A clever tactic of evolutionists is to attempt to discredit a divine creation by simply defining it as “pseudo-science.” Consider the following quote:
“"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.” Scientific American Magazine, July 2002 [emphasis added].
Note the not-so-subtle premise that only something that is natural (i.e. not miraculous) can be considered scientific. At first glance, this might sound like a valid argument but let’s think about this for a moment: Is Scientific American saying that God could not have created the universe miraculously because that’s not scientific? Or, even if God created the universe we MUST still believe in evolution because only evolution is scientific? Of course that’s absurd. Scientific American has committed a logical fallacy known as a false premise. Arguments like this have absolutely no merit so I pay them no attention.
Science is from the Latin word for “knowledge.” Science should be about learning what is the truth, not simply what is natural. If God created the universe by fiat then that is what is true, whether it is “scientific” or not. If you wish to dispute it, you cannot do so simply by arguing that it isn’t scientific.
“"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.” Scientific American Magazine, July 2002 [emphasis added].
Note the not-so-subtle premise that only something that is natural (i.e. not miraculous) can be considered scientific. At first glance, this might sound like a valid argument but let’s think about this for a moment: Is Scientific American saying that God could not have created the universe miraculously because that’s not scientific? Or, even if God created the universe we MUST still believe in evolution because only evolution is scientific? Of course that’s absurd. Scientific American has committed a logical fallacy known as a false premise. Arguments like this have absolutely no merit so I pay them no attention.
Science is from the Latin word for “knowledge.” Science should be about learning what is the truth, not simply what is natural. If God created the universe by fiat then that is what is true, whether it is “scientific” or not. If you wish to dispute it, you cannot do so simply by arguing that it isn’t scientific.
Speaking of science, evolutionists seem to be engaging in a little “pseudo-science” themselves. If you really want to be scientific, something should be observable, testable, and repeatable. When you’re talking about a topic like abiogenesis, where is this supposed “first, common ancestor”? Can we observe it? Is there fossil evidence of it? Do we see abiogenesis occurring anywhere? Have we observed dinosaurs becoming birds? Obviously we can’t see any of these things. So when evolutionists say we have descended from a single common ancestor, they are engaging in speculation, not science.
When dealing with unique events in the past – like the creation of the universe – they are neither observable nor repeatable. In the strictest sense, neither creationism nor evolutionism is science; they are merely paradigms that we use to interpret observations made in the present. Creation is as much (or as little) a science as evolution is. Except creation has the truth on its side!
When dealing with unique events in the past – like the creation of the universe – they are neither observable nor repeatable. In the strictest sense, neither creationism nor evolutionism is science; they are merely paradigms that we use to interpret observations made in the present. Creation is as much (or as little) a science as evolution is. Except creation has the truth on its side!
No comments:
Post a Comment