One of the problems with Creationism is the claim that Creationism is simple, but Creationism is only simple if we are to start with the Bible and assume that everything in the Bible is literally true.
If Creationism is to be seen as any kind of science, it needs to be capable of proof by only looking at the scientific evidence. The Bible, and any other religious text, is only an anecdote, as far as science is concerned. Unless there is some kind of evidence to confirm the one specific literal interpretation that some Christians preach.
Is it possible to take a scientific approach and using evidence, without the Bible, demonstrate that all life was Created in 6 days in its current form?
Is there evidence that the universe, or just the Earth, is 6,000 years old?
Is there evidence that the universe, or just the Earth, is 10,000 years old?
Is the evidence good enough to convince the believers in a 6,000 year old Earth, that the Earth is 10,000 years old?
Is the evidence good enough to convince the believers in a 10,000 year old Earth, that the Earth is 6,000 years old?
Can they convince Christians, who understand evolution, that the Creationist sects are the keepers of scientific truth?
One problem with Creationism science is irreducible complexity.
Where is the scientific evidence that all life was Created at one time?
Where is the scientific evidence that all life was Created in its present form at one time?
The Bible is not acceptable as proof for itself. That would be circular logic. People using circular logic are demonstrating that they do not understand what they are discussing.
Can examination of our world predict Genesis?
There are many other Creation descriptions, but the Creation Museum[1] only appears to be interested in evidence that confirms the bias[2] of their Creation scientists toward Genesis.
The Creation Museum even brags about its bias in the name of the organization that created the museum. Answers in Genesis.[3]
Is the approach of confirming one’s biases in any way scientific?
Should people using the approach of bias confirmation be considered scientists?
Science means starting with at least one definite question and an open mind about the answer(s). For this reason, science is continually changing and expanding our understanding.
Creationists start with an answer and try to make the evidence fit their answer.
Image credit. Click on image to make it larger.
If Creationism science cannot get from evidence to Genesis, is Creationism science?
If Genesis is essential for Creationism science, is Creationism science?
Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part I
Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part II
Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part III
Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part V
Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VI
Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VII
The Age of the Earth – Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VIII
–
Footnotes:
–
[1] Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part III
Rogue Medic
Sat, 01 Sep 2012
Article
–
[2] Confirmation bias
Wikipedia
Article
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.
–
[3] Creation Museum
Wikipedia
Answers in Genesis
Article
.
I couldn’t let you off without commenting on this 😉
Not quite. Parts of the Bible, as well as other religious texts, have been supported by archaeological finds and sites. Hence the mid-east is perpetually being screwed by fanatical Christians, Jews, and Muslims fighting for sites in their respective holy books. However, I’ll stipulate in the context of Creationism you’re referring to no evidence exist for the “Six Day Myth” as you put it.
I made my initial arguments with you that you were attacking the viewpoint of a minority of Creationist by challenging the 6,000 year old theory. Disturbingly, you’ve since pointed out the majority of Creationist believe in this form of Creationism. After poking around this answersingenesis site I’m even more disturbed.
The fact is we’ve had fanatics on Earth since the earliest recorded history. We have them now, and we’ll have the until the end of days.
The Bible wasn’t mean to be applied literally, and these so-called fundamentalist that are wanting a literal interpretation of Creation are failing their own logic. If we’re to interpret the Bible literally, that should be to all aspects, not pick and choose. If the Earth is 6k years old, then also we need to not shave our heads, stone gays, women be silent in the church, etc.
The slippery slope the Genesis website is going down is giving off opinions as fact, and making subjective things objective. The day anybody stops allowing the free thought of another based on a religious text, that person has become a fanatic.
I’ll agree with you, these places fronting as Christian believers are really just fanatics looking for impose their will on others.
TexasMedicJMB,
Anecdote does not have anything to do with whether it is true, only with whether it is scientific evidence. That is what I stated – The Bible, and any other religious text, is only an anecdote, as far as science is concerned.
–
I doubt that they all have the same motive, but when a literal interpretation of anything is opposed to reality, then people do have to make a choice between reality and belief. We all probably deny reality to some extent, but that does not mean that we should not try to limit our denial of reality.
.
My favorite so far… Under “What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs?” (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs)
In one swooping gesture we’ve managed to nullify the fields of biology, geology paleontology, anthropology, etc. Because if you believe in evidence you don’t believe in God.
Back to the circular logic you mention. They just authenticated their viewpoint because God is an eyewitness?
I’ll ask everyone to realize this is fanaticism… The entirety of Christianity isn’t on board with this. Please don’t allow this to pervert your viewpoints. Talk to someone with free thought and faith to get true answers, not a bunch of idiots with half baked notions.
I feel dumber for having read about Genesis and the dinosaurs.
Dewayne,
An excellent reason for not including this in science classes.
.
Creationism science, if I were to define it, would be simply that life was created, versus the “it just happened one day, a billion years ago, when all was quiet and well in the…universe which just happened to have already been there…”
If you view things through secular eyes, you will only see secular answers. If you view things through a Creator’s eyes, you will see the Creator.
*Could* one organism, if given enough time and stressors, change into something? Not sure, since we have only been tracking the appearance of man for a handful of thousands of years, but we haven’t sprouted an eye in the back of our head or antenna or anything, so it is hard to say. But, if one looks at nature, the incredible diversity of the complexity should simply boggle the mind. A kangaroo has a pouch. The cavefish that develops pigments or eyes depending on where it lives. How a hawk can see a little field mouse from hundreds of feet away or a kingfisher can plop into the water and snag a fish. The sodium-potassium pump joining forces with calcium influx. A sperm’s joining an egg, and the resultant new life formed.
And so on.
http://thedragonflywoman.com/2011/11/07/giant-water-bug-mating/ Good thing both water bugs evolved simultaneously as to allow this to happen. Can’t have z without an x and a y, right?
I look at it logically, albeit through creationist eyes. Evergreens vs deciduous. Multiple ways a leaf attaches to a stalk or leaves are patterened on a branch. A blue whale eats zillions of plankton–what ate the plankton before the behemoth came along, or vice-versa?
http://www.umass.edu/ent/faculty_staff/hollingsworth/ExtremePollinators-fromNaturalHistoryMarch05.htm discusses the theory of how a plant’s evolution forces an insect’s evolution. Yet, without pollination, the plant (and all its traits) dies out, and without nourishment, the bug faces the same demise, and demise of its traits. Or a dinosaur comes and squishes one of the two parties and the outcome is the same.
Evolutionists uses evolution to explain themselves, as above. People with a faith in a creator use their holy text as explanation. Creationism doesn’t nullify any of the sciences, it simply frames them. Just as you can’t understand how “with all the scientific ‘evidence'” of evolution a person can believe in a deity, there are plenty who cannot fathom seeing nature and believing it just happened. Both views hold dramatic consequences–one places a creator and a purpose (and a responsibility?) in our way, while the other places no purpose, other than occupying a time and a place in the universe. One day, our bodies will turn to worm food and we will learn who was correct, and who was not. Until then, we both keep smelling the roses 🙂
And, should you ever desire to go to the Creation Museum, if even to laugh at the foolishness of the concept, I’ll buy the tickets and lunch.
Jon,
My response is Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VI.
.