Creation Science and Science (heaven, belief, exist, originate)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not to be curt, but could we keep this thread on-topic, because I believe Heavenese makes a good point and asks a valid question. I shall do my best to contribute to that discussion, but I fear my comments are now buried under three pages of the same fruitless back-and-forth that has been going on for a week in another thread.
Heavenese: Creationist Science (I will call it ID for short, as they are really one and the same) faces some major problems when attempting to address issues as a true science would. I'll go through a few that come to mind...
Hypothesis: The universe was created by an intelligent designer.
But how do you test that? Some have suggested that "Specified Complexity" is such a test, others "Fine Tuning," and still others "Irreducible Complexity." The problem is that none of these has been proven even as a valid metric. The mathematics behind "Specified Complexity" have come under heavy criticism, "Fine Tuning" can be equally explained by an application of the (weak) Anthropic Principle, and "Irreducible Complexity" makes an awful lot of unsupportable assumptions. Now you can believe these arguments if you like, but it's not going to be easy to pass then off as " science." Essentially, they are apologetics.
So, how do we test for design? One suggestion from ID critics has been "optimization." This essentially posits that if the universe (and humanity) was designed by a perfect being, then his design should be perfect...but clearly we are not perfect. This leads the creationist to argue that either (1) creation became imperfect due to the "fall if man" or (2) we cannot assume that our concept of "optimal" can be applied, because god knows better than we do and has his reasons for everything. Unfortunately, neither Adam's sin nor god's hidden agenda can be tested.
Devising mechanistic hypotheses is equally challenging for ID...where does one even begin to investigate the mechanisms of divine intervention? Naturalistic science is constrained by the fundamental assumption that every effect has a cause, but when one is dealing with the supernatural then this assumption is unnecessary and all constraints are removed. The same is true of making testable predictions. If god can do anything, and thinks beyond our comprehension, then how can we possibly predict what he would or would not do?
Of course, there are a few other tests we could apply:
Dating: I don't mean boy-meets-girl dating, but geological dating. If YEC is true, then everything dated should look pretty recent. This doesn't bear out of course, but the YEC crowd has long decried scientific dating methods.
"Kinds": If (as Genisis claims) every animal was made "in its kind," then we would expect animals of the same "kind" to be closely related. The problem here is that such similarities are explained equally well by closer evolutionary relationships. That said, one might also expect animals of different "kinds" to be extremely dissimilar. That doesn't seem to bear out, but it's hard to say quantitatively. Besides, there is no requirement of dissimilarity between kinds in any case.
One last hurdle for ID is objectivity. A scientific researcher must be willing to follow wherever the evidence leads. Now anti-science folks may question if this really happens...if scientists really are objective. From my experience in the field, that's a very complex question. Nonetheless, ID "scientists" generally have zero objectivity. They tend to be Christian fundamentalists who would not doubt the bible regardless of the evidence. So then, how can one really trust their research?
These are just the issues that occur to me off the top of my head...I'm sure there are many more.
Thanks.
Excellent questions. For the things you mentioned, I don't like using the words intelligent design and creationism (YEC) interchangeably. ID just says we are designed, but not how. Creationism is a defined account, where we can test if it's true or not. I can't by just observing the world, say we were designed, at least not designed by the God of the Bible. Yet from reading an account, I can observe to see if the account is true.
So how do we test the account? According to Scripture there are "kinds", so I might start by looking at our genetics to see if there were anything that is utterly unique, that is not present in life across the board. The idea about common ancestry is that when you look at the bones in the wings of a bird and the bones in our arm and hands, you see many common structures. Is there something within the structure of say birds and humans (or closer relatives of humans and chimps) that can't be genuinely similar. If we can find something like that in many species, that would define separate kinds. Of course we pretty much mapped out a lot of genomes including our own, but there's still much to learn about them.
Concerning dating methods, I have an experiment in mind that asks the question of can I effectively change the age of an object as dated by any method? In other words could I make a rock dated 1 million years old, 500,000 million years old? Of course this might be a pretty stupid thing to test for, because I've been told whatever experiment I hope to accomplish this feat, would have to change the object on a chemical level. I don't know, I'd like to see. (The guidelines for my experiment follows theories about the effect the Genesis flood had on the earth)
I also have some hypothesis I'd like to test out concerning the asteroid belt, and if creationism predicts there would be no asteroid belts in star systems similar to ours. To fully test out that one, I'm waiting on the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). This telescope may have the capability to peer into our nearest star system, and see if there is any asteroid belt there. I believe according to the theory of how solar system formed, there should be asteroid belts in many or most star systems. Yet if creationism is true, that God created the stars (which includes the planets, as the planets appeared as stars to the ancient people) fully formed, there were no long periods of dust and gas clumping together to form all the celestial bodies in our solar system. So these are a few things I'd like to test for. It's a starting point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpc1
I would add falsifiability, prediction making and real-world application to that list. ID is not falsifiable. In other words, there is nothing that can prove it wrong. There are any number of things that could prove evolution wrong, but we don't find those things. ID, on the other hand, posits the direction of a designer who can create organisms arbitrarily, and in as much, it can't be falsified.
ID also makes no predictions. Evolution predicts all kinds of details about the natural world, and so far those predictions have turned out to be true. ID, on the other hand, holds divine fiat as its central dogma, and in as much, can't make predictions. I mean, maybe the designer will make a brand new type of organism tomorrow; we can't know, because divine intervention can't be predicted.
And even if ID were 100% true, it's of very little (no?) practical use. Imagine rushing your son or daughter to the emergency room and having the doctor tell you, "We're sorry that we don't have a cure for the drug-resistant virus that killed your child, but we do have good news. It appears to have been created by an intelligence!"
Intelligent Design creationism fails to qualify as science on not just one or two fronts, but on all fronts.
Yes. There is definitely falsifiability in my studies. Of course if you go to creationist sites like Answers in Genesis, they will tell you the Bible is right no matter what. To me that is just fear on their part, and they eliminated the chance of being wrong by putting on blinders. Yet the thing is they brag about how there is evidence for creation. If one is so confident, why not put yourself up for scrutiny?
Even if you are 100% right, it means nothing to me and it should mean nothing to any creationist. Who cares. Where are our evidence, experiments, and theories? That is all we should care about if what we believe is so convincingly true. It's been said before that even if you prove things like common descent evolution wrong, that doesn't automatically make creationism right. That should be our focus.
Hello again Heavenese.
I respect your intellectual honesty, regardless of what conclusion anyone may come to. What you say is very true, and I think the ID camp is often all-too-eager to employ the false dichotomy of "if not evolution, then divine creation." It is a bias that I would conjecture is born of the fact that creationism was the default assumption before "On The Origin of Species."
In endeavoring to provide a positive argument for ID, you lay an enormous challenge in front of yourself. So, I would start with a simple question: if you were an all-powerful being, what would your creation look like? This is a sore spot for me (from a creationist standpoint) for a rather ironic reason. Negative arguments (against naturalism) often site "complexity" that allegedly cannot have developed by natural processes. Yet I think this stands against a positive argument for creationism. Why would a supreme being make such a complex system?. The starlight is beautiful, but surely there should be an easier way to provide it than making a nearly infinite universe around our planet. Someone claimed that Jupiter was our god-given protection from asteroids (because of its large gravitational pull) but I think it was Shirina or Ceist that countered it would have been easier (I would think) to just make a universe without asteroids - or at least no asteroids too close to Earth.
This is where a lot of folks lean back on the argument that god's mind is unknowable, but if we are going to hold to such an argument then how can we proceed with further investigation?
I would very much like your thoughts on this challenging problem.
I respect your intellectual honesty, regardless of what conclusion anyone may come to. What you say is very true, and I think the ID camp is often all-too-eager to employ the false dichotomy of "if not evolution, then divine creation." It is a bias that I would conjecture is born of the fact that creationism was the default assumption before "On The Origin of Species."
