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

Talk:Creation science

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.


I thought this was interesting and contains a lovely paraphrase of the creation story.

Quote: The Hebrew Bible, or the Old Testament, is known to modern readers from the Masoretic text, a compilation of Hebrew texts assembled by Jewish scholars in the seventh to tenth centuries A.D. from older scrolls and codices. That text, and thus the Old Testament, contain two creation stories. It is not unusual for cultures to have multiple creation stories, and throughout this booklet the paraphrases have melded two or more variations of a culture's creation story into one. However, because the two stories in the Old Testament are so different, the two stories are recounted separately here as "Yahweh" and then "The Elohim".

Quick comment

Quick comment - is "This creation was relatively recent" really a basic belief of creationists? Surely the belief is that "The bible account is accurate," with the recent dating of creation being a consequence.

Roy 12:16, 8 Sep 2005 (GMT)


In the intro:

intelligent design (ID) is a form of creation science

Is this statement generally accepted by design theorists? --Ed Poor

  • I'm still looking for an answer to this, because ID opponents say that ID is a form of Creationism, and I'm not sure what that means or whether it is true. I think I'm correct in saying that ID has some roots in Scientific Creationism.
  • What I'm wondering is whether some theorists decided to separate the wheat from the chaff here. In other words, divide creation science into a faith component (still to be called Creationism and a science component (to be called intelligent design).
  • Can anyone enlighten me here? --Ed Poor 17:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Good observations. It all depends how we're defining our terms. The article defines "Creation science" without any religious component. Thus, ID and Religious creationism are subsets of creation science that are agnostic and religious, respectively. To many, however (both ID advocates and opponents), "creation science" is inherently religious. Thus, creation science, exogenesis, and panspermia are all subsets of ID. Seems like this definitional issue is important enough to address in the intro. I'll give it a shot. Ungtss 18:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Arguable point. ID proponents want to distance themselves from religious creationism (that is indeed true), but most people would define ID as a subset of Creation science rather than the other way around. "Religious scientific creationism" being science that argues for creation (based foremost on religious beliefs), whereas ID is science that argues for creation (design) based purely on emperical evidence. I've switched that distinction around and made some other tweaks. Take a look - I think its better...
p.s. Good to hear from you again! --Ashcraft - (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


maybe it would be precise to say creationism lies under a new definition of science, which includes supernatural explanation. I'm sure it's mostly what the creation-evolution debate is all about: a new and expanded definition of science. Maybe someone could clarify for me and maybe add this to the article if I'm correct in making this statement. --JFrancis 04:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It might be more accurate to say that creationism rejects the recently introduced paradigm of "methodological naturalism" which assumes, a priori, that no miracles must ever be admitted to occur. That paradigm causes the introduction of such fanciful notions as "multiple parallel universes" to explain events, the probability of which falls far below the conventional threshold for rejecting a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis traditionally says that an intervention had no effect. One might better include in the null-hypothesis definition the statement that an intervention was not merely ineffective but was indeed nonexistent. The alternative hypothesis then says that an intervention:
  1. occurred, and
  2. was effective.--TemlakosTalk 11:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Scientific naturalism is, basically, what defines science. It does not preclude from investigating metaphysical explanations, via the use of arguments and mostly deductive logic; what I'm trying to say is that Creationism lies in a category defined not by modern science or scientists, but by all men through history, and that is philosophy:

  1. St. Thomas's "proofs of God" are deductive arguments (there must have been a cause etc)
  2. Irreducible complexity is a deductive argument (from the particular, complexity of beings, to the general, the designer), however it's soundness is very much in question: the premise is that beings are "too" complex, when it is the very premise of evolutionary science, which has much different conclusions of course (you can discard this if you don't consider ID to be part of Creationism).
  3. Alas, the Bible, as much as it is a very intense and profound book, cannot be considered more reliable than any other book.
  4. Creationist's analysis of the Bible use this argument: if some parts of the Bible correspond to empirical truth, then the entirity of the Bible corresponds to empirical truth. Any postulated theory, including the theory of evolution, has some true parts, but also some parts which are discovered not to correspond to reality, therefore are modified based on empirical evidence. A scientific theory (indeed considered an a priori when conducting experiments) is constantly verified against sheer facts; when these facts contradict it, then there is something wrong with it, but of course if some parts are wrong it does not mean the entirity of it is wrong (same reasoning as before).
  5. Creationists (at least the ones described here) indeed reject the scientific axiom, methodological naturalism, but substitute this with another axiom, the infallibility of the word of God, which lies entirely in one book, of course the Bible. It implies that methodological naturalism is not to be considered when investigating reality, which means it ignores the fruitfulness of modern science. --JFrancis 23:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)