Objective science supports creation

[finder]

Two Models of Origins


Two models form the basis of the debate on origins as summarized below. Life arose...

CREATION MODEL
By the acts of a Creator. Creation of basic plant and animal types with characteristics complete. Origin of each kind from in first representatives.

EVOLUTION MODEL

By naturalistic mechanistic processes due to properties inherent in inanimate matter.
Origin of all living things from a single living source which itself arose from inanimate matter an ancestral form by slow gradual change.

http://bestbiblescience.org/mod.htm

Creationism is not "against" modern science! In fact, the Biblical mandate to "subdue" the earth (Genesis 1:28) requires us to understand it, which is what science is all about. "Creation Science" is simply the practice of science with the assumption and acknowledgement that there is a creator God, versus the now standard operating assumption of naturalism (that nature is "all there is").


No one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called "micro-evolution" (variation within a type of organism) caused by natural selection occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. Almost all touted evidences for evolution are of this category (like Darwin's finches, the "peppered moth", or bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics). However, it is important to note that "micro-evolution" is a misnomer, as it implies that "a little" evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is taking place, as no increase in complexity (such as the development of a new organ) is being generated, but merely the emphasis of some already present traits over others.


Large scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called "macro-evolution", is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a "research issue". Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible.


The "geologic column", which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened about 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible. Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of "fully-formed abrupt appearance" and "stasis" (that is, no change over time).


The belief that the atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory. The universe is known to be "running down" yet evolution postulates it is "building up". Atoms to people evolution is much more a "religious belief" than a scientific fact.


There is no reason not to believe that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis!


Creation, not evolution, is true.

http://bestbiblescience.org/mainpts.htm

[Peter]

Where did you find this tripe?

This comment is laughable.

Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible.

Behe is a non-creation scientist?? Give me a break.

[Dave In Canada]

Finder,

What are your thoughts on the following issues with regards to Creation science?

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that Creation Science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that Creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[6][7] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[8][9]

6.^ National Academy of Science (1999). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd edition. National Academy Press. pp. 48.
7.^ a b Amicus Curiae Brief Of 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 State Academies Of Science, And 7 Other Scientific Organizations at the Wayback Machine, Edwards v. Aguillard
8.^ a b Sahotra Sarkar; Jessica Pfeifer (2006). The Philosophy of science: an encyclopedia. A-M. Psychology Press. p. 194. ISBN 9780415939270.
9.^ a b Shermer, Michael (2002). The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience. ABC-CLIO. p. 436. ISBN 9781576076538.

The law states that Creation Science should not be viewed as real science...

The 1982 ruling in McLean v. Arkansas found that creation science fails to meet the essential characteristics of science and that its chief intent is to advance a particular religious view.[12] The teaching of creation science in public schools in the United States effectively ended in 1987 following the United States Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard.[4] The court affirmed that a statute requiring the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution is taught in Louisiana public schools was unconstitutional because its sole true purpose was to advance a particular religious belief.[12]

Below is why the court ruled as it did.

The court ruled that creation science failed to meet these essential characteristics and identified specific reasons. After examining the key concepts from creation science, the court found:
1.Sudden creation "from nothing" calls upon a supernatural intervention, not natural law, and is neither testable nor falsifiable
2.Objections in creation science that mutation and natural selection are insufficient to explain common origins was an incomplete negative generalization
3.'Kinds' are not scientific classifications, and creation science's claims of an outer limit to the evolutionary change possible of species are not explained scientifically or by natural law
4.Separate ancestry of man and apes is an assertion rather than scientific explanation, and did not derive from any scientific fact or theory
5.Catastrophism, including its identification of the worldwide flood, failed as a science
6."Relatively recent inception" was the product of religious readings and had no scientific meaning, and was neither the product of, nor explainable by, natural law; nor is it tentative

The court further noted that no recognized scientific journal had published any article espousing the creation science theory as described in the Arkansas law, and stated that the testimony presented by defense attributing the absence to censorship was not credible.

In its ruling, the court wrote that for any theory to qualify as scientific, the theory must be tentative, and open to revision or abandonment as new facts come to light. It wrote that any methodology which begins with an immutable conclusion which cannot be revised or rejected, regardless of the evidence, is not a scientific theory. The court found that creation science does not culminate in conclusions formed from scientific inquiry, but instead begins with the conclusion, one taken from a literal wording of the Book of Genesis, and seeks only scientific evidence to support it.

The National Academy of Sciences states the following...

