- County Council Resolution Opposing the proposed Travelers Rest Annexation for ‘The Inn at Altamont’
- Paris Mountain Hotel Developer Wants to Circumvent Greenville County’s Land Use Protection Laws
- USAID Funded Beginning of Ukraine War in 2014
- Proposed Hotel Complex on Paris Mountain
- Nice hotel, but the Wrong Place and the Wrong Way of Doing Things
- Why Conservative Republicans Aren’t Participating in the Greenville ReOrg
- PARIS MOUNTAIN HOTEL: The Divine Group's Traffic Study, Water Jurisdiction and Protected Species Impact Reports Dissected
- To Go in Peace and Be Left Alone
- Greenville Housing Fund Representatives Address Affordable Housing at First Monday
- South Carolina's Hootie and the Blowfish Darius Rucker
- Birth-Right Citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment
- Record Number of Organizations Recognized for Excellence as Certified Best Christian Workplaces in 2024
- Confederate Navy Commerce Raiders
- Trump’s Terrific Agenda Impaired by Mistaken Ukraine Info
- We Must Be Living In “The Twilight Zone” - Part 1
Is Intelligent Design Scientific?
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One of the tactics used by evolutionists against intelligent design is to claim that it is unscientific. This claim rests on two main smaller claims. The first is that it is not naturalistic and the second is that it is unfalsifiable. What is interesting is that by attacking the scientific nature of intelligent design in biology they are attacking it in fields such as archaeology and criminal forensics.
The first claim is that intelligent design cannot be considered scientific because it is not naturalistic, and science can only consider naturalistic explanations. This is fundamentally untrue because there is nothing in the scientific method that forbids a supernatural explanation. It is only in institutionalized science where there is a priori commitment to naturalism. Such an argument does not exclude a possibility of some kind of natural designer. Ultimately the key to understanding this argument is a desire on the part of those making it to exclude God as a possible explanation for anything.
Are Polygenic Trees Really Evidence of Universal Common Descent?
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One thing often presented by evolutionists as evidence for universal common descent evolution is polygenic trees. However, what they often ignore is that they never have the alleged common ancestor between the branches. Furthermore, there does not need to be an actual relationship to be able to make such relational trees. All that is necessary is comparing patterns of what the objects being compared have in common.
When presenting alleged evolutionary transition evolutionists will frequently simply provide a list of animals comprising a list of the animals comprising the alleged transition series. The impression given by such a series is that there is a direct ancestor-descendant relationship between these animals. However, never do such transition series represent actual ancestor-descendant relationships even according to evolutionists.
Is intelligent Design an Argument from Incredulity?
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One of the common claims made by atheists against intelligent design is that it is an argument from incongruity. While sometimes, people do use this type of argument when arguing for intelligent design, the idea is actually based on we observe not personal belief or understanding. It is the arguments against intelligent design that are mainly arguments from incongruity.
An argument from incongruity is an informal logical fallacy where a person argues that something must be true or false based on their understanding or belief about it. An argument from incongruity has two main forms.
The Ultimate Problem with Materialism
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The philosophical mindset of institutionalized science is that of absolute atheistic naturalistic materialism. It is fundamentally naturalistic because only naturalistic causes will be considered. It has almost become a determination to force naturalistic explanations on everything. It is atheistic because it fundamentally excludes God as demonstrated by the reaction to intelligent design. It is fundamentally materialistic because only materialistic causes are considered. This is done despite quantum mechanical evidence to the contrary.
The Truth of Geocentrism
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The conflict between geocentrism and heliocentrism with regards to the solar system goes back to Nicholas Copernicus around 1514 A.D. This was not out of any religious conflict but out of conflict with intellectuals of his day that insisted on Aristotle’s geocentric system. To some degree this conflict still continues today as there are some who still strongly hold to an absolute geocentric model.
The irony is that there is no need for any kind of conflict because under General Relativity both models are actually just a choice of a frame of reference. In other words there is no actual conflict between the two, each one is just a result of a choice of coordinate systems.
Naturalism of the Gaps Argument
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Evolutionists often accused creationists of using a God of the gaps argument that is filling in gaps in our knowledge with God. However, that's exactly what they do with naturalism because no matter what the evidence says they will always jump to the conclusion that there has to be a natural explanation for it regardless of what probability or known laws of nature indicate.
The point is that evolutionists always will fill in something they do not have an answer for by insisting that there is a naturalistic explanation. They may rely on the vague idea that there has to be a naturalistic explanation. They will sometimes put a label on that so-called explanation without actually providing an explanation. This is most common when they are trying to deal with it in an official scientific context such as a paper.
God of the Gaps Argument
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Creationists are frequently accused of using a God of the gaps argument. Such an argument boils down to we don't know therefore it must be God. While this kind of thinking has been used in the past and there are some Christians who do use it. It is not used in creation science.
