People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

You cite a paragraph from Of Pandas and People as if that meant something in a Science Forum.That "text" is devoted to promoting religion in the guise of creation "science" and it was further changed following the Edwards decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to an "intelligent design" book.But the authors missed an edit! What was "creationists" throughout the text was changed to "design proponents" -- except they missed one and ended up with "cdesign proponentsists."Here is some documentation: Missing link: "cdesign proponentsists"In other words, Of Pandas and People is a religious text, nothing but apologetics. It has no place in a scientific debate. Why are you citing it here?Care to try again?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You want to know what creation "science" really is?It is creationism with the serial numbers filed off in hopes of fooling the school boards and the courts. It was "created" following the Epperson decision in the 1960s.As you see from Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) creation "science" was banned from the scools as being creationism in disguise.Subsequently, "intelligent design" was "designed" to sneak creationism in where creation "science" failed to go. ID was subsequently banned for the same reason.Subsequent attempts have been "teach the controversy," "they're both theories," "critical thinking," "strengths and weaknesses," and "academic freedom."Why can't creationists be honest about it? Their constant efforts to pass their religious beliefs off as science--which they diametrically oppose and to which creation "science" is the antithesis--are patently transparent. You're not fooling anyone.And if any school board falls for it they can expect a court case and a pretty large legal bill.Teaching a particular narrow brand of anti-science fundamentalist religion in science classes is a thing of the past, and its not coming back short of a theocracy. Is that what you're hoping for?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Creationism is not a model, it is a religious belief.A model is more as follows:

Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.

​

And creationism is not science; rather, it is the opposite of science.Science looks at the natural world, gathers data, and attempts to explain that data.Creationism begins with the conclusion, "goddidit" and looks around for things they can point to and say, "See!"

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

They have evidence to work with.

The whole argument behind creation "science's" "devolution" claim, that is, that species are growing weaker, with a smaller gene pool, restricted ability, and are likely to become extinct, stems from from the bible and "the fall."If this is not the origin of these ideas, then perhaps you can explain exactly what the origin of these ideas might be.But if you want to stand by these ideas as a test of the belief in creationism, then you have to actually demonstrate that all genetic change is negative, and that all mutations are deleterious.Otherwise the "devolution" prediction, one of the cornerstones, of creation "science" fails.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You are forgetting one small thing; while the overall entropy in a system might increase it is possible for localized parts to see a decrease in entropy.Or are you going to tell me a hurricane is impossible? Or a snowflake?Your understanding of the second law is completely flawed. It reminds me of a debate I participated in, on another website, where a poster told us that evolution was impossible because of the second law of thermal documents.You really should study real science for a change, and leave those creation "science" websites alone for a while. (When it comes to science, they lie. They have to lie, because the facts just don't work in the direction they want them to. If you want, start a new thread and we can discuss radiocarbon dating. That is a field I have studied a bit and which the creationist websites have to lie about. I'll be glad to show you where in a new thread, or even in an old one.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

First, if you are going to deal with science you need to use the language of science. That means you need to stop using "kinds" as that is a biblical term, not a scientific one.Second, creationists have never been able to specify a mechanism that prevents speciation. They agree to what they call microevolution, but draw an artificial line (inspired by the bible, not by scientific evidence) at what they call macroevolution. But, they are unable to specify a mechanism that prevents the micros from adding up to a macro.Next, the "limits" you point out to macroevolution are all in your mind. They are not supported by the evidence. Only by ignoring the logical extrapolations of the evidence can creationists justify their a priori beliefs. But that's not science and no amount of creation "science" can make it into science.Finally, you don't know the data yourself, and can only rely on creationist websites and literature for their opinions. And, sadly, there are very few scientists in the creationist network; the few that we see generally ignore the scientific method and substitute religious belief (creation "science" if you will) in its place. Their conclusions are reached in advance, from scripture and revelation, not through the scientific evidence. As such, their statements regarding science are suspect.On this website you will likely find a number of posters who are familiar with the evidence. I studied evolution and fossil man in graduate school, to the Ph.D. level, although I don't practice in that field. Others here are well versed in other fields related to evolution. We don't need creationists to tell us how to interpret the data; through long years of study we have learned to do quite well on our own.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I have a horn worth tooting, as do many others here. Unlike creation "scientists" we actually study our fields, often for decades. We do this so we can learn; creation "scientists" start off with all the answers and are just looking for tidbits to cherry pick. Learning is the last thing they want. They just want to find something, anything to support their a priori beliefs. That is absolutely incorrect, but unfortunately it is typical. No creationist has been able to document what you have claimed.Here is a good essay that covers the subject: The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability.Warning: this essay is loaded with mathematical equations!Here are the final paragraphs:

