[_ Old Earth _] Is evolution more scientific than creation?

[Dave Slayer]

Is evolution more scientific than creation?

 

[John]

Science has been Defined to Exclude Creation.

The following strategy is repeatedly used by those who advocate “evolution only†education. They:
1. Define science to exclude the possibility of a creator.
2. Claim that all the evidence for our designer is “not science†and, therefore cannot be shown.
3. Repeat, like a mantra, statements such as “evolution is the basis of science†and imply that
microbes to man evolution is a proven fact.
4. Then give examples of minor changes within organisms as “proof†that one organism can change
into a completely different type, while using the same word, ‘evolution’ for both the small and the
enormous changes.
Actual scientific evidence for any major evolutionary transformation is non-existent. No experiment ever performed has come even remotely close to showing how life could form from chemicals. Major problems with origin of life experiments are systematically hidden from students – after all, we can’t have students considering the only other alternative (creation), can we?
No experiment has shown how useful functioning information can be added to the DNA molecule by random changes. Yet, it can be experimentally demonstrated that every known mutation results in a net loss of original functioning information. Why aren’t we training students to ask the big question - where did all of this original functional information come from? Acknowledgment of a designer gives a mechanism that agrees with known scientific observations; evolution relies on faith that denies experimental reality.
It is commonly parroted by evolution believers that creation is not science because it is not testable or repeatable. In actuality, the creation model is far more testable than the concept that microbes turned into man by random mutational changes. Any sequence pattern even remotely similar in form or function to the DNA code, beamed to earth from outer space, would immediately be acknowledged as evidence of an intelligent originator. Yet, the same evidence for a designer, found in every DNA molecule, cannot be acknowledged as such in classrooms! Mutation rates have been accelerated a million-fold with fruit flies, yet no new creature or even any new functioning feature has ever developed. Fossils are an undeniable record of the sudden appearance of distinctly different animal forms with huge gaps between enormously diverse creatures. The Biblical creation model explains the fossil record as a consequence of a real worldwide flood and the reality of this ancient global flood has been repeatedly confirmed by careful scientific observations. Yet, these evidences are systematically suppressed because of a dogmatic faith in evolution, which survives by defining “science†so that it leaves out the better creation alternative.
Those setting the standards for our public school science curriculum have merely replaced the acknowledgement of our Creator’s existence with a definition of “science†that excludes the possibility of God’s interaction with His creation. In essence modern man has decided to use the public education system to pretend that there is no God (at least not one worth mentioning). In reality what is being taught is that there is no God except naturalism. God, who desires for us to have a personal relationship with Him, has a response to this sad situation. Psalms 14:1 states, “The fool says in his heat, ‘There is no God.’ †We have become a nation of fools in the way we have allowed our children to be educated. 

 

[Barbarian]

Is evolution more scientific than creation?

"Creation" is a religious doctrine. "Evolution" is a natural phenomenon. So yes, it is more scientific, just as "creation" is more religious than "evolution."

The problem here is that there's an unspoken assumption that it's always good to be "scientific." But that's not the case. Science is a rather restricted method that applies only to the physical universe. It's O.K. to be unscientific, just as it's OK to be scientific.

I'm often unscientific myself. Science is not superior to religion; it's just a method.

 

[coelacanth]

Is evolution more scientific than creation?

A quick answer that may hopefully lead to more discussion, but you be the judge. How many of the criteria listed below would you say that creationism meets?

Everything below is a quick copy and paste from wikipedia regarding the philosophy of science:

For a theory to qualify as scientific,[171][172][173] it is expected to be:

1) Consistent
2) Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
4) Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
5) Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
6) Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
7) Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
8) Progressive (refines previous theories)
9) Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

 

[coelacanth]

Science has been Defined to Exclude Creation.

The following strategy is repeatedly used by those who advocate “evolution only†education.

For the same reason that biology teachers do not want to advocate the stork theory of human reproduction as an alternative.

They:

Oh, do go on...

1. Define science to exclude the possibility of a creator.

No, it is not defined that way. You may be thinking of the fact that Occam's Razor/parsimony is used as a guide and would suggest that if someone came up with the following idea that all but the first sentence be cut out: "Yellow and orange pigment molecules in flower petals appear to our eyes the color that they are due to the wavelengths of light that are absorbed, reflected, etc. Precisely which wavelengths are absorbed or reflected are due to the presence of magical, invisible, flower petal fairies that are completely undetectable, but are important because they harvest the wavelengths that are absorbed for food, and selectively reflect those colors of light to which they are allergic. The fairies are also avid baseball fanatics."

2. Claim that all the evidence for our designer is “not science†and, therefore cannot be shown.

Do you have something that you think should be considered scientific evidence of a creator?

3. Repeat, like a mantra, statements such as “evolution is the basis of science†and imply that microbes to man evolution is a proven fact.

Science is the basis of evolution, and nothing outside of pure mathematics is usually considered as a "proven fact" in a technical sense.

4. Then give examples of minor changes within organisms as “proof†that one organism can change into a completely different type, while using the same word, ‘evolution’ for both the small and the enormous changes.

[/quote]

Examples of minor changes are evidence that change within a species occurs over time, so when people say it doesn't happen they are quite easy to point to. This is well known. What do you propose prevents larger changes than the ones we have documented in real time? There are enormous heaps of evidence supporting larger changes, common ancestry, etc. There are also the prefixes "micro" and "macro" which qualify the extent of change.


Shall I continue with the rest of your canard about "evolutionists"?