Should Creation Science Be Declared a Heresy?

http://www.clydefitchreport.com/2013/06/the-heresy-that-may-help-the-pope/

Creation Science - bad science and also bad theology - with its practice of indoctrinating and deceiving the world's youth with its false beliefs. Using the Bible to degrade critical thinking in the world's youth, is it on grounds to be condemned a heresy?

J

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Problem is, and this article pretty much hits on all cylinders of origins science...in that it proves absolutely nothing in favor or "science" as " science", has no more "real" answers than does the "faith" of religions, it believes in something that cannot be scientifically proven. And, much like a religion now, science has its exclusivity, it is the only one that is right. It makes assumptions [ makes up a story ] to fit the facts as "scientists believe" it to have happened... at least for the moment, until they come up with something different... or until they come clean and admit that they just do not know, probably will never know. If they cannot and will not know, but you still take their word for it....surely you have to understand that is all you are doing, taking their word for it...that would be taking it on "faith".

You can try to say you are taking their beliefs on reason because science is supposed to be built on reason/ logic, testing and proof... but what exactly has been proven? When you get to the origins question, pretty much nothing. You can try to avoid coming to that understanding, but if you are intellectually honest, you cannot hide it from yourself, certainly you cannot hide it from the rest of us that are consciously contemplating the issue.

So maybe the question should be: How is "creation's bad science" radically different than "science's bad science"?

 

[captainawesome]

IMHO Biology is good science not bad science.

 

[GOPFilmGeek]

So maybe the question should be: How is "creation's bad science" radically different than "science's bad science"?[/QUOTE]

When you say "creation science" aka creationism, that's actually an ideology that refers to a literal interpretation of the Bible as the true history of what happened - ie, the Earth was created in 6 24-hour days, somewhere between 6-10,000 years ago, all dinosaur remains were the result of Noah's flood, etc. In my article I assert that there's of course compatibility between religion and science. Creation science - whether it be Old Earth or Young Earth, ID, however, is merely an attempt to force in religion where it doesn't belong - in a science classroom. In order to believe in this, one must contradict a basic knowledge of zoology, continental drift theory, astronomy, etc.

The trouble is that these groups that promote creation science - AiG, Creation Ministries, CWA et al, have consistently expressed that they have no regard for the truth. The facts it argues against have been consistently disproven since its beginning in the 1970s - the second law of thermodynamics, no transitional fossil forms, the eye cannot simply evolve into being, etc - and of course that doesn't matter since they have no relevance - the people behind this probably know creationism is false - but it still has a helpful goal - to basically drill children into being little more than obedient soldiers. It uses the Bible to manipulate and indoctrinate - to preach that whenever God's word is somehow violated, the result is damnation. If you look at Ken Ham or Kent Hovind, the two biggest minds behind it - they have made a career out of siphoning money from their followers - people who will visit their parks, subscribe to their sites and buy books, etc. Essentially, it's a new chapter of televangelism but has much more sinister implications.