Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − + − + + + + − One of the pillars of the [[Scientific method|scientific method]] and hence of [[scientific theory|scientific theories]], is that they be [[falsifiability|falsifiable]], i.e. there has to be some potential observation that would show the theory to be wrong.+ − Creation science falls at this hurdle, as there is no known way to falsify a creation event. For example, on the evolution side of the argument, a cat giving birth to a dog is an event that would [[Disproving Evolution|falsify evolution]] and render our current understanding of it almost worthless. (Funnily enough, this is the very type of event that a number of [[creationist]]s claim would get them to believe in [[evolution]], which is just a further sign of how little they understand the subject of evolution and falsifiability).+ − There exists, however, no corresponding idea for creation science - unless they impose [[Essay:Complexity limits an Omnipotent Deity|limits]] on their chosen creator, which they are naturally rather loath to do. For a creator can choose to create whatever they will, in whatever manner they will, so any possible scenario could be "explained" by a creation event. In being able to answer every question, creation science in effect answers none of them. Floating axe heads, burning bushes, talking snakes, etc. are all capable of being explained by a supernatural creator, so what is left to falsify the idea? Nothing, and so the science has to be removed from the '''creation science''' title.+ + + + + + − So in the falsifiability arena, the question that the supporters of creation science need to answer — and have comprehensively failed to answer — is what possible event would falsify their position?+ + − + + + + + − According to [[Young Earth Creationism]] the earth and all animals were created during [[Creation Week]]. The animals were created in non-evolving kinds the study of which is called [[Baraminology]]. In an effort to further their cause, [[YEC]]s have built a [[Creation Museum]].+ + + + − + + + + + + + − As the [[global flood]] of [[Guide to Genesis|Genesis]] is also believed to be true, a separate element of creation "science" deals with [[flood geology]].+ + − Creation science acknowledges some decidedly non-Biblical aspects of prehistory which have been proven during the modern period by [[geology|geological]], [[archaeology|archaeological]] and [[paleontology|paleontological]] evidence, such as ice ages and the existence of [[dinosaur]]s. In creationist chronologies, these are fitted incongruously around the events described in Genesis.+ − + − ==Creation Scientist== − To a young earth creationist, a creation "scientist" is any degree-holding person who—no matter in what field, discipline or even whether they do any research, experimentation or propose any hypotheses—believes the [[Genesis]] account to be the literal truth. Many of the world's foremost pioneers in scientific fields such as [[Sir Isaac Newton]] and [[Johannes Kepler]] are considered creation scientists because they did not believe in [[evolution]] or the Big Bang Theory and held to the ruling paradigm of the time—which was creation. This ignores the fact that these scientists had none of the knowledge we have today regarding modern science leading one to wonder if they would have been creationists if they were alive today. [[Philip J. Rayment|One such creationist]], when presented with this argument, wondered whether [[Charles Darwin]] would have been an evolutionist if presented with modern "creation science."{{fact}} − − ==Alternatives== − − As it has proved impossible for them to get creationism taught in public schools in the US, the [[Discovery Institute]] came up with another pseudoscience — [[Intelligent Design]].
Reverted edits by Shena (Talk) to last revision by TK
'''Creation "science"''' is an attempt to pretend that it is possible to give a scientific description for the Genesis [[Creation Week|creation myth]], in the mistaken idea that [[faith]] in these concepts is somehow not enough for a believer. The major problem faced by those who promote the idea of creation "science" is that creation, relying as it does on supernaturalism, is completely non-scientific. [[Science]], while having many definitions and nuances, is fundamentally the application of the [[scientific method]] to arrive at a [[theory]] that explains what we observe. "Creation science" in this context is an [[oxymoron]].
'''Creation science''' is [[science]] which sets out to show that [[supernatural]] [[creation]] of the material [[universe]] by [[God]] is consistent and compatible with the available scientific evidence. Most advocates of creation science believe the [[young earth creationism|earth is approximately 6,000 years]] old. In addition, scientists in the discipline of creation science state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe. They also claim that these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> Creation scientists also assert that naturalistic processes alone cannot account for the [[origin of life]] and that the [[Evolution|theory of evolution]] cannot account for the various kinds of animals and plants. Both evolutionary scientists and [[Young earth creationism|young earth creation]] scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs; however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref> Many scientists in the field of creation science assert that the Bible contains an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed (see [[Bible scientific foreknowledge]]).
== Falsifiability==
== Creation Science and Genetic Programs and Biological Information ==
:''Main article: [[Intelligent design]]''
[[Image:Foto Gitt.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Dr. [[Werner Gitt]]]]
Scientists in the area of creation science and [[intelligent design]] advocates state the [[genetic code]], genetic programs, and biological [[information]] argue for an intelligent cause in regards to the origins question.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=118</ref>
Dr. Werner Gitt, former director and Professor of Information Systems at the prestigious German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt), wrote that human beings are the most complex [[information]] processing systems on earth. Dr. Gitt estimated that the human body processes thousands of times more information than all the world's libraries contain.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html</ref>
Dr. Gitt has written several points regarding the origin of biological information:
#In his work ''In the Beginning Was Information'' Dr. Gitt stated that “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1484094</ref>
#Dr. Gitt argued that the [[density]] and complexity of [[DNA]] information is millions of times larger than mankind's current technology and this means a supremely intelligent being was the author of this information.<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref> Similarly, Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] in his 1996 essay ''The [[Origin of life|Origin of Life]] and the Death of [[Materialism]]'', wrote that "the information storage density of DNA, thanks in part to nucleosome spooling, is several trillion times that of our most advanced [[computer chip]]s.<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm</ref>
#Gitt stated that the author of the information encoded into the DNA [[molecule]], who constructed the molecular biomachines to encode, decode and run the cells was supremely intelligent.<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref>
#Dr. Gitt asserted that because information is a nonmaterial entity and does not originate from matter, the author of biological information must be nonmaterial ([[spirit]]).<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref>
[[Image:Waltbrown.gif|left|thumb|200px|Dr. [[Walt Brown]]]]
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] concurs in regards to the [[supernatural]] origin of biological information and states that the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that [[codes]] are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref> Dr. Brown also asserts that the "information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs."<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref>
To support his creation science view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs, Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:
{{cquote|No matter how many "bits" of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it "information" if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a "program." Another name for computer software is an "algorithm." No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742</ref><ref>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958</ref>}}
==Baraminology==
==Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community==
Creation science is not accepted by most scientists either in terms of its claims or as a science, on the pretext that it cannot be disproved and therefore cannot be considered "[[science]]".<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html</ref> <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref> However, Dr. [[Walt Brown]] argues that the field of creation science is scientific.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref> Also, creation scientists state the evolutionists' objections to creation science are due to the worldviews and preconceptions of the scientists, rather than on the basis of scientific evidence or the scientific validity of the idea.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>
Also, [[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,<ref>
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524</ref> stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> Michael Ruse, a leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, conditionally acknowledged Popper's statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
{{Creation vs. evolution}}
==See Also==
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]
==Geology, and other things that aren't in the Bible==
==External Links==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/ In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood] the website of Dr. [[Walt Brown]]
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis]
*[http://www.icr.org/ Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ NorthWest Creation Network]
==Notes and References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creation science]]