Creation scientists - do they exist?

[Derek Meyer]

Derek Meyer, thank your for clearing that up. . . Let's start with origins if you want to exclude supernatural means from purely natural processes, then we could go to chemicals to life, then we could progress to vast amounts of information and the accompanying language within DNA. . . there seems to be a few miracles in the notion of evolution.

Jfrsmth, signing off from Christian Forums.

Then why did you use the words 'evolutionary scientists'? Evolutionists study life. Biology.

What you're describing is not evolution. That's abiogenesis. Even if God poofed life into existence on earth, it won't change the theory of evolution at all.

 

[CarlaB]

there seems to be a few miracles in the notion of evolution.

Only for someone who won't or don't understand evolution, which is yours don't or won't?

 

[Derek Meyer]

Only for someone who won't or don't understand evolution, which is yours don't or won't?

Carla, notice the 'in the notion of evolution'.That person watched a few Dr Dino videos and thinks that the BB is part of the theory of evolution.

 

[In situ]

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.

I would not say that - and I don't think people claim that either. What is often seen is named scientist , or referred to as a scientific source by creationists, in these forums. These, referred to, scientist are often claimed to be failed scientist. I.e. the scientist as source (or as authority in the field) has been rejected based on their own (failed) achievements in their field of profession. Some of these "scientist" are not even scientist, and if they are, they are most often not scientist or experts in the field they have an opinion - supposed to validate the YEC argument - so why should such scientist opinion then matter more than mine, your, or anyone else opinion?

Imo, a creationist scientist is not a scientist in creationism but a scientist that also happens to believe in creation. Simply because there is no know research field called "creationism" - this have even been acknowledged by leading creationists them self.

Therefore, I see a difference in naming someone a "scientist" and a "creationist scientist". It does not mean (s)he is a scientist in creations or that creations is a science - it just mean some scientist are labeled with their belief, just like a scientist can be called a "religious scientist" - that does not mean religion is science, does it?

In that respect creationist scientist are real scientist, but they are scientist that carries non-scientific beliefs. I have no problem with that. Just like I have no problem with a "religious scientist".

However, it begins to becomes a problem when one starts to claim once non-scientific beliefs are scientific and this is where the so called "creationist scientist" comes into the picture. When you start to say that creation and science is compatible and when you further on claims evolution is false, this where we start to see these so called failed scientist pop up.

But what does it mean to fail as a scientist?

In science your success rate is measured in number of publication, number of grad student you produce, the size of your research group, your influence on other scientist research, etc, etc. If you look at these factors, then you soon find out that "creationist scientist" do below average, e.g. the poster child of Intelligent Design, Michael Behe, fits in here.

If we look at "creationist scientists" at creationist institutes like Answer In Genesis (AiG), then it is even worse. There scientific achievement is far below average. Based on the measurement YEC organiaations have, I could call myself a scientist, but I don't.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

If the Prodigal Son was not a real person, would that make Jesus a liar?

Not at all. Jesus told many parables as part of his teaching methods and this was clearly one of those, as everyone would have understood at the time. However, whenever Jesus quoted from Genesis or other parts of the Old Testament, He never referred to them as just made-up stories. So here we have the Creator of the universe, confirming the authority of Scripture; the only one who has walked the face of this earth who knows everything.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Nobody here is claiming to know for certain how life came about - except you.

Nobody? Check the earlier posts - you'll see that someone not only claimed that but also claimed that it had been done in the lab.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

n that respect creationist scientist are real scientist, but they are scientist that carries non-scientific beliefs. I have no problem with that. Just like I have no problem with a "religious scientist".

However, it begins to becomes a problem when one starts to claim once non-scientific beliefs are scientific and this is where the so called "creationist scientist" comes into the picture. When you start to say that creation and science is compatible and when you further on claims evolution is false, this where we start to see these so called failed scientist pop up.

The point is though, these people, like any scientist, are dealing with scientific matters on a daily basis and yet they still come to the conclusion that macro evolution is false. If the evidence were so conclusive in favour of evolution, then logic dictates that they would be happy to accept it.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

You determined this, how exactly?

OK, so you don't believe that. Now tell me, what is your understanding of the probabilities of life having got started on it's own, let alone surviving and managing to find a way to reproduce itself?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

That does not follow at all.

Oh well, you can tell Him that when you stand before Him on the great Day of Judgement can't you.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

The flat earth society rejects a spherical earth as well, but that doesn't make it flat.

Irrelevant.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

You mean like the Bagavad Ghita and the Quran?

You've obviously done your research haven't you [not]. The other books you mention are not in the same league as the Bible. Check it out.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You've obviously done your research haven't you [not]. The other books you mention are not in the same league as the Bible. Check it out.

Muslims would heavily dispute that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nobody? Check the earlier posts - you'll see that someone not only claimed that but also claimed that it had been done in the lab.

Quote it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

OK, so you don't believe that.

I didn't tell you what I believe.

You asserted something and I asked how you determined that.

Now tell me, what is your understanding of the probabilities of life having got started on it's own, let alone surviving and managing to find a way to reproduce itself?

Why are you turning it around, when I merely asked you a question about YOUR assertion?

I'm not making any claims here. I'm just questioning YOUR claims.

I don't claim to know how life started.

Now please, instead of answering my question with another (irrelevant) question, please explain how you determined that which YOU claimed.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Plenty of religions for you to choose from. I don't need to invent a new one.

So you really think that IS will still be around in thousands of years from now, (even with the benefit of modern communications)? In addition, they are promoting their hatred with brutal force - Jesus's followers willingly gave their lives in His name and some are still doing it today. If you really think they should even be mentioned on the same page as Christianity, then that tells me how little you know about the book you obviously revile.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Muslims would heavily dispute that.

They can dispute that all they like. The fact remains.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Oh well, you can tell Him that when you stand before Him on the great Day of Judgement can't you.

And again you are all over the place instead of on topic of your own claims.

You stated that because god created life (which you have not shown to be true in any way), god is in control of everything in the universe.

I stated that that doesn't follow at all.

I don't see how the statement "X is in control of EVERYTHING" logically follows from "X created life".

Seems like you are just making one unsupported claim after the other and jumping all around. And when it is pointed out, you run of in even more besides the point one-liners.

I can only conclude that you do this in an attempt to run from your own claims when questioned.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They can dispute that all they like. The fact remains.

Facts should be demonstrable. All you have is belief.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Irrelevant.

No, rather bang on the money...

It's the exact equivalent of what you said concerning biological evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you really think that IS will still be around in thousands of years from now, (even with the benefit of modern communications)?

Islam has been around for the past 1500 years. They number in over a billion and are the fastest growing religion world wide.

I think it's safe to assume that it still will be around in the future.

In addition, they are promoting their hatred with brutal force - Jesus's followers willingly gave their lives in His name and some are still doing it today.

There are martyrs in every religion. It's really not rare, unique or special.

If you really think they should even be mentioned on the same page as Christianity, then that tells me how little you know about the book you obviously revile.

Every follower of a religion thinks his/her religion is special.