Results for: Creationism

Answered

In Creation

What are Creationism and Creation Science?

Creationism is the belief that the universe and all it's contentswere created by intelligent design, e.g. created by the BiblicalGod as described in Genesis, as opposed to the… belief thateverything came into existence on it's own. Another definition of the term Creationism is the (false) beliefthat large, innovative software designs can be completely specifiedin advance and then painlessly magicked out of the void by thenormal efforts of a team of normally talented programmers. creationism and creation science We do not know how the Creator created, what processesHe used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywherein the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation asspecial creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigationsanything about the creative processes used by theCreator. Duane Gish, Evolution? The Fossils SayNo! . Another Answer: Creationism is a religious metaphysical theory which claims that asupernatural being created the universe. Creation Science is apseudoscientific theory which claims that (a) the stories in Genesis are accurate accounts of the origin of theuniverse and life on Earth, and (b) Genesis isincompatible with the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution."Creation Science" is an oxymoron since science is concerned onlywith naturalistic explanations of empirical phenomena and does notconcern itself with supernatural explanations of metaphysicalphenomena. One of the main leaders of creation science is Duane T. Gish of theInstitute for Creation Research, who puts forth his views mainly inthe form of attacks on evolution. Gish is the author of Evolution, the Challenge of the Fossil Record (San Diego,Calif.: Creation-Life Publishers, 1985), Evolution, the FossilsSay No! (San Diego, Calif.: Creation-Life Publishers, 1978),and Evolution, the Fossils Still Say No! (Spring ArborDistributors, 1985). (For an answer to the question about gaps inthe fossil record, see Missing Links: Evolutionary Concepts andTransitions Through Time by Robert A. Martin.) Another leaderof this movement is Walt Brown of the Center for ScientificCreation. A: When the scientific method and scientific endeavor was in itsinfancy, as far as the modern period goes, a significant number ofthe founders of modern science were either Christians who believedthe Bible to be literally true or at least believed that the worldwas created and did not 'make itself.' Since the time of FrancisBacon who espoused views suggesting that science and 'religion'should not be mixed, people have had problems with anyone whowishes to be both a scientist and a practicing Christian. This wasnot so in earlier days as scientists sought to understand andexplore the world that they believed God had made. Such a view didnot inhibit but rather encouraged their scientific endeavor. The list could be expanded further but includes such persons as: . Joseph Lister (1827 - 1912) - Antiseptic Surgery . Louis Pasteur (1822 - 1895) - Bacteriology . Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727) - Calculus, Dynamics. . Johannes Kepler (1571 - 1630) - Celestial Mechanics,Astronomy . Robert Boyle (1627 - 1691) - Chemistry Charles Babbage (1792 - 1871) - Computer Science Carolus Linnaeus (1707 - 1778) - Systematic Biology While a list proves nothing of itself (a list could also be made ofthose who disbelieved as well) it demonstrates that such personswho are still highly regarded today, saw no conflict between theirscientific endeavor and their faith (of whatever flavor). Creationscience seems to have arisen partly as a counter-movement to thosewho insist that science must deliberately exclude any religiousconnotations or pre-suppositions, while itself installing andloudly pushing the religion of humanistic naturalism, which isitself a religion with a different object. Both Creation scientists and those with evolutionarypresuppositions have access to the same data in the same historicalpresent. Neither can have direct access to the distant past,whether it be around 6000, or a number of billions of years. Thedifference is in the presuppositions under which both operate, aswell as the current near-monopoly on the 'public education front'and the 'general scientific consensus' front which is held by theevolutionary theory. This allows such discrimination as was metedout to Dr. Damadian, who was the inventor and holds the patent forMRI, who did not receive a Nobel prize while his fellow-developersdid. Dr. Damadian just happens to be a Bible-believing Christian.When evolutionists themselves comment on such things, one wonderswhere the prejudice really is. The comment that then follows is that Creationists are doing'religion' while evolutionists are doing 'real science'. Yet muchscientific work is being done by Christians who are Creationistsjust as it was in past ages with more 'primitive' (yet nonethelessscientific) knowledge. Dr John Hartnett of the University ofWestern Australia who is involved with an atomic clock installed inthe ISS in conjunction with the European space agency, which issupposed to lose only one second every 400 million years. Creationscientist Dr John Beaumgartner was recently recognized for his workon plate techtonics in New Scientist magazine. Making lists and casting aspersions doesn't actually prove anythingeither way. The point is that Creation scientists, many with PhD'searned in 'secular' institutions like everybody else, believe theBible to be literally true and apply their presuppositions, whereappropriate, to their work. Some of this work has no bearingwhatsoever on the origins debate, while much of it does and thiswill undoubtedly be