Thread: How would you answer this objection against creationism?

Some people make objections to creationism by saying that creationism is not scientific because it is not testable. How would you respond to this?

It's true. Of course the same can be said about evolution. In science you start with an hypothesis, and you purposely try to DISPROVE it. Trying to disprove a hypothesis is really the only valid test of any hypothesis.

Science is good. Science comes from God. We Protestants understand science better than anyone else, since we understand (in a ridiculously limited way) God better than anyone else. That's why we've dominated the world for the past several centuries in any meaningful definition of the word domination. And science like all knowledge comes from God.

But God also requires faith

Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

and science and faith are different, but they don't have to be reconciled, since as Spurgeon said, you don't have to reconcile old friends.

Or so it seems to this beekeeper.

Both creationism and evolutionism stem from religious positions that interpret the available data e.g. fossils, etc, in different ways.

Evolutionism stems from naturalism which excludes the possibility of God or miracles. Hypothetically, if I didn't believe in God and hence the possibility of miracles, I would believe in evolutionism, because shoddy and holey as it is, it's the best thing the naturalists have.

If you come back and say that there are Christians ( born-again or not) who believe in theistic evolutionism, this can be explained by Liberal theology which is a sort of baptised humanism/naturalism, and also those Christians and "Christians" who are so overawed by modern science that because it's "science" and they think it must be true, they feel they have to adjust their interpretation of the Bible to fit. They forget that scientists and evolutioists disagree among themselves and sometimes/often get things wrong. They also forget that origins science is a "soft" rather than a "hard" science because of the amount of presupposition and speculation that must be added to the available facts.

Creationism shouldn't be presented as the kind of "pure" or "hard" science that's done in the lab, e.g. investigating the properties of water in a test tube, either.

Evolutionism is heavily coloured in its interpretation of the data by antitheological, antisupernatuarlistic, antibiblical and other philosophical presuppositions. Creationism is heavily coloured in its interpretation of the data by theological, supernaturalistic, biblical and other philosophical presuppositions.

E.g. Atheistic evolutionists will ignore the laws of probability, when it comes to their belief that life arose spontaneously by itself from inanimate matter, which is highly improbable, in fact impossible, because they don't believe in God or miracles. Therefore, if their belief in antisupernaturalism is correct, it's got to be this way.

E.g. Creationists will ignore the fact that miracles generally-speaking are rare occurences, when e.g. it comes to the belief that God created the various "kinds" of plants and animals, independently, and also Man, because the Bible tells them that God did this. Therefore, if their interpretation of the Bible is correct here, it's got to be this way.

For those of us who believe in some form of creationism over atheistic or theistic evolutionism, God's Word rightly-interpreted trumps all else.

I always bring up the big bang. Nicely. I ask them if they really believe that the entire universe of all the galaxies emerged from a point of infinite density smaller than the dot on this i.......a point so infinitely dense that all the laws of physics and time itself did not exist within that point (singularity).

Almost without exception they will admit that it takes non scientific faith to believe that. Some will argue that mathmatics appears to be moving towards proving this theory, but most will grudgingly admit that their theory is as equally unprovable and untestable as they think God is.

Originally Posted by cih1355

Some people make objections to creationism by saying that creationism is not scientific because it is not testable. How would you respond to this?

"Show me your evolution experiments"?

As a science, origins, like astronomy, relies on predictive confirmative experimentation - does the theory make predictions about something we have not yet observed? If it does and we then go and observe the thing predicted, then it adds considerable probability to the theory (or a similar theory) being correct. If the observation does not fit with the prediction then the theory needs revising. For example, prediction of the existence of an as-yet-unobserved planet can go a long way to confirming a theory of gravity that in itself cannot be tested through experimentation. Can creationist science make successful predictions like that? (genuine question).

All this is assuming that one is primarily interested in "doing science" and this is probably the assumption that should be challenged in your interlocutors.

Creation(ism) is not testable? Wow, maybe they should look outside.

Seriously though, I would happily concede that creationism is a hypothesis that seeks to summarize or best explain the available evidence. And, by its very nature, it cannot be tested but it can be verified by testing. But evolutionism 'suffers' from the same weakness. It cannot be tested anymore than creationism because we haven't observed it happening anywhere in the world, ever. All we have is the data given which is interpreted through the lens of a 'natural' perspective itself which must be assumed in order for the conclusion to be (macro) evolution.

The better, or perhaps the more well informed evolutionists will admit to this but those who make objections such as the one in the original post will strenuously deny it. In other words the only way (it seems to me) to contest this ignorance is to have the other side irrefutably prove evolution by the facts. This cannot be done and neither side wins until the other concedes the paucity or impoverishment of their assumptions.

