People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

I think it's time I say something here too. Oh? So all the instances of observed speciation in nature and in the lab never happened? Archaeopterix ring a bell?Anyway, don't you think it is time to tell us all what creation science IS?I'll give you a hand with the post format. (oh, and by the way, I am truly interested in your explanation, from now on, I'll pretend I know absolutely nothing, and will go with whatever you explain to me, ok?)Creation science is {description of creation science}. The methods used by creation science are {the methods used by creation science}. The observations creation science made are {the observations made by creation science}. Creation science proposes this model to explain these observations {the creation science model}. And with this model creation science makes these predictions {the predictions of creation science}.Now, if you could just fill in the blanks there, I'm sure you'll make a lot of people happy, me included.And remember, for the duration of this post, I'll go with what you'll tell me, I might ask additional questions if something is not clear, but on the whole I'll follow your argument. Now, go convince me creation science has got it right!

---

I hunt for the truth

An important and obvious test of these two models--evolution and creation, is to compare them in terms of the types of changes that they would predict for the various systems and processes of the universe. What should we see if everything is evolving in an upward and improving fashion and what should we see if everything was initially created and is no longer being supported by a continuing natural and upward development? This is the essence of conflict between evolution and creation.Creationists are convinced that there is a universal law of degeneration that defies the very notion of evolution in the vertical sense.If evolution were true in this sense, then there must be some innovational and integrative principle operating in the natural world which develops structure out of randomness and higher organization from lower. Since, by uniformitarianism, this principle is still in effect, scientists should be able to observe and measure it.The creation model, on-the-other-hand, predicts that there should be a conservational and disintegrative principle operating in nature. Since the total quantity of matter and energy, as well as the highest degree of organization were created preternally in the begining, we could not expect to see naturalistic processes of innovation and integration, as required by evolution, operating today.From the creation model, in fact, one quickly predicts two universal natural laws: (1) the law of conservation, tending to preserve the basic categories created in the begining (laws of nature, matter, energy, basic types of organisms,etc..) in order to enable them to accomplish that function for which they were created: (2) a law of decay, tending to reduce the useful matter, energy, types, etc., as the original organization of the created cosmos runs down to chaos. As far as changes are concerned, one would expect from the creation model that there would be "horizontal" changes within limits (that is, energy conservation, variation within biological types, etc), and even "vertically-downward" changes in accordance with the law of decay (for example, mutations, wear, extinction, etc.), but never any net "vertically-upward" changes, as required by evolution.See "What is Creation Science" Morris/ParkerEdited by Kelly, : No reason given.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

