# Real creation science **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2001, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427 "2001-12-02T05:21:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/1 "2001-12-02T05:21:14Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/2 "2001-12-02T05:28:31Z")
“Real Creation Science” is a three-way contradiction in terms… ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/3 "2001-12-02T15:14:14Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![RoboDude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@RoboDude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoboDude)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/4 "2001-12-02T15:39:50Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/5 "2001-12-02T18:41:40Z")
> [@](#): > > 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.) ---
**Author:** ![B.Gardner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@B.Gardner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/B.Gardner)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/6 "2001-12-02T19:05:51Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/7 "2001-12-02T20:07:39Z")
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.). ---
**Author:** ![B.Gardner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@B.Gardner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/B.Gardner)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/8 "2001-12-02T20:21:47Z")
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](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.” ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/9 "2001-12-02T20:38:53Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![B.Gardner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@B.Gardner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/B.Gardner)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/10 "2001-12-02T20:48:45Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/11 "2001-12-02T20:54:46Z")
> [@](#): > > What I’m proposing is a little more ambitious: a more unified set of theories governing all of creation, including… 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…” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2001, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/12 "2001-12-03T06:33:16Z")
Polycarp wrote: > [@](#): > > I’m honestly impressed with the concision and thoroughness of that summary. **Concision**?!? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2001, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/13 "2001-12-03T14:56:04Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![joemama24\_98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ce7236/32.png) [@joemama24\_98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joemama24_98)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2001, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/14 "2001-12-03T19:43:33Z")
"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. ---
**Author:** ![B.Gardner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@B.Gardner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/B.Gardner)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2001, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/15 "2001-12-03T20:15:49Z")
> [@](#): > > 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: > [@](#): > > The Second Law (Law of Energy Decay) states that every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability, finally reaching the state of complete randomness and unavailability for further work." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 25) > Evolution, however, the creationists assert, constantly creates order as it moves from small less complex organisms to larger more complex ones. And this process of increasing order, they assert, is in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which, they claim, specifies that no system can move from a state of simplicity to more complexity. Therefore, evolutionary progression of life, they conclude, could not have happened. > > The creationist argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of thermodynamics and the Second Law. The laws of thermodynamics only apply within a thermodynamically “closed” system, in which no free energy can enter from outside the system. Under such circumstances, the available free energy is used up and degraded until it can no longer do work, leading to thermodynamic decay and increase in entropy and disorder, just as the house in our example falls inevitably into disrepair. > > However, as I pointed out, there is a way to reverse this trend towards disorder and maintain order-if I expend new energy and do more work. A system in which free energy is available from the outside is a thermodynamically “open” system, and in such a system it is possible to reverse entropy (by adding new free energy). This new energy comes at a cost, however-it reduces the amount of free energy that is available elsewhere and thus increases the entropy of the entire system. > > The universe itself, for instance, is a thermodynamically closed system. No new free energy can enter it from the outside, so its entropy inevitably increases. In fact, entropy will inevitably destroy it, sapping and using up all of its free energy and reducing it to a cold inert realm where there is no energy flow, a condition known as “heat death”. > > Contrary to the creationist assertions, however, the Second Law and increasing entropy do not apply in “all systems”–only in those with no influx of free energy. The Second Law applies only within a closed system. Life on earth is not a thermodynamically closed system-it is constantly receiving free energy from the outside in the form of sunlight and solar energy. Life on earth is capable of channeling this free energy to do work and thus to decrease entropy and actually move from disorder to a higher state of organization. > > However, while the earth is using this free energy from the sun to decrease its entropy, the solar system as a whole is experiencing increased entropy, and will inevitably die out as the sun uses up all its free energy and reaches heat death. Until that point, however, free energy is available on earth to do work and reduce entropy locally, and this allows life to become more and more organized (less entropy) even though the solar system as a whole is losing free energy (more entropy). > > An analogy may be useful here: all streams and rivers run downhill, but near rocks and other obstructions small portions of the stream can use kinetic energy to temporarily and locally reverse this flow and actually swirl uphill for a time. The water molecules use free energy from the outside