Is Creationist Science Worth Believing?

[brownprose]

---

let me repeat this one for you bro.

what Dr. Henry Morris meant by that is...dili scientific ang creationsim because we can never have the chance to put the earth inside sa lab para makakuha ta ug scientific explantion (mechanism) kung unsay sinugdan sa pagkahimugso sa kalibotan.

Ang science man gud bro before sila muhatag ug scientific conclsusion nga mo lead into formulating a scientific model first ila sa ng experimentohan. nya unsaon man nimo pag experimento sa kalibotan? masulod diay na nimo sa test tube or sa lab? DILI. so how can we come up with a SCIENTIFIC explantion kung dili nato na ma test under a microscope? Then sa pag himugso sa kalibotan wala man sila didto then wala man pud observable phenoemena kung na unsa pag himugso sa kalibotan.

example a certain scientist wanted to know the origin or the cause of a boiled water. So ilang buhaton ana bro is mag experiment na sila,they will examine all the possible angle kung unsaon pag boil ang water until makita nila ang way kung unsaon pag boil sa water.

Then from that experiment maka come up na sila ug mechanism para ma explain nila ang process sa pag boil ug water in a scientific way. Then after ana ang obang scientists ila pod ng e test kung sakto ba or tinood ba nga mo boil ang water using the mechanism used by the previous scientists, Now by following the same procedure then it yields the same result then ang science community mo pagawas dayun na ug conclusion. Mao na ang pamaagi sa Practical and applied science.

So unsaon man nila pag come up ug scientific explantion nga dili man masulod ang kalibotan sa lab? ug wala may observable phenomenom basing from the bible . Meaning dili man kita ang science sa Ginoo nga maoy nag buhat sa kalibotan. So therefore its not scientific.

But there are ways where we can prove that God created the earth,Science is not the only place where we can draw a conclusion nga ang Ginoo ang nag buhat aning kalibotana. Why limit the source sa pag pangita ug evidence when we know that science is not perfect in fact there are lots of things here that science can not explain.

u know what bro, gabalik balik man na imong "dili mabuntang sa lab" in the other thread. The reason why I didnt answer it is because frankly it's too LAME. Just because dili mabuntang sa lab, you can't have your science at all.
The whole point to all this is (and this thread) is to endeavor a rational and acceptable approach to (no matter how feeble our attempts are to explain) the science of origin.

At this point bro, many people have abused the Bible to explain just about anything that we cant explain in there by (i hate to say this) literalizing the Bible to the letter so as to arrive at a conclusion that suits the supernatural fancy of ordinary people.

Personally, I feel that depriving people of their right to know the "objective truth" is like depriving them their right to a reasonable faith.

As I have said before in the other thread, many people are guilty of transforming God into some kind of a magician so as to negate the idea that God is not a God of process, order and reason but of magic. And I'm sorry to say that, most or if not all, Creationists are among them.

[geoseph]

The creation story by Moses is contradictory to what we know to be fact today.

For example, the sun, moon, and stars were all created on the fourth day. But a 24 hour period is one earth's rotation about it's own axis, with the side facing the sun in the day, and the side opposite the night. However, daytime in genesis in caused by an undefined light source, even before there were the sun, moon, and the stars. Can we see that light source now?

Another contradiction is the creation of vegetation on the third day, even before the creation of the heavenly bodies made on the fourth day. We know vegetation is dependent on photosynthesis. They had to be sustained again by that undefined light source we don't see now.

However, some details seem to be in accord (somewhat) with scientific theories. Like the sequence: plant -> sea creatures -> land creatures -> man. I ommitted the birds kay di ko sure if it's a good fit.

If something written is not literally true, it has to be symbolic (at least). I personally consider this part of Genesis poetry by Moses of something else (although somewhat parallel). Why not? He was raised and educated as Egyptian royalty along with it's mysteries. For all we know, he was referring to his own "inner" journey in finding God. I'm not suggesting all of the book of Moses is symbolic. I only mean those parts that seems "odd" or hints at not being literal. If pressed for another example perhaps, the episode of the burning bush is one. I doubt that was literal. It makes sense if it was symbolic though.

[brownprose]

Also I dont quite get why all of a sudden a water appears before everything else was created...looks like God made the waters first if literally read: (Gen1:2 ) 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

[Sinyalan]

Also I dont quite get why all of a sudden a water appears before everything else was created...looks like God made the waters first if literally read: (Gen1:2 ) 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

he must be ONE HUGE GOD that can float/fly over the WATERS... as in the entire continental waters... literally speaking. Sorry, but I don't buy this kind of story.

As for me, creationists sceintists are ideals that is/are dependent on biblical mumbo jumbo. If they can't prove scientifically... they have to seek help, which is the bible.

[silent-kill]

d a m n you people you limit god to you own understanding... hehehehe. god is everything and nothing so there is really no point to argue.

creation in the bible, is a metaphor, and you translate it too literally

don't depend on science too much as its still very young, and do depend on the bible too..

