Real creation science

The main problem of what is presented as Creationism is that its focus is purely on proving by contrary of the theories of evolution, particularly natural selection.

Real creation science should focus on the science of the making and development of any given object by a deliberate hand or force, that is, how is an object to be created if it can, how much tweaking in the environment is needed if it is essentially a hands-off process, the dynamics of how things are made in relation to or in response to the environment, temperature, air and water pressure, and so on. It shoud focus especially on the area where the creating process reaches its highest peak, that is the womb. Even the processes of evolution and natural selection cannot exist without the womb. What I mean by womb is the place where objects can securely be conceived and developed before being sent into the outside environment. Creation science should also look into how humans simulate natural processes in modern devices.

Also, it should develop formulas or theories related to its creatability. Maybe create some kind of a creatability/purely random index ratio. Given an event, or any object, can that event or object be replicated or created within tolerable variance, by deliberate direction? How long will it take, and what is needed to create that object or event?

Of course, this study overlaps many fields, and developing theories, real ones, may be tricky.

“Real Creation Science” is a three-way contradiction in terms…

How will you ever test any theory that proposes special creation? What predictions will it make about things that we haven’t seen yet? How does it explain the already observed data better than the current theory of evolution?

How would one go about doing that? We’re dealing with an entity that is not constrained by any of our known laws of physics. We have no means of proving whether or not God even exists, much less trying to discover how God works.

Very good point. But you cannot “prove” quantum mechanics using biological-science tests; you cannot “prove” macroeconomic theory by using optics. And you cannot prove a theological theory by using the methodology of the physical sciences.

Is there a practical, empirical theological methodology on which we can agree? Can we set up hypotheses and test them? What are our criteria for measurement and for “proof” and “disproof”?

(“Proof” in quotation marks here because, obviously, empirical conclusions are not the Q.E.D. of logical proofs but the uncontravened results of generalizations from one’s test-and-control experimentation. Such a “proof,” not rationalized deduction, is what most people here would seek as the outcome of any such study.)

When sifting claims for veracity, IMO the basic rules of evidential reasoning and critical thinking offer an excellent basis to sort some of the “wheat from the chaff,” as it were.

  1. Falsifiability. It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim false.

  2. Logic. Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound.

  3. Comprehensiveness. The evidence offered in support of any claim must be exhaustive – that is all of the available evidence must be considered.

  4. Honesty. The evidence offered in support of any claim must be evaluated without self-deception.

  5. Replicability. If the evidence for any claim is based upon an experimental result, or if the evidence offered in support of any claim could logically be explained as coincidental, then it is necessary for the evidence to be repeated in subsequent experiments or trials.

  6. Sufficiency. The evidence offered in support of any claim must be adequate to establish the truth of that claim, with these stipulations:
    a. the burden of proof for any claim rests on the claimant,
    extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and
    b. evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim.

These rules of course are highly problematical for any paranormal claim.

Thanks for the summary of evaluative techniques; I’m honestly impressed with the concision and thoroughness of that summary. Is it your own write-up, or is there a source for it? (I ask in order to be able to point people to it as an authoritative resource if it’s derived from somewhere available online when the question comes up again, not to be snarky.)

My initial point sort of presupposed applying such a methodology, but with the proviso that most “arguments for or against God’s/the soul’s/heaven’s/etc. existence” violate one or more of these principles by presupposing assumptions not include therein.

For example, “If there’s such a thing as a soul, one ought to be able to identify precisely where in the body it is” falls flat in the same way as “if there’s such a thing as a Microsoft Excel program, one ought to be able to point to it as a specific piece of the computer” does.

“If God created the world, what created Him?” makes a fraudulent assumption that ignores the distinction between contingence and necessity – the assumption in theological terms that God is self-actuating and needs no source is cavalierly tossed aside, not held up to a test.

On the other hand, far too often theists engage in circular reasoning, attempting to prove God from a series of assumptions they make about Him, knowing Him to exist, and reasoning back from them to His existence. This violates several principles of logic simultaneously. (Some excellent examples of such a process and its refutation are in the two old Christianity and Love threads I linked to recently in the “Christian God and Gay People” thread now active (q.v.).

Truely I wish I could lay claim as the originator but alas it’s all I can do to try and follow the guidelines.

http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

The link will also give a great deal more detail, as well.

“My initial point sort of presupposed applying such a methodology, but with the proviso that most “arguments for or against God’s/the soul’s/heaven’s/etc. existence” violate one or more of these principles by presupposing assumptions not include therein.”

Very true, I honestly don’t think it’s profitable to sift matters of faith in that fashion. In that context I usually reserve it for those unable to distinguish between “I believe this to be true” and “this is true because I believe it.”

‘“If God created the world, what created Him?” makes a fraudulent assumption that ignores the distinction between contingence and necessity – the assumption in theological terms that God is self-actuating and needs no source is cavalierly tossed aside, not held up to a test.’

and

"On the other hand, far too often theists engage in circular reasoning, attempting to prove God from a series of assumptions they make about Him, knowing Him to exist, and reasoning back from them to His existence. This violates several principles of logic simultaneously. "

Yes, the initial assumption is conveniently assumed to be true. Obviously if it is not, then all other assumptions following are false. There is always some “leap of faith,” sometimes cleverly disguised, that one must accept to follow the “logic.”

What I’m proposing is a little more ambitious: a more unified set of theories governing all of creation, including that of the organic and inorganic, of the moment and the constant, of a work of art and the work of chemistry, of the atom and the galaxy. That is, the dynamics of the creation of any physical object and or any happening related to the objects, be it by direction, chance or accident, in the universe.

One problem that came up is, of course, some results of the process are a culmination of million of years of events, that even today we would be very hard-pressed to replicate. And some objects exist in about a millionth of the time it takes to blink your eye.

Then another subject then comes up: how many levels removed from the original raw materials and environmental settings to the final created object or event (or f-object, f-event) must an original factor (or-factor) be to establish that the or-factor was not a factor in the creation of the f-object or f-event? This is a huge debate in law.

capacitor,

hmmm, I’m sure virtually any scientist would be most pleased to develop such an encompassing theory that would withstand the rigors of the scientific process as a Nobel prize would be sure to follow.

Realisticly IMO the “baby steps” that characterize the state of scientific inquiry would seem more probable, but we can hope.

The rules I posted earlier are but a relatively accurate means to judge the merits of various claims.

Well, how about:

“In the beginning, God created the Monobloc. And the Monobloc was without form and void, and composed totally of photons at 6,000,000,000 K…” :smiley:

Polycarp wrote:

Concision?!?

There is already a very well-developed system of ‘real creation science’ - it’s known as evolution.

Honestly, I’m not being flippant; what happened was that a number of scientists (notably but not exclusively Darwin) started off with the notion that God made everything, then discarded the bits of that worldview that didn’t fit the observations; new theories were formulated and tested, modified and re-tested until we ended up with the modern theory of evolution.

It’s a case of being entirely honest with the interpretation of the evidence and being prepared to discard parts of the theory that can’t be supported by hard evidence - if Creation Science was to follow the same process, the end result would be very similar, if not identical.

"On the other hand, far too often theists engage in circular reasoning, attempting to prove God from a series of assumptions they make about Him, knowing Him to exist, and reasoning back from them to His existence. This violates several principles of logic simultaneously. "
Wasn’t the static universe theory prevalent most of the last century before Big Bang theory hit the scene? Didn’t static universe theory basically state that the universe was “eternal” in a sense - that is, self existing and self defining, without a begining or end in time? This was a generally accepted theory by the scientic community, which now generally dislikes hearing religionists using the same explanation for the nature of God.

As an aside, how does the 2nd law of thermo tie into our cosmology? I’ve always had a hard time understanding how systems, whether galactic or biologic (is this a word?) could organize out of chaos.

Here:

But we have a big advantage - we know the universe exists because we observe it! There are two possibilities:

  1. The universe has existed for a finite amount of time.
  2. The universe has existed for an infinite amount of time.

Science doesn’t presume either one. Instead, the consequences of each are worked out: Case (1) implies Big Bang scenario implies microwave background radiation; Case (2) implies continuous creation of matter (or else the universe would keep decreasing in density). Now we look to see which of these consequences can be established/ruled out. (Answer: (1) works, (2) doesn’t.) No circularity here.

Try http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html . Oops, just noticed B. Gardner’s post - what’s the source for that, B.?

Oops, sorry about that:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/

Thanks for the replies. BTW, I was pushing some creationist agenda with the 2nd Law of thermo thing - it was something that I actually thought about once.

FriendRob: my question regarding the static universe theory was more focused on the integral paradign shift in thinking. I understand that evidence points to assertion #1 below. My point is that not too long ago, it wasn’t unthinkable for us, in scientific matters, to consider that the universe was self-defined and self-existent. It wan’t logical fallacy that disproved the theory, but evidence to the contrary.

Is it too hard for us to consider that the same self-defintion and self-existence could apply to God? Just a rhetorical question… I always cringe when someone asked the “well, who created God then?” question.

Well, the “who created God” argument CAN be useful. When you’re dealing with christians who somehow believe that the complexity of life on earth “proves” the existance of an intelligent creator (who, coincidentally, happens to be the christian God), then it could be argued that God is even more complex that life here, and that following the same argument they’ve just proved that God was created by yet someone else.

A agree though, when it’s used to “disprove christianity”, it makes me want to slap someone. :slight_smile:

The main problem of what is presented as creationism is that it’s a load of bollocks

I believe you are referring to engineering.