Is Creationism really science?

Question

As far as I know Science is about the "How". Creationism is about the "Who". Its about "we don't know how life evolved, but we can guess who did it"... the exact opposite of science which aims at how it all happened. I read a lot of criticism about Creationism, and I respect it as a belief, but seriously where is the beef? What it has to do with science?

Please I don't want to hear Atheists for now. I really want to know the other point of view!

If there is an intelligent designer, how creationism explains the origin of life better than evolution. Does it tell us "How" it happened in a more logical way, or is it about "Let there be DNA" kind of magic?

"Both are sciences"? Yes I heard that before but I really need someone to elaborate on that, someone who have read books about creationism. Has there been any experiments supporting Creationism?

People! I am not looking for links nor am I challenging creationism. I am saying where is the answer to the "HOW" not the "WHO" what is the alternative answer to the "HOW" the first cell came to existence ... that doesn't involve magic or "Let there be stuff"?

Hmm. We got some good answers, some bad preaching and some non-sense like ..."creationism is not science, but .... creationism is just as scientific as evolutionism." It that like how pasta (food) is not a car, but it runs as fast a Toyota?

Answer 1

As far as you know is not far enough. Science has no trouble with the "why" questions, as Darwin answered, "why is man ". Creationism has nothing but trouble with the " how "questions. Creationism explains nothing; to explain, you need evidence, or your just spewing hot air. If creationism had not attacked science, then the likelihood would be no conflict, as science would have ignored myth. That did not happen. Evolutionary science, which has a mountain of evidence to support it and great predictive power, was attacked by some moronic position that has not one iota of evidentury support and could not predict next Tuesday. Creationism is too vapid even to be wrong. Creationism does not even intimate science.

PS Mike Freeway. You are ill educated in evolutionary theory, if you think to give these typological/ ID answers. First; you did not even consider what microscopic evidence for specieation has shown, plus no mention of the " ring species " observation from the wild. Then the intermediate fossils and genetic evidence is just ignored. That thing about random mutation must come right out of ID propaganda, as mutational rates are well understood and within tolerence. There may be some adjustment to evolutionary theory in the future, but to call it unscientific reminds me of Lord Kelvins pronouncement; that the earth could not be old enough for natural selection to take place. Rutherford refuted that. I suggest that you select a less biased approach to evolutionary theory, becuse, in spite of your erronious pronouncements, evolution is the frame work of biology; a science.

RE. Latest additional details. You have tipped your ill informed hand. There is nothing called " evolutionisim ". Evolution theory, is a science, not a concept. To compare evolutionary theory with creationisim is almost a non sequitur. Your conclusion is not following logicly from your premise. Your Toyota anology is incoherent.

Answer 2

No, it is not a science because it is based on faith, not proof, not logic, not reasoning. If Creationists were confronted with indisputable proof that their system is wrong, they would still refuse to believe it. They are not open to being disproved, thus it is not a science. If you want an answer that will tell you how Creationism is a science, you won't get it because it is simply not a science. I don't think that even the believers claim that it is. And I'm not an atheist. I just know the difference between faith and science.

Answer 3

Here is my take:
Intelligent Design CAN POTENTIALLY be science
A good a example of that is studying a so called "irreducible complexity"[1].

What this is saying -- is that there are certain thing in nature that are "irreducibly complex" i.e. there is no way for then to evolve, an oft quoted examples are "blood's ability to clot" or movement mechanisms in certain primitive organism(flagellum).
The scientific approach here is examining "HOW" could have such things came to be --> and if the answer is "not through evolution" then this would be good evidence for Intelligent Design.

However, the potential science of Creationism is being aggressively hijacked by "fundamentalist" types who are basically trying to recast Bible and Creationism as science, this has an effect potentially legitimate research in Intelligent Design.

Sure right now study of irreducibly complexity "AS IT IS NOW" is dismised by mainstream science -- but it think it can at LEAST potentially work, because it asks "HOW?" and not "WHO"?

Answer 4

I have been too close to death too many times to say "I'm just lucky." I believe there is a reason I am alive and that faith has kept my life going even in the worst of times. Mankind can be totally idiots and mess up the world, but The GREAT CREATOR knows those who are faithful. How do I stay alive despite all the crazy neurotic things I have done (like driving fast under acid to a concert 20 miles away when I was a teen or chasing trains and jumping the tracks perfectly before it crossed.) As a young woman, I was absolutely crazy! Yet, I exist. I believe in God. Creationism is a philosophy, a psychology, a faith. God is science. Science is God. There is plenty of reasoning in dealing with God.

Answer 5

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

go to the answers page. Creationism is science, all sciences, scientist that were atheists turned creationists just by the facts alone and they wrote the scientific published articles to back it up. It boils down to which ones interpret the evidence correctly. Creation scientists are daily disproving the false interpretations of the evidence. If you really are searching for the truth go to AiG. It is an amazing eye opener, I give you my word, go there and you will never look at secular sciences in the same way again (nor creation sciences for that matter) God Bless **If you can't open your mind to "let there be stuff" than you can't open your mind to what creation science is all about, follow the link if you are serious ***guess not Jeremiah 8:9-
9 The wise will be put to shame;
they will be dismayed and trapped.
Since they have rejected the word of the LORD,
what kind of wisdom do they have?

