Some will say that I and all Creationists don’t like science or are even “anti-science”. This is not the case, however as most have absolutely no problem with science when its applied right. To ME, things of science need to follow the Scientific Method which is:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made. (from http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000)
------
Evolution and the Big Bang cannot be observed (step #1), cannot be tested (Step 4), cannot be repeated (step #5) and therefore no consistency can be made. Sure, you can do all these steps with other aspects of science, for instance, DNA. But following the Scientific Method through on DNA can give us a DNA Theory. The only way to stretch this to effect evolution is to say “If evolution were true, this is what we’d expect from DNA.” However, that is no more science than saying “If Creation were true, this is what we’d expect from DNA.” Both of which are the case.
According to the Scientific Method, Evolution fails before passing the tests to qualify for a theory. In fact, as it cannot be observed, it doesn’t even qualify as a hypothesis. Creationists are all for science and as soon as Evolution meets the requirements to be science, we will accept it as science as well. As it stands, creation uses facets of good, valid science but then adds to it a huge leap in faith to cross the bridge to evolution.
From “The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language” We see one definition of religion is “A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.” Until there is some solid scientific evidence to support evolution, a religion it will continue to be.
Some will say that I and all Creationists don’t like science or are even “anti-science”. This is not the case, however as most have absolutely no problem with science when its applied right. To ME, things of science need to follow the Scientific Method which is:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made. (from http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000)
------
Evolution and the Big Bang cannot be observed (step #1), cannot be tested (Step 4), cannot be repeated (step #5) and therefore no consistency can be made. Sure, you can do all these steps with other aspects of science, for instance, DNA. But following the Scientific Method through on DNA can give us a DNA Theory. The only way to stretch this to effect evolution is to say “If evolution were true, this is what we’d expect from DNA.” However, that is no more science than saying “If Creation were true, this is what we’d expect from DNA.” Both of which are the case.
According to the Scientific Method, Evolution fails before passing the tests to qualify for a theory. In fact, as it cannot be observed, it doesn’t even qualify as a hypothesis. Creationists are all for science and as soon as Evolution meets the requirements to be science, we will accept it as science as well. As it stands, creation uses facets of good, valid science but then adds to it a huge leap in faith to cross the bridge to evolution.
From “The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language” We see one definition of religion is “A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.” Until there is some solid scientific evidence to support evolution, a religion it will continue to be.
