What has Creation Science contributed to medical or agricultural advances?

LittleNipper said:

I imagine if your child was found to have spinal meningitis, you would find time to pray...

Click to expand...

And should this happen to you, I am sure, that if they recovered, you would thank god and not the doctors who knew what to do.

TheBear said:

Creation science - now it's your turn to take the stage! It's time to show your accomplishments and contributions to medical and agricultural advances.

Click to expand...

Creation Scientiests have contributed a lot. That is scientiests that believe in a Creator and thus they believe in His creation. When it comes to agriculture, the amish contributed quite a bit. They were the ones that worked with the seeds and the crops from the old world, to get them to work here in the new world. Also people like Mendal that were creationists did quite a bit to contribute.

And-U-Say said:

By the way, how well did "christian therapy of the mind" work in stopping the black plague?

Click to expand...

The Hebrew gettos where they followed the Bible and the teaching of Moses to properly remove the garbage from the city, did not have any problem with the plague at all. At times the Jewish people were even blamed for the plague, because they did not seem to be effected by it.

JohnR7 said:

Creation Scientiests have contributed a lot. That is scientiests that believe in a Creator and thus they believe in His creation. When it comes to agriculture, the amish contributed quite a bit. They were the ones that worked with the seeds and the crops from the old world, to get them to work here in the new world. Also people like Mendal that were creationists did quite a bit to contribute.

Click to expand...

You make the mistake of many before you, the question wasn't about Creationists but what has Creation, as a valid 'science' brought to those fields? Nothing.

Pete Harcoff said:

I predict that before this thread is over we will see:

1) Claims from creationists that evolution is useless (despite the fact that evolution has practical uses)

2) A big long list of creationists who were also scientists, most of who were around before Darwin's time

Click to expand...

JohnR7 said:

Creation Scientiests have contributed a lot. That is scientiests that believe in a Creator and thus they believe in His creation.

Click to expand...

Looks like Pete Harcoff is at least partially correct on #2. No list yet though.

Here's a list of the things we use creation science for in my laboratory:

Nymphalidae said:

Here's a list of the things we use creation science for in my laboratory:

Click to expand...

Hehe.

LittleNipper said:

The reason we have hospitals has more to do with Christian advancement than anything non-Christians ever promoted... I do not think that makes Christians better, but it does seem to indicate that they have had a soft spot for people in distress. And that it wasn't always about money as it is since secularists have taken over...

Click to expand...

Sorry Nipper, that's a social advancement tied to Christianity, not a scientific or technological advancement tied to creationism.

BTW, catastrophism hasn't had anything added to it by creation science. Also, nobody said that evolution was behind EVERY scientific advance (plastic, model T as you mentioned) but is behind some. For instance, how would we understand the proliferation of antibiotic resistant bacteria unless we had an understanding of how populations evolve through natural selection?

This? Again?

I remember creating a couple of threads asking the same question. Not surprisingly, no creationists were able to provide anything close to answering the question.

Except for that one person who was trying to change the definition of 'Creationism' in order to include the achievements of any scientists who believe in god.

And-U-Say said:

And should this happen to you, I am sure, that if they recovered, you would thank god and not the doctors who knew what to do.

Click to expand...

My family doctor once told me that Doctors don't heal patients. They only assist the body to do what GOD intended. He also suggested praying for the doctors so that they know what to do, what not to do, and when to do it best, makes their job a lot easier.

"Scientific" creationism is by far the most useless and dangerous of all pseudo-sciences.

Peace.

Matthew777 said:

"Scientific" creationism is by far the most useless and dangerous of all pseudo-sciences.

Peace.

Click to expand...

Scientific creationism is really just micro ID as opposed to macro ID:

Micro Intelligent Design: An intelligent designer made the first couple small cells, and let natural forces take over

Macro Intelligent Design: An intelligent designer made all the animals we see here today.

"Scientific" creationism is by far the most useless and dangerous of all pseudo-sciences.

Click to expand...

Quite agreed. Not only in terms of the scientific realm, with the spreading of ignorance and whatnot, it is also arguably detrimental to Christianity itself; by tying our faith with faulty science, we end up rejecting both, and turning away others.

TheBear said:

What scientific advances has 'creation science' contributed?

Click to expand...

Plenty.

Pasteur's work in biogenesis was for the reason that "He argued that the notion of “spontaneous generation (like materialism in general) threaten the very concept of God the Creator” (Geison, p. 371, Bibliography of Scientific Discovery)."

That certainly fits the narrow "matter coming into existence" definition imposed on "Creation science."

"Newton's science was closely related to his theology. In the General Scholium of his Principia, he states that its purpose was to establish the existence of God (Westfall, 205,290; Clark, 12; Brooke, p.169; Mandelbrote, p.292,300). It was to combat atheism (Mandelbrote, p.292), challenge the mechanical explanation, and point to the need for a wise and benevolent deity and an intelligent Creator (Harrison, p.27). He believed that the universe was governed by general, natural laws set up by God, but preserved by special providence, i.e., aided by supernatural acts, such as comets (Harrison, p.27; Mandelbrote, p.290)."

From http://www.grisda.org/bclausen/papers/aid.htm

If the purpose of his scientific endevours were to "Establish the existence of God" and "point to the need for a wise and benevolent deity and an intelligent Creator" every discovery he made would have to be considered under the realm of Creation science, especially since he set out to prove God as Creator.

If one were so inclined, which I'm really not, I'd venture to say that you could find other comments from Faraday, Carver, etc., that they undertook certain works for the reason of proving God as Creator; i.e. Creation science.

Umm...Newton and Pasteur's scientific accomplishments were obviously not in creation science, but actual science.

So people can tell the difference:

Creation Science
Actual science

LittleNipper said:

My family doctor once told me that Doctors don't heal patients. They only assist the body to do what GOD intended. He also suggested praying for the doctors so that they know what to do, what not to do, and when to do it best, makes their job a lot easier.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I can now conclude that those who flunked out of med school weren’t guilty of poor study habits, but that you weren’t praying hard enough for them to pass their exams.

It’s your fault, Nip. Perhaps a disillusioned ex- med school student can sue you for damages.

JohnR7 said:

The Hebrew gettos where they followed the Bible and the teaching of Moses to properly remove the garbage from the city, did not have any problem with the plague at all. At times the Jewish people were even blamed for the plague, because they did not seem to be effected by it.

Click to expand...

nor were the muslims affected by the plague, cause they washed themselves numerous times a day. while europeans thought that washing was a means for the plague to spread.