[tripwire]

Good topic brownprose!

IMHO, the question should also start like this; What do Creation Scientists Believe? As far as anyone is concern, we have to dig deep what creationists science thought of in the first place. Let me say few things my way. Scientists who call themselves "creation scientists" are professionals, typically with advanced degrees from major universities, who are generally involved in the same types of work as the average scientist. The difference is that creation scientists have a "world-view", or "model" for their science which is based on the belief that an intelligent designer ("God") exists who created our universe and the natural things in it. The creation events were one-time events and are not taking place today. A large subset of creation scientists could be called "Biblical creationists", who take the first eleven chapters of the Bible to be real history, including the creation of all things in six 24-hour days, the existence of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman, the unnatural introduction of "death" into the perfect creation because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and the occurence of a world-wide flood (Noah's flood) which destroyed most life and greatly affected the processes operating on the earth. Most creation scientists believe that the earth is "young" (on the order of ten thousand years), but this is a secondary issue. Biblical creationists believe that the Bible and true science are in full harmony with each other - there is no need to "check your brain at the door" when entering a church. A major goal of creation science is to point out the weakness of evolutionary theory, because basically there are only two alternatives for how we got here, and if naturalistic processes are incapable of the task, then special creation must be the correct answer. On the positive side, creation scientists are developing alternative models and theories in many areas to help our understanding of how the universe works. It should be noted that much of day to day scientific activity is not heavily influenced by either evolutionary or creation assumptions, but much scientific energy has been wasted over the last century in the search for evolutionary evidences and experimental proofs, which have been unsuccessful so far and will continue to be. How much further might we be in some areas of scientific understanding if a model of special creation had been the working hypothesis? I hope this doesn't irk any feelings. All is well my brothers.

[geoseph]

Here is a possible metaphorical interpretation as an alternative to the literal interpretation of Genesis. It seems the bible is read not only literally by Christians, it can also be read literally by non-Christians as well.

The six day creation story in Genesis may be seen as the gradual awakening of the spiritual, inside the natural man (the "creation" or formation of the heart).

Day 1 - A person in a state of spiritual ignorance but, have been graced with some spritual light
heaven - spiritual
earth - natural
waters - knowledge; in darkness it's knowledge only of the natural (spiritual ignorance)
light - realization of the inadequacy of material knowledge -> dawning of spiritual knowledge
division of day and night - artificial separation of material and spiritual knowledge in the beginner's mind -> kind of denial of the value of spiritual knowledge and having preference only for material knowledge -> the difference is like night and day to the beginner
night - preference for wordly knowledge
day - glimpse/realization of the existence/value of spiritual knowledge

Day 2 - The person is starting to recognize the value of spiritual knowledge (this through grace from above)
division of the waters - separation of material from spiritual knowledge, so they will not be confused with each other (one above and one below)
mixing of waters - at the start, a person is not yet sure of the natures of the two knowledges or where they really come from

Day 3 - The person is beginning to order his knowledge accordingly (the awakening love) and puts it into action
sea - cognitions
soil - love provides warmth and the waters (all around it) of cognitions fertilize it which, brings forth vegetation (urge translated into action)
vegetation - actions in accordance with the spiritual awakening (divine love in the heart)

Day 4 - The awakened person
signs to mark the seasons and days and years - wisdom to recognize the works of God
firmament - firm will within the divine order (personal will surrendered to God's Will) and gone forth from understanding and love.
greater light - awaked spirit (in the heart) which, is uncreated (of God's)
lesser light - awakened soul which, is created for the spirit's behalf and wears the material body (interface between spiritual and material)
stars - countless spiritual realizations (cognitions)

Day 5 - The person becomes fully aware of one's divine origin
creatures - with the divine light awakened within, the person now sees the fullness of creation and recognizes one's divine origin

Day 6 - The person is now perfected in his/her humanity (complete childhood of God)
Adam and Eve - appearance of humans symbolizes the full attainment of one's humanity

It maybe possible for symbolic texts to be found in the Bible, and that correspondences can be mapped such that, where a literal interpretation would be senseless, a symbolic one would produce a more intelligible meaning (and with a coherent theme to it). May the Bible not be judged only on the basis of literal interpretations (let us not presume a lack of intelligence in others). Have we not read poetry before? Let's give the writers their due respect (their entitlement to poetic license) as we would each other. Thanks.

[brownprose]

Good topic brownprose!

