Hello Minority report,
To begin I want to respond to your comment that you believe that English is my second language. Not only is English my first language, but I have a degree in Secondary Education with English being my primary subject area. I somehow get the feeling from this comment that you are arrogant.
Your arrogance is supported by your final statement.
"There are many deluded individuals out there who claim all sorts of things. I personally side with Creation Ministries International, and I have never seen them claim to have scientific evidence for God's actual creative acts in creation week, as clearly stated by their information officer. Nor have I ever seen it claimed by any other reputable organisations associated with them."
You have your one source and you believe it to be correct. You believe that any other individuals in the creation science world who do not agree with your point of view are deluded. That is pretty damn arrogant.
To deal with your statements individually...
"What if I were to ask for a testable scientific theory to describe how Jesus ascended into the sky, or how he walked on water, or healed the man born blind so that he could see?"
I would say that no theory exists for any of these events. I would follow up with a reason why. I would say that they are one off historical events that cannot be repeated or tested by any scientific method. I would also add that they were supernatural events, which means that we cannot demonstrate or test them by natural means. I would follow up with advice that the events may be mythical and may have never actually occurred.
You questioned work on the theories of events before the Big Bang. You asked some questions about whether they were testable, repeatable, falsifiable. The you assumed they were not. How about you have a read about the research and see if they are before jumping to conclusions. I am not going to go into it for you as that is not the direction of my post.
"I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what creation scientists are actually claiming."
"You seem to be implying from these and other statements, that creation scientists claim to have scientific support for the actual creative acts of God. This is false. This is not what they mean, or even what they are attempting to do. "
"I am not aware of any creation scientists who make claims such as this. If there are could you please supply a quote with references."
Ok, I will start with you selected source, Creation Ministries International.
In the Creation Ministries Statement of Faith.
" The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe. "
This would lead me to believe that they are doing " for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe ". I would include the Genesis creation week in the "Genesis" they describe?
In the Creation Ministries 'What we are' section.
"Our role is to support the church in proclaiming the truth of the Bible and thus its gospel message. We provide real-world answers to the most-asked questions in the vital area of creation/evolution, where the Bible is most under attack today—Genesis."
This would lead me to believe that Creation Ministries are providing " real-world answers to the most-asked questions in the vital area of creation/evolution, where the Bible is most under attack today—Genesis ". I asked for a real world answer to a question in the vital area of creation - Genesis.
The 'Who We Are' section of the Creation Ministries page lists a large number of scientists including their scientific qualifications.
Another statement on the page states : " Long before this site existed, many millions searched on the word “creation”. When they do that now they will get to know this site exists and read the evidence that God is Creator. "
These things combined would suggest to me that Creation Ministries are doing scientific research to help prove the events in Genesis. I started at the start of Genesis. It would appear that they are not. They are working on some specific parts of Genesis and leaving out some very important sections. Like the Creation bit.
Here are some more references from other Creation Science pages and books that lead me to believe that they were performing scientific study on Genesis.
I will start with many standard definitions of 'creation science'
" The effort to provide scientific evidence supporting the account of the creation of the universe related in the Bible. " Yourdictionary.com
" an effort to give scientific support for the truth of the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis " The freedictionary.com
" An effort to give scientific evidence for the literal truth of the account of Creation in the Bible. " Dictionary.com
" Creation Science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism, which attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution. " Wikipedia
Notice how these standard definitions advise that creation science is attempting to provide some scientific support for the creation account in the bible? I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, but the creation narrative, the week including the phrase 'let there be light' is part of the account of creation and is titled Genesis. Is that incorrect?
here are some more...
Def of creation science used in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education.
" " 'Creation-science' means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:
1. Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
2. The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
3. Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
4. Separate ancestry for man and apes;
5. Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and
6. A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.""
Notice how creation is in there, that the creation week from genesis right?
The creation research society has this to say...
" The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. "
although from what I understand, special creation is supernatural, but they advise they are looking into scientific special creation.
The website Genesis-creation proof has this to say...
