Is there any scientific merit to creationism?

Is there any scientific evidence for any of the creationist views on the origin of diversity of life.

Apperently we are not allowed to question the believes of creationists in the religion forum.

But here in the biology forum there are different rules. We will try to judge and discuss by scientific standards

Is there any scientific merit to creationism?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

creationism as opposed to evolution i assume you mean?

well, since we don't exactly know where everything came from i suppose it couldn't be disproven that a diety dreamt it all up. scientific merit would be hard to find.
i'll go from a creationist perspective using the hebrew-christian bible:
i've never thought much of the big bang theory but it does fit in with the bible if that's the creation we're talking about. the first line of genesis says that the earth was a barren wasteland. no lines before that. no mention of how it got there. just that god was hanging about in darkness with an earth full of nothingness. slide big bang in before the first book and so far we have no conflicts. the ingredients for an inhabitable world are set. light, water above, water below. ok still no conflict. let's fastforward a bit through genesis 1. god creates species. you'll notice that the species are listed roughly in the correct order, with the exception of birds which are listed too early since we now know they evolved recently. this suggests that the writers knew a thing or two about science. science shows up throughout the bible but i'll limit it to the creation story for now. biblical scholars note that the writers were writing for a specific audience, early jews who were not scientists, so these writings were meant to explain what they could not understand in a simplified way. in other words, "where do babies come from? a stork delivers them of course."

st. francis and thomas aquinas wrote much on reconciling science with religion. st. francis said to pray and follow the word but to also study science up to where it meets the word. if they conflict, go with the science. and we sainted him! creationists who deny science have not done their studying. i find that they are usually only found among the ridiculously ignorant and/or trailor trash. reading the bible itself will go far to reconcile them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope.
None.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Swedishfish,

I'd rather see a discussion about the merits of creationism as a scientific theory than a discussion about whether some actual events might fit into genesis.

And let me explain why.

A scientific theory or framework is the basis for scientific research. That is the power of the theory of evolution. It has stimulated an enormous amount of research.

Is creationism therefore a valid scientific research in this respect and in other respects that are not mentioned but we could still discuss. For instance does creationism actually fit in with the current data set gathered on nature?

Is it able to provide a solid framework that will prove beneficial for the accumulation of scientific knowledge? Does it enrich science? Is it a science?

sm


ps.
and since i put the thread in the biology forum I would prefer to discuss the biological aspects of creationism. They themselves after all claim that their theory can substitute that of evolution.

 

one_raven pretty much summed it up.
Creationism is not science.
Science only deals with the materialistic realm. Not the supernatural.
Creationism involves God, therefore it is not science.

And, the predictions which can be used by Creationism theory have been wrong (transitional fossils, population calculations, fossil sequences, radiometric dating, genetics.)

 

I don't see the origin of life as perplexing.
Wasn't there some experiment that recreated the natural cycle of precipitation? Like water getting heated up and evaporating up a tube and then falling back down onto the original water or something like that, I'm sure i saw it on some day time science show.
And they didn't create life but they did create the building blocks for life or something, i wish i could remember it better.
It seems earth and sun in action naturally create life, and then natural selection takes affect.
I've heard people who's only problem is single celled organisms evolving into multicelled organisms, like thats a huge deal. Even though we know there are cases where singlecelled organisms join together and each have a task, isn't this the obvious origins of a multicelled organism?
In the introduction to the book "life on earth" by david attenborough, he rightly says that even without fossils, in the diversity of todays life you can find an organism that closely enough resembles each significant evolutionary 'event' in history.
Thats just too perfect. You can see how the lung began in the lungfish, and the stomach in the anemone, you can see how the very concept of having a hole to take in and expell things began with the sponge. You can see how fish may have first got out of the water with the mudskipper, and the next step with the salamander.
No one without an agenda would deny evolution, from my perspective its beyond common sense.

Was darwin even necessarry? Well I guess he did a good job of thoroughly explaining it, but I have to imagine that billions of people throughout history probably noticed it before him.
My guess is anyone who watched animals for any period of time must have noticed.
Hell, people were selectively breeding dogs 50 thousand years ago, they were "doing" evolution, some of them must have put it together.

