Creation science or not?

I think this has been covered a few times, but I am giving my take on it. Let me just express that I am neither for or against creation science. I am probably more against it. I do not really believe at this point that you can prove it. That is not what God is supposed to be about to me. The way we are supposed to show God to others is a subjective way.Many people in here claim creation science not to be science at all. I disagree, all science is science.Here are some of my reasons for coming to the conclusion that creation science is indeed science.Once while discussing with schrafinator about "true scientists" and "true science" I brought up the fact the science is not always used for the good. It has been used to create more harm than good. To her, and me, this is not true science, and that is because of the motives behind it. But we are wrong as our definition does not follow the definition of the scientific method.Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Scientific method as envisaged by one of its early exponents, Sir Isaac Newton, is fundamental to the investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists use observations, hypotheses, and logic to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories that can be reproducibly tested by experiment are the basis for developing new technology.

---

Scientific method - WikipediaSo creating an atom bomb fits that description.So does creation science. The physical evidence people feel as the Holy Spirit falls on them is real. Whether it is God or not, is what they want to find out by using the scientific method. Many unexplained events, such as healings, and all the supernatural phenomena claimed in the bible, can be investigated. This makes it science.No where in that description does it say that you have to not have a goal, or an objective when searching for answers. In fact it says the opposite. You can believe in the TOE based on evidence, and then try to prove it. You can believe in God based on evidence, and try to prove it. Just because one theory has more physical evidence than the other, does not make it more science than the other. When the TOE was first thought up, the evidence was limited. That never stopped people from trying to prove it.You may never be able to prove either one, unless Jesus comes back tomorrow, but that shouldn't stop us from trying.What should people who do not believe in God, or people that do not believe in creation science be worried about? If it cannot be proven, or does not exist, then the truth will come out.This is no different than someone who has gone crazy, and doctors cannot find a reason why. Should they not pursue it because it does not fit the scientific method?There are all kinds of science,
cancer science
supernatural science: WEBRING
The list can go on and on.Each one of these sciences has a different motive. There is no doubt that some people who believe in God, myself included, feel something physical.In the spirit of a true scientifically minded person, you would always be searching to see if these feelings you have are from God, or from your own mind. This is science.

Does all Creation science claim that? Or only YEC.
Is there some kind of rule that says in order to be a Creation scientists you must be a a literal YEC?

No-true-scientist? That is only your opinion. Because of the placebo effect you cannot claim it to be true or untrue. I do not agree with that. In that, it is a wrong way of going about things, but that does not make it science or not.Plus, I do not think that all creation scientists think that way. Or you could say they test theories. Documented example please. I agree that ignoring evidence is not good science. All things must have an explanation. But since nothing is ever actually proven.... Sure, but that doesn't define science. If we lived like that exclusively, we would be let down a lot. Stomach ulcers are a perfect example. About people, or about God? Just like anyone can call themselves a Christian. Maybe.

I guess I can't speak for others, but for me, thats how it happened.
I felt something, then I am seeking to confirm it.

Doesn't it at least start with a theory? The theory that God exists?After all who can prove God exists? Well thats what we are trying to prove.I went to the IRC site, and they claim what drives them is trying to prove that evolutionary humanism is wrong.

quote:

---

Welcome to the Institute for Creation Research
We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4,5).

---

Doesn't say there that God is proven to exist. For lack of more proper words, they are putting TOE to the test, really.

Yes, your right.but is the IRC the only source for creation science?

Yea, I spent a little time this afternoon looking around at those statements. I guess they might think if they don't claim that, then they might go to hell or something.I guess I was a little ignorant, and a little disappointed in those statements.However, I think there is a place for creation science, or science that looks for evidence of a creator, but not the way they are going about it. They should come up with a more accurately descriptive name for it, like, like, like, Theology, or anti-science.

Yes, I absolutly do.

Oh, you mean like the world we have today full of "Christians".
Please, don't ever let me catch you using the no-true-sctosman fallacy. Can you show anybody any feeling? But they exist.Do people dream?
Can all people control their dreams?Well I cannot control the Holy Spirit or the times I feel it.Do you know right from wrong in your heart? How do you explain this?
Do not compare what other people think is right or wrong, just what you think is. A wrong result is still a result. Maybe, I said that already. For years scientists thought that stress and other things caused ulcers.So we lived our lives according to that data.What is a peptic ulce? Symptoms, diagnosis and treatmentTurns out that is not the case and there is a simple cure for ulcers.I don't have a problem with this method, but it just goes to show how we live thinking something is one way, when it's really not. This is why all science is good science. Refer to the last example, and I can't help but think we do not really know all that much yet. The truth still has a long way to go. lol. That should be my new name here.
Listen, I agree that most of what drives creation science is not what it should be. But that doesn't make it non-science. It's always good to have another perspective.It's like democrats, and republicans. I think there should always be an equal balance of both. Sort of like checks and balances. Since no-one is ever completely 100% honest, we will just have to deal with it.-my bad ...editted the wrong post!! (Mod)This message has been edited by AdminModulous, Thu, 09-March-2006 03:00 PM

