Do Creationists Reject Science?

AiG ^ | February 4, 2008 | Peter Galling

[Fichori]

“Perfect example. A sample is taken taken that appears to show a different amount of helium than one would expect.

Do you assume …” [excerpt]

No.

I would, however, suspect #3.

“The rational assumption is #3 …” [excerpt]

It is unwise to assume the answer is #3, because the right answer may be #4 or #5. (ie, not initially obvious)

Going back to #3

“3. Somebody made a mistake or missed an assumption.” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]

There are questions that need to be asked.

Was the assumption missed, or just wrong?

Has the assumption been tested and verified?

Is it even technically possible to confirm or verify the assumption?


If the assumption fails such scrutiny, then any discoveries made that are based on that assumption, are just speculative conjecture.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Some evolutionists have argued that science isn’t possible without evolution.

Yes, many have. It's like saying science isn't possible without eugenics. On what scientific grounds would a Darwinian reject eugenics? If Darwinism is true, eugenics may be good science. If eugenics doesn't work, then Darwinism is a crock too. Since we (the people of sense) know that eugenics is a bogus pseudo science, how would the Darwinians go about rejecting it without rejecting their cherished Darwinism and thus 'making all science impossible' for themselves? One has to laugh at some of their painful predicaments: they are natural consequences of believing in stupid things.

See Darwinism-Eugenics.