Why creationism is wrong to begin with...?

Question

... This isn't a question. More of a statement that I'd like you to comment on.

Creationism can never be a science because it's method isn't scientific.

True science works like this:
- Observations
- Hypothesis
- Analysis of observations
- Conclusions
(+ new hypothesis if 1st hypothesis is proven false through analysis)

Creationism works like this:
- Hypothesis (of a Creator God in the biblical sense)
- Gathering of facts in accordance to hypothesis
- Conclusions
(+ new gathering of facts if current facts do not support hypothesis)

Thus creationism has no scientific value.

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

Don't say that creationism starts with observations. It's starts with writings and beliefs, which are scientifically considered hypothesis.

What I meant was 1- I have a rock (fact) 2- I think it's an igneous one (hypothesis) 3- I look it up under a microscope (analysis) 4- It doesn't have the right characteristics, it isn't an igneous rock (conlcusion) 5- I think it's metamorphic (new hypothesis)

Hope this helps...

Answer 1

Science means "to observe", and we can not go back far enough to see what happened. SO anything related to creation is not science. Therefore you MUST believe one of the many ideas for creation. And btw gathering new facts won't disprove GOD becuase GOD made everything the way he wants it to be.

Answer 2

Unfortunately, all too often, science doesn't follow the rules.

For example, in between analysis and conclusion, you might want to include "ignore, throw away, or corrupt any data that does not agree with hypothesis."

Sadly, it does happen.

As for creationism, it was never intended to be a science, but a philosophy. One thing science cannot do is explain what started the whole process or why. That is where the creation story comes in. And when you look at it that way, it's amazing how close the creation account is to current theories about how life started on this planet.

Answer 3

it is wrong to certain extend and depending on how open minded they are too.

for example , creationism seemingly have certain answers to several question that science had no answers too , such as exactly how the universe came about and certain other stuff.

but as we know , scientist , who are human have strong sense of curiosity , and they would have to check it out to satistfy their curiosity. so thus they would go on to verify how old is the Earth , how does living things came about and stuff , in which their values will contradict with creationism .

and here comes the problems , you would have creationist trying create certain false facts with false theory such as the Earth is flat or that Earth didnt even rotate around it's axis ( trust me i read before ) , the reason for this false facts could be to instill more faith into their weak believer .

this will cause the weak believer to have misconception that all science facts are false and hoax , and went on to their their child the same thing and it went on to spread and this will hamper science advancement.

secondly , due to the fact creatism believe that the creator is the one that create everything , so cloning of anything in the eyes of some fundies would be wrong , even if it scientifically and medically could potentially save some one life such as cloning of their heart , liver before they get sick and etc.

while certain stuff like this clearly show that they can save many sick people , while creationism have not been proven to be true , considering that no religion occupy 51% of world population ( including atheist ) , you cant force the rest of the world to lose a chance to have their life save...

i hope you get what i mean .

btw , creationism CAN be science , science is just a method to show how creationism works.
however many would hate it and give me thumbs down , apparently according to science , none of the creationism theory is right.

sure you can now start giving me bogus website related to some religion , but remember , these websites are bias.

i have read website that prove carbon dating is wrong because they test it on a penguin and it gave a crap result . however an archaeologist would know why the result is crap and that they wouldnt use it on an animal. for more details , you can surf on net if you want to .

and lastly , just to tell you guys , no atheist or any religion have anything to gain to prove other religion wrong. considering the fact if i found evidence showing that a specific religion is totally right , and i might get burn eternalyl for not being in that religion , why would i still wanna lie to myself just to get burn ? no one is that stupid whether you wanna believe it or not.

Answer 4

correct.
That's why creationism cannot be thught as anything else otherr than a religious belief and not fact.
someone said science starts with observation and creatio cannot be observed. Yes it can. We can observe can living things cntinue to evolve to suit their environment, we can observe fossils and make educated theories about them. What we cannot do is to read a 2000 year old book and make interpretations to suit our desired conclusion. That leads to stagnation and extinction (or what christians call the end times).

