Master's in Creationism

There isn't a whole lot of science in "scientific" creationism. They do try to produce critiques of any scientific hypotheses that they believe aren't consistent with their extremely literal reading of the Biblical book of Genesis. But when it comes to their central thesis, to their creator, his act of creation and his subsequent revelations, they have moved far beyond the scope of science into expressions of their own religious faith.

The word 'evolution' means change. Scientific evolution means accounting for observed phenomena in terms of natural processes acting over time in the past. It's the fact that the processes invoked by science are natural as opposed to supernatural that makes it possible for humans to hopefully come to an undertanding of what's taking place.

Like it or not, evolutionary thinking is fundamental to pretty much all of contemporary science. Astrophysics has its vast scale and its accounts of stellar evolution. Geology has its processes of petrogenesis and erosion. Weather evolves as storms are generated and dissipate. And biological evolution addresses the diversity of living organisms in precisely the same way.

What creationism is attacking is naturalism. Naturalism is the attempt to understand the natural world in terms of the natural processes observed occurring in that world. So creationism isn't just arguing with Charles Darwin, it's arguing with the whole thrust and evolution (yes, ideas evolve too) of Western thinking since the 17'th century and the scientific revolution.

 

There are astrobiologists who are researching the hypothesis that the seeds of life on earth came from existing life elsewhere in the universe. I have attended lectures on this topic and I recall reading papers on the topic in the journal "Science." I do not see how this proves the existance of god.

 

Where did the "seeds of life" from the other part of the universe come from that created our earth? Maybe they came from seeds of life from another part of the universe... but then where did they come from? Hmmm...

 

Creation science does not deny the fact that things evolve, that is not what the theory of evolution is all about. Through time, all things do evolve, that is undeniable. But, no scientific study has been able to show specific specifies evolving into new species. That is a pretty major problem when it comes to Darwin's theory.

To be clear, I believe that God created a world and a universe that does evolve and change over time, but the fact that things "evolve" is not sufficient evidence for the theory of evolution as stated by Darwin...

 

Just curious Bill... what exactly do you believe as it relates to God? I have been trying to figure it out from your posts.

 

Faith is a great. It is proper, good, wonderful, right, comforting, and necessary to base one's religious beliefs in faith. However, faith needs to be separate from science even though it can reasonably coexist in the same individual at the same time. Faith should, in my view, be kept at arms length when trying to properly exercise the scientific method.

I think that your post above is a most excellent example of dressing up Creationism in pseudo science. In my personal opinion there are flaws in the above logic. For example let's look at the statement, "Every experiment conducted since Pasteur in the mid 1800's affirms that life does NOT come from non-living stuff." This says that your beliefs based in faith are set. Everything seems to affirm your faith. Asserting that every experiment "affirming" that belief is simply an extension of said faith being reaffirmed. It is like saying, I know that Creationism is true but need to convince others. How can I do this? Hmmm, I can't imagine that human beings sprung from monkeys therefore evolution must be wrong and Creationism must be true. Misrepresent the science and since the misrepresented science doesn't make sense then Creationism is affirmed. Thus one's faith is once again confirmed.

Regards,
Bill

 

So the scientist who believes in the theory of evolution sets aside that belief in order to practice his science? If the scientist accepts evolution as a fact does that take away his objectivity? Has the "theory" of evolution ever been proven by the scientific method?

Back to the op: the ICR is attempting to provide an alternative to teachers who are are already certified and teaching science in school settings, not to recruit spies who can infiltrate the public school system.

Great thread, enjoying the discussion.

Scott

 

Where have I misrepresented science? I find it funny that no one is actually responding to the points I am making. Please tell me where I am going askew...

The science is simple... life does not come from non-life and "something" does not come from nothing... these are scientific facts worthy of study and debate in the science classroom.

I could not image believing in a faith or God that had NO foundation in science.

 

The two alternatives would seem to be that the chain of life-begetting-life either had an initial beginning, or else it didn't.

The chain having a beginning doesn't necessarily imply that matter is all that exists. If it did, then creationism would be in trouble. And the chain not having a beginning doesn't imply anything about the existence of deities. It's possible to imagine the chain of begetting extending back in time indefinitely without any gods being involved. Buddhists have often held that view.

Pasteur was arguing against the idea that mold and maggots spontaneously form in putrifying organic matter. He demonstrated that organic material can be preserved from spoilage if eggs and spores are kept out. That's the principle of food canning. I don't think that Pasteur meant to argue that the history of life extended infinitely into the past without any origin.

Or then again, maybe they are. Actually, nobody is sure how life originated. Science hypothesizes various physical and chemical processes that might have been involved, then research tries to better understand what these processes are capable of and determine whether they might have occurred on the early earth. It's precisely the fact that the hypothesized mechanisms are natural that allows science to study and hopefully better understand them.

Hypothetically, it's conceivable that life (or anything else for that matter) might have originated in an inexplicable miracle worked by some incomprehensible being from another order of being entirely. But if that's so, then these supernatural events would lie outside the domain of natural science.

