Creation scientists - do they exist?

[The Cadet]

Whoa, do you have any idea what YOU sound like? Wow. . .

What? Am I wrong?

Look, if we go to Creation Ministry International's about page, what do we find?

1. Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

In other words: "We believe a specific interpretation of the bible and anything that challenges that view must be rejected." This is not open, honest scientific inquiry, this is religious dogma.

If we check Answers in Genesis, we find something very similar:

• By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Again, these people are not interested in honest scientific inquiry, because the moment they find information that conflicts with their particular interpretation of the bible, it must be rejected outright. AiG goes so far as to say that by definition, evidence cannot conflict with scripture. This is not how science works. If evidence arose tomorrow that demolished the validity of the theory of evolution (say, if a scientist was able to experimentally establish a hard limit on genetic mutations that was universal throughout all species), then it would of course require verification, but it would not be rejected simply because it runs contrary to what we think we know. Rather, if the evidence held up, we would be forced to accept that our understanding of the theory of evolution is fundamentally wrong, and find an alternative model.

Of course, in 150 years, we haven't. This hasn't stopped groups like AiG from pretending that the theory fails (usually by grossly misrepresenting the scientific method, a la "were you there"), or acting like the creation and flood mythos somehow are scientifically possible (they aren't, and the list of ways we know this stretched around the block), or trying to peddle their crap in public education.

 

[The Cadet]

"Fifty studies were reviewed that surveyed opinions on teaching origins in public schools. The vast majority found about 90% of the public desired that both creation and evolution or creation only be taught in the public schools. About 90% of Americans consider themselves creationists of some form, and about half believe that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years."

That figure is extremely depressing. It means exactly one thing: that we need to do a much better job in science education. It doesn't mean that science suddenly becomes a rote "majority rules" exercise in the democratic shredding of the ivory tower.

Thanks for your question. It led me to search for the figures. Currently, Google has the number at 700 out of 480,000 scientists are creationists. Nevertheless, this is so enlightening when compared with Scripture:

"For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life..." Matthew 7:13-14

"...that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." (Luke 16:15)

Wait, I'm sorry, didn't you just get done with saying that 90% of the public wanted creation to be taught in schools? Apparently Matthew 7:13 only applies to people with an education. This is in fairly blatant contradiction to your previous point.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, NotbyChance, there have been legit scientists who are credited with supporting creation science. What you need to look at, however, is how much of their published research was actually on the topic of creation science.

It's not a scientific topic. It's about recording God as Creator.
God is not a tool.

 

[keith99]

It is often stated on these forums that people who believe in creation can't be real scientists or if they are, they are failed scientists.

Here is a man that seems to be not only a scientist, but an excellent one at that:-
http://creationwiki.org/David_Menton

Yet, this man is a strong believer in creation by the Lord Jesus and totally against evolution. As you can see by the wiki article, he's also been involved in research and received awards, including being voted "Professor of the Year." Note also that Brown University states on its website, "With its talented and motivated student body and accomplished faculty, Brown is a leading research university that maintains a particular commitment to exceptional undergraduate instruction." It goes on, "Brown is a research university that regards the creation of knowledge as one of its fundamental missions. Our faculty and students work at the cutting edge of research in their fields and collaborate with colleagues across disciplines and around the world to address society’s biggest challenges."

In view of all this, it is clear that people of exceptional talent and intellect can and do reject the idea of molecules to man evolution. After watching one of Dr Menton's videos on the human eye, I can understand why he feels like he does. If creation as the most likely explanation for life is good enough for him, with all his expert knowledge, then it's certainly good enough for me.

The eye! The oldest PRATT related to Darwin's Theory.

For those of you who do not know Darwin himself addressed this in The Origin of Species showing not only that there was a reasonable path from a vague sensing of light to the eye as we know it but also that all those steps actually exist in various animals today!

 

[keith99]

That figure is extremely depressing. It means exactly one thing: that we need to do a much better job in science education. It doesn't mean that science suddenly becomes a rote "majority rules" exercise in the democratic shredding of the ivory tower.

Or that Creationists can be dishonest. Find surveys that lack any option that says anything close to 'God created it, science class is not the place to teach that' and then force everything saying 'God did it' into creationism should be taught in science class.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

there was a reasonable path from a vague sensing of light to the eye as we know it

I don't think so - at least not from what I've seen of the way the eye is constructed and functions. Darwin wouldn't have had a clue about that in his time. Same goes for the working of the living cell.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Argument from Incredulity.