In endeavoring to provide a positive argument for ID, you lay an enormous challenge in front of yourself. So, I would start with a simple question: if you were an all-powerful being, what would your creation look like? This is a sore spot for me (from a creationist standpoint) for a rather ironic reason. Negative arguments (against naturalism) often site "complexity" that allegedly cannot have developed by natural processes. Yet I think this stands against a positive argument for creationism. Why would a supreme being make such a complex system?. The starlight is beautiful, but surely there should be an easier way to provide it than making a nearly infinite universe around our planet. Someone claimed that Jupiter was our god-given protection from asteroids (because of its large gravitational pull) but I think it was Shirina or Ceist that countered it would have been easier (I would think) to just make a universe without asteroids - or at least no asteroids too close to Earth.
This is where a lot of folks lean back on the argument that god's mind is unknowable, but if we are going to hold to such an argument then how can we proceed with further investigation?
I would very much like your thoughts on this challenging problem.
Thanks.
I guess people would say my answer is fundamentalistic. My answer is what we see today, is not how God originally created. Now in truth, a designer could have created any way he chose if he had the power to create. So he could have purposely create the world as it is today. However if I had infinite knowledge and wanted to create a world without danger and pain, yes I would create a world without some of the things you mentioned. God as described in the Bible would have created without the threat of asteroids impacting the earth and so on. The thing is with the fall, the whole creation fell out of whack. It's like a virus entering a computer. Nothing is going to work like it's supposed to after that. What ID does is look at the virus infected computer, and infer design from it. Yet you can't do that because the designer didn't design the computer with the virus in it. It's almost as if it's no longer the designer's creation at all. This is where ID falls short.
So this is why I say observation is not enough. With the account, you can unravel the footsteps of things no longer observable. Almost like seeing the virus, and subtracting it from the computer. Then you will see the design.
My answer is what we see today, is not how God originally created.
Here is the problem with that, we can see into the past in fact as recent research shows we can see as far back as the first moments after creation of the universe.
Quote:
Now in truth, a designer could have created any way he chose if he had the power to create.
Even allowing for the possibility of a "creator" I fail to see the recalcitrance to accepting that the "creator" created the universe and everything in it as science suggest other than to cling to biblical dogma. If I were to believe in a "creator" which I do not, I would think that the creation that we know exists is far more awe inspiring that any gods of any of man's religions.
But herein lies the problem.
God as described in the Bible would have created without the threat of asteroids impacting the earth and so on. The thing is with the fall, the whole creation fell out of whack.
First the "Fall" was supposed to be corrected by the flood, but apparently that didn't work. Then it was supposed to be worked out by the crucifixion of Jesus. That didn't seem to work either. Either way everything in the universe from astroids to planetary orbits revolves around what humans do or don't do.
The problem is not only religious doctrine but the seemingly absolute necessity for an anthropocentric viewpoint. In the grand scene of the universe, man is a mere triviality. For centuries men, particular those driven by Abrahamic dogma, have fought against the idea that we are not the end all-be-all at center of the universe. We fought against the idea that the sun, and the stars revolved round the earth or more precisely us. We now fight against the idea that we evolved from earlier life forms.
We fight these concepts for one reason and one reason alone, it endangers not just our religions beliefs but our inflated sense of self. That sense that we humans are some how just so damned special when in fact we are just one very recently arrived species out of millions of extinct and extant species who in their own way are as equally impressive as our own.
If we could for one moment relieve ourselves of this destructive anthropocentric view point and recognized that we occupy a small planet, in a solar system on the edge of an immense galaxy that lies in vast universe inhabited by billions of other galaxies, all of whom encompass millions of other stars, and planets we might come to understand that if a creator indeed exists, the creator that science points to is more impressive and awe inspiring than any that we have so far been able to invent.
