Author Topic: "Creation Science" isn't science  (Read 1719 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Seek and ye shall find
"Creation Science" isn't science
« on: March 25, 2005, 11:15:41 PM »
Contrary to what fellow Christians may believe, "Creation science" is not a science. As a Creationist, why do I say this?

Science is based on research and yet "Creation Science" relies on quote-mining.

Science is the quest for natural explanations to what we observe in the natural world and yet "Creation Science" relies on supernatural presuppositions.

A scientific theory must be falsifiable and yet "Creation Science" insists on the infallibility of Scripture.

When many Creationists realize the unscientific nature of "Creation Science", they either lose faith or turn to evolutionism.

Where are we to turn as to the truth of our origin?

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

All we need to rebuke the false doctrine of Darwinism is the Word of God. Scripture itself is self-sufficient and therefore, we need not retreat to the pseudo-science of "scientific creationism".

All science is provisional and therefore, we are blessed that God has already provided us the answer through His revelation.
Creation ex nihilo is a hyperscientific doctrine, reaching above and beyond the realm of scientific inquiry. We do not need scientific proof, one need only to receive and believe.

Largescale evolutionary change cannot be observed and therefore it is an extrapolation of microevolution. Evolutionary theory is a historical science and yet Genesis already provides us a divinely inspired history.

Darwinism and "Creation Science" commit the same fallacy in assuming that the supernatural origin of the species can be explained through scientific inquiry.
I am to trust omniscience over science and Scripture over human reason.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.
He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

Offline jckstraw72

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,174
Re: "Creation Science" isn't science
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2010, 08:04:30 PM »
a lot of "science" has presuppositions i would bet.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,053
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: "Creation Science" isn't science
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2010, 08:47:22 PM »
a lot of "science" has presuppositions i would bet.
What do you hope to contribute by resurrecting this thread after five years just to say what little you said?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline jckstraw72

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,174
Re: "Creation Science" isn't science
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2010, 09:26:42 PM »
i had no idea it was 5 yrs old, i saw it linked on the bottom of another thread. if its "resurrection" bothers you so, you'd prolly do better to not comment back, which invites another comment from me! just an observation there ...

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,213
Re: "Creation Science" isn't science
« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2010, 09:41:31 PM »
a lot of "science" has presuppositions i would bet.
What do you hope to contribute by resurrecting this thread after five years just to say what little you said?

Indeed.  Jckstraw72, you may well have found this thread via a link, but I see little purpose in bringing this one back to life.  I am locking this thread, at least for the time being.  If you wish to continue discussing evolution you may do so in our main thread for this purpose where you have already made a substantial contribution.

Pravoslavbob, Non-Religious Topics Moderator
Atheists have noetic deficiencies.