We know we have already won but it will take the work of the Holy Spirit to convince them otherwise (1 Corinthians 2:14).

It does take eyes of faith to believe the God created the earth, and yet at the same time, creation does clearly show that it was formed by something greater than ourselves. Scientifically, creation is more plausible. The laws of nature prove it. If you drop a pile of sticks on the ground, they do not make a box. If you leave something to itself unguided, it goes to chaos. Evolution is based on the idea that things are constantly evolving into something better. If you observe nature, it's obvious that the opposite is happening.

Quote from J.Baldwin
It does take eyes of faith to believe the God created the earth, and yet at the same time, creation does clearly show that it was formed by something greater than ourselves.

This is the case, and in their heart of hearts agnostics, atheists, theistic evolutionists, and others infected by naturalism, know there is a God, and know that He created the world and them. They have jaundiced glasses glued to their eyes - their presuppositions and sin blind them.

They need to be disabused of the idea that the current view of popular science on evolution is watertight, and their underlying presuppositions need to be challenged, and they need to be presented with the Gospel.

Lots of things are not "scientific" facts. For example 1+1=2 is not a scientific fact, That I was born in the month of July is also not a "scientific" fact. The first is an identity, the second is a historical fact. You cannot test either fact. You cannot test creation in any sense. You can test the theories of creation, but all that shows is that they are consistent and meet with available data. So accept their argument that you cannot "test" creation and get them to understand the difference between history, identity, revealed, emergent and empirical "facts".

to Hungus.
In addition, creationsim includes miracles as part of its cornerstone. Science, by definition, is unable to test the validity of true miracles. Secular scientists will call this a "special pleading" argument, and I guess they are right.

No, you can't recreate and test creation; but neither can you recreate and test evolution because these are rather interpretive tools forced upon evidence to make sense of them.

Originally Posted by cih1355

Some people make objections to creationism by saying that creationism is not scientific because it is not testable. How would you respond to this?

Not true, unfortunately the proper test involves dying.


The flip side is that an experiment must be repeatable. Ask your evolutionist if spontaneous generation is repeatable under lab conditions?

If he (or she) is smart they will give you a version of "scrapheap challenge" where cell parts are assembled to make something. Cloning frequently takes a cell, removes the nucleus, inserts somebody else's and voila - a clone! So I'd be prepared for that one.

The best you can hope for in an intellectual match is stalemate.

Quote from Nate
Secular scientists will call this a "special pleading" argument, and I guess they are right.

I don't think this is special pleading. Any form of creationism by definition includes miracles. Miracles in the physical world are by definition rare events, which we may have no personal experience of.

Evolutionism on the other hand excludes - or tries to exclude - the miraculous. One of the important Qs is, Has evolution been able to account for the phenomena of nature without the miraculous?

In the place of the miraculous, theistic evolutionists will posit ordinary divine providence working through natural selection, and atheistic evolutionists will posit blind chance/determinacy working through natural selection. Both of them are inadequate even to account for the beginning of life on earth, according to the mathematical law of probability.

In a sense atheists are clutching at straws, and their faith in chance and the improbable are staggering. Deep down they know that their attempted accounts of things like the beginning of life, the evolution of the cell, of reproduction, of various forms of flight and sight, of human intelligence and speech, etc, etc, are basically shoddy lies that they have persuaded themselves to believe, in the absence of anything better.

As some scientists are willing to challenge the status quo or even admit that they don't have all the answers, the likes of Dawkins et al. become shriller in their atheistic pronouncements.

Quote from Eoghan
The best you can hope for in an intellectual match is stalemate.

Not if the Spirit of God blesses your argument(s). Look at how the Apostles combined preaching and evangelism with apologetics.

For something to be scientific it has to be observable. No one was there to observe evolution. No human being was there to observe the creation either. So science is never going to fully answer the question.

We do know a few things:
1. God himself created the world, and he gave us an account of the Creation. So we have a first hand witness in the Trinity. We have the special revelation of God's Word, and this is more important than any theory man can devise.
2. Men are without exuse because the creation around them bears witness to the power of God, and if they deny this, they are supressing the truth in unrighteousness.
3. Our worldview affects the way we interpret the scientific evidence regarding the orgin of this world. Many don't believe in God, so it only makes sense that we see the unbelieving world around us deny him as Creator God as they supress the the truth in unrighteousness. We believe in the true and living God of the Bible, and so this affects the way we see the scientific evidence.

Yes, but Josh you know these things because they have been revealed to you. To the person who denies all forms of knowledge save empirical you cannot ever know this. (actually you could never know anything but thats a side point) You are trying to be rational by taking truth that is revealed and applying reason (part of the definition of rationalism) and that is outside the allowed presuppositions by the challenger.

Originally Posted by Hungus

Yes, but Josh you know these things because they have been revealed to you. To the person who denies all forms of knowledge save empirical you cannot ever know this. (actually you could never know anything but thats a side point) You are trying to be rational by taking truth that is revealed and applying reason (part of the definition of rationalism) and that is outside the allowed presuppositions by the challenger.

Anyone who proposes they haven't yet had sufficient revelation to be persuaded of "creationism" (and the one who created) is banking on the hope that the hearer might be gullible enough to accept that God has not really revealed anything to them by means of the things that are made.

"the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead"


I've met plenty of fibbers but never met an atheist, and I won't waste their time looking for one.

Originally Posted by Hungus

Yes, but Josh you know these things because they have been revealed to you. To the person who denies all forms of knowledge save empirical you cannot ever know this. (actually you could never know anything but thats a side point) You are trying to be rational by taking truth that is revealed and applying reason (part of the definition of rationalism) and that is outside the allowed presuppositions by the challenger.

That's why they need the gospel

The critic is correct, creation is not scientific. Creation is a truth communicated by revelation and received by faith (Heb 11:3). Perspectives on the origins of the world, teleology, etc. are the domain of philosophy/world-views, not of empirical observation. The critic of Christianity knows this about creation, but has conveniently forgot that same is true of evolution also. The best way to deal with the critic is ask him which philosophical framework best establishes and explains science. In an evolutionary system there would be no science. In fact there would be no knowledge of anything. As all thoughts would be electro-chemical accidents, there would be no objective basis for validating any affirmation of anything. We are all stupid beasts dogmatically affirming things for no reason at all. The equation is quite simply this: evolution in = epistemology out.

Quote from Romans 9:16
not of empirical observation

Would you say that there is some empirical observation of artifacts like fossils etc, but the interpretation put on them is too highly coloured by prior faith commitments to be really useful? How would you see the "science" - such as it is - of evolutionism and creationism relating to the philosophy and theology/antitheology.

Originally Posted by cih1355

Some people make objections to creationism by saying that creationism is not scientific because it is not testable. How would you respond to this?

Heretic

I'm always a bit bothered by this sort of thread. It hangs out on theory and talks in the abstract about fossils and evidence, etc. The theoretical statements are usually good ones. But the evidence is left in the lurch. I'd like to see pieces of evidence interpreted from the biblical worldview.

That is, we speak in generalities about creation being able to best explain the data -- but that's just the point under dispute. Similarly, we speak in generalities about scientists' interpretation of the data being skewed by presuppositions (which is true), but we never venture into the data to show how our interpretation makes better sense. Admittedly, if you take them all the way back to the origin of life, they'll be stuck. So we've definitely got one up on them there. But they can point to evidence that is challenging for us. They do plenty of that at talkorigins.org. So long as we just speak to each other, their views seem quite silly. But I'd like to see the data dealt with.

Disclaimer before you pile on -- I'm not an evolutionist. But I'm willing to admit that I'm not a scientist, either. I have theological and philosophical problems with evolution. But I'd really like to see the data that is interpreted so differently ACTUALLY interpreted and discussed sometime.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Quote from Romans 9:16
not of empirical observation

Would you say that there is some empirical observation of artifacts like fossils etc, but the interpretation put on them is too highly coloured by prior faith commitments to be really useful? How would you see the "science" - such as it is - of evolutionism and creationism relating to the philosophy and theology/antitheology.

There are NO evidences of the origins of the universe (whether theistic or a-theistic). “Fossils and artifacts” are not evidences of causation/non-causation, time/a-temporality, mind/non-mind, etc. All the materials for a view of origins must be drawn from sources other than originated things. Physical matter is not self-explaining. If the question is ‘why anything?’ the answer cannot reside in things. It would be like Hamlet trying to ascertain why his life is going the way it is. He will never conclude that it’s because Shakespeare wanted it that way, for such an idea is not found within the drama itself (even though that is the correct answer). We know Shakespeare wrote it because we are outside of it. However, Hamlet has no such knowledge. One cannot understand the origin of a system from within it. Only if one outside of it speaks into it (divine revelation) can we have a hope of understanding the question of origins. And (praise God!) that is what we have in scripture.

