Much is written saying the word Creationism, I have heard of even a book titled "Evolution vs Creationism". It's really a trick, because in that title it is saying that Evolution is fact, and Creation is a belief. The -ism denotes belief, by the author placing the -ism on creation, she assumes Evolution to be superior.
I do not believe in Creationism, when people say that to me, I ask for God's grace to gently correct them. Creation is fact; logic and reason are on my side. Evolutionists however will laud at me and say, no way. My simple reply back to them is this "Is logic a part of nature?"
Naturalism is the belief that the Laws of Nature and matter is all that exist. Secular Science is driven by Philosophical Naturalism. Logic is an abstraction, not actual matter. So a Naturalist has no reason to believe in Logic.
Logic, does it change?
Did Logic have a beginning?
Will Logic continue after me or you are gone?
An Evolutionist must assume logic to do anything, he already assumes that he can logically make an argument and interpret evidence. He assumes the Scientific Method as the most successful methodology in finding out truth. The problem with this is that the Scientific Method itself is a logical fallacy.
Formal Fallacies
Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent
If p, then q à q therefore p
Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent
If p, then q à not p therefore no q
If you form a hypothesis which predicts a result, if they get the result the hypothesis is confirmed, if they do not get the result then it is denied
Let’s put our p’s and q’s in it.
If hypothesis (p) then result (q): result (q) therefore hypothesis (p) is true: Fallacy of Affirming the consequent
If hypothesis (p) then result (q): not result (q) therefore hypothesis (p) is not true: Fallacy of Denying the antecedent.
This is a big problem for Secular Scientists; most do not even realize this. Secular Philosophers of Science are baffled because the Scientific Method seems to work when it is logical fallacy. When I wrote my paper on the “Myth of the Scientific Method” in my research in Science Education class I wish I knew this. Here is a thought; maybe they got rid of teaching Logic and Reasoning in Public Schools because they are hiding this fact, maybe if students actually thought logically they would learn, something that’s beyond what their teachers are capable of teaching.
As a Creationist, and a Christian I have reason to believe that the Scientific Method can work. God upholds the universe in a logical manner, and I am made in His image with the capability to use His logic. Logic is a reflection of God’s mind that governs the universe. If you think about it, Logic has no beginning or end, it cannot be destroyed, or created, it is an abstraction.
God wants us to love Him with our entire mind as well, Logic and Reasoning is not high-minded when we use it in a way that glorifies the Creator. It is not too philosophical either, God created us as rational beings able to use His logic. The thing is people don’t always act in a logical fashion, we are sinful creatures. That’s why we logically need a savior to save us from our sins. Jesus Christ is that Savior
I do not believe in Creationism, when people say that to me, I ask for God's grace to gently correct them. Creation is fact; logic and reason are on my side. Evolutionists however will laud at me and say, no way. My simple reply back to them is this "Is logic a part of nature?"
Naturalism is the belief that the Laws of Nature and matter is all that exist. Secular Science is driven by Philosophical Naturalism. Logic is an abstraction, not actual matter. So a Naturalist has no reason to believe in Logic.
Logic, does it change?
Did Logic have a beginning?
Will Logic continue after me or you are gone?
An Evolutionist must assume logic to do anything, he already assumes that he can logically make an argument and interpret evidence. He assumes the Scientific Method as the most successful methodology in finding out truth. The problem with this is that the Scientific Method itself is a logical fallacy.
Formal Fallacies
Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent
If p, then q à q therefore p
Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent
If p, then q à not p therefore no q
If you form a hypothesis which predicts a result, if they get the result the hypothesis is confirmed, if they do not get the result then it is denied
Let’s put our p’s and q’s in it.
If hypothesis (p) then result (q): result (q) therefore hypothesis (p) is true: Fallacy of Affirming the consequent
If hypothesis (p) then result (q): not result (q) therefore hypothesis (p) is not true: Fallacy of Denying the antecedent.
This is a big problem for Secular Scientists; most do not even realize this. Secular Philosophers of Science are baffled because the Scientific Method seems to work when it is logical fallacy. When I wrote my paper on the “Myth of the Scientific Method” in my research in Science Education class I wish I knew this. Here is a thought; maybe they got rid of teaching Logic and Reasoning in Public Schools because they are hiding this fact, maybe if students actually thought logically they would learn, something that’s beyond what their teachers are capable of teaching.
As a Creationist, and a Christian I have reason to believe that the Scientific Method can work. God upholds the universe in a logical manner, and I am made in His image with the capability to use His logic. Logic is a reflection of God’s mind that governs the universe. If you think about it, Logic has no beginning or end, it cannot be destroyed, or created, it is an abstraction.
God wants us to love Him with our entire mind as well, Logic and Reasoning is not high-minded when we use it in a way that glorifies the Creator. It is not too philosophical either, God created us as rational beings able to use His logic. The thing is people don’t always act in a logical fashion, we are sinful creatures. That’s why we logically need a savior to save us from our sins. Jesus Christ is that Savior