"Creation Science" VS "Evolution"?

Question

Who is right...yes i know this question has been done before I have read them.I find that the answers to previous questions about the same topic are more emotion based than fact based:on both sides.Also through all the creation literature i have read through *about 30 books at last count* i have found no mention of "creation sciences" worldview what should be there if creation accually existed and how can you disprove the creation (how can it be tested).Also in evolution how would one explan "polystrata"(petrified trees that are present in more than one level of rock-thus implying the age of the tree covers millions of years).
oh yes for the record i am in 9th grade and have read over 30 books supporting evolution and about the same number supporting creation science.I am trying very hard not to have any bias and have evaluated the texts with an open mind so please do not say "i don't know anything about .." or "you are mocking god" it just annoys me and helps weaken your stance.

Answer 1

First things first: let me point something out. Evidence which supports a theory does NOT prove that it is true! This is a logical fallacy. Evidence can disprove a theory, but can never prove it. If you want to argue that, you can talk to my Philosophy professor [I attend UMKC]. The answere above is absolutely correct when he states that "Science never proves anything is true only that it is false."


"Creation Science" is a misnomer. It is unscientific. This does not mean it is untrue.
"Evolution" is also unscientific. Again, it does not make it untrue.

The reason that both are unscientific is because neither of them is testable. In fact, NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS TESTABLE. What we call "testing" a scientific theory does not prove its truth... it just demonstrates one area in which the theory makes an accurate prediction. Theories which make accurate predictions are useful; theories which make false predictions are NOT useful.

Theories can make accurate predictions and still be false. Newton's theory of gravitation, although FALSE, makes many accurate predictions, and is therefore USEFUL. Einstein's theory, which has not been proven false, made accurate predictions in special cases where Newton's theory made false predictions. Because Newton's theory made false predictions, it is a false theory; however, it is still useful insofar as it makes accurate predictions. This is why you learn Newtonian physics before you learn special relativity.

Neither Evolution nor Creation Science is testable.

Creation Science is not testable because it presupposes the existance of an entity called "God". If we could get "God" to create something for us, then it would be testable, but Creation Science holds that "God" created things in the past but does not create things anymore. Hence it is not testable.

Evolution is not testable because we cannot conduct an experiment where we show that it occurred; according to the theory, things take much too long to evolve to possibly conduct such an experiment. Hence it is not testable either.

The real question, in this case, is not "Which theory is correct?", but rather, "Which theory is useful?"... e.g. "Which theory makes accurate predictions?" Now, we can go round and round for hours debating this fact or that. However, any data that an Evolutionist or Creationist brings up to "falsify" the other view will inevitably be explained away by the other, because the two are not acting "scientifically" but rather are holding their belief dogmatically. According to their proponents, both of these theories can adequately explain the evidence we see now. So, what predictions do they make about the future?

The predictions made by evolution are something along the lines of "In another ten billion years, we will have evolved into something much different than the homo sapiens species." Quite frankly, I do not see much use in that prediction. To be perfectly honest, it makes no difference to me what my great great great great^33,000,000 grandchild looks like. It is not going to affect my decision of whether or not to study for my exam, or whether or not to get a certain job, or what major to take. You get the picture.

Creation Science makes no predictions whatsoever. Christianity makes some predictions, but "Creation Science" does not.

You want to know what I personally believe? I unashamedly claim to be a Christian, and yes, I believe "God" did this "create" thing a really long time ago. It cannot be proved; it presupposes the existence of "God", but it does explain the world as I see it today. However, I am not going to try to assert that my belief in "God" is scientific any more than will I accept the notion that "Evolution" is scientific.

Answer 2

Every fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.

Evolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.

There is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.

Scientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.

There are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.

Let me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.

Answer 3

Certainly, you should be commended for some deep thinking. I'm sure most 9th Graders would say something like "Huh? Who cares?" or they would parrot what they've heard.

While there is no clear "right" or "wrong" answer, the preponderance of evidence and of scientific opinion favors the evolutionary model simply because it DOES provide explanations and does have evidence on its side. Your point about polystrata fossils has some merit, but remember that it doesn't mean that the trees were necessarily 100% identical, since fossil records provide evidence on a gross scale,i.e. xylem structure in the trees, rather than DNA or RNA combinations. Also, if an organism has made a successful adaptation to its environment, there is little evolutionary pressure for it to change.

Creationism (which is the term preferred over creation science---since science is defined as a system of testing hypotheses to find the truest of them, without a prior preference) starts out by assuming that its basic hypothesis that an intelligent force (God) created the universe according to his/her/its own plan. Since no evidence can be found to support this, I don't think it's a reasonable viewpoint. Remember, this doesn't make it "wrong" just less probable than the evolutionary model.

