People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

Created by what?If the foundation of this hypothesis is not religious then may I ask from what basis this hypothesis was borne?

Unless you are going to address the how/who or what of the origins behind evolutionary theory. Of course, you can't do that without admitting that evolution is about origins--which evolutionists completely deny.

After everyone can get on the same page with that much, then I am perfectly willing to dig deeper. Can't we get past this first? Otherwise, the only thing you will ever understand about Creation Science is the slogans.

quote:

---

No need to address that...Unless you are going to address the how/who or what of the origins behind evolutionary theory.

---

Not at all a valid comparison.The sine qua non behind the theory of creationism is an active creator. Cdesign proponentists like to pretend that they aren't talking about the judeo christian deity, but whatever intelligent creator you are talking about will, of necessity, raise questions about who or what the creator is, as well as about motive and method. These would be necessary questions for any scientific investigation involving creationism. However, with the ToE, there is no intelligent actor, deity or otherwise, necessary to the explanation. Without an intelligent actor, questions of identity and motive are nonsensical.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

The origin of species, you mean? Of course biological evolution is about that. And chemical evolution is about the origin of all life. Who's denying what?What I was asking for on the other thread are the mechanisms of creation science theory in relation to the origin of species. For it to be a scientific theory, it requires these. So, what are they? And how do they operate to form species? And from what do the species come, if not other species? Give us some creation science!

Actually evolution is not about origins.Evolution is about evolution. You can come up with various sources for the first form of life, theistic or otherwise, and still remain firmly within the boundaries of evolutionary theory.However evolution is not the subject at hand. Creation "science" is the subject at hand.Are you actually able to explain your position regarding creation "science" in it's own terms or do all your arguments rely on comparison to evolution?So I ask again - If not a religious foundation then on what basis is the "hypothesis" that things were created derived?Why is this a valid hypothesis? What leads to the tentative untested conclusion (i.e. hypothesis) that creation is necessary or even viable?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

We don't have a definitive explanation for the origin of life. That's just the state of knowledge at the present. The truth or otherwise of evolution doesn't depend on knowing the answer to that question. It would work whatever the origin of life.

There are actually numerous different, and sometimes mutually exclusive, schools of thought that come under the rubric of "creation science." It seems to me that it makes sense for you to tell us what you mean by it so that we know what your position is. Citing to a book that most of us don't own seems unproductive. In any event, let me try to put together a small list of elements common to most "creation science" positions and you tell me where you differ.1. Existence of a creator
2. Existence of biological features that cannot have arisen through natural evolutionary processes.You apparently also include the following in your brand of "creation science."3. Observations of the natural world correspond better with the "predictions" of "creation science" than with the ToE.
4. A collection of various ad hoc perceived problems with the ToE that science cannot answer.Do you agree with all of these? What else would you add?At this point, I'm not trying to get very far into the specifics of any of this, nor am I trying to argue for the validity vel non of any of it, just put together a list of elements.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

We can see design in every aspect of life. Creation Science seeks to show this design. Obviously if there is design, there must be a designer. But that is something that every individual can address on their own in their lives whether they would choose to believe that this creator is a God or an alien. This is not the issue at hand for Creation Science. Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

The truth or otherwise of creation doesn't depend on knowing the answer to that question either. It would work whatever the origin of life.

Ahhh. So in fact you are an intelligent design advocate rather than a strict creationist.Is everything designed?
If not how can we differentiate those things which are desgined from those things which are not designed?What specifically is it that indicates design over non-design? How can we objectively tell them apart?

How did life just pop-up out of nothing? What was the starting cause? Where did all the elements needed come from? Who pulled the trigger, so-to-speak?

This doesn't make sense.If every evolutionary biologist denies that evolution is about "origin", then where are you getting your assumtion that it IS about origin?Is evolutionary biology studied somewhere outside of the field of evolutionary biology?Wouldn't the people - (scientist) - working directly in the field of evolutionary biology be the best at explaining what evolutionary biology is about? The origin of the theory? That's simple.It's a collection of observed phenomena categorized and studied by biologist, derived from nature and assembled into a working scientific theory. - Just like every other theory.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

With respect Kelly, all you have provided us with is slogans. Until you actually bite that bullet and show us some creation science, we're going to be left in the dark, or more likely, left with our previous low opinions of creationism.I'll ask you again;

• Who might be a good example of a creation scientist?
• Can you show us a high quality scientific paper by a creation scientist?
• What have creation scientists discovered?
• Which predictions of creation science have been borne out by observation?
• What practical benefits has creation science provided?

Without some kind of answers to at least some of the above, I hope you can appreciate why some folks still need convincing.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Evolution makes no claim to explain the origins of life. The scientific investigation of that question would be abiogenesis.Again none of this addresses the question of creation science which is what you have claimed to be able to present evidence for.If "creation" science does not include creation then I am at a loss as to what it is supposed to explain? But that is why I am hoping to hear from you exactly what creation science is. I continue to wait.I have yet to hear anything other than flawed comparisons to aspects of non-creation science.Do you think scientific papers on evolutionary biology continually refer to creation science in order to make their conclusions?Are you able to explain creation science in it's own terms without comparison to other theories or not?If not why on Earth do you think it has any validity in it's own right whatsoever?