abiogenesis and the basis of cell biology, I have a hard time scientifically believing in it.

So for abiogenesis to occur, I would need to see where it could occur naturally AND not violate the cell theory.

 

Palpazzar:
Reading through the replies, I get a sense that Creation theory is misunderstood. Perhaps I should clarify the point.

Essentially Creation science is the search for scientific fact behind the Bible.

It does not appear that I am misunderstanding "creation science" at all, though you may straighten me out if I am wrong. Certainly I understand that "creation science" starts with the assumption that the Bible is correct in every detail. Note that this immediately shows that "creation science" is not science at all: science does not assume anything to be entirely correct. On the contrary, science is built on doubting any hypothesis until repeated attempts to falsify it with empirical evidence have been unsuccessful. "Creation science" is not science because it starts by assuming that the Bible is accurate (and is therefore biased by definition), and even more fundamentally is not empirically testable. There are many potential observations which would contradict the common descent of living things on this planet, but none have yet been observed. On the other hand, there is no observation that could lead a "creation scientist" to conclude that the Bible is in error. That simply means that "creation science" is not science.

As anyone would freely admit, the Bible is not a science textbook and was not meant as such. The terms are vague as far as scientific definition goes. The point is not to take a theory and support it exactly. The point is to find the science behind what is described.

You are assuming that what is described is meant to be taken literally, and that there is science "behind" it.

By definition, Creation is not out to duplicate mainstream work in that there is no experimental element.

I.e. it is not science.

Rather, it employs scientific principles and techinques [sic] in the search for truth.

But you have just specified that it does not use scientific principles and techniques.

Rather than creating a theory then testing it, there is an inherent theory and it is being tested as far as possible.

It cannot be tested scientifically, that is the point. It is not science at all.

It is still science because it follows that method.

It does not follow the scientific method at all. There are no testable hypotheses, so how can it be science?

As to abiogenesis, perhaps absurd is harsh. But one of the principles of cell biology is that living cells only come from other living cells. Pasteur in 1860, began the work that determined life does not come from lifeless substances. Even the famous study introducing electricity into a gas mix (forgot the researchers) failed to produce life.

It was not meant to produce life.

It did produce amino acids, but these are not life.

Of course amino acids are not life. The point of the experiment was to show that complex organic molecules (like those found in living systems) can occur through chemical processes outside of living systems.

For abiogenesis to exist, it appears that it requires more than a natural environment.

Why?

Considering the history of abiogenesis and the basis of cell biology, I have a hard time scientifically believing in it.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but this does not have much to do with evolution. Say, for example, that the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the universe, then put living cells in this planet about 3.8 billion years ago. That changes nothing about evolution. It does not change the fact that all living things on this world share a common ancestor. It does not change the theory of evolution being the only scientific explanation for evolution.

So for abiogenesis to occur, I would need to see where it could occur naturally AND not violate the cell theory.

Cell theory is about

 

Yes, Peez, you do misunderstand. Science is a search for the truth using empirical obseravable data within the scientific method.

Any theory of the origins of the universe stem from a thought about what was. For the Big Bang, there is the idea of all matter and energy concentrated at a central point. We can only observe this from the analysis of data we recieve now. Instead of the rock going in the water, we look at the ripples.

Creation does have one difference though which I will agree with you about. It does assume that the observation of the Bible (which includes no mechanisms) is true. Within that, known scientific principles are applied. Of course, they CAN NEVER be conclusively proven.

Obviously, there are inherent flaws with this approach. Just as with all science, theories of things need to be revised. This is not a failing. Revision in theory is a very good thing. There should be no dogma involved with this process.

Basically where you misunderstand Creation science is that it does not attempt to prove creation itself. It asks questions about the universe and how things might work. For example, a Creationist might ask can one make successful predictions of planetary magnetic field strength based upon Biblical principles. This question is scientifically valid and testable is it not?

That is the truth of Creation science. As long as the question asked can be tested as in the example above, it is science.

 

WARNING: COMPLETELY OFF-TOPIC! You have been warned

Just wanted to reply to Darth_Snowdog...


It's not clear whether Matthew and Luke are legitimate references that can actually validate the rest of the Biblical accounts...

You know, someone who uses Rick McCallum as his icon needs to try extra hard to get taken seriously. Your sweeping generalizations don?t help.


