Jump to content


Photo

Part 01 - What Does Science Say About Creation?


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Librarian

Librarian

    Omega

  • Publications
  • 10,029 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 06:51 AM

Part 01 - What Does Science Say About Creation?

 

Science says nothing about creation; science does not observe creation and science does not comment on the creative origins of creation. 

 

Now some may say, well that is completely untrue, look at everything science has revealed about creation, all the amazing animals, the plants and trees, look at the advances in medicine thanks to scientific knowledge of how the human body works. All this and more, thanks to science! So of course science talks about creation, science does little else but.
 
However despite all of this, the fact remains, science does not study creation at all, science studies naturally occurring phenomena and there is a very big difference between the two. 
 
Let us illustrate this further with the following example.
 
Frank's Ford
 
Frank is fascinated with Fords, he is frankly fanatical about them, he owns a Ford, he subscribes to a Ford enthusiasts magazine, he participates in Ford rallies he watches Ford car races. Frank even belongs to a Ford club where he fraternises with like-minded Ford fanatics for fun filled ford festivities facilitating the swapping of Ford stories and sharing Ford tips. For Frank, Fords are his life. 
 
But Frank is not your ordinary Ford enthusiast. Most Ford enthusiasts approach Fords as the best invention in the history of humanity. But Frank harbours a belief that Fords are a naturally occurring phenomenon. And even though the very cars Frank loves to study are branded with Henry's image and likeness, Frank denies the role of Henry, having limited himself to a form of mechanical naturalism for explaining the origins of Fords.
 
Franks philosophy of the origins of the Ford by natural selection does not impact his ability to understand what a Ford is, nor does it impact his ability to describe in fine detail how a Ford works. But when it comes to describing where Fords come from, Franks world view of mechanical naturalism is going to take him in completely the opposite direction to those who accept that Fords began as an idea / logos in the mind of Henry.
 
So even though all the people in Franks Ford club appear to love and talk about the same thing as Frank, this is not true, and for his part Frank fiercely denies any inference that he talks about, understands or drives the brain child of Henry.
 
The scientific community feel the same way as Frank does about creation. Science rejects any inference that the incredibly complex life forms they study have been created in an intelligent way. To assert that science comments on creation is a misrepresentation of what science is and what science does.
 
Remember, Science absolutely denies any association between their work and creation. Science is not passively neutral on this topic but approaches the issue with a religious zeal that has driven them to fight legal battles to clarify and differentiate between these two opposite world views.
 
Science observes what they believe to be naturally occurring phenomena not creation.
 
So to make the statement that science will reveal how God created creation is like asserting that Frank will reveal how Henry made the Ford. Both Frank and science fiercely deny anything of the sort in fact the philosophical bias of naturalism drives them in completely the opposite direction.

  • Thisisme likes this

#2 Librarian

Librarian

    Omega

  • Publications
  • 10,029 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 06:58 AM

When it comes to creation, our paradigm, our world view, is of critical importance. We may be staring at the same thing, let’s say, a frog. We may agree on what the frog is and how the frog croaks, but if we have totally different views on where frogs come from and how they came into existence we are not really looking at the same thing at all. It is like a geologist who insists that an ornate vase was spat out of a volcano, arguing with an archaeologist who thinks it was intelligently designed by Greeks. They appear to be looking at the same thing, but they are not.
 
If two people are looking at paint on a canvas and one believes it’s a masterpiece and the other believes the canvas was positioned too close to an exploding paint factory, they may be staring at the same canvas, but one believes it is the work of a great mind, the other believes it is the result of a horrible accident.
 
Now as this is a very important point and one that we need to keep firmly in our minds, we will illustrate it one more time by means of a diagram about Bees.
 
BeesP1.jpg
 
As we can see, differing views about where Bee’s come from will not impact the observation of a Bee and how it lives and flies, but when it comes to describing where Bees come from, opposite world views on the origins of the Bee will lead the observers in the opposite direction. 
 
So who is right and who is wrong? Well that is not the issue at this stage, all we need to keep in mind is that when commenting on what can be observed, it does not matter whether or not the observers believe in an ingenious creator, aliens, or mindless unguided processes. Neither will these opposite world views impact the ability to observe how something works.
 
But when it comes to discovering where something from, these two opposing world views will lead the observers to completely different conclusions.
 
So, coming back to our original question. What does science have to say about creation?
 

  • Thisisme likes this

#3 Librarian

Librarian

    Omega

  • Publications
  • 10,029 posts

Posted 15 September 2014 - 07:02 AM

Absolutely nothing! Science denies creation was created. Science denies there is any evidence of a creative hand in creation. Science rejects any assertion that its scope could be expanded to include the investigation of intelligence or design in creation.

 

"Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a self-imposed convention of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."

 

Creation, a creator, intelligence, design, purpose and function may be avenues of scientific pursuit contemplated by an archaeologist studying an artefact.  But when it comes to living artefacts like the human brain, the eye or DNA, methodological naturalism forbids scientists from pursuing any other possible cause than blind, purposeless, mindless natural forces.

 

Let us hear the end of the matter from none other than a scientist.

 

"Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God's existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably). Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism." Todd, Scott C. [Department of Biology, Kansas State University, USA], "A view from Kansas on that evolution debate," Nature, Vol. 401, 30 September 1999, p.423)

 

So when it comes to investigating creation and its origins, science has refused to ask the question, barred itself from the investigation and imposed the doctrine of naturalism to remove any contemplation of creativity in creation.

 

Science is supposed to be about following the evidence to where ever it leads. But according to Mr Todd if the evidence were to lead to intelligence or design, naturalism would force science in the opposite direction. 

 

Naturalism is a fundamentalist doctrine of science from which it has not deviated.

 

Science says nothing about creation. Naturalism prevents it from doing so.


  • Thisisme likes this

#4 Librarian

Librarian

    Omega

  • Publications
  • 10,029 posts

Posted 16 September 2014 - 01:29 AM

Constructive feedback (in this thread) regarding the above article - What Does Science Say About Creation? - is welcome :)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users