What is the proof for creationism?

[sin_is_fun]

Not a single shred of proof exists for creationism.Creationists set the bar so high for evolution that they forget to provide a single evidence for creation.

Often the excuse they give is "it is only 2 options.Either evolution or creation" Thus by rejecting evolution,they think they prove creation.

Creation means only genesis to our friends.If the missing link cannot be provided,it directly proves Genesis is their belief.I dont understand how this is possible.Imagining evolution is false there are so many other options.For example

1.Nobody created the universe.It always existed.

If you ask 'how can anything exist without being created?' I will then ask you 'who created God?'If you ask 'how can anything always exist?' i will ask 'how can god always exist?'....

2. God of some other religion created the world.

3.World was created by an aliens who always existed.Just like 'god always existed' these aliens always existed.But they are not gods and they live in the boundary of this universe.

All these options are as valid as creationism.They dont have any proof,but so does creationism.

[Jose]

There appears to be a fundamental difference between scientists' and creationists' understandings as to what constitutes evidence.

I'm going to ask this point first since this is probably at the heart of the issue. What would constitute as valid evidence?

"Evidence" is facts, observations, data--objectively observable (albeit with the aid of instruments in many cases). The sort of evidence I look for is either (1) findings/observations/data that can be interpreted only in one way, thereby forcing us to the conclusion, or (2) findings/observations/data that fulfill the criteria of a test of the model (see below). Of course, data that test a model are most powerful if they rule it out. If the data do not rule out a model, they are consistent with it, but not proof that the model is right. A model can never be proven, because the formal possibility exists that new data will force us to abandon the model and re-think our explanation.

Sure, we can develop a reasoned argument that biblical creation could account for this or that...but we never test the reasonableness of that argument.

What would constitute a valid test?

I'd suggest using the official Scientific Method. State the model explicitly, identify predictions that are made by that model, and then look for data that determine whether those predictions are borne out. If the data contradict the predictions, then the model is wrong, or the predictions were wrong, or the test was performed improperly, or... It's good to do a bazillion tests, to get as much insight into the model as possible.

We never ask whether that explanation fits with other facts. We don't acknowledge that alternative explanations have not been ruled out, and then try to rule them out.

I don't think either creationism or evolution can be ruled out. Like you mentioned in the ToE thread: "This isn't an issue that can be 'won' by debate. It's more a discussion of evidence." So, we're not trying necessarily to rule something out, but to allow the readers to come to their own conclusion based on the evidence/arguments from each side.[/quote]No, we really are trying to rule something out. The basic tenet of ID is that their arguments rule out evolution. They don't rule out evolution, though--just the incorrect model that the ID folks put forward. ID aside, however, that's how science works: we rule out alternatives. That is possible only if we state those alternatives, and assess whether they are equally well supported by the data, or whether there are data that are in conflict with them.

Still, using evidence to rule out alternative hypotheses is discussion of evidence. It's not "debate" in the sense of being "won" by the person with the most persuasive rhetoric. It's "won" by the hypothesis that is not ruled out by evidence.

With respect to evolution or creation, the predictions are so completely different that it should be easy to determine which one fits the data better. [Though, as we've said before, the act of creation is tricky to test, but the Flood makes clear predictions. Many Christians include the Flood as a part of the creation model, so we can evaluate the biblical creation model by evaluating the predictions made by the flood model.]

Evidence and reasoning in creationism???what evidence exists for creationsim?

You can start here and it'll go off into a bunch of other threads.

Most of these discussions are of the sort I mentioned earlier: "observation X can be explained by reasoning Y." That's not evidence; it's formulating the model. The evidence is the data that test the predictions of the model.

What do you mean by "set the bar so high for evolution"?

I meant asking scientists "Did you observe evolution with your own eyes?"

Usually this question is asked when people claim that evolution has been "proven". Here on this forum, nobody has to "prove" anything, logical arguments are sufficient.

