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
Evolutionism is bad for the science of evolution.
Creationists are not against the science of evolution but evolutionism, although there’s no telling how many are unaware of that. For their part, many evolutionists deny there is such a thing as evolutionism. However, if we look at a number of things which creationists point out as failures of evolutionism, we see that they are examples of science gone bad due to evolutionism corrupting the scientific study of evolution. I like to call these examples “Evo Boo-boos” for short. Continue reading Evo Boo-boos (science vs. evolutionism)
When creationists talk about things such as, how mainstream scientists believe in evolution because of their shared worldviews, or that evolution is specially protected by the scientific establishment, evolutionists seem to get the idea that what creationists have in mind is some sort of global network of conspiracy, or a secret cabal pulling strings. In actuality, it’s simply a matter of common education and the philosophy of naturalism that are built into science today. Science is not itself an objective fact or principle, nor a law or gift from God. It is a human invention, it has been modified over the centuries, and all human activities are prone to human error. A recent study shows one small way that an area of science can be stifled by an effect that might appear to be conspiratorial if the true cause wasn’t known.
Continue reading You don’t need a formal conspiracy to be unified.
When scientists step beyond the proper limits of science, such as the limit of time in which things have been scientifically observed and recorded, something other than the method of repeatedly observing and testing things will dictate how data is explained. Supernatural events and explanations are by their nature not limited by the limits of nature, so naturally natural philosophers (now called scientists) tend to avoid them. So, whatever we find in nature, most scientists today have to explain without considering what the Bible (or other religious source) says that God (or other supernatural entity) did in the past that might throw off such explanations. Obviously, creating the heavens and the Earth in one swell foop of six days is going to produce things that would take billions of years to form, assuming that natural processes alone could somehow do it.
So there are some things that “Young Earth” scientists have struggled to explain, such as how we can see stars that are billions of light years away. I believe there’s a simple supernatural explanation, but there are a number of (more or less) natural explanations that have been proposed. There are other things that mainstream scientists are struggling to show nature can produce, such as the origin of life. Continue reading Soft Tissues: Hard to stretch over millions of years
A response to “The Creation-Evolution Standoff” by Paul Arnold in “Converge.” ( http://convergemagazine.com/creation-evolution-standoff-14552/ )
For someone hoping to emulate Dr. Denis Lamoureux’s statement about being “as clean and as competent with the data in front of me” in order to “actually learn something from those we disagree with,” it’s sad to see Paul Arnold so badly misrepresenting this situation.
“To atheists, religion is oppressive and ill informed. To religious fundamentalists, science is morally bankrupt. ”
How can someone write something like that, and then bemoan the excessively binary way people look at it? What’s really bad, though, is the misrepresentation of religious fundamentalists as anti-science. The issue is about creation vs evolution, and while the atheists’ view of religion is essentially immaterial to that, the portrayal of religious fundamentalists as anti-science rather than anti-naturalistic philosophy is a symptom of the central problem. As it comes down to, later in the article, the question is, do we put our faith in God and his ability to communicate with us, or in men and their ability to divine the past from circumstantial evidence, and re-interpret what the Bible plainly says? Continue reading There’s no standoff if you think clearly
So, having disposed of the knee-jerk reaction to “Fundamentalist” and the expectation that I’m going to say that real science is creationist science, I may as well confirm that this isn’t about treating science as a religion itself. After all, there are people who do take science, or scientism and evolutionism, as a sort of substitute for religion. They look to “Science” for answers to the great philosophical and ethical questions. Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? How should I behave?
Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University, is famous for having admitted this occurs. I will take as my reference, however, the article in the Huffington Post in which he defends himself from the over-enthusiastic response of creationist reporting: “Is Darwinism a Religion?” (Posted: 07/21/2011 8:26 am EDT Updated: 09/20/2011 5:12 am EDT, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/is-darwinism-a-religion_b_904828.html) I encourage you to check it out for yourself if you’d care to judge for yourself exactly what he was trying to communicate. Continue reading And Another Thing … this site is not
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.
This first article in the “Bad Science” category was inspired by “D’ya hear about the moon-bison?” by Lynda Walsh in The Scientist Weekend March 2, 2007.
As I researched the historical context of Darwin’s great myth of common descent of all life from microbial ancestors, possibly from chemicals coming together in some “warm, little pond,” I was struck by how many strange and just plain bad things began during the same period. The 19th century saw the rise of a number of cults, and toward the end of the 1800s there was a strong (but wrong) feeling that science was on the verge of having answered all the major questions, and the 20th century would only see the filling in of lesser details. These are subjects I may explore later. The article by Walsh touches on some of the hoaxes of the time that involved or were related to scientific discoveries. Continue reading The Beginning of Scientific Mythology