Blasphemy in Science

There seems to be a major misconception among creationsts as to how true science works. The misconception itself seems to relate directly to how the creationist views the subject of truth.Here are the basics. I have seen on this forum, among many others, where people say that the major difference between creationism and evolution in science is that creationists presuppose that God exists, and evolution in science presupposes that it does not. This is a major misconception in an of itself based mainly on the belief structure of the creationist.To make the statement that the Bible is wrong in some way, or to suppose that there is an inerrant fallacy in the gospel is blasphemous. This is a given truth in the subject of faith itself. It is an essential part of their belief structure, and the assumption is then made that other systems must also contain such structures. This is where the misconception comes in. Science has no blasphemy. In fact, true science could not exist with such a concept.To believe in a blasphemous statement would undermine everything that science is about. Creationists have a presupposed idea, and will do all that they can to prove it to be true. The exact opposite is true when it comes to true scientific study. One of the five standards of science (though existing throughout the study of true science, but directly established in legal fashion in the case of Arkansas act 590 in 1981) is that scientific theories and discoveries must be falsifiable. Research scientists do not start out with preconceived notions and then try to prove them. In fact, they develop theories, and try to disprove them. They scrutinize their own theories, and notions in order to see if it can be disproved.Now this does not mean that scientists do not create theories, and try to prove them. Of course not. Yet, the theory must always give in to the evidence that disproves it. Still, that evidence itself must stand up to the same scrutiny.With that said, how can it honestly be said that preconceived notions dictate both science and creationism?This message has been edited by MrPhy42, 10-04-2004 03:06 PM

I would have no problem with that new title.

The thing that these people don't seem to understand is that a scientific theory that has been disproved can often be as exciting as one that is proven. When a theory is put forth, and is disproved, we often learn just as much as we would have if it had been proven to be true.Where as if a creationist has their idea challenged it is often met with anger, or simply ignored as if it had never happened. This is not how science works. We can see the false science in such organizations as the ICR and the CRS. They have a preconceived notion, and will set out to prove it by any means that they can.The members of groups such as these are who are often being referred to when creationsts note that there are scientists in the field of biology. The problem is that these organizations and their members are dismissed from the scientific community by their very actions, and sets of rules.For example the CRS (Creation Research Society) in their very own credo:1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.While it is true contributing members of this group are required to have post graduate degrees, they must also sign an agreement that they believe the above list is true. This leave no room for objectivity in terms of research, this is not science, it is religion.This message has been edited by MrPhy42, 10-04-2004 03:35 PM

A good example of true science was seen publicly when Stephen Hawking was faced with new evidence about black holes. He had originally stated that nothing in any form could ever escape the natural forces of a black hole. He was wrong. New evidence shows that it may be possible. Was his reaction to say it was wrong, and to fight to prove his earlier theory? Of course not. This new data is now incorporated, and research continues.This would not be possible for creationist theories, as to deny preconceived notions that are based on scripture would be blasphemy. This is the very nature of why religion and science are two totaly different things.This message has been edited by MrPhy42, 10-04-2004 03:44 PM

See there is a flaw in that. They say the gospel has always been true, but the fact is, none of it is known to be true. I could write a book and ad a few givins like saying the sky is blue, that does not make the whole thing infalable truth.

"The Gospel is true - even you know it, this is why you fight against it so."That mentality would imply that all that I do not agree with must be true by the very fact that I do not agree with it. Hmmmmm...As for not letting it bother me? If it had no effect on my life, I would be able to. Still that is not true. The general missunderstanding of what true science is by the creationists does affect me. I have children in school, who's curriculum is partly decided by people who don'tunderstand the subjectmatter. So it does effect me. It puts mythology in the science class, and silences the science. If thiswere not true, I would have no problem with it.

Creationism was born of the gospel. You know... one begat another.

Anyone who says that there is no scientific evidence either does not understand the subject, wishes not to understand the evidence or most often has not even studied the fields involved and takes the word of other creationist who deem themselves professionals.The fact is that it is out there. It is public knowlege, easy to find, but the fact is the majority of people have little understanding, and do not take the time nor effort to study the evidence and how it works in the first place.You are also exactly right that there is no such thing as blasphemy in science. Not only does the word not exist, but there is no concept of such a thing. Science does not ignore evidence just because it does not fit withen preconcieved notions... people who are deffendign their faith do. Since they do that, and seem oddly convinced that science is a religion rather than varying feilds of study involving the natural world, then they seem to often assume that the practitioners of these fields must also protect their beliefs as the religiously faithful do.

No, evolution is not directly testable in the sense that you seem to be using. It is largely a historical science and must imply other means of testing to confirm the theories involved.With historical sciences and the theories therein, we must look at the idea, and determine what we should see if the theory is correct. The theory of evolution (as it began) was vague, and held little in the way of known fact, more of speculation. Still, it did give us the ability to determine what we should see in the fossil record if it were correct.The idea was that if the theory of evolution were correct we should be able to find fossil records of animal forms that are related to each other (and in the case of species that exist today) find a time line of the changing life coming ever closer to the forms that we see currently. Still, it is not enough to simply find fossils of creatures that may be in some way related. After all, if in the future fossils of modern horses, and zebras were found, it would not work to assume that zebras were a specie sthat later evolved into horses. The next key lies in where they were found, and what testable properties we can directly observe, such as determining the age of a fossil.If the transitional animal forms fit into the correct genetic category and that coincides with the geological, and other testable time lines, then it is possible to create a determination based on observable evidence. To say that all evidence must be observed from beginning to end is a fallacy that does not fall under most any scientific criteria. We cannot physically observe the growth of a human in the womb as a constant, and especially not 100 years ago. Still the stages of growth were observable in other fashions. We cannot directly observe the core of our planet, but through other indirect observations, we are able to determine within a certain realm of accuracy what it is made of, and how it works.

And as for pride, a desperation to be right and issues of faith are concerned... if that were the case many non-creationists such as myself would still be attending the churches that we grew up in trying to defend the beliefs we were raised with.

Well, I wasgoing to ask those things, thanks for taking care of it for me edge.

So Rob, you would maintain that geology, biological anthropology, paleontology and any other historical sciences are invalid and should be ignored? The scientists who work in this field are all hacks? By the same note, the same people that attempt to support thse claims you have made (who claim to use these same sciences) are also all invalid?

So you would disregard everything that you regard as not directly observable as false?