Is Creationism Science?

quote:

---

Originally posted by fasstedddy in Message 6660 at Yahoo Clubs:

If what you are after is strict adhesion to the scientific method, at the expense of what is actually the truth...probably there is no purpose for the debate at all. Methodology is secondary to what is actually going on, this issue is huge. I contend the answers to these questions can transend this lifetime. But you won't make concessions for "dogma" and wont consider enlarging your study to include anything supernatural without respect as to whether it would lead you to truth. So it is hard to reach agreement on anything.

---

I think I get your point. You're saying that when considered in a broader context Creationism is correct. I concede you could well be right. Debaters on the evolution side are not debating within this broader context, but instead limit themselves to the scientific arena, a context within which Creationism is clearly wrongYou mention the supernatural, but that is the very opposite of science. Science limits itself to the natural, that which is apparent to the five senses. By definition any event which we can overtly detect is not supernatural. If God were to come tomorrow and move mountains it would be a stupefying and scientifically inexplicable event, but it wouldn't be supernatural because it would be observable by all the senses. We could monitor and measure the whole event. Explaining it would be a scientific challenge for the ages, and most would simply say, "God has spoken", but at the point he becomes overtly detectable he becomes natural and scientifically available.In contrast, the way by which we detect the supernatural today is not by the five senses but by what we feel inside. If you ask a believer if God has ever spoken to them they might reply, "He has spoken to me, but not with words that moved the air, but with thoughts that moved my heart and soul."So I think you and Schraf are actually discussing on two different levels. To the extent you're arguing Creationism is science you'll get strong resistance from the science side. In particular you'll get strong objections about pushing religious beliefs into public schools. But if you're only arguing that God's truth is greater than science and cannot be contained or explained by science, then you'll get no argument from me and I suspect from few others.I'm not at this point sure I understand your particular perspectives on this, but all the Creationist literature and websites make clear the widespread belief within conservative religious circules that Creationism is a scientifically valid alternative to evolution. When arguing the broader context outside science it might be helpful to use a term other than Creationism.--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fasstedddy in Message 6667 at Yahoo Clubs:

Scientific method is not the only way to evaluate truth. As I'm beginning to realize, if this is not really the pursuit, truth, but instead a test of scientific method...there probably is no point in debating. Yet the Club is titled Evolution versus Creationism. It's not the Scientific Method versus the Creation interpertation. Perhaps these are apples and oranges and a mutual grounds for discussing these can never be reached.

---

Schraf has already addressed this very well, but I would like to add a couple small points.First, you don't seem to be speaking about Creationist interpretations. Creationism is the belief that there is valid scientific evidence supporting the Biblical account of creation. The debate between Creationism and evolution is on the scientific merits. That's why people like Henry Morris and Duane Gish wrote books like The Genesis Flood and The Fossils Say No! recounting evidence supporting Creationism and falsifying evolution.The other small thing is that science is the pursuit of truth, but it recognizes it can only approach, never attain, that truth. Science by its very nature can not represent absolute truth because it includes the principle of tentativity. Science cannot at the same time be tentative and represent absolute truths.The more spiritual issues you'd like to discuss are perfectly valid here, at least in my opinion, but you shouldn't continue referring to them as Creationism. Perhaps you should start a thread discussing the validity of science's rejection of the supernatural.--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-10-2002]

I'm going to respond to your comments about science first, so I've rearranged your message a little:

quote:

---

Quote from FastEddy in Yahoo message 6697:

SCIENCE MUST be falsifiable...
SCIENCE can consider the evidence and theories from various perspectives...
SCIENCE can reexamine it's contentions and amend as the data indicates...

---

Your comments are consistent with the definition of science. If you think science should be defined differently then you should perhaps begin a thread raising this issue, as I once suggested.About the Creationism part of your message:

quote:

---

Quote from FastEddy in Yahoo message 6697:

CREATION SCIENCE must never be subject to reinterpertation.
CREATION SCIENCE must declare the entire bible either literal or figurative from the get go...
CREATION SCIENCE must cling to historical views from hundreds and thousands of years ago in it's quest for understanding...

