|
Many smart scientist say that creation science
is just religion and not "real" science. Some have even said we object to
Darwinian evolution only because "science" disagrees with our "religious
beliefs". A Good question to ask before
responding to this claim is what is science? Science:
the study of the physical world and phenomena,
especially by using systematic observation and experiment.
Empirical Science in other words is a study of
things we can test and measure. Empirical science is what gives us computers,
and all sorts of advanced technology.
Macro Evolution (Bacteria to Man evolution), however, is neither testable
or repeatable. Evolution is a historical science. The Big Bang and
Macro Evolution attempt to explain how we came to be in the unrepeatable past.
It is suggesting that order and complexity has increased to the state we see
today via the Big Bang, natural selection and mutations (genetic DNA coping
mistakes). The concept of evolution believes many things that can't be tested.
1. That in the beginning literally
nothing exploded.
2. That the chaos of an explosion organized
itself into planets and stars. Even Thou we have never seen a star form.
3. That non living matter suddenly organized
itself into a living system for no apparent reason. Thou we can't make this
happen in a lab despite over 50 years trying diligently.
I could list more but the concept is clear. The
question is not a matter of faith.
The question
is which faith did I start with?
The develop of the big bang, and macro evolution
comes from the concept of naturalism.
Naturalism
is the principle which maintains that all phenomena can be
explained and described by natural or Materialistic means. It also says that
there is no "super" natural.
No scientist is unbiased. We all start with a preconceived idea and then
compare all new information to what we already believe to be true. Next we
interpret the facts based on what we already believe. Then we come to
conclusions that agree with our preconceived idea.
Example.
Bias/ Preconceived idea: "Miracles are impossible"
new information: "it looks designed their must be a
designer"
Comparision:
"if there's a designer then he is God. but God creating
would be a miracle"
Conclusion:
"miracles are impossible, therefore there is no designer" Macro Evolution, the
Big Bang, spontaneous generation are all built upon the bias that "nature is all
there is". In other words If there is no God how did we get stars, how did life
begin, etc. . it must have gotten here by itself.
To read why do people
believe evolution? click here
Finally thoughts
I will take a minute to give two quotes from evolutionists to illustrate
this point then we will get into foundation of the matter. Quotes are in red.
reference for quote in blue at the bottom of page.
A. “Even if all the data point to an
intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science
because it is not naturalistic.”
Here the author makes it clear
no matter all the facts science can not consider the possibility of a "intelligent Designer".
It is excluded not because of
the facts but because it is not naturalistic. Intelligent design is not
the same as Creation Science. . .
More on ID click here
“B.
We take the side of
science
in
spite
of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,
in spite
of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health
and life,
in
spite
of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated
just-so-stories,
because
we have a prior commitment,
a
commitment to materialism.
It is
not
that the methods and institutions of
science
somehow
compel
us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world But, on
the contrary, that we are forced by a prior adherence to material
causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts
that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive,
no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, hat
materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the
door"
He makes it clear that no matter how
ridiculous, or
"creative" (Pun intended) the explanation has to be for evolution to be true,
they will not accept creation as a scientific model.
Why?
"for we can not allow a divine foot in the door."
So what is
wrong with a Devine foot?
This question I believe is not a scientific
one. No one could prove there is no God. You would have to be "all knowing" to
prove there is no God. Thus you would have to be God to know God doesn't exist.
However if you are God he there for exist and it would be a self refuting
augment. Many evolutionary scientist reject God because they don't like the
implications of God.
I most say that
some believe God used evolution. I will explain the problems with this else
where. I believe this is only the case because they thing Big Bang, Macro
evolution etc are basically proven thus God must have used them. But as you read
other articles here you will see the fallacies in that logic.
a. S. D. Todd, Nature 410(6752):423,
September 30, 1999
b.
Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review,
January 9, 1997, p. 31 |
