You are here:  Evolution vs Creationism -> Timeline -> Morejon's April 20th Letter

NOTE: I've taken the liberty of inserting some links and commentary - WJH.

Editor:

Since it seems that most "scientific" creationists (Rodriguez, McCormack, Stembridge, etc.) can only attempt to refute the theory of evolution, let's see what evidences they can provide us from their theory of "scientific" creationism?
 

1. There seems to be multiple theories of "scientific" creationism.  Which one is the correct one, and give evidences for your choice? (Young-earth? Old-Earth?  Young-life?  Old-life?)  [ I am familiar with Young-Earth vs Old-Earth creationism, but I don't know what Young-Life vs Old-Life is - WJH ]
2. Since science theories can be falsified, what parts of the "scientific" creationism theory may be speculative, or incorrect?
3. Science starts with questions then tries to answer them with facts.  Why do "scientific" creationists start with answers (Biblical inerrancy), and attempt to find questions that fit them? (Remember that answers can be corrected if new data surfaces, and errors must be rectified).
4. Is there a reson(s) why most Christians are evolutionists, and might be embarassed by the tenets of "scientific" creationism?  [  I believe this argument to be the fallacy of 'argumentum ad numeram.'  In essence, this fallacy says 'the view with the most adherents is the correct one.'   What "most Christians" believe is irrelevant.  What these specific fundamentalist evangelical scientific creationists believe is the issue.  - WJH ]
5. Is there anything in the theory of "scientific" creationism that is supported by direct observation, which can be verified by independent/third-part observers, and can be predicted for the future or in the past?
6. Do "scientific" creationists have consistent definitions of terminology, rules of scientific evidence, or methodologies for experimental protocols? (peer reviewers must be objective.)
7. If an observation is made that would change the theory of "scientific" creationism, what would be the criteria for accepting such change?  How would it be refereed?  Would the theory change if the data were substantial?
8. Why must all "scientific" creationist researchers who submit articles to the "Creation Reserach Quarterly" pledge to a religious faith statement prior to publication?  ("... the Bible is written Word of God,"  "... the account of ... Genesis is factual presentation of simple historical truths,"  "... all living things, including man, were madeb by God during the Creation account in Genesis,"  "... the Noachian Flood was an historical event,"  and "... salvation can only come by accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.")

If creationists wish to be accepted within the scientific community, answers to these questions must be addressed.  To be treated as academic equals, they must be ready to accept verification or refutation  [ accent mine - WJH ] of their own theory on a scientific basis.  They must accept the fact that both theories, evolution and "scientific" creationism, can be fasified.

If not, then attacking one theory will never be justification for acceptance of another.