Do creationists and evolutionists use the same science?

Of course they do.  Science is science and it is all created by God.  This is a nice little article explaining that.  Click the link below to read about it.

AiG Weekly News

Advertisements

15 Responses to Do creationists and evolutionists use the same science?

  1. Matt says:

    No, they do not.
    Creationists, especially ones like AiG, completely ignore science. Actually, no … that’s not right. They embrace the facts that prove their conclusions but completely reject or ignore, without cause, that which refutes it.

    The bible does not count as evidence, and AiG does seem to use it a lot, because it can not be independently verified and contains various historical errors and contradictions. AiG is also guilty of going against the scientific method in that it has reached a conclusion first and then has looked for evidence to support it.

    The proper scientific method mandates that the evidence is looked at and then a conclusion reached that fits all the evidence.

    Like

  2. Tom says:

    Matt,

    Are you a scientist? What is your field of study?

    And why does the Bible not count as evidence?

    Like

  3. Matt says:

    No, I am not a scientist but I know enough about the methodology of science to see when it is being misrepresented or abused, such as what AiG does. They are not scientists and their version of science is completely contradictory to what actual science is.

    The bible does not count as evidence for exactly the same reason tales of the Norse Gods, Greek Gods, Roman Gods, etc does not. There is not independent verification of such tales and thus it is worthless as evidence. The bible itself contains many historical inaccuracies and contradictions, which makes it even further dubious.

    Like

  4. Tom says:

    Matt,

    I respect your opinion but I strongly disagree with it. I also think the scientists at AiG would also take offense at your statement that they are not scientists. As I have stated before, the difference between AiG scientists and evolution believing scientists is their presuppositions through which all the evidence is filtered. Creationists use the Bible and evolutionists use evolution.

    I would appreciate it if you could list some of the supposed historical inaccuracies and contradictions that you mention. There is more independent verification of the historical information than any book every written. There are non-christian historians who have corroborated events from the Bible…Josephus is just one example.

    I think your dislike of the Bible or Christianity has clouded your judgment in this matter. I would like to suggest that you read Defending Your Faith by RC Sproul. He has a couple chapters that might be of interest to you. Chapter 6 – The Law of Causality, Chapter 10 – Creation by Chance, and Chapter 20 – The Authority of the Bible might be relevant to our discussion here.

    Either way, I thank you for your passion. It is really evident in your comments. Even if we disagree I can always respect someone who has conviction and passion in what they believe and are willing to boldly state those beliefs in a public forum.

    Like

  5. Jon says:

    There is more independent verification of the historical information than any book every written.

    Totally false. In fact, the opposite is more true. So few non-Christian historians even write about Jesus, and Christian writings about him vary so wildly, that we know next to nothing about him.

    There are non-christian historians who have corroborated events from the Bible…Josephus is just one example.

    Biblical historians disagree.

    Much more information here.

    As I have stated before, the difference between AiG scientists and evolution believing scientists is their presuppositions through which all the evidence is filtered.

    By such a definition, astrologers, crystal healers, psychics, dowsers, ghost whisperers, and palm readers are all scientists. After all, the only difference between them and scientists is their “interpretation of the evidence”.

    Like

  6. Tom says:

    Jon wrote “So few non-Christian historians even write about Jesus, and Christian writings about him vary so wildly, that we know next to nothing about him.”

    Jesus is the most written about figure in the history of the world. He is so influencial that our entire dating system revolves around His birth (BC & AD).

    I looked through the wikipedia links you included. You and I both know that wikipedia is not necessarily a reliable source for anything. Those article were definately written from an anti-Christian perspective. That is the authors right but they are certainly not authoritative. If you wish to examine a good book on the subject I suggest The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

    Jon wrote “By such a definition, astrologers, crystal healers, psychics, dowsers, ghost whisperers, and palm readers are all scientists. After all, the only difference between them and scientists is their “interpretation of the evidence”.”

    This is a straw man argument. The science is the same no matter what a persons presuppositions are but the presuppositions can and often do affect the conclusions one reaches.

    Like

  7. Jon says:

    You and I both know that Wikipedia is not necessarily a reliable source for anything.

    I never said it was. But Wikipedia articles often cite from published journals and texts, and the ones I linked are no exception.

    Jesus is the most written about figure in the history of the world.

    Yes, it’s just that most of it was written hundreds of years after his death by men who never met him. The rest of it contradicts large portions of the Bible; Josephus, for example, discusses James, “the brother of Jesus”; shoots a hole in that whole “virgin Mary” thing, doesn’t it? Even the great Paul of Tarsus admits to never meeting Jesus except in visions. And so I stand by my point. We know next to nothing about Jesus. We have embellishments and myths and conflicting stories, but not much of anything else. Secular, Roman historians barely mention the guy.

    The science is the same no matter what a persons presuppositions are…

    It’s NOT the same. That’s the whole reason creationists are up in arms; they don’t consider evolution science. Evolution is a part of biology. It IS science. It’s not a conjecture or a presupposition or an open question. Organisms evolve, plain and simple. Even if specific details of the theory are wrong, evolution via natural selection is the kind of mechanism which creates biological diversity; unguided, unprincipled, and derived from simple beginnings.

    Even physics and astronomy majors have to learn classical mechanics before they learn relativity (even though classical mechanics is technically wrong!). This is how science works; we develop crude theories and expand upon them. And evolution is way past the crude theory stage. Evolution explains the facts. Any better theory must explain the same facts, plus whatever else we happen to discover. And creationism doesn’t do that. It doesn’t even explain the facts we’ve got now.

    Like

  8. Tom says:

    Secular, Roman historians barely mention the guy.

