Creationism's contribution to science (Darwin, Earth, evolution, genesis, myth)

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

As far as I can tell, creationism has only a negative statement to make about evoultion. I do not believe that it has made a scientific case for the Biblical story of the origin of life. Is the only alternative to evolution the biblical account? - a myth instead of tested scietific theory?

[Sunstone]

Even in the unlikely event that evolution were disproved, it would not logically follow that creationism were true.

[Sunstone]

I still can’t think of even one single positive contribution that creationism has made to science.

[Mr Spinkles]

Creationism is a non-idea. Let me explain (rant):

Idea: Babies are born when the male sperm fertilizes a female egg. The sperm burrows into the egg and donates half of the father's DNA to the egg (either an X or a Y chromosome)...the egg donates half of the mother's DNA (one of two X chromosomes). If the sperm donates an X chromosome, the embryo will have XX chromosomes and will be female. If the sperm donates a Y chromosome, the embryo will have XY chromosomes and will be male. In females, a genetic mutation on one X chromosome means the female has another X chromosome to 'cover it up' and the genetic disorder will be nonexistent or mild. However, if a male receives an X chromosome with a genetic disorder in it, he does not have a second X chromosome to 'make up for' the deficiency in the other X....so the male will have the symptoms of that genetic disorder.

This information explains many observations: i.e. why hemophilia and other genetic disorders occur almost exclusively in males, and why females tend to be 'carriers' passing the disorders on to their offspring without having the symptoms themselves.

This idea is also valuable in that we can use it to accurately predict things. For example, using this knowledge, we can find out the probability of a male hemophiliac having hemophiliac children. If the male has children with a healthy female, all of his female children will receive his hemophilia-containing X chromosome and their mother's healthy X chromosome. All of his daughters will be 'carriers' of the hemophilia gene. None of his male children will have hemophilia, since they will receive his healthy Y chromosome. So, the probability of a hemophiliac having a hemophiliac child (as long as the female is healthy) is 0%, for having a carrier child is 50%, and for having a healthy child is 50%. Statistical analyses confirm this concept.

Non-idea: God makes babies. Cells do not become humans...that is impossible. All of the above is pure theory.

This non-idea explains nothing. It can predict nothing. It is a non-idea, just like Creationism.

[paul_an_apostle]

Originally Posted by pah

As far as I can tell, creationism has only a negative statement to make about evoultion. I do not believe that it has made a scientific case for the Biblical story of the origin of life. Is the only alternative to evolution the biblical account? - a myth instead of tested scietific theory?

PAH - This is a good question, so please let me attempt to explain a little about what 'Creationism' really is.

Creationism is applied to the description of the creation of Heavan and earth as laid out in Genesis of the Bible (I know - you know this). Genesis describes a very logical and detailed account of how it all got started.

The belief in the Biblical form of Creation, presupposes a belief in God as the supreme Being in the Universe. But let's do the math - - -

There is a mathematical concept call the law of chaos or the chaos theory which state that 'Anything, no matter how well organized, when left to itself, eventually reverts to chaos'. This particular concept has been tested again and again and has always been proven true - except the Universe and everything in it. Strange huh? Yes it is; but there it is. Well when all other evidence has been negated, the only thing left, no matter how bizarre (to some ;-) ) must be the truth. In this case, the only explanation that remains is 'there is a higher power holding the Universe together' - that higher power is the Living God.

That's the short version and believe me, behind that are volumes of data that bear this out.

So, from a human standpoint, logic dictates that if God is holding it together, then He must have created it.

If, then, He created it, and the Bible is His word (His letter to us - if you will), then it stands to reason that He could tell us how He performed the steps that resulted in this creation.

What does Genesis say about Evolution? Nothing - because evolution never happened at least, not the way Darwin theorized it - even Darwin admitted that before he died. What does Genesis say about similarities in species? Volumes - God created everything using the same set of rules (He defined the rules), so there is bound to be a great many similarities in structure.

The main difference, though, is that evolution supposedly took millions (billions?) of years whereas Creation took only 6 days and happened around 6000 years ago. So what about all the evidence of life millions of years ago (dinasaurs, etc.). Simple - they lived back then, but had nothing to do with this current creation. Back then God was 'twiddling His thumbs' so to speak. He's been around forever; was He supposed to be just sitting there, then suddenly decided 'I'll make the Universe and man' - no - He had other things to do, some of which we see the evidence of in the earth's geological and paleantological history. In other words, this Current Universe contains some of the 'play doe' He was using at the time.