---

These views of Creation science are not ours but are those that you will find at many Creationism websites, particularly those of ICR, CRS and Dr. Hovind (Dr. Dino). If you think they're wrongheaded we can only agree with you, and if that's the case then your argument is not with us but with your fellow Creationists.Many Creationists believe that where science disagrees with the Bible then science is wrong. Isn't this your view? If so then you're a typical Creationist in the mold we've been describing. If not then we, or I at least, apologize, but ask you to please clarify your views. You've been very general and philosophical in what I've seen so far.--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-10-2002]

This is a reply to Yahoo message 6710.I'm sorry this hasn't been a positive experience for you. If it helps, here's my analysis.I think you've been avoiding the real issue by focusing on what you call science's lack of inclusivity of truth. The fundamental problem with your wish is that truth is a relative concept. For you the Bible is truth, while for a follower of Islam the Koran is truth. Science avoids the whole issue of "what is truth" and merely attempts (note I say attempts, not achieves) objectivity through rigorous methodologies that focus only on what is overtly apparent to our five senses.The real reason you have an issue with science is not because you grieve its lack of truth but because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. Biology holds that species are not fixed. Cosmology holds that the universe is around 14 billions years old. Geology holds that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old and that nothing like Noah's flood could ever possibly have happened.When you say "inclusive of the truth" what you really mean is "inclusive of the Bible". All this talk about excluding truth is really just a smokescreen for projecting your religious beliefs into secular circles. The only reason this debate exists at all is because a primarily American religious sect believes the Bible is an accurate scientific account that should be taught in public schools. If not for these attempts to monkey with our educational system (), along with the concurrent sensationalism, no one would care what your religious sect believes and this debate wouldn't be happening.The nature of science is a valid topic of discussion in this debate. Phillip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, has advanced a premise similar to yours and has debated scientists on this topic. You have been invited several times to open up this question for discussion, but you instead merely repeat that science is insufficiently inclusive. I can tell you're frustrated at the sameness of the responses, but we can't respond to the specifics of your argument until you present them. At some point you have to go beyond your premise and mention some details.I again invite you to do so. Tell us what science could do that would give it the necessary inclusiveness you feel it needs while retaining its investigatory power to understand our world and universe.One more thing. Probably the more important reason you're feeling frustrated is that you've got no help. I have a feeling that Thmsberry went silent for the same reason. While he was active he was the only Creationist here, fighting alone in a sea of evolutionists. You became active just as he went dormant, and now you've been fighting the same lonely battle. Isn't there some way that more than one Creationist can be active here at the same time? Don't you have any on-line Creationist friends that you can send a note to saying, "Hey, come help me out on the such-and-so board."?--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 01-27-2001).]

This seems like the best thread in which to address your Paul Davies quote. As I've already said elsewhere, the problem with such quotes is that they are lifted out-of-context. (I know you tried to provide a fuller quote for Jastrow, and that's fine except it's 500 words and you placed it in your signature which is repeated in every post, taking up valuable disk space - we're at 67% of capacity right now, so let's use it wisely.) The quote is provided as if Davies had been asked to sum up his personal philosophy, and it turns out he's an advocate of intelligent design.But he's not. Here's a rather lengthy excerpt from Davies book The Mind of God where he sums up his views on science and the mysteries of the universe:

I should like to make my own position clear at the outset. As a professional scientist I am fully committed to the scientific method of investigating the world. I believe that science is an immensely powerful procedure for helping us to understand the complex universe in which we live. History has shown that its successes are legion, and scarcely a week passes without some new progress being made. The attraction of the scientific method goes beyond its enormous power and scope, however. There is also its uncompromising honesty. Every new discovery, every theory is required to pass rigorous tests of approval by the scientific community before it is accepted. Of course, in practice, scientists do not always follow the textbook strategies. Sometimes the data are muddled and ambiguous. Sometimes influential scientists sustain dubious theories long after they have been discredited. Occasionally scientists cheat. But these are aberrations. Generally, science leads us in the direction of reliable knowledge.