Furthermore, it is rather peculiar that one could attempt to imbue legitimacy in Matthew and Luke on the basis that these two accounts agree with each other when many scholars are pointing at the fact that they really weren't two separate accounts to begin with.

Yup, that?s fair. So if they agree, they were originally from one account, but if they conflict then they?re both wrong. Incidently, there are actually many differences between the two accounts. I examined what those are in the Alleged Contradictions thread.


There are numerous scholars who argue that Matthew and Luke themselves only agree with each other for no other reason than they both were derived from the same book of sayings, often referred to as "Quelle" or "Q".

Hey, I always thought "Q" was the weapons man in James Bond . Seriously though, I have heard this before many times. I?ll tell you exactly what I said to my Religions Professor ? there?s not one shred of proof for this theory. My professor looked at me and said "Er? but it?s what the scholars tell us."


Furthermore, many scholars debate the assumption of the gospels and the Pentateuch that they were written by the authors for whom they were named (i.e. Matthew, Mark... and Moses' Pentateuch). But then I'm not trying to debunk the origins of the entire Bible, so let's move on...

Exactly, many scholars debate. That?s what they do. Many of them disagree with each other. They study the same available data and reach different conclusions. That?s why I stress the importance of looking at the evidence for yourself and reaching your own conclusions.


So on what basis am I to I assume your interpretation is more correct than the many scholars who agree with my viewpoint? If they're biased, so are you... which is why I asked for you to present me with a neutral source other than the Septuagint.

The Septuagint is the most neutral source. But if it makes any difference, these are two of the scholars who have reached the same conclusions I have (although I did my independent study, not merely read what others have concluded):

Dr. Cyrus Gordon (Jewish Semetics scholar and archaologist. He was a leading expert on ancient languages)

Alec Motyer (author of "The Prophecy of Isaiah", after he spent 30 years teaching and studying Isaiah)


My point is precisely this... if "almah" does not explicitly mean "virgin" in the sexual sense, literally, and "bethulah" also doesn't consistently explicitly mean this... then the usage of either to refer to Mary can not be taken literally to mean that she was, in fact, a virgin in the sexual sense.

The fact that neither word is explicit dictates even stronger that the context must be considered to determine what the word means. How the Bible uses the words "almah" and "bethulah" is crucial, particularly how Isaiah uses them.


My greater point is that this is only one of many examples of the vagaries of the language used in the Bible and the numerous inferences that have to be made, contextually or otherwise, to arrive at any certain conclusions about the stories in the Bible... including Genesis.

Just like your comments about Isaiah, I?m sure the rest won?t stand up to scrutiny either. I don?t know what all the "many examples of vagarities" are, but I?m sure that you?ve read the Bible in its original Hebrew and Greek. Otherwise, you wouldn?t be making such generalizations.


Of course, you didn't debate my point about Genesis... but I'm not going to assume that by your silence we are in agreement, because it would be foolish for me to infer that without know

 

The fact that neither word is explicit dictates even stronger that the context must be considered to determine what the word means. How the Bible uses the words "almah" and "bethulah" is crucial, particularly how Isaiah uses them.

I can't say that I know the precise context... but are you telling me that in all of Hebrew and Greek language that they did not have any exact word for "virgin"? That was my point... if there is a Greek or Hebrew word for "virgin" in the sexual sense, why not use it instead of two words that are equally ambiguous without context? Furthermore... while we're on the subject of generalizations... isn't it generalizing to assume that the Hebrews always and without fail would consistently interpret "unmarried woman" to mean "virgin"? Is there any reason they wouldn't just say "virgin" if that's precisely what they were trying to say? I'm not looking for a digressionary circular response such as "Well, that's what I told you... "unmarried woman" always meant virgin"... this is a simple yes or no question.

Aside from that, I'm only presenting what is out there... the doubts that other people have cast on the literality of the Bible. I'm not interested in digressing further on this issue, monkey... at least not in this thread. Granted, it's a can of worms I opened up... but let me then be the one to close it. I'm not saying I don't agree with you, or that I don't still have questions about the legitimacy of the virginity claim... but I'd rather focus on evolution vs. creation for the time being. The crux of my argument with creation doesn't rest solely on the validity of the virginity claim, which I still have doubts about... simply because it is not certainly known what they meant or why they chose ambiguous terms over precise ones if we were intended to interpret Jesus as having been born of divine origin.

