Real Science

There is a common myth that 99.9% of people fall for in regards to Science. It is the difference between ‘observational’ science, and ‘historical’ science. The two are qualitatively and fundamentally different, and acceptance of this is critical.

‘Observational’ science is the real science, it is the science where you can actually test hypothesises like the spherical nature of earth for example. The object of this hypothesis is an extant factor, this means that we can go out and make verifiable measurements as to the nature of the earth. We can measure angles and actually fly totally around the longitude and latitude lines of the earth. This can be tested and verified both others at any later time.

But ‘historical’ science is qualitatively different. It is an interloper, it barely qualifies as science at all. This sounds harsh, radical and almost heretical to those who haven’t pondered the philosophy of science before.

The fact is that nothing in the past is verifiable, especially events that are prior to the historical record. How can we observe the emplacement of fossils to test the creation or evolution hypothesises? The deposition of fossils occurred in the past, and the past is a place that is impenetrable to observation. So if data is unobservable, then it isn’t verifiable and thus can not be considered science.

We can certainly speculate using the scientific method by examining data like fossils which themselves are extant and therefore verifiable. But any speculation as to the origins of the fossils is totally outside the realm of the scientific method.

The scientific method is only a very narrowly useful tool. It’s power as a explanatory device is prodigious when it is used appropriately within it’s purview, but we must be careful not to extend it’s use to outside natural bounds and try and use it like a omniscient fountain of knowledge.

The Secular State and Religion in the Classroom

It is a common claim charged against creationists that they want their theory of creationism taught in schools. This then, it is claimed by creationist’s critics, would violate the main premise of the secular state; the separation of church and state, or the favouring or discrimination against any one particular religion.

But it seems to me that the very action of forbidding creationism from even discussion in the classroom is itself such a violation. It also seems that forcing evolutionism down the throats to teachers and students is also a violation because the state is choosing which worldview is or isn’t to be taught.

Casey Luskin explains all this in the article linked to below, here is a brief excerpt:

A “Supreme Court decision described the rule that “government should not prefer one religion to another” as “a principle at the heart of the Establishment Clause.”8 Yet it is this very principle that some latter-day defenders of Darwin would disregard in their zealous advocacy for evolution education.

“In the public controversy over evolution, the common stereotype holds that Darwin’s defenders are the ones guarding public school curricula against unconstitutional entanglement with religion. The evidence cited in this Article shows this stereotype is wrong: Zeal for Darwin causes his latter-day defenders to encourage public schools to attack, inhibit, oppose, and disapprove of purported religious views that dissent from evolution, and to prefer both theistic and non-theistic religious viewpoints that support evolution. The hypocrisy of the evolution lobby is untenable, for it will lead to violations of the U.S. Supreme Court’s unequivocal ban on “denominational preference” in public schools.”

To set the record straight, creationists aren’t concerned with making teachers teach creationism in the classroom. Making teachers, who have a very poor grasp of creationism, teach creationism would more than likely do far more harm than good.

Instead what creationists would rather see in the science classroom is that both teachers and students be able to discuss, without fear of chastisement, any theory of origins like creationism as long as the questions and answers are scientifically orientated.

But unfortunately at the moment there are so many cases where students are ridiculed by their teachers for raising such honest questions, and even teachers are sacked or demoted for not adhering to the hardnosed evolutionary dogma.

It is truly a sad day when free inquiry in our education centres is so severely restricted. It reminds me of the type of intellectual control that Soviet Russia had on it’s places of learning.

ZEAL FOR DARWIN’S HOUSE CONSUMES THEM:
HOW SUPPORTERS OF EVOLUTION ENCOURAGE VIOLATIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

By Casey Luskin

Atheism, Creationism and a Conflict of Interest

Atheistic naturalists are inherently incapable of critiquing any theory which presupposes miraculous events. This is for the same reason of judicial 'conflict of interest'.






Suppose an accused man was brought before a judge who was his father. If the judge insisted on presiding over the accused he would be forced to step down from the case because of an obvious conflict of interest. The reason this is so is because the accused is likely to be benefited by the judge’s predisposition towards favouring him due to their special relationship. Thus, the judge has an ineradicable favouring towards the accused, therefore the outcome is quite likely to be skewed.

The same is true of atheistic naturalists who wish to pass judgement over creationism.





The most foundation axiom for the atheist is that supernatural events do not exist, and as such the ‘supernatural’ is totally excluded from even consideration. This means that their starting assumption - there is no supernatural events – conflicts with the task at hand - critiquing creationism - because creationism presupposes supernatural events as an axiom of it's model of origins.





The fact that the atheist has an ineradicable disposition against creationism means that his conclusion will be highly skewed; the atheist has a substantial conflict of interest when discussing creationism.

Evolutionist and Creationist Science

http://www.nwcreation.net/intro.html

 "Science is wedded, at least in principle, to the evidence. Creationism is unabashedly wedded to doctrine "

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html

Contrary to this quote, both are wedded to evidence as well as to doctrine. Creationism is wedded to the biblical doctrine of origins, while naturalistic evolution is in turn wedded to naturalistic philosophy.

Note also here, that secular naturalists will usually glorify themselves by adopting the term ‘science’ as the title of their worldview.

Science is only a dispassionate method of investigation though, but they use it interchangeably with ‘evolution’, as if they were one in the same. But evolution is only a model of origins-like creationism- which uses the method of science.



Both evolution and creationism are worldviews that are imposed upon the scientific method to discern events in the past.

Evolutionists try to hide this fact but highlighting their adherence to the scientific method, while hiding the creationist’s use of it. At the same time they hide their philosophical adherence to their doctrine of naturalism, while highlighting the creationist’s adherence to design.



The fact is that creationists are the only ones who are up front about their model of origins. They are quite happy to show that their scientific investigation is guided by the Biblical doctrine of design.

Evolutionist’s on the other hand, go to great lengths to hide the fact that they too are guided by a philosophical doctrine; naturalism. If pressed hard enough, and the questioner isn’t tricked by their many diversionary tactics, educated evolutionists will admit their adherence to naturalism, albeit very begrudgingly.