Science, Creationism, and Interpretation..?

Question

In a previous question I argued that it was impossible to prove that God exists scientifically, therefore Creationism is not science. They came back at me by saying that scientists are interpreting natural causes from the data and Creationists are interpreting Supernatural beings from the data and that creationists have the right to teach their interpretations in public schools. Here is my beef with that statement. There is absolutely nothing that can't possibly be explained by “God did it.” If I throw a baseball through the air, you could interpret that the ball is flying through the air because I put force on the ball. However, you could also interpret this by saying that it did not go flying through the air because I applied force, it went through the air because God did it. Obviously the first interpretation is the more logical one. The same logic applies to evolution. It is always more logical to assume natural causes then supernatural causes

Rev. Albert Einstein. What you think is irrelevant to science. Science is not based on what you think sounds good, it's based on evidence, and unlike God, there is a mountain of evidence to support evolution. I apologize that the evidence does not corraborate with your beliefs.

Answer 1

I fully agree, but you have NO question at all. Not even a '?'.

Answer 2

The thing that you have to realize is that creation science is based on the same data as evolution theory. Creationists interpret the data differently. You see, creationists do not deny that species have changed over the years. The data, namely, the fossil record clearly shows that species have changed and no respected creationist would deny that. What creationist argue is that organisms are moving from more complex to less complex by the same process (genetic mutation) that evolutionists claim has spurred the evolution. The problem with the evolutionist claim that mutation result in a move from less complex to more complex, is that there has never been observed one single mutation that has resulted in a gain in complexity. To tell you the truth, evolution theory has no better explanation for origins that Creationism. The Creationist says, "God Created", the evolutionist says, "It just happened" To discount Creation Science because of the origins argument is not only wrong, but hypocritical

Answer 3

What do you mean by "Natural Causes"? Creationists identify God as the Natural Cause to which you refer. Nature is governed by laws. What is the source of the law? If there is a law, there must be a law-giver. Nature works within a specific parameter. What determined the parameter?

You talk about applied force, but you do not identify the source of "force" itself, nor do you identify how the laws of physics came to be specified in such a way that a baseball can travel through the air. Yes, we can talk about mass and velocity and the "laws" of motion, gravitational pull, and density, but what is the source of the law? You can only identify how the law works, but you did not make the law. Who made the law?

So many scientists are lawyers. They know how to read the law, and apply the law, and they are very expert in interpreting the laws, but they do not make the law, nor do they know who did. Therefore, their knowledge is always incomplete. This mechanistic science is ultimately fruitless, because the source is never determined. What is the use of it?

Answer 4

The subtitle of Richard Dawkins book the Blind Watchmaker is why the evidence of science reveals a universe without a designer. So if he feels there is evidence to point to no designer then why not allow evidence that points to a designer. Id theorists don't try to define for you who the designer may be but rather if there is evidence to show that life is too complex to have just happened. On a related note the big bang theory which is widely accepted holds religious implications, this however does not discount it as being acceptable as a scientific theory.

Answer 5

That which is unobservable or disproable is not science by definition. Creationism and Intelligent Design is not science, therefore it has no more place in a science classroom than a Bunson burner does on a pulpit.

Answer 6

Read David Mills.

Answer 7

We have noted part of the cause-effect chain. Now we want to use that portion of it to explain the rest. But nothing really explains diddly.

Answer 8

Romans 1

God's Wrath Against Mankind
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Answer 9

You could just as easily say Zeus did it, or Vishnu did it, or Ba'al did it....they are all on equal footing....which means basically meaningless.

Answer 10

If logic always prevailed, this world would be a much simpler, safer, and happier place. I agree with you.

Answer 11

What you are really saying is that you believe random chance brought everything into existence from nothing....
.no thanks...not buying that foolish illogic...that is total mythology.