"Creation Scientists": don't understand science or just lying?

If I may play devil's advocate (where the devil, in this case, is Creation Science) ...

My understanding is that the Creationists want to change the definition of science *itself* to include the supernatural.

This is why they refer to "naturalism" as the enemy ... i.e. that science is "dominated by the dogma of naturalism."

I think part of the problem is a difference in the definition of the word "naturalism". Creationists define it as the belief that "there is nothing outside of nature." (See source 1.)

But scientists define it as "the view that an explanation is justified just so far as it rests on evidence of an empirical kind." (See source 2.)

In other words, Creationists see naturalism as believing there is no supernatural (no God), and scientists see naturalism as trying to explain things without resorting to the supernatural explanations (God). It is a HUGE difference ... but it is, IMO, the root of the disagreement.

So with that backdrop, Creationists would like a science that leads to God ... one that confirms that God exists. Science, as it has been articulated since Descartes and practiced since Newton (both very religious fellows, by the way) ... refuses to oblige ... and in so doing, scientists get accused of being atheists!

In other words, Creationists would prefer if, just once, the scientists would say "Eureka, this *CANNOT* be explained using naturalism, ergo God exists!" That is why they love the ID scientists like Behe.

But the scientists always reexamine the results of people like Behe, and say ... "Ah, no ... false alarm. There is a perfectly reasonable naturalistic explanation right here if you would just let go of the argument from incredulity for a minute." (Behe, of course, just closes his ears ... his ego too much invested in the brilliance of his bacterial flagellum argument ... and at that point no longer is a scientist, and becomes instead merely a pawn of the Creationists.)

So I don't think that Creationists are necessarily ignorant of how science works ... they just don't like it ... and would like to change the rules so that they are allowed to look for God in the laboratory.

Marcus, Creation Science is the science of how we got here.

Evolution is just as a religious view as Creation and you know it. For change to exist there must have been a beginning and the philosophical religious questions of how we got here are engraved within the evolution philosophies.

If it were not so then take Origin out of everything Darwin wrote.

If Religion has no place with science then please get rid of "Macro" evolution because it is PURELY religion.

Have kids learn evolution in private schools and pass laws that we do not have to spend tax dollar to have the evolution religion taught to our kids.

thanks,

No, you are obviously unaware of the term. What it means is that they study with the scientific evidence the theory of Intelligent Design or Divine Creation. Why not study that theory as well? It would be pretty lame to study only one theory and ignore evidence which might support a different one. And BTW, by your concept, those who study evolution aren't scientists either because they surely believe in supernatural to get their religion to work. And yes, evolution is just the current state religion.

I have some questions for you. If it all started with the big-bang THEORY, which started out with one molecule eons ago, what happened before the molecule; I bet someone had to create the molecule. What element was that molecule anyway? If it was oxygen, for example; how does that create helium? And how does helium create carbon; how does that create gold etc. So my guess is that God did take part in creation, besides someone had to turn the sun on.

More like just willfully ignorant. Michael Behe, one of the most "prominent creation scientists", also considers astrology to be a science. Go figure.

That is correct. "Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. Which of course doesn't mean that scientists cannot believe in Creation. But when they do, they are not speaking as scientists.

They start with a result and "force" their version *cough* science.

Deist/Pantheist with a B.A. in Anthropology. I can explain science and put my personal beliefs aside.

A little from Column A, and a little from Column B.

OK, dummy with many words. Tell us, just where did what ever was the beginning stuff that everything came from come from?

Just because you don't understand creationism does not mean it's "Magic". It's just beyond YOUR understanding.

†