Is "creation science" an oxymoron?

Question

How can a set of beliefs about the origins of life be studied by science? Since science just a tool we use to learn about the true nature of the universe, not what we wish the universe would be like. Why should the universe conform to our beliefs and wishes?

Answer 1

yes. It starts with the answers it wants, then works backwards to attempt to find evidence to support those answers. That is about as far away from science (which is objective by definition) as you can get. In science there is something called a "hypothesis". Creation is not a "hypothesis" as they use it. They simply ignore anything that does not point towards creationism, which is completely ridiculous. Scientists attempt to explain inconsistencies, creationists simply ignore the problems with their "theory".

Answer 2

@ Aphotic...
1)This is a philosophical argument that falls apart completely when you examine the actual science and understand basic geologic pricipals. Not to mention radio carbon dating. I have personally identified water using oxygen isotope dating that is older than 6000 years. Please dont start with arguing this because then you are basically saying that physics and chemistry are wrong as well.

2) Way out of context. The geologic record clearly shows that the earth's mag field flips and has done so . These records have been very well documented in basalt in the ocean floor and are continuous for the past 180 million years. Furthermore you are assuming that the rates are constant for change in the magnetic field. Science has physically measured and documented an accelleration in the change of the fields.

3)Just because it was a flood talked about by many, does not mean it was devine. Furthmore, a flood happens somewhere in the world every year, and without showing that they are all at the same time and somehow connected, then this just falls to pieces. I will tell you that the flood from the bible with Noah was probably based in reality. The now mediteranean sea was a large basin formed from continental drift. About the time of the Ark, this basin flooded very rapidly forming the mediterranean sea.

4) You cannot do a calculation based on the highest survival rates in human history. Human population growth is a function of technology which inherently increases survival rates, particularly farming techniques and medicine. You really have no data to base this on outside of the past few hundred years.

5) So where does polonium 2-14 come from? From the decay of radioactive isotopes of uranium...which is in granite. 1) this guy did some shoddy science and claims that he can differentiate halo type by alpha source, yet nobody else can? 2) Assuming he is right and these are indeed specific halos, you still get the continuous formation of polonium 2-14 through radioactive decay over a very long period of time.

6) I have seen a "cave man footprint" in igneous rock. He must have had really tough feet to walk across molten rock...

7) You forgot to account for the fact that helium is very light. So light that it floats off into space.Calculations dont mean much if you conveniently forget some of the variables.

8) When two obejcts are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light then you get a distortion. As a result, we are seeing things in a telescope that happened millions of years earlier. Kind of goes against the whole creationist argument.

9)Life is complicated, but I can see no way it defys evolutaionary explanations.

10) Same arguement as number 9. Plus my dog can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing she is doing so as well. She made a plan to try to get a treat for herself the other day, chewed the top of the container, and knew that she would be in trouble when I got home because she was hiding under the table looking were sheepish.

Answer 3

Not really. At least not in that order. "Science creation" would be an oxymoron though. Science is by far the lesser of the two entities, and, in fact, simply part of what is contained within creation. So, it's not as suggested that creation is outside of the purview of science. How can something that contains a lesser thing as part of its essence be outside of that which is within it?

To say that creation has no place in the process of scientific discovery is no different than saying that the atom has no place in the study of electrons etc., the universe has no place in the study of the earth, moon, sun etc., and the fetus has no place in the study of the egg or sperm.

If science ever exists long enough as a process to exhaust all possible discovery of what is, it will have just then begun its subordinate dialogue with creation.

Answer 4

Creationism is a form of the fallacy "Asserting the Consequent".
The syllogism goes something like this:

1) If there were a creator, we would see a complex universe. (If A then B)
2) We see a complex universe. (B)
3) Therefor, there is a creator. (Therefor A)

Now, although this makes the argument invalid, the conclusion could still be true. But invalidity is not it's only problem. The argument is also linguistically ambiguous, since the "creator" could be one god, a committee of lesser gods, etc.

Interestingly, scientific method can also be accused of being a form of the fallacy "Asserting the Consequent". It avoids this by being inductive rather than deductive.

Answer 5

It is not the way of science to prove anything. Science should just find and test evidence, and follow it where it leads them. But science tries just as hard to prove evolution as it does to disprove creationism. True science should just be honest about what they know no matter which way it leads. There are many people that claim evolution is fact even thought there is not enough hard evidence to call it more than a hypothesis. It is based on some evidence and a lot of "educated guesses"

Answer 6

Yes, it's an oxymoron. First, it involves the supernatural, which is COMPLETELY outside the realm of science (if someone doesn't understand that, then they shouldn't even be a scientist).

Also, here's the big reason: Creation scientists do the exact opposite of what real scientists are supposed to do. They ignore all evidence that goes against their "theory". They make no attempt to disprove or challenge their theory; they take bits and pieces of evidence that they can twist into supporting their cause and ignore all the mountains of other evidence that supports evolution instead. That's exactly what you're NOT supposed to do when you're working in science. You're not supposed to work to prove a theory, you're supposed to work to DISprove a theory. You're not supposed to look for ways that you're right, you're supposed to keep searching for ways that you're WRONG. That's what scientists do, and that's what "creation scientists" don't do. That's why it's not science.

Answer 7

Well, that's a very idealistic definition of science. In the real world scientists usually work within a paradigm which guides what work they do and makes predictions about how experiments ought to turn out. The difference between science and creation science is that in science when the paradigm is shown to be false it is changed or abandoned; evidence overrides preconceptions. In creation science the paradigm (creation) is assumed to be true no matter what; preconceptions override evidence.

Answer 8

How can a set of beliefs about the origins of life be studied by science? Evolution is a set of beliefs... DUH

Why should the universe conform to our beliefs and wishes? That's exactly why creation is correct... because it doesn't conform to our beliefs and wishes...

Your argument is illogical and shows the typical lack of intelligence of those who push the evolution agenda.

Answer 9

Yes it is. Creation is supernatural in cause even though it has a natural result. By definition, science is the study of the natural universe in natural terms. Nothing supernatural falls within the purview of science. Therefore Creation does not fall within the purview of science.

Answer 10

Yea, I would like to have the "Big Bang Theory explained to me after seeing pics of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!!! That was just a litle bang compared to the "BIG BANG' The universe was created by a higher power called GOD as well as life.