Creationism versus Naturalism.

 Contrary to what you may think Creationism is not the alternative to evolution, but rather it is the alternative to Naturalism. This confusion has often been used to argue against the scientific nature of creation science. This distinction is very important to understand the difference between scientific theories and their philosophical underpinnings. This is known as philosophy of science.

When you are trying to understand the regular functioning of some aspect of the universe in the present, such that it can be tested or observed, then the differences in these philosophical presuppositions are insignificant since this is by definition what a natural phenomenon is. However, when you are looking at a past event that is either reported to be supernatural or for which there are other reasons for attributing the event to supernatural agency, then the differences between these two philosophical presuppositions will be significant. Furthermore, if an event was indeed supernatural in nature and you try to describe what happened based on absolute naturalism, you will not get the right answer. The problem with philosophical naturalism is that it makes it impossible to conclude that an event was supernatural regardless of the evidence.

Under philosophical naturalism, only natural processes are considered to exist. A supernatural agency such as God is excluded from consideration before any evidence is even looked at. Sadly, now methodological naturalism has been used as a way of pushing naturalism in practice when doing scientific research. Whether one’s naturalism is philosophical or just methodological the result is the same. They exclude God as a possible explanation for anything regardless of the evidence. This makes it impossible from mainstream science to see any evidence for the Genesis Flood, that is it is excluded as a possibility because it is not possible under naturalism.

What Creationism and Naturalism have in common, from a scientific perspective is that they are both philosophical starting points for the development of theories. Naturalism excludes supernatural agency by definition, while creationism allows for it and considers the possibility of supernatural explanations when the situation calls for it. Both are philosophical starting points that are then used to develop theories that can be tested.

To properly understand this discussion, it is important to realize that creationism is not an alternative to evolution but an alternative to naturalism. There is a difference. Once you understand that both creationism and naturalism are philosophical positions rather than scientific, but they are both used as a starting point for scientific theories then understanding the difference between the conclusions of creationists and evolutionists becomes a lot easier.

Big Bang to Man Evolution Is Atheistic Mythology

 Atheists often argue that atheism has no mythology, but when you think about it, the Big Bang to Man evolutionary story is really just a story with atheistic roots. They try to claim that it is scientific, but in reality, it is still atheistic.

Inherently Atheistic 

Big Bang to Man Evolution is atheistic because it leaves God out of the picture. Unlike sciences such as physics, chemistry, and most of biology, this line of thinking is not trying to understand how things work, but rather how they originated. There is a big difference between the two and its effect on conclusions about whether or not you include God. Much of this story has its origins among atheists who were talking about universal common descent evolution long before Charles Darwin was even born. For example, his grandfather Erasmus Darwin was talking about it.

Napoleon was informed by Marquis De Laplace, who was an atheist, that his explanation of the solar system's beginnings did not require the involvement of God. While it is true that a Catholic priest proposed the concept of the Big Bang, he had already disregarded the Biblical account of creation and embraced atheistic ideas and conclusions. Therefore, the narrative of the Big Bang leading to the existence of mankind was either formulated by atheists or individuals influenced by their ideologies.

You don't have to be an atheist except these theories

Though one need not be an atheist to accept the Big Bang to human evolution story, some who believe in God and accept this narrative hold contradictory views without acknowledging the inconsistency. Humans often cling to mutually exclusive beliefs simultaneously, accepting what we were taught rather than logically analyzing our positions.

The connection goes beyond the concept origins

The link between the Big Bang and evolutionary theory and atheism extends beyond the origins of these concepts. Fundamentally, this historical model presumes absolute naturalism, excluding God as an explanation without first examining the evidence. As such, it represents an atheistic philosophical view of history. Moreover, it is the sole historical model of Earth's and the universe's evolution consistent with atheistic worldviews.

This view of history attempts to explain our existence without invoking God. The reaction to creation science and intelligent design clearly demonstrates this naturalistic perspective. These ideas are immediately rejected by institutional science and those adhering unquestioningly to the naturalistic historical view. Online discussions quickly reveal that notions of intelligent involvement in human origins are dismissed out of hand, often treated on par with believing in a flat earth. This dismissal is not merely figurative but frequently quite literal.

Artificially inserting God

Yes, you can artificially insert God into this model, but it is just an artificial insertion. This entire model of history is completely naturalistic, there is no place in it for God. Trying to believe both, is literally trying to believe two things there are logically exclusive. While it is possible to imagine God using this theoretical process to create everything, It is not logically consistent to do so. This model of history was designed from its inception for the most part to explain our existence apart from God. To insert him you have to relegate God to an agency that leaves no detectable traces and is nothing but a God of the gaps. This is not the God of the Bible, but one made up so that people can have it both ways.

Conclusion

The Big Bang to human evolution narrative is essentially an atheistic myth. This perspective on the origins of the universe and life is rooted in atheism. A close examination of the history and philosophy behind it reveals an inherently atheistic worldview. For atheists, it represents the sole coherent explanation for existence. To be an intellectually consistent atheist, one must accept this account of cosmic and biological origins. At its core, the Big Bang to human evolution story is atheistic mythology.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? 

Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution

The Myth of Junk DNA

The Use of the Word Science by Evolutionists

 Evolutionists often talk about science. For example, they will often claim that evolution is science, but creation is just religion. Meanwhile, some creationists declared that what they are doing is science as well. They will often point to legitimate scientific distinctions such as a theory making testable predictions. That is a creationist needs to present them with testable predictions from creationist theories, particularly successful ones. When we do this, they will often start insisting that it is still not scientific because it is not totally naturalistic. Their ultimate argument against creationists, when presented with evidence either against naturalistic views of origins or in favor of Biblical creation, is that it does not qualify as scientific evidence unless it has been approved by the peer-reviewed journals of institutionalized science.

Often for evolutionists, it is not about whether or not the research is done properly, whether it is done with good scientific methodology, or even how well the researcher follows the scientific method. When you get into a discussion, unless the data or research has been anointed by the high priests of scientism, and anointed with the blessing of their peer review, most evolutionists refuse to recognize it as science. Without this blessing, they do not want to even hear what you have to say. in the minds of such people once this blessing is given it magically becomes science, and it must be labeled pseudoscience without it. While they may not use such terminology, it illustrates the point, that they hold to peer review by the right people with a religious fervor particularly when they are admitted atheists.

This bubble of protection in which evolutionists place the Big Bang to man evolutionary theory is not restricted to protection against creationists, but anyone who dares present data that contradicts the evolutionary model. It is a natural result of the viewpoint that has been given a monopoly in public education. It is by protecting evolutionary theory from challenges that most students can go through their entire education, including graduate work, and never encounter any weaknesses in evolutionary theory except maybe in ridicule. The key to this bubble of protection is not allowing any opposition to this view of human origins to be considered science.

 It all pretty much boils down to that to qualify as science by evolutionists, atheists must accept it, and it has to be approved by the right people. A major part of this process is the tendency to confuse the operational science of studying how the universe works in the present, with historical science that tries to develop a story about the past based on present-day information. The problem here is that because we cannot directly observe the past and thereby see what actually happened, assumptions need to be made. Consequently, any story invented about the past is only as accurate as the assumptions that are behind it. For example, if you assume only natural processes, but God exists and has been active in our past in a supernatural manner then you will get this story entirely wrong. You would be completely incapable of seeing and as the Bible says be “willingly ignorant” of the true history of the world and the universe. Sadly, in most cases, the stories about the past invented by evolutionists do not come with disclaimers making these assumptions clear.

The point is that when you hear an evolutionist speak about science, you have to ask yourself which way he is using science, and whether will he change how he is using it during the discussion. Realize that while much of what they say might have a basis in actual science, is largely theoretical conjecture that assumes the Bible is wrong. Most evolutionists will deny such assumptions, but many of them are not even aware of it themselves. You can use assumptions without being aware of them, simply because they are parts of other assumptions you are making or other principles that you already accept.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Why Does the Question of Origins Matter?

 The nature of our origin is important to who and what we are. This is because from a Biblical perspective we are special creations of God. We were created for a purpose. From a purely naturalistic and evolutionary perspective, we are nothing but cosmic accidents without any purpose whatsoever. So, the question of origins gets at the heart of who and what we are. Are we special creatures created for a purpose, or just cosmic accidents? The difference between these two makes for a big distinction.

Biblical Creation is based on the history of the Bible. That history includes creation around 6,000 years ago and a global flood around 4,400 years ago. Both of these would have been supernatural acts of God, so any effort to explain the world around us by purely naturalistic means would result in age estimates there are many times larger than they really are. This is the primary problem when it comes to dating what we see on this planet.

The fact is that the Big Bang to man evolutionary story is fundamentally atheistic. The ideas on which it was based have their roots among 18th-century atheists and deists. Modern ideas about universal common descent evolution, in particular, predate Charles Darwin and was being discussed by atheists including Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin. In fact, Charles Darwin got his ideas about universal common descent from reading his grandfather’s writings. You do not even have to look that far back to see the atheistic influence in this story. All you have to do is look at the reaction to intelligent design, or any suggestion of intelligent involvement in the process. Proponents of the Big Bang to man evolutionary story like to stress that there was no planning involved but that everything we see is just a result of unintelligent totally naturalistic forces. Yes, not everyone involved in creating it has been an atheist, but an atheistic perspective is abundantly clear.

This may come as a surprise to some people, but creationism is an alternative to naturalism, not evolution. Both creationism and naturalism are philosophical starting points for developing theories about the history of the world and universe. The Big Bang to man story is what you get when you try to explain the universe by totally naturalistic forces and exclude God from your reasoning as a starting condition. Biblical creation on the other hand not only allows for the consideration of God but requires God as an integral part of it. So, ultimately the question of origins is a question about whether or not God is taken into account when trying to understand the evidence.