The United States National Academy of Sciences states that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such."[25] and that "the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."[25] According to Skeptic, the "creation 'science' movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics" and "seriously misrepresents the theory of evolution."[58][59]

For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
consistent (internally and externally)
parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
empirically testable and falsifiable
based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Therefore, there is no reason to believe that Creationists in the near future will ever really take the time to conducts real scientific experiments as they already have the answers. Unless they begin to conduct real scientific experiments there is no reason to consider their assertions that their God created the universe.

[Angry Citizen]

*sigh* this garbage again.

1) Macro-evolution is micro-evolution over the period of hundreds of thousands of years. The two are not dissimilar concepts at all; in fact, they are the same thing. It'd be like me saying y=x^2 stops being y=x^2 as x --> infinity. That's just nonsense. You cannot provide any mechanism by which micro-evolution must stop before it reaches 'macro' evolution.

2) The fossil records show clear changes from one species into another. Examples include the Tyrannosaur and dinosaurs in general.

3) a: If the second law operates as you said, then God too would be stricken from consideration. b: The second law doesn't operate like you said, because it deals with thermodynamic properties and only applies to closed systems. Trust me, I know; my job description entails the use of thermodynamics.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

Two Models of Origins
Two models form the basis of the debate on origins as summarized below. Life arose...

CREATION MODEL
By the acts of a Creator. Creation of basic plant and animal types with characteristics complete. Origin of each kind from in first representatives.

EVOLUTION MODEL

By naturalistic mechanistic processes due to properties inherent in inanimate matter.
Origin of all living things from a single living source which itself arose from inanimate matter an ancestral form by slow gradual change.

Evolution is not the same as abiogenesis. Evolution governs how life changes over time. Abiogenesis deals with the possible origins of life on earth. Related, yes. The same field, no - and suggesting that evolution requires, entails, or is related to abiogenesis or even, for that matter, the big bang (as you do below) is false and either ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

Creationism is not "against" modern science! In fact, the Biblical mandate to "subdue" the earth (Genesis 1:28) requires us to understand it, which is what science is all about. "Creation Science" is simply the practice of science with the assumption and acknowledgement that there is a creator God, versus the now standard operating assumption of naturalism (that nature is "all there is").

It is prudent to not operate upon any assumption unless absolutely necessary. Science ultimately operates on only one assumption - that the universe is material and observable (essentially, that what we see actually corresponds to an external, objective reality).

No one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called "micro-evolution" (variation within a type of organism) caused by natural selection occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. Almost all touted evidences for evolution are of this category (like Darwin's finches, the "peppered moth", or bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics). However, it is important to note that "micro-evolution" is a misnomer, as it implies that "a little" evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is taking place, as no increase in complexity (such as the development of a new organ) is being generated, but merely the emphasis of some already present traits over others.

There's plenty of evidence for "macro" evolution. In fact, making any distinction at all is dubious at best. Precisely the same mechanisms account for both. Upon request, I can and will provide several examples of macroevolution.

Large scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called "macro-evolution", is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a "research issue". Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible.

Please explain, in your own words, how this is impossible.

I'm assuming the "non-creation scientist," Denton referred to is Dr. Michael Denton, author of 'Evolution: A Theory in Crisis'? Sure, maybe not strictly a "creation scientist," but he is a proponent of intelligent design, which is also scientifically dubious in nature. Behe, in turn, is also an intelligent design proponent.

The "geologic column", which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened about 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible. Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of "fully-formed abrupt appearance" and "stasis" (that is, no change over time).

What "geologic column," are you referring to?

The belief that the atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory. The universe is known to be "running down" yet evolution postulates it is "building up". Atoms to people evolution is much more a "religious belief" than a scientific fact.

Again, conflating separate scientific theories.

As AC already pointed out, the Second Law applies to closed systems. The earth is NOT a closed system. Given that, please explain how evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

What evidence suggests that the universe is "running down,"? What biologist, physicist, or scientist has ever said that evolution means the universe is "building up,"? Also be aware that referring to the incredibly brief tenure of complex life-forms on one tiny planet around one out of billions of stars in one galaxy out of billions hardly counts as a universal trend, if that's what is meant by "building up,".

There is no reason not to believe that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis!

Sure, there's no reason not to believe it. Except that it requires significant assumptions, for which there is no evidence - to start with (and this is just one), the existence of an anthropomorphic deity with a personal interest in one tiny planet around one small start amongst billions in a single galaxy amongst billions.

