nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
User:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism (view source)
Revision as of 03:23, April 17, 2007
, 03:23, April 17, 2007Initial page
To avoid continually repeating the same answers to people over and over, I've put here some answers to common anti-creationist criticisms.
The answers I provide here are written from the point of view of Young Earth creationism and will not always apply to other forms of creationism.
Young Earth creationism covers more than just opposition to biological evolution. It also proposes that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old, and that about 4,500 years ago, it underwent a [[global flood]].
== Is creationism falsifiable? ==
That depends on whether you are talking about the basic concept or particular propositions that it makes.
=== Basic concept ===
I'll agree that the basic concept of creationism is not falsifiable. That is, nobody can formulate any scientific test of whether God did actually create the world.
However, neither can anybody formulate any scientific test of whether the basic concept of goo-to-you evolution is falsifiable.
So creationism and evolution are both in the same situation in that regard.
=== Particular propositions ===
Creationism makes particular propositions that ''are'' falsifiable. Examples include:
* There must have been rapid speciation (within the created kind) in the approximately 4,500 years since the flood. Science has shown that speciation can occur rapidly (i.e. with a few generations).
* There should be evidence of widespread sedimentation from the global flood. Geology has shown us that something like three-quarters of the rock formations are sedimentary in origin.
== Do creationists have a closed mind on the issue? ==
No more so that evolutionists. Creationists clearly believe that creationism is the correct explanation, else they would not be creationists. Exactly the same applies to evolutionists.
But as far as specific propositions are concerned, the evidence shows that they are no more closed minded than evolutionists. This is clear from the fact that they have changed their minds on a number of creationists propositions. The following are a few examples:
* That there was a "vapour canopy" surrounding the Earth prior to the Flood.
* That the speed of light has drastically reduced.
* That there was no rain before the Flood.
* That a Japanese fishing trawler discovered the remains of a [[plesiosaur]].
* That there should be a much thicker layer of dust on the moon if it is as olds as uniformitarians say.
== Is creationism inherently unscientific? ==
Creationism is often accused of being unscientific simply because it proposes a supernatural Creator. However, although such a Creator is not Himself scientifically testable, concluding from the available evidence that there must have been a Creator is not in itself unscientific.
The argument is essentially that one is able to propose that particular events could not have occurred (or at least are unlikely to have occurred) in any other way.
An analogy is an archaeologist discovering stone tools. The archaeologist is able, without knowing anything about the maker of the tools, to determine that the stones are the shape that they are through the actions of an intelligent being (man) because they do not occur that shape naturally.
Similarly, there is nothing unscientific in proposing that the origin of certain things, such as the genetic code, could not have occurred naturally so must have a supernatural origin.
Conversely, evolution is flawed in ruling the supernatural out ''a priori'', rather than being open to leading to where the evidence is most consistent.
== What evidence is there for creation? ==
Creationists and evolutionist have the same evidence. The question is not what evidence there is, but how that evidence is interpreted, and which interpretation is the most consistent.
For example, uniformitarians would postulate that the [[Grand Canyon]] is the result of a small amount of water (the Colorado River) eroding the rock layers over a long period of time. Creationists would postulate that the Grand Canyon is the result of a large amount of water (such as runoff of the Flood) eroding the rock layers over a short period of time.
In both cases the evidence is the same; it is the interpretation of the evidence that differs.
The answers I provide here are written from the point of view of Young Earth creationism and will not always apply to other forms of creationism.
Young Earth creationism covers more than just opposition to biological evolution. It also proposes that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old, and that about 4,500 years ago, it underwent a [[global flood]].
== Is creationism falsifiable? ==
That depends on whether you are talking about the basic concept or particular propositions that it makes.
=== Basic concept ===
I'll agree that the basic concept of creationism is not falsifiable. That is, nobody can formulate any scientific test of whether God did actually create the world.
However, neither can anybody formulate any scientific test of whether the basic concept of goo-to-you evolution is falsifiable.
So creationism and evolution are both in the same situation in that regard.
=== Particular propositions ===
Creationism makes particular propositions that ''are'' falsifiable. Examples include:
* There must have been rapid speciation (within the created kind) in the approximately 4,500 years since the flood. Science has shown that speciation can occur rapidly (i.e. with a few generations).
* There should be evidence of widespread sedimentation from the global flood. Geology has shown us that something like three-quarters of the rock formations are sedimentary in origin.
== Do creationists have a closed mind on the issue? ==
No more so that evolutionists. Creationists clearly believe that creationism is the correct explanation, else they would not be creationists. Exactly the same applies to evolutionists.
But as far as specific propositions are concerned, the evidence shows that they are no more closed minded than evolutionists. This is clear from the fact that they have changed their minds on a number of creationists propositions. The following are a few examples:
* That there was a "vapour canopy" surrounding the Earth prior to the Flood.
* That the speed of light has drastically reduced.
* That there was no rain before the Flood.
* That a Japanese fishing trawler discovered the remains of a [[plesiosaur]].
* That there should be a much thicker layer of dust on the moon if it is as olds as uniformitarians say.
== Is creationism inherently unscientific? ==
Creationism is often accused of being unscientific simply because it proposes a supernatural Creator. However, although such a Creator is not Himself scientifically testable, concluding from the available evidence that there must have been a Creator is not in itself unscientific.
The argument is essentially that one is able to propose that particular events could not have occurred (or at least are unlikely to have occurred) in any other way.
An analogy is an archaeologist discovering stone tools. The archaeologist is able, without knowing anything about the maker of the tools, to determine that the stones are the shape that they are through the actions of an intelligent being (man) because they do not occur that shape naturally.
Similarly, there is nothing unscientific in proposing that the origin of certain things, such as the genetic code, could not have occurred naturally so must have a supernatural origin.
Conversely, evolution is flawed in ruling the supernatural out ''a priori'', rather than being open to leading to where the evidence is most consistent.
== What evidence is there for creation? ==
Creationists and evolutionist have the same evidence. The question is not what evidence there is, but how that evidence is interpreted, and which interpretation is the most consistent.
For example, uniformitarians would postulate that the [[Grand Canyon]] is the result of a small amount of water (the Colorado River) eroding the rock layers over a long period of time. Creationists would postulate that the Grand Canyon is the result of a large amount of water (such as runoff of the Flood) eroding the rock layers over a short period of time.
In both cases the evidence is the same; it is the interpretation of the evidence that differs.