“Scientific” Creationism

ay 11, 2009

  • “Scientific” Creationism

    Someone recommended this book to me to convince me of the truth of “Scientific Creationism”. I also recommend this book for anyone who wants a good laugh. One of my favorite parts was Morris’ explanation of Noah’s flood (with no mention of Noah, for after all, Creationism is nonreligious).

    In a chapter entitled Uniformitarianism or Catastrophism?, Morris tries to posit that the reason we see progression in the fossil record is because the more complex forms could get to higher ground better. “Mammals and birds would be found in general at higher elevations than reptiles and amphibians, both because of their habitat and because of their greater mobility.”

    Think about that. This would mean that not one mammal was so slow or injured that they died in the lowlands during the early part of the flood. It would also mean that not one single dinosaur or pterosaur overtook the sloths and kiwis in the race for higher ground. Not to mention this provides no workable concept of why we should see progression in the marine fossils. And we’re asked to take this as sound science?

    Image

    This guy outran velociraptors.

    This book also makes the laughable claim that “most fossilized organisms can be found living today, if one ignores differences caused by environmental fluctuations.” I know I fear going out at night in case I bump into a T. rex. And I prefer my Trilobites sauteed in garlic sauce. And I’m firmly against Archaeopteryx hunting.

    Obviously the term “Scientific Creationism” isn’t quite on, as it seems to me they’re doing more creating than science.

Advertisements

~ by kriskodisko on September 29, 2013.

3 Responses to ““Scientific” Creationism”

  1. -literal lol- I can’t stop imagining all the sloths somehow racing the dinosaurs and climbing all super fast to take their rightful place at the top of the fossil record.

  2. The difference between creation science and actual science (like evolutionary biology) can pretty easily be summed up in the following manner:

    Creation “scientists,” very few of which possess the scientific education necessary to be actual scientists who can properly interpret scientific evidence, conduct a cursory Google search of evolutionary biology and then fantasize a hypothetical situation where they believe, given their incredibly limited understanding of very complex issues, the fantasy explains the evidence in a manner that supports their belief. There is no peer-review or substantiation of their theories to speak of, which is why, essentially, there is no agreement among creation scientists on virtually anything other than a nebulous and ill-founded objection to evolution (ill-founded because none of them–even creationists like Behe–fundamentally understand it very well). It’s also why they produce no scientific studies or literature (i.e., their theories aren’t scientific, aren’t falsifiable, and are incorrect).

    Actual scientists spend years learning all the available evidence, learning how to interpret evidence, and learning how to conduct scientifically sound surveys to gather new evidence; scientists then formulate a hypothesis and design an experiment to test the hypothesis using their skills; and then the scientists verify or reject their hypothesis through a series of highly developed, competitive, and rigorous peer-reviewed systems that leads to the most objective understanding of the world around us that mankind has ever had.

    To claim that the beliefs of the two groups of people, or by extension, their competing “ideologies,” are even remotely comparable in their persuasiveness or merit is simply laughable. One is essentially a conspiracy created by ideologues with no substantiation; the other is verified through countless experiments over hundreds of years by the (uniformly) most knowledgeable experts about the subject. There are virtually no qualified life scientists, and no reputable life science experts, how are creationists. The later is also verifiable in that it is used to more effectively grow crops, create medicines, etc. Creationism can’t be applied to produce these results because, again, it’s wrong (and not scientific).

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: