Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Is Creation Science, Science?

The critics of Creation Science claim that it is not falsifiable or subject to change. However this is not true because Creation Science theories are falsifiable and subject to change.
Both Creationists and Evolutionists use observation and measurements to develop, and test hypotheses and theories that make falsifiable predictions. They both revise and abandon theories based on new data and they both use internal peer review. Both sides also have some holdouts for generally abandoned theories. These similarities show that Creation Science is at least as scientific as Evolution.

Some Creationist theories have been falsified and most Creation Scientists consider these theories to have been falsified. As is often the case there are still some supporters but most Creation Scientists do not support them any more.

The Canopy theory was developed in early days of Creation Science. It was years before it validity could be checked. Today most Creation Scientists agree it is unworkable because it was found to trap way to much heat. Further more a thin enough canopy to not cause over heating would not provide the expected radiation shielding. 

C-decay was the first attempt at a scientific solution to the distant starlight problem. It made predictions about red shift verse distance that have been proven false and the evidence that had been put forth in favor of  c-day has been  proven faulty  To day despite a few hold outs most Creation Scientists consider it to have been falsified.

Some creationist theories have been modified to deal with problems that were founf wit the original concept.

Dr. Humphreys’ White Hole Cosmology was modified by Humphreys to deal with some initial problems involving a problem with seeing near by Galaxies. Humphreys discovered that time would have been stopped within the even horizon. The basic concept has also been expanded on by Dr. Hartnett by applying Cosmological Relativity to a bounded universe.

Some Creationist Science Theories have made successful predictions. These include accelerated nuclear decay, which successfully predicted zircon helium diffusion rates. Another example is Humphreys’ model of planetary magnetic fields which not only predicted the magnetic field strength of Neptune, but also predicted the observed decrease in Mercury’s magnetic field.

The critics of Creation Science also claim that it is not science calling it Creationism. However Creationism is the philosophical bases for Creation Science and not Creation Science itself. Even many creationists don’t understand this. The problem is that calling Creation Science, Creationism is the same ascalling Evolution Science, Naturalism.


         Naturalism: the philosophical position that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

         Creationism: the philosophical position that the earth and universe and life were  created by God or some other supreme being.

         General Evolution: The view of origins that the universe, all that is in it including life came about by natural processes.

         Biblical Creation: The view of origins that the earth and universe and life were  created by God as describe in the Bible.

         Evolution Science: The Scientific theories that result when starting with an Evolutionary view of origins.

         Creation Science: The Scientific theories that result when starting with a Biblical view of origins.

The issue is one of philosophical foundations

Naturalism is the philosophical foundation General Evolution while Creationism is the philosophical foundation Biblical Creation. Both of these philosophical foundations are philosophy; not science they are not subject to change,

General Evolution is the theoretical system of Evolution Science while Biblical Creation is the theoretical system of Creation Science. Both of these are structure and not Science not subject to change
Both system produce scientific theories that can be categorized as Evolution Science and Creation Science. This is where the real science is because these scientific theories are both subject to change.

Anti-creationist claims that biblical creation prevents scientific investigation. The claim goes that since the Bible gives the story of how it all began, so there is no need for investigation. It is further claimed that creationists know the out come in advance. These claims are wrong.  

The Truth is that Biblical Creation has inspired a lot of scientific investigation and theories. Examples Include Dr. Humphreys theory of planetary magnetic fields, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, Accelerated nuclear Decay, and The RATE project which was a massive Creation Science research project studying radio isotopes.

The Biblical account does not give all the details of Creation and the Flood leaving a lot is left for us to discover by researching and studying nature. Creationists do not know the out come of research in advance.  While the Bible does provide an historic framework It does not give all the details. Evolutionists also have an historic frame work and they work from those results from Naturalism. That historic frame work is Big Bang to man Evolution

A comparison of Creationist and Evolutionists

  1. Both have distinct historical frame works.
  2. Both build theories around their respective historical frame work.
  3. Both have expectations about results.
  4. Both interpret what they find by way their respective historical frame work.
  5. Both are equally scientific.

No comments:

Post a Comment