Creationism's contribution to science

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?

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

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

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.

pah said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

***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.

paul_an_apostle said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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

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?

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:

pah said:

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?

Click to expand...

My intent was only to answer to someone, to what I thought was a very good question.

Apparently - I misunderstood - I thought you were really looking for answers. I am not sure I can do Genesis Chaper One justice in a forum such as this; but I can try.

Genesis 1:1 - Heaven - The word comes from an unusual Hebrew root that translates 5 different ways:

Gen. 1:1 - means All creation (eg: Heavens and earth)
Gen. 1:14 - Space - the location of the heavenly bodies
Gen. 1:8 - Atmosphere - directly above the earth
Gen. 19:24 - The atmosphere further removed from the Earth, where comes rain,
lightning, etc
Duet. 10:14 - God's dwelling place - the Heaven of heavans

So when 'God created the the Heavens and the Earth', He created atmosphere, Space and Heaven and earth. That's just Genesis 1:1 -this could take forever ;-) - but He only took 6 days

God Bless

paul_an_apostle,

Quick question--what scientific proof or evidence do you have to support the theory that the earth was indeed created in 6 days, vs. the billions that evolutionists claim?

Landmarks such as the Grand Canyon, as well as modern observations of erosion, etc. all allude to a gradual forming process. The observed formation and patterns of atoms do the same.

The big problem, for me, is that Creationism is based on what fits with the bible, not with what has been found to be scientifically possible. For example, 'scientists' took the time period of 6 days directly from the bible and worked from there, instead of coming to the conclusion of six days after empirical research done independently from the bible. For all I know, the earth was indeed created in a matter of 'days'. However, what if scientists came to the conclusion that it took 8 days instead of 6? That would screw things up pretty royally. We won't really have to worry about that, however, because the only evidence they have of even the 6-day theory comes from the bible, and not to dis the ancients, but they had a lot to be desired in the area of scientific understanding.

paul-- Your remarks were not inflammatory at all, don't worry.

paul_an_apostle said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your conclusion is a bit misguided...there is no need to hypothesize a higher being in order to reconcile chaos theory with the observed organization of living things. Allow me to explain: In chemistry, this is called the concept of "entropy". The concept is that the entropy (disorder/randomness) of the universe is always increasing. So, how is the emergent phenomenon of organisms (which are ordered) an increase in entropy (disorder)?

The answer is surprisingly simple: entropy CAN decrease in a system, as long as the NET entropy of the universe increases. So, out of chaos comes complexity....organisms actually facilitate an increase in the net entropy of the universe, by increasing the entropy of their surroundings (the entropy increases in their surroundings by their metabolic processes...turning sunlight into energy, etc).

Here is an example: if you run a computer program with a bunch of small balls and a few large balls bouncing around in a closed space, the small balls will "herd" the large balls into a corner. Why does this "organization" of the large balls occur? Because by doing this, more space has been created for the small balls to fly around in, and the overall, or net, entropy/disorder of the virtual "universe" has increased.

I hope I explained this clearly...I am not a college educated chemist.

The point remains that creationism has made no positive contributions to science.

Ceridwen018 said:

paul_an_apostle,

Quick question--what scientific proof or evidence do you have to support the theory that the earth was indeed created in 6 days, vs. the billions that evolutionists claim?

Etc. .

Click to expand...

Excellent question -

There's 2 short answers to it:
1. Why would God lie? He's the one that said it (remember - the Bible is His word through men - not man made [this could be another discussion thread ;-)]), and what God says becomes truth by the nature of the power of His word

2. God defined the time period in which He did His work - He defined the Day - on the First day:

Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. [Gen.1:3-5]

And it took 6 of those days according to Him, for Him to accomplish all that He set out to do

Everything we know today in science, is explained in Genesis Chapters 1-3, allbeit in very brief form, but there non-the-less.

Now - there is a point of contention that I must concede to you - that is this: Some think that because 'God created the Heavens and Earth' (Gen.1:1) before He created the Day (Gen.1:3-5) that that first creation 'step' was before the 6 day period. And it was during this 'pre-day-definition' period that many scholars and scientists believe the initial creation process that we currently think of as ' the millions of years of earth's development' took place. I really can't argue either way on that, but personnally believe that it is partly, if not totally true. I do not believe that it was part of this creation that we know today, however. The evidence of pre-biblical creation (if you will allow me the term) is simply evidence that God was around doing things before He created the earth as we know it today. In my opinion, things like the dinosaurs are evidence of God 'twiddling His thumbs' or playing with His play-doe.