If I were a deist, and I am not, my creator wouldn't be some mere craftsman who played around in the dirt one day and molded man from mud and who has then spent eons trying to get him to properly sit, stay and rollover without much success. My creator would be a brilliant theoretical scientist who would create the laws of physics and unleash its power to create an universe and then sit back and watch it unfold as it created everything from the tiniest sub atomic particle to stunning nebulas like the Carina Nebula which is three freaking light years in length.
If I were an intelligent designer with absolute supreme power, why would I give a millennium of thought -because intelligent design presupposes some level of thought - designing something so insignificant - in the grand scheme of things - as a flagellum?
There's a reason we shouldn't teach evolution in school.
This is who evolutionists are directly descended from:
And this is who Creationists are descended from:
Any questions?
This is a perfect example of pure subjective ignorance at work. Evolutionists make NO SUCH CLAIM. Humans are not "directly descended" from ANY living creature. Our closest living non human relatives genetically appear to be the chimpanzees, with whom we share a genetic identity of roughly 98%. But humans and chimps are very clearly not the same species. And we are not "directly descended" from modern chimps any more then they are "directly descended" from humans. The two species diverged from an entirely different species several million years ago. Do we have evidence that entirely different now extinct hominid species once existed? Yes, they are called FOSSILS. Fossils represent PHYSICAL PROOF. Until you actually make an effort to understand evolution your ignorant attempts to discredit evolution will only provoke disdain and amusement among those who do. It also solidifies the recognition that some religious individuals purposely and desperately cling to their ignorance because they prefer to be ignorant of ideas and facts which inconveniently do not conform to their preferred system of make believe.
This is a perfect example of pure subjective ignorance at work. Evolutionists make NO SUCH CLAIM. Humans are not "directly descended" from ANY living creature. Our closest living non human relatives genetically appear to be the chimpanzees, with whom we share a genetic identity of roughly 98%. But humans and chimps are very clearly not the same species. And we are not "directly descended" from modern chimps any more then they are "directly descended" from humans. The two species diverged from an entirely different species several million years ago. Do we have evidence that entirely different now extinct hominid species once existed? Yes, they are called FOSSILS. Fossils represent PHYSICAL PROOF. Until you actually make an effort to understand evolution your ignorant attempts to discredit evolution will only provoke disdain and amusement among those who do. It also solidifies the recognition that some religious individuals purposely and desperately cling to their ignorance because they prefer to be ignorant of ideas and facts which inconveniently do not conform to their preferred system of make believe.
Here is the problem with that, we can see into the past in fact as recent research shows we can see as far back as the first moments after creation of the universe.
The universe? Perhaps. Here on earth? Not so much. Of course this is coming from a creationist perspective. In terms of what we know in science, we have the fossil record and the layers of the geological column etc. From a creationist perspective, I would speculate much didn't change in the universe, accept perhaps the fall triggered supernovas and an acceleration of decay. Again I know some of the physics of the universe, and how what I'm saying of the creationist perspective doesn't really connect with it, yet the thinking is before the fall the universe ran a flawless set of physics.
As the universe today continues to spread, scientists believe the fate of the universe will end in a "heat death". Where eventually there will not be enough energy to form anything. This tells me as a creationist, having the universe run out of energy is not something God would have created and of course, God didn't even create man to die originally. So before the fall, the whole universe ran on something of a different set of physics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Even allowing for the possibility of a "creator" I fail to see the recalcitrance to accepting that the "creator" created the universe and everything in it as science suggest other than to cling to biblical dogma. If I were to believe in a "creator" which I do not, I would think that the creation that we know exists is far more awe inspiring that any gods of any of man's religions.
But herein lies the problem.
God as described in the Bible would have created without the threat of asteroids impacting the earth and so on. The thing is with the fall, the whole creation fell out of whack.
First the "Fall" was supposed to be corrected by the flood, but apparently that didn't work. Then it was supposed to be worked out by the crucifixion of Jesus. That didn't seem to work either. Either way everything in the universe from astroids to planetary orbits revolves around what humans do or don't do.