Besides that fact that the conclusion doesn't follow, there's also a major ambiguity in how the word 'living' is being used in that sentence.

Biology conceives of life as a set of physiological processes. Life is metabolism, homeostasis, reproduction and so on. It's something that matter does.

Assuming that any gods exist, they don't seem likely to be physiological beings at all in the biological sense. I suppose that we can speak of "living" spirits (or whatever gods are supposed to be), but the word 'life' has taken on a new and different meaning.

So the chain of physiological life begetting physiological life would still have a beginning, whether life was divinely created or came about through natural processes. There's still going to be a first appearance of all the biochemical stuff like energy metabolism, DNA transcription and protein synthesis. We may or may not choose to believe that a divinity breathed some additional magic force from out of itself into the chemistry, but vitalistic principles aren't what Pasteur was talking about and they aren't what what biologists spend their time studying.

 

The preponderence of the evidence leads to the conclusion for most all scientists that the theory of evolution is a good theory that seems to predict conclusions that are then proven true. The theory of evolution is not proven true in the math sense of proof though.

Religion is mainly faith based. By faith I mean a firm belief in something with little proof. I contend for example that bmills072200's faith in his religious beliefs most likely came first and the pseudo science came after in order to justify those beliefs.

Evolution is a theory that seemed true and as we make more discoveries it changes some but basically seems better supported by the new evidence. Similar to Newtonian physics, it turns out that Newtonian physics is a simplification of how physics really works but, the theory is now known to be incorrect under certain conditions, e.g., near the speed of light. Of course it is possible for someone to also have faith in evolution. For example, if they believe it to be true simply because their third grade teacher told them it was true then I would say that third grader has faith in evolution. Faith is definitely a good thing but it can get in the way of the scientific method.

For fun, let me give you what could be considered unscientific behavior by a scientist. I think that sometimes scientists are too willing to reject something outright just because it was arrived at without using the scientifc method. For example, chiropractic treatment is frequently frowned upon by the medical establishment. Over the past 30 years it seems to be more accepted than it was in the past but still according to the scientific method one shouldn't reject something just because it wasn't arrived at using scientific methods. One should just be suspicious of it. I've been going to chiropractors for years and I believe it helps me based on my own personal experience. Perhaps acupuncture might be another example but I have no experience with acupuncture so I can't speak to how well it works.

Compare these methods to medical science which is scientific method based. My friend is thinking of getting a nose operation. The doctor told him that 80% of the people having such an operation feel that they are better off after the operation. About 10% say that they are the same after the operation. Another 10% say that they are maybe a little worse after the operation. Less than 1% of the people suffer life threatening complications from the operation. One third of the people getting the operation get their sense of smell back. One eighth get their sense of taste back. Etc. etc.

 

There is an argument that objectivity of science is one of the great myths of western civilization. The researcher chooses the topic and the methodology of research and reporting. If the brain is an interpretative organ, then the framework of interpretation is dictated by the personal beliefs of the individual. We all see what is important to us. Witnesses to crimes report different perceptions and memories of the event. Don't scientists? Doesn't the "Lorenzo's oil" situation exist?

If that is the case, then science exists only as concept, not as a reality. Since human beings cannot be objective, then no science exists. The "best case" concept is as far as we can get. We have a defensible argument, therefore we have a case. If that can exist for "why planes fly",why can't it exist for "creationism"? Are they not entitled to present their best case? What I consider to be defensible, another will not. Courts are full of these situations.

Perhaps everything should be an MA? There are no conceptually pure sciences. The alternative is that we accept that science is not a pure concept and is a relative term. The question should be "does creationism have a defensible case", if so, then it should be included as a science. It does not have to be credible to everyone. If that was the test, then no growth in science could occur, because no one would question anything.

Arguments are frequently countered. It is now accepted, for example, that there are black swans, man can fly in machines, trains can travel faster than 28 mph and the air won't be sucked out of carriages. These arguments were not accepted once by scientists. Somebody did not believe them.

 

Actually, I have, at many points in my life, questioned my faith and beliefs. I have questioned the existence of God... I have questioned the nature of Christ and whether or not he was the true Messiah that was foretold in the Old Testament.

However, every time that I have questioned my faith and searched for a logical answer other than God and ultimately Christ, the evidence that I find in the world, in science and in historical accounts points me back to God and Christ. I am not searching for evidence that supports my conclusions. I am a rational person and I can accept that that I could be wrong... but I have yet to see convincing evidence that says there is no God and that Christ was not the true Messiah. I am not closing myself off to such evidence, so if you have such evidence... please share.

 

Ah, and this is where the circular argument begins. I have no interest in entering this discussion. Actually, I do have a couple of questions though. Why can't one believe in evolution and Christianity? If I recall correctly, one of the late Pope's acknowledged the validity of the evolutionary theory.

Abner

 

Not just Western civilization. East Asians have taken to European-derived science like ducks to water and are very proficient at it. (I believe that one of this year's Nobel prizes went to Japanese researchers.) Most countries host some kind of scientific activity.

