Difference between revisions of "Creation science"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Effect of the growth of creation science and Christian apologetics)
(→‎See also)
(40 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
[[File:Images.jpg|thumbnail|375px|right|The [[Creation Research Society]] is a a professional organization of trained scientists and interested lay persons committed to 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 [[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>[http://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 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&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 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>  
−
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
+
[[Creation Ministries International]], a leading [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] science organization, declared:  
−
[[Creation Ministries International]], a leading [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] science organization, declared:  
+
{{cquote|Creationist research is having a global effect that is worrying the [[atheism|atheists]] and secularists of this world. They have had it all their own way for over a century but things are slowly changing. For almost twenty five years now, ''Journal of Creation'' has been publishing cutting-edge creationist research that has been fueling the war against [[evolution]], creating little fires all around the world, including [[Great Britain]].
−
{{cquote|Creationist research is having a global effect that is worrying the [[atheism|atheists]] and secularists of this world. They have had it all their own way for over a century but things are slowly changing. For almost twenty five years now, ''Journal of Creation'' has been publishing cutting-edge creationist research that has been fueling the war against [[evolution]], creating little fires all around the world, including [[Great Britain]].
+
  
 
Atheist evangelist, Prof [[Richard Dawkins]], speaking at the 20th anniversary of the Edinburgh International Science Festival in April 2008, said the rise of creationism in British schools raised a serious problem for science teachers.
 
Atheist evangelist, Prof [[Richard Dawkins]], speaking at the 20th anniversary of the Edinburgh International Science Festival in April 2008, said the rise of creationism in British schools raised a serious problem for science teachers.
  
−
It is a very worrying trend,’ he said, ‘and I think a lot of it has come over from [[United States|America]] and [[Australia]].’<ref>http://creation.com/growth-of-creation-science-in-uk-worries-prof-dawkins</ref>}}
+
It is a very worrying trend,’ he said, ‘and I think a lot of it has come over from [[United States|America]] and [[Australia]].’<ref>https://creation.com/growth-of-creation-science-in-uk-worries-prof-dawkins</ref>}}
−
 
+
−
== Creation evangelism - Question evolution! campaign ==
+
−
 
+
−
As noted earlier, the [[Question evolution! campaign]], launched by [[Creation Ministries International]], is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of evolution".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on 15 questions that evolutionists cannot adequately answer.<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The ''15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer'' can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE].
+
  
 
== Creation Science and Genetic Programs and Biological Information ==
 
== Creation Science and Genetic Programs and Biological Information ==
−
:''Main article: [[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 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>
Line 33: Line 28:
  
 
See also:
 
See also:
−
*[[Algorithms and information processing in biology]]
+
*[[:Template:Algorithms and information processing in biology|Algorithms and information processing in biology]]
 +
 
 +
== Creation Scientist Successfully Predicts Planetary Magnetic Fields ==
 +
Using a young earth creation model, physicist Russ Humphreys successfully predicted the strength of planetary magnetic fields while Darwinists failed.<ref>The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields, by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., December 1984, CRSQ Vol. 21, No. 3 [http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html]</ref>  Since Humphreys' first success with the Voyager II results on Uranus and Neptune,<ref>D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. 1990. Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation. Acts & Facts. 19 (5).[https://www.icr.org/article/beyond-neptune-voyager-ii-supports-creation]</ref> subsequent explorations yielded additional successes for Mercury.<ref>Thomas, B. 2011. Mercury's Fading Magnetic Field Fits Creation Model. Acts & Facts.[https://www.icr.org/article/mercurys-fading-magnetic-field-fits]</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>
  
 
== 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, Christian apologetics and creationism]]
+
''See also:'' [[Atheism vs. Christian revival and Christian apologetics]] and [[Atheism vs. Christianity]]
  
−
The effect of evolutionism 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]] 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>
  
 
== Biblical creation publications ==
 
== Biblical creation publications ==
Line 54: Line 55:
  
 
==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. Liberals reject Creation Science with the spurious 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>  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>
+
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>   
 +
 
 +
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 JBS 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}}
  
−
==See Also ==
+
==See also ==
 +
*[[Bill Keith]], author of the Louisiana Balanced Treatment Act, struck down by U.S. Supreme Court
 
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
 
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
−
*[[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]
+
*[[Creation vs. evolution debates]]
 
*[[Creation]]
 
*[[Creation]]
 
*[[Creationism]]
 
*[[Creationism]]
Line 70: Line 74:
 
*[[Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]
 
*[[Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]
 
*[[Creationist contributions to science]]
 
*[[Creationist contributions to science]]
 +
*[[Scriptural geologists‎]]
 +
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth‎]]
  
−
==External Links==
+
==External links==
−
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]
+
*[http://associationforcreation.org/ The International Association For Creation]
 +
*[http://creationnetwork.org/ The Creation Network]
 +
*[http://visitcreation.org/ The Big Map of Creation]
 +
*[https://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.creationscience.com/ In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood] the website of Dr. [[Walt Brown]]
 
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/ Creation Research Society]
 
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/ Creation Research Society]
 
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]
 
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]
 
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis]
 
