Creation Science

  • Thread starter Thread starter 6glargento
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
6

6glargento

Guest
what do you you all think of creation science? do you think that there is some truth to it?
 
No. I think the Bible tells us why God created us, not how.
 
6glargento said:
what do you you all think of creation science? do you think that there is some truth to it?
Click to expand...
I think inquiry into Truth is a good thing, whether theological, philosophical, or scientific.

Who would have thought that “Let there be light” from Genesis would have confirmation in the Big Bang theory and the analysis of cosmic background radiation which recently confirmed a constantly-expanding universe?

I think the danger in labeling something “creation science” though is that those predisposed to presume the contraposition of science and faith will take it to be an oxymoron.
 
“Creation Science” can mean almost anything, from theistic evolution to progressive creationism to young earth creationism.
 
Creation science is basically regarded as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community, i.e. it has the same relation to science as Astrology has to Scientific Astronomy and Cosmology, or Alchemy has to Chemistry.
 
Greg27 said:
Creation science is basically regarded as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community, i.e. it has the same relation to science as Astrology has to Scientific Astronomy and Cosmology, or Alchemy has to Chemistry.
Click to expand...
Not really. There is no one point at which alcemists abandoned the search for ways to transmute base metals to gold and started to become real chemists. Similarly astronomy grew out of religiously-motivated observations. However creation science is a reaction to Darwinism, and is extremely modern.
 
Malcolm_McLean said:
Not really. There is no one point at which alcemists abandoned the search for ways to transmute base metals to gold and started to become real chemists. Similarly astronomy grew out of religiously-motivated observations. However creation science is a reaction to Darwinism, and is extremely modern.
Click to expand...
It is also a reaction to the American refusal to allow religious doctrine to be taught in state schools. By calling it “science” they hoped to get it taught in science classes.

rossum
 
rossum said:
It is also a reaction to the American refusal to allow religious doctrine to be taught in state schools. By calling it “science” they hoped to get it taught in science classes.

rossum
Click to expand...
That’s true. The reason the courts gave for refusing to allow the teaching of creationism doesn’t stand up to much philosophical anlaysis. There is not one class of truth labelled “religious” and one labelled “scientific”. Most academic subjects cannot be taught without some religious context.
 
trth_skr said:
The Bible is not a science book, but descriptions in the Bible of a physical nature are true.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean by that. The bible’s contention that says God created everything is true. How God created everything is beyond the understanding of the author and, for the most part, beyond our’s also. The Church does not teach that all physical descriptions in the bible are literally true.
 
Personally I have a major problem with Creation Science. Like others have pointed out, it is not really science because it starts with the answer and then looks for evidence to support the answer. Real science starts with an hypothesis and tries to disprove it.

Ultimately, I feel creationism as the term is generally understood, creates a false wall between science and religion. One that hurts religion by making religion look absurd. Creationists are a big part of the reason that radical materialists like Dawkins have become so influential in the popular culture despite the fact that Dawkins does not have the theolgical, philosophical or historical background to make a reasonable criticism of religion or the idea of God.

In any case, the practice of science should remain divorced from religion (in my opinion) but the philosophy of science can and should remain rooted firmly in the notion that God is the ultimate source of the Universe and everything in it.

–
Bill
 
An attempt is being made to separate science and religious belief today. Many of the great men of science believed they would find order in God’s creation. They did. The Church is not opposed to investigating and considering scientific claims, but the revealed truth of the Bible is that God created. Now men are saying that is not so. Usually to spread doubt and atheism.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, do not accept slogans about the scientific value of the Bible, look into the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

God bless,
Ed
 
Whether or not creationism is true does not depend on the term used to describe it. Even though it is not science, it could still be true. (not that I believe in it personally)
 
First let me say I dont live or die on scientific hills so I dont really get upset if I am wrong on certain positions. That being said, I must say that creationism, specifically young earth creationists, claims simply dont stand up to scientific scrutiny because they do science backwards, as has already been pointed out.

I really wouldn’t care if the world were young and that every animal was specially created at one time, but it does not seem as that is the case.🤷
 
6glargento said:
what do you you all think of creation science? do you think that there is some truth to it?
Click to expand...
It is not science at all. Science must, by definition, follow the scientific method. Creationism doesn’t, because God exists outside of the physical world. God created- and creates- everything. Science is how we learn about God’s methods of creation- and come to appreciate it even more.
 
I’m unsure of what is meant by “creation science” even after reading all the posts. Does the term refer to the teaching that the universe was created by God? Or is it more exclusive, referring only to a 6 day creation by God?

Nita
 
Intelligent design is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best
explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural causes.

Einstein and may astrophysicists believe in intelligent design.

And of course, no evolutionist could even begin to explain how a one celled organism could bring in the correct amino acids out of a primordial soup to form the 10,000 enzymes, put them in the correct places, form a living cell wall, and suddenly come to life to form a one celled organism.
 
Greg27 said:
Creation science is basically regarded as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community, i.e. it has the same relation to science as Astrology has to Scientific Astronomy and Cosmology, or Alchemy has to Chemistry.
Click to expand...
As opposed to global warming, faith in which has lately become the new Gaia Hypothesis.

Science is too important to be left to the devices of “the mainstream scientific community”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top