ANSWERS: 16
  • I cannot see any science in it,and it does not make any sense.Some choose to believe it and others not.I follow a more scientific way of thinking.
  • The basic foundation of creation science is that God created everything. The investigator then works from there to try to establish this premise. However, the big flaw with this approach is that you cannot prove the existence of God. We had a rather extensive discussion on this topic elsewhere (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/16188). So, I won't go into it again. However, since we can't prove that God exists, the very foundation of creation science is lacking scientific backing. So, creation science is not science. Having written that, let me just state that I do believe that God does exist and that he did created all that we see. I just recognize that there is a difference between what we can know through spiritual means and that which we can know through science. At the moment, our understanding of each is imperfect, being limited by our own imperfect existence. However, someday we will be able to see how all of the pieces fit together. When that day comes the apparent contradictions between religion and science will be erased.
  • Creation science is willing to consider the possibility that there are supernatural forces affecting the universe, or evidence that there are not. The other position, called naturalism, assumes a priori that no supernatural force can possibly affect anything in the universe, and therefore would not accept or even consider any evidence to the contrary. Creation science is therefore openminded. Naturalism is close-minded and assumes in advance what it wants to prove. This is a fundamental error in logic called begging the question.
  • I believe so. Creation obviously has a Creator. Spontaneous Generation was disproved quite some time ago. I believe that life coming from non-life, order coming from disorder, and the personal coming from the impersonal is very illogical. Thank you and God bless you!
  • I'm finding some old questions and answers that are still interesting and worth commenting on. No doubt, Vicki has long since submitted her assignment. Being a word guy, i try (sometimes unsuccessfully) to be precise in my use of terms. Vicki asked a good question about natural and supernatural. If there is a God, angels, demons, or whatever, they aren't supernatural; they are part of nature. They are superhuman, but not super (or above) nature. As far as creation science, i wonder if some confuse that with creator science. Clearly, studying or even understanding the physical universe won't answer many questions regarding the personality, purpose or motives of God. Still, we can look at the universe and draw conclusions. Many, in good faith, have concluded that someone(s)wiser and more technically advanced than we designed and formed what we see around and within us. Following the scientific method, this is highly logical. Form a hypothesis: Physical structures with function and precision are the result of intelligent design. Test the hypothesis: Allow intelligent entities to design and build various structures. Observe the result: Willful intelligences produce functional structures. The more advanced the intelligence, the more precise and advanced the resulting structure. Form opposing hypothesis: Physical structures with function and precision arise in the absence of intelligence. Test the theory: Observe unstructured matter in the absence of intelligence manipulation and look for formation of structure. Observe the result: Who has done this? Please give me the results of your experiment. In the absence of results from this experiment, i will conclude that the intelligent design theory is very scientific indeed. [The following is added as an edit:] In both the creation and evolution camps there are those who are dogmatic and very narrow in their thinking and hence unscientific. On either side, those who stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to consider any other possibility are just following a preconceived notion. Some 'creationists' pick out a few verses from the Bible and apply them in a way that is indefensible even by established fact. Of course, some evolutionists do the same. I've heard that God created all the animals, created Adam, had him name them, conclude that there was no mate for him and then create Eve, all on Friday, September 5, 4004. Now i'm a staunch and unapologetic believer in Divine design and creation of the universe and man, but when i hear this stated as fact, i'm torn between laughter and tears. Strict, Bible believing Christians (which isn't really the subject of this question) can trust Scripture and still believe in micro-evolution (which we see happening in our lifetimes) and creative days of more than 24-hours. They can also believe in stars and planets billions of years of age. None of these concepts contradicts either modern science nor Scripture. So, yes. Genuine creation science is quite scientific. Until science proves definitively that life was NOT designed, it remains a viable explanation.
  • Sure ... ah-yeah: 'Creation Science' is CREATION -- and even 'SCIENCE' -- IF AND ONLY IF, these kinds of ideas and their scientifically supported methods are based and viewed on the authenticity that NATURE was and is the only creator! Truth is, the movements of Nature ARE bigger than all of us, regardless of view! I would add, [this is] regardless of whether we're talking 'universe' or 'people!' If one could take this viewpoint, then they effortlessly could perhaps view and believe in Nature as 'god!' -- that is if one wanted to actually spend time within a realistic wisdom: studying, accepting, advancing and understanding of all Nature and its consequences! No magic! No spells. No 'woo-woo!' Not even praying for it to be 'hopefully' otherwise, it just IS! The 'sensitive' and cognitive enlightening reality is -- along with Time -- Nature will, indeed, continue to create and destroy, as a natural consequence of 'just' being! What I know for sure: those that believe 'differently' as Roger, above, would have us (cough-cough) 'question,' albeit erroneously -- that these 'believers' are 'open minded'--; who incorrectly hold themselves to be 'critical thinkers' or even 'open minded;' while at the same time USE 'intelligent design' as a form of a delusional personal safety net nee their 'just-in-case' God/Heaven/Hell does exists stance, is far and away, not only NOT critically thinking but their myopic 'just in case' beliefs and behaviors do NOT advance our global human condition in a concrete manner. Plus these kind of 'open-minded' believers also incessantly attempt --actually they 'insist'-- to advance these opinions and fears upon the rest of us! This is not open minded, again agreeing with Bob's opinion, even when one of these people 'words well' their attempt to appear so!* These 'Gee folks, I'm just concerned for my/our 'souls!' are equally basing their 'beliefs' on their more than apparent abhorrence and profound fear of ANYTHING 'unknown' -- not the least of which includes the beautiful, cognitive reality in the Nature of being born, along with the Nature of dying. In my reality, these are not to be feared but to be genuinely celebrated! These are the very gifts-of-life-understanding that keep generational reasoning, logic and the potentials of global, empathic cooperation present, here and now! * If I have NO PROBLEM ... let's say ... praying WITH you wholeheartedly ... regardless of your belief -- ['What would Jesus do?'] -- would you then (at the very least and as easily gracefully as I) have no problem to equally receive, in personal reverence and respect, my belief and prayer? My 'prayer' is any enlightenment and 'Heaven On Earth' comes through the understanding and acceptance of common sense and science, which assists and advances ALL human beings, regardless of view or position. It is common sense science (and scientifically proven) to behave in a manner that respects everyone, their right to freedom and their pursuit of happiness, is best shared by acknowledgment in the reality of diversity. Ahhhhh, that silly old Nature ... at work again! No one would dispute that Nature is not diverse! OH! Today I add this new thought: True science starts and ends with the premise TO FIRST PROVE (whatever 'reality' being perceived) 'IT' TO BE WRONG! (Why we do double and triple blind tests!) Do then these, those that hold above-all, God, 'Intelligent Design' 'Creationism,' 'Creation Science' -- whatever their religion/belief stance is -- ever attempt to prove THAT wrong? Not jokingly, I would cooperatively ask: 'Well? How 'open-minded' are you now?'