Many boast of ‘evidence’ for non-evidential things. This is simply a confusion of domains, not understanding what science is or philosophy. Evolutionists do this all time. They will think some particular extinct species is a ‘transitional form.’ This is absurd. The ‘evidence’ of an extinct species is evidence of an extinct species, and that only. To argue it is evidence of a transitional form presupposes there are such things transitional forms already. But that is the point there are supposed to be proving by their ‘evidences.’ This is neither science nor valid logic. It is simply confirmation bias of a presuppositional fantasy. Reading the stuff of the world through their own pre-commitments to outrageous ideas. Moreover, a sequence of transition and graduation of ‘improvement’ or growth (in other words, ‘evolution’) involves implicit concepts such as goals, ideals, direction, etc., all of which are non-empirical in nature. Even the word ‘evolution’ is illegal if one is merely reporting empirical evidence. For all he knows we could be ‘devolving.’ Evolution is philosophical position, and a stupid one at that (I don’t have time to show how it is actually an impossible position to hold, but perhaps in a future post I will explore that). Sorry to be so long winded!

I've found that saying "whatever!" is usually quite effective.

Originally Posted by Romans 9:16

The critic is correct, creation is not scientific. Creation is a truth communicated by revelation and received by faith (Heb 11:3). Perspectives on the origins of the world, teleology, etc. are the domain of philosophy/world-views, not of empirical observation. The critic of Christianity knows this about creation, but has conveniently forgot that same is true of evolution also. The best way to deal with the critic is ask him which philosophical framework best establishes and explains science. In an evolutionary system there would be no science. In fact there would be no knowledge of anything. As all thoughts would be electro-chemical accidents, there would be no objective basis for validating any affirmation of anything. We are all stupid beasts dogmatically affirming things for no reason at all. The equation is quite simply this: evolution in = epistemology out.

If creationism is not scientific, how would you respond to the claim of critics that creationism is pseudoscience?

I would ask how many species they had observed, changing into others?

I would ask how many species they had observed, changing into others?

But there is change. Look at the variety of human beings or dogs or cats.

That's the subtilty of Darwinism for those who believe it. It is based on a truth that there is a degree of change, development and natuural selection in God's creatures.

But then the whole thing is extrapolated to mean that all life is related from a common ancestor.

The partial truth/evidence that there is a degree of change possible in living things

plus

naturalistic presuppositions or tendencies

make evolution an attractive option to many unbelievers and also many Christians/"Christians"

The best lies are often helped by a kernel of truth.

Another thing that helps Darwinists is that there is a probably popular misconception that creationists don't believe in any change/evolution at all.


Quote from Steve
Sorry to be so long winded!

Not at all, Mr Seagal. It's great to meet an action hero who is also a top notch apologist!

Originally Posted by cih1355

Some people make objections to creationism by saying that creationism is not scientific because it is not testable. How would you respond to this?

I would ask them to define science, and on what basis they include testability as a precondition for science. On what basis is "science" demarcated? What are all the elements needed for something to be scientific?

Testability precludes a whole lot of disciplines from being scientific if it is strictly adhered to, like cosmology, archeology etc.

Originally Posted by cih1355

Some people make objections to creationism by saying that creationism is not scientific because it is not testable. How would you respond to this?

It's a source of some amusement to me that the critics of creationism, many of whom would like to exclude creationist theories from the realm of scientific discourse because they "aren't testable", then write innumerable books and articles giving "the evidence against creationism". One gets the feeling that these are people who want to have their cake and eat it too.

Originally Posted by cih1355

Originally Posted by Romans 9:16

The critic is correct, creation is not scientific. Creation is a truth communicated by revelation and received by faith (Heb 11:3). Perspectives on the origins of the world, teleology, etc. are the domain of philosophy/world-views, not of empirical observation. The critic of Christianity knows this about creation, but has conveniently forgot that same is true of evolution also. The best way to deal with the critic is ask him which philosophical framework best establishes and explains science. In an evolutionary system there would be no science. In fact there would be no knowledge of anything. As all thoughts would be electro-chemical accidents, there would be no objective basis for validating any affirmation of anything. We are all stupid beasts dogmatically affirming things for no reason at all. The equation is quite simply this: evolution in = epistemology out.

If creationism is not scientific, how would you respond to the claim of critics that creationism is pseudoscience?

"Creationism" is (all too often) "pseudoscience". IMO

Having a vocabulary that distinguishes between

• macro-evolution
• micro-evolution
• natural selection
• beneficial mutations which decrease the entropy of the genome

How can evolution really be tested? Breeding dogs for an increase in size or colour does not produce lions or tigers! Did not speculation and imagination fill in the gaps nobody would take evolution seriously.

You cannot "prove" in the conventional sense one or the other

[quote=Kevin;686964]

Originally Posted by cih1355

"Creationism" is (all too often) "pseudoscience". IMO

Granted, but it's not all like that. Some creationists are doing great science and getting it published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. Their work tends to get overlooked, partly because of all the less edifying stuff.