Is Creationism Science?

[OneLight]

When Paul spoke these words; Romans 10:17 "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.", there were no printing presses for people to have their own scripture, so they gathered together to hear what scripture said.  Today, we have the bible and can study His word!  Where people fall short is they approach His word to find proof that God is whom He claims to be.  The proper way to approach His word is for Him to show us what is wrong in our lives so we can find change throw our learning, THEN we will see God and find the evidence we are looking for.  If people cannot see Him in His creation, they will not find Him in His words unless they first have a personal relationship with God.

[DC10]

I cannot say I have a relationship with Christ.  I did once ask Him to come into my heart, but no faith grew in the following years.  Now I experience Him through the Word.  His presence reverberates in the Gospels and He speaks to me over the ages.  I will not deny Him and that He has great influence over me.  I see Him in others, even nonchristians, as CS Lewis noted.

Really sorry to hear your faith didn't grow. For what it's worth, as a fellow scientist (if I dare use that phrase in connection with my career), I can only say that when I asked Him into my heart, the experiment was successful. Best experiment I ever organised, thinking about it.

[gray wolf]

I cannot say I have a relationship with Christ. I did once ask Him to come into my heart, but no faith grew in the following years. Now I experience Him through the Word. His presence reverberates in the Gospels and He speaks to me over the ages. I will not deny Him and that He has great influence over me. I see Him in others, even nonchristians, as CS Lewis noted.

Really sorry to hear your faith didn't grow. For what it's worth, as a fellow scientist (if I dare use that phrase in connection with my career), I can only say that when I asked Him into my heart, the experiment was successful. Best experiment I ever organised, thinking about it.

I was a bit equivocal in that answer without meaning to be. I guess I do have a relationship, albeit not a good one. What is your field? I'm a medicinal chemist.

Edited October 3, 2013 by OneLight

[Addai]

To the OP.

 

 

I think it can be a science.   Hugh Ross appraoches it from that way, where he has specific models that can be tested, verified or discounted.   Unfortunately I think it probably end up being more in the end of pseudo science.  I'm talking more that young earth creationists often make their cases etc. based on the exceptions of the rule rather than the rule itself. (This is my Old Earth Creationist bias talking).   But anyway I think that undermines their case.   (They have a limited range of how to handle things and read the data compared to old earthers).

Edited October 3, 2013 by Addai

[DC10]

I was a bit equivocal in that answer without meaning to be. I guess I do have a relationship, albeit not a good one. What is your field? I'm a medicinal chemist.

 

Are you asking me, gw? If not, apologies for butting in!

 

Pretty niche now, biotech-ish, but originally applied research, pretty ho-hummy. 

[thomas t]

To the OP.

 

 

I think it can be a science.   Hugh Ross appraoches it from that way, where he has specific models that can be tested, verified or discounted.   Unfortunately I think it probably end up being more in the end of pseudo science. 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. 

Hugh Ross, I looked him up at Wikipedia:

 

 He is known for establishing his own ministry called Reasons to Believe that uses scientific evidence to argue for the truth of Christianity.^[2] It promotes progressive and day-age forms of Old Earth Creationism. Ross accepts the scientific consensus on an oldage of the earth and an old age of the universe, though he rejects the scientific consensus on evolution and abiogenesis as explanations for the history and origin of life.^[3][4][5]

 

 

 

 

Can I ask you:

in what way do his models differ from mainstream science?

Thanks for answering in advance.

Thomas

[Addai]

Hi Thomas. I'm currently reading his  "More than a theory". Which explores your question in length.    I don't think I can recommend the book, but the DVD may be better.   Ross in the past was good for being able to go into the details and using them to illustrate his points.   That actually was what I enjoyed the most about him but at this point he's covered to much ground amond the various disciplines so he tends to paint in broad brush strokes and leaves the details in the footnotes. But if you find that you like him, the DVD may be worth it (you gain more access to all the footnoted research that is only glossed over in the actual book).

 

 

I would recommend you take a look at this video, its 56 minutes before the question and answer part (Which I don't think is very good.   Questions are too generic)

 

You can find this by Googling "Scientific Evidence for the Christian Faith - Hue Ross, PhD"

 

 

But back to question...    Besides having a theistic assumptions, Ross is more multidisciplinary than most.   Many theories on things like the origon of life question focus solely on the biology or some other end of it.   That is very significant because some of the assumptions that are made can actually be disproven if you take a look at other areas like the geological record.    If you watch the video he actually gives a great example of that.

 

 

In terms of the differences with mainstream science.   I think the differences are more with other Creationist perspectives than with mainstream science.  (Ross gets a lot of hate mail and articles from young earth creationists that he's a heretic, false teacher etc.).   Ross himself has also been supportive of mainstream science in the classroom.   He for instance does not want textbooks thrown out, in place of new ones.   He simply wants that intelligent design be taught as one viable option with no need to spend money on extra materials just use materials that they and other provide for free.   As he says most of what is being taught "is good science".

