Search This Blog

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Creation and the Rules of Science

Some folks get on the prod when it's pointed out that science is not some kind of monolithic entity, but rather, is a philosophical system of interpreting evidence in the natural world. There are people who feel the need to protect what they consider science (especially common-ancestor evolution) from outside influence and scrutiny. This task is expedited by self-serving definitions.

One way secularists protect "science" from scrutiny and creationary scientists is to control the definitions of science itself and the methodology. This has actually hindered scientific research.
Generated at Add Letters
By presupposing both methodological and philosophical naturalism exclusively, evolution has actually hindered scientific progress — especially in medical science. Creationary viewpoints from credentialed scientists are rejected out of hand, and the saying, "Follow where the evidence leads" does not apply when the logical conclusion is God the Creator.

A common falsehood spread by Darwin's Cheerleaders™ is that creationists do not use actual science, relying only on the Bible or saying, "God did it" as a catch-all explanation. In reality, creationary scientists are fully credentialed and active in various scientific disciplines. One's view of origins does not preclude the performance of observational science. I'll allow that biblical creationists have the Bible as our starting point, but secularists often deny that they have materialism as their own starting point. At any rate, they try to make the rules and control the definitions, thereby keeping creationists out in many cases. This is definitely not the true spirit of scientific inquiry, it's just circling the wagons against those they consider enemies. It all comes down to worldviews.
‘Creationism isn’t science.’
‘They don’t understand the rules of what science is, or they deliberately ignore them.’
Comments such as these flow readily from the pens of the many critics of the modern creationist movement. Why are such comments so widely and passionately believed? I believe that the only rule creationists are ‘breaking’ is one which cannot be said to properly belong to a scientific inquiry into origins, and which effectively imposes a religious dogma upon science.

Rhonda Jones (Professor of Zoology, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia) is one who has reacted with what she calls ‘stunned indignation’ to the suggestion that science students should have evidence for creation presented to them along with evidence for evolution (Quadrant, August, 1988).

She gives two criteria which she feels are universal to all definitions of science. She insists that evolutionary theory meets both requirements, but creationism meets neither. Let’s examine these.
This is a "classic" article from 1988, but the material is still relevant today — if not more so, since many recent illustrations could be added. To finish reading, click on "The rules of the game — As the ‘rules’ of science are now defined, creation is forbidden as a conclusion—even if true". Also, I suggest you check out the Related Articles at the end.

One way secularists protect "science" from scrutiny and creationary scientists is to control the definitions of science itself and the methodology. This has actually hindered scientific research.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Forensic Science, Creation, and the Age of the Earth

When investigating a crime scene or conducting any kind of historical research, eyewitnesses are of primary importance. Of course, they can have confusion, factual errors, or even personal agendas that may color their testimonies. Confirming stories with other witnesses is important (as long as they were not kept together, enabling them to "get the story straight"). Witnesses can be affirmed or discredited by several factors, including physical evidence.

The concept of forensic science has been around for quite a spell, but has not been all that consistent and scientific until recent years. Some elements of forensics as well as logic were used by characters in A. Conan Doyle, Edgar Allen Poe, Erle Stanley Gardner, and others. It is primarily used in the investigation of crime scenes and to bring criminals to justice, and has been very successful. Ideally, the investigator must be completely objective, which may be difficult to do because it goes against human nature. 

Forensic (historical) science is very useful, but can it answer questions about the origin of Earth and life on it?
Image credit: Pixabay / byrev
How far back can a detective take an investigation? There have been cold cases that have been solved after many years, but the older the incident, the more unreliable the information becomes, and witnesses may no longer be available. Historians can use written testimonies as well as physical evidence regarding, say, World War I, and have a reasonable reconstruction of the events. The events in Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars in 55 BC are sketchy at best.

Some folks try to use forensic science to reconstruct the origin of Earth, and life itself. Both biblical creationists and evolutionists use historical (forensic) science, but neither side is unbiased: both want to see if the facts support their worldviews. Creationists do have an eyewitness, God the Creator, who gave us his written Word. Reason and evidence support the testimony contained therein.
There are multiple scientific disciplines, but there has not been one in recent years that has captured the attention of the general public like the investigative research of forensic science. Forensic science gained popularity in the early 2000s due to several crime-related TV shows, which have dramatized the realistic framework upon which forensic investigation operates. This phenomenon called the “CSI effect” continues to foster the whimsical interpretation of this scientific discipline; however, forensic science provides police agencies and the community a realistic medium upon which to investigate past crimes and review current evidence. Forensic science requires trained personnel to evaluate evidence for intrinsic value and to make educated hypotheses as they attempt to reconstruct past crimes. Eyewitness testimony works in conjunction with the physical evidence and can be used to corroborate or invalidate the reasonable conclusions about the evidence’s relationship to the crime.

