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 Whether or not the theories are out of date, or have changed or even been abandoned since then is irrelevant - it's a science paper that can be interpreted as supporting a young universe, so it will do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 .

[PatrickHenry]

So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review: The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [6.0].

[PatrickHenry]

Bump

[PatrickHenry]

Bump.

[PatrickHenry]

Bump.

[PatrickHenry]

Bump.

[PatrickHenry]

Creationists welcome.

[elephantlips]

I so enjoy pseudo-intellectuals who argue that their theory is better than someone else's theory.
I am not a bonafide "young earth" creationist, I am however aware enough
to know that we don't know a great deal about time, space and the workings of our
Creator's mind to speak intelligently on the subject. I am
continually amazed at the never-ending supply of ignorance that condescends to instruct
the rest of we sub-humans. A better approach might be
to have discussions on what we imagine the situation to have been,
all along with the understanding that NO ONE KNOWS WHAT TOOK PLACE.
Unless you have prime facia evidence to the contrary,
I'll assume that you number among the ignorant numbers of us.

[PatrickHenry]

Bump.

[PatrickHenry]

Bump.

[Storm Orphan]

The never-ending battle...

[Barak]

The author is correct when he says that the biggest argument between evolutionists and Christians is not scientific, but philosophical. Evolutionists believe that the universe began in chaos and is evolving toward perfection: normativist Christians believe that the universe was created perfect and is degenerating into chaos. These two philosophies are absolutely irreconcilable, and any attempt at reconciliation (such as "theistic evolution") is doomed to failure from before its inception.

As a matter of fact, Zionism and fundamentalist Islam have much more in common than do Christianity and evolutionism. Perhaps we ought to practice by making permanent peace in the Middle East before we try to take on a task as gargantuan as the evolutionist-Christian debate.

[Paradox]

Oh gee, THANKS ALOT, sheesh :)

[Wm Bach]

Evolutionists believe that the universe began in chaos and is evolving toward perfection:

Really? That's what evolutionists believe? I've never heard that. Can you cite one living scientist in the evolution camp who believes that the universe is evolving towards perfection?

[jackbob]

I find it pleasurable seeing intelligent, educated people revealing their narrow minded thought patterns. Thus is the case of this debate. Both sides attached to their own particular 'ism' and unable to comprehend an alternative view. On the other hand, the use of distorted irrelevant arguments, ridicule. and black propaganda, has and is still the most common method used by those promoting evolution(ism), as it is with most ismic thinkers.

Since I do not believe in creationism, I think I'll pass on defending them against such unnecessary distorted attacks.

[js1138]

I am however aware enough to know that we don't know a great deal about time, space and the workings of our Creator's mind to speak intelligently on the subject.

But then again, we know quite a bit about the mundane aspects of space and time, specifically how big and for how long. Unless you agree with Barbie, that math is so hard.

[elephantlips]

That's contained within the definition of evolution!

[Storm Orphan]

No, it is not.

[elephantlips]

As recently as last month scientists have noted a change in the standard
for the speed of light. For science, the speed of light
was always axiomatic. If we think that we know all that's to be known,
we fool ourselves. When the tools used for measurement start
to change what does that tell us?

[f.Christian]

Truth/God(creation) vs. SELF-seeking/justification(evolution)...nothing to do with Science/Bible!!

[brown eyed girl]

What???