History of Creationism Creationists present themselves as the true bearers and present-day representatives of authentic, traditional Christianity, but historically speaking this is simply not true Ruse,; Numbers ; McMullin
Uniformitarianism is the belief that the processes that are currently in effect are the same now as they have been throughout history. For scientific creationists, the a priori beliefs which inform their interpretations are a belief that life was created outside natural processes and that divine revelation through religious texts such as the Bible describes history accurately.
It should be emphasized that these postulates are not scientific theories themselves, as scientists on both sides have claimed they are so plastic that they lack falsifiability. While most would agree that this is true of uniformitarianismspecial creation, abiogenesis, and belief in divine revelation, some may object to claiming that evolution is not a theory.
Belief in the theory of evolution is exactly parallel to belief in special creation. British biologist and evolutionist.
By contrast, secular science have attacked creationism because its postulates are supernatural rather than naturalistic. One example of this is by D. Watson, who forthrightly said that evolution was a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creationis clearly incredible.
Another example cited by creationists is Dr. Theories Each school of thought has several theories derived from or supporting it. A given scientist may only agree with some subset of the theories. For example, in secular science there is a large group of theorists, Neo-Darwinists that believe in gradualismwhile there are several who have made scathing attacks against a slow, steady progress of evolution.
Other theories attempting to describe how evolution might work include punctuated equilibriumand the hopeful monster theory. In addition to positing methods to drive evolution, secular scientists often appeal to the theory of superpositionreliability of radiometric datingthe theoretic geologic columnand proposed cosmologies to support their overall viewpoint.
In creation science, theories involving accelerated radioactive decaygeologies incorporating a global floodcreationist cosmologiesand a general young earth theory are woven together to support their claims.
Furthermore, creationists often appeal to information theory and attempt to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to show that evolution is impossible. Some of these theories are more scientific than others.
An evaluative scale was given in an oft-repeated quote by Kitaigorodskii A first rate theory predicts, a second rate theory forbids.
The minimum, then, is for a theory to describe data. The best scientific theories make predictions that can be tested and falsifiable hypothesis. Other theories on both sides, such as those suggesting a particular age for the earth or universe, have allowed accurate predictions well before known data.
It should be noted that, regardless of individual predictions made by creationist models in published literature, many scientists see creationist science as hopelessly unscientific, viewing it as unfalsifiable and nonpredictive.
The following representative quote from Stephen Gould adequately demonstrates this assertion. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs.
Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. Creationist predictions For those theories described above which are fully scientific, a collection of specific predictions can and have been made. Creation scientists, using a young earth or young universe model, have accurately predicted magnetic fields of other planets prior to our observations rates of helium diffusion and radioactive carbon 14 retention in putatively ancient rocks .
For example the "theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates.
This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients Oliver et al. However, creationists are very commonly attacked for using Scripture as the basis for their theories or having their models completely determined by revelation instead of observations.Creationists, intelligent design proponents, and Bible-believing Christians in general have become frequent targets of America’s editorial cartoonists.
The Simpsons Satire Special Creation May 15, However, there are major overlaps, sufficient to encourage some critics (myself included) to refer to Intelligent Design Theory as ‘Creationism-lite’ (Ruse , ).
First, politically, the Creationists are more than willing at the moment to let the ID theorists do the blocking. Mar 27, · Poke around the extremes of the evolution denialists in our community, and you'll find fully-fledged conspiracy theorists who seriously believe that there is an evil atheist conspiracy preventing the publication of the scientific papers that they claim will overturn evolutionary biology and restore special creation to the heart of modern science.
The standard scientific view used to be the much less creation-friendly infinite universe, but scientists have come to accept the Big Bang, a view that is less atheism friendly. If the evidence really is against macroevolution, why haven’t scientists come to accept it the way they accepted a finite universe?
During this time, anti-evolutionists, first under the name "creation scientists" and then later as "intelligent design theorists", waged pitched battles against evolutionary science, culminating in a series of Federal court fights in Arkansas, Louisiana and Pennsylvania.
For the moment, I will hold on questions about the relationship between Intelligent Design Theory and more traditional forms of Creationism. There are two parts to .