When considering the origin of the earth and mankind, one must consider two major and conflicting viewpoints: creation by a perfect God or naturalistic evolution. The creation account in Genesis is not only supported by the evidence found in creation itself (Romans 1:20), but is internally consistent throughout Scripture as an infallible eyewitness testimony of a perfect God (Proverbs 30:5). Secular evolutionists assume that the origin of life occurred by chance and that, through random occurrences, life continues to evolve with no purpose. Most importantly, evolutionary explanations for life have never been observed and there is no eyewitness account to support the claims. As a forensic investigator searches for clues to past crimes, evolutionists, particularly since Darwin, continue the exhaustive search for evidence to support their ideas.
To finish reading, click on "Can Forensic Science Trace the World’s Origins?"

Forensic (historical) science is very useful, but can it answer questions about the origin of Earth and life on it?

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Comedies of Darwinian Errors for Question Evolution Day

That's right, gang, Question Evolution Day has arrived again! This event has several layers, and one of the primary reasons to have QED is for prompting people to actually think, and not just believe the agitprop from the science industry. "Scientists say..." Big deal. Let's not appeal to authority, shall we? If people thought logically and examined the tendentious evidence for scum-to-scholar evolution, hilarity would ensue.

Here are two reports to give you an idea why I've got the bit between my teeth. First, common-ancestor evolution is supposed to show increasing complexity, not loss of traits or keeping things the way they are. (Natural selection maintains the status quo, and is a concept that creationists fully accept. It was also originally postulated by a creationist before Darwin hijacked and dismembered the concept.) The loss of teeth in various organisms is called "convergent evolution" without evidence, but is an example of nothing happening. Diversity among turtles and tortoises is touted as evidence of evolution, including evoking climate as a driving force. Something that looks like a shark in the fossil record is essentially indistinguishable from modern sharks, so no change is considered evidence for evolution. Sure. Read about these and more at "The Darwin Fail Comedy Show".

The second part is where scientists think they have positive natural selection. Repeats in proteins as horizontal evolution, and presumably new functions. See what I mean about critical thinking? That's neither scientific nor logical. This article has more examples of circular reasoning, assumption, and presenting evidence with presumptions. However, the actual facts, without the interpretive dance, fit in quite nicely with biblical creationists' expectations! For that article, click on "Darwinians find Positive Selection".

There is a great deal of misinformation and even deception presented as evidence of Darwinism, but it is loaded with bad logic, assumptions, and poor research. Keep an eye out for the tentative wording in so many articles that the evolutionary science industry churns out. In the meantime, we hope you do question evolution, and come to realize that yes, we are the product of the brilliant design work of our Creator. Evolution and atheism are incoherent and irrational, and biblical creation science makes the most reasonable use of the facts. God has made himself known, and is waiting for you to come to him.

Believers in evolution are presented with many claims, but those come up empty. Meanwhile, biblical creation is the most rational explanation of the facts, and tells you about our Creator.

Sunday, February 05, 2017

Rapid Changes, Evolution, and Creation

Darwin said that changes were gradual and random. Additional research not only refutes this, but supports predictions from biblical creation science.

That rapscallion Charles Darwin said that changes are gradual and random, and would lead to the emergence of new organisms. This has been a staple of evolutionary speculations for a mighty long time. Darwin was wrong, and his disciples not only keep deleting the memos, but perpetuate the mythology. The have to cowboy up and face facts, however. Adaptation has limits, and modifications appear to be a design feature from our Creator.

There have been many examples of rapid speciation that evolutionists have been surprised to see. This supports the Genesis Flood, since if changes happened slowly, we would not have the diversity in living things that we see today, and critters would be much the same as when they de-Arked. Secular scientists are claiming "fast evolution" (careful, that word does not mean what they think it does, it's variation, not goo-to-giraffe evolution). This is further confirmation of creationists' predictions. Yippie ky yay, secularists! Oh, and watch how they try to spin disastrous news as evidence for evolution.
A tenet of creationist theory maintains that creatures are designed for robust speciation. Although they cannot change into fundamentally different kinds, creatures can rapidly express a wide diversity of traits to fit changing environments. "Fast evolution affects everyone, everywhere" is one headline from the theme of the Royal Society's life science journal in January, 2017. But its content further bolsters creationist theory.

The pace of change within organisms is a keen topic of interest. One reason many people doubt evolution is that no one has ever seen one kind of creature change into another. Plant and animal breeders have never done it in thousands of years of concerted effort. Even experiments intended to force evolution along by inducing radical genetic mutations in breeding pairs result in crippled, but not basically transformed, progeny. Remarkably, both creationists and evolutionists are content with this fact.
To read the rest, click on "Fast Evolution Confirms Creationist Theory".

Darwin said that changes were gradual and random. Additional research not only refutes this, but supports predictions from biblical creation science.