Ten reasons why creation scientists don't believe in evolution

**English assassin** · 05-10-2005, 16:09

Religion has always been used to explain the unexplainable. Science does basicly the same thing. We think weve explained somethings but were not sure. I my book science is nothing more than another religion. This does not make it bad or evil but like all religions a seeker of the ultimate truth.

That is profoundly not true. The scientific method could not be more different from religion. A scientist makes a guess (a theory) about how the world works consistent with data he himself has observed (or others he trusts has observed). He then tests his theory by seeking data that would disprove it.

A religious thinker formulates his ideas based largely on "revealed" "truth" (eg a holy book) and then seeks to avoid having them tested at all. Certainly his ideas can never be disproved (if they could by golly we'd have done it by now).

Both may "seek truth" but to say they are alike is like saying a cow is like a fish because both taste good with chips

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-10-2005, 16:20

That is profoundly not true. The scientific method could not be more different from religion. A scientist makes a guess (a theory) about how the world works consistent with data he himself has observed (or others he trusts has observed). He then tests his theory by seeking data that would disprove it.

Didnt we just go through the fact that nothing in science is really provable beyond a doubt? Its only our educated guess and rationalization.

A religious thinker formulates his ideas based largely on "revealed" "truth" (eg a holy book) and then seeks to avoid having them tested at all.

I think you couldnt be more wrong. These holy books were written after thousands of years of observing human behavior and most of what they say still rings true today. If your talking about creation then you have a point . But again science can do no better job on the subject. Im still waiting to hear how scientists explain where matter came from.

**Adrian II** · 05-10-2005, 16:52

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Didnt we just go through the fact that nothing in science is really provable beyond a doubt?

That's right: what it does is refute untenable claims and views. Such as the claim that the Earth was created 6651 years ago (or thereabouts) out of nowhere...

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-10-2005, 16:55

That's right: what it does is refute untenable claims and views. Such as the claim that the Earth was created 6651 years ago (or thereabouts) out of nowhere...

Are you sure?

**Byzantine Prince** · 05-10-2005, 17:01

Hell even Sumerians lived before those 6651 years. Gawain if your last resonce isn't a joke, you are much smarter then I originally thought.

**Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe** · 05-10-2005, 17:09

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Didnt we just go through the fact that nothing in science is really provable beyond a doubt? Its only our educated guess and rationalization.

That quote is a good starting point to explain why creationism is not a science...

I'd not say it's a rationalization, but would agree that nothing in science is provable.

However, sciencitific theory can be proven wrong! Experiment proved that Newton was wrong, etc, etc... Most of the scientific experiment are designed to prove a theory wrong. The way it works is; you make guess from the theory, make an experiment, and see if it works. If it does not; the theory is wrong, if it does, that just means the theory is not proven wrong .... yet :p.

As some theories have been working throught a lot of experiment they are thought as reliable... But they still got the "proven until wrong" status.

The greatest diservice a creationist can handle to creationism is to claim it can't be proven wrong.
Although this creationist would be right; you can't prove anything wrong once an omnipotent being comes into play, he would also prove that creationism is not a scientific theory, for it can't be proven wrong!

Louis,

**mfberg** · 05-10-2005, 18:11

But the clever creationist would say that his God (omniscient like many of todays more acknowledged gods) created the basis for life knowing exactly how it would evolve into todays species. (I think this is the basis for the Intelligent design process, but don't ask me how it's supposed to work, or why it would end up with any different product than 4.5 billion years of random genetic sequencing with failure cut-offs).

mfberg

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-10-2005, 18:16

That quote is a good starting point to explain why creationism is not a science...

I never claimed it was. In fact I would call a creationist scientist a sort of oximoron.

But the clever creationist would say that his God (omniscient like many of todays more acknowledged gods) created the basis for life knowing exactly how it would evolve into todays species. (I think this is the basis for the Intelligent design process, but don't ask me how it's supposed to work, or why it would end up with any different product than 4.5 billion years of random genetic sequencing with failure cut-offs).

Exactly.

I always thought that a scientific theory has the potential to be proved or disproved. Perhaps one day we can verify if evolution works the way evidence suggests.

Only to a certain extent.

**Skomatth** · 05-10-2005, 21:09

Gawain here is a quote from The Fabric of the Cosmos , a sort of cosmology for dummies book by Brian Greene a professor at Columbia I believe.

A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The big bang is a theory...that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence but it says nothing at all about time zero itself.

So you won't get any scientific answers about your matter question. The big bang assumes a huge density of matter and energy at the time when space began to expand. This is the big bang, not some miraculous flash of energy into existence, but rather the evolution of mass and energy once it was in existence.

Edit:

Link to the same at NASA: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

**Papewaio** · 05-11-2005, 02:41

Originally Posted by Skomatth

Gawain here is a quote from The Fabric of the Cosmos , a sort of cosmology for dummies book by Brian Greene a professor at Columbia I believe.

So you won't get any scientific answers about your matter question. The big bang assumes a huge density of matter and energy at the time when space began to expand. This is the big bang, not some miraculous flash of energy into existence, but rather the evolution of mass and energy once it was in existence.

Edit:

Link to the same at NASA: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

GAH! Please don't mix the word evolution in with the Big Bang. It might be a viable thing when comparing multiverses and ones that can bud off other universes to talk about evolution.

But in this discussion it will be confused with biological evolution.

**Nelson** · 05-10-2005, 18:13

Precisely, Louis.

I always thought that a scientific theory has the potential to be proved or disproved. Perhaps one day we can verify if evolution works the way evidence suggests.

Creationism is a dead end street. How can we hope to prove it? Wait around for the rapture?