Creationism is being given too much respect whenever it is not being spat on.
It should be an illegal stance to have. I find nothing more irritating.

 

Hehe.
Pfft. That was over 50 years ago (Miller-Urey experiment).
They can create DNA and reproducing microspheres now, as well as plasma which also reproduces.

*applause*
HEAR HEAR!!!

 

A big problem with creationism (at least from a scientific perspective) is that there's no way to falsify the theory that an all-powerful deity instantly created the earth, humans, etc. 10,000 years ago. Even if we find evidence about the age of the earth or the evolution of animals, one could always argue that perhaps the deity simply wanted to fool us, or perhaps deliberately created the 'evidence' for some reason that we can't possibly understand.

That being said, the question that you would need to answer when scientifically investigating creationism would be "what would I expect to see if God created everything relatively recently?" Would I expect to see a clear pattern of animals gradually changing from one species into another in the fossil record, or would I expect all animals to appear at the same time? Would I expect to see geological features that appear to have formed over millions of years, or would I expect rocks etc. to have about 10,000 years of weathering? You see what I'm getting at.

I would have to say that no, there is generally little to no evidence for creationism, and a great deal of evidence for evolution. You won't be able to find much of anything that you would expect in nature if everything was instantly created in the recent past. If you want to use creationism as a theoretical framework for understanding biology, you generally have to resort to 'God did it for reasons that we don't understand' every time you encounter contrary evidence. This isn't a very scientifically sound way to go about understanding nature. If an all-powerful deity created all life in the recent past, he appears to have gone through a lot of trouble to make it seem as if he didn't.

If you look at the biochemical pathways in the cell – particularly the metabolic pathways – it seems blindingly obvious that they evolved set-by-step over a long period of time. Chemicals are constantly being modified and tweaked in a long, convoluted process. It doesn't seem at all like the sort of thing that one would expect if everything had been planned out from the start.

 

As Nasor said (but in a far more generalistic way): nothing can be proved about this universe! I think it is better to look at the facts now. Look at it this way: the way we know organisms replicate, Natural Selection (and thus evolution) HAVE to happen! Its as simple as that. And since almost everything CAN indeed be explained by evolution, why create another theory?

 

I don't think there is any scientific merit to creationism, but I also don't think there's much point is examining creationism through a scientific framework. I think the rise of creationism has nothing to do with purely scientific endeavor, but is really a way of defining one's personal relationship with science and their religious beliefs.

Why should we redefine our intepretations of the bible in order to accomodate recent scientific findings and theories? Why can't we instead order our scientific research around our religious beliefs? <note: rhetorical questions, I'm not advocating this>

I think the rise in creationism has more to do with a backlash against perceived scientific indifference to religious beliefs than anything else. What I wonder, is why is evolution so odious to some people? Why is it perfectly acceptable that God created woman from a man's rib, but God creating man from a monkey is not?

 

well monkey, that was my attempt to show that creationism = science. if you can believe that then yes it does. liken it to kids books explaining reproduction. it sounds completely different than a scientific rendering but the kids book doesn't make the actual science of it less valid.

 

What is the actual science of creationism then?

A basic understanding of nature does not equal science. Human hunters are often quite aware of their prey and their habits.

People knew that sex resulted in babies long before reproductive biology appeared. That knowledge is not science. People have been keenly aware of their surroundings sicne ever. It is a prerequirement for survival.

That doesn't make it science. In what way warrants creationism the label science?

Or what actual science have the creationists produced based on their theories?

Those are the questions I like to see answered.

Creationism would otherwise already be an invalid theory based on the fact that birds are not in the proper order (your example). It would then seem that creationism does not fit the facts to start with.

How would we then defend creationism? Do we have to make 'changes' in the bible? Surely that would be problematic?

 

I think because these people want to believe in a God and creating a woman from a rib is a miraculous thing that science could not explain. Evolution from monkey to man though is not miraculous and can be explained without resort to the supernatural. When it comes to God many people don't think rationally as they let their "need to believe in God" in the way of what is perfectly obvious.

