Why do creationists...?

Question

trust the scientific method to bring us technological advances in entertainment and medicine but refuse to trust it when it applied to the origin of the species?

The jist: the scientific method involves testing hypotheses actively attempting to falsify findings. That that can't be falsified is generally considered truth until it's falsified. This is how science works, even among "physicists". It's how evolutionary theory is tested and retested. A "vague" theory? I think not. The evidence, for those who care to examine it is indisputable. And what kind of physicist are you? Highschool physics student? maybe a high school physics teacher?

Answer 1

Can you define the scientific method? I am really interested in whether you can. I am an agnostic but so often people talk about science proving this or disproving that and they have no real idea about science at all. As an aside, I am a physicist. Tell me how the 'scientific method' is applied to proving evolution. In reality, it is a very vague theory at best. As we do not have all the evidence, we cannot make more than an educated guess. The workings of evolution are currently beyond us, so how do you apply the 'scientific method' to it?

I have a degree in physics, and you? It is vague because it has never been tested. How do you test evolution? You claim it has been tested, so tell me how? There is not a complete line of evolutionary development, we do not have all the evidence. So, the gaps have been 'filled in' and we have no way of knowing if they have been 'filled in' correctly. There could well be a new find today that throws it all out.

The whole point in science is we know we cannot prove anything. We can just become more confidant in our theories as they accurately predict future observations. But however much they do predict correctly, one failed prediction disproves them. When someone says 'science proves', it makes me shudder because all open minded scientists agree, we cannot prove anything.

Answer 2

Many evolutionists and atheists alike have - throughout history - shunned Scripture and the lessons learned therein by claiming that Creation Science isn't testable, repeatable, observable, and so forth. As this is true about certain aspects of Creation Science, this is also true about certain aspects of Evolutionary "Science". One cannot deny the overwhelming amounts of assumptions and un-justifiable dedications that materialists demonstrate.

Both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical assumptions. Evolutionists (traditionally) start with the assumption that God has no intervention in this world. This isn't a testable conclusion; they didn't come to this conclusion by science. Creationists have the philosophical position that God has partaken in the history of this earth, and that He has revealed the True history of the earth through His infallible Word.

As you can see, both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical premises. There are many aspects of the Creation Theory that are indeed testable also. For instance, the Bible states that earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1, in six literal days2. Evolutionism claims that the earth came into existence some 3-5 billion years ago3, over a very long and tedious process of formation. Both of these teachings can be tested to some extent. It's important to also emphasize the knowledge difference between fallible man (who is a fallen creature), and the Omniscient God, Creator and sustainer of all.

When man inspects the earth, the biosphere, the world around us, we formulate hypothesis as to how things came to be as they are today. After data is brought in and analyzed, we can test our hypothesis and see what outcomes we're given. Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).

Now, we can see that both Creation and Evolutionism have non-testable aspects about them, and also testable aspects about them as well. Creation Science Evangelism wishes not to invite Creation into public schools, but only to have incorrect information extracted from taxpayer-purchased textbooks. Schools have a legal, as well as moral obligation to remain truthful to our students. Unfortunately, many schools today have veered from this path and have accepted voodoo-science as part of their curriculum. Material such as the gill slits, the horse evolution, the human evolution, the evolution of the giraffe, and so much more are still presented to children as facts, and done so dogmatically.

When will America - as well as the rest of the World - wake up and smell the indoctrination. Millions of children everyday are being presented with information that is testable, has been tested, and is now scratched off as untrue in the scientific literature. Even our SAT's are presenting incorrect information to our fervent studiers. Both Creation and Evolutionism are testable in certain areas and un-testable in others, both have been tested, and only one prevails - Creation. We were fearfully and wonderfully created, and we will soon stand before He that creates and give an account for the life we lived. Will you be ready?

In other words we use the scientific method to help prove Creation. And everyday we disprove your theory of evolution with real facts and not the ones you have to make up......(laughs at the guy who wrote this question) I am done now (laughs behind his back) no really that is all....

Answer 3

Creationists don't understand the scientific method and they are taught that religion = science.

Take the answer from creationist, above. She claims many clearly false claims. Here are a few:
*She claims there is such a thing as an evolutionist. This is standard propaganda to suggest believing in evolution is religious and not scientific.
*She claims "Evolutionists (traditionally) start with the assumption that God has no intervention in this world" - evolution has nothing to do with religion. There is no assumption about god one way or another in evolution. Belief in god is irrelevant in all forms of science.
*She claims "both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical premises". Evolution is not a philosophy. If it were, then so is gravity. And all other science. The idea is just silly.
*She claims "Evolutionism claims that the earth came into existence some 3-5 billion years ago". Evolution has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. That is a COMPLETELY seperate area of science.
*"the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago" - that's strange, because that doesn't even match human history - for example the first animals were domesticated around 12,000 bc. That's 14,000 years ago.
*"When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old)" - another strange one. Find any peer-reviewed scientific paper that supports this statement. Just one...
*"we can see that both Creation and Evolutionism have non-testable aspects about them" - the only untestable aspect of evolution she mentioned was the philosophy of believing in god. Which doesn't relate to evolution.
*"Creation Science Evangelism wishes not to invite Creation into public schools" - this is clearly false as can be seen in the numerous court cases that had to be held to remove creationism from the schools.
*creationists want "only to have incorrect information extracted from taxpayer-purchased textbooks" - no. They want evolution not to be taught at all, despite evolution being supported by the facts (all the facts).
*"Both Creation and Evolutionism are testable in certain areas and un-testable in others, both have been tested, and only one prevails - Creation" - this is hilarious for two reasons. Firstly, evolution is constantly being tested and is 'passing' those tests. Secondly, there is not such scientific theory as creationism. Not one paper has been put forward for peer-review. Not one. So it hasn't failed any tests at all, because there is nothing to test.
*"In other words we use the scientific method to help prove Creation. And everyday we disprove your theory of evolution with real facts and not the ones you have to make up" - show one disproof. Just one. There have been thousands of attempts and all have failed. And there has been no application of the scientific method to test creationism - if there is, then there must be some papers that have been peer-reviewed - there are none.

The 'war' between evolution and creationism is being fought on two fronts. In science, evolution stands alone, beating every challenge, while creationism refuses to present itself for scientific review. In propaganda creationism keeps throwing out false claims and misinformation. This is the danger of religion getting involved in science.

Answer 4

Christians DO trust the Scientific Method. That is why we put evolution is the category of religion, not science.

When evolution can be observed, repeated, considered falsifiable, it will conform to the Scientific Method, and you may call it science. Until that day, it is just speculation. And, anyone can speculate.

Answer 5

because they possess what has been identified in science as the "ostrich gene".

It is a gene that when confronted with cold hard facts that they don't want to see or hear, they immediately imbed thier head in the ground in front of them in an attempt to run from the truth which frightens them so much.

Answer 6

Euthanasia and Infanticide and holocaust is all justified in Origin of Species. Hitler is not dead.

Answer 7

Why do people trust a race car driver but do not trust him when he is driving in the wrong direction........

Answer 8

You are not Carl Sagan. I knew Carl Sagan, and you are no Carl Sagan. ---- trust that!

Answer 9

I never was helped by technology.

If anything i makes my life MORE stressfull.

Answer 10

because creationists have disproven everything evolutionary biologist have "confirmed".....how will you ever know?..you arent going to research it with an open mind....right?...ps....carbon dating is the biggest scientific joke/blunder since......well....man-made global warming