The Wandering Mind

Creation Science vs. Evolutionary Science

Posted in Science by wandren on 3 October 2007

6 Responses to 'Creation Science vs. Evolutionary Science'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Creation Science vs. Evolutionary Science'.

  1. Darmok said,

    The term “creation science” is incorrect, as creationism is not a science.

    While the links you provide discuss supposed problems with evolution, I don’t see a single piece of evidence for creationism; this of course is one reason it is not a science.

    Trying to attack established scientific explanations will not make mythological explanations any more “scientific”. Nor will it provide evidence for mythology.

  2. wandren said,


  3. Darmok said,

    I apologize if you thought I was upset; I am not. I am simply highlighting some of the inaccuracies in your post.

  4. Jim Thio said,

    Square water melons and genetically engineered food are samples that once in a while, life is created. Not a proof, but a plausibility.

  5. wandren said,

    This introduction to “The Scientific Method” is from an unknown author at the University of Rochester:
    “The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.
    The scientific method has four steps

    Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

    Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
    Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
    Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

    If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified.
    It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
    We are all familiar with theories which had to be discarded in the face of experimental evidence. In the field of astronomy, the earth-centered description of the planetary orbits was overthrown by the Copernican system, in which the sun was placed at the center of a series of concentric, circular planetary orbits. Later, this theory was modified, as measurements of the planets motions were found to be compatible with elliptical, not circular, orbits, and still later planetary motion was found to be derivable from Newton’s laws.”

  6. Darmok said,

    Excellent description! This provides a nice parallel—at one time, humans thought that a supernatural being had directly and suddenly created them and the Earth in its present form, though science has long ago discarded those ideas.

    Also, this also shows one of the reasons creationism is not considered a science—there is no evidence for it, nor are there testable predictions or experimental tests, and so on.

    Thanks for pointing this out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: