Recent Work in Creation Science

Jerry Bergman has written an article on CMI entitled, Did immune system antibody diversity evolve?

From the article:

The voluminous research on the evolution of the adaptive immune system describes in enormous detail both the similarities and differences between the immune systems of a wide variety of animals, but does not provide evidence for the evolution of these irreducibility complex systems. The complex, designed processes used to produce antibody diversity and then to fine tune the adaptive immune response are not evidence of Darwinian evolution, but rather of intelligent design.

Recent work has also shown that innate immune systems formerly thought to be very primitive are far more complex than once believed, blurring ‘traditional distinctions between adaptive and innate immunity.’38 Various phyla use ‘a remarkably extensive variety of solutions to meet fundamentally similar requirements for host protection.’37 The large discontinuity between the various means of generating immune system diversity in the animal kingdom makes it highly unlikely that one system could have evolved into another.

Creation scientists have also been hard at work in generating theoretical frameworks and hypotheses on a number of fronts.

1). A framework has been developed for explaining bacterial pathogenicity.

2). Fungi have been examined from a creationist perspective, and natural selection is considered as a process for the development of pathogenicity.  Similar to the first paper, evolutionary processes are considered corrupting influences of the original designs.

3). Initial work has been done on developing a field of creation microbiology.  Promising areas for future research and practical applications are also considered.

While those who pontificate about the absence of any real scientific progress being made from a creationist perspective, creation scientists are laying the groundwork for biological studies, and are generating testable scientific hypotheses.  Whereas materialist scientist do not often recognize their metaphysical assumptions, creationist scientists and IDers are generally much more aware of the metaphysical assumptions of science on both sides of the issue.

Advertisements

Does referencing the Creator inhibit science?

Many materialists (atheists and theistic evolutionists most often) argue that materialistic philosophy is key to scientific advancement. If any ideas of Creationists are allowed to even be referenced, then scientific progress will halt and people will die. There will be mass and widespread calamitous events, and we will return to the Dark Ages.

Mphuthumi Ntabeni at The Southern Cross writes:

Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and Copernicus referred to the Creator in their scientific writings. No one accused them of being unscientific because of that. There’s no rule that compels science to have a materialist outlook, it’s just an incident of history. (1)

I have yet to see any evidence that convinces me that scientific progress will be inhibited in any way by referencing notions of a designer or even God. Nor have I seen any evidence that is not just as easily explained from an ID or even a Creationist perspective as compared to a naturalistic evolution perspective. So far, I see Creationism as having the most explanatory power and ID as focusing on narrow range of observations and scientific phenomena. Both ID and Creation Science are scientific disciplines.

I must also say that I have yet to see how the theory of naturalistic evolution, on a macro scale, has ever contributed to applied science. The concept of abiogenesis has not contributed to applied science. The Big Bang Theory has not contributed to applied science. In short, the notion that Godless science leads to progress has no legs to stand on. Perhaps it will evolve those legs in the next several billions of years, but I won’t be holding my breath.

(1). My case for intelligent design, The Southern Cross, Mphuthumi Ntabeni, Nov. 9, 2008

The Five Dimensions: A Creation Science Cosmology Theory

Naturalistic cosmology has had decades of theoretical work and millions in public funding to produce a number of fairy tales, that purport to explain the cosmos. In some ways, creation scientists have only recently begun to put forth their own theories to explain observations of the universe within the context of Biblical explanations.

Recent theoretical work on this issue by creation scientists has focused on 5D symmetical expanding universe in order to explain observations of the universe.

Carmelian Cosmological General Relativity theory is considered in five dimensions. For it to be consistent with both Cosmological Relativity on the largest scales and Special Relativity on the smallest scales, the acceleration of the expansion of the cosmos must have been extremely large at Creation and must be zero at the present epoch. Hence the forced stretching of the fabric of space only occurred during the Creation Week and then ceased. This implies that during the creation of the heavenly bodies, massive time dilation occurred on Earth at the centre of the expansion. It is a necessary conclusion from the 5D theory describing a spherically symmetric expanding universe that light from the most distant sources reaches Earth within the biblical time scale as measured by local atomic time, but takes billions of years as measured in cosmic time. (1)

The article is very technical at points. It takes to account and provides explanations for a number of “anomalies” in current naturalistic cosmological theory. As with all theories, further research into the issue will be needed for testing it.

The article concludes (in part) with:

Observations are consistent our galaxy being situated at the centre of a 5D spherically symmetric universe of finite extent that has expanded many-fold. In terms of cosmological clocks it is as if the universe appears like a still photograph. This is the result of the vast distances and slow intrinsic motions on the cosmological scale. Nevertheless, the validity of the new theory applying to both the current and past epochs leads to the inescapable conclusion that the time it has taken light to travel from the most distant sources to Earth is billions of years of cosmic time, yet a matter of only days or years in local atomic time units.

(1). A 5D spherically symmetric expanding universe, Creation on the Web, John Hartnett


A recent book that may be of interest by John Hartnett