Pseudoscience is a term evolutionists like to use against creation science. It is a derogatory term frequently used against any concept that disagrees with those concepts that are widely held by institutionalized science. It is largely a way of trying to keep the designation of science within institutionalized science.

The word “pseudoscience” basically means fake science and it has two legitimate uses. The first is deliberate fraud on the part of the proponents. The second legitimate use of this term is in referring to fictional science. For example, inventing some scientifically sounding terminology in a science fiction story to make what is going on at least sound scientific.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

The science denier labeled is Ad hominem (personal attack) that harkens back to Holocaust deniers, who were Nazi sympathizers that denied the reality of the Holocaust despite the overwhelming evidence. So basically, the use of the label is comparing creationists and Nazi sympathizers.

The notion behind this label is that the person using it thinks that a particular theory is an irrefutable science and that consequently, anyone who disagrees with it is simply denying it. This ignores the fact that there can be legitimate reasons for questioning even well-established scientific principles. One possibility is that the person to which they are applying the label has not had the concept presented to them properly. Another legitimate reason would be they do not trust the concept because of who is pushing the idea, climate change is a good example of this. The third legitimate reason is that they see possible flaws in the idea. Whether or not they are correct is a different matter, but you are not going to convince someone that they are mistaken about something by calling them names.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

The charge of being anti-science is one of several often-used derogatory terms used by evolutionist against creationists. Now you will find some Christians for whom this charge is legitimate, but it is not a label the generally applies to creationists in fact most active creationists love science. The problem that most creationists have is the pushing of what can best be described as atheistic mythology in the guise of science.

The legitimate definition of anti-science is a set of attitudes that involve a rejection of science and the scientific method. Definition commonly used by evolutionist and others is the rejection of mainstream scientific views and methods or their replacement with unproven or deliberately misleading theories. With mainstream science referring to institutionalized science. The differences in these two definitions are considerable. The first definition Is about rejection of the very principles of science in general such as the scientific method. The second focuses on specific theoretical concepts being pushed by institutionalized science. In other words, the first one, which is a legitimate use of the term, is a rejection of science in principle. While the second is used against those who disagree with specific claims made under science. There is a huge difference in the meanings of these definitions. By the way in the second definition, I will give you one guess who gets decide whether or not a theory is unproven or deliberately misleading.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Evolutionists often talk about science. For example, they will often claim that evolution is science, but creation is just religion. Meanwhile, there are creationists that declared that what they are doing is science as well. They will often point to legitimate scientific distinctions such as a theory making testable predictions. That is a creationist need to present them with testable predictions from creationist theories, particularly successful ones. When we do this, then they will often start insisting that it is still not scientific because it is not totally naturalistic. Their ultimate argument against creationists, when presented evidence either against naturalistic views of origins or in favor of Biblical creation, is that it does not qualify as scientific evidence unless it has been approved by the peer review journals of institutionalized science.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

How good science is at studying the past is a central point to the discussion of origins. One of the primary assumptions made by evolutionists is that the past can be studied and understood as easily as the present functioning of the universe can. They seem to think that the same degree of certainty can be obtained about the present functioning of the universe and its past. They do this by ignoring the fact that while we can see how the universe operates today, we cannot observe the past. This means that studying the past requires a lot of philosophical assumptions to be applied when interpreting evidence.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Science is at the heart of the question of origins and the age of the earth. Evolutionists like to claim that science shows the universe evolved from a super dense super-hot state in what is commonly called the Big Bang, and that the Earth collapsed from a cloud of dust and gas about 4.5 billion years ago. They also claim that life formed naturally from lifeless chemicals and then evolved into all the living things we see today including man. They further deny any legitimacy of creation science. However, discussing origins or any other topic scientifically requires knowing what science is.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Naturally, the word evolutionists used to word “evolution” a lot, but the problem is they do not use it consistently. They often use it outside of biology with terms like cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, and chemical evolution. Chemical evolution is another term for abiogenesis, which is the idea of life spontaneously coming into existence from non-life. Because abiogenesis is an easy thermodynamic target, evolutionists often tried to separate it from universal common descent biological evolution even though you cannot have universal common descent without first getting the first living cell. However, the biggest problem is the tendency of evolutionists to use the word “evolution” in four different ways about biology. This is done to cause confusion between the four for the express purpose of applying evidence for the first three, to the fourth way they use it.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

If you have done any online discussion about universal common descent evolution, you will notice that the proponents of evolution tend to denounce the term evolutionist. They will often claim that it does not exist despite the fact that a simple Google search shows that it is accepted as a word by multiple dictionaries. They usually go on to claim that it is only used by creationists as a derogatory term to make evolution sound like it is just a belief system.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

The nature of our origin is important to who and what we are. This is because from a Biblical perspective we are special creations of God. We were created for a purpose. From a purely naturalistic and evolutionary perspective, we are nothing but cosmic accidents without any purpose whatsoever. So, the question of origins gets at the heart of who and what we are. Are we special creatures created for a purpose, or just cosmic accidents? The difference between these two makes for a big distinction.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive