Do Creationists Reject Science?

AiG ^ | February 4, 2008 | Peter Galling

[Fichori]

Anyone familiar with the creation/evolution debate should know that anti-creationists love to lob the accusation that creationists are “anti-science” or that they “reject science.” Evolutionists frequently label creationists “flat-earthers” and even go as far as suggesting that consistent creationists should deny the law of gravity!

[allmendream]

Creationists have major problems with physics, astronomy, biology and geology; just to mention a few. They reject the operating paradigm of all of these subjects in preference to blind allegiance to an implausible literal interpretation of 24 hour days with sunrise and sunset before there was a Sun.

[Cvengr]

Creationists have major problems with physics, astronomy, biology and geology; just to mention a few.

The evolutionist begs the question when he makes such preposterous claims. The rigorous scientist is humble enough to admit perhaps all knowledge an the physical world is not dependent upon his understanding of it. One might observe and rationally deduce scientific principles relative to the domain within which they are observed, but also recognizes they must fall within the system which may have been created by God insofar as we are able to perceive and rationally comment upon them.

We might observe phenomena which appear to be constant, but not necessarily gauge invariant. God has made and provided us with far more capacity than such a limited scientific perspective.

As long as science remains humble to a far greater Creation, and more importantly, to the Creator Himself, He provides us with a wealth of knowledge. The problems arise when human arrogance substitutes anything but God for their ultimate devotion. If one worships the Creation instead of the Creator, or if believes in God, but works independently of Him, such efforts are ultimately good for nothingness.

[allmendream]

The claims are hardly preposterous. All one must do is listen to creation “scientists” critique of major tenants of physics (radiometric decay, physical constants), astronomy (the speed of light, the formation of the Earth after the formation of the Sun), biology (evolution, common descent of species, bio-geography), and geology (plate tech-tonics, worldwide flood, age of the Earth).

If one postulates that there are things that science can discern as created by God, then there must also be something that was not created by God to differentiate it from. This is a ridiculous assertion as all things are created by God.

Most scientists are, like myself, people of faith.

[Cvengr]

Most scientists are, like myself, people of faith.

Perhaps, but the faith in Scripture is a belief in something that is veritable, namely what God has provided in His Word, the Son of God, who, by the way, holds all of Creation together. If a pseudo-science attempts to claim something exists which was not created by Him, it fails to place faith in the God of all things through faith in Christ.

Too many pseudo-scientists have crept into the intellectual community and have arrogantly attempted to redefine science in their own image, while ignoring the vast information around them provided to reveal His very real existence.

One doesn't have to be a believer in order to be a scientist, nor does one have to be in fellowship with God through faith in Christ to be a scientist, but those who fail to remain in fellowship with Him through faith in Christ merely ignore a wealth of knowledge on the table, and are very susceptible to intellectual arrogance.

[allmendream]

The knowledge they ignore is about their salvation.

The knowledge they embrace is about this world.

The most intellectual arrogance I see is from those who do not understand a subject and yet think they know better than many thousands of professional scientists who have devoted their life to the advancement of knowledge in that field.

[WondrousCreation]

At least I was able to get something useful done:

LOL! That wonderful graphic totally encapsulates what Creation Science is doing to the lost cult of evolutionism.

[OpeEdMunkey]

Two theories? Evolution is one—what’s the other?

Creationism—as it is expressed across most religions.

[Fichori]

“So finally after numerous posts you admit that your statement that evolution wasn't testable is absolutely in error;” [excerpt]

No, Darwinian Evolution is not testable.

“but what you MEANT was that the common descent of species was not testable.” [excerpt]

No, you are putting words in my mouth.

“That too is incorrect.” [excerpt]

Fish and mammals descending from the same ancestor has never been empirically tested/observed.

“All the assumptions I care to make about the rate of change in DNA, the proportionality of change in different types of DNA, the presence or absence of endogenous retroviral sequences and their divergence from the native retroviral sequence exactly as if the retroviral insertion had happened in a common ancestor and diverged at the neutral mutation rate from that point on.” [excerpt]

In case you didn't see it:

A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt. […] I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical method.

– Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge, 2002), pp. 52-53, ISBN 0-415-27844-9.

[link]

Looks to me like all the assumptions you care to make, have turned into a dogma.

“Testable and predictable.” [excerpt]

Your attempts to equate variation within a kind due to the natural selection of preloaded information to Darwinian macro-evolution is just a cheap slight of hand card trick.

Soup to sucker evolution has yet to be empirically demonstrated.

“I predict that any ERV sequence found in both humans and gorillas will also be found in chimps. I predict that this ERV sequence found in all three will be more divergent from the native retroviral sequence than ones found only in humans and chimps.” [excerpt]

I predict that humans, gorillas, and most mammals will have bones made of calcium.

That does not empirically demonstrate that they all evolved from a single amoeba.

“Wow? How could I make such a bold prediction?” [excerpt]

I can top that, I predict you will never empirically demonstrate an amoeba evolving into fish and mammals.