Answer 6

It's science, in that it's a theory based on human experience, albeit that of the extremely naive minds of pre-historic stone age people. It's just that since then we've dismissed their theory as false, as we have found billions of pieces of new evidence that support much different theories. To accept creationism as a working theory, one would have to destroy the accumulation of human knowledge of the last 5000 years.

Answer 7

Creationism or Evolutionism; whether or not they could as science begins with further back. It has to be begin with your philosophical position on what counts as science; and it will save your time and unnecessary confusion.

Usually 5 elements are required for whatever to be called science: specificity, verifiability, testability, falsifiability and repeatability. A theory has to be very specific as to what it is talking about. i.e. Water molecule (H2o) freezes at 0 degrees centigrade under 1 atmospheric pressure. This statement is very specific. (specificity) Since it is specific enough, one can try to verify it by conducting a lab experiment. (verifiability and testability). The falsifiability is also linked with specificity. For example, if by any chance, water molecule froze at 1 degrees centigrade under 1 atmospheric pressure, you can refuse the original hypothesis; and new one becomes the accepted hypothesis. What falsifiability is about is the ability of a theory to be rejected when it is wrong by having statements written extremely specific. The last one is repeatability. In a layman term, it can be tested in a lab. If you cannot repeat it, you cannot even run a test in a lab...etc etc. So these 5 elements come in handy when dealing with what counts as science; and lack of any element means a theory is not science.

Creationism by definition cannot be tested in the first place. We cannot even verify it by going back into the past and so forth. So creationism cannot be scientific.

But the same goes to evolution as well. To be honest and to the surprise of many impartial and intellectual people, evolution cannot be scientific too. You can probably think of many reasons, but I will offer a few. First of all, to observe evolution in a lab will be humanly impossible. Quite often scientists bring up a case of Biston Betularia (moth) in London.

Originally there were more white moth than dark moth, but because of the air polution during the industrial revolution, the tree tunks and rocks got progressively darker and birds started catching more white moths; and the end result was that the population shifted and more dark moths than white moths.

Many quote this sort of example as an evidence to evolution, but the kind of evolution they are really talking about is like some sort of amphibian to fish or some reptile to bird; not population shift or mere coloration/discoloration of certain pigments. (would you call a white man who got so tanned in miami beacu the evidence of evolution?)

In short, we cannot test evolution. That point alone disqualifies evolution as a candidate for a scientific theory.

Another problem with evolution is its inconsistency in terms of mathematics concerning randomness. Evolution is expressed really in terms of DNA having gone thru random mutation. These days, with knowledge from math, we can calculate how long it would take for a single celled organism to evolve into a human or any complex organism. Based on random mutation we project, it would take billions of years longer than the supposedly 6 billion years of earth history. In other words, for evolution to be seriously scientific, it has to address the issue of as to how kids (humans or any creature on earth) could be older than the mother earth. If you play around with the mutation rate to let a theory fit into historical timeline; it would no longer be random...

Advantage in evolution is that it has more ability to explain how one species evolved into another specifies; and it does a good job in making family trees in animal kingdom. While disregarding the DNA mutation and timeline, when we look into the oldest fossil on earth, evolution will have a serious problem.

Precambrian fossil, or even the ones before if there is any, contains a whole lot of small animals, plans in the first place. The problem is there is no PRE-pre whatever fossil containing animals. At the oldest fossil, evolution does not expalin at all, but creation actually comes in handy because somehow all the different life somehow blooms all of a sudden at that level...

So long story short, both creation and evolution come in handy. And to answer your main question, creationism is not science, but more specifically: creationism is just as scientific as evolutionism. If one is not science, automatically the other is not science either.

Answer 8

No it's not science. It is based upon a religious mythology, in this case the christian mythos. (Not that there is anything wrong with a person believing in that religious belief).

ps: sorry I just saw that you said you don't want to hear from Atheists so discard my response.

Answer 9

Give your self another point of view .. for a moment remove the thought of Creationism and Evolution from monkeys . , We know that we are over 5000 years old , And I seriously summit to you that we have been brought over to populate this world by superior intelligence from other galaxies , The lack of intelligence of our ancestors , could possibly account that they might have just been a group of unwanted humans of low abilities or as prisoner, of other planet , we have done that in our histories , that would explain their low mentalities . Now ask your self who built the various architectural super structures around the world , like
The city of Incas of Machu picchu in Cusco Peru , wall rocks that weigh over 20 tons a piece that have over 6 corners perfectly match that you can't put a razor blade between , etc.. This structures can not be done in that time with out the help of of extraterrestrial abilities , just check the evidence around the world and you can begin to see the possibilities , it is not hollywood stuff.

Answer 10

Believer to atheist: You remind me of a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat.
Atheist to believer: Well, you remind me of a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.