But don't you understand? That whole mumble jumble you just put together IS the fallacy. The same reason you think creation science is the same reason I think Hitler wasn't Christian. But according to the NTS, we are wrong.What bothers me, is how you only want it applied to Christians, not science. Of course they are. Just because you can't measure it, does not make it not physical.If it's not physical, then it's spiritual, or supernatural? Factoid from that staement: science has flaws. Thanks for admiting it. Yes, I agree with you there. I am not to happy about mixing science and religion. I do not think it should be used as a tool to get people to know God. Just like I think TOE should not be used as a tool to get people to not believe in God.

Once again I find that someone such as yourself who is trying to be scientifical, or of science, seems to have many opinions.Does science and emotions have a place together or should true scientists be like Spock? (vulcan) I am not redefining science at all, or do I want to.
I agree that those creationist sites are really not going about things the right way. Just like the people who brought you Hiroshima. I appreciate that statement, but no-true-scientists is atheist?Why do what you believe in have anything to do with what science you perform?So the other half of that is no-true-scientists is Christian, or believes in God.I disagree.I think you are confusing bad-science with no-science.

When we study the sun, there is no question to as what it is we study.
Unless you are blind.
How do you prove the sun exists to a blind person?
He may feel the heat during the day, but how does he really know?
Don't argue this point with me, but try to understand what it means. Investagating them makes it science, not the event itself. Where in the definition of the scientific method does it say it has to be open ended?Cancer research is not open ended, they study cancer, period. Like finding a cure for cancer.
Or the A-bomb, started with a conculsion. Ended in lots of death though. Let me just say this. The TOE is a theory, theories when correct, can make predictions, we search to see if these predictions will come true. What I feel cannot be classified as subjective faith.
At one time it was."If" God exists, and he made everything, then everything is the evidence. At least the major sites work that way, and I do have a problem with them.
But the name creation science on the whole is not to blame, or the idea of using science to try and prove God exists, or that certain events in the bible happened. A quick question, then maybe we can start another thread on it.
Can TOE explain your purpose in life?
CAn TOE explain subjective feelings? I believe I covered this already, and as you usually do you missed it. No, please explain. Does love exist?
Can we not study love?
I believe we do, and it is a subjective feeling. Well the way I study creation, and God it does.
I guess because it is so complicated it makes it near impossible to reproduce a result, and it is all subjective. But then so are most feelings. But feelings obviously exist.Medicine can cure people, but not all medicince can cure all people, this makes it a result that doesn't always have the same answer or result, similar to believing in God. Are medicines not science?Should we give up on psychology because it is mostly subjective?Oh, and I am sorry if I claimed you said something and you didn't. I do not remember the thread, but I could swear you did say something to that effect.

Quote of the year?At least you recognize it is a belief. Maybe because those examples you gave are all very different and shouldn't be lumped into one category. I do understand.Nice to meet you.

Well most of your post has already been covered, I don't need to start repeating myself and get into a he said she said debate with you again, but I will answer this:Love exists? Can you prove it?This is no different from the concept of God existing.The theory is God exists. They try to prove it.If God really doesn't exists, they can keep ignoring evidence, but eventually there will come a point where they won't be able to do that any more. DOesn't make it non-science. I agree it can make it bad science. I would rather they admit that certain evidences do not fit their theory of God, and say they don't have an answer at this time.But couldn't the same be said for missing evidence when it comes to TOE? Is there any solid evidence against evolution? Or is it so complex, that only the lack of evidence is the only really solid thing against it? Well you might not consider it science, but I do. I will say that I experience subjective evidence for God's existance, and against God's existance. The latter may be a result of lack of understanding of the true God. But I do remain open minded. From what I observe the odds are that God exists. It's not 100% from a scientific stand point, but what is really?

I would apprciate if we would stop using Santa as a comaprison with God, and the science that would follow. Not because I am insulted or anything, but I think you should at least comper apples to apples. So make the comparison to another God, not Santa.Sant science and Creation science, 2 different things.