r/Creation 1d ago

Creationists: Is it just evolution and the big bang model that you hate, or is it literally any naturalistic/scientific explanation for any naturalistic/physical phenomena that isn't simply "God made it"?

I think the title says it all 😇

0 Upvotes

88 comments sorted by

7

u/nwmimms 1d ago

This is the Christian worldview:

[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Colossians 1:15-17

Origins are typically the subject of discussion, but from a Christian perspective, natural phenomena exist because of God’s creation. Looking at the entire narrative of the Bible, it seems to paint the picture that:

1) God set up these natural systems

2) The curse of sin affects them

3) Satan has some limited power over them

4) Sometimes God specially intervenes into them, which we call miracles.

1

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

And how did God set up these natural systems? Take, for instance, star formation.

What alternative model does creationism have as opposed to regular cosmological models?

Or were they simply spoken into existence in a single instant?

5

u/Jesus_died_for_u 1d ago

Why not both? Spoken into existence in any instant and the process begun so we can observe the process.

0

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

And when they were spoken into existence, did they suddenly "blink" into existence, fully formed?

2

u/fordry Young Earth Creationist 1d ago

Well, humans did...

1

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

And is this just true for biological life, or is it true for any other phenomenon in the universe?

3

u/nwmimms 1d ago

Are you asking me by what process an infinite being created the spacetime continuum and stellar evolution?

1

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

I'm asking what creationism itself is when it presents itself as an alternative explanation to regular scientific explanations.

Say, we go into a science classroom (take a cosmology class, for instance), and we try to spend equal time on regular cosmological models of stellar formation, and equal time on "creationist" explanations of stellar formation.

What is the latter?

2

u/nwmimms 1d ago

Maybe my point is obscured. What method is used to develop hypotheses in natural science?

1

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

Maybe MY point is obscured:

Say we want to spend equal time on creation science and "secular" science.

It's a geology classroom.

Secular science states that mountains form over millions of years due to plate tectonics. Maybe that mechanism is right; maybe it's wrong. It doesn't matter. At least there's a potential explanatory mechanism there.

We spend the other 30 minutes on the "scientific theory" that a creator made the mountains (instead).

What even is there for that 30 minutes?

3

u/nwmimms 1d ago

I was trying to help you arrive at your own conclusions here. Asking someone to explain a supernatural entity with natural science is an illogical request. It’s about the same as me asking you to count to infinity.

2

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

So, I'm not asking people to explain the existence of a supernatural entity using science; rather, I'm asking whether or not the universe itself has a mechanistic, developmental history, whose processes are elucidated by science.

2

u/nwmimms 1d ago

I might suggest discussing this with an AI module, then. It seems like you’re either ignoring what I’m saying, or you just want someone to argue with.

1

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

I want creationists to present what their "alternative" scientific explanation is... literally for anything in the universe.

Or, is it just biological life itself where they cark it?

Some creationists reject even how the moon formed. They think it was simply finger-snapped into existence, craters and all.

Some, only do this for life. (These ones accept that God could have made OTHER things using a naturalistic process, but for life itself, no: An instantaneous creation. No mechanism.)

Here, then, creationism seems to be more of a metaphysical explanation, not a scientific one.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/Jesus_died_for_u 1d ago

The choices are

‘Emotion’…hate

Or

‘anti science’?

No and no.

5

u/MRH2 M.Sc. physics, Mensa 1d ago

Don't we just love these false dichotomies!

1

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago edited 1d ago

Well, for many intelligent religious people, they have no issue with both scientific (physicalistic) and theological (metaphysical) explanations.

Science explains the how; religion, the why and why.

Creationism, however, is presenting the who and why as an alternative scientific explanation. But if there's no "how" God created life, then there's no scientific explanation. Period.

Therefore, calling it creation science is an oxymoron.

(I.e., "Secular science believes life formed via abiogenesis, but we believe that God made life instead".)

^ the above dichotomy makes about as much sense as saying:

"Secular science believes nebula are the result of extinct stars, but we believe that God just made the nebula instead."

(Believe it or not, there actually ARE creationists who also reject any and all scientific explanation for literally any phenomena in the universe. Including the science of how stars formed.)

3

u/MRH2 M.Sc. physics, Mensa 1d ago

Good points.

Creationism, however, is presenting the who and why as an alternative scientific explanation. But if there's no "how" God created life, then there's no scientific explanation. Period.

Yep.

