Changes

[[File:Images.jpg|thumbnail|375px|right|The [[Creation Research Society]] is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons committed to the scientific study of special creation as given in the book of [[Genesis]]. They publish a quarterly peer-reviewed [[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal|creation science journal]].<ref>[http://www.creationresearch.org/index.html The Creation Research Society]</ref> ]]

[[File:Images.jpg|thumbnail|375px|right|The [[Creation Research Society]] is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons committed to the scientific study of special creation as given in the book of [[Genesis]]. They publish a quarterly peer-reviewed [[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal|creation science journal]].<ref>[http://www.creationresearch.org/index.html The Creation Research Society]</ref> ]]

'''Creation science''' is branch of [[science]] which sets out to show that [[supernatural]] [[creation]] of the material [[universe]] by [[God]] is consistent and compatible with the available scientific evidence. Being in the realm of [[origins science]], creation science is a historical science.<ref>[https://creation.com/its-not-science It's not science] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref><ref>[http://creationrevolution.com/2011/05/naturalism-doesn%E2%80%99t-work/ Naturalism Doesn’t Work]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science What is science?]</ref> Most advocates of creation science believe the [[young earth creationism|earth is about 6,000 years old]], and they publish scientific evidence supporting this view (See, for example, [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]).  The ongoing discovery of hundreds of [[living fossils]] correlates well with creation science but finds no answer in Darwinian theory.<ref>Thomas, B. 2015. 'Living Fossils' Point to Recent Creation. Acts & Facts. [https://www.icr.org/article/8974/268]</ref> 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]] 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&mdash;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>  

'''Creation science''' is a branch of [[science]] which sets out to show that [[supernatural]] [[creation]] of the material [[universe]] by [[God]] is consistent and compatible with the available scientific evidence. Being in the realm of [[origins science]], creation science is a historical science.<ref>[https://creation.com/its-not-science It's not science] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref><ref>[http://creationrevolution.com/2011/05/naturalism-doesn%E2%80%99t-work/ Naturalism Doesn’t Work]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science What is science?]</ref> Most advocates of creation science believe the [[young earth creationism|earth is about 6,000 years old]], and they publish scientific evidence supporting this view (See, for example, [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]).  The ongoing discovery of hundreds of [[living fossils]] correlates well with creation science but finds no answer in Darwinian theory.<ref>Thomas, B. 2015. 'Living Fossils' Point to Recent Creation. Acts & Facts. [https://www.icr.org/article/8974/268]</ref> 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]] 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&mdash;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>  

[[Creation Ministries International]], a leading [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] science organization, declared:  

[[Creation Ministries International]], a leading [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] science organization, declared:  

{{Main|Intelligent design}}

{{Main|Intelligent design}}

[[Image:Foto Gitt.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Dr. [[Werner Gitt]]]]

[[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>

Scientists in the area of creation science, and [[intelligent design]] advocates, observe that the [[genetic code]], genetic programs, and biological [[information]] all support an intelligent cause concerning 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. 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:

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>

# 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>

# Dr. Gitt argued that the [[density]] and complexity of [[DNA]] information are 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>

#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>

# 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>

#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>

# 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>

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>  

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] concurs with regard 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 as 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:

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:

Dr. Donn Chapman invited Dr. Humphreys on the Origins TV series presenting his theory.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7manZ1WF-Lc&list=PLT8IFvbAQauhBny_7LoWat_ZrjXx159Y7&index=26 Magnetic Fields, part 1 of 2 with Dr. D. Russell Humphreys - Origins]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDk5rgoThA&list=PLT8IFvbAQauhBny_7LoWat_ZrjXx159Y7&index=47 Magnetic Fields, part 2 of 2 with Dr. D. Russell Humphreys - Origins]</ref>

Dr. Donn Chapman invited Dr. Humphreys on the Origins TV series presenting his theory.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7manZ1WF-Lc&list=PLT8IFvbAQauhBny_7LoWat_ZrjXx159Y7&index=26 Magnetic Fields, part 1 of 2 with Dr. D. Russell Humphreys - Origins]</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDk5rgoThA&list=PLT8IFvbAQauhBny_7LoWat_ZrjXx159Y7&index=47 Magnetic Fields, part 2 of 2 with Dr. D. Russell Humphreys - Origins]</ref>

