answersLogoWhite

0

Creationism is a theory, but not in the scientific sense.

In science, the word 'theory' us usually used to indicate a well-substantiated, independently verifiable and falsifiable, comprehensive explanatory model.

There is no evidence to support creationism. Scientifically speaking, Creationism depends on throwing Occam's Razor out the window and making unfounded and unwarranted suppositions.

Answer

Not only are their theories, there are actual Laws of science, with no known exception which support creationism. These are the Law of Biogenesis (life only comes from life) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (simply described as the Law of Entropy).

In addition, despite the fact that creation scientists are far in the minority in terms of personnel, funding and access to media they have demonstrated a wide range of evidence from all fields of science. These theories include recent work in astronomy which explains the data of a supposedly 13.7 billion year old universe and cutting edge work in plate techtonics and runaway subduction which explains rapid geologic processes. Work on accelerated nuclear decay together with the two aforementioned demonstrates that the alleged billions of years of earth history are illusory.

In addition creation scientists often refer to the work of evolutionary scientists, which although committed to the old earth paradigm, often turn up data which does not support evolution. This data tends to get ignored or swept under the carpet and comes from all the fields of science including astronomy, genetics, Biology, chemistry (particularly biochemistry) etc.

The Law of Biogenesis is a law precisely because it is so well attested by scientific data. This is an important law in relation to the creation/evolution debate since it demonstrates that life does not arise spontaneously from non-living matter despite people's belief otherwise. Life thus requires life to come before it. Creationists thus see this as pointing to a creator who originated life and enabled it in its various forms to have the ability to reproduce itself.

The Law of Biogenesis and Creation:

It has been argued that Pasteur's law is only observed in the present time and that it does not make a statement about what did or didn't apply in the distant past, the early earth. Such a statement is true in the sense that all science is done 'in the present' even though at times it makes deductions and assumptions about the past.

However it is also not correct to therefore assume that such a law, or indeed any law can be demonstrated not to have operated in the past. Some indeed have argued that 'we have life, therefore it arose spontaneously.' Such an argument is pure philosophy and belief and not at all scientific.

The various discoveries of genetics and biochemistry, when combined with the Law of Biogenesis and the Second Law of Thermodynamics speak powerfully of the implausibility of a spontaneous generation of life under any conditions. Even further to this, scientists who work specifically in the fields relating to the 'early earth' and what it was believed to be like understand that the conditions were even less conducive to life than they now are on the planet.

This does not prove a divine creative event. It does however point to it being more likely than 'spontaneous generation.' Creationists of course argue that God was indeed present and He has told us what happenned. Although such a claim is indeed a presupposition, as is the belief in a purely naturalistic origin of life on the part of the evolutonists it is more in keeping with the known facts of science.

Regarding The Second Law of Thermodynamics:

One of the issues relates to the operation of the Second Law in relation to open or closed systems. Evolutionists have never demonstrated scientifically how the necessary specified complexity of life can be 'received from the environment.' Not one single example of this exists and were a scientist to demonstrate this they would be awarded a Nobel prize. Information does not arise spontaneously to enable the use of the energy of the sun, for example, and transform it into a usable form. Life does not develop spontaneously from non-life nor do things become more complex. They obey the Second Law and tend towards greater and greater disorder.

Creationists and the Second Law: Creationists use the Second Law both to point out the impossibility of evolution as well as to draw the opposite and quite logical conclusion that God is the creator. This is shown in the following from a 1980 article by Dr. Carl Weiland which is typical of

many examples. This refutes the claim that:

"Some creationists say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports creationism. In fact the proponents of this particular hypothesis do not even make that claim, they merely attempt to prove that the Law is inconsistent with evolution - a totally different matter."

'In conclusion 1. The Second Law applied to the whole universe is the death-knell for any proposed evolutionary scheme. (see part 1)

2. No biological order can arise without pre-existing coded mechanisms-the formation of the first cell from naturalistic processes is a thermodynamic impossibility.

3. After the first cell, mutation/selection do not appear to be adequate candidates for the ordered mechanism required to locally overcome the effects of the Second Law in an open system.

Information and order, form, body, arrangement and complexity do not arise spontaneously, but are spontaneously and naturally lost.

Centuries before these scientific principles were formulated, God revealed in The Bible that He created the universe as a functioning whole (i.e. with its order and complexity built-in) and that it is now running down. (Hebrews 1:10-12, quoting Psalm 102, Isaiah 51:6, Romans 8:19-22) This basic Law of matter/energy is in perfect harmony with Scripture, but contradicts the total concept of evolution.'

Source: Creation 3(2):9-11 May 1980

The following is another example of the argumentation used by a creation scientist:

'Now consider the entire universe as one giant closed system. Stars are hot, just like the cup of coffee, and are cooling down, losing energy into space. The hot stars in cooler space represent a state of available energy, just like the hot coffee in the room. However, The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires that this available energy constantly change to unavailable energy. In another analogy, the entire universe is winding down like a giant wind-up clock, ticking down and losing available energy. Since energy is continually changing from available to unavailable, someone had to give it available energy in the beginning! (In other words, someone had to wind up the clock of the universe at the beginning.) Who or what could have produced energy in an available state in the first place? Only someone or something not bound by The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Only the Creator of The Second Law of Thermodynamics could violate it and create energy in a state of availability in the first place.'

