Creationism and creation science - do they differ?

This thread is an off-shoot of a discussion currently being held about Noah's Ark. I repeat the relevent material here (me unless otherwise cited): I know we use the terms in an interchangeable sense here because a)creationists using the terms in a interchangeable fashion and b) because generally at some stage most creationist scientists rely on "goddunit" as part of their answer, but I always think of Creationism and Creation science as two different and distinct things*.Let's use Noah's ark to explore where I see the difference and we can see where the differences are and if you agree or disagree?

quote:

---

:God flooded the earth and with a boat, Noah and his family and the animals were saved

---

Now to this - a skeptic might ask: and a creationist might reply: To what I consider a "proper" creationist - the fine details are irrelevant, God wanted something to happen - it happened, what more needs to be discussed?I actually have no problem at all with this and in many respects is by far the most sensible scenario.however a creation Scientist is likely to say: The Creation Scientist seems to say that, yes god created everything and the physical laws, but that the physical laws we currently have means that the ark story makes perfect sense without any special intervention on the part of the Almighty.In short, the difference is that, in the creationist scenario, God is active in all stages of the process. In the creation science, God creates the conditions and physical laws that enabled the ark scenario to work but his hand is not needed during the process.So I would submit that:Creationism = God the DoerCreation Science = God the enabler* (Let me put a little qualification to this statement - there is of course a fuzzy overlap, which I suggests represents a continuum from Hard science God representing Creation science and "I can do anything how I please" soft science god representing the extremes of Creationism)To this: Questions:

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I consider myself a Creationist. I believe that there is a GOD who created the universe and that in fact it is the particular Christian GOD I worship.Where would that place me in your two questions?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Creationism by itself is not necessarily even very well defined within itself. I contend that one can be both an evolutionist and a creationist. It is my understanding that Jar and I fall into that category among others.Creationism has simply "stolen" the term to mean Biblical Literalist Creationist sort of like how the word gay now means homosexual most of the time.Then again, I guess you can't even say that because I don't think that most "creationists" are literalists. If they were then they would have to take the position that the sky is solid and has water above it, etc.What we REALLY MEAN when we say creationist is probably better described as a Biblical Actualist Creationist. Someone who believes that the events of the Bible actually happened and the explanation for those events are malleable according to what the current picture of reality might dictate. They will interpret the text rather than take it literally in order to ad-hoc fit the stories into reality. This is where you get things like vapor canopies, fountains of the deep = mid ocean ridges, immortality before the fall, no meat eating before the fall, THE FALL itself, etc.Creation Science I think created the latter of the three definition of creationist I gave. Before there was the percieved need to challange evolution in the classroom there was no need to turn the miracles of the creation story and the flood myth into plausable natural phenomenon. While the original goal of countering evolution in schools has failed, it has created the BA Creationist that somehow still feel the need to validate their doctrine against the sharp edge of reality. It is almost like they take the position that a prerequisite to having faith is that God must make natural sense.So the intent has changed. It is no longer a matter of how the creation myths can be scientific but rather how to make God palpable within naturalism or our current understanding of reality. IMO this is blasphemy.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

That would place you as3) someone who asks difficult questions. To be honest - I know that the op is full of holes, it has to be due to the rather vague nature of the terms and how they are deployed by various people.On the question of where you go - well that's a difficult one - maybe we need a different term for your sort of outlook?"Scientifically-bounded creation"? Something like that? God creates everything and because of the nature of God - everything within his creation is bounded by scientific laws (expect for him who is outside the system) and he expects us to get on and operate within those boundaries?

Okay, let's pass on that one and see if I can ask a different stupid question.Is a basic tenet of any definition of science that the conclusion must be subject to falsification, and if falsified, it must be abandoned?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I would say yes to that. However I'm sure I know some people who think differently....(and I'll say straight out that I don't consider Creation "science" anything of the sort. Creation whitecoat handwaving is a better term).

jar asked: and CK replied: So I guess what is needed is some definition of Creationism and we can just hold on the question of whether Creation Science is just and oxymoron until someone can show a valid explanation of why Creation Science can be a science when it does not adhere to one of the basic tenets of any definition of Science.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi CK,I think you are pretty familiar with what I think, but since this is another place to discuss it, I'll summarize my views briefly: "Creation science" is an oxymoron. To use the scientific method is to follow the scientifically collected evidence and to create theories in accordance with the principle of parsimony. To be a creationist is to have beliefs which exist regardless of scientific evidence, and which lead you to consider explanations which incorporate those beliefs, and thus do not follow the principle of parisimony of with regards to scientific evidence.It's an oxymoron. It's impossible.What IS possible is to attempt to explain creationism through scientific evidence in purely naturalistic terms. I see this as using scientific evidence and logic, but not following the scientific method. Call it something else--you've called it "pseudoscience", but that's too generic a name for my taste, and incorporates methods which do not use valid logic. In the forum we have here, we call it what, Theological Creationism or something? Having a good name is helpful. Because sticking with "creation science" is misleading... and wrong. I think it's misleading to keep saying that science requires evidence. Sure, science requires evidence--but it requires a whole lot more than that. The methodology in theory-testing, theory-modification, and using parsimony are all aspects of science that are just as important as evidence.To discuss the evidence for a 5000-year-old boat is not scientific. Discussing evidence logically is not science.Maybe the science forums need to be renamed. Or maybe we need a set of forums that are less restrictive than science. But it seems to me that some people use very loose definitions of science sometimes, others use very strict definitions sometimes, not because people are malicious but because that's language--we loosen definitions to allow us to not create a billion different words, and allow us to sludge similar concepts in different scenarios. Many times we don't care to talk about theory-modification and parsimony, we just want to discuss the evidence--so we use "science."Now to get to the point. By doing this, by using "science" in these multiple ways, it is easy for those who are not scientists to feel that the "goalposts are being moved" constantly--that to be considered "science", which seems to be the only criterion that is accepted here--sometimes there just needs to be evidence, and sometimes there needs to be a whole lot more.I think people here should be satisfied with people providing evidence and logical thinking to support their beliefs. I think this is the position JAR takes--in my eyes, he uses all the evidence he can, and reads it in a way that fits with what's in his heart. I have a lot of respect for that, but I would never ever call it "scientific creationism".I wish we'd get away from harping on the "need" for science. Those who harp usually harp on evidence + logic (a la Percy), and I think that's fine. Stop calling it science, stop unwittingly confusing people by (as a group) moving around goalposts, and I think we'll all have a happier time here.Not sure if this winds up belonging here. But here's where it's said (again ).Ben

Creationism is the heading for a group of doctrines. Creation Science is the art of lying for Jesus.

I totally agree . in my opinion it’s not a matter of, is creation science different than creationism, there one and the same.I wonder if it is just a coincidence that the science education in America has declined as the creation movement continues to infiltrate our classrooms. Anyway, I found an interesting site on the history of the Creation Movement. It was written in 1993 before the new incarnation as intelligent design theory. Then there is this one written in 2004 Creation "Science": A Legal History

---

You wanna be, uhh, blunt about what has taken place, sometimes when you don't measure, you just shuffle kids through. Then you wake up at the high school level and find out that the illiter -- literacy level of our children are appalling.
-- It sure are, Dubya, it sure are... not to mention adults, Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004