Is it time to explain the difference between "creation science" and real science..?

Question

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism, it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. These particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.
In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligence..?)

Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.

So is the difference now clear..?

Greed, how many question marks can you count up there..?
And get stuffed, who made you the boss.? You can't even read..!

Luci, yep, knock yourself out, and enjoy..

Answer 1

Yes it is!

May I have your consent to copy & paste this repeatedly? ; )

Answer 2

Who said that “creation science” is a contradiction of terms? There is a science of creation which very consecutively describes the different phases of creation and the appearance and transformation of material elements which are the constituents of the material cosmos. The modern scientists do not have information about this field of knowledge which is available in the ancient Vedic scriptures which exist since the beginning of creation. Of course they do not accept the validity of these texts which are approved by the greatest sages, saints and intelligent persons throughout the history of the world. Therefore they use their imperfect senses and minds to speculate and create theories such as the Big Bang, the Primordial soup or the Darwin’s evolution of species. The scientists then use what is called “filtration of knowledge” process to sort out those facts that do not fit to their theories. Thus there is a lot of cheating in regards to the origin and age of the human race, the process of creation and evolution and other important topics.
Methodological naturalism, which you say is the central tenet of modern science, gives a superficial explanation of natural phenomena on the basis of incomplete data received by imperfect senses or devices and analysed through imperfect and limited human minds. Thus whatever concepts and particles the physicists may introduce they won’t be able to give complete and full explanation of the universal structure and design.
In our experience we do not see anything wonderful without an intelligent design behind it. When you see a car you may not see the designer, but you know it was designed by an intelligent person. Only a child will not perceive this fact. So, it is childish to conclude that behind this wonderful vast material creation there is no intelligent design. Thus you cannot disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligence.
Here are some answers to your questions:
1. When and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human?
Life’s origin comes from intelligent design. But life is eternal, not created in some point in history as a result of combination of material chemicals. Life is antimaterial. How will you describe the difference between dead body and living body? The same heap of chemicals is there.

2. Was every species designed, or just a few early ones?
Tell me first if you are confined to life only on this planet, because the answer to this question is based on the understanding that life is spread all over the universe.

Answer 3

Yes it is.

First off you already show an unfimilarity with creation science. Creation science promotes scientific evidence and methods to support creation which has a body of scientists often with advanced degrees leading the way including scientific research. Keep in mind the context of science. Historically Bible beliving scientists have always been champions of science establishing many of the main scientific areas of study including the scientific method (Lord Kelvin).

Real science requires the scientific method to be applyied and involves observable data. However when you get to most of evolution you get speculations not based on observations subject to the scientific method.
For examples:
1. cosmic evolution as in the Big Bang-is outside any first hand observable record. It is really an extrapolation of multiple speculations which presume to explain a evolutionary friendly view of the cosmos.
2. although we can repeatedly observe the truth of natural selection we also know that it does not provide a means by which any kind of organism or animal can change into another type or kind and depends on existing life forms to work thus it has no cause of so called primordial life.
3. from the field of information science we can observe that information does not develop randomly but is associated with an intellegent cause thus requiring that the DNA encoded language found in cells must also be the result of a high intellegence.
4. for all the so called mountains of evidence about evolution there are really no observable specific fossil links showing gradual to more advanced kinds of species. Also keep in mind that for all the so called hundreds of years that hominids have supposedly been evolving into so called modern man, there are only a coffin size box full of bones and fragments that are held up by evolutionist as evidence for that happening (most of which have never been seen and often not allowed to be cross examined) when there should be millions upon millions of examples if all that did occur.
5. we observe that at the lowest geological level, the Cambrain level, we find examples of all kindoms and subkingdoms (classification was created by a creationist, by the way), all phyla and almost every class of the animal kindom. Thus we do not observe the often quoted evolutionary tree as being factual but rather the opposite where there is a broad base of lifeforms at the foundation and less and less lifeforms appearing up until now as evidenced by past extinctions and the rest of the fossil record.

Remember that if something is not subject to observation then it is outside the realm of science. Creation does hold to special revelation plus natural evidence whereas main evolutionary views pretend to be following strictly science when the truth is that the philosophy of Naturalism is first held to (also a religious belief since it is faith based) and then so called evidence is presented that actually goes against observable science. The only observable evolution we see is the microevolution or small changes or variations within the same kinds of organisms or animals but definately not "Darwinism" which is macro evolution.

Answer 4

So science that makes a priori assumptions, such as ruling out supernatural explanations for observations when such explanations are supported by the facts, is "real" science? Another illegal post, btw.

Answer 5

So in your opinion, is Darwinian's Theory of Evolution falls under which category, the "creation science" or the "real science"?

When you talk about "real science", do you mean physics, chemistry and biology?

Have you read the writings of Professor Philip Johnson, Hower Jacobson and Francis Crick?

Answer 6

I never really understood why Christians can't just leave their god's involvement at the "let there be light" stage (i.e. the Big Bang) and leave it at that. Then everything fits in nicely with scientific theory and their bible and they don't have to worry about coming up with the ridiculous to justify it.

Answer 7

You aren't really clarifying anything here, Creation science is not science at all it is an attempt to subvert science and it is rejected by the scientific community.

Answer 8

I am not a scientist so I won't be doing much detailed explaining. But if your are, knock yourself out.. oh you already did. Never mind.

Answer 9

Keep it up. I'm really enjoying your questions.

By the way, I've given a star to every one I've read.

Answer 10

creation science is fairy tale science and is not true science and real science tells the truth about the earth