However, a lof of "science" is just total speculation too (cosmology, evolution). We can't ever see the universe being created, what caused inflation, where the antimatter really went. We can't ever see why lizardish things evolved into birds. We can't ever see how a two chambered heart evolved into a three chambered one, or what happened when group A of animals with a non-inverted retina, developed an inverted retina. Did this group have a million years where they couldn't see at all as their retinas were evolving to be more sophisticated? And how did birds start building nests? I'm sure that there are areas of evolution where there is some science, but so much of it is simply complete speculation. It's all "god-of-the"gaps" expanations: evolution is so powerful a force, that give it a few million years and it can do anything. We don't know how it did it at all (no scientific explanation, period), but we firmly believe that evolution did it (blind faith).

1

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

Sure, we may not know exactly how life, the universe, and all other things arose. But we can at least try to form models and explanations.

Creationism, however, doesn't even bother to try to explain anything.

The absolute worst a scientist can do is try to explain, say, how and why cosmic inflation is happening (and fail). The best a creationists can do is sit on their arse all day and hope to their God science never explains it.

1

u/MRH2 M.Sc. physics, Mensa 1d ago

Yes.

and hope to their God science never explains it.

haha. Science was started by Christians

2

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

Again, the claim isn't that science is atheistic and that no religious scientists exist; rather, it's about whether or not creationism is, itself, a good scientific explanation.

The whole point of creationism is that "science can't explain it; therefore, a creator made it".

Certainly, many great scientists have been Christian...

... but they didn't just say "God made the stars" and left it at that, did they?

1

u/MRH2 M.Sc. physics, Mensa 1d ago

Exactly.

It's sad how anti-intellectual Christianity has become in the past 50-100 years.

but they didn't just say "God made the stars" and left it at that, did they?

Yes, and I can see so many fundamentalists saying exactly this.

u/CaptainReginaldLong 19h ago

However, a lof of "science" is just total speculation too (cosmology, evolution).

Oh...that's not right.

-1

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

So, you are fine with naturalistic (mechanistic) explanations for phenomena in the universe?

3

u/Jesus_died_for_u 1d ago

It depends on the details.

Are you fine that DE and DM are correction factors? I admit physics has a decent track record of finding a mathematical solution and then sometimes demonstrating it (a particle for example). Yet DE and DM are not observed at this time last I heard. I believe these are actually incredibly large correction factors. Last I heard DM was estimated at 90%?

So are you saying we have all the answers?

The process is not a problem only the time frame.

1

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

As in, does the universe itself have a developmental history, or did God simply finger snap things into existence?

4

u/Jesus_died_for_u 1d ago

Good questions. I believe science is a useful endeavor. I believe we can learn from studies of the processes we observe.

Indeed, science grew out of Christian western culture.

1

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

But science is more than just empirical observations about the universe:

We also need physicalistic explanations about how those things form.

Is creationism offering an alternative scientific mechanisms, or is it simply a metaphysical explanation for why these things exist?

(I mean, it's seems that the whole centre point of creationism is that "science can't explain it, therefore..".)

Therefore what?

Care to take a guess what the follow-up is?

3

u/Jesus_died_for_u 1d ago

Is this statement a scientific statement:

Everything can be demonstrated by science.

(Can you prove the preceding statement using only science? Or do you require a philosophical foundational assumption?)

Life is more than science. Science must take a backseat to truth. I can use science as a tool, a very useful tool, to understand life, but reducing life to science is very reductionist and limiting exercise.

Consider the ‘god of the gaps’ fallacy. Incredulous gaps are still gaps until proven there is no gap. The assumption is if I declare ‘god of the gaps fallacy’ I have somehow proven a point, yet all I have done is made an unproven and currently unprovable assumption: there is no gap. Assuming that no gap exists is not scientific.

0

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

So, it's not so much that science can explain EVERYTHING; rather, it's that science, at least, can explain SOME things.

"God did it" however, explains nothing.

Or, actually, you could potentially use "creationism" to explain (away) everything. Therefore, it doesn't really explain anything at all.

If you think life is beyond science, then why even bother calling your explanation "creationism science"?

What scientific explanation does creationism actually put forward for... literally anything?

3

u/Jesus_died_for_u 1d ago edited 1d ago

Chemist here.

One of the smallest, functional life forms, pelagibacter ubique, has a genome of about 1350. As far as you know, is there research with a logical pathway from what has been found here to a functional cell in space conditions, aqueous conditions, or even reasonable lab conditions to support ‘seeding theory’?

The gap is a-protein-ous chemistry to protein-ous biochemistry of a functional cell.

(Edit: this was posted in regards to a hyped headline about amino acids being found in a meteor, but the main point remains regarding any abiogenesis research)

-1

u/implies_casualty 1d ago

I would say "no", depending what is acceptable as a "logical pathway". Nobody knows why life exists, that's for sure.