Hope this hepls a little - God Bless

[(Q)]

***MOD EDIT***

The Mod Squad wishes to remind you that Religious Forums is a place of respect. If you wish to debate with Paul, do so, but please refrain from random inflammatory comments.

Thank you.

P.S. You need to take a look at Rex's "Please Update Portfolio" announcement, and enable PMs.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by paul_an_apostle

PAH - This is a good question, so please let me attempt to explain a little about what 'Creationism' really is.

Creationism is applied to the description of the creation of Heavan and earth as laid out in Genesis of the Bible (I know - you know this). Genesis describes a very logical and detailed account of how it all got started.

I see Genesis with two contradictory versions of creation and I'm afarid it is impossible for me to consider Genesis "logical" within itself if only for that reason. To me it also fails in detailing all that we know is present and having life today - specifically virus and bacteria. Other living things may be explained by science as belonging to the limited categories of creation but I'm not sure it covers coral and those others that are microscopic.

The belief in the Biblical form of Creation, presupposes a belief in God as the supreme Being in the Universe.

With that suppostiton, you have closed the door on science. Since science is confined to the natural world, it could not address the supernatural. I suppose one of my comments is answered - that science can not make a statement regarding a biblical creation - and from that, creation science is not science but only a defense, by negation, of a biblical account. Of course, Intelligent Design would follow the same line of reasoning - it is not science and, in my mind, only a re-labeling of creation science to "get around" the failure of creationism in breeching the separation of church and state in our schools.

But let's do the math - - -

There is a mathematical concept call the law of chaos or the chaos theory which state that 'Anything, no matter how well organized, when left to itself, eventually reverts to chaos'. This particular concept has been tested again and again and has always been proven true - except the Universe and everything in it. Strange huh? Yes it is; but there it is. Well when all other evidence has been negated, the only thing left, no matter how bizarre (to some ;-) ) must be the truth. In this case, the only explanation that remains is 'there is a higher power holding the Universe together' - that higher power is the Living God.

That's the short version and believe me, behind that are volumes of data that bear this out.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. How is God and chaos related?

My understanding of Chaos theory is that it works only in a closed system. The universe is not closed.

So, from a human standpoint, logic dictates that if God is holding it together, then He must have created it.

If, then, He created it, and the Bible is His word (His letter to us - if you will), then it stands to reason that He could tell us how He performed the steps that resulted in this creation.

Logic just doesn't apply to the relationship of God and the world. Formal logic has failed over the centuries at producing a formal logic statement that proves God. This says that anything God is supposed to be or does can not rely on logic. It is not logic (or reasoning) that produces the effect and affect of God but only faith - a leap from logic- that can do this.

What does Genesis say about Evolution? Nothing - because evolution never happened at least, not the way Darwin theorized it - even Darwin admitted that before he died. What does Genesis say about similarities in species? Volumes - God created everything using the same set of rules (He defined the rules), so there is bound to be a great many similarities in structure.

Now, that's just not true. There is no process described for creating the plants and animals. Man was created from dirt (or mud or dust or however else you want to translate it Woman was created from man's rib.

I have heard the story before about Darwin's death bed scene but I forgotten what he is supposed to have said. Could you find that for me?

The main difference, though, is that evolution supposedly took millions (billions?) of years whereas Creation took only 6 days and happened around 6000 years ago. So what about all the evidence of life millions of years ago (dinasaurs, etc.). Simple - they lived back then, but had nothing to do with this current creation. Back then God was 'twiddling His thumbs' so to speak. He's been around forever; was He supposed to be just sitting there, then suddenly decided 'I'll make the Universe and man' - no - He had other things to do, some of which we see the evidence of in the earth's geological and paleantological history. In other words, this Current Universe contains some of the 'play doe' He was using at the time.

I've never heard that explanation before, so forgive me if I find it quaint It certianly is not in any of the versions of Genesis I've read. Could you cite an authority for that story?

[(Q)]

Sorry Runt - Paul was insulting my intelligence and I just couldn't help myself.

[Runt]

I understand. I get the urge sometimes as well... and then I remind myself of the forum rules before someone has to do it for me.

Have you updated your portfolio?

[paul_an_apostle]

My apologies to all - I didn't know I was making a random inflamatory remark. I was responding to the 1st statement of this discussion:

Originally Posted by pah

As far as I can tell, creationism has only a negative statement to make about evoultion. I do not believe that it has made a scientific case for the Biblical story of the origin of life. Is the only alternative to evolution the biblical accoun