A Creation Science science test.

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

So far I haven’t come across anything that can qualify as “science” in a discussion related to creationism, creation science or intelligent design. It seems that proponents of either of these things are all grasping at straws trying to come up with valid excuses why their idea of the universe’s beginnings and inner workings should be incorporated into the science curriculum in our public school system. I’ve often wondered what a science teacher would put on a test regarding creationism. Here are some good science related questions that I’d like to see on a test should creationism slip its way into the curriculum:

  1. What methods did God use to conjure the universe together?

2)What suturing method did god use to seal the wound from Adam’s removed rib?

3)What was the change in thermal energy of the universe after light was given to the universe?

4)Why was 9.81 m/s^2 an ideal rate of gravitational acceleration for Earth, and what other values were tested, and what observations were made from their failed tests?

  1. What was the total volume and mass of the Ark and what was its occupancy limit while on water?

  2. What is the air speed velocity of an 83 gram unladen white dove prior to carrying a 15 gram olive branch and how far could it fly after only consuming one 3 gram worm (assume the worm’s energy content to be 13.5 joules per gram)?

  3. Suppose God intends to construct a wall which he is not able to surmount. Using calculus and kinematics, determine how high the wall must be (assume the gravitational acceleration in heaven to be 6.66 m/s^2)?

8.) What flaw in God’s creation method made it difficult for him to create Adam and Eve at the same time, rather than one after the other visa-vi a rib removal?

  1. What combination of DNA nucleotides did God suppress that would have cause massive birth defects due to the numerous accounts incestuous sexual intercourse?

  2. If God hadn’t have created the male foreskin, calculate the number of sexual nerve endings that would have had to be added to the penis to produce a sexual orgasm of the same pleasure, length, and frequency.

  3. How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could pray for god to do it for him?

  4. Calculate the decay of prayer strength between a man who has all 10 fingers and a man who has only 9.

  5. How many square feet per day did the garden of eden increase in size assuming that no plant or animal perished prior to the original sin?

  6. Calculate the average percent error between two sets of god’s creations: A) people who are not afflicted with any adverse conditions and B) homosexuals, blacks and Muslims.

  7. If a man lieth with another man as he would lieth with a woman, calculate the probability that the man will be smitten A) 5 hours before the confession of said sin and B) 2 hours after confession?

Extra Credit: What percentage of one’s brain must on average be in use during life to sustain life after death.

2

Assuming ‘God’ exists…I have no frickin clue.

3

I find this strangely funny.

4

Thanks! :smiley:

5

6

Yeah, it’s so pointless. Nothing can really come of this thread. Nobody knows this stuff, and science can’t answer all these questions even if it was the year 3,000 and humans were immortal.

7

Maybe a good laugh?

8

That IS the point. “Creation Science” is not science. It has no place in the science curriculum. None. Using the term CS is a cop out for what they REALLY want to have taught in schools. Its pathetic. Completely and utterly pathetic.

9

The decision from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District covers the evolution of the creationism movement, and ties “creation science” to early creationism movements (including publishing the same book with “creation science” put in place of “creationism” each time it occurs). It was part of the grounds for the finding in favor of Kitzmiller et al. Fascinating read, if you have the time.

10

It seems to me that Alexmabee assumes that an Almighty God Who could create this entire universe simply by willing it to be so should be subject to human limitations. It seems obvious to me that this could not possibly be the case. If we are going to postulate a divine creator, He must by definition have complete control of reality, which means He can pretty much do things any way He pleases.
Now, regarding the differences and similarities between Darwinism and Creationism, any truly honest thinker would have to admit that there is even less evidence to support the first than the second.
For example, the fossil record does not support Darwinism at all. There has never been found or recorded a single example of an intermediate stage between an “earlier” form and a more evolved one, much less failed evolutionary “experiments”, where Darwinism seems to require that the fossil record be positively littered with them.
Consider the “Cambrian Explosion”. Prior to that time, most life seemed to be simple forms, primarily single celled. Then, over a very short period of time (at lease short geologically speaking), thousands, even millions of new and complex forms sprang up, literally out of nowhere, and with absolutely no fossil record or any kind of precursor forms. It’s worth pointing out that Darwin himself considered this to be a serious flaw in his “theory”.
I could go on and on, but the simple fact is that, as a non-god explanation for life on this rock, Darwinism just really doesn’t work very well. A far more logical and well reasoned argument can be made for a created universe and intelligent design (take a long, hard look at the molecular motor that powers the flagellates). Spend a few days objectively reading the works of C.S. Lewis and you’ll find the reasoning to be irrefutable. Assuming you don’t dismiss the argument out of hand.
And, for what it’s worth and before you dismiss me as a nut, know that I at one time passionately argued the atheist point of view. So did Professor Lewis.
DrMoose

11

I have one thing to say to this: False.

False.

False. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

This does not indicate any sort of “designer”. At most, it indicates environmental changes occurred that were favorable to life increasing its complexity. See some of the hypotheses on the Cambrian Explosion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#Causes_of_the_Cambrian_explosion

So? That was almost 150 years ago. During that time we have amassed a much larger amount of observations and information. So far, evolutionary theory has yet to be drastically revised from Darwin’s original model, which indicates the evidence continues to support it. Even if new, contradictory (rather than confirmatory) evidence were found/observed, the theory would simply be discarded or revised in order to conform to the new data.