Answer 5

Consider this argument. An archaeologist digs up a triangular stone that appears to have regular marks on it and they conclude that it is an arrowhead that a human being constructed. They base this conclusion on the facts that the markings are consistent with arrowheads made by primitive tribes today, that they know of no natural phenomenon that would account for the regularity and the shaping and sharpened edges. Perhaps they have seen cave drawings or something like that which have pictures of primitive people using bows and arrows to bolster their contention. The type of rock, maybe flint or obsidian, is a type that has been historically used to make arrowheads. So they see this stone and have a high degree of certainty that it's purpose was to be the tip of an arrow used with a bow for hunting.

Then an archaeologist digs up a fossilized bone. The bone served a purpose in a living animal. It contains a DNA code so highly sophisticated that in the 21st century we can barely figure out how it works and even then we are only scratching the surface of understanding how a chemical code can contain so much information and cause matter to behave in the way that it does.

At the moment of conception, a fertilized human egg is about the size of a pinhead. Yet it contains information equivalent to about six billion "chemical letters." This is enough information to fill 1000 books, 500 pages thick with print so small you would need a microscope to read it!

Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up of 100,000,000,000 atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world.

The "simple cell" turns out to be a miniaturized city of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design, including automated assembly plants and processing units featuring robot machines (protein molecules with as many as 3,000 atoms each in three-dimensional configurations) manufacturing hundreds of thousands of specific types of products. The system design exploits artificial languages and decoding systems, memory banks for information storage, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of components, error correction techniques and proofreading devices for quality control.

Now let's go back to the arrowhead. Consider the evidence used to determine that it was an object with an intelligent designer responsible for it's coming into being. What's the difference between the arrowhead and a single cell in a fossil?

1. We don't see mankind creating life so we don't have a current example to compare the fossil with.

2. Life is so common that even though a thorough study of the complexities of it elicit such remarks as "miraculous" we just shrug it off.

3. We have a competing theory that seems to be reasonable and have some evidence to support it to explain the origin of life in all of it's complex and interdepedent forms.

But when we go back to the coded information contained in the design somehow there is a logical disconnect because in order to accept that idea as a competing theory we would have to postulate an intelligence and technology far greater than our own or a supernatural being and since we don't have one on display the evidence is discounted even though when fairly considered it is overwhelming in pointing to this conclusion.

It's like finding a baby's toy rattle and recognizing that an intelligence designed it and finding the space shuttle and atributing it to chance, only the space shuttle is more like a toy rattle in comparison to the design of a single living cell.

Answer 6

There is no conflict between science and creationism. The bookstores are filled with books that show this. "Genesis and the the Big Bang", "The Wonder of the World" are two examples.

Answer 7

So let me get this straight. If aliens from another planet created us as a scientific experiment, then that would qualify as creationism, then we could never find out the truth using the scientific method?

Sounds like we should try something else then...

Answer 8

People, probably children, were asking questions and probably the elder (strongest or wisest) answered these questions as best as she/he could knowing the land and planets and animals as well as she/he did people believed them.
Being children GOD had to wait for humanity to reach an age of reason, as we do today. When humanity finally did, GOD started to explain things.
I agree with you, but having faith is important also.
Faith states many of the roads to knowledge. Knowledge leads to understanding. Finally the road leads to GOD.

Answer 9

I agree creationism is not science and should be kept out of the science classes. Evolution is not law, however, and should be taught that it is a theory with serious flaws.

In my 9th grade cultural geography class we learned about the major religions thruout the world. It taught about every major religion and its history EXCEPT christianity. That is what irks me. Why, when the overwhelming population of the US claim to be christian, is the history and teachings of christianity kept completely out of the classrooms, even in classes like history and cultural geography. Creationism doesnt have to be taught in science, but its part of our history and culture and can be taught in other parts of the classroom. When evolutionists and atheists push to keep the teaching of christianity out of the schools completely, even though every other religion is being taught about, then I find that movement complete insincere and onesided.

Answer 10

Creationsim isn't meant to go along with the scientific method. you really didn't prove anything. did you ever possibly go outside of your head and think something might be true even if it doesn't go along with "science"