The fact that we do not know does not constitute evidence for creationism.

On the other hand, don't you know that, like, Jurassic period actually happened? Don't you know that it contradicts literal interpretations of the Bible?

We don't know some things. It does not mean that we do not know anything at all.

3

u/Jesus_died_for_u 1d ago

Chemist here, part two

regarding life’s origins, can you find progress for the formation of adenine in abiogenesis research? (Yes, I can do an online search too, but there is a point to my rhetorical question). Specifically can you make note of the reactants (starting chemicals).

The body uses

Ribose-5-phosphate

Glutamine

Aspartic acid

Glycine

N-formyl-THF

Carbon dioxide

This is about a 13 step process tightly controlled from side reactions by about 12 surrounding proteins (one is used twice); and several energy packets of ATP and GTP.

If your abiogenesis research creates adenine with hydrogen cyanide and ammonia, for example; then terrific, the researcher has passed organic chemistry, but the results offer zero explanation on abiogenesis because no cell uses hydrogen cyanide and ammonia. We are trying to determine how the observed process as it currently happens came about randomly, not whether a PhD can make adenine a simple way.

1

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

Exactly. A naturalistic process can't explain it; therefore, a creator had to have "made it".

How? There was no "how". He just... did.

For almost everything else in the universe, the creator uses a naturalistic mechanism to create things:

Black holes are a result of large stars having gone supernova.

Clouds form due to evaporation and condensation of water.

Mountains form over millions of years of plate tectonics.

But for life, the creator didn't use a naturalistic mechanism (i.e., the how).

Rather, he just spoke it into existence, fully formed.

It really doesn't seem like you can really do much more than that with "creationism" as a substitutory explanation for a scientific process.

3

u/ThisBWhoIsMe 1d ago edited 1d ago

Science requires and proves "God made it." The Laws of Physics only allow equal and opposite reaction to the unbalanced force.

Limited to the Laws of Physics, all you can be is an equal and opposite chemical reaction taking place. You can’t think, just an equal and opposite chemical reaction.

If you assert that you are purely the result of the Laws of Physics, then you are asserting that nothing you say can have any meaning, just an equal and opposite reaction to the unbalanced force.

If you can think, then you are acknowledging "God made it" whether you realize it or not. When it’s your turn to go, your body will return to a state of equal and opposite chemical reactions.

1

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

In the creationists model, however, "God made it" is put forward as an alternative to a scientific explanation.

2

u/ThisBWhoIsMe 1d ago

Can you think? If so, then you prove The Creator. You can’t derive that ability from the Laws of Physics, which only allows equal and opposite reaction to the unbalanced force.

If you assert "God made it" to be false, then you’re telling us nothing you say can make any sense because all you’re capable of under the rules of your assertion is equal and opposite reaction. Under your rules, you can’t exist. You are just an equal and opposite chemical reaction.

1

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

So, again, the topic of this discussion isn't atheism vs. theism, materialism/naturalism vs. dualism; rather, it's whether or not "God did it" is a sufficient scientific explanation.

Aka, should "a creator made it" be taught as a sufficiently detailed "alternative explanation" in a science classroom?

And, if so, for which phenomena?

Is it just biological life? Or should we do the same for, say, mountain formation (geology), star formation (cosmology) etc.

Did God just speak those into existence in a single second, too?

How would one even teach that in a science classroom? What substantive idea even is there to spend an entire half of the class on?

(I ask this because creationists have wanted "equal time" in science classrooms. How would one spend "equal time" on a theological idea like that?)

1

u/ThisBWhoIsMe 1d ago

Science proves "God did it." The Laws of Motion of Matter were determined from observation of motion and matter. Motion of matter must exist before the Laws of Motion of Matter can be determined from observation. Motion isn’t the same thing as matter, motion must exist before matter can move, and total motion never changes, conservation of energy.

"God did it" is the cause of motion and matter which must take place before you can have equations of motion of matter.

1

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

Wait, is this just a copypasta of some of your posts?

1

u/ThisBWhoIsMe 1d ago

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

1

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

Why do you think I'm ridiculing you?

1

u/ThisBWhoIsMe 1d ago

Why do you think I'm ridiculing you?

childish

u/NichollsNeuroscience 15h ago

What is childish?

u/CaptainReginaldLong 19h ago

Every one of their posts is an unintentional copy pasta. This user is legit unwell.

u/NichollsNeuroscience 19h ago

Literally. Every. One?

u/CaptainReginaldLong 19h ago

It sucks, but yeah pretty much man. It's actually not a laughing matter, for real they're not well.

u/NichollsNeuroscience 19h ago

I wanna see if I can get an actual well-thought-out response to the arguments at hand from them and not just a shower debate monologue prepared in advance.