Three scientific theories have thus far been mentioned.
1) The big bang - relates to the origins of the universe, but a lot of evidence exists which suggests that our universe did, in fact, begin due to rapid expansion from a region of very high density.
2) The origins of life on earth (i.e. abiogenesis) - tenuous, yes. But several lines of evidence suggest the possibility of spontaneous generation of biological molecules (by which I mean purine and pyrmidine bases found in DNA, amino acids, and sugars) and even biological macromolecules (small polypeptides, small nucleic acid polymers) in the early earth environment. From there it's a matter of self-replication - which is actually far more common than you might assume. Examples will be provided if requested once I again have access to academic journals.
3) Evolution - possibly the most widely studied scientific theory of the past century and a half, and not one iota of credible evidence has ever suggested that evolution is false.

So, which one is this thread actually discussing?

[minorwork]

Large scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called "macro-evolution", is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a "research issue". Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible.

Behe? Well, that's just wrong. Behe believes common descent is true.

From Michael Behe’s book The Edge of Evolution, page 72, where Behe (as close as anyone at the Discovery Institute comes to having actually been a real scientist at some time in his life) says:

Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.

The bottom line is this. Common descent is true; yet the explanation of common descent-even the common descent of humans and chimps-although fascinating, is in a profound sense trivial. It says merely that commonalities were there from the start, present in a common ancestor. It does not even begin to explain where those commonalities came from, or how humans subsequently acquired remarkable differences. Something that is nonrandom must account for the common descent of life.

[Thanatos]

You share 25% of your genes with a banana because He recycles code. I mean, if you've got to create 8.7 million unique species in a couple of days, everybody's going to get lazy and I don't fault him for that. Maybe we're all just procedurally generated content. *shudders*

[gallo]

I've been thinking about this question, and this seems like a good place to post it.

The god Moinee was defeated by a rival god in a battle in the stars. Moinee fell to earth and landed in Tasmania. As a blessing to his final resting place, he decided to create humans. But, in his dying throes, he forgot to give them knees and gave them tails like kangaroos. This meant that they couldn't sit down. Then he died. The people hated that they had no knees and had large tails and thus, couldn't sit down. The people cried to the heavens for help. Dromerdeener, the god who had defeated Moinee, heard their prayers and came down to earth. He took pity on people and gave them knees and removed their tails so that they could sit down.

The gods made the first man from dust and placed him in a beautiful garden, where he could eat of any tree but one. But the gods realised that man was alone and needed a helpmate. So the gods created all sorts of animals, but none were suitable as a mate for man. So the gods placed man in a deep sleep and took a rib from Adam and made a woman. The woman was approached by a talking snake and was convinced to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree and to convince the man to eat the fruit. When they did so, they realized that they were naked and that this was somehow shameful. They clothed themselves with fig leaves and were subsequently evicted from the garden for their sin. Forever after, all people have been punished for the sin of eating the fruit of a single tree.

First of all, in the second story, it seems that the blame can be squarely placed in the inferior woman.

Second, would it be just to send me to prison because my father committed a crime? So how is it that I am punished for a sin committed by the first man? This is a just god?

So which of these stories seems reasonable and factual to you? Why should I accept either?

By the way, I used the word "gods" in the second story because that is the term that was used in the original text (Eloim [plural] as opposed to El [singular]).

So help me out here. Which is a reasonable representation of truth?

[Zeebadee]

Atheists continue to insist that creationism be based on religion, and a fundamental literal interpretation of a book written by men. There's absolutely no reason that evolution and creation can't be compatible.

[Angry Citizen]

No; just no compelling reason to believe that they must exist in tandem. It's also noteworthy that no story of creation begins with "And so God zapped proto-ape, and lo! it split, and started its slow journey to become both ape and man". Why should we believe creation at all when they're talking about clay and dust and ribs?

[Jack]

Atheists continue to insist that creationism be based on religion, and a fundamental literal interpretation of a book written by men. There's absolutely no reason that evolution and creation can't be compatible.

Wrong thread for this defense. This thread was started by a theist who suggests science supports the Biblical creation story. How about we debate this topic here and in another thread denounce atheists?

[Thanatos]

The strange thing is I've never met someone who believed in intelligent design yet didn't believe in one of a very short list of designers. I mean, it wouldn't be impossible for such a hypothetical quasi-believer to exist, but they don't seem to and there's no reason for them to.

Why introduce a designer to your explanation of the world when you don't have to?