a source of never-ending debate. What isimportant is that people examine the facts and do not rejectsomething by looking at only one side of the story. It is alsoimportant to understand the difference between a fact and aninterpretation based on presuppositions, which is one thing whichCreation scientists are seeking to highlight. . Additional Comments: The statement that creation science is 'pseudoscientific' and'metaphysical' is itself a metaphysical statement or value judgmentbased on an anti-Christian world view. If this statement is correctthen all the great scientists of the past were also conducting'metaphysical research' because they happened to believe the Bibleto be literally true. Such bias is itself not part of science,which attempts to deal with data and facts in time and space. Whatcreation scientists seek to point out is that such data, wheninterpreted within a different framework is not at all incompatiblewith a Biblical world view. They would be the first to acknowledgethat one cannot 'prove' the Bible by so doing. Answer: They are not science but are political tools. What are Creationism and Creation Science? They represent a unifiedeffort by some zealous Christians who would make a scientificargument for the creation of life on earth by an "intelligentdesigner." They press their case for life being of "intelligentdesign" rather than by random acts, or by chance, like theanimation of mud by a lightning bolt. They further prop up their"science" by the use of ideas such as "irreducible complexity" andthe like. Let's look at their "science" and see what's up, butlet's look at what else is out there that they compete with. Evolution as we know it in the scientific sense is explained bymodern evolutionary synthesis (MES). This construct is fact. All ofthe history of life on earth is addressed in it as regards what hasbeen found by looking at the scientific evidence. All of it. ButMES does not say where life came from. It has no hard dataregarding the appearance of life on the earth. There is very goodreason for this: there is none. The genesis of life is unresolvedby science. That doesn't mean that God didn't do it, didn't createlife. It only means that the mechanisms of science cannot addresslife's origin. Enter the Creationist. The Creationist, the subscriber to the theory that God created lifeon earth and created man as is taught in the Bible, has appearedwith some like minds to challenge the notion of current scientificthinking. These zealots proffer the idea of "intelligent design" toexplain things being the way they are. No, no, throw out all theevolutionary nonsense about man evolving from protohominids. Lookat something that has an "irreducible complexity" like thebacterial flagellar motor that rotates a flagellum. It is "obvious"that it cannot have arisen naturally, but, rather, only as aproduct of an "intelligent designer" (who is not identified, butwho is God). It is so complex that it must have been "createdwhole" and could not have evolved from anything. As an aside, the flagellar motor is a most unique biological motor,by the way. It's operation by ion transfer is not completelyunderstood. (Isn't that great?! We still don't know everything!There are still lots of things to discover!!) But further work inmicroscopy has revealed at least one structure that is similar thatis a precursor to the flagellar motor. And scientists haven'tstopped looking. Creation Science, besides being oxymoronic, is just "repackaged"Biblical theology, and is actually a "political tool" ideated bycertain Christians. It attempts to put a "scientific face" onCreationism so it can be marketed as "scientific fact" and,thereby, be taught in public schools. That is all it is. Nothingmore. And in their efforts to subvert Constitutional law regardingthe separation of church and state, they have shown that they willlie, will bear false witness, and use any mode of (il)logic to passoff creationism as science to further their goal of gettingcreationism presented in public schools as an alternative toevolution. Creationists have already lost their first court battle to convincethinking God-fearing folk (and thinking non-believers) thatCreationism is not just an extension of Biblical teachings but isreally a scion of science. What a surprise. Consider thealternative: Welcome to the "new and improved" Creation Sciencecurriculum. We will be covering God, extra terrestrials, dragons(their genesis and history), fairies and gnomes, the history of theelementals (fire, earth, air and water - but not plasma ["tooscientific"]) and the Easter Bunny in an attempt to show who theintelligent designer was behind the creation of life on earth. God must be covering His eyes now, not that He could hide Himselffrom the obvious deceit in the acts and actions of the Creationistsin their efforts to forward their idea of Creation Science. As an afterthought, yes, a large number of the original scientistsand thinkers back in the day were Christians, or at least men offaith. They were believers after the Bible and things of God.Little has changed. A large number of today's researchers andscientists are also men of faith. Many go to church on Sunday andthen back to their labs and classrooms on Monday without being evenone bit hypocritical. They are the backbone of modern science, thenew discoverers and proponents of the work. They extend and teachit. And they, in general, decry attempts of the "CreationScientist" to use the scientific "tools of the trade" in such adevious, ludicrous and patently unscientific way to further theCreationist cause. These zealots, the Creation Scientists, bringshame to science. Their "science" has the feel of aprestidigitator's sleight of hand or of sideshow trickery (MORE)

