Is Creationism actually science?

Conversation Side Conversation
1

Creationism is actually science. By now, empirical science has made it perfectly obvious that viable life is so functionally complex that it could not possibly have happened by chance.
In effect, Abiogenesis-by-Chance has officially been declared a superstition - not to mention, an insult to human intelligence.

Faced with the scientific impossibility of chance, the only rational - and therefore, scientific - explanation for the origin of life is design, or more specifically, divine creation. Voila! … Creation is science. Get used to it.

2

Really? And which major scientific organisation or associations accept Creationism as Science? What, widely accepted, view of philosophy of science admits religious revelation as science?

In fact, where is the evidence that Creationists have convinced anybody other than card-carrying creationists that Creationism is science?

Creationism is actually religious apologetics. (And, as such, is really only convincing to those who are already true believers.)

And what legitimate, peer-reviewed, scientific journals was this “emprical science” published in?

Really? And what official “officially” made this designation?

This impossibility has been merely asserted, not demonstrated.

“Design” isn’t an “explanation”, it is a bald, unsubstantiated, contentless assertion.

Only if you ignore the progress, over the last couple of centuries, in defining and refining what science actually is.

Good luck convincing anybody outside the Creationist echo-chamber of any of this. :smiley:

2 Likes
3

Life at present is complex and as you go back in time with the fossil record, it gets relatively simpler. This indicates life at the start must have been simple. In addition, stop strawmanning the science of abiogenesis: no one says life came about by pure chance alone.

In your dreams bro.

Provide me with any quote from any active OoL researcher that claims prebiotic life arose only by chance. If you can’t, retract this false claim.

I am not going to ask you to provide evidence to support this assertions because I know you don’t have any. Don’t derail this thread.

3 Likes
4

No, it actually isn’t science. It is story telling.

3 Likes
5

I have no insight into how or if abiogenesis may have occurred. There are many people attempting to make progress towards a plausible theory. You dismiss them as a cabal of the superstitious, presumably aided and abetted by the broader community of scientists. Have you not just exemplified the topic of this thread - that creationism is beset by a conspiratorial mindset?

3 Likes
6

What empirical science specifically? Please give a reference from the primary literature.

4 Likes
7

As long as “the primary literature” means “literature for fundamentalist primary schools,” no problem.

3 Likes
8

We are faced with a pandemic caused by a virus that is evolving in real time.

Would you kindly point us to the contributions of these alleged actual creationist scientists toward ending the pandemic–other than denying that it exists?

If creationism is real science, the time to speak up is now, when there is so much attention being paid to both Darwinian and neutral evolution.

5 Likes
9

I’m not sure that creationism’s contributions lie in that direction. Hymns are more in order:

All infectious bacteria,
all viruses so small,
infecting our interior,
the Lord God made them all.

Each little phage that He injects
into each living thing,
He made them oh, so virulent
to enhance suffering.

The purpleheaded boil that bursts
the pustules wet and dry
the inflammation on the nerve
that blinds a creature’s eye,

The onset and the mourning
From first mild cough to death,
the painful, drowning lung tissues
that end a human’s breath,

Though COVID-19 killed my mom
its brilliant design
is tribute to His grandest plans,
the mark of the Divine!

6 Likes
10

Design in nature is neither religion nor an explanation nor a mere assertion – it’s a rational conclusion based on scientific evidence. Recognizing design is integral to science – just ask an archeologist.

Faced with the origin of life, methodological naturalism has proven itself to be childishly inadequate in dealing with reality. It’s about time science grew up and faced the obvious truth that life could not possibly have begun as the result of any natural cause.

11

What you need to do is stop dreaming and start using a bit of common sense. Any viable life-form would require immense functional complexity in order to exist – even the simplest single-cell organism. Your vision of a “simple” form of life beginning naturally in “some warm little pond” is an irrational, superstitious fantasy. It’s as unscientific as belief in spontaneous generation.

Oh yes, sorry – I forgot about the possibility that some smarter-than-average molecules got together and decided to build a living organism. No reason to suppose chance played a part in that scenario.

OoL is a bs-artist’s paradise. Chance is the enemy so it is denied. Next you’ll be telling me there are chemical laws that say inanimate matter produces living organisms.

You already have the evidence – you are fully aware of the complex, synchronized, interdependent machinery and systems that are characteristic of even the simplest cells. Armed with such knowledge, surely only a determined atheist would conclude that such complexity and synchronicity is the result of natural causes.

12

If you concluded that the faces on Mt. Rushmore are not the result of natural forces but of intelligence design, would that be “story telling” or science?

If you came across your name and address spelled out on a beach with sea-shells, and concluded that that was not the result of natural forces but of intelligent design, would that be “story telling” or science?