    Why would they. That area was a remote outpost of the Roman empire…basically unimportant and insignificant.

    Evolution is a part of biology. It IS science. It’s not a conjecture or a presupposition or an open question. Organisms evolve, plain and simple. Even if specific details of the theory are wrong, evolution via natural selection is the kind of mechanism which creates biological diversity; unguided, unprincipled, and derived from simple beginnings.

    Evolution is a scientific theory..and a bad one at that. Lets clarify..there are two type of evolution – macro (read darwinian evolution) and micro (natural selection). I have no problems with micro evolution it can be observed. Changes within species happen for a reason. When a species evolves here is what happens…it starts our as what it is, there is a small change, then what do we have…the same species with some slightly different characteristics. It starts as one thing and ends as that same thing.

    Macro is a different story…where is the evidence of one species becoming a different species. The is none and never will be. It is a failed theory that we can’t seem to get rid of because so many people’s worldview is built upon it. Evolutionist over the years have been fairly successful at redefining evolution from darwinian evolution to natural selection. Another thing, when things evolve it always results in a loss of information never a gain. Therefore, a simple being evolving into a complex being is basically impossible.

    And evolution is way past the crude theory stage.

    I agree. Evolution is now a religion to many people and it requires more faith than I have.

    Like

  9. Jon says:

    Evolution is a scientific theory..and a bad one at that.

    So you agree that evolution is science, and that what you said about science before was wrong.

    Evolutionist over the years have been fairly successful at redefining evolution from darwinian evolution to natural selection.

    That’s just wrong. Natural selection has always been the mechanism of Darwinian evolution. That’s what Darwin wrote about.

    When a species evolves here is what happens…it starts our as what it is, there is a small change

    HOW does it change? You seem to be defining “mutations” and “changes” to be different things. Microevolutionary changes are still mutations. They’re errors in DNA replication.

    Here’s a really cool mutation that certainly is NOT a “loss of information”, whatever that means. Yes, that’s a human hand.

    Like

  10. Tom says:

    So you agree that evolution is science, and that what you said about science before was wrong.

    No, I agree that evolution is a scientific theory. Theory is the important word here. Evolution is still a theory because it has never been, and never will be, proven. If it were proven then they would call it a law.

    That’s just wrong. Natural selection has always been the mechanism of Darwinian evolution. That’s what Darwin wrote about.

    Then why are we not able to document dogs turning into cats or chickens or something completely new. We should be able to see the mutations or at least find evidence of something along that line. What we are actually seeing is Natural Selection and the just means that species are adapting to their environment. After the mutations, the species is still the same thing as it started out…maybe just a bit better suited to survive in its current environment.

    Here’s a really cool mutation that certainly is NOT a “loss of information”, whatever that means. Yes, that’s a human hand.

    This makes my point. What was this before the mutation – a hand. What is it after the mutation – a hand. This may or may not be an example of microevolution but it is not darwinian evolution.

    Like

  11. Jon says:

    No, I agree that evolution is a scientific theory. Theory is the important word here. Evolution is still a theory because it has never been, and never will be, proven. If it were proven then they would call it a law.

    A scientific theory is a consistent framework which systematically explains facts and makes predictions about the natural world. General relativity is a scientific theory, for instance. A scientific theory isn’t some kind of hunch or unsubstantiated hypothesis. That’s the misunderstanding here. You’re confusing a common usage of the word “theory” for how scientists use the word.

    And your discussion about “proving” things is also wrong. Laws are not things which are proven. They’re statements made that must always be true given certain foundational axioms. For instance, the laws of thermodynamics are unconditionally true only if we assume that the universe is homogeneous. In other words, only if we assume that physical things we observe on Earth hold true no matter where you are in the universe. There’s certainly no proof that that is true; from what we can observe, it SEEMS true, but that’s different. We could observe that it’s true for 99% of the universe and miss out on the 1% in which it isn’t true.

    Then why are we not able to document dogs turning into cats or chickens or something completely new.

    The problem here is that you really just don’t understand what evolution or natural selection even are. Evolution doesn’t say dogs morph into cats. It says that when a parent organism copies and recombines its DNA to form a child organism, errors can occur. Indeed, errors WILL occur, because the process of copying DNA is not 100% accurate. The body makes errors. Sometimes these errors are irrelevant and the body compensates for them. Sometimes they’re harmful and they decrease the survival rate of the organism. Sometimes they’re beneficial, and increase the survival rate of the organism. Because bad mutations decrease the survival of an individual, that individual will die swifter than those who don’t have it. Because good mutations increase the survival of an individual, that individual will live longer than those who don’t have it. The ones who live longer get to reproduce more, passing on their good mutations. The ones who don’t live longer don’t get to pass on their bad mutations as often. A simple application of probability here will show you that good mutations accrue while bad ones are weeded out. This is natural selection. This is how evolution occurs.

    This makes my point.

    No it doesn’t. You said that mutations cause a loss of information. This mutation caused the development of an additional fully functioning limb. So I ask again: which is it? Does microevolution occur, or do mutations necessarily cause a loss of information? Make up your mind.

    Like

  12. Pingback: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed « The Everyday Christian

  13. Jon says:

    Tom,

    Just so you know, that earthsciencecurrents is a spam bot.

    Like

  14. Tom says:

    Thanks for the heads up Jon, I had not caught that. I have deleted that post from the comments.

    Like

  15. Keith says:

    Jon,

    Great argument and good reasoning. An excellent response for the evolutionary affirmitive.

    Tom,

    I am sorry you tried hard, but I am afraid that you were let down by poor source material.

    To sum it up a spirited debate between two ideologically different sides. Based on the concise arguments and overwhelming proof I think I would have to award this one to the evolutionists.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: