People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

Hmm, that does put a bit of a dampener on testing this hypothesis. Are there at least any actual hypotheses for what the processes are? Rabbits in the Cambrian. No chronological pattern of emergence. We shouldn't be able to line up DNA divergence with position in the fossil record. We should find a core group of proto animals/plants/fungi all at once in the earliest fossil records and then variants thereon.Even the creation scientists of the past (18th and 19th Century) had to throw this idea away, since the evidence contradicted it. Various ideas such as multiple creation events and multiple catastrophes were proposed to deal with the evidence of the fossil record.From wiki's article on Georges Cuvier: This line of reasoning was begun before Darwin was even born! Two hundred years later, has all of this been forgotten? I think we're all aware of that. It would be foolish to ignore the religious influence behind 'special creation', though. It all usually falls over at the establishment of the exact 'processes that are no longer continuing today'. Do you have a non theistic hypothesis for what these processes are? After all, if we're going to see if the evidence supports that these processes can and did lead to the results we see today (aka science), we need to specify them, right?If evolution was 'by some unspecificed process that is still happening today...' we wouldn't call it scientific until it could actually tell us what that process was.One could study Creation in a secular fashion, but when we do, we find very large problems like the fact that there are no human fossils in any early layers...even if we only use relative dating methods.

Hello again Kelly,
I hope you are beginning to enjoy it here - you are certainly entering into the spirit of it all A better explanation. One that parsimoniously explained a great deal of the evidence that had been accrued up until that point, the same kind of evidence that was causing the creation scientists of the time to begin to scratch their heads and wonder about. Unfortunately, I agree that much of teaching is dogmatic. Some teachers manage to get away from this, but constraints of time and budget often mean they cannot. This isn't just biology, but history, languages, geography, maths, religious studies, physics etc etc. That's a whole topic in its own right. We have a thread tackling this issue that you might want to participate in: Indoctrination. Well it was multiple observations from disparate disciplines that all seem to be coherent with the conclusion that all life was related in some fashion. Darwin didn't invent that idea, but he gave an excellent starting description as to how that might in fact be the case. That starting description implied certain other things about the world that must be true if the description was true...they are called predictions. And they don't contradict evolution. In fact - irreducibly complex molecular biology was a prediction made using evolutionary reasoning way back at the beginning of the 20th Century. And evolution doesn't explain why there there are gaps between diverse lifeforms but it also explains why some gaps aren't all that big at all (lions and tigers can have children together, ring species etc). It not only can explain the gaps, but the patterns of those gaps. All in all, evolution is just a better, more complete explanation.Unless we know something about how the 'creation event' took place, we cannot know if it is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. Was the work that went into it 100% or more efficient? By being vague, creation can be consistent with anything and thus it predicts nothing. We cannot know if we should expect to see complex or simple life forms (from what we know of creation, everything that is created is more simple than its creator) and we won't know what to expect to find in the fossil record until we know exactly what was created and when...was it all at the same time or over a period of 3 billion years?It is these basic things that creation science has had difficulty with that evolution doesn't have difficulty with at all. May I invite you to Confidence in evolutionary science? The person I started it for decided that they didn't want to debate there for some reason. The punchline is that it isn't just a case of extrapolation, but of converging lines of evidence.

You mean someone observed that life was created? Onifre asked you "My question is, what lead you, or "creation" scientist, to conclude this premise {that things were created} is valid?"I don't think you think that the creation of life was observed, do you? Right - nor can we observe murders or any other historical event. We can look at the evidence and use it to draw conclusions. Nope. The reason is that we go looking for it because if it were true it would explain a whole crap load of the things we have observed...the evidence. Darwin realized that not only were 'breeds' of domestic animals related to one another, but entirely different species were. He did a little extrapolation to conclude that this line of reasoning might explain where those common ancestors came from and so on and so forth. He realized that this would explain the patterns we have observed in nature, and he gave an explanation for how it might have happened.An explanation that would have certain consequences were it true.Consequences that over the next 150 years have broadly panned out. And yet Darwin went a step further, that no creation model predicted: selection can occur by the constraints of the natural world. So called natural selection, without conscious thought or preplanning this can lead to biological change in populations over time. I think we all agree we do not have a shared understanding of what creation science really is. I base my understanding of creation science on the historical evidence of what creation scientists have said and done over the past several decades. You seem to base your understanding of creation science on what a creation scientist tells you creation science is in a single book and nothing more. I only want you to participate to the extent you are able to and no more. I think we have a better understanding of creation science than you, since as you say, "I really can't put the kind of time into this that you all seem to be able to do.". We've put more time into it than you, so it might be the case that we know a little more about it Incidentally, I'm willing to be shown to be wrong, so whenever you have the time I'd appreciate being surprised. I don't, however, consider 'Teleology' to be synonymous with 'creation science'.Edited by Modulous, : 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.

