caravelair

i've been talking to a YEC who seems quite reasonable and willing to learn. during our conversation, she said "Just b/c some people believe in creationism doesn't mean they reject everything science states". well, perhaps not EVERYTHING, but virtually everything. she later asked me for specific examples, and i'd love to put together a list of major scientific theories / facts / concepts that creationists must reject in order to accept YE creationism. so would anyone like to help me get the list started? thanks in advance.

OneWayTraffic

Well the scientific method requires that no theory, no law is beyond question. Everything must stand or fall by the evidence provided and even the most accepted and entrenched theory is subject to modification.

Creationists put faith in Genesis which isn't subject to question or modification. It needs no evidence or support. As soon as someone claims that no evidence can overturn Genesis you have them. Any biologist could tell you what would be required to overturn or modify evolution.

That's true of any scientific theory. It's always possible in theory, if not in fact; to disprove it and throw it out.

Jet Black

anything that disagrees with their preconcieved conclusions.

caravelair

agreed, and thanks for your input. but i was looking for more specific things from science. for example, creationists must reject radiometric dating, which basically means they are rejecting all of palaeontology... etc.

Meatros

They reject geology, genetics, physics (IIRC, because radiometric dating is based off of physic principles), some reject germ theory (again, IIRC, because when scientists first developed medicines to combat AIDS, they made medicines that AIDS had no mutations/variations to combat the medicines-so new genetic material had to be created by AIDS, which is why those medicines no longer work for some people), testing on animals would be rather useless if all animals were specially created, and in my mind organ transplants should never work if we weren't related to animals.

I'd also think that a consistent creationist would have to throw DNA evidence out of court...

Oolon Colluphid

Caravelair, you’ll need to get a more precise definition of the sort of creation being suggested. For instance, much of medicine would be rejected by the hardline creationist who denies (is unaware of) the evolution of antibiotic resistance... but others would say that that’s just microevolution, and it’s still a bacterium.

The funny thing is, the more a creationist knows, the more evolution seems to be allowed (eg Kurt Wise’s baraminology, where all the Bovidae are the same ‘kind’ ).

Jet Black

the problem is, it is not so easy to just say they dismiss one bit of science or another, they simply dismiss the bits that do not agree with their pre concieved notions. For example, radioactive decay rates are arbitrarily ignored when they do not give the answers they want. This means that fundamental atomic physics is also arbirarily ignored, nuclear physics is arbitrarily ignored, spectroscopy is arbitrarily ignored, and so on.

Peez

First, it is worth noting that one can "explain" anything by invoking an omnipotent, omniscient, inscrutible entity. This means that any observation at all can somehow be "explained" by god(s). This is why creationism is not science, even if it is false it cannot be proved false. Evolution could be proved false if it was false, and so is science.

That being said, just off the top of my head...

Biology:
pseudogenes, phylogenies, observed speciations, universal DNA codes, embryology

Geology:
the geological column, the fossil record, plate tectonics

Physics:
radioactive decay, the speed of light, thermodynamics

Astronomy:
the Big Bang, stellar evolution, planet formation

Linguistics:
the evolution of languages

And of course there are some non-science problems as well, e.g. societies that have existed for longer than 4,000 years, cultures not based on Jewish mythology, etc. Then there are all the problems that are not specific to creationism, but which one must face with a Biblical literalist worldview...

You might enjoy a visit to Things Creationists Hate.

Peez

Roland

Ask her if she believes that plants can live on a world with no sun. What temperature does she imagine they would have to endure under those conditions? Yet, in the Genesis account, plants do come before the sun. Wouldn't the oceans be frozen solid? Yet, a few days after the creation of the sun, they are teeming with all sorts of delicate plant and animal life. And could the Garden of Eden exist a mere two days after the sun was invented? Wouldn't the ground still be frozen solid and the air still be very very cold?

Valentine Pontifex

Notice that light was created first. In ancient belief, the Sun and th Moon were signs...