That's fine. We just need some definition of 'design'. Evolutionists might agree that such a thing is indeed a property of life. The question would then be: how did it get there? Evolution provides a very specific answer that goes into a lot of detail.So far creation science has sort of...well...waved its hands about and not really got much further than...they were created! Yes, this is true. Unfortunately, creation proponents are a little sketchy about how they interpret the evidence and justifying that that method of interpretation is any good. Flat earthers, holocaust deniers, racists, Moon landing hoaxists, Mayan calender apocylpticists and so on are all looking at the same evidence, so they claim.Only they aren't. When you really find out about their position you discover they are ignoring huge swathes of evidence that makes their position untenable. For instance, creation scientists really have difficulty with the genetic patterns problem. Very often they like to focus on only two species and say 'they were designed to look similar' and they ignore so much more like ERVs, chromosomal fusions, the genetic patterns found in all life as a whole etc etc.When they tackle them, it is usually clumsily, so the overall picture just looks pretty bad. Evolution explains them without any problem at all, it even predicts these kinds of things must have occurred! Creation science is a bit thin on the old 'this must be true if creation is true' except in cases where we already knew the answers before they formulated their 'this must be true' predictions. And even then, it doesn't follow that it must be true at all! With creation, anything could be true so that all possibly evidence, no matter what it is, is evidence for creation which is a sign of a poor idea.No fossils? Evidence of creation!
5 fossils? Evidence of creation!
500 fossils? Evidence of creation!
5,000,000,000 fossils? Evidence of creation!
All life forms for all of time perfectly preserved in the fossil record? Evidence of creation (that couldn't have happened by chance alone, after all!) Yes, no doubt you do. I'm waiting to hear the explanation above and beyond 'in my opinion it does'. I've not seen any creation scientist, any design proponent or whatever other evolution denier label, actually explain it beyond 'it was designed/created that way'.Perhaps I'm wrong, but maybe one day someone will explain the specific patterns we see in the fossil record and the nested hierarchy of life, the patterns we find in genetics etc in terms of a creator/designer. Whenever I've brought it up, I just get: It could have been designed that way. Of course it could, but it could have been designed in the opposite way too! An explanation that can account for anything that we see, and its exact opposite, is not much of an explanation, don't you think? See? But it isn't just the similar design I'm talking about. I'm talking about a lot more than that, specific patterns when we take into account all of life. Sure - a designer could explain it 'easily' but a designer could be used to explain snowflakes and thunderbolts, and steaming piles of poo found in a pathway.If I have an electrical fault at home, what good is 'it might have been designed to do that' as an explanation? It might have been, but was it? Certainly, it failing is consistent with that hypothesis, but might it have been the mouse that chewed that wire? Well, yes, but it was designed to be chewed by that mouse. Wait, what?See the problem?If you don't, then could you at least tell me how creation science can explain/interpret the evidence I presented in Message 17? Well...almost. Are you referring to "An Attempt to Classify the "Varieties" of Animals, with Observations on the Marked Seasonal and Other Changes Which Naturally Take Place in Various British Species, and Which Do Not Constitute Varieties"? From what I remember of that work his view was that animals that had been artificially selected would revert to their ancestral forms when humans stopped interfering. Which is almost kind of right. He certainly didn't conclude that two rather different species (such as finches) formed from an ancestral finch population that had two different environment selecting on it...or maybe he did? I'm assuming you've read that work more recently than I, perhaps you could refer me to it? psst keep this secret: That's all natural selection is, and its all that evolutionary biologists say it is. No, it doesn't. Evolution requires a nested hierarchy.This means that all animals will propagate more animals.
It means all arthropods will propagate more arthropods.
It means that all insects will propagate more insects.
It means that all pterygots will propagate more pterygots.
It means that all neoptera will propagate more neoptera
And it means that all lepidoptera will propagate more lepidoptera.Evolution can, however, explain how these classifications can increase in their diversity over time. So it might explain how the populations of early winged insects may have diversified to such an extent that we might need to distinguish between them by creating new categories such as 'Diptera' and 'Lepidoptera'. Can you explain how you go from 'all living things were created by an entity that isn't necessarily Yahweh' to derive these predictions? Thanks.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

What it means to you is irrelevant.Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.We have directly observed new species emerging from pre-existing species, as the term "species" is defined and used by scientists. This is not up for debate - it's fact. You can fel free to dispute the definition of teh word "species" if you like, but I find teh definition that scientists actually use to be most relevant to these sorts of debates, and I would categorize attempting to re-define "species" so that your claim remains true as shifting the goalposts. Further, you'd have to re-categorize all of biology to match your new Kelly-categorization system, since apparently the categories of species, family, genus, etc as used by scientists are not good enough for you.How arrogant of you.Species are typically defined in biology as distinct populations that are capable of producing viable offspring. All cows, for example, can interbreed and produce offspring that can also reproduce - they are the same species. Cats and dogs cannot produce viable offspring, and so a different species.In the examples I gave with my link, we have observed several populations that are no longer able to produce viable offspring with their ancestor populations. By the definition of "species," a new species formed as a direct descendant of an ancestor species. This refutes by direct observation your claim that we have never observed new species forming.

