What is Creationism and Creation Science?

Answer

Creationism is the belief that the universe and all it's contents were created by intelligent design, e.g. created by the Biblical God as described in Genesis, as opposed to the belief that everything came into existence on it's own.
Another definition of the term Creationism is the (false) belief that large, innovative software designs can be completely specified in advance and then painlessly magicked out of the void by the normal efforts of a team of normally talented programmers.
* http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Creationism

creationism and creation science

Creationism is a religious metaphysical theory which claims that a supernatural being created the universe. Creation Science is a pseudoscientific theory which claims that (a) the stories in Genesis are accurate accounts of the origin of the universe and life on Earth, and (b) Genesis is incompatible with the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. "Creation Science" is an oxymoron since science is concerned only with naturalistic explanations of empirical phenomena and does not concern itself with supernatural explanations of metaphysical phenomena.

One of the main leaders of creation science is Duane T. Gish of the Institute for Creation Research, who puts forth his views mainly in the form of attacks on evolution. Gish is the author of Evolution, the Challenge of the Fossil Record (San Diego, Calif.: Creation-Life Publishers, 1985), Evolution, the Fossils Say No! (San Diego, Calif.: Creation-Life Publishers, 1978), and Evolution, the Fossils Still Say No! (Spring Arbor Distributors, 1985). (For an answer to the question about gaps in the fossil record, see Missing Links: Evolutionary Concepts and Transitions Through Time by Robert A. Martin.) Another leader of this movement is Walt Brown of the Center for Scientific Creation.

Answer

When the scientific method and scientific endeavor was in its infancy, as far as the modern period goes, a significant number of the founders of modern science were either Christians who believed the Bible to be literally true or at least believed that the world was created and did not 'make itself.' Since the time of Francis Bacon who espoused views suggesting that science and 'religion' should not be mixed, people have had problems with anyone who wishes to be both a scientist and a practicing Christian. This was not so in earlier days as scientists sought to understand and explore the world that they believed God had made. Such a view did not inhibit but rather encouraged their scientific endeavor.

The list could be expanded further but includes such persons as:

• Joseph Lister (1827 - 1912) - Antiseptic Surgery
• Louis Pasteur (1822 - 1895) - Bacteriology
  
• Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727) - Calculus, Dynamics.
  
• Johannes Kepler (1571 - 1630) - Celestial Mechanics, Astronomy
  
• Robert Boyle (1627 - 1691) - Chemistry
  Charles Babbage (1792 - 1871) - Computer Science
  Carolus Linnaeus (1707 - 1778) - Systematic Biology
  
  While a list proves nothing of itself (a list could also be made of those who disbelieved as well) it demonstrates that such persons who are still highly regarded today, saw no conflict between their scientific endeavor and their faith (of whatever flavor). Creation science seems to have arisen partly as a counter-movement to those who insist that science must deliberately exclude any religious connotations or pre-suppositions, while itself installing and loudly pushing the religion of humanistic naturalism, which is itself a religion with a different object.
  
  Both Creation scientists and those with evolutionary presuppositions have access to the same data in the same historical present. Neither can have direct access to the distant past, whether it be around 6000, or a number of billions of years. The difference is in the presuppositions under which both operate, as well as the current near-monopoly on the 'public education front' and the 'general scientific consensus' front which is held by the evolutionary theory. This allows such discrimination as was meted out to Dr. Damadian, who was the inventor and holds the patent for MRI, who did not receive a Nobel prize while his fellow-developers did. Dr. Damadian just happens to be a Bible-believing Christian. When evolutionists themselves comment on such things, one wonders where the prejudice really is.
  
  The comment that then follows is that Creationists are doing 'religion' while evolutionists are doing 'real science'. Yet much scientific work is being done by Christians who are Creationists just as it was in past ages with more 'primitive' (yet nonetheless scientific) knowledge. Dr John Hartnett of the University of Western Australia who is involved with an atomic clock installed in the ISS in conjunction with the European space agency, which is supposed to lose only one second every 400 million years. Creation scientist Dr John Beaumgartner was recently recognized for his work on plate techtonics in New Scientist magazine.
  
  Making lists and casting aspersions doesn't actually prove anything either way. The point is that Creation scientists, many with PhD's earned in 'secular' institutions like everybody else, believe the Bible to be literally true and apply their presuppositions, where appropriate, to their work. Some of this work has no bearing whatsoever on the origins debate, while much of it does and this will undoubtedly be a source of never-ending debate. What is important is that people examine the facts and do not reject something by looking at only one side of the story. It is also important to understand the difference between a fact and an interpretation based on presuppositions, which is one thing which Creation scientists are seeking to highlight.
  