No, you really couldn’t.

What “simple fact”? Drop the rhetoric, buddy.

It is not “non-god” anymore than the theory of gravity. Such is beyond the realm of science.

Do you even know what logic is?

There is no scientific evidence that might indicate intelligent design. This is beyond the realm of scientific inquiry, anyway.

C.S. Lewis? You mean Lee Strobel, right? Most of what you are saying is mirroring the crap that comes from books like that.

Oh yes, of course, anyone who doesn’t become enlightened is just dismissing the “argument” out of hand :unamused:

I suspect you had no idea what you were talking about, just as you don’t now.

Further, it doesn’t really matter what you are or are not with regards to your argument.

12

This could have something to do with fossils being preserved primarily during extreme geological or climatic events. If a skeleton is not preserved for a long time, many genetic changes could have occurred. Mutation happens when it happens. Changes of this sort are more observable in the small things that multiply and mutate rapidly. So, …

A short geological time for one celled animals can be millions or billions of generations.

These things are awesome.

This is also why they tell you not to argue with the devil, especially during an exorcism.

A much easier argument to make is that god created DNA, seeded the planet, and everything is unfolding as he intended it to, according to the natural and physical laws He created, in harmony with the Universe He has suspended us in.

This argument doesn’t support a literal reading of the bible though, but it allows us to attribute anything inexplicable to God, like the flagellate motors. Great example

I still don’t personally believe anything, but I’m giving it all the benefit of the doubt.

13

The term “Creationism” was coined by the Discovery Institute. This group masquarades as an impartial scieintific organisastion that is only interested in Scientific truth.

They are actually Fundamentalist Christians who dishonestly have created what they call the “Wedge Strategy.”
antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

Masquarading as disinterested scientists, they use this term to hide their religious agenda.

Let us take some of the points raised by Mr. Moose

No complete fossil record of any animal? Nonsense. He should take a trip to the Museum of Natural History and examine the changes in the horse, from a dog sized creature to the present animal.

Another myth that these people spead is that life began with the spontanious cell. The ameoba. Rediculous.

Is a “Prion,” a simple protein alive? It behaves as if it’s alive. Amino acids, which is to say, simple proteins are easy for scientists to create. The first form of life was not the cell, but rather some more advanced form of a prion, a virus, a rhiono virus. The cell only took form much, much later.

Darwins created ONLY the theory of evolution, much of the mechanics of evolution he got wrong, nor did he expect to be right on the actual way that evolution takes place. In fact, we will NEVER have all the answers, because evolution itself is not finished. Life continues to evolve and even as our understanding of these mechanisms changes, evolving life itself changes.

So, Dr. Moose, obviously with a limited understanding can actually write:

“There has never been found or recorded a single example of an intermediate stage between an “earlier” form and a more evolved one…”

This is profound ignorance. Indeed, willful ignornance.

Here is the fossil record that Dr. Moose claims doesn’t exist.

chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution … lution.htm

Dave

14

I understand that “Creation Science” isnt science at all, but what does Evolutionary Theory have to do with science? It cant be tested. It cant be observed. It has no practical implications. Arguing over origins may have its place in academia, but as far as “science” goes, as science is defined, there’s no point.

Will our knowledge of Evolutionary Theory ever help us discover a cure for the AIDS virus or the many forms of Cancer? That’s doubtful.

Really, why should either theory of origins be taught in school? Why do we need a theory for origins? Why must there be a context for explanation of the way the we observe things? What’s so wrong with simple observations?

Why cant we just focus our energies in solving problems instead of on this open-ended conflict? Such a strategy would work well for public schools as well as U.S. foreign policy. :wink:

15

If a god exists, he would use his computer, therefore we’re in his simulation.

What method did an absolute-non-existence natural environmental thing, use to cause an existent-universe into existence?

Same question, replace god with “nature”.

It’s a stupid question. If any god exists, he is not the god of any of our ancestors (i.e. holy texts, etc), and it is for the most part not something anyone can grasp really.

16

Evolution is an ongoing process and is occuring NOW. Where did the AIDS virus come from? It recently evolved. The new “super staph infections?”

It’s in the process of evolving. In fact, evolution is occuring in larger animals even as we speak.

It is not an academic question.

I don’t think you understand the word “theory” as is used by science. The Theory of evolution is FACT. Just as the Theory of Thermodynamics or electricity are facts.

The way it works is that these theorys are frameworks, in which we know they work, but the exact mechanisms are not completely understood. Think of it as a jigsaw puzzle in which we continue to assemble the pieces. We know what the final result is, but we don’t know which piece goes where.

When we go to school, we go to learn. To understand the world around us, we learn in science class about electricty. Should it not be taught because there are still missing pieces?

If you wish to learn about God, go to a Church, if you wish to learn about science, we learn it in school. Just because the Bible states that the value of “Pi” is 3, does that mean we should learn it in school?