“They would find I am correct.” [excerpt]

And you will find that I am correct.

“The common descent of species (what you call macroevolution)” [excerpt]

Strawman!

Macro-evolution and common-decent are two different things.

They are not synonymous.

“They would scoff at your ignorance in saying that their subject of scientific inquiry cannot be tested.” [excerpt]

Maybe...

‘Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.’ —Karl Popper

[link]

Or perhaps you are just being a bit dogmatic.

[Buck W.]

“Creationism—as it is expressed across most religions.”

How can that be? Creationism is not a scientific theory as it is not falsifiable.

[Fichori]

“Why do scientists assume that what we know as physical constants today, have always been constant and have always been constant at the rate at which we see them today?” —metmom [excerpt]

“Because there is no evidence that they can be or have ever been otherwise.” —tacticalogic [excerpt]

Certain types of radiohalos appear to imply, among other things, accelerated nuclear decay.

[Fichori]

“Creationists have major problems with physics, astronomy, biology and geology; just to mention a few.” [excerpt]

And Evolutionists have major problems with empirically testable science in general.

[Fichori]

“Creationism is not a scientific theory as it is not falsifiable.” [excerpt]

Neither is Darwinian Evolution.

[Buck W.]

“Neither is Darwinian Evolution.”

Sure it is. In fact, evolution has undergone so much change since it was originally put forth that Darwin would probably not recognize it today. More importantly, if evidence is uncovered and verified that fully contradicts evolution, the theory will be abandoned. Can you say the same about creationism?

[DallasMike]

So here is my question to you: Exactly how did you come to believe that the universe is 14.5 billion years old? In the same way that non-scientists do? Just how did you exercise your science skills in order to come to the conclusion of 14.5 billion years in more legitimate of a method then all those folks who take it by pure faith?

I can get my binoculars out and see objects in the sky that are more than 10,000 light years away. Since the light took more than 10,000 years to reach my eyes, the universe must be more than 10,000 years old. I can easily see the Andromeda galaxy, which is about 2.9 million light years away.

Any more questions?

How do you explain being able to see something 2.9 million light years away if the universe is only 6,000 years old?

[tacticalogic]

Certain types of radiohalos appear to imply, among other things, accelerated nuclear decay.

Does it imply a an accellerated rate of decay fast enough to produce an Earth Age consisted with YEC theory? Accellerated rates of decay imply increased heat, and the thermodynamics of that scenario have never been reconciled.

[metmom]

Agreed, provided you don't start arguing that the creator started changing the physical properties and constants that describe them after they were created.

I do believe that some of the physical laws changed after creation when sin entered the world. For example, I think that that is when the Second Law took effect, but that's JMO. What else may have changed would be mere speculation.

I can certainly see the difficulties of trying to apply the scientific method to a system where the laws changed at some point in time. That would muck things up greatly. For radiometric dating, you would have to know whether the decay rate was the same, if there even was radioactive decay then.

In order to make any meaningful progress in studying the past where conditions have changed using the scientific method, one would have to know the exact conditions from which to start and I don't see that that is possible.

That is one bone of contention between the evos and creationists. IF conditions did change as Scripture indicates, then many of the assumptions that scientists make and conclusions they arrive at, would end up being tossed out the window. That would mean that all their work was essentially a waste of time and no one wants to hear that.

OTOH, since no one can actually provide the exact conditions of the starting point, scientists have nothing else to go on than to assume that the physical laws of the universe have always been as they now are. Either that or they have to randomly pick some other starting point that no one can be sure about and I don't see that working either.

So scientists are really forced into a position where they have to make certain assumptions based on what they see now and make their conclusions based on that. Not that that is any criticism of them, just an observation.

[mrjesse]

Said MrJesse:
So here is my question to you: Exactly how did you come to believe that the universe is 14.5 billion years old? In the same way that non-scientists do? Just how did you exercise your science skills in order to come to the conclusion of 14.5 billion years in more legitimate of a method then all those folks who take it by pure faith?

I can get my binoculars out and see objects in the sky that are more than 10,000 light years away. Since the light took more than 10,000 years to reach my eyes, the universe must be more than 10,000 years old. I can easily see the Andromeda galaxy, which is about 2.9 million light years away.

Thanks very much for your reply. Incidentally, you didn't answer my question! I asked how you used your skills as a scientist to come to the conclusion that the universe was 14.5 billion years old - and you replied that you can look with your binoculars and know that the universe must be more then 10k years old - but my dear sir, there is a vast difference between 10K and 14.5Billion..! So your response "I know it's more then 10K" does not answer the question "How do you know it is 14.5." In other words, proving that it's greater then 10K does not prove that it is 14.5. From a scientist such as yourself I would have expected a much more meaningful answer - unless, which is what I suspect, that your skills as a science are by and large unrelated to the way by which you came to believe that the universe is 14.5 billion years old. In other words, you believe for exactly the same reasons that all the regular non-scientist type folks - you have faith in people you've never met about things about things you've never seen, but you only use your title as a scientist to lend a false sense of credibility to your otherwise unscientific effected beliefs.(That is to say beliefs that were brought about by non-scientific process.)