  • Yes. Absolutely. <><
  • &quot;C'reation and E'volution"© (Poem by MOON/2000) Some that think there outta be a blind, but 'knowing,' belief in their Big "C" In the name of Faith--proof of catastrophe Hate and war, its ageless, continuing legacy While history has shown us a potpourri The Big "C" demonstrated mere tyranny Perhaps those Pharisee could now agree Humans did arrive through chimpanzee Accepting that's not an offensive pedigree Creatures who flew from tree to tree As man's landing was then guaranteed That you and I would have easy repartee So applaud the Big "E" for its true reality Succeeding under Nature's diverse canopy Literally spreading its spawned recipe Yes, proven by science for you and me The Tree of Knowledge turns out to be A branch to swing from, won't you agree? Each spreading limb then becomes destiny So all creatures may live within its symphony Let's just celebrate those chimps in colloquy That kept spreading their far-reaching company As unity abounds for all those protégée Who accept this Logic as pure Harmony
  • No. In real science you have a question and form a hypothysis maybe a few and do research. After doing research you come up with a conclusion which may or may not support your hypothesis. If the conclusion is proved it becomes a law, if it can be proved or disproved, has enough evidence to support it, and hasn't been disproved it becomes a theory. In creation science, people come up with the conclusion first, then do research and point out any facts that support you and reject any that don't.
  • Yes and No. It has been proved that there is a good chance of god being real. There are some unbelievers (a lot actually).
  • I don't seem to remember if anything was mentioned about how long it took God to create man and everything else. If that's the case, maybe God created everything and Evolution was His instrument. And what was recorded in the scriptures were simple descriptions because the details are beyond comprehension of the early people.
  • I do not see any reason why the two need be mutually exclusive. As we are now discovering complex life forms with no traceable ancestors, hence no unaided theory of evolution, it is entirely logical that evolution was 'aided' by some higher Source. Just as we do not have proof of a creator, we do not yet have all the scientific proof we need to explain all our Earthly wonders. Look how long it took to determine Earth's age? I believe we will eventually discover all the truths we seek. We need only be open-minded enough to find them.
  • &quot;Creation science" is a contradiction of terms because creationism is in NO way scientific. There is no fact or evidence involved and those are things that science revolves around. Science does not operate based on a book of fiction written by "inspired" men.
  • Okay. We suppose science to be precise or, at least, to be the pursuit of precision, yet we are using our language very imprecisely. Bloody eyeball guy (for lack of a name) says that 'creationalism' is not consided science by respectable academia. I, along with many others respect that facet of academia; therefore it is respectable (able to be respected). The fact that he doesn't respect it doesn't change that fact. Evolution is as much the opinion of those he does respect. Both fundamentalist evolutionists and fundamentalist creationists refuse to look beyond their pet faiths. Many evolutionists are in dread of the possibility of a creator and as many creationists are horrified to think that the universe may not have been built from scratch in 144 hours one week 6000 years ago. The rabid evolutionist ignores science and the radical creationist ignores scripture. True science and true religion complement one another rather than contradict. Many scientists cling tenaciously to their holy grail of 'the modern scientific method', and won't consider that there are other legitimate ways of gathering accurate information. They will do anything to reject the possibility of accounting to someone higher than themselves. Extremist creationists are just as narrow. Their self-made interpretation of scripture is the only possibility. Heaven forbid (yes, that's the prayer) that anyone should question their dogma. I'm being blunt and stepping on toes, not to be unkind or smart, but to cut to the chase. Modern science is a wonderful thing that has brought many fine advances. Many honest and humble scientists have sacrificed much in the pursuit of knowledge and even wisdom. Still, many have come to worship it blindly as their god and savior. This is the height of folly and the antithesis of what science is all about. A like crowd of generous, devoted souls have given their lives to promoting faith in God and have done excellent work to improve the lot of mankind. Again, too many follow some creed blindly and are willing to walk off a cliff to destruction rather than open their minds to some broader explanation. Those on both ends of the spectrum seem to worship the same god--the god of ignorance, masquerading as knowledge. Somewhere in the middle we find the truth. Once we let go of our fears, we can take a step or two in that direction.
  • creation is not science at all because you cannot test the hypothesis in any form or way. it is a theory of beleifs rather.
  • Creationism is a science in the same way that Atheism is a religion. It's not actually a science; it's an opposing myth to scientific theories but that doesn't make it a science.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy