Creation Muesum

[SteelCurtain]

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

If you start with this, you are not, in any way, shape or form, doing science.

Literally, any evidence that contradicts the Bible/Creation account can be thrown out. If there isn't a more intellectually bankrupt and repugnant statement, I wouldn't know how to craft it.

[Anomalocaris]

I don't have to see it to know creationism is bullshit.

I know that.  This was an atheist view is why I posted it. I am interested on both sides of an argument between what people say are Christian science versus Mainstream Science or belief of no belief versus religion.  I know most of the arguments out there that Christians give you all. However, I seriously am ignorant on the arguments from the atheist perspective on any religion because I have never known a true atheist. I have only met people who went to church and then left for whatever reason whether it is emotional which is why I honestly did leave to logical reasons.  I don't know people (or if I did, it was never talked about) who honestly was not raised like I was in church who was never exposed to the Bible's teachings. 

On the Creation Museum, they use science to prove their view.

I think in my younger days, I would have made a great lawyer because I like to argue my point or scientist considering I love science and math.  This would have been my choices in a career in my younger days.  Now that I have been out of school, I am not sure I am smart enough now considering I don't have a degree or forgotten some things I have learned such s the evolution theory which I will admit, I am skeptical of that.  On youtube, a professor said that the fossil record does not provide proof of evolution.  I am not a skeptic on bacteria, etc changing.  We have new antibiotics that have to be invented to fight it off as it builds up resistance.

There isn't, and can't ever be, "Christian" science.  Christianity is fundamentally the antithesis of science, no matter how much Christianity would wish to give its primitive idiots superstition modern legitimacy by stealing the reputation of science.

[Redbeard The Pink]

The Creationist Museum, unless I'm mistaken, is a proponent of Young Earth Creationism and biblical literalism and works purely from that presupposition. That is not science. It is the exact opposite of science, in fact.

[SteelCurtain]

The Creationist Museum, unless I'm mistaken, is a proponent of Young Earth Creationism and biblical literalism and works purely from that presupposition. That is not science. It is the exact opposite of science, in fact.

Yup.
AiG Statement of Faith

[RoadRunner79]

There isn't, and can't ever be, "Christian" science.  Christianity is fundamentally the antithesis of science, no matter how much Christianity would wish to give its primitive idiots superstition modern legitimacy by stealing the reputation of science.

I've always found this type of statement interesting.  Christianity is not the antithesis of science, and I'm amused by such generalities.  It seems that it is often made, based on the result, and not the method.  I believe this is incorrect, as the descriptor is based on the conclusion, while I believe science is more about method.  

Science is the collection of data through physical observance and testing.  Then from all the data, a conclusion or inference is made, and if possible further testing can be done to verify conclusions (not all science can be tested).  

I don't believe that a different interpretation of the evidence, means that the opposing view is not scientific (only that at least one view contains an error).  Ideally science is objective, and the data is analyzed without a priori assumptions or bias.  In reality this, is never the case.  However this doesn't mean that we are unable to produce good science.   What I look for is what the conclusion is based on, and if it is reasonable.  Do they include all the evidence, or only the evidence which supports their case?  Do they attempt an explanation for evidence which may oppose or cause difficulties in their conclusion?  Does the conclusion follow from the evidence or is it based on something else.   I would note, that the motivation for the study being based on a view outside of science, does not mean that the work is not scientific.  This would be the genetic fallacy.

There are some Christian's who try to force their views from outside sources into science when the conclusion is not primarily based on science.  I also see some materialist doing the same thing.  Science isn't the only basis for truth.  And we need to reconcile all the sources of truth, to get a true view of reality.

[downbeatplumb]

There isn't, and can't ever be, "Christian" science.  Christianity is fundamentally the antithesis of science, no matter how much Christianity would wish to give its primitive idiots superstition modern legitimacy by stealing the reputation of science.

I've always found this type of statement interesting.  Christianity is not the antithesis of science, and I'm amused by such generalities.  It seems that it is often made, based on the result, and not the method.  I believe this is incorrect, as the descriptor is based on the conclusion, while I believe science is more about method.  

