Administrator2
New Member
JHAPPEL
Time and time again evolutionist's mock creation and in particular YEC as pseudo-science and than turn around and say evolution is objective science.
Perhaps the most common way to dismiss creation by evolutionist's is to say science only deals with natural explanations and since creation assumes the supernatural exists and has intervened in the past it has no place in science classes. By defining science to fit their worldview they conveniently dismiss having to actually deal with the evidences for creation. See the following quotes below to illustrate this:
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423.
"Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it." (Pinker S., "How the Mind Works," [1997], Penguin: London, 1998, pp.162-163.)
Then evolutionist's wonder why only 10% of the population believes in purely undirected evolution. To convince people evolution is a fact they are gonna have to take the time to refute the arguments for creation whether they like it or not.
Another common argument used against creation is that creation isn't testable or falsifiable. Evolutionists commonly say creationists have already made up their mind creation is a fact from the Bible and then they look for evidence to fit their religion. First creation is testable and falsifiable. Creation would predict basic types of animals would not change into different types. For instance the Bible clearly says God created flying animals. To date no one has ever observed a non-flying animal evolve flight. The day it is observed creation would be falsified.
However, we cannot falsify whether undirected evolution can make a flying creature out of a non-flying creature. It happened at least 4 separate times in the past( likely several times in insects) so it shouldn't be asking too much to see proto flying structures evolving today. Also the flood model would predict geologically the entire Earth would show very similar features since the flood effected the whole Earth and that evidence would indicate layers were laid down rapidly. There is consistent evidence for this such as the Morrison Formation with sedimentary layers extending from Texas to Canada,
polystrate fossils extending through 'millions of years' of strata, fossil graveyards burying hundreds of large animals sometimes dinosaurs, etc. That's not to say there aren't features that are difficult to explain. But isn't that why science exists? To continue to update and enhance our models.
When creationists say we know creation happened the only question is how they are branded as unscientific. Yet evolutionists do the same thing. We are constantly assured of the fact of evolution. All that is left is to piece together what happened. Perhaps the most common 'evidence' for evolution is homology. Yet creationist Linnaeus devised the classification system grouping more similar animals together with the patterns of how God created. So the fact that many animals share many things in common
is not evidence for evolution. Evolution is supposed to explain why animals have many things in common. It cannot use this fact as evidence. That would be circular reasoning. For instance the frog specie Gastrotheca riobambe develops directly rather than through tadpole stages. Early development for this species is radically different than most frogs yet from outward appearance it is obviously homologous to other frogs. So the fact that species look similar does not mean they develop similar.
Evolution is plastic and virtually falsifiable proof. The common 'test' to refute evolution is finding a pre-Cambrian human fossil. Creationists would not expect to find pre-Cambrian human fossils either so this is hardly a test. Evolution did not predict that all the animal phyla would showup at once in strata separated by a mere 10 million years without leaving any evolutionary history but that is what happened. Did it falsify evolution?
No. The theory simply remolded itself to fit in this evidence. This excuse is that these were soft bodied and high levels of oxygen somehow accelerated their evolution, etc. PE was developed to explain stasis and abrupt appearances of new species yet this was not a prediction of evolution. The theory was again reworked to fit in contradictive evidence. Or how
about homologous structures that evolved independently? How about the eye of a mouse and the eye of a octopus or the placental and marsupial mammals? If homology is such a strong argument for evolution and yet evolution can just as easily explain strikingly similar structures that don't share a near common ancestor it hardly makes predictions that can easily be tested. Also Darwin said that an example of truly altruistic behavior would disprove the theory. However, dandelions produce nectar, which benefits insects, but have no need of the visits from the insects because dandelions reproduce asexually. Yet evolution is still a fact. Haldane once said evolution could never produce motors or magnets. Yet they have been found and
no one is willing to abandon evolution.
Evolutionists also have to come up with ad hoc explanations to preserve uniformitarian ancient Earth believes. Take for instance this case below.
Dr. Helmick, how dare you imply that our geology textbooks and uniformitarian theories could possibly be wrong! Everybody knows that
diatomaceous earth beds are built up slowly over millions of years as diatom skeletons slowly settle out on the ocean floor. The baleen whale simply stood on its tail for 100,000 years, its skeleton decomposing, while the diatomaceous snow covered its frame millimeter by millimeter. Certainly you wouldn't expect intelligent and informed establishment scientists of this modern age to revert to the outmoded views of our forefathers just to explain such finds! (Olney, Harvey O. III (1977), "A Whale of a
Tale" [Letter to the Editor], Chemical and Engineering News, 55[12]:4, March 21).
So my point is creation is no less scientific than evolution. And by not allowing the scientific case for creation to be heard science can no longer be considered a search for the truth. The following quote sums up exactly what I'm talking about in this post.
"Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more-it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypothesis, all systems must henceforth bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow-this is what evolution is." Teilhard de Chardin participant in the Piltdown fraud.
(I should add that I am not advocating YEC being taught in public schools. I believe intelligent design should be taught in schools and that dating methods should not be taught as infallible but have limitations. However, I am not advocating an age of the Earth of 10,000 years be taught in schools.
I am merely saying YEC is not any less scientific than evolutionism/uniformitarianism.
Time and time again evolutionist's mock creation and in particular YEC as pseudo-science and than turn around and say evolution is objective science.
Perhaps the most common way to dismiss creation by evolutionist's is to say science only deals with natural explanations and since creation assumes the supernatural exists and has intervened in the past it has no place in science classes. By defining science to fit their worldview they conveniently dismiss having to actually deal with the evidences for creation. See the following quotes below to illustrate this:
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423.
"Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it." (Pinker S., "How the Mind Works," [1997], Penguin: London, 1998, pp.162-163.)
Then evolutionist's wonder why only 10% of the population believes in purely undirected evolution. To convince people evolution is a fact they are gonna have to take the time to refute the arguments for creation whether they like it or not.
Another common argument used against creation is that creation isn't testable or falsifiable. Evolutionists commonly say creationists have already made up their mind creation is a fact from the Bible and then they look for evidence to fit their religion. First creation is testable and falsifiable. Creation would predict basic types of animals would not change into different types. For instance the Bible clearly says God created flying animals. To date no one has ever observed a non-flying animal evolve flight. The day it is observed creation would be falsified.
However, we cannot falsify whether undirected evolution can make a flying creature out of a non-flying creature. It happened at least 4 separate times in the past( likely several times in insects) so it shouldn't be asking too much to see proto flying structures evolving today. Also the flood model would predict geologically the entire Earth would show very similar features since the flood effected the whole Earth and that evidence would indicate layers were laid down rapidly. There is consistent evidence for this such as the Morrison Formation with sedimentary layers extending from Texas to Canada,
polystrate fossils extending through 'millions of years' of strata, fossil graveyards burying hundreds of large animals sometimes dinosaurs, etc. That's not to say there aren't features that are difficult to explain. But isn't that why science exists? To continue to update and enhance our models.
When creationists say we know creation happened the only question is how they are branded as unscientific. Yet evolutionists do the same thing. We are constantly assured of the fact of evolution. All that is left is to piece together what happened. Perhaps the most common 'evidence' for evolution is homology. Yet creationist Linnaeus devised the classification system grouping more similar animals together with the patterns of how God created. So the fact that many animals share many things in common
is not evidence for evolution. Evolution is supposed to explain why animals have many things in common. It cannot use this fact as evidence. That would be circular reasoning. For instance the frog specie Gastrotheca riobambe develops directly rather than through tadpole stages. Early development for this species is radically different than most frogs yet from outward appearance it is obviously homologous to other frogs. So the fact that species look similar does not mean they develop similar.
Evolution is plastic and virtually falsifiable proof. The common 'test' to refute evolution is finding a pre-Cambrian human fossil. Creationists would not expect to find pre-Cambrian human fossils either so this is hardly a test. Evolution did not predict that all the animal phyla would showup at once in strata separated by a mere 10 million years without leaving any evolutionary history but that is what happened. Did it falsify evolution?
No. The theory simply remolded itself to fit in this evidence. This excuse is that these were soft bodied and high levels of oxygen somehow accelerated their evolution, etc. PE was developed to explain stasis and abrupt appearances of new species yet this was not a prediction of evolution. The theory was again reworked to fit in contradictive evidence. Or how
about homologous structures that evolved independently? How about the eye of a mouse and the eye of a octopus or the placental and marsupial mammals? If homology is such a strong argument for evolution and yet evolution can just as easily explain strikingly similar structures that don't share a near common ancestor it hardly makes predictions that can easily be tested. Also Darwin said that an example of truly altruistic behavior would disprove the theory. However, dandelions produce nectar, which benefits insects, but have no need of the visits from the insects because dandelions reproduce asexually. Yet evolution is still a fact. Haldane once said evolution could never produce motors or magnets. Yet they have been found and
no one is willing to abandon evolution.
Evolutionists also have to come up with ad hoc explanations to preserve uniformitarian ancient Earth believes. Take for instance this case below.
Dr. Helmick, how dare you imply that our geology textbooks and uniformitarian theories could possibly be wrong! Everybody knows that
diatomaceous earth beds are built up slowly over millions of years as diatom skeletons slowly settle out on the ocean floor. The baleen whale simply stood on its tail for 100,000 years, its skeleton decomposing, while the diatomaceous snow covered its frame millimeter by millimeter. Certainly you wouldn't expect intelligent and informed establishment scientists of this modern age to revert to the outmoded views of our forefathers just to explain such finds! (Olney, Harvey O. III (1977), "A Whale of a
Tale" [Letter to the Editor], Chemical and Engineering News, 55[12]:4, March 21).
So my point is creation is no less scientific than evolution. And by not allowing the scientific case for creation to be heard science can no longer be considered a search for the truth. The following quote sums up exactly what I'm talking about in this post.
"Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more-it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypothesis, all systems must henceforth bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow-this is what evolution is." Teilhard de Chardin participant in the Piltdown fraud.
(I should add that I am not advocating YEC being taught in public schools. I believe intelligent design should be taught in schools and that dating methods should not be taught as infallible but have limitations. However, I am not advocating an age of the Earth of 10,000 years be taught in schools.
I am merely saying YEC is not any less scientific than evolutionism/uniformitarianism.