Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
In creation science, which comes first, the Bible or the objective evidence?
I was choking down a creationist article from Answers in Genesis that was discussing how modern geology is completely wrong, when I found an interesting statement concerning the primacy of the Bible. It basically said that the Bible comes first and interpretations of nature should not be considered unless they align with a literal reading of the book of Genesis.
It seems to me that physical evidence (eg: geologic records) should naturally point to the truth. Why is it then that a scientist should be preoccupied with aligning their interpretations with anything?
Is just seems like creation science is quite backward. The natural world should point to its creator and the real history... but instead creationists (in their own words) start with what they consider true and work from there. What do you think?
@Kissthepilot - this doesn't have anything to do with evolution. It's simply a question of where our truth comes from. As a Christian I used to believe that the evidence found in the world would match, support, and illuminate the Christian worldview. In fact it does not, or at least not a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.
11 Answers
- CirbrynLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
It's not just the Bible or Koran that comes first. It's my personal interpretation of the Bible or Koran. Because my interpretation is clearly what God meant to communicate, and your interpretation is not.
That's how we know that whenever you see a locust walking on six legs, your eyes are playing tricks on you.
Source(s): Lev 11:21, 11:22 - Rick LLv 61 decade ago
"Creation science is real science, unlike the evolution theory fable." - Sorry, I need to correct this guys Typos. Correction is below:
"Creation science is NOT science, unlike the SCIENTIFICALLY TESTED Theory of evolution."
There. That needed correcting, sorry.
Why? Because they want to.
Creation "science" ignores facts and data that does not fit it's viewpoint. It refuses to change when new information is discovered. That is *NOT* 'Good Science'.
The Theory of Evolution is itself constantly changing, as new evidence is discovered. Erroneous aspects are changed, or removed completely if proven by peer review to be inaccurate. Repeatable testing, and thoroughly peer reviewed data is required. That is 'Good Science'.
- KissthepilotLv 61 decade ago
I think you misunderstood the article. You should always start with a book that tells you the truth, not lies. Science books keep changing, but God's word does not. Please don't try to convince us that scientists don't have preconceived notions about the World. Evolution has ruined almost every science. It doesn't work and is easily disproved. But, going on the fact that the Bible was inspired by the creator, you will have far more success in doing science.
You are begging the question. You are arguing whether we should see the evidence of the Earth in light of the Bible, and then saying the bible must not be true so we should look at the evidence first. Whenever we find evidence that supposedly disproves the bible, it always turns out to be faked or someones interpretation that's wrong. We both have the same evidence, the same fossils, the same world. I look for evidence of god's creation, and you look for evidence of evolution. Both are valid starting points, but mine happens to be backed up by the creator.
- NateLv 71 decade ago
You've hit the head on the nail as far as what makes creation "science" not science at all.
Edit: Kiss you're the one missing the point. We should start with evidence and draw conclusions as to what is true from that, not start with a conclusion ("The bible is true") with no evidence.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- ?Lv 71 decade ago
Yes, that's idea. Any science that doesn't agree with the desert fables must be wrong.
"Is just seems like creation science is quite backward."
That's why it's illuminated exactly NOTHING. It's not science at all, it's superstition.
- 1 decade ago
Oh Sorry, I just hurt myself laughing, you used 'creation' and 'science' in the same sentence.
- 1 decade ago
Creation science is not a science, it's a religion. Believe in evidence, don't believe in beliefs.
- *Blessed*Lv 71 decade ago
The words "creation" and "science" don't exactly go hand-in-hand, if you ask me. At least, not in this situation.