Good luck to you in your education and life, and keep that questioning spirit!

Answer 4

You are all full of it, this is pure double speak.
The Theory of Evolution is a unifying Field theory it can not be tested by the scientific method as a whole. It is simply imposable to test due to the scoop and time involved. The best we can do is to use the scientific method to determine to the best of our ability the facts (always subject to reevaluation). The Facts are than placed in a unifying Field theory (this is philosophical and subject to individual interpretation) Creation and Evolution theory both fall into this category it is not subject to the scientific method and can not be thus neither can be scientific and thus more scientific than the other. People need to start asking questions such as how do scientists(bias people just like you and I) know how old the earth is?-Don't regurgitate what your text book said about it think it out, use the scientific method the entire way than ask yourself how much of the conclusion is backed up by the method and what is speculation? If 1+1=3 and 3+3=6 and 6+9=15 than do you truly have fifteen or fourteen. My point is that many people are playing magic tricks with words-the dime didn't come out of his ear, hes hiding it in his other hand. Are we as a nation(the europeans are) so dumbed down that they can't see this. P.S. The National Foundation for Science Education is a left-wing political organization who are best known for their ongoing attemps to ban fast food (Mc Donald's), they have no authority with a free thinking person. The funny thing is that most of you don't even understand the science that you preport to be arguing over. And as for Eugine Scott shes great at making statments but she's fun to wacth in a debate-she always loses. Got to go big mac attack you know.

Answer 5

Wow. A refreshingly well-written question ... and there are many great answers already posted.

Kiddo's answer about the polystrate (or polystrata) trees is correct. Erosion and deposition can uncover and re-bury a large fossil many times ... the name "petrified forest" is the phenomenon of fossilized trees that have been uncovered by erosion and geologic uplifting (google "petrified forest" for many examples in Yellowstone, Arizona, Nova Scotia, etc.) ... when a partially exposed petrified forest gets buried again by deposition, you have an explanation for your polystrate fossils.

What I'd add to the discussion is to clarify something you said. Creationism may actually be true ... but it is not science. Why? For the specific reason you point out ... it is not falsifiable (testable) ... it postulates a Creator with unlimited power and unknowable motives ... so *by definition* there is no fact that can be shown to be incompatible with that premise!

Evolution *is* falsifiable (testable). If we were to find a life form with a different kind of DNA (e.g. a left-handed helix instead of right-handed, a different set of base-pairs), then by definition that life-form would not have evolved from other life forms. If the fossils were all in random order in the geological strata, this would disprove evolution. If (when we discovered DNA) we were to find genes lost in some intermediate species, that was regained in a later species, this would have destroyed their evolutionary order. If the DNA relationships were random, rather than following a perfect pattern of diminishing relationship the more separated two organisms are on the cladistic tree, this would have been a serious blow to evolution. If the age of the earth or the universe had been shown by geologists or astronomers to be much younger than that needed by evolution, that would have falsified evolution.

But none of these things happened. That is why evolution is considered one of the strongest scientific theories in the history of science. It is absolutely falsifiable, and yet despite mountains of new facts ... new species discovered every day, new fossils, new genetic research, new diseases, new immunities, every single day ... none of these facts has contradicted the basic pattern we see of relationship, by ancestry, of every single organism on our planet.

Answer 6

I honestly don't see anything "scientific" about saying that we were just "created" one day. The scientific method, which I'm sure you have learned by now, means you have to make a hypothesis and test it in real-life to see if it works.

What creationism does is just skip that entire part and pretty much say "We weren't there that long ago, so it must have been created by God". Evolutionists pretty much make a guess as to what happened even though we weren't there. We might be pretty damn wrong in the end, but we make do with what evidence we have.

Here's an analysis of the types:
Microevolution: This type of evolution deals with short-term things. This type of evolution has been proved definitively, and anyone who says otherwise is just plain stupid. This evolution is your basic "survival of the fittest". Example would be Darwin's finches (look it up)

Macroevolution: Now this is the hard part. Sure, we're here, and we're changing, but how the @#$% did we get here in the first place? Nobody knows for sure, evolutionists are guessing we evolved from other creatures. By finding similar chains of DNA in other animals and fossilized animal, we can extrapolate how the long-term changes happened.

The main problem is that creationism version of macroevolution is purely faith-based and therefore cannot be disproved.