Science is the collection of data through physical observance and testing.  Then from all the data, a conclusion or inference is made, and if possible further testing can be done to verify conclusions (not all science can be tested).  

I don't believe that a different interpretation of the evidence, means that the opposing view is not scientific (only that at least one view contains an error).  Ideally science is objective, and the data is analyzed without a priori assumptions or bias.  In reality this, is never the case.  However this doesn't mean that we are unable to produce good science.   What I look for is what the conclusion is based on, and if it is reasonable.  Do they include all the evidence, or only the evidence which supports their case?  Do they attempt an explanation for evidence which may oppose or cause difficulties in their conclusion?  Does the conclusion follow from the evidence or is it based on something else.   I would note, that the motivation for the study being based on a view outside of science, does not mean that the work is not scientific.  This would be the genetic fallacy.

There are some Christian's who try to force their views from outside sources into science when the conclusion is not primarily based on science.  I also see some materialist doing the same thing.  Science isn't the only basis for truth.  And we need to reconcile all the sources of truth, to get a true view of reality.

Science is the only basis for the truth of reality because, correctly done, it removes as much as possible bias. In science it is common to not try and prove a hypothesis but to disprove it. So what you get are scientists putting forward positions that would not be true if their hypothesis was wrong and check for that. Creationists take the exact opposite view, discarding anything that does not help their faith (I wont dignify it with hypothesis because it is too ill defined to qualify as one). They are the ultimate in the use of confirmation bias and outright lies.

[SteelCurtain]

There isn't, and can't ever be, "Christian" science.  Christianity is fundamentally the antithesis of science, no matter how much Christianity would wish to give its primitive idiots superstition modern legitimacy by stealing the reputation of science.

I've always found this type of statement interesting.  Christianity is not the antithesis of science, and I'm amused by such generalities.  It seems that it is often made, based on the result, and not the method.  I believe this is incorrect, as the descriptor is based on the conclusion, while I believe science is more about method.  

Which is exactly what "Christian Science" is. Any "reputable" (and by reputable I mean accepted by Christians) Christian source has a statement of faith like the one from AiG I posted above. They literally state that any evidence which contradicts scripture must, by definition, be wrongly interpreted. Science can never start with an unassailable position. That is the antithesis of science.

Science is the collection of data through physical observance and testing.  Then from all the data, a conclusion or inference is made, and if possible further testing can be done to verify conclusions (not all science can be tested).  

I don't believe that a different interpretation of the evidence, means that the opposing view is not scientific (only that at least one view contains an error).  Ideally science is objective, and the data is analyzed without a priori assumptions or bias.  In reality this, is never the case.  However this doesn't mean that we are unable to produce good science.   What I look for is what the conclusion is based on, and if it is reasonable.  Do they include all the evidence, or only the evidence which supports their case?  Do they attempt an explanation for evidence which may oppose or cause difficulties in their conclusion?  Does the conclusion follow from the evidence or is it based on something else.   I would note, that the motivation for the study being based on a view outside of science, does not mean that the work is not scientific.  This would be the genetic fallacy.

If they start with the conclusion, then it is not scientific. By definition. If you start with the conclusion that the world must be 6,000 years old, and then go and search for corroborating evidence, even if said evidence is collected in a "scientific" manner, you are still only collecting evidence in a scientific manner. The interpretation of the evidence with the conclusion already in mind is not science. It is arm waving at its basest.

There are some Christian's who try to force their views from outside sources into science when the conclusion is not primarily based on science.  I also see some materialist doing the same thing.  Science isn't the only basis for truth.  And we need to reconcile all the sources of truth, to get a true view of reality.

Empirical observation is the only method for arriving at a realistic conclusion. Getting your "truth" from a 2000 year old book and co-opting modern knowledge into that, I'm sorry, is not a reconciliation of truth. It's wish granting, and I'll not be a part of it.

[RoadRunner79]

Science is the only basis for the truth of reality because, correctly done, it removes as much as possible bias.

Is this statement true of reality?  While the demarcation of science is a difficult philosophical subject, I feel safe in saying, that the above is not science!

