Evolution is also a belief. Evolutionary biology teaches microbes to man evolution, which is a concept brought forward by the mental invention of men like Lamarck, Lyell and Darwin. Operational science has observed micro evolution--not macro. Therefore macro is an imagined implication--not a necessary implication.
I agree. And it implies creationism is merely a belief not a science.
There are atheist evolutionary biologists, such as Dawkins. There are christian evolutionary biologists
When a non-necessary implication is used in logic--this is called inductive reasoning as contrasted to deductive reasoning. When this non-necessary implication is then propagated and affects the beliefs of others (e.g. college freshmen who give up their religious faith, etc.) it is operating as a belief system.
Mandel was a preist--an Augustinian abbot. His study on peas showed that traits were alleomorphic factors and inherited in a ratio from each gamete, and his paper was read in 1865. This was in conflict with Darwin's pangenesis, and the thinking of that day.
Adam might like to claim Mendel was a creation biologist, but it is a stretch because none of his research specifically points to design. His work is purely about inheritance, not about design or special creation.
Let me ask your hypothesis on the formation of the earth. Does it have anything to do with asteroids conglomerating to form a hot molten primitive sphere? Did you observe it?
That leaves Young Earth Creationism with no science what-so-ever. All YEC has is some philosophy of design, and some speculation about how Biblical text (as a literal history) relates to the current state of the world. That's not a science of biology at all.
This is a model thought up in men's heads. There is not shred of evidence that this happened? In fact Newton's third law would tend to prevent this from happening! So how can you tell me I have "no science what-so-ever...?"
For every data point an evo gives for evolution or old earth--a creation scientist can falsify or at least expose the underlying assumptions.
I don't either. But it's still not clear what is the science in creationism. It all looks like philosophy, and not anything that relates to science.
Not only that, an atheistic "ToEer" can not exempt themselves from a philosophical point of view. That worldview is naturalistic and materialistic--that only natural processes explain all phenomena and matter.
There is plenty of science that creation scientists are putting forth that is basically ignored--that's how science works. Mendel's work is a good example.
Looking at the Creationwiki article on taxonomy, creationists use the same taxonomic system as evolutionary biologists.
Yes, creation scientists have jobs. They have to know current science.
So how can YEC have a biology when there is no classifications. Again it seems YEC is simply a denial of science
Is biology only taxonomy? Most of biology should be the study of biological systems and organisms themselves (not nec. their origin)---if it isn't we will quickly turn it into quibbling over terminology, what is related to what and what, and what defines a taxonomical rank like species, or what goes in this or that phylum.
Biology should be about meiosis mitosis, the mitchondra, ecosystems, the endocrine system, skeletal mechanics, muscles and tendons, etc. That's just a start.
When you tell me where you observed a singularity in space or justify the physics of it--then I'll tell you how God created.
Asking me to explain where life comes from does not answer my question. If creationist believe life came from God, then there must be some science to it. If not, the belief is not scientific
That being said, maybe the whole problem is that science shouldn't be addressing origins to the extent that it does. Since it is empirical in nature and the past isn't--only the relics and remnants which require interrpretation according to preconceived reasonings.
Have you read anything from anybody on this list? Scroll down when you get there. Scientists
Forget what evolutionary theory has to says about the origins of life, because evolutionary theory is all bunk science anyhow. I'm assuming creationist science is something true, so where is the science for the origins of life?
I'm sure you saw Behe's comparison of the flagellum to an electric motor. What is your opinion on that?
Read my post again. I said engineers do design based on science. If Intelligent Design is God's engineering. What is the science?