If the Bible tells us, that we can change the color of a Sheeps coat, simply by painting the parents, do the offspring will be that color, should be taught in school?

The food you eat is often the result of “scientific breeding,” and today, sometimes done by manipulating genetics.

Don’t you think this is relevant?

Learning how the world actually functions, learning how new diseases are constantly evolving, are a necessary part of life.

If God created us in 6000 BC, then there would be no need to study how we actually evolved - But learning WHO WE ARE as a species assumes that learning how we evolved is relevant today.

Don’t you think this is relevant?

Aren’t we being called to make decisions about how to deal with the problems humanity faces? How then to do this if knowledge is hidden away, or children are being told Biblical BS instead of facts?

Dave

17

I have read the references you have all provided. What they show is a number of similar forms, at least as similar as any two creatures on this world. But the point remains, where are the fossils of failed evolutionary “experiments”, and where are the intermediate forms? Darwinism calls for slow, gradual change, but each cited fossil is a distinct form. It just doesn’t seem to work very well, but rather requires one to take some large conceptual leaps, based on the writers “say so”.
I do not deny that there are evolutionary processes going on in the universe, but only that they can produce what Darwinism demands of them.
Further, it seems that some of you have degenerated into finger-pointing and name-calling. But in my own defense, I did in fact double-major in mathematics and physics, with a minor in philosophy. Further, I am a voracious and omnivorous reader who is fascinated by just about everything, and have never ceased my studies. And yes, I do know and understand logic. Remember though that logic can manipulate false statements as well as true ones.
Yes, I am a Bible believing Christian, and I do take considerable heat for that. But I take note that most people who want to pounce on me for it seem to desperately want to avoid any concept of a god who is demanding and judgmental, since if you accept such a concept, that puts you in the very uncomfortable position of having a divine Creator Who likely has good reason to be rather displeased with you.
One last thought. The second law of thermodynamics absolutely precludes that effects may be greater than or fundamentally different from their causes, since entropy always increases. And yet you would have life arising out of not-life, and reason arising out of instinct, where these things are both greater than and fundamentally different from the causes you would attribute them to. For that matter, the universe itself, having a definite beginning and presumably an end, requires an un-caused first cause to kick it off in the first place.
Well! I wonder how much uproar this will generate? What fun!

18

You claim to be a voracious reader. Exactaly what do you read? Scripture?
Bible? You should try to open your mind, and read science books for a change. The writings of Richard Dawkins would be a start. ‘A river Out Eden’, is a good one. Anyway, I doubt you actualy even read the bible properly, because the proper reading of that particular collection of myths, is eneogh to turn a religious man into an atheist.

19

Metaphysics is the stuff of faith, and conjecture, about the things that are unknown.

The metaphysical must necessarily adjust and retreat as science expands what is known, as with all theory.

20

You mean like a two headed snake? A creature that cannot succed doesn’t leave much of a fossil record. We of course continually improve our scientific tools. DNA is such a tool. We can examine two organisms, such as a human and a chimp, and calculate by DNA differences, when we splitt into two evolutionary “trees.” In this case about five million years ago.

Charles Darwin is not Jesus Christ, who wrote a holy book, which you either agree with 100 percent or reject 100 percent. He was a scieintist and knew full well the “Truth” of his theory, but not the mechanism. I can give you present thinking, which is probably more accurate, but that too will be modified - Just as ALL science is always being modified.

For example, Darwin notices that all the birds on the Galapogoes Islands, were very similar. Yet they sometimes had distinct difference. Huge beaks, instead of small ones, etc, etc. So he decided that all of them came from a common ancestor. He was right. DNA proves that he was right.

Nor do modern scientists think that evolution is Always slow. Often if occurs in spurts. Sometimes not. Horses and Zebras are distinct species, yet they look fairly similar.

I photograph birds, often enough you need a disection to tell them apart, even though they are distinct species which cannot hybridize.

If anything I’ve said to you offends, my apologies, You certainly seem to be a decent enough person.

Since I can find passages in the Bible which are easily demonstrated as false, can you then rely on the Bible 100 percent?

I’ve heard devoute Christians tell me, that God created the World in seven days, but that who can define what a “day” is to God? The theory of evolution is NOT proof that God doesn’t exist.

I am an atheist, but I don’t consider evolution to be proof that God is a fantasy. If you choose to believe that Noah was able to get every creature on earth into his ark, what can I tell you? It’s an allegory.

Not much from me. Scientists have created complex proteins simply by bombarding a chemical “soup” with electricity. They believe this soup resembled the conditions of the earth before life began.

Is a Prion “life?” It acts like life, but it’s a simply protein. Over time, these proteins reproduce, as prions reproduce. What of a virus?

And so on. Nor do ANY scientists claim to know the final answer and probaly, indeed Certainly, we will never know the final answer. Only religion claims certainty, sciecne does not.

Those who oppose the theory of evoltion rightly point out that a living cell is far to complex to simply spring into existance - But it takes no leap of the imagination to see how much simpler forms of life can begin, given the
BILLIONS of years that went by.

Dave