Conservapedia on Creation Science

Conservapedia on Creation Science! Woot!


Creation science

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.

That's an encyclopedic definition?!?

So if we had a scientific theory that was free of "evolutionist bias", showed the universe was made by God in a supernatural event, but had "atheist bias", that isn't creation science, right?

How about we have "atheist bias" and "evolutionist bias" but the universe was created by some competing god down the street? Would that be creation science?

And lest we forget, here is the list of the creaionist theories that are free of "atheist and evolutionist bias", show God to have created the universe, and are compatible with all scientific evidence:

None.

Yep! That's right! Throw in the "all" clause - meaning that the theory has to meet all evidence, not just a few pieces here and there and the entire subject washes away with the tide.

Most advocates of creation science believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old

This isn't even true if we just talk about creation scientists. It's only the bible literalists that hold to the Y6K motif like a drowning man clutches to a life preserver.

In addition, scientists in the discipline of creation science state that the first law of thermodynamics and second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe.

That would be the same ones that state the Earth is 6,000 years old.

They also claim that these laws point to the universe being created by God.

Great hypothesis! Too bad it failed the testing protocols. Bummer.

Creation scientists also assert that naturalistic processes alone cannot account for the origin of life and that the theory of evolution cannot account for the various kinds of animals and plants.

Can I be a creation scientist, too? Making stuff up and just stating it or asserting it sounds way easier than what real scientists do!

Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that speciation occurs;

So they don't just state that speciation occurs? How quaint!

however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionists believe is the case. Many scientists in the field of creation science, such as the scientists at Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis, assert that the Bible contains an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed.

Ah, back to the assertions. And here I thought we were moving forward!

In addition, Christianity profoundly influenced the development of modern science.

For example, torturing Galileo did, in fact, have a profound influence on him.


Creation Science and Genetic Programs and Biological Information

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.

Broken record time, here, but really just stating stuff isn't science any more than holding your hand over the bible is theology.

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.

This part might be true. We'd need to see his evidence, but the fact is the human brain is an amazing information processing organ.

Dr. Gitt has written several points regarding the origin of biological information:

It's story time!

1. 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.”

He might want to read Dawkins, sometime. He has a book or two on this subject. I'm sure it's just an oversight on Dr. Gitt's part to not know of a 159 year old theory.

2. Dr. Gitt argued that the density and complexity of DNA information is millions of times larger than mankind's current technology

Might be true!

and this means a supremely intelligent being was the author of this information

Completely false!

What it really means is that there has to be some mechanism to create this complexity. It's completely false to say that only a god could do that, especially since there are other alternatives.

Similarly, Dr. Stephen C. Meyer in his 1996 essay The 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 chips.

We're amazingly complex, yep!

3. 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.

So another axiom that we either believe or don't. Here a hint, scientists, the ones that actually follow the scientific method and test their theories and other weird stuff that you haven't heard of - like independent reviews - don't believe this axiom. They've even come up with other ways that this could happen. And then tested those ways and found that they work!

Isn't real science fun?!? Yeah!

4. 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).

And is spooky!

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.

Evidence! *whistles like whistling for a dog* Where are you evidence! Come on over, Evidence! Show yourself...someday!

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."

Appears? Perhaps. Did? No.

It really doesn't matter how many times you state or assert something. Until you show evidence of that something you've got nothing more than a bunch of unsupported hopes and wishes.

To support his creation science view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs,

Look, ma! They might get around to showing us some evidence!

Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:
“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"
Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community

Nope. No evidence here. Just an unanswered question. Bummer!

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".

Yep, that's really, really important.

However, Dr. Walt Brown argues that the field of creation science is scientific.

Okay! State your evidence of this.

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.

Oh, of course. You're not going to give any evidence. How silly of me!

Also, Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience, stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme." 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."

Here's another quote from Karl Popper: “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation”. You see, Karl found out that he was wrong and so, like a good scientific mind, when he was presented with new data, he changed his mind.

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, while a similar survey found that 93% of members of the United States National Academy of Sciences do not believe there is a God.

And thank you, Conservapedia, for staying on topic!