Answered

In The Bible

What is creationism?

Creationism is the belief that the Universe, Earth, and life wascreated much as they now exist by a supernatural being (most oftenthe God of the Bible), and did not gradually … (MORE)

Answered

In Definitions

What is creation?

Creation is the divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence.. In terms of the Christian faith it in…cludes the clear statement that almighty God, the one and only true God created everything that is at a specific point of time 'in the beginning.' This is how creation has always been understood both in Jewish and later in Christian theology. Jesus took the words of Genesis literally as did His contemporaries. This is one area, where there is no recorded conflict between Him and the teachers of His day. . As such it specifically excludes, in terms of its normal definition, reference to evolution, since this is, by definition, a naturalistic process which excludes all and any aspects of divine creation or intervention. Some people who believe both the Bible and in evolution attempt to marry the two, although the two beliefs are diametrically opposed. In so doing they reinterpret the Bible to fit the evolutionary paradigm, contrary to its clear meaning. . Creation is the act of bringing the world into ordered existence by God. Creationism is scientific evidence, belief in Creation or arguments put forth to show the inportance of what God Created. Evolution is always trying to counter Creation because of the belief of God creating the universe. In evolutionists view point, creation is a mere lie. And one thing you can tell about an evolutionist is this: An evolutionist always believes that a Creationist uses the bible for answers. . However , if we weren't there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.. Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a 'time machine'. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.. On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.. Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.. Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions .. That's why the argument often turns into something like:. 'Can't you see what I'm talking about?No, I can't. Don't you see how wrong you are?No, I'm not wrong. It's obvious that I'm right.''No, it's not obvious.' And so on.. These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.. It's not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses-which means to change one's presuppositions.. I've found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist's glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can't put on the Christian's glasses-unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.. It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting 'evidence', you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense 'on the facts'. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found 'stronger facts'.. However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is-a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions-i.e. starting beliefs.. As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the 'facts' for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, 'Well sir, you need to try again.'. However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher's basic assumptions. Then it wasn't the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn't accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.. What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result. . Ken Ham ^ (MORE)

Answered

In Creation

What is the theory of creationism?

God created the world. Full stop. ------------------------------------------------------------- Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a view held by some Christian… (MORE)

Answered

In Science

What is theory of creation?

Lots of things get created, but it is only the creation of the universe which requires a theory of creation. Various theories exist.

Answered

In Creation

What is a creation?

The non-secular belief that God created the world. The secular event that bounds a reality in existence from non-existence.

Answered

In Ancient Religions

A creation of luzon?

skate Angy luzon at sikat rin ang maynila dahil maraming gustu d2 kya etu ang pnaka tmang sagot

Answered

In Synonyms and Antonyms

What is the synonym of creation?

origination, production, origin, nature You could go with genesis, conception, inception, formation, procreation and production. Remember to use words that'll make sense in th… (MORE)

Answered

In Creation

What does creation tell you?

So many have looked at Creation, but come up with so many, and contradictory, answers, that there must be a danger in hearing what one wants to hear, and seeing what one wants… (MORE)

Answered

In Religion & Spirituality

Who was there at creation?

God only. Answer According to the Book of Proverbs, the spirit/goddess Wisdom wasthere at creation: (8:23-27) "I was set up from everlasting, fromthe beginning, or ever the … (MORE)