IMHO, the question should also start like this; What do Creation Scientists Believe? As far as anyone is concern, we have to dig deep what creationists science thought of in the first place. Let me say few things my way. Scientists who call themselves "creation scientists" are professionals, typically with advanced degrees from major universities, who are generally involved in the same types of work as the average scientist. The difference is that creation scientists have a "world-view", or "model" for their science which is based on the belief that an intelligent designer ("God") exists who created our universe and the natural things in it. The creation events were one-time events and are not taking place today. A large subset of creation scientists could be called "Biblical creationists", who take the first eleven chapters of the Bible to be real history, including the creation of all things in six 24-hour days, the existence of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman, the unnatural introduction of "death" into the perfect creation because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and the occurence of a world-wide flood (Noah's flood) which destroyed most life and greatly affected the processes operating on the earth. Most creation scientists believe that the earth is "young" (on the order of ten thousand years), but this is a secondary issue. Biblical creationists believe that the Bible and true science are in full harmony with each other - there is no need to "check your brain at the door" when entering a church. A major goal of creation science is to point out the weakness of evolutionary theory, because basically there are only two alternatives for how we got here, and if naturalistic processes are incapable of the task, then special creation must be the correct answer. On the positive side, creation scientists are developing alternative models and theories in many areas to help our understanding of how the universe works. It should be noted that much of day to day scientific activity is not heavily influenced by either evolutionary or creation assumptions, but much scientific energy has been wasted over the last century in the search for evolutionary evidences and experimental proofs, which have been unsuccessful so far and will continue to be. How much further might we be in some areas of scientific understanding if a model of special creation had been the working hypothesis? I hope this doesn't irk any feelings. All is well my brothers.

I see your point about changing the title. My intent really is to throw a question to its proponents or advocates to clarify the science creationists thought or taught in many churches, in school and to the public at large. In effect, we have the same goals. Further, however, is to seek a healthy exchange why creationists refer to the Bible as the ultimate source of reference when there are other creationist viewpoints outside of Christian literature such for example the Koran and why the same outrightly reject widely held scientific beliefs and the empirical data it presents.

Yes, I do agree with you that many modern creationists we know today in this field are men of impeccable credentials like Henry Morris (The Father of Modern Creationism), George McReady Price, Dean Kenyon and John Whticomb to name a few and I must admit they are among those esteemed for their great contribution towards a more positive and godly view of the origin of man and the world.

However, what confuses many independent thinkers (like myself) is why all of a sudden a Christian perspective comes into the picture to explain everything about our origin. If they said that their is no scientific model to prove the origin of man, then why use the Bible as a "valid authority" when much of what it says have remained contested and questioned by the scientific community and even those who have professed themselves to be authentic Bible believers? Is it right or much less proper for creationists to support a theory using a controversial and a heavily-disputed source?

What about the Koran or the Vedas? Why rule out other books when many of them have also been validated or regarded as authority in other established religions? If creationists believe that world origin is a matter of faith and not science then why dismiss all other faiths?

Aside despondency in scientific objectivity, I find the Christian creationist philosophy a paradox and no less a selective/partial and elitist dogma that berates all other creationists beliefs.

I am a Christian, and I feel creationism is one of the greatest hoax ever spread in Christendom.

[rcruman]

I tend to generalize the creationists here to be those who believe in Young Earth Creationism which include those who believe in Abrupt Appearance or literally six days (24/7) or fiats of the creation in six literal days; those who believe that the Earth is "young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old, rather than the age of 5 billion years as calculated by modern and mainstream science;

The bible never mentioned that its just 6,000 to 10,000 years old, its the people who interpreted it.
Let me give you a point, God is immortal and He is not bound with time and space so creation in a billion of years is not a problem to Him, He will not be bored to wait.

I don't understand how/what you mean by "Bible and Science work together" although I agree with you that Bible focuses on faith and salvation.

"science" in the true meaning of it never contradicts with the bible, its PHysicist(physics) contradicts the bible because they want a physical evidence of God but denying Gods works.

It goes like this, many people will doubt God because they can't see Him and didn't mind His works that God exist, its the same as doubting the "microphone, computer, car and etc" because they didn't see who made it. They believed that there's someone who made "microphone, cellphone, computer, car, airplane and etc because they can see the output.

SO in believing GOd or searching or finding Him as Physical thing must think twice first to believed everything around them if they have seen the makers of all the stuff.

Peace!

[brownprose]

The bible never mentioned that its just 6,000 to 10,000 years old, its the people who interpreted it.
Let me give you a point, God is immortal and He is not bound with time and space so creation in a billion of years is not a problem to Him, He will not be bored to wait.

According to the creationists the Earth is about 6,000 years. And yes, time is a non-issue to God.

"science" in the true meaning of it never contradicts with the bible, its PHysicist(physics) contradicts the bible because they want a physical evidence of God but denying Gods works.

I don't quite get what you mean here. You say that science does not contradict the Bible and yet you say that Physics (another branch of Science) is contradictory? Can you please clarify your definition?

It goes like this, many people will doubt God because they can't see Him and didn't mind His works that God exist, its the same as doubting the "microphone, computer, car and etc" because they didn't see who made it. They believed that there's someone who made "microphone, cellphone, computer, car, airplane and etc because they can see the output.

SO in believing GOd or searching or finding Him as Physical thing must think twice first to believed everything around them if they have seen the makers of all the stuff.

Peace!

Agree...however, there are people whose faith is reasoned after the objective truth...and i think they needed to be understood than to be scorned at.