Is Creation Science real Science??

Question

Just got out of college....maybe my head has been buried in text books too long.....what is this??

Answer 1

Creation science is not real science. In fact, it operates in completely the opposite way. Believers twist and misconstrue evidence so that it fits their immutable theological beliefs and ignore any and all evidence to the contrary. Creation "science" cannot be falsified, nor can it be proven using mainstream science. It's just not science.

Answer 2

Science is a tool. Creation and evolution are theories that can be tested with science. It is very common for believers in creation, to not look at evolution thoroughly and vice versus. People let their blind faith in one or the other dictate their arguments instead of using real science to test. ie. fossil records. People often attach creationism as just a spiritual thought, and they would be making a grave mistake. In the same respect, many discount evolution for the complexity of understanding things like we came from monkeys or Darwin's changing of "kinds".

Science should be able to test both theories and then each person makes their own decision on what they believe. Understand that science is science. It can only test theories. To test creation or evolution a person must look at all the facts and answer a lot of questions. There is no way to know for sure, either way because science is unable to reproduce a intelligent design scenario (creation/creator) or a big bang or changing of kinds (evolution) We have were not there and our life span is too short to know. We would have to look back at history and believe someones word and then use science to test whats around us. Like fossils records.

Answer 3

As you probably well know, science is a process where we use what is called the scientific method. The scientific method is a system which uses a series of steps to study our existence and answer questions. Its definition varies from one text book to the next but, basically, you make observations to gather information, interpret the meaning of that information, test the explanation whenever possible, and develop conclusions.

Therefore, if we use the scientific method to study information in relation to the idea of creation as an origin, then it would be Creation Science and would be a science. As long as scientists are using the scientific method to study the hypothesis of origin by creation, then creation science is a science. Since both evolution (The Greeks) and creation have their roots in religion, they must either both be classified a science based on using the scientific method or both be classified a religion based on their roots.

Answer 4

It is not. For an example, go on the website for the creationist think tank "Discovery Institute" and read their mission statement, which is evangelism and promulgating a Biblical view, not doing science. "Creation Science" is just the term the never-so-honest fundies used to mask their attempt to have creation fables taught as science in the classroom as well as to provide apologetic resources for flat-earthers to pretend their pre-bronze age, pre-scientific, supposedly revealed view of existence is justified by science. But the reality is that their beliefs rely on untestable claims that are directly contradicted by testable evidence like the fossil record. So the best they can do is try to throw rocks at the real science and conitnue to offer "magic" as their alternative. Generally speaking they use a lot of gobbledegook double talk and clever sounding rationale that only works for the ignorant (to whom they address their fund-raising efforts).

Answer 5

Creation science is a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts,[10][11][12] and is viewed by professional biologists as unscholarly[13] and, even, as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.[14]
(Courtesy Wikipedia)

Answer 6

Creation holds itself as a theory just as evolution is a theory. You can not rule one or the other as "real science". Real science has to do with being able to demonstrate with similar results. Applying the mechanics of nature's ability to adapt surroundings, then assume backward that this is how life began is rather presumptuous at best. Hoyle proved with math that the math was profoundly against the primordial soup hypothesis.

The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand [zeros] after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primordial soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence. - Sir Fredrick Hoyle, Nature Nov. 1981

Other scientists have no problem with the concept of a Creator.

"I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." - Wernher von Braun

Answer 7

No. Because they don't use real science. Real science is testing to prove the hypothesis and then throwing it out if it doesn't make sense. Creation scientists don't do it. They're just desperately searching for a way to prove their bible and will believe even if the evidence tells them they're wrong.

Answer 8

As much a science as evolution science. It's the examination of evidence from a creationist view that seeks to show that creation is as much a viable explanation (if not more viable) than evolution is for origins.

Answer 9

Nope. Refuting Evolution, geology, and cosmology does not prove the existence of the Almighty, and even if it did, it wouldn't prove that the Creator was the God of Abraham.

Answer 10

Only way to tell is when Creationists start predicting the next discoveries and advances of science accurately, or start inventing useful processes and machines bases on principles specific to their beliefs...

Me, my money still is on the evolutionist bunch.