I do, however, commend you, for making an effort to help me keep my analysis of the situation even-sided. I am open to all views, though in a debate situation, it's a person's nature to be as scrutinizing as they can... that's the nature of a debate... or, for that matter, scientific analysis of such subject matter as evolution and creation theories.

The discrepancy that peez pointed out between Creation and Evolution theory is a very relevant one. Evolution theory is still scrutinized by researchers to this day who are themselves not convinced that enough is known about how biological life evolved. Creation theory, meanwhile, doesn't appear to be as scrutinized by its proponents... but blindly accepted, and the rationale given for this is that it's their belief... in order to be good Christians, they have to accept Creation as being the literal enactment of Genesis by god... and some believe this is word for word the truth.

Palpazzar: Abiogenesis is an interesting route to take... because it really has nothing to do with the majority of the study of evolution... which focuses on existing life. Perhaps molecular science, particle physics, quantum physics, chemistry, etc. have their own theories as to how life evolved from lifelessness... but one thing is widely accepted by the scientific community and backed by enough evidence from modern electron microscopy and other techniques, that all organic matter is comprised of chemical compounds which are comprised of atoms/elements.

These elements are what scientists are saying eventually formed molecular/electrochemical compounds which eventually gave rise to life... under specific conditions.

Microbial life was discovered on Mars... which could have germinated for two reasons... because some chemical compounds were present, such as Carbon Dioxide (at the polar caps) which is known to fuel plant life here on earth... and also because, as astronomists could point out, the orbit of Mars could have at one time been in the right position to receive enough warmth from the sun to help life germinate. It could be again in several billion years as the sun gradually expands. In addition,

 

there is an inherent theory and it is being tested as far as possible.

Could you give me an example of what HAS been tested?

To me, it seems like creationists ask that their theory be taught in schools before their theory has been tested and scrutinized by the whole scientific community. For example, they want to teach that variations are limited within kinds, yet this idea is not precisely defined, and has not been tested.
They also want to teach things that have been tested and refuted (various theories about the flood and dinosaurs come to mind).

Do you think that this behaviour is really "scientific"?

 

Palpazzar:
Yes, Peez, you do misunderstand. Science is a search for the truth using empirical obseravable [sic] data within the scientific method.

I disagree. Science is not about something so lofty as "the truth." Science is the testing of hypotheses by empirical experimentation.

Any theory of the origins of the universe stem from a thought about what was.

I am not sure that you understand what a scientific theory is, could you give your definition please. I should point out that this topic is "Evolution or Creation," and the origin of the universe has nothing to do with it.

For the Big Bang, there is the idea of all matter and energy concentrated at a central point. We can only observe this from the analysis of data we recieve [sic] now. Instead of the rock going in the water, we look at the ripples.

O.K.

Creation does have one difference though which I will agree with you about. It does assume that the observation of the Bible (which includes no mechanisms) is true.

So much for testing hypotheses.

Within that, known scientific principles are applied.

With that, scientific principals are moot. That being said, I have yet to see a creationist use the scientific method in any way. Feel free to provide an example that contradicts this.

Of course, they CAN NEVER be conclusively proven.

More to the point, unlike science creationsim cannot be disproved. If you cannot disprove it, you cannot test it. It is not science.

Obviously, there are inherent flaws with this approach. Just as with all science, theories of things need to be revised.

It is very obviously not science, since there are no testable hypotheses.

This is not a failing. Revision in theory is a very good thing. There should be no dogma involved with this process.

If there should be no dogma involved, why do the creationists start with the dogmatic belief that the Bible is true?

Basically where you misunderstand Creation science is that it does not attempt to prove creation itself.

No, you do not understand. Although many creationists do think that they are "proving" creation true, the problem is that they are not trying to disprove creation. A scientist tries to disprove a hypothesis. Scientists have been trying to disprove common descent for over 100 years, and have failed. That is why it is considered a fact.

It asks questions about the universe and how things might work. For example, a Creationist might ask can one make successful predictions of planetary magnetic field strength based upon Biblical principles. This question is scientifically valid and testable is it not?