Source:In Six Days:Why 50 Scientists Choose to believe in Creation, Dr John Ashton ed

Article excerpt by John M Cimbala, mechanical engineering

Answer While it is only a theory, Creationism does have evidence supporting it, but its not widely published because people don't recognize it as scientific. Here are some bits of evidence, as well as information to contradict Evolution.

First of all, in Evolution, the earth is billions of years old, which can be proved to be untrue. One way is through the Earth's magnetic field. Over time, it has weakened at a steady rate. Using this, the Earth can't be more than 10,000 years old because it would be a magnetic star. Using the Bible however, the Earth is an estimated 6,000 years old, a reasonable time span.

Second, Evolutionists believe that all life started from chemicals that created bacteria and then formed all the animals on Earth. How probable is this? How can a bunch of random chemicals form together to make an orderly, living cell? If it is possible, how come we can't do it? Wouldn't several people have tried this?

Along with this, here's something to think about: animals can evolve, but not in the way that Evolutionists say. Animals can only lose genetic information, or replicate genetic information they have; they cannot make different information (mutations are misplaced or missing data in DNA). If the first cell on Earth would evolve into all the animals and bacteria on earth, it would have to have genetic information for every part of every type of animal that would exist. You simply can't do that: the cell would have too much data and would be too large to function.

Creation doesn't face this problem. If God made the world, he could create animals with all the genetic information needed to make all the different species on Earth. The first dog ever would have all the information needed to make every species of dog today. A chart showing this would resemble more of an "orchard" rather than one big "tree".

Thirdly, Evolutionists use the geologic layers to show how old the Earth is. Supposedly, they have formed very slowly over the years by accumulating matter from dead animals and plants. Catastrophes can also cause more rock layers to form, and in a quicker time period. Mount Helen, for example, caused huge layers of rock to be formed after various eruptions. The bible gives us a huge catastrophe that would have caused MASSIVE layers to be formed and for rock to be shifted: the flood. It would also explain the presence of fossils from sea creatures on some mountains.

Speaking of fossils, Evolutionists say that animals evolved into entirely different species over time (man came from monkeys, lizards and reptiles came from fish, etc.). Small changes can certainly happen, but large changes such as this wouldn't be able to happen because it would require gaining new DNA which can't happen. If it could, wouldn't we have fossils of such radical changes happening? We should, but we don't because it can't happen. Creationism allows creatures to evolve, but not radically.

User Avatar

Wiki User

10y ago

What else can I help you with?

Related Questions

What are the three theories of the origin of life?

The three main theories of the origin of life are abiogenesis, panspermia, and creationism. Abiogenesis proposes that life arose spontaneously from non-living matter, panspermia suggests that life originated elsewhere in the universe and was carried to Earth, and creationism posits that life was created by a supernatural being.


What are the old earth creationism theories?

OEC is an umbrella term for various ideas on the Creation. These include the Gap Theory and Progressive Creationism. Suggest you look it up via the phrase 'old earth creationism' as it it too long to summarize here.


Why is creationism wrong?

Creationism is not considered scientifically accurate because it is based on religious beliefs rather than empirical evidence. It does not align with the overwhelming scientific consensus that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, as supported by extensive research in fields like genetics, paleontology, and biology. Creationism is not falsifiable or testable in the same way that scientific theories are.


Should public schools teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes?

No. Teaching creationism alongside evolutionary theory would suggest that they are equivalent explanations. They are not. Evolutionary theory is a well-established scientific model; creationism is a religious myth, and should be taught as such.


What is psuedoscience?

Pseudoscience refers to beliefs or practices that claim to be based on scientific methods but lack scientific evidence to support their claims. It often involves using faulty reasoning, unverified theories, or exaggerated claims to create the illusion of scientific credibility. Examples include astrology, homeopathy, and creationism.


When did Eisenhower mandate evolution?

President Eisenhower did not mandate evolution, this is a myth as far as my research has shown. As a matter of fact he was a staunch believer in Creationism. See link: http://www.icr.org/article/presidential-support-for-creationism


Why is creationism not considered a science?

Creationism is not considered a science because it is based on religious beliefs rather than empirical evidence and the scientific method. Science relies on observable data, experimentation, and peer review to support its claims, while creationism is rooted in faith and does not follow the same rigorous scientific standards.


What was the 2 theories scopes trial focus on?

Many joined a religious movement known as Fundamentalism. Fundamentalist believed in Creationism, that God created the world as described in the Bible.


What is Old Earth Creationism and how does it differ from other theories of creation?

Old Earth Creationism is a belief that God created the universe and life on Earth over a long period of time, in alignment with scientific evidence such as the age of the Earth and fossil records. This differs from Young Earth Creationism, which holds that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that all life was created in a short period of time. Old Earth Creationism reconciles religious beliefs with scientific findings, while Young Earth Creationism rejects much of mainstream science in favor of a literal interpretation of religious texts.


Scientific knowledge is based on?

Experiments.


What are the theories regarding to the origin of people?

The two main theories regarding the origin of people are the theory of evolution, which posits that humans evolved from apelike ancestors over millions of years, and the theory of creationism, which suggests that humans were created by a divine being in their present form. Both theories have proponents and detractors, and the debate between them continues to this day.


Why is there resistance to new scientific theories?

There is not enough evidence to support these new theories. More tests and research needs to be carried out before these theories can be proved.