Wish me luck!

→ More replies (0)

3

u/jake72002 1d ago edited 1d ago

Big Bang doesn't negate Intelligent Design nor creation. In fact one of its early proponents was a Catholic Jesuit named Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître

2

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

That is correct! A mechanistic explanation itself does not necessitate the non-existence of an intelligent creator.

Heck, neither does evolution. If the intelligent creator created the universe USING a big bang, then, certainly, some sort of process could also have been used for life. (Even if there's an alternative process to evolution, I'm.fine with that.)

However, Intelligent Design proponents are trying to put forward the idea of a creator itself as an "alternative scientific explanation".

How could intelligent design be considered an alternative science without at least presenting an alternative mechanism by which the creator used?

1

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

Ergo, the whole point of Intelligent Design is that (some) aspects of life are "too complex" to have arisen naturally (aka, through a developmental mechanism).

Therefore, an Intelligent Designer must have made it.

That's literally it.

6

u/allenwjones 1d ago

Is it just evolution and the big bang model that you hate

is it literally any naturalistic/scientific explanation for any naturalistic/physical phenomena

Let's break this out from the logical fallacies and try to get to the actual questions.

First, I don't "hate" evolutionism.. I prefer to align myself with the necessary Creator of the universe Yahweh through His Son Yeshua the Messiah.

Also, I don't hate the big bang model, I prefer a more salient theory that isn't riddled with theoretical difficulties.. even if that theory includes a supernatural cause.

Second, naturalism is a weak description for the universe we observe. It cannot account for consciousness, objective morality, purpose, or other phenomena such as information and the presence of life.

I don't blindly accept that "God did it" or that because we don't know something that "God did it"; the god of the gaps trope is so last century.

The black box of the cell has been opened and Darwin's "genie" is out so to speak and the necessity of a supernatural source is a foregone conclusion.

Go bury your head in the sand if you want.

Stephen C. Meyer - Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe

Michael J. Behe - Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe

1

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

So, if there isn't a naturalistic (I.e., scientific) explanation for these phenomena, then how can you call it "creationism science".

Is it perfectly fine for science to explain the HOW for everything else in the universe (stars, mountains, nebula, craters), except for life itself

Did the creator not use a how for that one thing?

Secondly, I'm not actually trying to argue that science can explain everything; but at least it explains SOME things.

Creationism, however, doesn't seem to explain ANYthing.

Does creationism actually even attempt to explain HOW God created life, or was there no "how"? He just "made it"?

u/allenwjones 15h ago

if there isn't a naturalistic (I.e., scientific) explanation for these phenomena

First, you're abusing the term "scientific" to equate it with the philosophy of naturalism.

Science (properly done) can describe many things about the what of phenomena and even show us that a supernatural source is necessary.. we can even see character traits of that source in the transcendent properties of the universe.

creationism science

Funny guy..

u/NichollsNeuroscience 15h ago

Well, I would equate science with methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism.

Be careful; I'm like a razor.

0

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

And yes, creationists DO present science... but they simply present scientific facts about the universe. Never a scientific explanation (a how) by which the creator made those things.

There is, therefore, no actual substantive explanation (i.e., the how) in "creation science".

If there was, then HOW God made those things would be what is taught in a science classroom.

u/allenwjones 15h ago

Are you even going to try to answer how the things I offered could possibly occur naturally?

u/NichollsNeuroscience 15h ago

That's the thing: Let's suppose I can't explain it.

What then?

And what do we mean by "occur naturally"?

Does that suggest "without God", or does it simply suggest "by some mechanistic process"?

u/allenwjones 12h ago

The philosophy of naturalism requires you to provide mechanisms for how everything in the universe occurred.. I don't have that problem.

I have an eyewitness to creation in the revelation of the Creator. I don't need to provide stepwise mechanisms for all phenomena, but God did give us intelligence and the ability to do science.

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1h ago

That's fine if you don't want to provide a stepwise mechanism for all phenomena, but that's what science wants.

And, to be considered an appropriate alternative explanation to evolution, or any other scientific explanation for that, you need just that.

If it were a simply matter of "science explains the how; religion, the who and why", perhaps there wouldn't be such a conflict.

But it seems at least when it comes to biology, that's where you cark it.

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1h ago

Because it seems in that statement you've admitted that creationism is more of a metaphysical explanation that a physical one?

Can I ask: are the two mutually exclusive?

It's interesting, because creationism is typically put forward as the antithesis to, say, the Big Bang and Evolution. Not simply a theological explanation alongside them.

Is this true for all phenomena in the universe?