to do work and thus temporarily circumvent the flow of gravity. The fact that parts of a vortex flow uphill does not invalidate the affects of gravity on water, any more than the fact that life locally decreases its entropy invalidates the Second Law. Both processes are temporary and completely dependent on an outside source of energy. > > Thus, the evolution of life does not violate the Second Law–it merely uses available free energy to circumvent it temporarily, just as some parts of a water vortex move upstream without violating the laws of gravity. The Second Law says that free energy tends to be reduced through time. This does not at all mean that free energy cannot be temporarily used to do work and thus reduce entropy in a localized area–but even then, the total free energy of the system continues to decline. Even as life on earth reduces entropy by utilizing free energy, the sun that provides that free energy burns out and increases its entropy. In the end entropy will win, and the solar system (indeed, the whole universe) will die a heat death at maximum entropy. Life on earth is a temporary blip in the process of universal downwinding. In the meantime, however, local processes can reverse this flow and temporarily produce small local areas of organization and lower entropy-areas which we call “life”. > > Life is not the only process where we can observe a decrease in entropy and the spontaneous appearence of order from disorder. Snowflakes, for instance, are formed when randomly moving water molecules use energy to arrange themselves in an orderly crystalline pattern. Shallow pools of water, in which water molecules move randomly, can use sunlight energy beating down upon them to form regularly constructed and orderly convection cells. > > The creationists, realizing that order can after all come from disorder without violating the laws of thermodynamics, thus are forced to change their argument-they now assert that such change can only come about through some sort of “mechanism”, which, in the case of life, they assert, can only be Divine in origin: > "Disorder can never produce order through any kind of random process. There must be present some form of code or program, to direct the ordering process, and this code must contain at least as much ‘information’ as is needed to provide this direction. Furthermore, there must be present some kind of mechanism for converting the environmental energy into the energy required to produce the higher organization of the system involved. … Thus, any system that experiences even a temporary growth in order and complexity must not only be “open” to the sun’s energy but must also contain a “program” to direct the growth and a “mechanism” to energize the growth. " (Morris, 1972, p. 19) > The creationist assertion that there is no natural “mechanism” to produce ordered life from disordered chemicals (other than Divine Intervention) is simply not true. The unique chemistry of carbon atoms makes it possible for these atoms to use free energy (in the form of photons from the sun) to break and re-form chemical bonds and thus form long chains of atoms—the root chemical basis for life. Nothing mysterious about this and no Divine Miracle required–simply a consequence of the laws of chemistry and physics as they apply to the outer electron shell of a carbon atom. The laws of chemistry and phsyics that govern the formation of biological molecules are the very same ones that govern the formation of any other carbon compound. At the chemical level, there is nothing different about “life”–the chemistry of a carbon atom is the same whether that atom is part of a DNA molecule or whether it is part of a lump of coal. > > Therefore one needs not only an influx of free energy (which comes from the sun), but also a mechanism to capture that energy and use it for biological processes. Fortunately for life on earth, the unique chemistry of carbon atoms makes this a rather straightforward process (it is so simple, in fact, that amino acids are found floating free in interstellar space, where they form spontaneously from carbon chains utilizing free energy). Similar chemical processes, powered by the same free energy from the sun, allow life to grow in complexity, without in any way violating any of the laws of thermodynamics. ---
**Author:** ![FriendRob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecc23a/32.png) [@FriendRob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendRob)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2001, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/16 "2001-12-03T20:28:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by joemama24\_98 \* > **"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.** 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. > [@](#): > > 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. \*\* Try [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html) . Oops, just noticed **B. Gardner’s** post - what’s the source for that, B.? ---
**Author:** ![B.Gardner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@B.Gardner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/B.Gardner)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2001, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/17 "2001-12-03T20:43:43Z")
Oops, sorry about that: [http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/](http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/) ---
**Author:** ![joemama24\_98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ce7236/32.png) [@joemama24\_98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joemama24_98)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2001, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/18 "2001-12-03T22:46:46Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Dryga\_Yes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@Dryga\_Yes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dryga_Yes)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2001, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/19 "2001-12-04T16:13:10Z")
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. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2001, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427/20 "2001-12-04T20:27:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by capacitor \* > \*\*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. > \*\* The main problem of what is presented as creationism is that it’s a load of bollocks > [@](#): > > \*\* > 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. > \*\* I believe you are referring to engineering. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-creation-science/96427.md?page=2)