Considering the earth as a system, any change that is accompanied by an entropy decrease (and hence going back from higher probability to lower probability) is possible as long as sufficient energy is available. The ultimate source of most of that energy, is of course, the sun.

​

The numerical calculation of entropy changes accompanying physical and chemical changes are very well understood and are the basis of the mathematical determination of free energy, emf characteristics of voltaic cells, equilibrium constants, refrigeration cycles, steam turbine operating parameters, and a host of other parameters. The creationist position would necessarily discard the entire mathematical framework of thermodynamics and would provide no basis for the engineering design of turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc. It would do away with the well-developed mathematical relationships of physical chemistry, including the effect of temperature and pressure on equilibrium constants and phase changes.

Until creationists stop using religious belief as scientific evidence and start to propose scientific mechanisms, they will be widely ignored by science, and rightfully so. When you pass on ridiculous claims, such as the one about the second law of thermodynamics, you only show your lack of actual familiarity with the subject and your reliance on belief instead of scientific investigation.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This then is easily disproved. All you need to disprove this prediction is one favorable mutation.Here is one (out of many): the ability to tan. Humans originated in Africa with dark skin to reduce the impact of ultraviolet light on the sublayers of skin. When humans moved north to the Mediterranean the light levels were reduced in the winter but still pretty intense in the summer. Mutations that lightened the skin color and allowed tanning (to block more UV radiation during the summers while permitting UV to penetrate the skin during winters) allowed more successful adaptation to that environment.The mutation(s) that changed the skin color from very dark to a lighter color and permitted tanning are a favorable mutation (an improvement) for that environment.The prediction of creation "science" is thus falsified. There are many more such examples found throughout nature. I expect you to deny this, of course, as creation "science" isn't about the evidence but about supporting the religious beliefs of its practitioners. That's why it is religious apologetics, and the exact opposite of science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This is due to sin and the fall some 6,000 years ago.By the way, this is also clear evidence that creation "science" is attempting to use the mantle of science to promote religious belief.And this "disintegrative principle" has long since been falsified by science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Mutations are changes in existing genes? So what?It is those changes that provide the "improvements" that creationists say can't happen, and that the theory of evolution says do happen.The very fact that those changes or improvements occur falsifies the creationist tenet of degeneration.By the way, I too am going to stop debating you. You have shown that you simply have nothing to offer. About the only thing you have provided us with is another example of what creation "science" really is -- religious apologetics, and the exact opposite of real science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Responding to the topic of the thread: we do know what creation "science" is.As described above, it is: no theory, no evidence, and no predictions (and no scientific methodology either).Creation "science" is just a lot of claims that stem from a literal reading of the bible and that can't be disproved by scientific evidence--because religious belief trumps any evidence.Its the exact opposite of science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

So far you have produced unsupported claims that match exactly with what biblical literalists claim. And you call it science! (Its not.)All you have to do is produce scientific evidence and your view will carry the day. Scientists are open to evidence, its what we seek and what we deal with all the time, but what you bring us is religious apologetics wrapped in unsupported claims. And you expect us to fall all over ourselves agreeing with those unsupported claims? What a joke!Now, who is it really who is "totally indoctrinated deep down to the core of their very being?"

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Newton is known and respected for his contributions to science made through the scientific method.He is not respected for his various anti-science superstitions.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.