Quote:
Quote by: LuDaCrIs  Well, that depends entirely on you. If the idea of creation encompasses the beginning of the universe, then by all means include it. It all depends on what your side has chosen to do.
One question, does your side, and I am saying "your" in the sense of the creation consensus, agree with evolution or does it try to run up alongside it? Is evolution a part of the creation model? Or does it try and make it a substitution?
Is that because it's not scientific or because you think scientists, in general, have it out for creationism? A conspiracy?
As far as I am concerned there is only one science. The one which involves peer-review and is subject to testing and replication. |
Creationists would agree that some of the evidence supporting evolution is true and makes sense. But they draw a line in the sand. They do not agree that one type of animal could evolve into a totally different kind of animal. They agree that a particular kind of animal can change and evolve a new appearence via adaptation. But that they do not agree, for example, that fish evolved into reptiles. Or that a lizard could evolve into a bird. More so, they do not agree that a pig could evolve into becoming a horse. Or that humans evolved from a monkey or some common denominator. They feel there is a lack of evidence to support such extreme changes. They think that change can happen via breeding, but they do not think a human can breed with a pig and make a new kind of animal, a "pigman". They pretty much base everything on mating and claim that evidence shows that animals of one kind do not mate with animals of another kind to produce a new kind of animal.
I do not think that scientists have it out for anyone ( well, some of them dislike Christians as can be obseved here at Volconvo) but I do not think that is what I was suggesting. Many scientists have difficulty getting an new theory or idea into the mainstream. It takes a lot to make science change it's mind about their established viewpoint. If a new idea conflicts with an interpretation of data they have already agreed upon then it is very hard to get a good peer review. Because they would say that the older, established date does not confrim or support the new data, or the reinterpretation of the older data. And frankly, the Creationists often add on something about God or whatever that should not be part of their communications with scientists. Clearly the ID or Creationist is bias from the get go and that they want to undo any idea that God did not create the universe, and humans. Creationism would of course mean that a Creator is involved.
Is evolution a part of Creation model? Now things get a little complex and you might get some mixed signals about that from different people who advoate creationism. Evolution would be suggestive of designing a final product. So some ID people might make that point. Some Creationists would suggest that the Creator guided the processes of evolution via some sort of supernatural influence. In much the same way as humans have influenced the evolution of our technology. It is clear that an airplane did not evolve from a car, but we can see an evolution of ideas that would link a car to an airplane. Or even a bow and arrow to a rocket ship. Take the horse and wagon, the idea for the Model T Ford is like the idea for a wagon but would be an advancement of that idea, the Ford would have more horse power. A evolution of ideas being put into effect or manifested.
That might sound logical to some readers, but how could they get that notion past a sceintific peer review? First they would say that biology has nothing to do with human inventions. You have no physical evidence to prove that a God is thinking up ideas. No phyics to demonstrate that ideas can evolve from each other. etc.
Having only one science is like saying there is only one God. But I will allow you that. So part of the work of the creatonist movement is find evidence about some theory that has already passed a peer review that would show that the peer review can be doubted, and that another peer review is needed due to those new discoveries or because some questions or objections are unanswered, in the hopes that the new review would be more supportive of their objectives.
Even some of our greatest scientists believe in a Creator because they think it makes sense, and although they could produce a theory about relativity they could not produce a theory about creationism. It is not an easy project to undertake. But I will try.