Sign in to follow this  
cuchulain

Creationism

Recommended Posts

Creationism is identified by Merriam Webster as a theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing. A theory is defined as a supposition or system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be observed. The scientific method is: formulate a question, research, hypothesis, prediction, testing, analyze, and conclude.

If Creationism is a theory, what were the general principles that were independent of the observation? What research was done, in order to form the hypothesis and prediction? More important in my view, what was the testing in order to prove this theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Dan56   

I don't personally think that creationism is a theory, its a hypothesis at best. But then, I feel the same way about macro-evolution. Creationism is more of a philosophy, its presented as something to be believed and not as anything that can be substantiated by evidence. Creationist accept God as the uncaused cause of all that is, and no one can prove or disprove that except God himself.

Share this post


Link to post

Creationism is identified by Merriam Webster as a theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing.

So, perhaps the first thing we should talk about might be; does this coincide with, or contradict what we are told by science?

It seems that science , for many hundreds of years, claimed that the universe was eternal and infinite. In making this assertion scientists eliminated the need for any force (God) to be necessary for the universe to start. It wasn't until the mid 20th century that science caught up to the Bible and decided that the universe had a beginning. The Bible has been saying that the universe had a beginning since the first book of the Pentateuch was written. It was only in 1968-1970 that Stephen Hawking, George F. R. Ellis, and Roger Penrose published papers extending Einstein's theory of relativity to show time/space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. Einstein resisted the concept of an expanding universe with a finite beginning even though relativity pointed the way.

The Bible says in Hebrews 11:3 Amplified Bible (AMP) 3 By faith we understand that the worlds [during the successive ages] were framed (fashioned, put in order, and equipped for their intended purpose) by the word of God, so that what we see was not made out of things which are visible. This is the idea that God created the world out of nothing. The Big Bang theory asserts that before the universe was there was the singularity. Often when attempting to explain the singularity laymen might give the example that all of the matter was condensed into something the size of an orange or a golf ball or some other small spherical object. In truth scientist will tell us that the singularity was much smaller. Smaller than a speck of dust, smaller than a molecule, smaller than an atom, smaller even than the nucleus of an atom. It seems, once again, the Bible was right. Everything (including matter and all life) in this universe was made from things which are not visible.

Isn't it amazing that thousands of years before modern science the Bible presented so much insight into how this universe is made?

Share this post


Link to post

Very interesting perspective Pastor Dave. One I'm certain shared by many within Christianity, Islam and Judaism as to how creationism correlates to scientific evidence.

Without attempting to sway off topic and get things to heated I'll leave it there and just say I agree with Cuchulain and ask: "Where do the main areas of "proof" come from what is written in the OT Bible or Pentateuch?

If Creationism is a theory, what were the general principles that were independent of the observation?

What research was done, in order to form the hypothesis and prediction?

More important in my view, what was the testing in order to prove this theory?

If anyone can point to chapter and verse in any Sacred text; Bible, Koran, Torah etc it would make a believer out of me.

Blessings Be,

Share this post


Link to post

That is the question at hand, friend. I can understand that perhaps it is not how common parlance defines the theory, yet this is a theory that is taught in some schools. It seems to me that in the professional setting, at least so far as secular settings go I should say, creationism cannot rightly be called a theory without some sort of testing to determine whether it is an accurate observation. Hence, when the debate arises as to whether a school should offer creationism as an alternative theory, the answer must be no, unless and until someone can devise a method for testing the hypothesis and thus upgrade it from such to theory. It isn't really relevant in my mind whether or not this "Theory" coincides with what science says, what is relevant to me is that this does not hold up as a legitimate theory, but rather a philosophy as Dan said. I could fully accept teaching this in school as one of many philosophies detailing how the universe was created, so long as other philosophies and religions were given equal weight. But to teach this in science class is a fallacy, I believe. When science class gets to the beginnings of the universe, I believe it is perfectly acceptable for the teacher to state that we do not know how it all started. After all, isn't that where science begins with answering a question in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post

All cultures have a supernatural creation story. The only reason the barbarian sheep herders creation story is so important is because so many people still believe it as though no time has passed since the story was first told. All the native tribes in our fine nation have their own creation stories but somewhere some of them grew up and put them aside while others just exchanged them for the God of Abraham's myth.

Share this post


Link to post

A theory is defined as a supposition or system of ideas intended to explain something,

So according to this definition Creationism is certainly a theory. Creationism is a supposition and a system of ideas intending to explain something.

Edited by Pastor Dave

Share this post


Link to post

If there must be a creator for nature then there must also be a creator for the creator.

If there is no need for the creator to have a creator then there is no need for nature to have a creator either.

If there is evidence for intelligence in the design of nature why would you think that the intelligence lies outside of nature?

Man is the perfect example that intelligence lies within the creation itself.

Instead of Intelligent Design it should be Intelligent Auto-Design.

Share this post


Link to post

Dave, you left out the next part of that definition. Especially based on principles independent of the thing to be observed. As I asked, where are the principles independent of the observation, in this case I think the observation is the bible, or at the least the creation story contained within the bible. Just wondering where those independent principles are, friend, as well as the test results from testing the hypothesis. That is how theory works, for the most part. Of course, as Coolhand says, creationism is based on a poem, stick with science. As I said, I could fully understand the bible as literature, or philosophy, or even in a religion class, so long as all other philosophies and religions were equally represented. And, I suppose it could be put into a poetry class, although I don't personally find that appealing, but to call creationism science without using the scientific method to verify seems a fallacy to me. Just my opinion though, of course.

Share this post


Link to post

Dave, you left out the next part of that definition.