I don't know for sure what lead them to change their minds but, maybe, the fossil records, environmental adaptation, common ancestry, age of the Earth, etc.Also, you don't have to load your statements with words like "obvious" signs of creation. Better yet, just tell us what the obvious signs were. The above few things, if I were working directly with the evidence, would lead me to believe, obviously, that there has been some kind of gradual adaptation to the environment by the species living within specific environments and the history of fossil records would show that it has taken place for millions of years. No matter how bad you fight it, you are aware that these facts do lead to the conclusion that things evolve.Why doesn't it convince you?Perhaps because you start with the premise that there is a creator, and therefore nature is designed by such an entity and what we see in nature are just design specifications? The theory is simple. Mutation(obsrevable) - Natural Selection(observable) - Speciation(observable). So yes, I would say that the mechanisms that function to make evolution happen are very much observable, and undeniably so.If you were to be pointed to specific experiments that show each of these mechanisms at work, would you change your mind about evolution not being observable? What do you mean by extrapolate from "mutation" and "natural selection" to 'evolution"...? Mutation and natural selection are evolution.

---

"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

But the original question posed to me was asking "why" a scientist would suddenly start considering creation? I think people like to insinuate that it must be bacause of the Bible. They will argue that that is not scientific and not a good reason to study the evidence for created patterns and order. But obvious design is a good reason and in fact may even be the first cause of religion, and not vice-versa.Neither creationists or evolutionists can repeat the origins moment and are left with the evidence or results of that moment. We can each study and test this evidence according to our "models" or hypothesis to see which model better predicts what we should then find to be true.Either life happened spontaneously and by chance through eons of time--or it was created instantaneously. I don't know of any other possibility.We agree when it comes to microevolution...which can be observed and tested. Mutational changes, natural selection--all within its species are confirmed.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

Kelly, perhaps you can help me with this, I'm having trouble identifying design, could you please help me by telling me a method to look for it? If it really is such a good reason to believe in creation, than I'm very eager to learn. But I don't know what your model is, would you be so kind as to show me what it is, so I can extrapolate the data for myself and see if it turns out to be creation that is most likely? It was created through eons of time, perhaps?

---

I hunt for the truth

Real evolution (macroevolution) requires the expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is suppose to move from simple beginings to ever more varied and complex forms (molecules to man..fish to philosopher)You seem to think that these species inability to breed anylonger is a sign of evolution, but I think the opposite is true. Each variety now has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability. The long term results is likely extinction because these new variations which you call new species are now weaker.

And your response was to wave your hands and say, but look, see! A lot of the time it is, of course. Or some similar religious text such as the Qur'an. After that comes the teleology. Then the apologetics to squeeze them together. It's a fairly common pattern. Well, that argument will remain until some actual science comes out of it, neh? Almost certainly is one of the reasons that stories about our creation started coming up. It really does require an explanation. Nobody is saying that it is entirely unreasonable to think that, but we have a good one that doesn't require vague handwaving about some unknown mysterious process for which there isn't any evidence above and beyond the very thing we're trying to explain. Maybe some kind of gradual, non-chance based 'evolution' of life?The debate can go on, but you'll notice that it is so often the Creationists that retreat like this after making the grandiose claims about predictions they were able to make, but we haven't even seen the Creation Science side of things presented by you. You say it predicts this or that, that it coheres best with this evidence and that, but you aren't willing to get specific. This is not just limited to you, Kelly, but Creation Scientists on the whole tend to be either a bit reticent to get specific, or they make demonstrably false claims.Maybe you might think up some reasons as to why that might be. Meanwhile, in the science journals, evolutionary biologists are hard at work.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

They have evidence to work with.

"micro" and "macro" evolution. The first does not necessarily prove the second.Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science.Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionists observe in science that creationists or Christians disagree with.The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems between the two models that interpret what is being observed.

Kelly put together a pretty good post in Message 92. Things could change, but right now it doesn't look like I'll have time today, so maybe someone else can take a look at it. It hasn't drawn any responses yet.--Ted

Creationists work with the same evidence.

Well that is false, we have seen speciation, and thus your definition of macro-evolution.

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Created over a couple of days 6000 or so years ago is a possibility we see advocated pretty often around here. "Happened spontaneously all at once" is another, though it doesn't get brought up too often. Use your imagination, Kelly - you can come up with a dozen more if you try.The world rarely presents us with pure dichotomies.