Re: Creationist Theory


Ray Martinez wrote:
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
> Then what is the theory of Creationism? Be specific. It must be
> testable, potentially falsifiable, and it must make predictions
> distinct from those of evolution.
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
>
> Microevolution: Is the term used to refer to the undisputed fact that
> any particular living thing or species changes slightly over time.
>
>
> Macroevolution: Is the term used to refer to the alleged fact that a
> living thing or species gradually changes into a completely different
> species or thing over vast amounts of time, including modern human
> beings slowly and gradually evolving into his present intelligent state
> from an ape ancestor over millions of years.

Macro evolution is lots of micro evolution. The creationist arguement
centers around 'kinds' - that is a goat cannot turn into a sheep or a
fish into a bird (to be more extreme). As kind is just an label and use
differently for different amounts of change (for example wolf and dog
are two labels but dogs are essentialy wolves). In short nature doesnt
know about the labels we assign and there is not argument about why
lots of micro evolution is not the same as macro evolution. It's just
the same as a dollar being lots of cents.


> Creationism: The belief that the Universe, the Earth, modern human
> beings, and all living things were suddenly created, at some point, by
> the universal God, based upon the objective textual evidence contained
> in the Bible.
>
> "The explanation and interpretation of scientific data, facts, and
> evidence favorable to the Supernatural Worldview." Creationism accepts
> the facts of microevolution but rejects the assumptions of
> macroevolution/hominid evolution.

To me that's like saying you can have cents and not dollars. What
barrier stops micro evolution leading to macro evolution? I have asked
about this many times but have never received an answer form a
creationist.


> Supernaturalism Worldview: Dr. Scott defines supernatural to mean
> "more natural".

That's a misunderstanding of how 'super-' is used - it means beyond in
many cases, as in 'superstructure'. Supernatural means beyond nature,
not 'more' nature. Zoe also made this mistake recently. Explicitly in
this case supernatural means outside of the natural world as you will
find defined in any dictionary.

In short Dr. Scott (who ever he is) has got the wrong meaning of the
word.

<snip bible bit>
>
> Supernaturalism accepts all facts produced by Naturalism methodologies
> which do not contradict or conflict with the objective facts of
> Creationism, and rejects all explanations, interpretations, and
> conclusions based on these facts which do the same, because of the
> admitted bias of Naturalism via its exclusion of the Divine under the
> false guise of neutrality.

This is totaly incorrect - supernaturalism does not accept any of the
facts from nature - it does not use the scientific method. It centers
on the unexplained and on the subjective. People see things and make up
conclusions.

The devine is not included in the scientific method as there is no way
to include it. It's not unbiased it's a simple practical problem - how
can you objectively observe god. Simple answer is you can't - you can
only observe the belief in god.

If you can find a way to turn god into something objective then you
will be the first for the millions of intelligent folks who have tried.


> Darwinism/Theory of Evolution (ToE): The belief that living things
> originated from other livings and not ultimately from the God of
> Genesis the Creator.

Not true. Evolution DOES NOT say where life ultimately came from. Let
me repeat that in slightly different words. Evolution DOES NOT say how
life started. How life started is a different area of study.

In theory god could have created life then evolution shaped it to where
we are today. God and evolution are NOT imcompatible except in the
views of bible literalists (a dying breed).

> ToE claims modern human beings and all other
> living things gradually evolved from other living things, that every
> living species naturally changed into their present state from some
> other previous living species (macroevolution)

that's also microevolution - the two are just different sizes of the
same thing.

> and was "not the work of
> God." (Mayr, One Long Argument, 1999)

The theory of evolution does not claim it is not the work of god. Again
let me repeat this - evolution says NOTHING about god. It does not say
there is or isnt a god any more than any other scientific theory.
Cosmology contradicts the bible yet I do not hear folks NOW say that it
is anti-god, although they very much did not so long ago.


> "The explanation and interpretation of scientific data, facts, and
> evidence favorable to the Naturalism Worldview." Darwinism/ToE assumes
> macroevolution a fact based upon the facts of microevolution.

It's a logical conclusion unless there is some invisible barrier
between micro and macro evolution. We have piles of evidence for macro
evolution include observing species being created, clear signs a
creature was once a totally different type of creature (a whale came
from land animals for example) and to say the opposite will need some
kind of killer argument.

ID doesnt contradict evolution in anyway even if it was true - it just
means not everything evolved! You can have god and evolution, the two
are not incompatible.

> Naturalism Worldview: A philosophy and a methodology of determining
> truth which excludes any data, facts, evidence, explanations,
> interpretations, or conclusions supporting Divine involvement or the
> Supernatural worldview. But naturalists insist they are Divine neutral
> in spite of the admitted exclusions.

This is simply not true - it is a straw man arguement based upon a
mythical world view. A world view based upon a skeptic framework takes
ALL data, facts and evidence into consideration but has to be tough on
them. If the data or facts are inconsistant then it is likely that idea
is wrong.

If you can prove OBJECTIVELY that some fact, bit of data etc supports
the idea of a devine entity then science is your tool.

> The belief that the study of the physical universe called cosmology,
> and nature, is all that there is to determine objective truth from, and
> is the exclusive domain of legitimate science and its investigation.

I think you need to get out of your biased point of view and look at
how the scientific method works and why objectivity is vital for
deteriming what is highly likely to be real.


> Scientism: The accepted modern term for Naturalism,

Not accepted by me. Scientism is a *** term that describes what
scientists do. The correct word is Science, and you don't have to be a
working scientist to do science.

I urge you to get to grips with the scientific method - understand the
difference between a hypothesis and a theory and why science is not
absolute, has a huge yawning void of stuff to be descovered infront of
it and is independent of culture and personal belief, save that it is
the motivating factors for people to do science.

If you beleive in X and X is not part of reality then science will
never support that idea even if the scientist believes it. Again I
repeat the world objectivity here and urge you to understand why
science seeks to remove all subjectivity from it's findings.

Stew Dean

.

Loading