 

My personal experience of creationism based upon an argument or two ive had here, is that they can use scientific logic, experiments and hypotheses, but it is all predicated upon the basic truth, not hypothesis, that god exists. Therefore, whilst much of what they do can be called "scientific", the actual aim and overall effort isnt, unless you to happen to subscribe to their religion.

 

*cough*
I don't think so!
They willingly bend and manipulate data to fit their theories.

Don't believe me?
Here's a quote from the main creationist organisation...

"By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/About/about_faith.asp

In otherwords, any evidence which contradicts the Bible is immediately discarded!

That's why no Creationist accepts radiometric dating. Not because it's been shown to be a faulty theory scientically, but because it contradicts the Bible...

 

Did in your opinion influence the quality of their 'scientific' work?

 

Well, I think ive been lucky, only bothered having a run in with one or two of the more sane variety. The one I argued with last year, accepted much of geology etc etc, then tried to make it all fit into the bible by invoking some weird non science, it was interesting to watch him squirm and completely miss the point of what i was saying. SO I guess I'm being a bit too charitable, ill jsut withdraw most of my above comments.

 

Once creationists have viable evidence to their claims then there will be scientific merit to creationism. Until then its theology and with a lot of luck it will eventually be called mythology.

 

This is what I posted in other thread, "Do you believe in Evolution?", but I feel it is appropriate here:

<font face=verdana size=2 color=#000000>
There are some things that have not been mentioned or touched in this discussion, that would have ended it when it started, let me quote Stephen Jay Gould from his book, “Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes”:<dir><font color="#0000dd">“Although no thinking person doubted the fact of evolution by 1909, Darwin's own theory about its mechanism – natural selection – was not at the height of popularity. Indeed, 19090 marked the acme of confusion about how evolution happened in the midst of complete confidence that it had occurred. An embattled group of strict Drawinians, led by the aging A.R. Wallace in England and by A. Weismann in Germany, continued to hold that virtually all evolutionary change occurred by the <B>cumulative power of natural selection building adaptation step-by-step</B> from the random raw material <B>of small scale genetic variation.</B>

Lamarckism remained strong and provided an alternative to natural selection for the gradual building of adaptations – <B>creative organic response to perceived needs and the transmission of these favorable responses to offspring through the inheritance of acquired characters.</B> Mendelian inheritance, when properly elucidated, tipped the scales in Darwin's favor, but in 1909, merely sown more confusion by adding yet a third mechanism to the swirling competition – <B>production of new species all at once by large and fortuitous mutations.</B>

By 1959, confusion hade ceded to the opposite undesired state of complacency. Strict Darwinism had triumphed. The flowering of Mendelian genetics had finally laid Lamarckism to rest since the workings of DNA <B>provided no mechanism for an inheritance of acquired characters.</B>” … “But random, small scale variation produces no changes by itself and requires a shaping force to preserve and enhance its favorable component.“</font></dir>Later on in his book, Gould talks about Creationism, and says this:<dir><font color="#0000dd">“Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A st of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.”

“The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among its supporters, Their brand of creationism, they claim, is ”scientific” because it follows the Popperian model in trying to demolish evolution. Yet Popper's argument must apply in both directions. One does not become a scientist by the simply act of trying to falsify a rival truly scientific system; one has to present an alternative system that also meet Popper's criterion – it too must be falsifiable in principle.

“Scientific Creationism” is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's leading intellectual, Duane Gish, Ph.D., from his recent (1978) book, <I>“Evolution? The Fossils Say No!”</I>: “By creation we mean the bringing into being by a Supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for he used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's italics] This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.”

Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in the light of your last sentence, what then is “scientific” creationism?<br></font>

Personally, I find creationism childish. I was expelled at the age of 7 from catechism class, prior to making my First Communion, for being a "subversive charater": I asked how come Cain, after killing Abel, went to live among "other people". If they were the first ones on Earth, where these people came from? My mother grounded me for a month. My father congratulated me.

 

Actually, the first line of genesis says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".