As I mentioned in my previous post, Opal Formation – An Example of "Creationist" Research, anti-creationists can not get past the name "Creation Science" because they have a simplistic, inaccurate view of what this term means, and they reject the idea of it a priori. As I alluded, Creation science operates on the same scientific principles as naturalistic science, but has differing underlying assumptions, i.e. different underlying philosophies of science.
A Theory of Creation: A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists outlines the differences between the two views of science, and how creation science is both scientific, and superior as a scientific model. Any anti-creationist who wants to move past low-brow mockery of creation science ought to start by understanding this article.
And here’s a snippet:
| Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories | ||
| Phenomenon/Condition | Creation | Evolution |
Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7] | Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection | Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years |
Empirically Falsifiable? | Yes | Yes |
Empirically Falsified? | No | Yes |
Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8] | Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation | Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years |
Empirically Falsifiable? | Yes | Yes |
Empirically Falsified? | No | Yes |
Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9] | Indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms | Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors |
Empirically Falsifiable? | No | No |
Empirically Falsified? | No | No |
Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10] | Global Flood & aftermath | Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial |
Empirically Falsifiable? | No | No |
Empirically Falsified? | No | No |
The Ice Age[11] | Post-Flood climate compensation | Unknown |
Empirically Falsifiable? | No | No |
Empirically Falsified? | No | No |
Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12] | Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation | Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information |
Empirically Falsifiable? | Yes | Yes |
Empirically Falsified? | No | Yes |
Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13] | General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected | Strict pattern of million-year depositions from “simple†to “complexâ€; variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic |
Empirically Falsifiable? | Yes | Yes |
Empirically Falsified? | No | Yes |
Erratic “Ages†given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14] | Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood | Selective and dogmatic use of supportive “ages†& dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators |
Empirically Falsifiable? | Yes | Yes |
Empirically Falsified? | No | Yes |
| Table 2. The so-called “non-existent†creation theory, when examined with a measure of objectivity, manages to explain most empirical data with at least as much credibility as the evolutionary counterpart. |
You must log in to post a comment.