Also known as "common sense." We don't see it happening; we have no idea how it could happen: we don't even know that it has happened; statistical probabilities against it happening are so ludicrously high that for it not to happen would, with a little"common sense" easily be the logical conclusion. You should watch Dr Menton's "Evolution: Not a Chance" for just a little bit of enlightenment on this aspect of the argument. Oh, I forgot, Dr Menton can't be trusted can he (according to previous posts)?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

That figure is extremely depressing. It means exactly one thing: that we need to do a much better job in science education. It doesn't mean that science suddenly becomes a rote "majority rules" exercise in the democratic shredding of the ivory tower.

I find it extremely encouraging, especially since with the almost blanket coverage in the media biased towards evolution. Give the creation scientists a level playing field and then you'll really see some changes. But I guess that's why evolutionists want to keep the censorship of alternative ideas in place in our education system.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Look, if we go to Creation Ministry International's about page, what do we find?

1. Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

In other words: "We believe a specific interpretation of the bible and anything that challenges that view must be rejected." This is not open, honest scientific inquiry, this is religious dogma.

Isn't the famous quote from an evolutionist that "we mustn't let a divine foot in the door" doing exactly the same thing? It sure sounds like it to me. Yes, we'll do the research, but even if the available evidence points to God, we'll conjure up some other way to avoid that conclusion, no matter how strong the argument against it. That's not unbiased science by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[keith99]

I don't think so - at least not from what I've seen of the way the eye is constructed and functions. Darwin wouldn't have had a clue about that in his time. Same goes for the working of the living cell.

Wow, just wow. Darwin pointed out the EXISTING examples of the steps needed. He had ar more than a clue he had and gave the physical evidence.

 

[The Cadet]

I wonder what they are afraid of?

Yeah, just like those school administrators who fired me for teaching my class the controversy about the flat earth. What are they afraid of? Letting students hear all sides of all issues, no matter how absurd or long-rejected by the scientific community, is a perfectly productive use of extremely limited school time! Wouldn't you agree? Will you sign my petition to allow guest speakers into the school to teach their scientific research backing the Yggdrasil theory?

Isn't the famous quote from an evolutionist that "we mustn't let a divine foot in the door" doing exactly the same thing?

No, it really isn't. Let me ask you something - if there exists a supernatural being with unlimited power, how can any experiment be considered "verified"? Maybe my drug test just failed because god forced the drug to not work on these patients. Maybe gravity will one day stop working at the whims of a supernatural creator. Maybe my neighbor wasn't lying when he claimed he saw a dragon in his garage that vanished without a trace - maybe it was just God messing with him. Or, to name a particularly cogent example: maybe Noah's flood did happen, and God is just hiding all the evidence and messed with the geologic column, because he doesn't want to leave proof of his existence.

With the divine, science is dead. Science cannot function. Any attempt to understand the laws that make up reality flies out the window when a divine being can change those laws at a whim. Any attempt to make predictive models based on past behavior flies out the window when a divine being can make anything happen or not happen at will. If we allow for the supernatural in science, there is no hypothesis we could ever justifiably accept or reject. This was the point of the quote. If we allow for miracles, science ceases to function.

By contrast, the folks at AiG and CMI aren't talking about how science works at a fundamental level. They aren't saying, "In order for science to work, we must exclude things which make empiricism fundamentally invalid". They're saying, "If your science disagrees with my pre-conceived notions, your science must be wrong". And they are saying this while ostensibly claiming to be upholding the scientific method. Which is absurd. It's not for no reason that the CMI article citing this doesn't actually link to Lewontin's article, which you can find here. Read it. Try to understand the context. Then try to understand how science works. Then maybe you'll understand why, if you let a divine foot in the door, you might as well accept last thursdayism.

but even if the available evidence points to God

But that's just it - as a supernatural being, what evidence could point to god? How could we possibly make a falsifiable definition of a supernatural being? What prediction could we make of a being which is able to bend space and time to its whims that could ever be falsifiable? It's impossible.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I wonder what they are afraid of? Could it be that if children were allowed to hear the other side of the argument, they might start to question the evolutionary indoctrination that currently takes place?