  The statement that creation science is 'pseudoscientific' and 'metaphysical' is itself a metaphysical statement or value judgment based on an anti-Christian world view. If this statement is correct then all the great scientists of the past were also conducting 'metaphysical research' because they happened to believe the Bible to be literally true. Such bias is itself not part of science, which attempts to deal with data and facts in time and space. What creation scientists seek to point out is that such data, when interpreted within a different framework is not at all incompatible with a Biblical world view. They would be the first to acknowledge that one cannot 'prove' the Bible by so doing.

Answer: They are not science but are political tools.

What are Creationism and Creation Science? They represent a unified effort by some zealous Christians who would make a scientific argument for the creation of life on earth by an "intelligent designer." They press their case for life being of "intelligent design" rather than by random acts, or by chance, like the animation of mud by a lightning bolt. They further prop up their "science" by the use of ideas such as "irreducible complexity" and the like. Let's look at their "science" and see what's up, but let's look at what else is out there that they compete with.

Evolution as we know it in the scientific sense is explained by modern evolutionary synthesis (MES). This construct is fact. All of the history of life on earth is addressed in it as regards what has been found by looking at the scientific evidence. All of it. But MES does not say where life came from. It has no hard data regarding the appearance of life on the earth. There is very good reason for this: there is none. The genesis of life is unresolved by science. That doesn't mean that God didn't do it, didn't create life. It only means that the mechanisms of science cannot address life's origin. Enter the Creationist.

The Creationist, the subscriber to the theory that God created life on earth and created man as is taught in the Bible, has appeared with some like minds to challenge the notion of current scientific thinking. These zealots proffer the idea of "intelligent design" to explain things being the way they are. No, no, throw out all the evolutionary nonsense about man evolving from protohominids. Look at something that has an "irreducible complexity" like the bacterial flagellar motor that rotates a flagellum. It is "obvious" that it cannot have arisen naturally, but, rather, only as a product of an "intelligent designer" (who is not identified, but who is God). It is so complex that it must have been "created whole" and could not have evolved from anything.

As an aside, the flagellar motor is a most unique biological motor, by the way. It's operation by ion transfer is not completely understood. (Isn't that great?! We still don't know everything! There are still lots of things to discover!!) But further work in microscopy has revealed at least one structure that is similar that is a precursor to the flaellar motor. And scientists haven't stopped looking.

Creation Science, besides being oxymoronic, is just "repackaged" Biblical theology, and is actually a "political tool" ideated by certain Christians. It attempts to put a "scientific face" on Creationism so it can be marketed as "scientific fact" and, thereby, be taught in public schools. That is all it is. Nothing more. And in their efforts to subvert Constitutional law regarding the separation of church and state, they have shown that they will lie, will bear false witness, and use any mode of (il)logic to pass off creationism as science to further their goal of getting creationism presented in public schools as an alternative to evolution. Creationists have already lost their first court battle to convince thinking God-fearing folk (and thinking non-believers) that Creationism is not just an extension of Biblical teachings but is really a scion of science. What a surprise. Consider the alternative: Welcome to the "new and improved" Creation Science curriculum. We will be covering God, extra terrestrials, dragons (their genesis and history), fairies and gnomes, the history of the elementals (fire, earth, air and water - but not plasma ["too scientific"]) and the Easter Bunny in an attempt to show who the intelligent designer was behind the creation of life on earth.

God must be covering His eyes now, not that He could hide Himself from the obvious deceit in the acts and actions of the Creationists in their efforts to forward their idea of Creation Science.

As an afterthought, yes, a large number of the original scientists and thinkers back in the day were Christians, or at least men of faith. They were believers after the Bible and things of God. Little has changed. A large number of today's researchers and scientists are also men of faith. Many go to church on Sunday and then back to their labs and classrooms on Monday without being even one bit hypocritical. They are the backbone of modern science, the new discoverers and proponents of the work. They extend and teach it. And they, in general, decry attempts of the "Creation Scientist" to use the scientific "tools of the trade" in such a devious, ludicrous and patently unscientific way to further the Creationist cause. These zealots, the Creation Scientists, bring shame to science. Their "science" has the feel of a prestidigitator's sleight of hand or of sideshow trickery.

• In the map china looks abit like a dragons head do they have a legend about this?
• Who and what was in charge of the first earth age This in reference to Jude 13 Cancel all previous questions.?
• The story of adam in old testament?