Creation Science

Somebody's Internet Page ^ | 7th July. 2000 | Adrian Barnett

[PatrickHenry]

Creationists are a strange bunch. They like to use the scientific method (as they interpret it) to justify their claims about the age of the Earth, evolution and so on. However, if anyone uses that same scientific method to refute their claims, then obviously that person is completely wrong. (Note : This article deals with "Young Earth" creationists, although there are many other types.)

Creationists are happy to accept any scientific data that supports (or at least appears to support) their theory, whether it comes from fellow creationists or from the scientific establishment. Where their theory is not supported, or even flatly contradicted by "standard" science, they fall back on faith, ad hoc hypotheses, conspiracy theories, misrepresentations of science or even outright lies.

If you examine creationist articles, they often cite many papers from mainstream scientists, and use these to back up their claims. Interestingly, if you examine the citations, you often find that they are quite old (often at least twenty years, and occasionally over seventy!). Whether or not the theories are out of date, or have changed or even been abandoned since then is irrelevant - it's a science paper that can be interpreted as supporting a young universe, so it will do nicely. The intended audience is unlikely to know the current state of that particular science, so the reference to the paper or journal lends a lot of weight to the creationist argument (which would float off into space otherwise). Also, any controversies in science are good ammunition for the creationists. Whenever scientists disagree over something, that will be used as solid evidence that the theory in question is defunct (unless, of course, it's a creationist theory). Most people recognise that science thrives on debate. All current theories can be, and should be, questioned. If theories were not questioned, and scientists never argued, science would grind to a halt and no progress could ever be made. Could it be a coincidence that creationists rarely disagree with or question each others theories (even contradictory ones), and their "science" has not changed in the thousands of years since Genesis was written?

Here I shall explore some of the blatant problems with key points of Creationism - the doctrine that the Universe was created exactly as described in the Book of Genesis.

[Long article, with good links. 90% is omitted here.]

For the full article, go to the site: Creation Science .

[Storm Orphan]

f.Christian mumbles, changes the tin foil in his underwear, and pushes his shopping cart down the alley.

[js1138]

When the tools used for measurement start to change what does that tell us?

It tells us that science is self-correcting. Do you have any idea how the change in the measurment standard affects any estimates of the age of the universe? Does it change from 13 billion to say 6000? Or is the shift somewhat less pronounced?

[f.Christian]

Better than public intellectual masturbation--orgies---EVOLUTION!!

[exmarine]

Not all creationists are YEC. Typical stereotypical poppycock. What is your answer to the old-earth creationists like Hugh Ross? Do you have a rebuttal for that too? I'd love to see it.

[Storm Orphan]

Mushrooms, doggie nose. Tralfamador. Fear infest. CORPUS! CORPUS!

[Junior]

f.christian subscribes to the James Joyce school of internet posting ...

[Junior]

Not all creationists are YEC. Typical stereotypical poppycock. What is your answer to the old-earth creationists like Hugh Ross? Do you have a rebuttal for that too? I'd love to see it.

So, when evolutionists disagree on certain points, it's proof evolution is a farce. When creationists disagree on certain points (YEC vs. OEC, ID, day agers, etc.) it's proof that evolution is a farce. Hmmm...

[f.Christian]

Popery-popery-popery(self) is the greatest fight all men/women win(Truth)-lose(evolution)---struggle with(I-gnorance)!

[MHGinTN]

PH, I'm too strange to get into these debates/debattles. I am convinced that if the current creationist conceptualization of our universe origins is accepted, the method by which aging of planets and stars, evidenced in fossil records for instance, would have to be discarded. I don't see convincing arguments for tossing out the aging process (fundamentally, entropy) for molecular structures, so I don't think the data is sufficient to 'know' the answers. I guess I'm an agnostic when it comes to either creationism (as currently espoused) or evolution (even under Stephen J. Gould's definition). Sorry I can't join the hunt, but I'll get up there on the proch and enjoy the big dogs running the rabbits. Take this as a bump in anticipation of another doosey thread!

[Storm Orphan]

Yes, but after a few doobies I can understand Joyce.

[MHGinTN]

PH, thanks for the ping, BTW.

[PatrickHenry]

Better than public intellectual masturbation--orgies---EVOLUTION!!

Childhood abuse can only excuse a limited amount of disfunction.

[PatrickHenry]

If we think that we know all that's to be known, we fool ourselves.

Tell that to the Genesis crowd. Science-minded people already understand that.

[Aric2000]

Yep, I always love these arguments, because the creationist always fall back onto the bible and the evolutionists always bring up science. Neither are reconcilable to the other. Religion=Faith, Science=Facts or factually based theories.

I will go for the science=facts or factually based theories thank you very much. Faith has done nothing but cause major wars. Religion has killed more people in this world in the name of god then anything else in the history of mankind.

I have yet to hear of a war caused by a scientific theory.

There, let's see what comes out of the woodwork.

[f.Christian]

What do you think your anti-thiestic evolution cult is all about???

[f.Christian]

What do you think your anti-thiestic evolution cult-PARTY is all about???

[Junior]

Daddy's little baby sings tractors and turnips! STUD MUFFINS take the cake!

[PatrickHenry]

I have yet to hear of a war caused by a scientific theory.

Stick around. The creationists blame all wars since Darwin on evolution. Seriously, that's what they claim.

[PatrickHenry]

What do you think your anti-thiestic evolution cult-PARTY is all about???

Orgies, as you claim. You're so right.

[f.Christian]

A real attack(God)whack(Truth)--job!! The Big bang!!