These excerpted sentences were taken from the webpage entitled " Feedback from August 1999", by creationary writer Timothy Wallace, MCSD. Timothy Wallace regularly uses the adjectives creationary and evolutionary (in parallel) in his sentences. I believe that all fair-minded creationists and evolutionists ought to follow Mr. Wallace's good example and make the adjective creationary a part of their active core vocabulary. They ought to use creationary consistently alongside evolutionary, especially in the context of the ongoing creation-evolution debate.
The creationary interpretation is applied to precisely the same empirical data and the same scientific laws as any other interpretation.
At issue isn’t whether the creationary interpretations are more or less accurate WITHOUT that data or those laws, but that BOTH of the two interpretations fits the SAME data and laws, necessitat[ing] an objective examination to determine WHICH of the two interpretations fits more those data and laws with the greatest ease.
On the other hand, an example of a distinctively less-than-credible organization is the so-called “National Center for Science Education” whose whole agenda is fostering evolutionism and not only opposing the idea of a creationary paradigm, but entering heavily into the arena of philosophy and religion, openly criticizing doctrines of biblical Christianity.
In any case you asked, in essence, how the empirical data of science better fit the creationary paradigm than the evolutionary paradigm.
I can then respond with the creationary interpretation of the data (if there is one).
As long as that paradigm is the “accepted mainstream” framework to which the majority of such science authorities and editors adhere, they disqualify themselves from ever taking an unbiased approach to the alternative (creationary) paradigm.
The same empirical data and (sometimes) interpretations produced in the context of these organizations and publications is frequently the subject of much creationary study.
(Since there is proportionally such a small number of creationary geologists, for example, they sometimes have no choice but to examine the empirical data produced and published from the field work of other (non-creationary) scientists.)
On the other hand, there are creationary organizations and publications.
Both their Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ), and the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (CENTJ), published by Answers in Genesis, are peer-reviewed journals devoted to relating the empirical data to the creationary paradigm.
This is why matters of origins (whether from a creationary or evolutionary point of view) cannot be ‘proven’ scientifically—they are a matter of history, and you cannot effectively observe, repeat, or measure the past.
[Other than repeating such generalities, Mr. Gislason declined to explain exactly how the creationary paradigm “breaks the unity of sicense [sic]”, or exactly how it “is not compatible with the fundamental natural law of physics”, and therefore, how it is “scientificly [sic] ‘unsound’”. -TW]
Yet when the creationary paradigm, while interpreting the same empirical data as the evolutionary paradigm, happens to render more credibile the most comprehensive explanation for both the empirical and the non-empirical aspects of human experience, evolutionists hasten to throw it all out, citing the ‘non-empirical’ implications as somehow invalidating the empirical interpretations.
It is an error to assume that the creationary paradigm is the same thing as “trying to ‘prove’ God with science”.
This popular caricature of the creationary position misses the boat entirely.
The resulting implications that the biblical record is accurate, and that (therefore) the God who reveals Himself in the context of that record is truly who He claims to be, do not invalidate the empirical interpretation side of the creationary paradigm any more than the largely anti-biblical implications of the evolutionary paradigm ipso facto invalidate it.
It requires the use of an unmitigated double-standard to reject the creationary paradigm on such grounds, when we conduct our lives according to non-empirically determined data every day.
That’s not what the creationary paradigm states, so why should we use such an assumption as the basis for an argument? (Your ignorance of the biblical creationary paradigm has begun to be revealed here.)
This is another fallacious caricature of [the] creationary paradigm.
An entomologist who subscribes to the creationary paradigm asks the same questions that you ask (i.e., “Why do they have so many more females than males?”).
Do you think that the creationary paradigm rules out genetics? (If so, you are in error.)
How exactly does your hypothesis (“the sex ratio is skewed because sisters (the workers) favor production of genetically-similar sisters over less genetically similar brothers”) substantiate your predisposition towards Darwinism and against the creationary paradigm?
What exactly is it about the creationary para[]digm that is negated or challenged by the hypothesis?
How are your end results better explained through the evolutionary paradigm than the creationary paradigm?
The model doesn’t compel you to invoke God every time you have a question, and if you were even basically familiar with the creationary model, you would know this.
The notion that a logical, plausible hypothesis that fails to invoke God is by default an “evolutionary” hypothesis is as unfounded as the notion that any creationary hypothesis by definition must invoke God.
I don’t think I missed your point. I wasn’t referring exclusively to careers, degrees, or academic recognition either, but to credentialed scientists who operate “down-in-the-dirt, day-to-day”—but under the creationary paradigm.
You’ll find much more than the mere “how” in the creationary journals
You are focusing on matters connected with the IMPLICATIONS that arise from the valid application of the empirical data to the creationary paradigm (i.e., religious experience).
It is not necessarily the objective or practice of the creationist to “use God as an explanation of natural phenomena.” Your “main point” is still based on a caricature of the creationary paradigm.
Creationists readily admit that they examine the evidence in light of the creationary paradigm.
When asked about their objectivity (i.e., how carefully or thoroughly they have examined the literature of the creationary alternative) they often betray a gross ignorance—yet they insist that they are unbiased in their handling of the data.
So you agree that the creationary paradigm is not invalidated by the fact that its implications are “out of the reach of science”[.] [T]his is moot[.]
It seems to me that you are assuming that every hypothesis of science must either have an evolutionary origin or a creationary origin. That’s a false assumption. I don’t know of an exclusively “creationary” hypothesis for skewed sex ratios—but nor have you presented an unequivocally “evolutionary” hypothesis for the same.
Like I said, I don’t know of an exclusively “creationary” hypothesis for skewed sex ratios—but nor have you presented an unequivocally “evolutionary hypothesis” for the same.
I’ll take your word for it. It does puzzle me, however, that you should assume a creationary scientist would not use the scientific method.
To test it even further, you could ask what exactly it is about natural selection that disqualifies it from fitting the creationary paradigm? Or what exactly it is about natural selection that qualifies it exclusively for the evolutionary paradigm?
You don’t have to know anything about anything creationary in order to answer the two questions above.
Do you deny being less-than-familiar with the creationary model? Do you deny mocking the creationary model from a position of ignorance? Do you claim this approach to be logical, reasonable, or scientific?
And it’s not easy to read much Gish or Morris without getting a fair picture of the creationary paradigm.
It is not that at all that is the trouble, but the unsubstantiated assumption on the part of many evolutionists that the “theoretical framework” under which you happen to conduct your inquiry is the only one or the best one—especially while being careful to avoid careful inquiry into the creationary alternative.
The creationary paradigm operates in the same way—questions abound (that’s where CRSQ and CENTJ come in).
Creationary biologists are doing the same.
In fact, I’m not even suggesting that you should be working under the creationary framework.
You may still choose to subscribe to the evolutionary paradigm, but you would at least appreciate the creationary paradigm for something besides the popular caricature that many scientists are persuaded it is.
I may be able to find and forward to you some articles or papers in response to your questions from a creationary point of view.
You began by making unsubstantiated claims about science and the supernatural, splattered sarcastic derision on a caricature of creationism, rejected pointed criticism of these practices, and then confessed to having “no idea” of what the creationary paradigm is, yet claimed to have at least read Morris and Gish.
Last Modified: 29 June 2005
Page Started: 5 June 2005