Creationist Boo-boos? Yes, I think we need to recognize there have been mistakes on both sides. Before I go on with some more examples of errors that have plagued the science of evolution due to faith in Evolutionism*, I’d like to point out some mistaken or misused arguments that have been used by creationists. *(An example of faith that matter/energy and natural processes alone can account for everything.) So we can call these Creationist Boo-boos.
Using the Bible as a science textbook
Of course, it’s perfectly legitimate for a creationist to trust the Bible as the Word of God and take Genesis as a straightforward account of what actually happened in the beginning. The error comes in when creationists take the words as equivalent to scientifically technical terms, or read into them or beyond them various natural processes which might or might not have been involved. In other words, place excessive scientific significance in or between the lines. This is similar to the superstitious use of Scriptures that Sir Francis Bacon warned against.
I would also like to note, however, that evolutionists should not criticize using the Bible as a science text, but then turn around and criticize creationists for citing it in terms of its not matching scientific criteria. A history including God’s supernatural activity can’t be judged by the yardstick of known natural processes.
Continue reading Creationist Boo-boos
I doubt I can keep this up as just a hobby, so I’m working on making some money on it. I’m not allowed to tell you about one of the ways, but I’m sure Amazon will be happy if I point out the link over on the side that will take you away to their famous online store. I’ve bought quite a few things from Amazon and have been happy with the selection (cheap used books as well as new ones) and speed (not to mention reliability) of shipping. I could probably tie this in with science and how it relates to creationism and evolutionism, but right now I don’t have the time or energy. I think I can add my special affiliate link right here in a way that will open a new tab. If you don’t need to order a Christmas gift or two, you can always have fun looking, although I don’t think I get any money for that. Not sure this is going to work anyway, but at least you can enjoy E-shopping to see all the wonderful things that … oh yes, they’ve got science toys, gadgets, and gizmos, robots and high-tech appliances, TVs, music — did you know Francis Bacon predicted that we would learn to transmit and store music? So go Shop at Amazon.com!
Or first see some of my suggestions (You can still use the link on the side after that, if you want to look for something else).
It is the website of a creationist, but that’s not the same thing. My goal here is not so much to promote creationism as it is to point out that evolutionism should not be part of science, although (unofficially) it is. Don’t be surprised if I get around to pointing out that creation science theories are also outside of the natural realm of science as well. I will be lampooning (or mildly questioning, depending on the case) evolutionism mostly, mostly because it’s the biggest (in many ways) transgressor of the proper limits of science.
It’s true that I see this as just a first step, the recognition of the difference between the kind of science that can be demonstrated and truly can’t be denied without direct consequences in cases where it is applicable, and the newer sciences that include claims (hypotheses, theories, and sometimes pontification) which can’t be demonstrated to be true and can be denied without any problem — unless it gets you censored, blacklisted, or fired. And believing in creation rather than evolution is just a step toward eventually acknowledging Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah/Christ, God manifest in the flesh, repenting of your sin and receiving eternal salvation by calling on the Lord in faith, being redeemed by His sacrifice and justified by His resurrection. Continue reading Seriously, this is NOT a creation science website.
Notes on Complexity
What makes something physically complex? How can physical complexity be measured?
Let’s start with a typical dictionary reference. I have on hand Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (copyright 1980 by G. & C. Merriam Co.). There are three definitions, adjective, noun, and transitive verb. We are of course interested here in the adjective and noun. The etymology provided in the adjectival definition references the Latin “complecti, to embrace, comprise (a multitude of objects).” The root “plectere” means “to braid.”
The first definition includes objects that are very simple: “composed of two or more parts: composite.” The next two (as variations of the first) refer to specific English grammar uses, i.e. complex words and sentences. However, the second distinct definition is “hard to separate, analyze, or solve.” This sounds more like what I have in mind, as there is nothing hard to analyze or solve about something that has as few as two pieces. Even things that have a lot of pieces may be easy to solve or analyze. Thus, having multiple parts must be the barest minimum consideration. On the other hand, “hard to…” is very subjective and there’s no direct reference to physical properties.
Continue reading Thoughts on Complexity and Design
As this is a personal blog website, every now and then I’m going to step away from the Fundamentalist Science theme and share some other things. Here is a Bible study I did years ago…
Some people, in spite of all the clear passages about salvation, still manage to create doubt and fear that if we don’t do this, that, or the other physical action or have some church official say just exactly the right words over us, we’re still going to be lost. Or they even teach that no matter what else we do, if we fail to do one good work or commit one sin, our salvation is shot and we have to get saved all over again.
Continue reading 42: Salvation by faith, not by works