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis]
−
*[http://www.icr.org/ Institute for Creation Research]
+
*[https://www.icr.org/ Institute for Creation Research]
 
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ NorthWest Creation Network]
 
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ NorthWest Creation Network]
  

Revision as of 22:12, September 19, 2019

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 science journal.[1]

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.[2][3][4] Most advocates of creation science believe the 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.[5] In addition, scientists in the discipline of creation science state that the 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.[6][7][8] Creation scientists also assert that naturalistic processes alone cannot account for the origin of life and that the theory of evolution cannot account for the various kinds of animals and plants. Both evolutionary scientists and 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.[9] Creation Ministries International, a leading biblical creation science organization, declared:

“ Creationist research is having a global effect that is worrying the atheists and secularists of this world. They have had it all their own way for over a century but things are slowly changing. For almost twenty five years now, Journal of Creation has been publishing cutting-edge creationist research that has been fueling the war against evolution, creating little fires all around the world, including Great Britain.

Atheist evangelist, Prof Richard Dawkins, speaking at the 20th anniversary of the Edinburgh International Science Festival in April 2008, said the rise of creationism in British schools raised a serious problem for science teachers.

It is a very worrying trend,’ he said, ‘and I think a lot of it has come over from America and Australia.’[10]

”

Creation Science and Genetic Programs and Biological Information

For a more detailed treatment, see Intelligent design.

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.[11][12][13]

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.[14]

Dr. Gitt has written several points regarding the origin of biological information:

  1. 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.”[15]
  2. 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.[16] Similarly, Dr. Stephen C. Meyer in his 1996 essay The 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 chips.[17]
  3. 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.[18]
  4. 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).[19]
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.[20] 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."[21]

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:

“ 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[22][23] ”

See also:

Creation Scientist Successfully Predicts Planetary Magnetic Fields

Using a young earth creation model, physicist Russ Humphreys successfully predicted the strength of planetary magnetic fields while Darwinists failed.[24] Since Humphreys' first success with the Voyager II results on Uranus and Neptune,[25] subsequent explorations yielded additional successes for Mercury.[26] Dr. Donn Chapman invited Dr. Humphreys on the Origins TV series presenting his theory.[27][28]

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.[29] This was confirmed by the New Horizons flyby.[30]

Effect of the growth of creation science and Christian apologetics

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.[31][32][33]

Biblical creation publications

See also: Biblical creation journals

Some prominent biblical creation publications are given below:

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 atheists as they generally hold the worldview of naturalism. Liberals reject Creation Science with the spurious pretext that it cannot be disproved (falsifiability) and therefore cannot be considered "science".[34][35]

However, Dr. Walt Brown argues that the field of creation science is scientific[36] 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.[37] Also, Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,[38] stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme."[39] 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."[40] However prominent evolutionist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what would falsify the theory of evolution, said "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian."

v • d • e
Creation vs. evolution
Evolution
Hoaxes, Controversies, and Debates
Creation science and Creationism

See also

External links

Notes and References

  1. ↑ The Creation Research Society
  2. ↑ It's not science by Creation Ministries International
  3. ↑ Naturalism Doesn’t Work
  4. ↑ What is science?
  5. ↑ Thomas, B. 2015. 'Living Fossils' Point to Recent Creation. Acts & Facts. [1]
  6. ↑ Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science
  7. ↑ Thompson, Bert, So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!, 2001 (Apologetics Press)
  8. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html
  9. ↑ Creation Ministries International, Speciation: Questions and Answers
  10. ↑ https://creation.com/growth-of-creation-science-in-uk-worries-prof-dawkins
  11. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html
  12. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp
  13. ↑ http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=118
  14. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html
  15. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1484094
  16. ↑ http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm
  17. ↑ http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm
  18. ↑ http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm
  19. ↑ http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm
  20. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html
  21. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html
  22. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742
  23. ↑ http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958
  24. ↑ The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields, by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., December 1984, CRSQ Vol. 21, No. 3 [2]
  25. ↑ D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. 1990. Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation. Acts & Facts. 19 (5).[3]
  26. ↑ Thomas, B. 2011. Mercury's Fading Magnetic Field Fits Creation Model. Acts & Facts.[4]
  27. ↑ Magnetic Fields, part 1 of 2 with Dr. D. Russell Humphreys - Origins
  28. ↑ Magnetic Fields, part 2 of 2 with Dr. D. Russell Humphreys - Origins
  29. ↑ "Will Pluto Surprise Scientists?" by David F. Coppedge, Creation Evolution Headlines,July 9, 2015 [5]
  30. ↑ "“Overdose of Awesomeness”: New Pluto Images Show Unpredicted Activity", by David Coppedge, Creation Matters 2015 Vol. 20, Num. 5 [6]
  31. ↑ Thriving Christianity
  32. ↑ Introduction To Integrated Christian Apologetics, Dr. Johnson C. Philip & Dr. Saneesh Cherian
  33. ↑ Evolution rejected by hundreds of millions of Muslims and evangelicals, Vancouver Sun, October 4, 2014
  34. ↑ https://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/https://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html
  35. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001
  36. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001
  37. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
  38. ↑
  39. ↑ http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html
  40. ↑ http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Creation_science&oldid=1569228"