Are there any creationist resources (sites, books) to do not misrepresent science and evolution?

[J_B_]

I'm not following. What "flip side" are you talking about?



Honestly, I would suggest starting a new thread if there are specific things you want to discuss.

I did. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[J_B_]

Not absolute statements, just generalizations. But YECs have a lot to lose. For example, they have tied their salvation in Christ to a 6000-year-old Earth, which has been off the table as a scientific proposition for 200 years. Scientists aren't likely to be so defensive if some cosmologist proposes that the universe is 14.1 BY old rather than 13.8.

Generalizations are just as dangerous. Whatever. You're not talking about me.

 

[Speedwell]

Generalizations are just as dangerous. Whatever. You're not talking about me.

No, just giving an example.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You could go to: About CRS
I wrote a thesis once for which their objective data and research proved quite valuable. The individual which provided most of my topic specific data was Duane T. Gish and was, "known by many as the foremost creationist debater in the world." pasted from: Duane Gish - creation.com, also, "But Gish was famous, or notorious, principally on account of his debates with scientists, including such opponents as George Bakken, Kenneth R. Miller, Massimo Pigliucci, Kenneth Saladin, Michael Shermer, and William Thwaites." pasted from: Duane T. Gish dies | National Center for Science Education

By the way, if you wondering how "scientific" he was, "He has held key positions at Berkeley, Cornell University Medical College, and The Upjohn Company, where he collaborated with former Nobel Prize winners in various projects." pasted from: Duane Gish - creation.com and "Duane Gish, Ph.D. earned a B.S. degree in chemistry from UCLA and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from UC-Berkeley. He spent 18 years in biochemical research, including three years at Cornell University Medical College, four years at the Virus Laboratory, UC-Berkeley, and eleven years with the Upjohn Company." pasted from: https://counterbalance.org/bio/duaneg-frame.html

These sites have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot. They almost always make the mistake that this one did. To publish there one must promise not to follow the scientific method. It is rather difficult to claim that you are doing science when you do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You neither debated with him, either, I suppose.

I have not, but I have been to one of his debates. He constantly spews a mixture of half truths, misrepresentations and lies out so quickly that his opponents are often stunned. Scientific debates are usually honest and polite debates. Gish, since he was extremely dishonest, was not polite. Eventually scientists caught on to his technique and it did not work out as well in his later debates as his earlier ones. Only the uneducated were ever convinced by Gish.

 

[Ophiolite]

Only the uneducated were ever convinced by Gish.

So most people?

 

[Andrewn]

Even if creationists were right about our origins and scientists wrong, creationism still wouldn't be science.

Does one of them have to be wrong? Does evolution have to be non-theistic? Is it possible for both views to coexist within a unifying theory?

The answer involves theological issues not suited to this forum.

What theological issues?

Along those lines I read a study awhile back which suggested that creationists have a greater need to be "right" in regards to these subjects (e.g. evolution or denial thereof). Which in turn is probably explained by the fact the stakes do seem higher for creationists with respect to their specific beliefs about the Earth and universe's history.

Look at the other side, would non-theistic evolutionists accept a role for God in evolution or would they consider this "heresy?"

 

[d taylor]

This is the big failing, of main stream creationist debating science with science. A believers only resource in debating science should be the Bible.

Enough is given in the Bible to show, and let a person see if they believe the creation account given in the bible or science's version.

 

[pitabread]

Enough is given in the Bible to show, and let a person see if they believe the creation account given in the bible or science's version.

It's not a dichotomy as the majority of Christians demonstrate.

 

[pitabread]

Look at the other side, would non-theistic evolutionists accept a role for God in evolution or would they consider this "heresy?"

As God is an inherently unfalsifiable concept, science can't say anything one way or another about God's involvement. It's up the individual to decide their own philosophy on that.

 

[d taylor]

It's not a dichotomy as the majority of Christians demonstrate.

The majority of christian also believe in some form of work/obedience based salvation. The majority means nothing if this majority does not line up with the Bible.

 

[pitabread]

The majority means nothing if this majority does not line up with the Bible.

Your opinion of the Bible. Important distinction.

At any rate, if you want to have a theology discussion you should probably take that to the appropriate forums. This is the C/E forum.

If you have any creationist resources that present an accurate representation of science and evolution, then by all means present them. Otherwise, there isn't much point in posting in this thread.

 

[d taylor]

Thats very clever of you to start a thread, knowing there are no christian creationist who accurately represent science according to evolutionist. So then you can further put down the christians creationist who engage you in your game.

I guess you need that confidence builder.

 

[pitabread]

Thats very clever of you to start a thread, knowing there are no christian creationist who accurately represent science according to evolutionist.

I've already brought up Todd Wood as an example of such. I'm curious to see how many other creationists / creationist organizations like him are out there.

 

[coffee4u]

It's not a dichotomy as the majority of Christians demonstrate.

The majority of Christians don't understand the theological details the same way the average person on the street doesn't understand the details of evolution.

Science is based on this world, what is testable here and now. The world as it was created isn't here to test, so even if a creation scientist wanted to run tests based on the scientific method they couldn't. Those who think they can use this current world to prove creation by science are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Shemjaza]

The majority of Christians don't understand the theological details the same way the average person on the street doesn't understand the details of evolution.

Science is based on this world, what is testable here and now. The world as it was created isn't here to test, so even if a creation scientist wanted to run tests based on the scientific method they couldn't. Those who think they can use this current world to prove creation by science are barking up the wrong tree.

Which is all well and good, but the prominent Creationists don't present it that way.

If Creationists just stated "The evidence and conclusions of science are irrelevant, just put your faith in the literal Word." then people wouldn't much care.

It's because they make claims about having scientific justifications and make up falsehoods about what the conclusions and methods of scientists.

 

[pitabread]

Science is based on this world, what is testable here and now. The world as it was created isn't here to test, so even if a creation scientist wanted to run tests based on the scientific method they couldn't. Those who think they can use this current world to prove creation by science are barking up the wrong tree.

This just falls back on Last-Thursdayism-esque philosophy of reality. As you say, it's an unfalsifiable proposition and doesn't seem to be a belief held by most people (Christian or otherwise).

If you think creationists are barking up the wrong tree, I suppose that's something you can take up with them. I'm just interested to see if there are any creationists that accurately represent science and evolution.

 

[Psalm 27]

A common theme among creationist sources is misrepresentations of science and specific theories within science (especially the Theory of Evolution).

I'd be curious to see if it's possible for a creationist criticism of science and evolution while at the same time representing it in a fair and accurate manner. I'm wondering if has anyone ever come across any creationist sources that do present an accurate picture of how science functions and of the scientific theories in question.

[URL="https://askjohnmackay.com/"]Ask John Mackay | Creation Questions & Answers[/URL]

https://creationresearch.net/

 

[Andrewn]

As God is an inherently unfalsifiable concept, science can't say anything one way or another about God's involvement. It's up the individual to decide their own philosophy on that.

Then there is no problem in adding a philosophical concept, be it Biblical or Aristotelian, to evolution theory. This is good to hear.

 

[Andrewn]

The majority means nothing if this majority does not line up with the Bible.

The majority of Christians don't understand the theological details

This attitude is selfish (worshipping your own point of view) and judgmental (denigrating other people and putting them down).