2007-01-08 15:51:53 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
In a debate, leading Creationist defender Michael Behe was asked to define science, and he did, in such a way that Creationism was actually considered a science (since it's not by the real definition of science).
His definition also let such fields as alchemy and astrology in as sciences...
2007-01-08 15:58:01 · answer #1 · answered by Michael 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Creationism is not a science. The creationist begins with a conclusion, that God created all things, and any research he does must support that conclusion.
A true scientist will observe, test, make hypotheses, and formulate theories to explain the phenomena. He will change or replace theories as more information is received, but unlike the creationist, he does not decide what the conclusion is before the research is done.
2007-01-09 00:02:36 · answer #2 · answered by Weird Darryl 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
By how it's done. It has to be done somehow. Even if it's by will, there's a process involved otherwise anyone could do it. God says we are now like Gods, except for the eternal life part. So we should be able to exercise our will and make a human with dirt and a breath. We just don't know how. We don't know the process. That's where the science comes in. Explaining the process.
Jesus restores life with a touch. Today we have CPR, but you have to know what you are doing or you can make it worse on the person. You have to know the science behind the touch.
2007-01-09 00:24:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
What is science but the search for truth? So what do you do if Creationism happens to BE the truth? Hypothetically? That's right. It would have to describe HOW Goddidit. So what's the problem?
2007-01-08 23:59:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It isn't. Science starts with a problem, and looks for a way to solve it. Creationism starts with a solution, and looks for proof of that solution. Not to mention, you know, the fact that it is neither testable nor falsifiable.
2007-01-09 00:02:59 · answer #5 · answered by N 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
After giving us 800 years of the dark ages wouldn't ya think they would just step aside and let science show the way?
Religion deals with faith.
Science deals with reality.
2007-01-09 00:03:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Creationism is not science it is a form of superstition.
2007-01-09 00:00:37 · answer #7 · answered by Rabble Rouser 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because exploring the possible ways the earth (and everything in it) came about is definitely a scientific endeavor.
And one of those possible ways is creationism.
.
2007-01-09 00:12:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Like the other things creationists assume, just have faith that it is a science, and it will be a science.
2007-01-09 00:15:41 · answer #9 · answered by Subconsciousless 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It isn't. Because the theory is irrefutable, it is not science: it cannot lead to any conclusion or prediction about the real world. Evolution, on the other hand, does enable predictions, which turn out to be correct. Evolution is now a proven fact. (Details on request.)
2007-01-08 23:56:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