Creation science

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Conservative (Talk | contribs) at 13:32, January 17, 2011. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Creation science, unlike atheistic liberal junk science, is science which applies faith and logic to the scientific method thereby proving that a supernatural creation of the material universe by God is consistent and compatible with the available scientific evidence. In addition, creation science clearly shows a young earth which is approximately 6,000 years old. In addition, scientists in the discipline of creation science have proved that the first law of thermodynamics and second law of thermodynamics negate an eternal universe. They also prove that these laws point to the universe being created by God.[1][2][3] Creation scientists also prove 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 atheistic evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that speciation occurs; however, young earth creation scientists have shown that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionists deceitfully claim is the case.[4] Many scientists in the field of creation science assert that the Bible contains an understanding of scientific foreknowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed.

Creation Science and Genetic Programs and Biological Information

Main article: 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.[5][6][7]

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.[8]

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.”[9]
  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.[10] 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.[11]
  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.[12]
  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).[13]
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.[14] 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."[15]

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[16][17] ”

Creationist video evangelism

Campus Crusade for Christ International (CCCI) is one of the world's largest evangelism organizations within Christendom and has over 25,000 full time missionaries. In 2006, Alan Beeber of CCCI predicted that internet evangelism will result in more conversion that all other forms of evangelism for CCCI combined.[18]

YouTube is a popular online video sharing site that provides a method distributing Christian/creationist videos across the world. The YouTube search engine is the second largest search engine in the world.[19]There is a widespread problem with atheist cyberbullying on YouTube toward Christian and creationist YouTube channels. CreationWiki has developed a web page entitled Creationist YouTube video designed to show creationists how to thwart atheist/evolutionist cyberbullies. Also, one popular Christian YouTube channel, shockofgod, was shut down several times by atheist cyberbullying through false reports but he was able to thwart their cyberbullying using some effective tactics.[20] These false reports are not isolated incidents, many atheists will try this deceitful tactic to block out creation science.

Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community

Creation science is not considered science by close-minded atheistic liberal scientists who reject the proven thruth diligently arrived at through faith and logic. Liberals reject Creation Science with the spurious pretext that it cannot be disproved and therefore cannot be considered "science".[21] [22] However, Dr. Walt Brown argues that the field of creation science is scientific[23] 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.[24] Also, Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,[25] stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme."[26] 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."[27]

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

See Also

External Links

Notes and References

  1. ↑ Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science
  2. ↑ Thompson, Bert, So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!, 2001 (Apologetics Press)
  3. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html
  4. ↑ Creation Ministries International, Speciation: Questions and Answers
  5. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html
  6. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp
  7. ↑ http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=118
  8. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html
  9. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1484094
  10. ↑ http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm
  11. ↑ http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm
  12. ↑ http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm
  13. ↑ http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm
  14. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html
  15. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html
  16. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742
  17. ↑ http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958
  18. ↑ http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/pdf/issues/LWP0206.pdf
  19. ↑ http://www.tgdaily.com/trendwatch-features/39777-youtube-surpasses-yahoo-as-world%E2%80%99s-2-search-engine
  20. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kax-zAJxi-U
  21. ↑ http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html
  22. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001
  23. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001
  24. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
  25. ↑
  26. ↑ http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html
  27. ↑ http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Creation_science&oldid=841628"