Any more questions?

Yes, if I may! Thank you so much!

You said that you believe that the "earth is about 4 billion years ago" (Was that supposed to be "old"?) - so I would like to ask similarly how it is you came to believe that the earth is about 4 billion years old - was it due to the excersize of your own science skills such that you did come to the belief more legitemately then non-scientist folks who take it by pure faith? or is the ~4 billion years just another belief and faith in folks you've never met about things you've never seen - in other words, exactly the way farmers and book keepers arrive at their belief in a 4 billion year old earth?

And specifically, scientifically speaking, and I'm asking this literally, how did you come to the conclusion that the earth is about 4 billion years old?

By "scientifically speaking" and "literally" I mean along the lines of the following: I believe that if you put too many amps through an LED it catches fire or at least puts out a nice stream of smoke and never works the same again. I came to that conclusion by accidentally trying it. If you think I'm not tellin' it straight, by all means, I'll mail you a dozen yellow LEDs and you can try it yourself. See, I legitemately came to my conclusion by scientific process and I can explain how I came to that conclusion.

So I'm asking -- how did you, as a scientist or otherwise, come to the conclusion that the earth is ~ 4 billion years old?

How do you explain being able to see something 2.9 million light years away if the universe is only 6,000 years old?

Simple: I believe that, in the begining, God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen 1:1.)

Obviously I believe the Biblical account of the creation of everything. It's a faith, but most people do have a beyond demonstratable-science faith for the begining of matter, whether it be God speaking things into being, or the big bang, which, according to Berkeley, says that there was nothing and then the vacuum fluctuated and a singularity was born which then turned into the first matter. Now, as a scientist, you know that something from nothing just doesn't happen. Show me if otherwise is true!

So considering that I believe that in the Begining God created the heavens and the earth, is it unreasonable for me to believe that the earth is only ~6k years old? I think not.

But let me tell you a little bit about what it's like to be an engineer who designs and builds things. You build things for a purpose, to do a certain task. The Bible says that God created man in his own image.

It stands to reason that when God creates something, he too does it for a certain reason - to do a specific job. So let us pretend that we're going to design and build a battery maintainance device which feeds a small bit of electrical current into a motorhome battery to prevent it it from going dead over the winter. This device only puts out a small amperage but it's enough to keep the battery full if it was already full. Now let's say someone comes along and examines this device and says "This is crazy! This device would take a hundred years to charge the battery! And this battery is full! This battery must have been on this charger for a hundred years!"

The truth is, of course, that the battery and the maintainer device were not made as a dating system, and the battery started out full, and the maintainer device just kept it full. The battery is there to provide starting power, and I would install a fresh fully charged battery - not to provide a dating method, but to do a job, right away, which required it to be fully charged.

So I'm arguing that God created the sun, the moon, and the stars for a reason other then for us to date them with. The Bible says exactly what God created the sun, the moon, and the stars for:

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
(Gen 1:16-18)

Ahah! God made them to rule over the night! As a matter of fact, the stars have been used for marine navigation forever!

So if we know that God created the stars for a reason - to rule over the night like the sun rules over the day, then what would we expect? Well, if they are to be used for navigation, they need to be pretty far away so they aren't just as much a moving target as the earth is. But on the other hand, they'd have to be visible from earth - which means in order for God to fullfill his objective, he'd have to also make the light in transit. Remember, he made them as a tool, to perform a task, so we would expect them to be fully functional - without having to wait billions of years. And if God created the heavens and the earth and things that make light, do you think he'd have a problem creating light?

Another example is Adam, which by the way, the Bible says And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. -- See? Even man was created for a certain task - tending the garden!

Anyway, back to Adam, whom God formed from the dust of the earth. (Gen 2:7)

So do you suppose that when God breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils Adam came alive but found himself completely starving hungry, as weak as a baby and just as smart? I dare say not so! You see, God formed Adam for a purpose to do a job and he made him ready to do it.

And the Bible clearly states the reason for the stars - and that is to rule over the night like the sun rules over the day. He made them as tools to do a job. He didn't make them as a dating service.

So the short answer to your question is "I believe God created the stars to be seen from earth, and part of God's creation included making his newly created tool useful right away."

Does that answer your question?

By the way, where do you think matter came from? Either it always existed, or it never existed, or it came to be by a repeatable demonstratable means or it came to be by a non-repeatable non-demonstratable means..



Thanks very much,

-Jesse

[metmom]

That’s a keeper....

[tacticalogic]

One one hand it’s being argued that physical constants cannot be assumed to have been constant before they were first observerd and measured. From the same quarter it’s argued that the length of a day is, has always been, and cannot be anything other than the 24 hours we measure it at today.

[DungeonMaster]

We reject pop science in favor of real science.