There is something cross-cultural about it. And that in turn implies some kind of objectivity, since peoples with very different mythologies, histories, literatures and aesthetic sensibilities all come together successfully to form a world scientific community.

Certainly. But if that researcher wants to convince the rest of the scientific community, then he or she has to convince them. There has to be persuasive evidence and argument that the rest of them can accept. Many of those colleagues are going to want to test things out and see for themselves. Others will try to extend the concept to new applications of interest to them. And there are apt to be rival hypotheses on the field as well, and experiments will have to be devised that tilt things towards one over the other.

That is science. It's a common rhetorical ploy these days to define 'science' as requiring absolute indubitable certainty, then to adduce the familiar skeptical arguments against that straw man in hopes of convincing people that anything goes. That strategy doesn't work so well if we adopt a little probabilism and fallibilism.

Science doesn't provide us with absolute certainty about the natural world, but it does typically provide us with our best and most reliable hypotheses at the moment.

Of course. Nobody has suggested that anyone be prohibited from conducting creation "science" research. I have suggested that the nature of their hypothetical supernatural agent might make observation and experiment extremely difficult though. But they are free to try anything that they like. Then they can try to convince the scientific community that it's fundamentally mistaken.

It's been mistaken before, as in the case of geocentric cosmology. But in this case, since the creationists' core thesis seems to derive from their religious faith, and since their broader objection seems to be against natural science's use of natural as opposed to supernatural explanation, they might experience some difficulty in convincing the scientific community that it's dramatically wrong again.

If you mean a defensible case in scientific terms, and not just a defensible case in terms of religious faith and scripture, then I'll agree with you. Again, that's going to prove difficult, since supernatural agencies, inexplicable miracles and transcendent divinities seem to be outside science's scope pretty much by definition.

Creation "science", to the extent that it's scientific at all, is basically a religiously motivated critique of those aspects of conventional science that creationists believe are inconsistent with their literal reading of the Biblical book of Genesis. The rest of their theory, including the core theses both of creation and creator, are extra-scientific posits deriving from their religious faith.

At the present time, the bulk of the scientific community isn't convinced that the creationists' critique of conventional science is credible or persuasive. So to the limited extent that it's science at all, creation "science" is alternative science. It's perceived in much the same way that parapsychology and ufology are.

I think that everyone agrees that parapsychologists and ufologists should have the freedom to do their thing and perform whatever research that they want to perform. They should have the opportunity to try to persuade skeptical science.

But if they try to use the courts and legislatures to bypass that necessary process and get their alternative theories taught to students in schools as part of mainstream science without persuading the scientists themselves to agree that it is, then there are going to be some problems.

 

But some scientists believe this is not true - admittedly so far no life has been created (but the precursers of life, such as amino acids, have been. See for example see Science, Vol 322, page 404).
Research is ongoing to create life from materials and environments thought to be around early in the Earth's history. Researchers hope to accomplish this and probably be awarded a Nobel prize. So currently there are only hypotheses (and no scientific theories) but no doubt life will be developed; "when?" is the big question (next year or in 500 years).

 

You have no interest in entering the discussion??? Then why post some glib statement about a circular argument?

But I will answer your question... I do believe that the world evolves and things change, species mutate, climates change...etc. In that sense, I am a Christian that believes in evolution. The problem with this debate is defining exactly what we all mean by "evolution". That word has become used for a lot of different concepts. Evolution as it is described and conjured by Darwin is a different animal altogether. Darwin takes a simple concept..."The world is evolving"... and uses that truth to explain the origin of the universe and the origin of all life including humanity. That is not something that I find to be true based upon science and my faith.

Most people that believe in Christianity believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God. It would be difficult to believe in an all-powerful and all-knowing God if you do not have the fundamental belief that God created the universe and all life. Otherwise, if I believed that the world was created via a big bang or whatever concept you believe in and then at some point God came into the picture, then God would not be all-powerful and all-knowing...

 

The BIG question is how does one create anything from nothing? I believe you were the one that earlier posted about life on earth possibly coming from a distant planet. The ultimate question to this whole argument is that this whole thing "the universe" had to begin with something and someone had to put it there. Can anyone explain the Darwinian view on this issue? I have never heard anyone give an explanation about that...

I would dare say that it takes a lot more faith to believe that some mass of matter just materialized out of nothingness helping to create the universe than to believe in a supreme being that crafted the universe.

 

Yes, I did say that life on earth may have originated eleswhere in the universe. Some of the pro and con is contained in these course notes from CSUSB:
http://physics.csusb.edu/~karen/courses/f2008/cosmos.html

Who says that the universe started "out of nothing" (a serious question)?
Apart from some exotic physics I do not unferstand, I have always got the impression that no one knows what came before the big bang, or competing philosophies, because there is zero evidence to analyze. Personally, the idea of multiverses is appealing to me but currently there no evidence for that yet.