I beg to differ. Logical arguments are not valid unless they are grounded in evidence. Certainly, this is so for evaluating evolution. Evolution is science; it's based on data. Without the data, there's nothing we can say about evolution. Even for the discussions on biblical interpretation, we use evidence: which passages say what. Now, it may be that we don't need to "prove" our arguments, but in the context of distinguishing between creation and evolution, and in the context of scientific discourse, it's pretty much a matter of providing evidence to disprove one or the other. Presumably, that's why so many creationists say "no one saw it happen" or "it's too complex."

I don't think nikolayevich said "proving" one "disproves" the other. I interpret his statement as these are basically the only two models to explain life. To which I also believe this.

As noted above, it's either/or in the context of distinguishing two alternate models. In the Great Scheme of Things, there may be other models, but in the CvsE debate, we're distinuishing between two choices. It's just that they are choices that rely upon wildly different criteria of "proof" and "evidence."

[Jose]

Here on this forum, nobody has to "prove" anything, logical arguments are sufficient.

I beg to differ. Logical arguments are not valid unless they are grounded in evidence.

And I would beg a small difference. Logical arguments are relevant in the case that one can show an argument is logically inconsistent with itself.

All this begging going on, you'd think we were puppies at dinnertime. But, you're right. Logical inconsistency is a problem. I would think that "logical inconsistency" fails otseng's test of a "logical argument," so we're in agreement here.

I agree with your analysis of YECism and biblical inerrancy. In the face different interpretations of Copernicus and Darwin, it's clear that supporters of this view use different standards, depending on the context.

As my dad used to say, "the power of the human mind to rationalize is infinite." It is possible to rationalize that these different standards are valid, based on metaphorical evaluation of the text. But, I would suggest, we are guaranteed to get nowhere by quibbling over biblical interpretation. Such quibbling has gone on for centuries, and we're nowhere near a consensus.

Therefore, I argue, we should look at the hard facts: the information that god put into his creation, in the form of rocks, fossils, radioisotopes, DNA sequences, etc. These are the facts that we seek to explain.

At this point, my sense is creationists are trying to have it both ways, insisting on a literal interpretation when that supports their view, but allowing for non-literal interpretations either when they feel they have no choice or when it does not matter to the issues that are important to them.

Of course they want it both ways. There's no value in denying the facts, when the facts don't interfere with your worldview. So the bible tells us that the earth is the center of the universe, but it's actually not...so what? There's no serious implication here, other than agreeing that there are some "figures of speech" in the text. In contrast, many people seem to believe that the truth of evolution would somehow invalidate the potential for salvation. This seems to have something to do with the introduction of death, sin, and all that--without which there's no rationale for salvation. Therefore, the potential consequences of accepting heliocentrism are minor compared to the potential consequences of accepting evolution. You're toying with the destruction of the afterlife, and sentencing yourself to some unknown (but probably horrible) fate.

When looked at this way, "proof" of creation is irrelevant, and any possible means of denying evolution is essential.

[micatala]

Yes, I have often heard or read people making the case that evolution cannot be true because of its theological implications.

Although I think the theological issues should not be ignored, I'll agree to stick with the scientific evidence for the remainder of the thread.

[Jose]

Yes, I have often heard or read people making the case that evolution cannot be true because of its theological implications.

Although I think the theological issues should not be ignored, I'll agree to stick with the scientific evidence for the remainder of the thread.

I think the only justification for denying evolution is the theological implications. Similarly, the theology is the only reason to insist upon creationism. The difficulty is that people tend to hold their religions as inviolate and as absolute truth. For fundamentalist Christianity, this includes a prohibition against even thinking about possible contradictions.

Thus the stakes are very different. For scientists, it's a question of data interpretation. For creationists, it's a question of overthrowing their entire world and decimating their hope of salvation (it shouldn't be, but it is).

But since religious beliefs tend to be inviolate, the best way to address this is through the evidence. So yes, we should stick with evidence.