0
The major flaws of the creationist theory (using the term theory very loosely, as compared to proper scientific theories there is no objective, substantianted evidence) are in its subjective deductions:
1. The universe is complex from a macro to a micro scale, therefore there is an intelligent designer/creator.
The fact that the universe is complex in no way infers that a creator or designer is responsible for it. Furthermore, one could argue that if the universe were designed, the entity responsible did a really bad job:
Macro Design Flaws
- the universe is hurling towards "heat death", a time in which all stars will have burnt out and no longer able to sustain life
- entire galaxies are on direct collision courses, which will destroy millions or even billions of planets
- only a tiny fraction of planets are capable of supporting life; most are to cold, too hot or too big
Micro Design Flaws
- Our DNA contains myriads of inactive code passed to us from our evolutionary ancestors. This, for example is the reason a human embryo grows gills during its development, though they have absolutely no use in our species.
- The nerves and blood vessels in our eyes are in frontof the retina, blocking some of the light from reaching the retina.
- In architectural terms, our pleasure and sewage systems are right next to each other - no self-respecting architect would make such an error.
2. The universe had a beginning, and a beginning must have a cause outside of itself.
In Indo-German languages (which includes English) a verb must have a subject, and thus an effect must have an independent cause. It is therefore tempting to assume that this grammatical rule is also a law of nature - but it is not. Also, many languages exist which do not have this grammatical rule, and it is no surprise that they have given rise to cultures and philosophies that view the universe very differently (e.g. Daoism).
Quantum theory has proven that objective observation is impossible (i.e. that observing an effect actually influences it - the Heisenberg Principle), and that all matter and energy in the universe is interconnected, with quantum "wavicles" spontaneously arising and dissapearing. This concept is very counter-intuitive to human beings because within our limited scope of perception things appear to be very different. Modern quantum physics has solid theories backed up by decades of research that can explain a universe giving rise to itself. Creationism only offers a subjective deduction without any solid research or evidence that would withstand scientific scrutiny.
3. The creator of the universe is an intelligent designer who exactly and only fits the description of the God of the Bible
Creationism offers no objective rationale for this statement, its largest leap of deduction: it is one thing to argue that the universe was created (i.e. Deism) than to state that this creator would exactly and only correspond to that of one belief system among many (i.e. Theism), on a single planet, orbiting a common yellow dwarf, in the extremis of a single spiral of a galaxy among billions of galaxies in the universe.
What else can I help you with?
Who will give a guest lecture on Creationism?
The Institute for Creation Science and Answers in Genesis are just two organisations that have speakers available to give lectures on Creationism.
When was creationism done?
When Charles Hodge wrote "What is Darwinism?" in 1874 and argued that evolution can not explain the complexities of the eye is when creationism was first used as a tool against evolution. Before that, Thomas Aquinas and later William Paley used the design argument to 'prove' God's existence, as a small group in the United States are doing today, and the story of Creation was believed to be literally true by all Christian sects. However, it was not called 'Creationism' as there was no opposing theory at the time.
Is creationism credible?
There are at least two, quite different forms of creationism, and the question of whether creationism is credible must be applied separately to each. No doubt, both Young-Earth creationism and Old-Earth creationism are credible to their proponents, but the question must be whether they are credible to other well informed people.Young-Earth creationism holds that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, usually around six thousand. However, science has proven conclusively that the world is billions of years old, so this can not be credible. Because of the overwhelming evidence that the world is certainly more than six thousand years old, some Young-Earth creationists have adapted Young-Earth creationism by saying that each of the days stated in Genesis chapter 1 was really an almost indefinite period of time. According to this version, the world could be many thousands of years old. This not only undermines the standard Young-Earth creationism argument, but it is even less credible, given that there is no supporting evidence for this, not even biblical evidence.Old-Earth creationism accepts the scientific evidence for the great age of the Earth, so from this point of view it is more credible than Young-Earth creationism. Nevertheless, some Old-Earth creationists say that God created all living things just as they are today. Others accept that species evolved, but say that this was not the result of natural selection but Intelligent Design. Both versions of Old-Earth creationism fail in the face of scientific evidence, although Intelligent Design is more sophisticated and therefore somewhat more credible. Intelligent Design is also claimed by some Young-Earth creationists, perhaps because it has captured the imagination of a proportion of the population, but it seems inherently an Old-Earth creationism concept.Ultimately credibility comes down to whether a hypothesis is compatible with the scientific evidence. Creationists do not put forward scientific evidence to support their hypotheses, instead proposing various ways in which they believe they can undermine the evidence for evolution. Occasionally, scientists respond (eg. Dawkins, Perakh, et al)and demonstrate the failure of these arguments. So, to be credible, creationism has to adapt further, until its claims are at least somewhat consistent with the scientific evidence.For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
What is atheistic creationism?
Atheistic creationism is the view held by a number of idealist and Buddhist philosophers especially in the 19th century and the early 20th century. Basically every object and thing in the universe even down to the smallest atom is a mental creation, created out of mind. Minds are indeed the creators of the universe. But unlike George Berkeleys subjective idealism which was theistic for atheistic creationism there is no divine mind, there is no God. All creations were created from human minds or other forms of life.
What are Apollo human flaws?
you know you can get the answer on google.com, this website usually doesnt answer any of peoples questions
Is scientific Creationism is example of applied science?
Technically, there is no such thing as scientific creationism. Creationism is per definition un- or even anti-scientific.
Can creationism ever refer to non-theistic origins?
Answer By definition creationism is theistic.
What is the ISBN of Creationism's Trojan Horse?
The ISBN of Creationism's Trojan Horse is 0195157427.
How many pages does Creationism's Trojan Horse have?
Creationism's Trojan Horse has 416 pages.
Which two possibilities of creationism does the authorElmer Towns say are closest to scripture?
Fiat Creationism
When was Creationism's Trojan Horse created?
Creationism's Trojan Horse was created on 2004-01-08.
Is there evidence for progressive creationism?
No.
What are the release dates for In Focus - 2009 Creationism?
In Focus - 2009 Creationism was released on: USA: 10 December 2012
Is teaching creationism illegal?
Creationism is the basis of all religions, it is what science says is not true. Teaching it in a public school is illegal.
Can creationism be thought in school in America?
Creationism can be taught in public schools in America after the Supreme court ruling of Stone v. Graham.
Why creationism shouldn't be taught in school?
Creationism can and should be taught in a sociology classroom setting, but not in a science classroom like some people want it to be. The reason for this is that creationism is not a scientific theory or even principle, it's part of cultural mythology.
How many scientists believe in creationism?
According to a 2009 Pew Research Center survey, about 33 of scientists in the United States believe in creationism.