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.

I addressed the creation science makes predictions element at the end of my Message 93:

quote:

---

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.

---

I was rather hoping to learn how this 'law of decay' is a prediction of the secular Creation Science, and not for instance, a piece of Christian apologetics about thermodynamics and The Fall.

Hi again,
So let's get to grips with this creation thingy, since I think we're all none the wiser about what Creation Science according to Kelly actually is - or rather how it might differ from the Creation Science we're all familiar with.I'd like to start with this claim: Can you explain exactly how?

So the creation model is capable of telling us what a 'type' is, how we can know one type from another? After all, how would you know if the prediction has borne out unless you could show us some method of determining a type, right?You of course understand that you cannot use the fossil record to make determinations about what a type is since that is the evidence of the successful prediction so you'd be caught in a circular argument.If you don't want to get into that level of detail, if you let us in on this secret model we can derive the predictions for ourselves. You aren't using your imagination hard enough. If the variants were connected by an unbroken sequence in the fossil record then that is proof of the creator's perfection that it was able to preserve the record against the natural process of decay and destruction you were keen to tell us about earlier.

I have asked myself that. I've also asked evolutionary biologists. And received an answer. Here is the wonderful thing: it isn't clear cut. There are many cases when it is difficult to say 'this is a different species', for instance in cases like ring species.I'm perfectly happy to explain it all to you in a thread that concentrates on evolution, but this isn't that thread. For an intro into the subject I refer you to this post - or, if you'd prefer it in video format you can view Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. It's a little more than twenty minutes of time and you should have a good start to an answer.I provide this so that you cannot accuse me of avoiding even trying to answer your question. Note to moderators: The referenced videos even includes reference to "Typology", the method for determining 'types' that Kelly is probably trying to get across here. You said that the Creation Model makes a prediction that has come true. I asked you to back that up, not repeat the claim. So, since you managed to evade my questions I'll simply repeat them and you can decide if you want to actually answer them. This is a topic all about creation science:

I have explained that evolutionary science isn't just based on this simple extrapolation. I don't feel like doing it again. Please visit the thread I referred you to if you actually want to debate me on this subject. I am assuming that this attempt to change the subject is a result of your conceding that evolution can provide an answer to the species issue that is consistent with itself, that uses evidence and reasoning and so on.I await the corresponding Creation Science version. You can use the fossil record to confirm your prediction. That's fine. You cannot however also use the fossil record to formulate your prediction: that would be circular.Here is your prediction:

quote:

---

Consequently the creationist predicts that no transitional sequences (except within each created type) will ever be found, either in the present array of organisms or in the fossil record.

---

So we find a transitional sequence in the fossil record. How are we to know if it is within a created type or not? Can you tell us how the creation model makes this discrimination so that we can tell if the prediction has in fact borne out?

Once again, since you are avoiding answering my question^* I can only take this as a concession: Creation Science cannot objectively discriminate between types and cannot thus make any actual predictions about what we should see with regards to 'types'.Now we have established that Creation Science cannot make this prediction as you claimed it could, shall we move on to another prediction?Great.Let's move on to Can you tell me how the creation model predicted that there should be both a conservational and disintegrative principle operating in nature? I am assuming that you also agree that the creation model agrees things can get better? The Creator, and since you've been sketchy its difficult to know, could surely take something and fix it, or could create something fantastic where there was something not fantastic before? That's kind of the whole premise isn't it?So, creation science predicts that things can get better, stay the same, or get worse. Not the most fantastic of predictions I've ever heard - but let's run with it. What is it about the creation model that specifically predicts there should be a 'disintegrative principle' operating in the world?^†

---

^* If you want to come back to it the question is: So we find a transitional sequence in the fossil record. How are we to know if it is within a created type or not? Can you tell us how the creation model makes this discrimination so that we can tell if the prediction has in fact borne out?^† This bolded section is the bit you have to answer in your reply, if you don't, I can only assume you are conceding that there is no answer and that this is once again not a valid prediction of the creation model.