" This website has one main purpose: To help Christians and others with an honest desire to get to the bottom of what the truth really is. We show that not all faith is “blind” and that there really IS Genesis Creation Proof. "
That same website does on to say...
" And additional good news is that whether you are a Christian or not, this site includes truth that proves the creation story of the Book of Genesis. "
They mention proof several times in relation to the Book of genesis. Just to clarify, the Book of Genesis includes the creation week that include the phrase "let there be light" right? That is a pretty important part is it not? The creation?
The Answers in Creation website advises they are "bringing the bible and science together".
They also advise...
" Answers In Creation has two main purposes. First, we provide a Christian witness to the scientific community."
Creationresearch.net advises: " Creation Research exists to seek evidence for the biblical account of creation, to investigate and to promote such evidence, as we glorify Christ and build His church.".
The biblical account of creation is Genesis right? The bit that I got the "let there be light" line from right?
The creation science association has this to say : " Our mission is to compile scientific as well as Biblical evidence which supports creation"
The Biblical Creation Society has this to say: " BCS is a Christian society that advances and defends the Biblical teaching on creation. Founded in 1976, we seek to think through issues related to origins from a coherent Biblical and scientific standpoint. "
Just to be clear, creation is the bit in Genesis?
Creation Science Evangelism says this
" Creation Science Evangelism (CSE) is a leading Christian-apologetics ministry, defending the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account from the theory of evolution (see our Statement of Faith). CSE was founded in 1989 by Dr. Kent Hovind, from a desire to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the science of God’s creation."
The Genesis creation account includes the creation week I have mentioned does it not?
The Institute for Creation Research says this :
"For over four decades, the Institute for Creation Research has equipped believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework. "
They go on to make this statement of fact :
" All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous ."
Look at the first statement, then look at the second one. Do you see how they say they are equipping believers with evidence of the bibles accuracy. The second paragraph is one of the things that they are claiming to be fact.
I have looked at creation claims advising that they were doing scientific research on the Genesis story. I started with the start of the story. If Creation scientists only had research for some select parts of Genesis, perhaps they should not make broad sweeping claims.
The centre for scientific creation webpage says this :
" scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports creation and a global flood." and discusses a book called " In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood"
See how the web page is called "creation science" and discusses how they have compelling evidence for creation?
The creation museum advises they have a section on the six day creation story, The Six Days of Creation Theatre. This museum states that they supporting are a scientifically researched information.
The meaning of creation: Genesis and modern science
By M. Conrad Hyers
has a chapter on scientific creationism. I could not view it as it was a limited preview only.
Secrets of the Biblical Story of Creation
By Rudolf Steiner discusses the creation story in detail. he does say that no valid theories can be supplied as it was special creation. He did not think the question was invalid.
New Scientist 12 Mar 1981
has an article discussing how a guy tried to sue because the state would not teach the creation week narrative in biology classes.
The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth: Past, Present, and Future
By John Morris makes some attempts to use scientific theory to discuss elements of the creation narrative. Just not the bit I was asking about.
the list goes on but I am sure you get the picture.
My claim - Creation Scientists have clearly stated that they are conducting scientific research into the creation story. This include the first section of Genesis. This includes the line "let there be light"
Are there sufficient quotes to support my claim? They cover most of the largest creation science organisation including your source. They may well have sections (like the one you quoted) where they state something a bit contradictory. This is fairly standard across all of the creation science pages. I believe it is pretty misleading. They claim to be doing the research, I ask about it and then I get told by people like you that they are only doing research on specific sections of the Genesis story, and not on the whole creation section of the genesis story. Seems a bit odd to call it Creation Science then does it not?
I won't critique Gitt's information theory, someone well versed in this area is already doing so.
I also won't be trying to prove to you that my question was valid anymore. It is irrelevant as you have given me an answer. The answer you have given me is clear enough.
Creation Science does not have (for reasons you and others have supplied) any theory of any kind related to the creation week narrative section regarding the creation of light (let there be light).
Thank you for answering my question.
|Replies to this message:|
| ||Message 68 by AdminPD, posted 07-05-2011 7:11 AM|| ||Butterflytyrant has not yet responded|