It is not. Any observation can be interpreted to agree with "biblical principals" (whatever they are). That is what I have been trying to tell you, creation is not testable empirically.

That is the truth of Creation science. As long as the question asked can be tested as in the example above, it is science.

As long as the question cannot be tested, then it is not science. Thus, creationism is not science. For example, what possible observation would falsify the creation story of the origin of different species of living things? I can think of many that would falsify evolution: a horse skeleton in Precambrian rock, an entirely different codon system in a species of insect, a mammal with bones unrelated to those of other mammals, or evidence of a griffon. These are just a few of the literally millions of possible observations that would fly in the face of evolution, and there have been literally millions of opportunities to find such things, but none have been found. That is why evolution is science, and why the evolution of living species from common ancestors is considered by scientists to be a fact.

Peez

 

Well said, Peez. An objective scientist has to scrutinize as much as they theorize. Of course they set out to try to find more evidence in favor of their theory... This is one big problem I have with Creation/Intelligent Design theory.

Mostly, what Creationists do is try to prove Creation by disproving Evolution... instead of by trying to disprove Creation itself. You cannot prove that B is true just because A is not... and what's more, Creationists have not been able to disprove natural selection. Hell, evolutionists haven't been able to disprove it in 100 years!

This is what's called deductive reasoning... as opposed to inductive reasoning. Instead of throwing stuff to a wall just to see what sticks, one has to follow an empirical process of elimination... until all impossibilities have been ruled out, and all that remains is, undoubtedly, fact.

"Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth."
- Sherlock Holmes, from The Sign of Four by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

 

Hi Darth_SnowDog,

Thank you for the kind words. I would just like to say that I detest the term "evolutionist." I am no more an evolutionist than I am a gravitist, or an atomist, or even a cellist (not the musical kind ). What I am is a scientist, and as such only accept (provisionally) facts that have been established by the kind of repeated, empirical testing that has utterly failed to disprove evolution, gravity, atoms, or cells (or cellos ).

(from Darth_SnowDog)
"Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth."
- Sherlock Holmes

One of my favorite quotes.

Peez

 

I don't know much (if anything) about science, but this thread and others has at least made aware of the amount of care and effort that goes into science, and how having pre-drawn conclusions can just get in the way.

One thing i have learned here and thru reading "the demon haunted world" by carl sagan is scientists don't accept anything as "fact" just because it's their favorite explanation. I never really knew that evolution had gone through such scrutiny when it was first introduced. So the stuff being argued here was argued 150+ (?) years ago, why do most scientists agree with evolution if it has been "disproven" by Creation all these years?

I don't know what a scientist would do, but if it were me, i couldn't look at myself in the mirror if i thought i was being intellectually dishonest. I couldn't live that way. So are the evolutionists being intellectually dishonest? All the evidence is on the side of "creation science"?

BTW, why is it called "Creation" and not "Genesis account of Creation"? Creation is a very general word, but its current meaning came from something very specific, a specific book in the bible. It's a little insulting to people who don't believe in the bible but still believe there may be something or someone out there who created it all.

 

Cydonia: Good point. As a Hindu, I find it very peculiar that, even though the Bible is recognized by Judaism, Islam and Christianity... it is largely fundamentalist sects of Christianity which seem to assume that the only competing views are Genesis Creation and Evolutionary Science... as if no other religious beliefs about our origins exist.

Peez: Sorry about the "evolutionist"... force of habit. I use that term loosely to mean people who lean towards evolution theory... but more specifically, I tend to use it when referring to scientists whose specialized area of research is evolutionary science. Either way, right... no one would call me a gravitationist. And as I've explained before... I'm a Hindu because I was born in and my entire ancestry comes from Hindustan (aka India).

Otherwise, I am first and foremost a human being... with his little car... my philosophy that gets me from point A to point B... that's all. What frickin' difference does it make whether you drive a Volkswagen or a Benz? They all get you there (unless of course you drive a Yugo... in which case you should be arrested for bad taste. ).

 

i've never understood why they can't go hand-in-hand. God created evolution... that's the way that i've always seen it.

 

Because as some fundies like to say, a Judeo-Christian god shouldn't need to use evolution to create us.

I prefer to think of it as Evolution didn't need a god to create us, but whatever...

 

i consider evolution to be more impressive than creation... so i don't agree with them there.