Is there any real science behind Creationism?

Question

We were discussing Evolution in our Bio class the other day and the question came up. Since I come from a Catholic school, most of my classmates believe in it while I kinda think its just a bunch of bullshit...a passage in the Bible that might have been taken too literally or something. What is Creationism really? And how valid a theory is it to even be compared with Darwin's Theory on Evolution?

*I'd just like to point out that not everything in the Bible should be taken that literally, lol. One of the psalms points out that the world is the center of the universe...not exactly the case, is it? (as proven by Galileo, Copernicus and others) And with regards to the theory of evolution, hasn't it already been affirmed by decades of solid research? (The Fossil Records, man's similarities with apes &c)

Answer 1

No matter how much people try to dress it up as "science", the basic premis is still that some supernatural force created the universe and the earth and most things in it. There's no getting away from that, and it therefore doesn't stand up to scrutiny from a scientific point of view.

It's OK to believe that everything was created by God as an article of faith - but I strongly object to people trying to dupe others into believing that it's science.

So... my view is that it can't be compared to a fully developed theory like Darwin's theoy of Evolution which, while it may not be perfect, has rational, causal and experimental support.

Answer 2

Well, I'd say there isn't any real science behind Creationism. The whole idea first appeared in 1979 and it was and still is looked upon as being a falsification of science, espoused by Fundie false witnessers to 'the truth'. The idea was founded entirely upon the belief that a literal reading of the Hebrew story of Genesis must be believed at all cost, i.e that God created the earth in seven days. Many scientist believe that this form of "Pseudoscience" makes a mockery of any objective research regarding the universe and life on planet Earth.

If the days of creation, in some peoples minds are really ‘geologic ages’ of millions of years, thus the Gospel message is undermined at its foundation because it puts death, disease, thorns and suffering before the Fall. This idea also shows an erroneous approach to Scripture—that the Word of God can be interpreted on the basis of the fallible theories of sinful people.

It is a good exercise to read Genesis chapter one and try to put aside outside influences that may cause you to have a pre-determined idea of what the word ‘day’ may mean if you want to take the idea of Creationism literally. Taking Genesis 1 in this way, at face value, without doubt it seems to say that God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon and stars, plants and animals, and the first two people, within six ordinary (approximately 24 hour) days. Being really honest, one would have to admit that you could never get the idea of millions of years from reading this passage.

So, relating this with Darwin's theory of Evolution, the difference is that the idea of Creationism's foundations are that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, whereas Darwin's theory insits that we have evolved from apes.

I hope this helps! Send a message if you want to know more.

Answer 3

I havent ever seen any science on it, lol. I believe in some version of the creation story because I do believe the Bible to be the word of God. However, we dont have all the details of that story and it was written by people with a very very very limited understanding of the scientific world around them. I believe the authors had a very good spiritual understanding of the world around them, but not a scientific one. So, I dont see what the problem or contradiction is here. Let science try to figure it out. The Bible doesnt give many details and so nothing science can claim really disproves the religious nature of the Bible. We should study and try to figure out the world around us. We should push for scientific discoveries. We should teach pure science in the classroom and leave the religious concepts in the history and cultural geography classes. When we have all the scientific facts about the world around us and all the details of how God created this world then I have every confidence that any supposed contradictions will reconcile themselves. We dont have either right now. We arent even close to having either. So why concern myself with how they might contradict each other when we dont have a clue if they actually do at this point. The spiritual lessons of the Bible dont change according to the scientific discoveries made and so there are no reasons religion and science need to be at odds. I dont need creation science. Creation isnt a science. It is a belief. However, I dont think it is that big of a deal, either, if a few minutes is discussed about it during science. Who doesnt know the creation story by high school in western society? It just isnt that big of an issue to me. I dont think it is a very big issue in most schools. I dont think most parents care about it. But, if this issue makes parents take more of an active role in their kids education, that would be a good side effect, because the problem with education is not creation vs evolution. It is parents that just dont care enough and pay enough attention to their kids education.

Answer 4

I think you've hit the nail on the head with realizing that the problem is Biblical *literalism* ... taking passages in the Bible so literally that you lose the ability to see allegory and metaphor, which are *much* more powerful paths to the real truths in the Bible. Focusing on the literal details loses the real meaning.