​

I have always wanted to believe that science can explain everything, at least in principle. Many nonscientists would deny such a claim resolutely. Most religions demand belief in at least some supernatural events, which are by definition impossible to reconcile with science. I would rather not believe in supernatural events personally. Although I obviously can't prove that they never happen, I see no reason to suppose that they do. My inclination is to assume that the laws of nature are obeyed at all times. But even if one rules out supernatural events, it is still not clear that science could in principle explain everything in the physical universe. There remains that old problem about the end of the explanatory chain. However successful our scientific explanations may be, they always have certain starting assumptions built in. For example, an explanation of some phenomenon in terms of physics presupposes the validity of the laws of physics, which are taken as given. But one can ask where these laws come from in the first place. One could even question the origin of the logic upon which all scientific reasoning is founded. Sooner or later we all have to accept something as given, whether it is God, or logic, or a set of laws, or some other foundation for existence. Thus "ultimate" questions will always lie beyond the scope of empirical science as it is usually defined.

And so we see that Paul Davies is actually committed to science and the scientific method, but is given to philosophical reflections on unanswerable questions.Now, I can anticipate that your answer will be that you're quoting Paul Davies' very own words, but let me say once again, context is important, and just from the way that paragraph is structured it looked like a setup for a qualifying followup. I don't happen to own a copy of The Cosmic BluePrint, but I was able to find a longer version of your quote, and it comes off a little differently:

The very fact that the universe is creative, and that the laws have permitted complex structures to emerge and develop to the point of consciousness -- in other words, that the universe has organized its own self-awareness -- is for me powerful evidence that there is 'something going on' behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming. Science may explain all the processes whereby the universe evolves its own destiny, but that still leaves room for there to be a meaning behind existence.

So we see that in the very next sentence, a sentence which all Creationist versions of the quote leave out, Davies once again professes his confidence in science's explanatory power.--Percy

Hi Jeff,Jet correctly points out that he has already answered this question (check Message 7), but I've been remiss in clarifying why I defined the supernatural as unobservable. From your post it seems like you might take a similar view.I define natural as that which is apparent in some way to the five senses. If you can see it, smell it, hear it, taste it or feel it then it must by definition be part of the natural world and therefore is natural. Everything else is supernatural. A bush is part of the natural world. A burning bush is also part of the natural world. A burning bush that isn't consumed is still part of the natural world.Joe Meert in Message 9 expresses a similar view when he says, "As a scientist, he/she must try to explain it using natural means. If that is not possible, it becomes an anomaly..." In other words, once it's observable it is subject to analytical techniques and fitting into theoretical frameworks, even if inexplicable at the time.On the other hand, Dr_Taximus_maximus in Message 10 defines supernatural as that which violates natural laws. I have a feeling that me and Joe, while understanding the rationale and accepting that this is fine for laypeople, would maintain that scientists must never resort to the supernatural, and that phenomena violating natural laws must instead be viewed as not-yet-understood natural phenomena. If you didn't do this then each time you uncovered something that disobeyed natural laws you would conclude it was supernatural and so shouldn't be expected to obey natural laws, but that would preclude scientific investigation and eliminate the possibility of shedding light on previously unknown natural phenomena. This is at the heart of Joe's question to Jet concerning when the scientist should abandon natural explanations. It's a rhetorical question because the obvious answer is that science can never abandon the natural.So what's supernatural? The spiritual! There is no way to observe, measure or quantify the comfort of God's presence or the rapture of accepting the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, it can only be experienced.And I guess there are other supernatural areas, such as "feeling" that something has happened or is going to happen, or seeing apparitions that aren't there and so forth.So I'm not really too worried about observable supernatural phenomena. They never seem to happen where there's science going on.--Percy