What do you think about Creation Science?

Question

Science does not state that there is no creator. That is a preconcieved conseption.

With out using evolution, tell me what you know about creation science.

Answer 1

If anyone says they believe in science and dismisses any plausible theory they are not using good scientific methods. I have a write up from Dr. Charles McCombs a Ph.D. Organic Chemistry on the properties of chirality in creation that I believes knocks some pretty big holes in the idea of random creation.. Below I have included it for you , but understand it is not part of may answer.. Read it when you have time... Jim

Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. Organic Chemist trained in the methods of scientific
investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents.

"Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very
excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific
proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural
processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey combined a mixture of
methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture through an
electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, the products
were found to contain a few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links
of long chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our bodies,
newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that now proved life came
from chemicals.

As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the formation of amino acids under
these conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was never
formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday
chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known process that
has ever converted amino acids into a life form.

Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino acids in
those experiments proves the claim that life came from chemicals? Then I realized
that a discussion of the facts would inevitably lead to a discussion of the subject
of chirality. Chirality totally destroys the claim that life came from chemicals.

Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar
properties, they can still have different structures. When two molecules appear
identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other,
those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands illustrate
chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they are only
mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality
can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual molecule
is called an optical isomer.

When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality,
there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the
right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance
process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two
optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few
scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing
in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a
catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes.

Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids
and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or left-handed optical
isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in
the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made
up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these
nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer. The "L"
isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural
DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins
and DNA with their unique chirality.

If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components
would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in
natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create
proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of
"R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if
there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer.
If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work.
If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if
there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which
process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process?
The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control
is not possible in a random chance natural process.

However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide molecules come
together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double
helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component
contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral
shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong
chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not
function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train
on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules
within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the
same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with
chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come
together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same
chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with
chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?

Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to
evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time.
However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science
in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain
everything, or chirality doesn't exist.

Answer 2

That the phrase 'creation science' is self-cancelling and that the two terms are mutually exclusive. Believing that some all-powerful being created the entire universe and all the trillions of galaxies on a whim and at will is simply beyond any and all rational thinking. If instead you decide that this all-powerful being merely created the matter incapsulated by the big bang and allowed the universe to unfold, it still doesn't hold water, scientifically. The main reason religious folks use to back up creationism is that 'Everything has to come from SOMEWHERE', but for some reason they have to answer to the question 'If so, then where did the creator come from?'

Those that HAVE an answer say 'He didn't come from anywhere, he always was.' Which of course leads back to the SAME explanation for the universe. It always was.

Answer 3

I think it is as valid as psychic surgery and voodoo dentistry. It asserts far more than just that God created the universe, but goes on to argue that the allegory of the Genesis creation is literally, historically, chronologically and scientifically true, which is just plain the most dishonest and insupportable hogwash since the Catholic Inquisitors wrote the Malleus Malefacarum and used it to murder thousands and seize their property on charges of witchcraft. These charlatans have the ethics of a tobacco lawyer.

I have a brother-in-law that makes his living fleecing the faithful with tales of Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs, for which his in-depth training in small appliance repair and living with his mom till his 45th birthday has highly qualified him. It's a fraud, and those committing it are doing it to get "love offering" donations and sell books, and avoid working for their living.

Answer 4

As a Christian, I can tell you that I disagree with the whole concept of "creation science". God transcends science, and whether or not we believe what happened in the Garden of Eden depends on our faith; it can't be proven or disproven with science. Attaching "science" to the truth about creation simply weakens and cheapens God's work.

Answer 5

Science is a method of inquiring into something rationally. Faith and belief are other methods of looking into things, but without rationality. Any scientific pursuit of anything that relates to a religion, faith, or religious text cannot succeed, because faith and belief are not rational (by definition). They are irrational methods of thinking.

Creationism or intelligent design (and other related ideas) are acceptable methods of asking how the universe or all reality began, but they cannot succeed in science, just as science cannot answer these questions posed by religions or faith.

Answer 6

I have a true story

I ran out of tracks, and only had one in hand, and I saw a Christan Science Book Store, of course I read the sign without putting Science in it, I was a new born, OK
so I went inside the store, and the lady came up and asked is she could help me,
I said, Ya, do you have any tracks, she said, "What are tracks?" so I showed her my last one.
She gave it back to me and invited me to look around her store, so I did, and I went to little book rack and picked out a book off the shelf, and opened it up, and read, "Jesus is not the Son of God, he is science, just as religion is, this is heaven and this is Hell,
I slammed it shut, and gasp, and in shock. The lady came back and said, "What is wrong with you?"
I gave the story of the rich man in Hell, to her,
gave her my track and went home,
Knowing she was to have it.

Answer 7

I believe that God created life and made evolution to be a universal rule for life..but the story of apes and humans still needs a proof.

Answer 8

It is skewed, propaganda to support the religious claims of ppl not willing to look at all the facts, but willing to take isolated instances and make them fact.

Creation Science is the same as Creation History.....flawed.

A creation scientist is like a christian journalist....biased and closed minded.

Answer 9

Its an oxymoron. Science follows the scientific method and relies on observable empirical evidence. Creationism does not.

Answer 10

You can't even SPELL at a 5th grade level. You know nothing of science or evolution.