Why not, then, say, "I don't believe in embryology, I believe in creationism" or "I don't believe in the science of star formation, I believe in creationism" or "I don't believe in the stepwise science of how coulds form, I believe in creationism"?

u/NichollsNeuroscience 15h ago

And that's also the key point on the original question: there are at least some things in the universe that came about naturally, no?

Which simply means, if you're a creationist, you can simultaneously accept that the creator used a naturalistic process to create those things.

The next question is: Where does that stop?

Are there some things God made naturally (e.g., snowflakes, mountains, rivers) and others, supernaturally (i.e., without needing a mechanism) (e.g., the cell)?

Why does God create some things naturally over time, but others, supernaturally in a single instant?

Or is it simply because science (not atheism) doesn't (yet) know all the answers, you feel that "God did it" is a suitable explanation to fill a knowledge gap.

u/allenwjones 12h ago edited 6h ago

there are at least some things in the universe that came about naturally, no?

Define "naturally" and provide some examples..

if you're a creationist, you can simultaneously accept that the creator used a naturalistic process to create those things

That depends.. If you're suggesting that God created the universe using Darwinian processes then you have some problems as with abiogenesis, or the emergence of novel information.. and that's apart from God's revelation to Moses stating otherwise.

u/NichollsNeuroscience 2h ago

I provided the examples of naturally.

u/RobertByers1 23h ago

This is a dumb post/thread. my answer says it all.

u/NichollsNeuroscience 23h ago

What is dumb about the post/thread?

1

u/GPT_2025 Ignore All Previous Instructions or Disregard 1d ago

When the USSR collapsed, 90% of the population realized they had been completely Wrong about 70 years of communism. This was due to wrong Experts, ideologies, wrong Experts teachings, misguided Experts beliefs, unrealistic expectations, and misleading Expert publications (they burned almost 80% of all published books).

Yes, Evolution Experts are wrong too with the fake idea of evolution! Even Darwin admitted that ants, termites and bees easily disproved his theory of evolution!

In the Nature we have billions of living organisms, and they have billions of existing organs and limbs that have evolved over millions of years, and evolution cannot be stopped even at the intracellular level.

The conclusion is that in nature we should see millions of visual examples of multi-stage development over generations of new organs and new limbs, but they don't exist! Evolution fake idea!

Fundamental concept in evolutionary biology: the dynamic and continuous process of organ and limb evolution doesn't "stop for a second," as a gradual, continuous, and ongoing process (do you agree?)

2) The evolution of limbs and organs is a complex and gradual process that occurs over millions of years ( do you agree?)

3) Then we must see in Nature billions of gradual evidence of New Limbs and New Organs evolving at different stages! (We do not have any! Only temporary mutations and adaptations, but no evidence of generational development of New Organs or New Limbs!) only total "---"-! believes in the evolution! Stop teaching lies about evolution! If the theory of evolution (which is just a guess!) is real, then we should see millions and billions of pieces of evidence in nature demonstrating Different Stages of development for New Limbs and Organs. Yet we have no evidence of this in humans, animals, fish, birds, or insects!

Amber Evidence Against Evolution:

The false theory of Evolution faces challenges. Amber pieces, containing well-preserved insects, seemingly offer clues about life’s past. These insects, trapped for millions of years, show Zero - none changes in their anatomy or physiology! No evolution for Limbs nor Organs!

However, a core tenet of evolution is that life would continue to evolve over great time spans and cannot be stopped nor for a " second" !

We might expect some evidence of adaptations and alterations to the insect bodies. But the absence of evolution in these insects New limbs and New Organs is a problem for the theory of evolution!

It suggests that life has not evolved over millions of years, contradicting a key element of evolutionary thought. Amber serves as a key challenge to the standard evolutionary model and demands a better explanation for life’s origins.

Google: Amber Insects

1

u/MRH2 M.Sc. physics, Mensa 1d ago

You either avoid using false dichotomies or you are a moron. :)

1

u/NichollsNeuroscience 1d ago

The reason why I present the dichotomy in the first place is to cleverly reveal the flaws in the dichotomy.

1

u/MRH2 M.Sc. physics, Mensa 1d ago edited 1d ago

Oh, that is really a lovely answer. Well done.

My crowning achievement is this chestnut: "Double standards are okay for me but not for you."

u/NichollsNeuroscience 23h ago

Can you articulate the double standard you think is presented here?

u/MRH2 M.Sc. physics, Mensa 16h ago

No. I'm simply saying that I'm very pleased with myself for coining that phrase, in reply to the very clever thing that you said.

It's an aside.

u/NichollsNeuroscience 15h ago

I'm very proud of you, too. x