However, once He settled into a creation He liked, it took six days, according to Him, to complete it. And during that period, He created the Universe as we know it today, in the form that we know it today.

The amazing part is NOT that He did it (He's omnipotent afterall) but why He did it. He did it for us - to give us a display of His incredible power to look at day-in and day-out, so that we know He is God.


God Bless

Sunstone said:

The point remains that creationism has made no positive contributions to science.

Click to expand...

God created what we call science during the creation period when He generated all the laws and rules that make up science. He set in motion all the laws of Mathematics, physics, quantum Mechanics, electro-magnetism, etc that we know today as sciencific principles. Isn't that a positive contribution?

Ceridwen018 said:

...not to dis the ancients, but they had a lot to be desired in the area of scientific understanding.

Click to expand...

That, Ceridwen, is in all likelihood the understatement of the year. You have amazing tact.

paul_an_apostle said:

God created what we call science during the creation period when He generated all the laws and rules that make up science. He set in motion all the laws of Mathematics, physics, quantum Mechanics, electro-magnetism, etc that we know today as sciencific principles. Isn't that a positive contribution?

Click to expand...

God has not published even one research paper. Nor has he posited any hypotheses. Nor is there any mention of the laws you speak of in the bible. Were it left to God to create the body of knowledge known as science, science would still be where it was when the bible was written. That is, it would not yet exist.

God defined the time period in which He did His work - He defined the Day - on the First day

That's amazingly circular in reasoning - nice job.

Everything we know today in science, is explained in Genesis

As I mentioned in another thread, there are other books besides the Bible.

In my opinion, things like the dinosaurs are evidence of God 'twiddling His thumbs' or playing with His play-doe.

That would depend on your definition of god and whether or not he had thumbs.

Sunstone said:

God has not published even one research paper. Nor has he posited any hypotheses. Nor is there any mention of the laws you speak of in the bible. Were it left to God to create the body of knowledge known as science, science would still be where it was when the bible was written. That is, it would not yet exist.

Click to expand...

Science - a dictionary definition:
1.The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study:
3. An activity that appears to require study and method.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

Please notice that there is nothing in that definition that says that Science Created anything. My point here is that science only discoveres what already exists - science does not create it. Science only works within the set of laws that science knows. 'New' laws are not really new laws but already existing laws the scientists discover.

God, on the other hand, creates. But to Him, the creation speaks for itself. Oh - He did relate to us what He had done, but we continue to misunderstand the words. For example, He created the Atom as His base building block (and sub-atomic particles below that to make the atom, and ... below that, and ...), and, when He created the Sun and the stars, what He really created was thremo-nuclear power, using the structures that He use to create everything else - Atoms. But the Bible doesn't say 'He created the atom and atomic forces, ...' ; it says He created the Sun and the Stars - at that point, the forces necessary are a given. The reason the Bible doesn't get into that kind of detail is that it's primary subject is God and man and the relationship. The Given is the Power of God as displayed in the Heavens, and in the form of the tiniest flower, and in how natural forces are used to continually renew the earth. To God, the details are unimportant, but inferred. Besides nobody would read the Bible if it got into that kind of detail

We, on the other hand, get wrapped around the axle, because we go about the proofs backwards. We look at the creation and try to prove it. That's what science does - proves that creation exists - that's all it does. If we look no further, that's all we get, proof that creation exists. But there's more, so much more, just waiting for us to see and understand. For those who seek the truth, there is far more than just creation awaiting them, but you must seek - for yourself - others can't do it for you (although they can help - give you pointers - or hinder by throwing up roadblocks).

May God Bless you and open your eyes

paul_an_apostle said:

Science - a dictionary definition:
1.The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena​

Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.​

2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study:
3. An activity that appears to require study and method.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

Please notice that there is nothing in that definition that says that Science Created anything. My point here is that science only discoveres what already exists - science does not create it. Science only works within the set of laws that science knows. 'New' laws are not really new laws but already existing laws the scientists discover.

Click to expand...

Laws are simply testable explanations of observed phenomena. The map is not the territory.

paul_an_apostle said:

God, on the other hand, creates.

Click to expand...

That is a statement of faith, unsupported and unsupportable by science. whether or not it's true.