The problem is not only religious doctrine but the seemingly absolute necessity for an anthropocentric viewpoint. In the grand scene of the universe, man is a mere triviality. For centuries men, particular those driven by Abrahamic dogma, have fought against the idea that we are not the end all-be-all at center of the universe. We fought against the idea that the sun, and the stars revolved round the earth or more precisely us. We now fight against the idea that we evolved from earlier life forms.
We fight these concepts for one reason and one reason alone, it endangers not just our religions beliefs but our inflated sense of self. That sense that we humans are some how just so damned special when in fact we are just one very recently arrived species out of millions of extinct and extant species who in their own way are as equally impressive as our own.
If we could for one moment relieve ourselves of this destructive anthropocentric view point and recognized that we occupy a small planet, in a solar system on the edge of an immense galaxy that lies in vast universe inhabited by billions of other galaxies, all of whom encompass millions of other stars, and planets we might come to understand that if a creator indeed exists, the creator that science points to is more impressive and awe inspiring than any that we have so far been able to invent.
If I were a deist, and I am not, my creator wouldn't be some mere craftsman who played around in the dirt one day and molded man from mud and who has then spent eons trying to get him to properly sit, stay and rollover without much success. My creator would be a brilliant theoretical scientist who would create the laws of physics and unleash its power to create an universe and then sit back and watch it unfold as it created everything from the tiniest sub atomic particle to stunning nebulas like the Carina Nebula which is three freaking light years in length.
If I were an intelligent designer with absolute supreme power, why would I give a millennium of thought -because intelligent design presupposes some level of thought - designing something so insignificant - in the grand scheme of things - as a flagellum?
The flood wasn't suppose to correct the fall. What the fall brought in was death in the broad sense. Theoretically Jesus' death and resurrection opened the door for us to restore what was lost at the fall, but the process of people having the opportunity to receive this gift is still going on. God is yet to restore everything because He's waiting for everyone to receive Jesus' gift theoretically. So in that sense, we are in wait mode for the final restoration. Of course I see your points concerning having this centric view of the universe evolving around us. Yet I would say that, even if I weren't a creationist or christian, life itself was infinitely more special than anything else in the universe. If we were to find life outside the universe, they would have that same special value.. So life as a whole is more special than the stars, dark matter, and so on. Life itself would be the crown achievement of the universe in my opinion.
The universe? Perhaps. Here on earth? Not so much. Of course this is coming from a creationist perspective.
Your perspective isn't creationist it is just apologetically Judeo-Christian. In my previous post I outlined a reasonable deist/agonistical approach that would reconcile science and and belief in a sentient supernatural being.
Quote:
I would speculate much didn't change in the universe, accept perhaps the fall triggered supernovas and an acceleration of decay.
Why on earth would anyone choose to speculate when there is so much hard evidence from which to form an opinion or insight?
I just don't get it.
Quote:
This tells me as a creationist, having the universe run out of energy is not something God would have created and of course,
Well I gave it my best shot, at this point, all I can say is "whatever."
Your perspective isn't creationist it is just apologetically Judeo-Christian. In my previous post I outlined a reasonable deist/agonistical approach that would reconcile science and and belief in a sentient supernatural being.
Why on earth would anyone choose to speculate when there is so much hard evidence from which to form an opinion or insight?
I just don't get it.
Well I gave it my best shot, at this point, all I can say is "whatever."
Have a Happy Easter.
I'm sorry, I wasn't under the impression you were trying to tell me anything. My views are christian centered. Now I could have a deist belief or other belief and plug in views, but I'm a creationist. Here is where my speculation is. Overall of course I realize what science says. I'm sorry if I misunderstood something.
As for deism, I wouldn't admire such a god who created this place. There's too much pain, and not everyone can see the beauty. Of course it could be the deistic god would have planned it this way, so a guy like me could change things so everyone can see the beauty. So my way of worshiping this god, would be hating him.
Last edited by Heavenese; 04-06-2014 at 12:12 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