The accusation of making a God of the gaps argument is frequently made by evolutionists anytime a creationist claims that the evidence actually points to God. Now sometimes the accusation is deserved but there are many times when it is not.
Modifying a Theory Beyond the Point of Falsifiability
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
In science when a theory is close to the data it is often possible to modify it so that it better fits the data. However, there is a danger in doing this and that is modifying the theory to the point where it is no longer falsifiable. When this happens, the theory ceases to actually be science and can easily become dogma, being pushed as science.
As long as the modifications are small adjustments that maintain the theory’s testability it is not a problem. However, the danger comes when the new elements make no real predictions but simply exist to patch the current theory. When this is done a theory or group of theories can easily become dogma rather than science because they lose all falsifiability.
Invoking Miracles from God in Creation Science
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
One of the criticisms commonly throwing that creationists is that creationism cannot be considered scientific because we can always invoke miracles to solve any problems. While this is true in principle you need to remember that creationism itself is not an alternative to evolution but an alternative to naturalism. Consequently, like naturalism, creationism is a philosophical starting point for producing scientific theories not a scientific theory itself.
The Heat Problem
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Without question the biggest problem that young earth creationists face is called the heat problem. It results from speeding up a geological process during periods such as the creation week and the Genesis Flood will naturally produce large amounts of heat. Not only would this heat be enough to melt rock but at its extreme, it could even vaporize the entire planet. Unfortunately, no firm solution has been produced yet, however, several possibilities keep it from preventing the Biblical account from being true.
The Mud Problem
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The mud problem is based on a paper recently published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly entitled “The Clay Consolidation Problem and Its Implications for Flood Geology Models” by Scott L. Dunn. The paper claims that it would take too long for the mud laid down during the Genesis Flood to turn to the rock we observe.
The key to his calculations is the coefficient of hydraulic conductivity which shows how fast water can be removed from solid material. The tenancy however for it to increase with particle size. This is one way in which he's assuming normal erosion conditions. However, the conditions of the Flood would have tended to erode out larger particles possibly increasing this factor.
Challenges for a Young Earth Solved
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
The previous article dealt with several common challenges to a young earth. In this article solutions are provided for the first four that are simple and for the most part well established. These will be short explanations but references will be given to help you understand them better.
- Impact craters.
Biblical creation does offer a very convenient way of handling meteors asteroids and their impact craters. One aspect is that not all of them are impact craters. This is particularly true of so-called fossil craters here on Earth. This reduces the number of actual craters considerably. There are other explanations such as volcanic activity and under the conditions of the flood even air bubbles.
Challenges for a Young Earth
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Here we have a list of common challenges to a young Earth. That is an earth that was created within Biblical time scales. In this article, we only discussed the challenges. The solutions that have been proposed will be brought up in other articles.
- Impact craters.
Every solid body in the solar system except Earth, Venus, Titan, and Io are covered with large numbers of impact craters. Earth, Venus, and Titan have significant atmospheres. Meanwhile, Earth, Venus, and Io are known to be volcanic enough to erase impact craters from the past. From a young Earth creation perspective, there is also the question as to where asteroids and meteors would actually originate, after all, God could have created a much cleaner solar system. Furthermore, there is the question as to when these impacts occurred. The time of the Genesis Flood is a natural time but so many impacts in such a short period of time would have turned most objects into balls of magma.
Science Versus Science Popularizers
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
A science popularizer is someone who seeks to explain scientific concepts in a manner that can be understood by anyone, particularly non-scientists. While, in principle, this can include many people online, those who are generally included in such lists usually have advanced degrees in science. Within popular culture, the most well-known include the late Carl Sagan, Bill Nye, and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
There are several things that all three of them have in common. They are all not only evolutionists but atheists as well. (Carl Sagan knows better now, being deceased) This means that when dealing with topics such as origins or the fundamental nature of reality, they are going to be presenting an entirely naturalistic, materialistic, and atheistic perspective on everything they say.
Your Theory Does Not Work Under My Theory, So Your Theory Is Wrong
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
While this is not listed among the formal logical fallacies, it definitely qualifies as a logical fallacy. I have seen this fallacy used repeatedly by some who insist that a perspective that they disagree with is wrong because it does not work under their way of looking at the data.
The essence of this fallacy is let's say you have two different views on a given set of data. Model 1 interprets the data as A, while model 2 interprets the data as B. A person holding model 1 then insists that the data means A therefore model 2 must be wrong.
What Constitutes Science?
- Details
- By Charles Creager, Jr.
Sometimes, you will hear somebody supporting a claim that they are making with the phrase science says such and such. You have probably heard terms such as the science is settled. You are also told to believe the science and called a science denier or anti-science if You do not accept what is being claimed under the auspices of science as unquestionable fact. Sometimes, even questioning certain official scientific claims is treated as a complete rejection of science.
Browse by the Top Tags ...