In science it is common to not try and prove a hypothesis but to disprove it. So what you get are scientists putting forward positions that would not be true if their hypothesis was wrong and check for that. Creationists take the exact opposite view, discarding anything that does not help their faith (I wont dignify it with hypothesis because it is too ill defined to qualify as one). They are the ultimate in the use of confirmation bias and outright lies.

Some do, and some do not. the same can be said for some in regards to evolution.    And again I don't believe you opinion here is science, so according to your above statement it is not true of reality.

[Anomalocaris]

P

There isn't, and can't ever be, "Christian" science.  Christianity is fundamentally the antithesis of science, no matter how much Christianity would wish to give its primitive idiots superstition modern legitimacy by stealing the reputation of science.

I've always found this type of statement interesting.  Christianity is not the antithesis of science, and I'm amused by such generalities.  It seems that it is often made, based on the result, and not the method.  I believe this is incorrect, as the descriptor is based on the conclusion, while I believe science is more about method.  

Science is the collection of data through physical observance and testing.  Then from all the data, a conclusion or inference is made, and if possible further testing can be done to verify conclusions (not all science can be tested).  

I don't believe that a different interpretation of the evidence, means that the opposing view is not scientific (only that at least one view contains an error).  Ideally science is objective, and the data is analyzed without a priori assumptions or bias.  In reality this, is never the case.  However this doesn't mean that we are unable to produce good science.   What I look for is what the conclusion is based on, and if it is reasonable.  Do they include all the evidence, or only the evidence which supports their case?  Do they attempt an explanation for evidence which may oppose or cause difficulties in their conclusion?  Does the conclusion follow from the evidence or is it based on something else.   I would note, that the motivation for the study being based on a view outside of science, does not mean that the work is not scientific.  This would be the genetic fallacy.

There are some Christian's who try to force their views from outside sources into science when the conclusion is not primarily based on science.  I also see some materialist doing the same thing.  Science isn't the only basis for truth.  And we need to reconcile all the sources of truth, to get a true view of reality.

The method of science is not to put any value on faith, or take any proposition as received truth.   So yes, unless your "reformed" Christianity derived nothing from the bible, nothing from what you were told Jesus said, and nothing from the Christian tradition that were not trivial and common to a host of other traditions, your Christianity is nothing but, and can never be anything more than, the antithesis of methods of science, however much it likes to cloak its base wishthinking and intellectual dishonesty, to say nothing of its goal of perpetuating its own intellectual domination through repetition of the make belief, in a veneer of sciency terminology.

In short, If your reformed Christianity didn't reform the bible, God, Jesus or the disciples totally and completely out of Christianity, your Christianity remains the antithesis of science.

[Esquilax]

I've always found this type of statement interesting.  Christianity is not the antithesis of science, and I'm amused by such generalities.  It seems that it is often made, based on the result, and not the method.  I believe this is incorrect, as the descriptor is based on the conclusion, while I believe science is more about method.  

I'll make this real simple: in the scientific method, there are a few necessary conditions, one of which being that the asserted cause or conclusion one reaches through the data they observe must be possible. For a thing to be probable- and all science ever does is measure probabilities- then it must be possible, and I don't think this is a controversial statement in the least. Impossible things cannot probably be the cause of other things.

Since every single core christian claim has not been demonstrated to be possible and is, in accordance with the available evidence, most likely impossible, then christian conclusions cannot be legitimate science. Many christians want to skip the foundational step of demonstrating that the things they believe in can even happen at all before they attempt to use science to conclude that they did- "Oh, X, Y, and Z findings are totally consistent with this thing I believe and presuppose could actually happen, therefore christianity!"- but that's not a step you can ever skip. But christians are happy to skip it, while they piggyback on other people's reports and experiments to do so, because they never actually conduct experiments to test their claims either, they just take experiments others have done for unrelated claims and say yes, all that is totally consistent with my religion!

That's another reason there's no such thing as christian science, I guess: christians never do science. They never test those claims. They just spin other people's work in favor of their claims, so their religion is never under direct scientific scrutiny. Mite suspicious, that.