Developing a Testable Scientific Model of Created Kinds

started

To be acceptable in the scientific community, a model must not directly mention God nor use the many names and titles which could be used instead. They will only claim it is supernatural and beyond the realm of science. It must not directly mention Noah's Flood or reference the ark. Again, they will claim it is untestable.

This requirement need not be a hindrance! To state an aquatic extinction event occurred at a certain time interval is testable. If it occurred, then there should be evidence. Yet to state the same thing as Noah's Flood occurred will create many distractions to the scientific debate and impede acceptance in the scientific community.

When they try to compare evolution to creationism ... placing science against faith, we should be able to stop it immediately by pointing to the Model of Created Kinds for the Model of Evolution (science to science). Their ommon and constant attempts to create an unfair playing field must be stopped.

Replace Evolutionary Terminology Even within our own ranks ... there is an acceptance of evolutionary terminology that undermines the very concepts of creation we are supposed to defend. This must also be corrected.

The agreement with or use of 'microevolution' and similar terms must stop in the creation model. While we can agree with small changes, microevolution implies evolutionary processes which we disagree with.

Another term with strong evolutionary implications is 'adaptation'. This word should be avoided. Instead of stating something has adapted to the environment, I suggest the word 'acclimate'.

Similarly, the use of Natural Selection has grown to imply an evolutionary motion in which physical processes can build something up over time even if the strict definition of the phrase does not state it. This must be avoided.

Answer Common Secular Science Complaints

It is claimed that we cannot define a 'kind'. Let us give them the definition. Let us go a step further and even define species (something they are unable to do) within the perspective of kinds.

Correct Common Misconceptions It often comes up that secular science tries to use speciation as proof of evolution and that those who follow creation science do not understand that speciation is expected and accepted within the creation model. This is because both the Creation and Evolution models allow for variation and speciation. Simply having variation does not state how it was produced. The Creation and Evolution Models expect [mostly] different processes to be involved. Therefore, to prove one model or the other, one must look at the process which caused the change. This, and similar concepts, should be addressed and made clear.

This page is under construction. My apologies for any misspellings, repeated text, missing references, etc. Please visit again later for a more complete treatment of this topic.