OK so life was created initially not by a naturalistic process. But why is it inherent in the model? I don't understand. I see no reason that it has to be the case at all. Just because life was created why should it follow that there is a disintegrative principle?

Odd - your list seems to get a little thin after evolution was proposed, why is that?By the way, did you know that Newton didn't accept the Einsteinian ideas about physics as well? I guess we should chuck Einstein out.Anyway.Evolution predicts:1. That some people will have hair.
2. That somebody will discover evolution
3. That planet earth will exist.
4. That cats meow.
5. That Australia will be discovered, and that one of its cities will be named after a British Monarch and another after a British Prime Minister.
6. That in March 2009CE, Kelly will participate at the EvCForum.All of these predictions have come true.Now - so far we have the following predictions made by Creation Science that are 'failed':Failed predictions1. no transitional sequences (except within each created type) will ever be found {by virtue of there being no way to validate this prediction is true since we don't know how to tell what a 'type' is}.2. there should be a conservational and disintegrative principle operating in nature {by virtue of there being no logical pathway from "Life was Created" to "Therefore there is a conservational and disintegrative principle operating in nature."}3. The fossil record does not show a total record of all life forever.
{If there is a 'disintegrative principle' in operation, we wouldn't expect there to be.}Any other ideas Kelly?

---

PS: AiG are a religiously orientated group. The clue is in the title. See their statement of faith for further details of their 'scientific and not religious' position. Ahem.Oh and AiG also says that "No new species have been produced." is an argument that Creationists should NOT use.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

That's still a very short list - I can give you over a thousand modern scientists all named Steve or derivatives thereof that accept evolution. What does this demonstrate exactly? Feel free to defend them rather than just gainsaying me - I've even given you hints and tips on how to do it.

You certainly stated them. I provided you with several problems with your position. You have not overcome those problems, indeed you often haven't even established that the Creation Model's predictions logically follow from "All life was Created...". Until such time as you decide to continue arguing about them, you are just gainsaying me rather than defending your position. Seriously: don't. You are under no obligation. If you want to debate, then you're in the right place, if you don't have time then don't mess around here. There are more important things. Yes, it looks like you've given it your best shot and you failed to tell us anything we didn't already know, and you haven't changed anybody's minds on the scientific credentials of Creation Science. When you can derive the 'principle of disintegration' from "All life was created in a non-naturalistic process', then I will be more impressed with the possibility that Creation Science has something to it.Otherwise it is like the Moon Landing hoax, holocaust denial, homeopathy and anti-vaccination stuff. It kind of looks like science, until you ask questions about it, then the sham is revealed and it is revealed as poor science look-a-like: pseudoscience. Not your fault of course, you didn't create it. It's a shame you fell for it, and we tried to show you the smoke and the mirrors.By all means stick around and maybe you'll see how the trick is performed in more detail. If you can convince me there is any quality in the book I will, but right now I have a library of books waiting to be read including An Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins, The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (holy crap its a big book!) by S Gould, Warped Passages by Lisa Randall, The Mid-Victorian Generation 1846-1886 by K. Theodore Hoppen, SQL Server Administration (Microsoft), SQL Server Database Design (Microsoft), The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindel, everything from the book of Numbers through to the book of Revelation, the Gospel of Thomas, The book of Enoch, The Book of Mormon, The Qur'an and so on and so forth (that's just a random selection from looking over at one of my bookshelves (Admittedly I don't have the Apocrypha or Book of Mormon in book form, yet), and I didn't bother listing all the novels...)As you can see, adding books to my pile isn't high on my priority list.Still, I've been in on this debate for four years now, I'm sure I can wait around for at least another four years for just one Creationist to convince me there is something worth investing time and money on in any of those books.