For example, the Bible was written for an audience of bronze age farmers who measured "deep time" by the number of ancestors they can name ... or who had no idea that a few of the stars they could see in the night sky were actually galaxies containing a trillion suns ... or that there were billions of similar galaxies too far away to see with the naked eye ... people who didn't have a *word* for trillion or billion ... or knew that our sun was itself a body 330,000 times more massive than our entire planet, rather than merely a "light that governed the day" ... or that the moon was *not* a "lesser light that governed the night" ... or that there was more life teeming in a cup of water, than all the animals you would see in your lifetime ... or that there were kangaroos on a large island on the other side of the globe .. etc. etc. To still cling today to a *literal* reading of a text with that kind of world-view is a guaranteed path to conflict with even basic science.

But Biblical literalism leads not only to truly *BAD* science, but to *BAD* theology as well. When read *literally* the Bible even contradicts itself. (In Genesis 1, men and women are created *together*, on the sixth day [Gen.1:27], but in Genesis 2 Adam is created separately sometime *after* God rests on the seventh day, and later [while Adam is sleeping after having named all the animals and birds on the planet] God creates Eve.) Read *literally* the Bible becomes a bad Lord of the Rings story. Read *allegorically*, the Bible becomes a rich and powerful path to deep truths that science can't even begin to answer.

So creationism ... in the young-earth sense ... is not even close to a 'valid theory'.

Answer 5

Creationism falls into two categories. One category is Young Earth Creationism which claims the earth is between six and seven thousand years old and was created in six days. The other is intelligent design which claims that God created the earth and all things on it, that humans are not related to great apes, and that these are scientific facts.

As scientific theory, creationism and intelligent design don't work because they are inherently untestable. No article favoring intelligent design has been published in a major scientific journal. Intelligent design articles are instead published in intelligent design journals and reviewed by religionists who support intelligent design. The major arguments for it on scientific grounds have actually been disproven time and time again. It is not scientific theory because the requisite work of forming a hypothesis and testing it has never been performed.

Answer 6

Creationism seems to be based on the idea that humans and planet Earth are too perfect and complex to be random. There is not one shred of actual evidence, it's merely a hunch. The main way of strengthening the case for creationism is to punch holes in the evolutionary theory. Since a lot of the evidence for evolution is based on rare and extremely old fossils, there's no way to totally prove it in the forseeable future. Creationism is just one random idea with no scientific base though. We could just as easily be test tube specimens placed on a manufactured habitat by aliens; sort of like a giant ant farm.

Answer 7

It went to the supreme court with a conservative appointed judge and wasn't considered science. It was religious people trying to sneak their ways of thinking into school by omitting the word God. Obviously, since religion is made up it couldn't pass any type of scientific test. In contrast, Darwinism proved itself over and over again. Creationism states things have to happen by a greater source (aka god) and could not have happened with natural selection (aka Darwinism). They are wrong and could not support their point in a court where facts were needed. On the other hand, since Darwinism is science they had facts and evidence which could be proven. You even get a watered down form of Darwinism in school. Believe in God & Jesus if you want but realize that there is no logic or fact behind it.

Answer 8

No, there isnt. They focus on debunking the big bang and abiogenesis theory anyway, thinking it is part of the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is still very hypothetical, but the hypothesis that it arised without a process (biblical creation) is waaay more BS. I am a religious person, but The world wasn't made in a day.

Answer 9

When it comes down to it, its all about market share. Religions are businesses and Michael Behe and his band of merry creationists want from unknown struggling scientists to wealthy important men. Religions run on cash too, and if they demonize the mainstream, they can get folks who have a strong need to follow and belong to something to believe just about any silly nonsense.

Creationism, like the fundamentalist religions that back it, is a refuge for those who are either unable to or too lazy to try to understand the science that defines the world around them. If someone feeds them answers and relieves them of the need to think and make choices for themselves, they are happy little clams. It's okay if you think science is hard, because its the work of the devil! Put down that science book and go play some Christian video games and listen to some bad rock music with the words "God" and "Jesus" in it every other line, and you will be saved. Cha ching!!!

Answer 10

Creationism isn't science because it doesn't even fit into the process of how science is discovered or analyzed. Creationism can never be disproven and fails to explain any evidence from the world around us, so it completely fails as being any sort of science.

Simply put, science looks to find theory to explain data. Creationism bends and lies about data to fit their personal mythos.

If your friends are really interested in the creation/evolution debate, they can persue the talk origins faq to get a basic understanding of the controversy. But in reality, I doubt they are really interested in learning about evolution or anything that contradicts their beliefs.

http://www.talkorigins.org/