The fact of the matter is, it isn't the job of the school system to indoctrinate kids. Not every religion has the same creation story, so it is unrealistic to expect every perspective to be covered. Evolution is because of just how much scientific evidence supports it. Creationism, on the other hand, has pretty much no evidence supporting it. But hey, that's what faith is for, I suppose.

Why do you feel that you need schools to teach creationism?

 

[sfs]

You just hit the nail on the head. Hence, this thread is so cool!

"...overtly pro-evolution and anti-creationism"

So, how can they be non-biased?

Of course they're not unbiased. All of those organizations exist to favor one point of view: they are all strongly biased in favor of science. That is why they are all pro-evolution and anti-creationism.

Isn't science about observing the observable without interpretation?

Well, no, in fact. Science is about observing the observable and then interpreting it. Mandating in advance which interpretation is permissible is a no-no, though. Hence the rejection of creationism. (Well, that and because creationism has proven completely bankrupt when it comes to providing explanations for physical phenomena.)

Why not look at the science and exclude the imposing of worldviews?

That's exactly what scientists have done. Scientists have a wide range of worldviews, including both nonreligious and religious ones. And yet they almost universally come to the same conclusion about evolution. In fact, scientists came to the conclusion well over a hundred years ago that evolution was a good description of life on this planet. Do you want us to pretend that it isn't?

That's because creationism really isn't science, despite the occasional scientist who embraces it, and in fact largely consists of attacks on genuine science.

Clearly, you have not read this thread through.

Your conclusion is incorrect Were you under the impression that anything in this thread shows creationism is scientific?

Look, I've been looking at creationist arguments for decades now. Instead of speaking in generalities, could you get specific? Can you show me any science that a creationist has done involving genetics? Anything that explains genetic data based on creationist ideas, and is empirically testable? (Note: trying to poke holes in evolution does not qualify.)

 

[Butterfly99]

I wonder what they are afraid of? Could it be that if children were allowed to hear the other side of the argument, they might start to question the evolutionary indoctrination that currently takes place?

Maybe they're afraid of kids growing up to be like some of the posters on this forum who waste an absurd amount of time arguing the earth is flat, the universe is 6000 yrs old, giants are real & there were dinos on Noah's Ark, in addition to getting pretty much all the facts wrong on evolution.

 

[keith99]

Equal time for Aether!

And Phlogiston Chemistry!

And the Plum Pudding Atomic Model!

 

[PsychoSarah]

I find it extremely encouraging, especially since with the almost blanket coverage in the media biased towards evolution. Give the creation scientists a level playing field and then you'll really see some changes. But I guess that's why evolutionists want to keep the censorship of alternative ideas in place in our education system.

You are forcing a level playing field without reason for doing so. Creationism isn't on equal ground with evolution, and it hasn't been for more than a century. This is like trying to promote the idea that the moon is made out of cheese as if it is equally probable to the idea that the moon is made out of rock and dust, even though we have brought back pieces of the moon and thus know it is not cheese!

 

[keith99]

Maybe they're afraid of kids growing up to be like some of the posters on this forum who waste an absurd amount of time arguing the earth is flat, the universe is 6000 yrs old, giants are real & there were dinos on Noah's Ark, in addition to getting pretty much all the facts wrong on evolution.

It's not right that a kid has more larnin than his Pa! (Paraphrase of something Huck Finn's father said).

 

[Hoghead1]

That is not accurate, NotbyChance. There is plenty of coverage of creation science out there. Many TV channels do nothing but present shows designed to knock mainstream science. There is more than one religious channel on the air that features nothing but creation science. We have a local TV station that presents nothing but creation science shows. Just about every university has a creation science group. The local U has had a creation-science booth in the student center for over thirty years. If you ask me, the problem I see is that the media caters far too much to fringe thinkers.

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm not about to waste time on Menton's video. He is simply a dead-beat academician. I have limited time and I want to invest it in watching quality programs.

 

[Hoghead1]

They have a right to be hostile, Jfrsmith. Creation science is not real since in any sense of the word. Maybe it impresses you, but those of us well-educated in science see it for what it is, totally bogus. Also, creation-science material and web sites are generally managed by individuals with little or not scientific or theological education and who often sport mill degrees.