Do some 'christians' consider certain area of science to be 'junk science'?

Question

Do they have a problem with evolution (supported by the fossil record and now DNA evidence)?
Do they have a problem with cosmology (Big Bang supported by red shift, background cosmic radiation, and movement of the galaxies from a central point)?
Do they call these sciences 'junk science' even though they have supporting evidence?

If so, may we call 'christianity' 'junk religion' as its main character ('god') is absolutely unsupported by any credible, tangible, valid, verifiable, concrete, viable, reliable, or irrefutable evidence?
Should I start posting messages to 'believers in junk religion' instead of the easier 'christians'?

Answer 1

Junk science is found in your statement that "evolution (supported by the fossil record and now DNA evidence)".



The fossil record doesn't support the idea that a fish became an amphibian that became a reptile that became a mammal that became a human being.



Saying that it does is to bring a preconceived notion to the "evidence" which results in a fanciful interpretation of what the evidence actually can tell us. So called "transitional" fossils are only called that because they have some shared characteristics just like a duck billed platypus has shared characteristics.



There aren't any preceding fossils showing a gradual change from one form of life to another. Nor are there any future fossils showing that a gradual change continued on to create a new phyla of life.



Instead you have the relatively sudden appearance of all phyla of life with no credible precursors in the fossil record.



"Junk Science" is when people have a scenario of what happened already in mind and then they plug in "evidence" to support that scenario with no evidence that these are valid "plug ins".

Answer 2

It is really incredible that those who are abysmally ignorant about science, the scientific method, the Big Bang, evolution, and the evidence for evolution and the Big Bang think they can refute those aspects of science and call it junk science.



But, of course, all they are really doing is getting their misinformation from lying creationist web sites and posting it here on Y!A.



>>"If you Ask a Scientist for the definition of Science “Method”, and the 1st descriptive word he uses is “Observation”."



The second part of the scientific method is testing. Scientists have tested evolution by various means ever since Darwin proposed his theory, and it has always come through with flying colors.



One test is performed every time a paleontologist digs in geologic strata--the results of which could falsify evolution if it is false and verify the creation model if it is true. The results, in fact, verify evolution and falsify the creation model. Evolutionary theory would be falsified if fossils of any of the 5,000 present-day species of mammals, including human, or the 10,000 present-day species of birds were found in the fossil strata where they should not be found (for example, in the same strata with dinosaur fossils). No such finds have been made. But, according to the creationist flood "model" those species should be found in those strata.



Here are some other examples in which the theory of evolution has been tested and passed with flying colors.



http://www.mathprog.org/Old-Optima-Issues/optima10.pdf

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/moth-study-backs-classic-test-case-for-darwins-theory-462938.html

http://www.utm.edu/departments/cens/biology/rirwin/391/391EvidEvol.htm

http://www.physorg.com/news192882557.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100512131513.htm



Another requirement of a scientific theory is being able to derive predictions from it about what should be found in further lines of research. For example.



About fifty years ago, when it was first noted that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans have 23, the creationists subsequently pounced upon that as evidence against the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with the apes. The evolutionary scientists, however, using evolutionary theory and an understanding of genetic modification, proposed that two of the chromosomes must have joined together in the line that led to man from the common ancestor, thus reducing the chromosome number.



That prediction has been verified with the results of the recent human and chimp genome projects. It was found that human chromosome 2 is the result of the joining of two chromosomes that have homologues in the chimp. The decoding of the genomes revealed that human chromosome 2 has a stretch of non-functioning telomere coding in the exact place it should be if the two chromosomes had joined in the human line from the common ancestor with the apes, and there is also non-functioning coding for a centromere in the exact location where the extra centromere would be as it occurs in one of the homologous chimp chromosomes, as well as a functioning centromere in the same location as in the other homologous chimp chromosome.



Long before the genome projects verified it, this article contained an example of the proposition that two of the ancestral chromosomes joined together to form human chromosome 2. (The link is to an abstract of the article. The full article is available for a fee. Sorry)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/215/4539/1525



The following site (which is an NIH human genome site), however, does have this statement: "Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes - one less pair than chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other great apes. For more than two decades, researchers have thought human chromosome 2 was produced as the result of the fusion of two mid-sized ape chromosomes and a Seattle group located the fusion site in 2002."



http://www.genome.gov/13514624



This site explains the finding of the genome projects.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm



No creationist pseudo-scientist could make a before-the-fact prediction like that. All they can do is to make up pseudo-explanations after the fact of the finding.