Ahh but the next part of the definition starts with especially .... that does not mean that without those qualifiers it isn't a theory it means that if those qualifiers are met special consideration is given. I think you may have needed to put a qualifier in front of the word theory. You know, like "scientific" theory. You see conspiracy theorist are full of theories about all kinds of things. They are theories. They aren't scientific theories, but they are theories. Simply putting the word theory in front of or behind a phrase does not lend credence to anything. When I put in the word theory into the Merriam Webster online site I don't even see the definition you gave although I do see several that would fit creationism.

Full Definition of THEORY

1

: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2

: abstract thought : speculation

3

: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4

a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5

: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6

a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b : an unproved assumption : conjecture

c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

I will freely concede that Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is however, a theory none the less.

Edited by Pastor Dave

Share this post


Link to post

A philosophical theory? Such as I stipulated I would accept in a philosophical setting, rather than scientific?

Share this post


Link to post

That is the question at hand, friend. I can understand that perhaps it is not how common parlance defines the theory, yet this is a theory that is taught in some schools. It seems to me that in the professional setting, at least so far as secular settings go I should say, creationism cannot rightly be called a theory without some sort of testing to determine whether it is an accurate observation. Hence, when the debate arises as to whether a school should offer creationism as an alternative theory, the answer must be no, unless and until someone can devise a method for testing the hypothesis and thus upgrade it from such to theory. It isn't really relevant in my mind whether or not this "Theory" coincides with what science says, what is relevant to me is that this does not hold up as a legitimate theory, but rather a philosophy as Dan said. I could fully accept teaching this in school as one of many philosophies detailing how the universe was created, so long as other philosophies and religions were given equal weight. But to teach this in science class is a fallacy, I believe. When science class gets to the beginnings of the universe, I believe it is perfectly acceptable for the teacher to state that we do not know how it all started. After all, isn't that where science begins with answering a question in the first place?

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post

So, perhaps the first thing we should talk about might be; does this coincide with, or contradict what we are told by science?

It seems that science , for many hundreds of years, claimed that the universe was eternal and infinite. In making this assertion scientists eliminated the need for any force (God) to be necessary for the universe to start. It wasn't until the mid 20th century that science caught up to the Bible and decided that the universe had a beginning. The Bible has been saying that the universe had a beginning since the first book of the Pentateuch was written. It was only in 1968-1970 that Stephen Hawking, George F. R. Ellis, and Roger Penrose published papers extending Einstein's theory of relativity to show time/space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. Einstein resisted the concept of an expanding universe with a finite beginning even though relativity pointed the way.

The Bible says in Hebrews 11:3 Amplified Bible (AMP) 3 By faith we understand that the worlds [during the successive ages] were framed (fashioned, put in order, and equipped for their intended purpose) by the word of God, so that what we see was not made out of things which are visible. This is the idea that God created the world out of nothing. The Big Bang theory asserts that before the universe was there was the singularity. Often when attempting to explain the singularity laymen might give the example that all of the matter was condensed into something the size of an orange or a golf ball or some other small spherical object. In truth scientist will tell us that the singularity was much smaller. Smaller than a speck of dust, smaller than a molecule, smaller than an atom, smaller even than the nucleus of an atom. It seems, once again, the Bible was right. Everything (including matter and all life) in this universe was made from things which are not visible.

Isn't it amazing that thousands of years before modern science the Bible presented so much insight into how this universe is made?

There is a big difference between ex nihilo creation and that. There is a difference between nothing and something. The singularity was something. Nothing does not mean can't be seen with the naked eye, it means nothing. It seems you are trying to reconcile science with your beliefs and chosen mythology. There is nothing wrong with this as we all do it to varying degrees. Just don't expect anyone else to take it seriously. Edited by Stormbringer

Share this post


Link to post

The findings in physics are interesting. It turns out that space itself is made up of tiny particles that have greater than zero mass. That means that nothing is still something.

Share this post


Link to post

Then it's not nothing :)

Perhaps. I can't even pretend to understand some of this stuff. Like "virtual particles" that "flash in and out of existence." It seems that "nothing" is "unstable." It hurts my head.

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post

There is a big difference between ex nihilo creation and that.

It seems to me, from this post, that you think there is only one train of thought in Creationism. Sorry, not so. You see there are many different types of creationists. There are the young Earth creationists, old Earth creationists, gap theory, day age, progressive creationism, intelligent design. We are not all of one mind.

There is a difference between nothing and something. The singularity was something.

To a man being told the creation story over 3500 years ago, I think, once you got past anything smaller than a speck of dust he would have thought that it was nothing. Even the great Hawking can not tell us exactly what the singularity was. You see, working your way back to the very, very beginning is kind of like taking a number .... any number you want .... now divide that in half. Take the resulting number and divide that in half. Continue doing that until you come up with nothing. It's not possible. In much the same way it is impossible to work the math back to the very beginning of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post

. Nothing does not mean can't be seen with the naked eye, it means nothing.

I didn't make up Hebrews 11:3, I simply quoted it and showed how it fit.

It seems you are trying to reconcile science with your beliefs and chosen mythology. There is nothing wrong with this as we all do it to varying degrees.

It seems you may think I'm trying to change someone here's mind. I'm not. As the quote from Aristotle in my signature suggests, I'm simply trying to present to some a view that they may not have heard before. After they entertain the concept for a while they are free to accept it, reject it, or even modify it.

Just don't expect anyone else to take it seriously.

Oh BTW, there are others who follow a similar train of thought. I don't have to expect others to "take it seriously" ..... they already do!

Edited by Pastor Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this