# Beyond Scientific Creationism



## ChristianTrader (Feb 5, 2005)

*Abstract*:

Scientific creationism's surprise attack rocked the late Twentieth Century intellectual establishment-acolytes of the worldview of Naturalism. Who could possibly imagine that religion would mount an empirical attack on evolution and its handmaiden, uniformitarian history? But that was decades ago, the shock has worn off, and surprise alone will not finish the job. Empirical arguments developed by an unfunded, outcast minority cannot penetrate the hidebound armor of modern Naturalism despite its many empirical flaws, because at its core Naturalism is not an empirical construct but an integrated worldview. To finish the job started by the scientific creationists, that worldview must be shown to be contrary to truth and thus destroyed. We advocate the primacy of formal over empirical arguments because: (1) they transcend disciplinary boundaries, (2) Naturalism is highly susceptible in that arena since its virulently anti-Christian exterior rests on presuppositions derived from Christian theology, and (3) a formal approach is consistent with Christianity's historical strengths (and Naturalism's inherent weaknesses) in theology and philosophy. A well-founded formal attack would also by example correct derivative and serious modern misunderstandings about the nature of knowledge and truth. Once Naturalism is demonstrated formally invalid, empirical research can take its proper role of building science and exploring natural history within the default, superior Christian worldview. Some Intelligent Design advocates have initiated this argument with great effect against biological evolution, but they fall short because they fail to recognize uniformitarianism as foundational to modern Naturalism.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_3/beyond_sci_cre.htm

(It is long but I think quite good)


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 5, 2005)

Sounds excellent. Where does the preaching of the Gospel fit in though?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Feb 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Sounds excellent. Where does the preaching of the Gospel fit in though?



That happens when one is presenting the Christian Worldview.

CT


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



Works for me.


----------



## gwine (Feb 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



I read the article and I wonder at that. In the beginning they seem to say that formal arguments should be used instead of empirical arguments but then go on to say that once the non-Christian worldview is shown to be inconsistent then we should go back to empirical arguments. And I wonder too about the brand of Christianity they are advocating.

John Robbins has an interesting article titled "The Hoax of Scientific Creationism" that paints a not so flattering picture of the world view of scientific creationism. He says:


> As the quotations from the scientific creationists that I have already read demonstrate, Morris’ and Whitcomb’s early fidelity to the Scriptures has been jettisoned as the implications of their apologetic method have become more and more clear. The scientific creationists have declared their independence from the Bible. Scientific creationism does not necessarily involve "religious concepts, a creator or God, creation from nothing, catastrophism, a worldwide flood, the recent inception of life, or ‘kinds’ of plants or animals." Science is capable of discovering truth, according to these men. One need not start with the Bible at all. This is one of the most prevalent superstitions of the twentieth century.


Before you jump on me too quickly I will say that I have not read some but not too much from the scientific creationist's point of view. But it does look to me like they are trying to use empirical evidence. I feel too uninformed to comment on the Gospel message angle, but I wonder how much truth there is to John Robbins paper. If true I find it disturbing.

I would appreciate links and comments on this.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 8, 2005)

Robbins has some quirks. I think he is right in that some anti-evolutionists are not orthodox Christians. But that doesn't detract from the merit of this particular argument posted. Plus, these are scientists, not pastors or theologians. They have a specific feild to work in. The fact that they are willing to challenge the presuppositions of their own colleges with even more credible arguments shows some guts in this day an age. Use what value there is in the arguments and filter out the rest.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Feb 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



One will need to make empirical arguments in order to do science. The issue is what you are attempting to do with those arguments. To attempt to attack God with those arguments is just silly. This article really does not get into the Christian Worldview very deeply, due to the purpose of the article. It is true that some who have supported creationism have not been exactly orthodox but that does not mean that those who do properly defend orthodox Christianity are not in the "mix".



> John Robbins has an interesting article titled "The Hoax of Scientific Creationism" that paints a not so flattering picture of the world view of scientific creationism. He says:
> 
> 
> > As the quotations from the scientific creationists that I have already read demonstrate, Morris’ and Whitcomb’s early fidelity to the Scriptures has been jettisoned as the implications of their apologetic method have become more and more clear. The scientific creationists have declared their independence from the Bible. Scientific creationism does not necessarily involve "religious concepts, a creator or God, creation from nothing, catastrophism, a worldwide flood, the recent inception of life, or ‘kinds’ of plants or animals." Science is capable of discovering truth, according to these men. One need not start with the Bible at all. This is one of the most prevalent superstitions of the twentieth century.
> ...



Well even Robbins admits that the "fathers" of Scientific Creationism held the authority of scripture very high. The issue is that some afterwards, did not do the same. This is a problem but is not a necessary death blow to the field.

CT


----------



## JWJ (Feb 9, 2005)

Robbins paper has many good points but also is at times too one sided and an overreaction. He makes some very valid points that many Scientific Creationist are not consistent in their epistemology. The truth of the matter is that they often fail to reveal, let alone define, their Christian worldview. Yes.. One can in an ad hominem fashion use empiricism to debunk many beliefs within Naturalism. Though this may be useful it does not really go to the heart of the matter. Eventually (often sooner than later) one needs to show that Naturalism is a worldview and false. Moreover, scientific creationism needs to be honest and reveal that the Word of God is the main ingredient in their epistemology and worldview – the only true worldview.

Jim


----------



## ChristianTrader (Feb 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JWJ_
> Robbins paper has many good points but also is at times too one sided and an overreaction. He makes some very valid points that many Scientific Creationist are not consistent in their epistemology. The truth of the matter is that they often fail to reveal, let alone define, their Christian worldview. Yes.. One can in an ad hominem fashion use empiricism to debunk many beliefs within Naturalism. Though this may be useful it does not really go to the heart of the matter. Eventually (often sooner than later) one needs to show that Naturalism is a worldview and false. Moreover, scientific creationism needs to be honest and reveal that the Word of God is the main ingredient in their epistemology and worldview – the only true worldview.
> 
> Jim


----------



## gwine (Feb 9, 2005)

I'll add my  too. Thanks for that insite, Jim.

And I agree, Hermonta, that their approach (not holding as high to the Scriptures) is not a death blow. But in this day and age when the buzzword 'hidden agenda' is everywhere, it would be nice to see them consistently be upfront about what they are all about.


----------

