Physics 3333 / CFB 3333 Creationism


Is it possible to debunk an object, like a coffee cup?

Is it possible to debunk a story, like Goldilocks and the Three Bears?

What is it? It's a fairly tale - a morality play. It conveys a lesson. Is it intended to be literally true?

Is it possible to debunk the story of Noah and the Flood?

It's a story - a very old story - which stands on its own as a story.

Is it possible to debunk the CLAIMS of a minority that the Flood (and everything else in the Bible including the Creation) is literally true?

Lest you think this last point is a straw man argument, see the Institute for Creation Research Tenets of Creationism

The Bible can not be literally true

"I've done everything the Bible says - even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! What more could I do?" -- Ned Flanders (from the Simpsons)

Creationism is not Science

Why not? Creationism is not disprovable.

Anything like this that cannot be disproved is a "construct." It is assembled to explain a specific set of facts and nothing else. If another circumstance arises that the construct does not cover, it is simply extended as needed. When needed, another construct is generated.

This sounds like an advantage, but it makes a "theory" useless.

Creationism makes no testable predictions.

This makes it useless for gaining any understanding of the universe. If God makes everything happen, then what has science learned that is useful? If you look at the predictive power of science, the answer is PLENTY.

Are scientists arrogant?

Are people with no background in science whatsoever, who do not know what evidence exists, but still claim that over one million scientists worldwide are wrong, arrogant?