Edited October 3, 2013 by OneLight
Removed embedded video. Videos are allowed in the Video Forum only.

[thomas t]

Hi Thomas. I'm currently reading his  "More than a theory". Which explores your question in length.    I don't think I can recommend the book, but the DVD may be better.   Ross in the past was good for being able to go into the details and using them to illustrate his points.   That actually was what I enjoyed the most about him but at this point he's covered to much ground amond the various disciplines so he tends to paint in broad brush strokes and leaves the details in the footnotes. But if you find that you like him, the DVD may be worth it (you gain more access to all the footnoted research that is only glossed over in the actual book).

 

 

I would recommend you take a look at this video, its 56 minutes before the question and answer part (Which I don't think is very good.   Questions are too generic)

 

You can find this by Googling "Scientific Evidence for the Christian Faith - Hue Ross, PhD"

 

 

But back to question...    Besides having a theistic assumptions, Ross is more multidisciplinary than most.   Many theories on things like the origon of life question focus solely on the biology or some other end of it.   That is very significant because some of the assumptions that are made can actually be disproven if you take a look at other areas like the geological record.    If you watch the video he actually gives a great example of that.

 

 

In terms of the differences with mainstream science.   I think the differences are more with other Creationist perspectives than with mainstream science.  (Ross gets a lot of hate mail and articles from young earth creationists that he's a heretic, false teacher etc.).   Ross himself has also been supportive of mainstream science in the classroom.   He for instance does not want textbooks thrown out, in place of new ones.   He simply wants that intelligent design be taught as one viable option with no need to spend money on extra materials just use materials that they and other provide for free.   As he says most of what is being taught "is good science".

 

Good morning Addai,

So you say that his models don't differ from mainstream science. So why don't his models just play a role in mainstream science, I ask myself? Did he submit his models to scientific journals? and if so, how did they react?

This forum, as I understand it, is not going to evaluate if his models are correct or not. But I like to ask questions on how mainstream scientists reacted to this.

 

Look - I have a time problem. 40 minutes a video is just too much for me. But you've listened to him, and you certainly can answer these questions (I hope you're willing to do it). Is that ok for you?

 

1) When he says "scientific evidence", he speaks of the same evidence that mainstream science uses, right?

2) Can you give an example of one of his interpretations of the data that is falsifiable?

Can you further give a brief explanation of (a) in which way this example differs from what mainstream scientists say? and of (b) which role the theistic component plays?

Maybe question a) comes down to b).

 

Thomas

[Addai]

Hi Thomas when you have the time I would recommend you watch the video (if you really are interested in this stuff).   They apparently don't like links in this part of the board but you can find the video at youtube, under the title "Scientific Evidence For the Christian Faith", Hugh Ross.

 

 

Dr. Ross presents the following list of predictions that his model makes around minute 41 of the video.

 

 

Biblical Predictions (On the origin of Life.   He basis this on the Hebrew words in the first chapter of Genesis)

 

1) That it happened early in Earth history

 

2) That it happened under hostile conditions

 

3) That life was complex, diverse, abundant (from the start)

 

4) That its beginnings happened miraculously and instantaneously

 

5) That life was marine only at the beginning

 

 

In terms of how well those things can be refuted yes its possible but "the deck is stacked" in his favor.   (I'm pretty sure he formalized his theories after years of study and knowing where the data was already pointing).

 

 

His view come to think of it do go against a lot of big evolutionary theorists like Carl Sagan.   In particular it usually assumed that life came later in Earth history, that it happened under favorable conditions, that life was simple and not diverse , one species to start with, and that its beginnings happened gradually (it took time to form amino acids, then other components, then longer for them to be combined then somehow animated by lighting or some other electricity)

Edited October 4, 2013 by Addai

[thomas t]

Dr. Ross presents the following list of predictions that his model makes around minute 41 of the video.

 

 

Biblical Predictions (On the origin of Life.   He basis this on the Hebrew words in the first chapter of Genesis)

 

1) That it happened early in Earth history

 

2) That it happened under hostile conditions

 

3) That life was complex, diverse, abundant (from the start)

 

4) That its beginnings happened miraculously and instantaneously

 

5) That life was marine only at the beginning

 

 

In terms of how well those things can be refuted yes its possible but "the deck is stacked" in his favor.   

 

Dear Addai,

 

thanks for posting this summary of the minute 41 of that video.

I think that looks interesting. He seems to have published 5 falsifiable tenets based on what he interprets Genesis' first chapter to be like. Nice.

 

It would be interesting to know the extent to which he would be willing to change this model according to possible new data.

So, do you know anything about what in his underlying theology is to remain fix? And, on the flip side, which points are to be seen as rather flexible as he doesn't interpret the corresponding scritpure to have a 100% clear message? 

 

"Miraculously" point 4: Is that perhaps a cop-out?

Can science lay out its own limits? But I don't like to overuse my little brain...

 

Thomas 

Edited October 4, 2013 by thomas t