Creation ‘Science’ Proves Evolution

The structure of evolutionary biology and its ...
Image via Wikipedia

Guess what? Seems that Creation Scientists are proving evolution, or that the very least, disproving Creation Science. Matt Walker writes,

One scientist has decided to use creation science to test the validity of evolution.

Because, he says, if it turns out that creation science proves evolution, then by its own logic, it will have to reject its own canon of research that previously denied it.

Awesome, but he goes into detail how certain techniques used by Creation ‘Scientists’ prove evolution. You’ll have to read the article for that piece of information.

Now, if you don’t want to wade through everything, or if you have a difficult time wading through it, read Peter’s comments, which is best, sort of, summed up here:

Walker explains (otherwise I know little about this subject) that creationists have used baraminology to conclude that all cats, including lions, tigers and domestic cats, have a common ancestor and so form one “kind” in the biblical sense (Genesis 1:11-12,21,24-25, 6:20 etc). However, this technique shows that there is insufficient evidence, in the form of “missing link” type fossils, of a common ancestor of dogs and cats, suggesting that dogs form a separate “kind”.

Of course, what remains now is for Creation ‘Scientists’ to stand by their own science, or engage in the theory of motivated reasoning, trash their ‘science’ and start over again.

Enhanced by Zemanta

You Might Also Like

2 Replies to “Creation ‘Science’ Proves Evolution”

  1. I followed the articles past 4 levels of links to find out how they came up with their conclusion, and ended up at a pay wall. The abstract really says nothing other than “some evolutionists set out to show that creation science proves evolution, and, you’ll just have to believe them when they say they have indeed proven it”.

    I don’t think the findings prove what they say they do. I think its more reasonable to say this possibly suggests 1) that the original methodology the creation scientists used is faulty, 2) the evolutionists used it incorrectly or were perhaps purposefully sloppy to “prove their point”, or 3) maybe the evolutionists were wrong about how they classified the dinosaurs in the first place.

    At one level of the articles someone faulted creationists for trying to use science to prove their concept of creation. That’s funny – isn’t that called “a hypothesis”? Then, when the evolutionists try to use science to prove creationists wrong, that’s suddenly okay…

    Its really too bad that science can’t be about a methodology regardless of findings, instead of about which outcomes are and are not allowed.

  2. Your last paragraph has it backwards. Evolution summarizes a vast collection of evidence, which started being discovered even before Darwin. It is a hypothesis constrained by having to fit evidence already collected, and it’s confirmed and updated as new evidence is found. In other words, evolution takes evidence from an external source (fossils) and relies on it to shape the hypothesis.

    Creationism takes the hypothesis from an external source (the Bible) and relies on it to shape the evidence. Thus it is creationism that forbids certain outcomes, those that contradict a literal reading of the Bible.

    It seems like an obvious tenet that shaping evidence to support a prior conclusion is lying.

    Also, you need to check who was actually in charge of the article. For example, Darwin Central is a parody run by Free Republic. And Mike Bickle leads a double life, as a Christian preacher and an Atheist geologist. There are probably more cases like this.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.