There are several reasons why all this matters. The first is the logical fact that whether or not you include God when you try to explain the world around us has a profound influence on the conclusions that you come to. Furthermore, where we came from is a critical part of who and what we are. If we are just cosmetic accidents, then nothing special is lost when you slaughter millions of unborn babies or even full-grown adults. However, in the Biblical account of our origin is true then we are created in the image of God, and we are special indeed and the slaughtering of our fellow human beings is a crime against God. Finally, Jesus himself spoke of both the creation and the Genesis flood as real history. So, the very credibility of Jesus Christ is at stake in this issue. There is no room for compromise, either God created the world, or the world created itself. Which position you take affects how you see the world around us in the very evidence you are studying.

For further reading:

Scoffers: Responding to Those Who Deliberately Overlook Creation and the Flood by Simon Turpin 

 4 Volume Answers Book Box Set Paperback by Ken Ham 

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Mitochondrial Eve and Human Migration

Mitochondrial Eve and Human Migration
 
Despite the fact that Evolutionists interpret Mitochondrial and Y chromosome DNA based on Evolution and have actually used the data to attack creationists, the data actually provides dramatic support for Biblical creation. Furthermore it supports the Biblical dispersion from Babel because when you start in Iraq where .Babel was located you find a nice three way split of  Mitochondrial and Y chromosome DNA just as predicted by the Biblical account.

How Creationists and Evolutionists could Benefit from Each Other

Creationists and evolutionists are opposite sides of the question of origins. So while full-fledged cooperation is impossible they can still benefit from each other. This is because both sides nave a different perspective from which they see things. There are three main ways in which this difference in perspective is helpful.

Creationists and evolutionists are not always looking for the same things when looking at the same phenomenon. Because of this each side will often acquire different lines of data that both sides can benefit from.

Creationists and evolutionists often see different things in the same data. This can benefit both sides by showing a different perspective than the one is use to,

Since creationists and evolutionists are on opposite side of the same issue they are naturally more critical of the other side than of their own making it easier to see problems. This is not to say that ether side is uncritical of their own side but that an honest criticism from a different perspective is helpful.

This would be nice if it happened in reality but by and large it does not. Some times it can happen in isolated cases but not on in the general case because of the degree of antagonism on both sides. A major problem is the fact that Evolutionists refuse to accept any Creation Science research as legitimate scientific research. As a result Creation Science criticism of evolutionist theories is usually ignored. This lack of respect on the part of evolutionists makes it hard for creationists to take their criticism of  Creation Science research seriously. There in lies the problem these mutual benefits require mutual respect something that does not exist.

Why Creation Science is important

Creation Science is the science of origins from a Biblical perspective. So from a Biblical perspective is helps provide a scientific of origins. This is important for having a complete and consistent Biblical world view. A strait forward reading of the Bible clearly indicates that the Earth and the Universe were created in one week just few thousand years ago and Creation Science shows this view to be scientifically feasible.

Creation Science has produced a considerable amount of research in Archaeology, Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Cosmology, Geology, History, Information Theory, Paleontology, Physics, and much more.

Research in Archaeology, and History evidence shows human history to be consistent with the Bible. Research in Astronomy, and Cosmology have shown that the universe can be only a few thousand years old from Earth’s perspective. Research in Geology has shown that Noah’s Flood could have occurred as described in Genesis and the Earth to be just a few thousand years old. Research in Biology and Paleontology have shown problems with naturalistic models of the origin for life as well as showing the need for a supernatural intelligent origin for life. Research in Chemistry, Information Theory, and Physics, have provided the needed theory for the other researchers.

A review of the creation science website Genesis Science Mission

Genesis Science Mission

Genesis Science Mission is an interactive Creation Science web site. It uses video and interactive programming to present Creation Science and science as a whole in an integrated package, Many of the articles, videos and interactive programs present scientific principle with little if any reference to creation science to provide a proper scientific back ground for Creation Science.

A review of the creation science website Genesis Mission

Genesis Mission

This is a largely a text and image companion site to Genesis Science Mission. The material is formatted so as to present Creation Science in a way that integrates Creation Science with science as a whole. This is done to show a complete picture. Many of the articles present scientific principle with little if any reference to creation science so as to provide the scientific back ground for Creation Science.

What is the Difference Between Historical and Operational Science

Operational Science: an explanation of a set of facts based on a broad set of repeatable and testable observations that is generally accepted within a group of scientists.

This is the type of science that curses disease, discovers new sources of energy and leads in invention.

Historical Science: an explanation of past events based on the interpretation of evidence that is available in the present.

From: What Is Science? - Answers in Genesis

---

Since we can only observe the present because we live in the present and that is what we observe. The past can not be observed since we do not live in the past we do not observe the past. The past can only be studied by observing in the present. Even distant star light is observed only in the present even if we do see the stars as they looked in the past.

So to study the past requires making some assumptions about the past even studying distant stars requires making assumptions about the history and structure of the universe.  This makes studying the past more likely to be affected by philosophical assumptions.

The study of origins is by definition a historical science the study of origins is highly influenced by philosophical assumptions. If those philosophical assumptions are wrong then so are the conclusions.