Is Creationism actually science?

More contrails than people?

This looks designed

This looks evolved

5 Likes

If Creationism is science, then where are the new invention, patents, medical treatments, practical applications, or fruitful areas of new discovery? These things are the hallmarks of good science, and we have over 500 years of historical examples in evidence. This is not to say that Creationists cannot conduct science, they do, but they do it the same way as anyone else; through application of methodological naturalism.

Creation Science is apologetics, nothing more.

6 Likes

Seriously? Aren’t you aware that genetic mutations can alter the body plans of organisms and are bonafide members of the repertoire of mechanisms employed by neodarwinism? This means that if you intend to study how novel organs and body plans emerge, comparative genomics and transcriptomics are examples of vital areas to consider, not fossils. I could be wrong, but fossils mostly tell us these changes occurred and not how they happened, so your focus is largely misplaced.

For example, we know that viviparity evolves from oviparity. This study examined how this sort of transition could have happened using genomic and gene expression data:

Another paper to read is this which discusses how new organs can evolve using placental evolution, which seems to be the most understood, as a model.

3 Likes

Simple. Because “specified complexity” is not an indication that something was designed. I just demonstrated this with the example of the hoodoos, which exhibit specified complexity but are not designed.

I just did, but thanks for your permission. If the flagellum is a “spinning motor”, then “spinning motors” do not have to be designed, because the flagellum evolved without any need for a designer.

3 Likes

Planet earth is a “spinning motor” which powers weather systems and thereby provide temperature ranges and rainfall patterns which support life on earth. So if I can apply the word motor to anything and everything which spins, have I thereby proven that it is “designed”?

I don’t think so.

My cat sounds like a motor when it purrs. Does the fact that the word motor gets applied to cats by English speakers thereby prove that cats are designed?

The fallacy of assuming that the human habit of assigning labels to objects and processes somehow automatically transfers all attributes to all other objects and processes in that “class” of things is mind-boggling. (Yes, @Edgar, electric motors are designed by humans but that doesn’t mean that someone arbitrarily deciding to apply the designed attribute of an electric motor to a “flagellum motor” via analogy makes any sense.)

8 Likes

Yes. By the logic @Edgar and @scd are using, we could argue: “Our galaxy is round and flat. And a pizza is round and flat. Therefore, our galaxy is a pizza!”

5 Likes

And if our galaxy is a pizza, then that would make the Dalai Lama’s goal of Ultimate Enlightenment much more relatable: “Make me one with everything!”

As for me, I feel somewhat ambivalent about pizza. On the upside, there’s lots of toppings. On the downside, there isn’t.

(Meanwhile, nobody likes a universe with anchovies on it. And removing all gluten is going to the extreme.)

5 Likes

Yet, we live in a world with anchovies in it. I guess that’s what a fallen world looks.like.

7 Likes

And this is where my background in the “creation science” community of the 1960’s comes in handy. Anchovies eat newly hatched fish, copepods, and various other zooplanktons—and this preying upon other animals could only have happened after the fall. (Anchovies living before the Fall of Adam most certainly dined only on plants.)

So yes, predators like anchovies can only exist in a fallen world. As you said, that is what a fallen world looks like. Anchovies as we know them today were brought about by sin.


POSTSCRIPT: Newcomers to PS should be aware that the above is heavily laced with sarcasm.

3 Likes

Now, personally, I have no experience with anchovies. I’ve been a vegetarian since the Nixon administration, which is as clear a demonstration that correlation does not equal causality as I can think of. But this raises a question: if I’m a vegetarian, am I some sort of relict species from before the fall (I do remember the summer, so there’s that)?

1 Like

So if vegetarians come from before the fall, when did vegans come from? :face_with_monocle:

3 Likes

Before the spring, I should think, at least.

2 Likes

Was that in the winter of their discontent?

3 Likes

Possibly, though that one was made glorious summer by the son of Yorvik or Eboracum or some such thing, so that might come after the spring. When the gods make the calendar stop, it gets confusing.

1 Like

And, no doubt, they return the favor.

You missed a great opportunity to impress us with lawyer-speak: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

If I were a snooty intellectual, I might even say: “Everything sounds smarter in Latin.”

Prelapsarian indeed.

(Apparently @edgar wore us down and we’ve resorted to the most primitive forms of humor to clear the palate. And to broaden our palette.)

3 Likes

I wonder what a mashup of Richard III and Genesis would look like. “In the deep bosom of the ocean buried” interpreted as a reference to the Noahic Flood.

I further wonder what would happen if I feed Youtube videos of people speaking each into an Auto-Mashup Maker. :stuck_out_tongue: (The answer is, “nothing good” – back to the drawing board.)

I recall being told it would be good to learn some Latin prior to law school, and I’d already taken a bit of Latin so I figured it’d come in handy. It turns out that most legal Latin is in the form of particular terms of art, which have their own meanings that the Latin wouldn’t help you with. So “res judicata” is an important principle, but the words just mean “the thing adjudicated.” “Res ipsa loquitur” means “the thing speaks for itself,” but that expression hardly speaks for itself. Since you’ve got to learn the “term-of-art” meanings anyhow to make sense of them, it doesn’t make much difference whether you start out already knowing the literal Latin meanings.

2 Likes

Irrelevant to my argument. I’m not denying that there is no way to test if those mechanisms “work demonstrably in the world around us” - I’m arguing that there is zero empirical evidence that the mechanisms I mentioned (mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, recombination, gene flow) are capable of producing novel body plans or novel organs.

Or wait … maybe there is! Which experiment produced novel body plans and novel organs using said mechanisms?

You’re trying hard to sweep the scientific principle Patterson mentioned under the carpet, lest it be applied to your cherished evolutionary theories about what was responsible for the history of life on earth.

What you’re trying to do here is obvious: You can’t counter my claim, so you’ve invented a false, strawman version of my claim – one that you feel you can easily shoot down in flames. This is the second time you’ve used this disingenuous tactic, but you don’t fool me.

Trying to explain one cryptic post by following it with another is not my idea of a rational conversation. Please explain what you mean.

Your post does nothing to explain how the theory that some combination of mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, recombination, gene flow is responsible for novel body plans and novel organs can be tested. Neither does it explain why my position is irrational.

What you’re saying is, in effect, the same as this: To argue that the first ever television could not possibly be the result of natural forces, but could only have been the result of intelligent design, constitutes an argument from personal incredulity.

A theist (like me, for example) can accept evolution as the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth, without swallowing the ubiquitous propaganda that portrays it as a fact.

Most of us belong to some herd or other, but as for “naively following a herd”, that ain’t me … unlike a lot of “educated theists”, who do naively follow the Darwinist herd. A lot of “educated theists” blindly accept Darwinism as gospel without knowing two things about it, much less knowing how deeply-flawed a theory it is. They see someone like David Attenborough endorsing Darwinism on tv, and gullibly conclude it must be true.

Scientists have zero experience with “dark energy” and “dark matter”, yet they have sound scientific reasons to believe they exist. Similarly, I have good scientific reasons to believe that a “dark God” exists, who is responsible for abiogenesis.