13

I wonder whose money they’re wasting, chasing fairies at the bottom of the garden. When those space-cadets achieve what is scientifically impossible - produce a viable living organism from inanimate matter - wake me up. In the meantime, all they’ll succeed in doing is come up with deep and meaningless hypotheses.

That sounds right. Such researchers are deluded dreamers – most likely atheists - who choose to believe in superstition and magic rather than accept the obvious (divine) implications of the scientific evidence. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

You are familiar with molecular biology. You are aware of the complex, synchronized, interdependent machinery and systems and the coded information that are present in even the simplest cells. That is your “primary literature”.

14

That’s funny! Unfortunately, some fundamentalist creationist ideas do leave themselves open to such ridicule.

A lot of creationism is decidedly unscientific. At this juncture, I’m arguing creation as science only with respect to abiogenesis.

15

Interesting. Which specific abiogenesis hypotheses have been advanced and empirically tested by which creation scientists?

You know, since hypothesis testing is pretty much the essence of science…

I am indeed. Would you like to see a list of my publications in the primary and secondary literature? Are you familiar with actual molecular biology? If you only reproduce quote mines, that would not be familiarity; you’d actually be keeping the biology at arm’s length.

Evolution is no barrier to complexity. In fact, it produces a sort of complexity that only makes sense as a result of an iterative process. Would you like some examples?

No, the term “code” is used as a metaphor, sorry. Codes by definition involve abstractions, which are simply not there, even in the most complex cells.

No, it is not. The primary literature is where real scientists publish new data that no one has ever known before. Are there any creationist scientists who do that, or do they just publish rhetoric? Why aren’t creationist scientists contributing to understanding the current pandemic, for example?

2 Likes
16

Please cite some of this evidence. Not what anyone says about the evidence, but the evidence itself.

2 Likes
17

It might be journalism or history. But it would not be science.

That would be more like story telling.

2 Likes
18

Lacking specifics on what scientific evidence you are talking about (a point I had already queried – and I see @Mercer has done likewise) and evidence that the conclusions Design-advocates draw from it are not fallacious (as they all-too-commonly are), this statement would appear to be likewise a “a bald, unsubstantiated, contentless assertion.”

Unlike a Design-advocate, an archeologist can point to specifics of who, when, where and how the design they postulate took place. Archeological design is concrete, apologetic design is ephemeral, and thus vacuous.

More unsubstantiated assertion. As such, liable to be completely ignored by the scientific community. To use your own words: “get used to it.”

2 Likes
19

Meanwhile, yes. Creationism is a conspiracy theory and so-called “creation science” a classic pseudoscience. Creationism is maintained in part by inventing this story that there’s a conspiracy against creationism among the scientific establishment, to explain why creationism fails to find any traction there.

Meanwhile “creation science” consists almost exclusively of pretending to do science in their own “research institutes”. They write “papers”, have their own little “journals”, and their own sets of people with titles who appear to go through the motions of doing science.

2 Likes
20

Let me modify your sentence a little:

“Any viable life-form at present would require immense functional complexity in order to exist – even the simplest single-cell organism”

That looks a lot better, but I wonder why this is hard for you to understand. When you examine the fossil record of human technology we see it becomes more primitive as we go back in time, and when we get to hundreds of thousands of years, its mostly stone tools. Similarly, examining the biological fossil record reveals this reversion to simpler forms as one goes back in time and at the oldest time points examined, we see only microbial life. This indicates that as we keep going back, past the oldest fossils discovered, it should only get simpler until we hit inanimate matter. Its that simple.

And the strawman canons keep firing away. Boom! Boom!

More strawman cannon balls fired. Take cover oh you defenders of the ungodly science of the OoL.

Dear lurkers, this is the sort of garbage people write when they misunderstand the things they criticize.

Chance is not an enemy. Every field of science recognizes that randomness is part and parcel of nature and they occasionally include it in their models. So yes, chance may have been involved in the OoL but it certainly would not have been the only factor.

We don’t know of any chemical law that turns inanimate matter into living organisms, but life itself is chemistry-based and obeys the same laws of physics and chemistry taught to undergrads in schools. So who knows, there might just be physico-chemical principles that actualized the existence of the earliest life forms and we may very well be on our way to figuring them out. Puzzles like this are what make the field of abiogenesis a vibrant area of research.

Ah, let’s modify that a bit as well:

“You already have the evidence – you are fully aware of the complex, synchronized, interdependent machinery and systems that are characteristic of even the simplest cells at present.”

When you understand that life at present wasn’t the same with whatever life forms existed billions of years ago, that’s when you will realize this argument of yours is silly.

The fact that there are Christians involved in OoL research invalidates this claim.

4 Likes