Answer 7

To a degree both are right. Creationism is correct as a matter of faith. That is, one only needs to believe without proof that a higher intelligence created everything as it is today. Faith asks NOTHING but unquestioned devotion to the idea.

Evolution is correct in the realm of science - as it was formulated based on Darwin's observations as he traveled throughout South America and the Galapagos. Darwin witnessed many diverse, yet seemingly related creatures and came upon the theory of evolution to explain how how these animals might be related. Based on actual observations in both living animals and fossils, and testable, Evolution has a wealth of proof both for and against the theory.

Being raised a christian, I have no problem believing in a higher power that may have sparked life on this planet/universe. However being a biologist myself - I have seen where Evolution is a reasonable explanation to the diversity of life that has and continues to exist. Evolution belongs in a science classroom, where Creation belongs in the realm of theology.

One thing to consider is how Evolutionary scientists and Creation "Scientists" regard one another. Creation scientists, rather than try to prove their unprovable theory, tend to attack the theory of evolution with every bit of evidence they can get - much of which has been proven to be manufactured or falsified, or grossly missinterpreted. Conversely Evolutionary scientists keep an open mind, and new questions are developed when contradictory evidence is raised. In the end this only helps to hold up Evolution as a theory, as science is all about questions and trying to answer them.

Answer 8

Creation Science is not falsifiable and thus cannot be science. Science requires that your hypotheses be testable; creation science requires faith that everything was created by an unknowable all-powerful being.
As for evolution, there is a lot of very compelling evidence to support it. Microevolution of pesticide resistance and antibiotic resistance to various drugs is an obvious problem that affects our everyday lives. Dog breeding is another example of microevolution-- microevolution as a whole is pervasive.
Macroevolution is supported by the entirety of the fossil record, which while not entirely complete still provides astounding support for evolutionary theory. Macroevolution is testable.
Molecular phylogenies also support evolution and allow us to trace paths of origin. The last pope condoned evolution, as do the majority of citizens in every first world country besides the United States.
I am a graduate student in geology and have never heard of polystrata, per se, but my guess is:
1. Tree dies and is preserved in some original medium, with the mode of preservation probably being siliceous for the tree.
2. Medium that the tree is preserved in gets eroded away, as it is less durable than silica.
3. Tree is left, fossilized, standing, and eventually gets reburied with newly deposited layers of sediment.
I think that is what you are talking about, anyways.
In Yellowstone there are several trees that are sticking up out of the ground, fossilized millions of years ago. It makes sense that the fossil could be re-buried, creating the problem of time-averaging.

Answer 9

Creation, at least the Biblical version, has been proven wrong countless times. The Earth is known for a *fact* to be far older than the Bible states, so therefore the Bible's version is wrong. The theory of Evolution so far has not explained how life originally came about on the planet. This is where *some* creation scientists come in. However, assigning an untestable hypothesis to explain life is not scientific. If it can be proven or even supported with actual scientific evidence, then it will become a "theory", but as of now, there is no evidence to suggest that life was created by a supreme being other than the fact that we don't yet know how it started. The Bible, as much as people believe in it, is not considered viable evidence for creation science.

Answer 10

There is no scientifically verifiable evidence that exists that supports the contentions that those who support "intelligent design" hold. There are many proven, scientifically valid facts that contradict the contentions of above supporters. There is an enormous amount of evidence which supports the theory of evolution, none of which disappears simply because some religious conservatives don't like it. The fossil record is a fact. The evolution of drug resistant bacteria is a fact. That random genetic recombination gives rise to variations in offspring that then have varying degrees of success is a fact.

When people hold a belief for which there is no factual basis, it is considered mental illness. We need to remember that the only good reason to accept something as true is that someone can give you sound, verifiable evidence that supports their point of view. Otherwise, you are doing nothing other than embracing their fantasy at the expense of your own intellectual integrity.

Answer 11

Young man. You have been refuted several times in your " poly strata " hypothesis, what ever " poly strata " is. This type of multi-geological levels for fossils, as a refutation of Darwinism, has been around since the beginning of the theory of evolution ; and has been satisfactorily explained by geologist many times, as you see it explained here. This is the usual, recycled, creationist nonsense that we see from time to time. The one that is really hot with creationists now, is the deathbed conversion of Darwin. Utter rubbish!! You need to separate the gold from the dross and I am not so sure that you are ready to do that. I have been fighting this battle, that should not be one, for a long time, so I generally just sum up the Darwinian position, thus. The theory of evolution by natural selection is supported by overwhelming empirical sup port and has great predictive power, Creation " science ", on the other hand, has not one stick of evidence to support it and could not predict next Tuesday.

PS Polystrate.