And contrary to the creationist lies that another responder mentioned, the fossil record fully supports evolution. The sequence of fossils in the geologic strata shows an evolutionary progression from the earliest to the latest, from simple organisms through more complex, and following a sequence of species replacing one another over time in a manner that is fully consistent with evolutionary theory.



Note the appearance of types of organisms over time in these tables:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale#Table_of_geologic_time

Answer 3

Your 1st Claim is that the Fossil Record supports evolution… Really? What Fossil Record are you Looking at? Because the fossil record has been against the Darwinian theory from the very beginning. It's true that different kinds of organisms lived on the earth at different times. But what is not seen in the fossil record is the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different. Instead, if something new shows up in the rocks, it shows up all at once and fully formed, and then it stays the same.

If evolution means the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different, then the fossil record contradicts evolution.

Given the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, evolutionists quietly acknowledge this is still a "research issue".

There is virtually nothing in the fossil record that can be used as evidence of a transitional life form When apparent examples of useful mutations are examined thoroughly, it becomes clear that no transitional creatures exist ANYWHERE in the fossil record. However, If land animals truly came from sea creatures, one would expect to find plenty of evidence of this, such as fossils of fish with their fins turning into legs.

So many questions arise in the study of fossils (paleontology) that even many evolutionary paleontologists put little stock in the fossil record. Basing one's belief in evolution on the shaky ground of paleontology can scarcely be considered scientific.

Your 2nd Claim is that DNA supports evolution… Explain How? It is not enough to explain how DNA might have gathered into strands by random chance; evolutionists must also explain the machinery to interpret DNA. In other words, it’s not enough to explain how random letters could eventually fall into the order S-E-E-T-H-E-D-O-G-R-U-N. These letters still don’t mean anything unless you have a pre-existing language system for interpreting those letters! ‘See the dog run’ has meaning, but only to a modern English-speaker.

Because the genetic code is astonishing evidence for a Designer, who created a marvelously complex, efficient ‘information system’ for encoding life. The only reasonable explanation for all the information in DNA is that a Designer put all the information in the original genes—e.g. the ‘kinds’ that He made during the six days of Creation.

And I don’t want to even begin with Your 3rd Claim of the “Big-Bang”…

but Obviously You are enamored in “Junk-Science”, I don't have a Problem with that because if you Choose to be Wrong then thats Your Problem.

Answer 4

"Evoulution" : Most Christians accept that species can "evolve" or change over time. But nowhere in science (including DNA and the fossil record) has it ever been proven that a simple organism can evolve into a complex one, or that one species can evolve into a different species. If you know of evidence that scientists don't, I'm sure they'd appreciate your information. I suspect you have nothing.

"Cosmology" : The "Big Bang"? Really? Abiogenesis? I assume then you can answer the question that has stumped everyone else in science? That is: how something can originate from nothing. According to our linear way of studying life, everything has to have a start. But, what created the most basic elements needed for a Big Bang. I believe it's God because it shows me that humans can't conceive of this fact even though our existence proves it. So something far more complex and wise must be at the center of all things. Don't kid yourself, the "Big Bang" brings up as many questions as does the existence of God.

Supporting evidence and "credible" evidence are two different things. You can't manipulate science to adjust to your conclusion, you study the facts to come to a conclusion. You should know that much.

Answer 5

.

The fossil record and DNA actually support Creation when interpreted correctly.



Cosmology, red shift, cosmic radiation, etc all support Creation when interpreted correctly.



it is the incorrect interpretation of these that is "space junk"



Christianity and its main character God is absolutely supported by credible, tangible, valid, verifiable, concrete, viable, reliable, and irrefutable evidence .



You may post what you like, and it all goes to prove that Psalm 14:1 applies to you . . .







.

Answer 6

The Worlds Vast Majority of People Believe in Creation (Regardless of their Religious affiliation).

So Whats your purpose for singling out 'some christians'?



According to Webster's Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

If you Ask a Scientist for the definition of Science “Method”, and the 1st descriptive word he uses is “Observation”. The Minute a scientists tries to obtain his knowledge of something that Cannot be obtained by “Observation” he has started down the Path of “Junk Science”.

Answer 7

Primoa there said it, it's a knee-jerk reaction. Anything, and i repeat, ANYTHING that suggests that the earth is not 6000 years old, that the flood didn't happen or that living things didn't just poof into existance is immidiately dismissed by them as junk science, as if they knew better than people who spend 10 years studying and 20 years investigating.

Answer 8

You have raised evolution past a level it doesn't deserve by linking it with the word "science". You can use the description "poor" or "deceptive" just as well to describe evolution.

Answer 9

Anything associated with evolution or a 'big bang' or an old earth are immediately tossed aside by me as junk science