Difference between revisions of "Creation science"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Undo revision 496812 by JohnyGoodman (Talk) That's just too much bias, plus even we talk, you're not gonna listen anyway.)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
'''Creation science''' is [[science]] free from [[atheist]] and [[evolutionist]] [[bias]], which shows that [[supernatural]] [[creation]] of the material [[universe]] by [[God]]  is consistent and compatible with scientific evidence. Most advocates of creation science believe the [[young earth creationism|earth is approximately 6,000 years]] old. In addition, scientists in the discipline of creation science state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe.  They also claim that these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space&mdash;Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> Creation scientists also assert that naturalistic processes alone cannot account for the [[origin of life]] and that the [[Theory of evolution|theory of evolution]] cannot account for the various kinds of animals and plants. Both evolutionary scientists and [[Young earth creationism|young earth creation]] scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs; however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref> Many scientists in the field of creation science, such as the scientists at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[Answers in Genesis]], assert that the [[Bible scientific foreknowledge|Bible contains an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed]]. In addition, [[Christianity]] profoundly influenced the [[Christianity and Science|development of modern science]].
+
'''Creation science''' is cowpoo.
−
 
 
−
== Creation Science and Genetic Programs and Biological Information ==
 
−
:''Main article: [[Intelligent design]]''
 
−
[[Image:Foto Gitt.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Dr. [[Werner Gitt]]]]
 
−
Scientists in the area of creation science and [[intelligent design]] advocates state the [[genetic code]], genetic programs, and biological [[information]] argue for an intelligent cause in regards to the origins question.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=118</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
Dr. Werner Gitt, former director and Professor of Information Systems at the prestigious German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt), wrote that human beings are the most complex [[information]] processing systems on earth.  Dr. Gitt estimated that the human body processes thousands of times more information than all the world's libraries contain.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
Dr. Gitt has written several points regarding the origin of biological information:
 
−
 
 
−
#In his work ''In the Beginning Was Information'' Dr. Gitt stated that “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1484094</ref>
 
−
#Dr. Gitt argued that the [[density]] and complexity of [[DNA]] information is millions of times larger than mankind's current technology and this means a supremely intelligent being was the author of this information.<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref> Similarly, Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] in his 1996 essay ''The [[Origin of life|Origin of Life]] and the Death of [[Materialism]]'', wrote that "the information storage density of DNA, thanks in part to nucleosome spooling, is several trillion times that of our most advanced [[computer chip]]s.<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm</ref>
 
−
#Gitt stated that the author of the information encoded into the DNA [[molecule]], who constructed the molecular biomachines to encode, decode and run the cells was supremely intelligent.<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref>
 
−
#Dr. Gitt asserted that because information is a nonmaterial entity and does not originate from matter, the author of biological information must be nonmaterial ([[spirit]]).<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref>
 
−
[[Image:Waltbrown.gif‎|left|thumb|200px|Dr. [[Walt Brown]]]]
 
−
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] concurs in regards to the [[supernatural]] origin of biological information and states that the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that [[codes]] are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref> Dr. Brown also asserts that the "information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs."<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
To support his creation science view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs, Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:
 
−
{{cquote|No matter how many "bits" of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it "information" if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a "program." Another name for computer software is an "algorithm." No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742</ref><ref>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958</ref>}}
 
−
 
 
−
==Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community==
 
−
Creation science is not accepted by most scientists either in terms of its claims or as a science, on the pretext that it cannot be disproved and therefore cannot be considered "[[science]]".<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html</ref>  <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref>  However, Dr. [[Walt Brown]] argues that the field of creation science is scientific.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref>  Also, creation scientists state the evolutionists' objections to creation science are due to the worldviews and preconceptions of the scientists, rather than on the basis of scientific evidence or the scientific validity of the idea.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>
 
−
Also, [[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,<ref>
 
−
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
 
−
* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524</ref> stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>  Michael Ruse, a leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, conditionally acknowledged Popper's statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
Although a belief in God does not automatically imply a belief in creation science, it is interesting to note that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 40% of scientists believed there is a God,<ref> http://www.ovpr.uga.edu/researchnews/97su/faith.html</ref> while a similar survey found that 93% of members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God.<ref> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref>
 
−
 
 
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==
 
*[[Christianity and Science]]
 
*[[Christianity and Science]]

Revision as of 21:31, September 21, 2008

Creation science is cowpoo.

See Also

External Links

Notes and References

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Creation_science&oldid=521693"