People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

I've given you the opportunity to tell me otherwise. You seem to have two positions:1) Creation Science. There is a documented strong correlation between Creation Science and religion. That's just a fact. It doesn't have to be the case, I'm not suggesting it is, but you've not convinced me that whatever you are trying to describe is both science AND divorced from religion. Tell me about how this 'principle of disintegration' can be derived from the Creation Model or why it is built into the model in the first place depending on whatever position you want to take on it is. I might learn something new, and that excites me.2) Teleology. This is literally 'the argument from design'. This isn't a science, it is a philosophical argument, often used to argue for the existence of God, though not necessarily. I don't consider this to be Creation Science. I have attacked your position but when have Ia) attacked you personally
b) said that your personal flaws are evidence that your position is wrong?I'm really really keen to discuss just the science part. Forget personalities, forget religion, just the science. I have a few outstanding questions about the science. If those questions aren't answered I can only conclude that we are talking about science here at all but pseudoscience. I'm sorry if you happen to take that personally but I tried to stress that it wasn't your fault.Do you have anything else, or have you presented the best case for Creation Science?Would you like to see what my best case for Evolution might look like? You can compare and contrast how much detail there is and see why I might be of the opinion that you haven't really established much of a position at all.

Great. So do I. Allow me to correct your misapprehension - I am not totally disregarding your position. I am asking you questions about it, and telling you facts about mine. I won't be convinced that Creation Science is science unless certain criteria can be met.I can appreciate that if Creation Science isn't science but pseudoscience, my high standards would present a problem. However, evolution manages to pass exceed my standards as does a whole lot of other things.When you have the time, I'd really appreciate you telling me all these things, enlightening me and so on. Until then I'll remain in the position I was in before you arrived I'm afraid to say: Creation Science is pseudoscience. It looks scientific at first blush. I have considered it, but there are lots of Creation related books that I have been lead to believe are much higher quality than the one you recommended and my reading list is already full. It'll take something pretty amazing to squeeze onto it, but if you convince me there are some quality ideas that I haven't already been exposed to in it, I may well take a look. I'm sure it would become clear, but I doubt it would change my view that Creation Science skips out the science part. I'm happy to be wrong and await a Creationist who is willing and has the time to explain how.No need to apologize. You're not the first Creationist who has not had the time or the ability (or both) to elucidate their position beyond what you have already done. I understand. Enjoy spending time with the family and if you feel like shedding more light for me, then I'm all ears.

---

Does your edition of What is Creation Science contain this quote?

quote:

---

By comparing lysozyme and lactalbumin, Dickerson was hoping to 'pin down with great precision' where human beings branched off the mammal line. The results are surprising. In this test, it turned out that humans are more closely related to the CHICKEN than to any living mammal tested!

---

on or around approximately page 58?

Well it's been fun. The thread is pretty much at a conclusion now and you seem to have given up (as you say, too many replies, not enough time, I sympathize). If you don't like it here, perhaps you would feel more comfortable at Evolution fairytale - a site run by Creationists and is heavily moderated. Unfortunately I'm banned from there (perhaps you think that is something in its favour ). There are less members and a much higher percentage are Creationists, so discussion is more favourable for you there, and it as at a much more leisurely pace.It's a shame you had to step down off the science podium and simply dismiss everybody here as being indoctrinated. It's not the most classy way to go.On the other hand, if you ever change your mind about whether it is futile come back, I for one will welcome it. I don't come here to prove Creationists wrong, I come here to learn what my own position is by being asked to present it, and in the process I learn a lot about my own justifications, the strengths and weaknesses of my position and I learn a lot of cool stuff about science and philosophy too. What's more, I get to hear people explain their contrary views to me in the most persuasive way they can so that maybe I'll change my own opinions. Because of this, and despite the futility of 'converting creationists', I still enjoy my time here.Maybe you can get the same kind of enjoyment at Fred's forum I mentioned above. Take Care,
ModEdited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Creation Science is cheap Christian apologetics for the 20th Century. Oh wait, Creation Science talks about fossils and fossils aren't mentioned in the Bible, so that can't be right ("Scientific creationism deals with such physical entities as fossils, whereas the Bible never refers to fossils at all", 'What is Creation Science?")Creation Science is the attempt to demonstrate that all life was created by a non natural process by starting from the premise that all life was created by a non natural process. Wait, that's not right.Creation Science is trying to show one thing is right by trying to show that another thing is wrong. Wait, that's not it.Creation Science starts with the premise that all things were created, that the laws of thermodynamics exist, that the fossil record isn't perfect and from this it predicts the laws of thermodynamics and the imperfect fossil record which therefore supports the notion that all things were created. Hang on, I'm getting there, but that can't be right.Creation Science is about seeking out confirmatory pieces of evidence saying that Creationists predicted that all along, and then whenever contradictory evidence is presented it is saying 'we use the same evidence, we just interpret it differently'. Hmm, that's no good.Creation Science is a rigorous scientific practice that starts from a different perspective than erm, non creation science, and erm, doesn't really offer anything non creation science doesn't offer. Only it assumes everything was created, though it can't really support that, erm or something. I'll nail it sooner or later.Creation Science is pseudoscientific nonsense that lends comfort and support to those religious types who see evolution as a threat to their faith and need a way to consolidate the unassailable truth that Science Works, Bitches! with God Created Us and we ain't no stinking monkeys!Creation Science is like Biblical Creationism, but with all the specific religious stuff stripped out of it so that schools can claim it isn't endorsing a religious view since it is Science!Creation Science takes the Paley's brave position and marches courageously on against the closed minded brainwashed masses because Creation Scientists and their followers are no fools!Creation Science is science except with no common ancestry of all life. All evidence for common ancestry is evidence for Creation. Somebody somewhere has done all of the Hard Work in making sure this is true. I absolutely Trust them, they wouldn't Lie to me, would they?Take your pick.