Creationism is religious propaganda. It is in no way, shape, or form considered scientifically valid. The very premise of creationism is based on the idea "intelligent design" which is far from being "intelligent" considering the many biological flaws of pretty much every Earth species including humans (wisdom teeth, appendixes, gallbladders etc). The Earth is also not 6,000 years old and humans did not exist until billions of years after the Earth became habitable, contrary to Creationist teachings of humans existing from the very beginning. Snakes or serpents are not biologically capable of communicating with humans. The idea of "forbidden fruit" is fictional. Women did not come from men's rib cages. Men did not come from dirt. Humans, like every other species, evolved from a single celled organism. There are so many things, I can literally go on and on but I will end it here. Creationism is a joke and the fact that people actually believe it and try to pass it off as actual science is alarming.
Creationism and science have always worked together- Creationism is science. Just take a look at science and the theory of evolution. Look past the mask that media and the bias have put on evolution and see all the flaws within it. I promise you, they will have the same result.
Creationism and science aren't incompatible, but creationism is incompatible with the discoveries, findings, and theories by biologists. Creationism says that all life exists as is in its present form ever since they just magically appeared. That runs contrary to the theory of evolution that says that extant species have adapted to their environment and that all living species share a common ancestor. No biologist knows for sure how life originated, but it's highly unlikely that god(s) just created everything as is currently.
Common guys! Were not talking, "can there only be science?" its, "does science contradict the bible." and the only reason i say yes is that Evolution contradicts the bible. And although most scientists accept evolution as absolute fact, it is absolute nonsense! That is going to flat out offend a lot of people, but it aggravates me when an evolutionist says, "look at the evidence!" That is where i say, "Yes! Looks at the evidence! There is next to nothing there that can even closely relate as positive evidence for the "theory" (aught to be hypothesis) of Evolution!" in fact, there is much evidence that was at first thought to be for macroevolution but was then discovered to be against it! The sedimentary rock, for instance. It is said that it takes several million years, just for one layer to form! And there are many, many layers! Yet, multiple layers can be made in the span of several hours if a catastrophe occurs! (mt. St. Helens formed several different layers within 5 hours after eruption.) but, what really kills on the scientists is whats in the rock. Fossils. The fossils found in the rock change after each layer. Getting to "simpler" and "simpler" organisms as you go down. Yet, in the lowest layers, many complex life forms, forms similar to those found near the top, can be found! This is strong evidence AGAINST Macroevolution.
"Science" is defined as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Obviously someone can be a creationists and a scientist. Similarly, someone can be a naturalist and a scientist. There is no contradiction and there never will be.
Not much of an argument, more of a question for the reader, the main debate between the two is that creationism believes that the universe was by design, whereas science believes it was effectively chance and fate. The question is therefore if the chance and fate of life existing and the big bang occurring being absolutely minuscule, is that not proof that something was designed? Fate and chance exist yes, but how much so that everything we see and do have the smallest nearly impossible possibilities of occurring, so can we not believe something maybe guided us the way we are? Evolution of small cells and bacteria have resulted in over 7 billion human life forms, and billions of other life forms around the planet, each with its own habitats and ways of life. It is difficult to comprehend that this and everything we know and are, is due to a game of chance played out every second of every day since the dawn of time itself
This depends, according to what scientist, and according to what science does creationism agree or disagree with, science is just analyzing the world around you and making a conclusion, the theory that god created the world is science, arguably this is true, but the point is, creationism is not contradictory to certain results of science, but neither agrees with or disagrees with science itself, just certain conclusions, generally drawn by atheists, hat are also arguably scientific, in fact, atheists are known through history for both their attempts to discredit the bible, and the ridiculous and probably purposeful mistakes they made, for example, when archaeologists discovered Jericho, they, because they were atheists, said that the bible was wrong because Jericho fell 400 years before Ramses, the pharaoh that was in power during the exodus, the issue is that the Jews were in Egypt 400 years before Ramses also, so this actually proved the bible right.
I, although not religious, currently attend a Catholic high school and have never once been told by a teacher, whether it be for religion or science, that the Bible was to be taken literally. The creation story is supposed to be symbolic, and the main point of it is that God created the universe and that we have Sabbath because God rested on the seventh day (although God's time and our interpretation of time are different). When taken literally, the obviously conflict, but the symbolism is more important.
Atheists tend to argue that the bible or Koran or the Torah have irrational or unbelievable stories. They fail to realize, however, that these stories were created as parables to guide a believer in their everyday life. The story of the good Samaratain is as true as Noah's ark. Some things aren't meant to be taken literally, many things in the bible are symbolism for spiritual things that can't be described literally or wouldn't be unstood if described literally. If science says that the Big Bang happened and that man evolved, I have no problem believing that and being a faithful Christian simultaneously. Science can't definitively say that God doesn't exist as much as Religion can say that God does exit.
Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the "Physical and natural world" through observation and experiment. This means that Scientific study excludes the supernatural world entirely...Which means it cannot attest to the accuracy of belief in the Supernatural. This would be the equivalent of Architechtual ideology professionally contradicting Quantum Physics Theories...They have nothing to do with one another.
They may not be fully 100% supported by one another, but they certainly don't contradict. Check out this video, where Eric Metaxas delivers an adapted article that he had written for the Wall Street Journal, in which he argues that science does not refute a creator, but rather it supports the idea. It's a neat video with lots of good points to ponder.