The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Creation (EvoWiki)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Evowiki headerlogo.JPG
Response Article

This article (Creation (EvoWiki)) is a response to an evolutionary or anticreation assertion that was published on the EvoWiki website.


EvoWiki CreationWiki
Creation is a nonscientific, usually supernatural, and miraculous hypothesis of how the universe got to be the way it is. "Nonscientific?" Proof by assertion, and failure to define your terms. Have a look at philosophy of science.
Apart from the Raelians, who believe natural agents (extraterrestrials) created the living organisms on our planet, most creationists believe in creation by a supernatural agent - a deity or plural deities. The author might benefit from examining the supernaturalism article, where it is demonstrated that the word "supernatural" is logically meaningless. Things either happen or they don't. If they happen, science must acknowledge them. If they don't happen, they're not "supernatural," but simply false.
The modern antievolution movement involves, foremostly, monotheistic creationism, by a God described in Scripture, such as the Bible or Qur'an. "Antievolutionist?" Certainly. Define people in terms of what they don't believe, rather than what they do believe. We're all in favor of clarity. Or as you'd say, we're against ignorance and confusion."
The creation of the universe, together with all living things, is usually ex nihilo, from nothing, with the creator existing outside our physical reality, and employing unnatural processes. Therefore, it is not possible to devise a "theory of creation". Only if your definition of "theory" excludes the "theory" that God does things. But even granting your premise, does the inability to form your favorite kind of "theory," mean it could not have happened? I think not. Just because you can't theorize about things doesn't mean they can't be historical. It just means you're too ignorant to understand what happened.
In contrast to evolution, Creation, as described in the relevant Scriptures, exists in an an immutable form and cannot be modified based on the results of further research or documentation. Simply untrue. Have a look at flood geology, created kinds, and Golden ratio for a taste of further research and documentation seeking to understand and clarify the bare-bones history provided by Genesis.
The universal adoption of Creation, or any other supernatural explanation, in place of methodological naturalism, would have a significant impact on the progress of modern science. You state this as fact, but do not explain why you think it is so. If God did create the universe and life, then adopting it is a necessary prerequisite to understanding the natural universe, just like one must understand a clock as designed in order to understand the clock. The universal adoption of Creation would have "significant impact on the progress of modern science" for the better!
Indeed, creationists' primary concerns are that of theology and soul-saving, rather than of the advancement of science. Unfalsifiable mass generalization about the weight of motives in the minds of others, made without evidence. Fell dead. Try again.
A further problem with Creation is that it cannot be falsified. Unfalsifiable ideas are not necessarily false. They may still be history. Evolution, however, teaches that the history of Genesis is false. If indeed creation is as yet unfalsifiable, then evolutionists have no basis for teaching that it is false. Evolution is not "the answer" until all the competing theories are falsified.
This is partially true. For example, it cannot be falsified that the universe was created with the appearance of age, complete with fossil record and history. However, given the character of the Creator (the omnipotent God of the Bible), there are many details about Creation that are seemingly inconsistant. Suboptimal design is a good example, whereby the evidence would force the acceptance of flawed design by an omnipotent Creator (an apparent contradiction). This is bad theology and straw man. Genesis states that God's creation was "very good" for the purpose God created the Universe for. The Evolutionist argument is based on subjective standards of what is optimal and without regard to the purpose of the universe. They then hold an omniscient, omnipotent being to a very finite perspective of the universe, theirs. Within the Creation model, which considers the purpose for which the universe was created, everything was created perfect in relation to that purpose. Therefore, the argument of "suboptimal" Creation is false within the Creation model.

Related References

See Also