Other recent successful predictions were that Pluto would show active geology, it's atmospheric escape rate would be too great for millions of years, and that Pluto's moons would not yield evidence for being formed from collision.<ref>"Will Pluto Surprise Scientists?" by David F. Coppedge, ''Creation Evolution Headlines,'' July 9, 2015 [https://crev.info/2015/07/will-pluto-surprise-scientists/]</ref>  This was confirmed by the ''New Horizons'' flyby.<ref>"“Overdose of Awesomeness”: New Pluto Images Show Unpredicted Activity", by David Coppedge, Creation Matters 2015 Vol. 20, Num. 5 [https://www.creationresearch.org/index.php/extensions/s5-creation-matters/cm-archive/creation-matters-2010-to-2019]</ref>

Other recent successful predictions were that Pluto would show active geology, its atmospheric escape rate would be too great for millions of years, and that Pluto's moons would not yield evidence for being formed from collision.<ref>"Will Pluto Surprise Scientists?" by David F. Coppedge, ''Creation Evolution Headlines,'' July 9, 2015 [https://crev.info/2015/07/will-pluto-surprise-scientists/]</ref>  This was confirmed by the ''New Horizons'' flyby.<ref>"“Overdose of Awesomeness”: New Pluto Images Show Unpredicted Activity", by David Coppedge, Creation Matters 2015 Vol. 20, Num. 5 [https://www.creationresearch.org/index.php/extensions/s5-creation-matters/cm-archive/creation-matters-2010-to-2019]</ref>

== Effect of the growth of creation science and Christian apologetics ==

== Effect of the growth of creation science and Christian apologetics ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism vs. Christian revival and Christian apologetics]] and [[Atheism vs. Christianity]]

''See also:'' [[Atheism vs. Christian revival and Christian apologetics]] and [[Atheism vs. Christianity]]

The effect of evolutionism/[[atheism]]/[[agnosticism]] on the [[Western World]] and the world at large was mitigated by the growth of modern creationism and [[Christian apologetics]] in the latter half of the 20th century and today [[global creationism]], Christian apologetics and [[global Christianity]] is seeing rapid growth.<ref>[http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity Thriving Christianity]</ref><ref>[http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/Apol_001A.pdf Introduction To Integrated Christian Apologetics, Dr. Johnson C. Philip & Dr. Saneesh Cherian]</ref><ref>[http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/10/04/evolution-under-attack-from-muslims-and-evangelicals/ Evolution rejected by hundreds of millions of Muslims and evangelicals], ''Vancouver Sun'', October 4, 2014</ref>

The effect of evolutionism/[[atheism]]/[[agnosticism]] on the [[Western World]] and the world at large was mitigated by the growth of modern creationism and [[Christian apologetics]] in the latter half of the 20th century and today [[global creationism]], Christian apologetics and [[global Christianity]] are seeing rapid growth.<ref>[http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity Thriving Christianity]</ref><ref>[http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/Apol_001A.pdf Introduction To Integrated Christian Apologetics, Dr. Johnson C. Philip & Dr. Saneesh Cherian]</ref><ref>[http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/10/04/evolution-under-attack-from-muslims-and-evangelicals/ Evolution rejected by hundreds of millions of Muslims and evangelicals], ''Vancouver Sun'', October 4, 2014</ref>

== Biblical creation publications ==

== Biblical creation publications ==

==Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community==

==Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community==

Creation science is considered as pseudoscience by the majority of the scientific community. It is also commonly rejected by [[Atheism|atheists]] as they generally hold the [[worldview]] of [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]]. Liberals reject Creation Science with the spurious pretext that it cannot be disproved ([[falsifiable|falsifiability]]) and therefore cannot be considered "[[science]]".<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/https://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref>   

Creation science is considered a pseudoscience by the majority of the scientific community. It is also commonly rejected by [[Atheism|atheists]] as they generally hold the [[worldview]] of [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]]. Liberals reject Creation Science with the spurious pretext that it cannot be disproved ([[falsifiable|falsifiability]]) and therefore cannot be considered "[[science]]".<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/https://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>  and the evolutionists' objections to creation science are due to their worldviews and preconceptions, 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>

'''''However, Dr. [[Walt Brown]] argues that the field of creation science is scientific'''''<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref>  and the evolutionists' objections to creation science are due to their worldviews and preconceptions, 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>

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://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> However prominent evolutionist [[J. B. S. Haldane]], when asked what would falsify the theory of evolution, said "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian."

* 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> However, prominent evolutionist [[J. B. S. Haldane]], when asked what would falsify the theory of evolution, said "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian."

{{Creation vs. evolution}}

{{Creation vs. evolution}}