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

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... evolutionists can claim creationism is not science (which it’s not), yet creationists can’t claim evolution a belief (despite it not being ‘proven’ or ‘absolute truth’ as you even acknowledge). Creationists are hamstrung right out of the gate… don’t you think?

Yes, they are hamstrung. That's the problem with trying to argue against an evidence-based scientific theory using unsupported assertions that contradict our best empirical knowledge of the world. Who believes what is basically irrelevant in that situation, the evidence is clear.

 

[pitabread]

Thank you for the link. I bookmarked it for future reading.

Do you consider this site to portray evolution accurately?

Absolutely. It was founded originally by Dr. Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome project.

 

[pitabread]

2. I don't believe in Christianity because I don't think Jesus Christ was an Olympic figure skater who is going to take us all to heaven on ice skates.

I could get behind a religion involving traveling to heaven on ice skates.

 

[pitabread]

Yes, they are hamstrung. That's the problem with trying to argue against an evidence-based scientific theory using unsupported assertions that contradict our best empirical knowledge of the world. Who believes what is basically irrelevant in that situation, the evidence is clear.

This is where I think there is an interesting split between creationists that have traditionally tried to argue that creationism can be demonstrated scientifically (e.g. the "creation science" creationists) versus those that adopt a philosophical approach to reality irrespective of what reality shows.

 

[Speedwell]

I could get behind a religion involving traveling to heaven on ice skates.

If you can get to heaven on ice skates I might want to opt for the warmer alternative.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is where I think there is an interesting split between creationists that have traditionally tried to argue that creationism can be demonstrated scientifically (e.g. the "creation science" creationists) versus those that adopt a philosophical approach to reality irrespective of what reality shows.

If some creationists adopt a philosophical approach that is not consistent with what we observe, it's simply counterfactual metaphysics, i.e. discussing the implications of an imaginary alternate reality ("What if...?").

 

[inquiring mind]

The problem is that creationists do not tend to follow the scientific method. It is why the term "Creation scientist" is thought to be an oxymoron. Wood followed the scientific method and had to admit that evolution is strongly supported by evidence. The same cannot be said, as yet, of creationist beliefs.

In a sense, creationists do follow the scientific method. It doesn’t have to be rocket science: they question, they research, they form hypothesis, they experiment, make observations, and draw conclusions. Granted the evidence may be regarded differently from scientific evidence, but I would argue that following ‘over the hill and through the woods’ directions draws a great deal from this process, and requires just as much attention to the journey (if not more), as someone who is relying solely on cartography.

 

[pitabread]

In a sense, creationists do follow the scientific method. It doesn’t have to be rocket science: they question, they research, they form hypothesis, they experiment, make observations, and draw conclusions. Granted the evidence may be regarded differently from scientific evidence, but I would argue that following ‘over the hill and through the woods’ directions draws a great deal from this process, and requires just as much attention to the journey (if not more), as someone who is relying solely on cartography.

Insofar as to the extent that creationists do try to apply the scientific method, they invariably run into the brick wall of reality. This includes either coming with models that impart physical consequences with no tenable solutions, models that are inherently inconsistent (e.g. they don't fit observations), or models that rely on supernatural explanations and therefore inherently non-testable by scientific methods in the first place.

It's also telling that there seems to be no way to derive creationist conclusions directly from the evidence itself. For example, YECs have no way of independently dating the Earth to corroborate their claim of a ~6000 year old Earth based on Biblical genealogies. For example, ICR's own RATE project admits they have to fit billions of years of radioactivity into a 6000 year old time frame. Yet they have no way of doing that.

When you start digging into the "science" side of creation science, it ends up being kind of a mess.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In a sense, creationists do follow the scientific method. It doesn’t have to be rocket science: they question, they research, they form hypothesis, they experiment, make observations, and draw conclusions.

Can you give any documented examples where this has been done?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In a sense, creationists do follow the scientific method. It doesn’t have to be rocket science: they question, they research, they form hypothesis, they experiment, make observations, and draw conclusions. Granted the evidence may be regarded differently from scientific evidence, but I would argue that following ‘over the hill and through the woods’ directions draws a great deal from this process, and requires just as much attention to the journey (if not more), as someone who is relying solely on cartography.

I have never seen anything of theirs placed in the form of a testable hypothesis. Oh wait, that is because those hypotheses always fail. Too bad that they never publish their failures.

 

[inquiring mind]

Can you give any documented examples where this has been done?

By 'in a sense' I was referring to an everyday garden variety Christian, not published ones. I just meant they all (or most) question certain aspects of evolution proportionally to their knowledge in the subject, they even read or even monitor debates like this for knowledge (research), they use reasoning based on what they read or hear to form opinions (their hypotheses), they make observations, and draw conclusions. As I said, it's not a matter of rocket science for most creationists, myself included.

 

[inquiring mind]

Oh wait, that is because those hypotheses always fail.

With you anyway.

 

[inquiring mind]

Too bad that they never publish their failures.

Well, they have Genesis... you may, but I don't consider it a failure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

With you anyway.

With anyone that can reason rationally. You could show us to be wrong and post a case where they did not fail utterly. You made the claim that there have been successful works by them. We have stated that none has ever been posted here. Surprise us once with evidence that supports the claims of creationists instead of empty claims.

Understanding the burden of proof is important. If I say that there is evidence for the evolution of a particular species I would need to supply that evidence if challenged. When creationists claim that there is support for their claims they need to provide evidence when challenged.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, they have Genesis... you may, but I don't consider it a failure.

Sorry, Genesis is the claim. It is not the evidence.

 

[inquiring mind]

You made the claim that there have been successful works by them.

Not sure where you got this, or what context it was in???

 

[inquiring mind]

If I say that there is evidence for the evolution of a particular species I would need to supply that evidence if challenged. When creationists claim that there is support for their claims they need to provide evidence when challenged.

Yes, evidence and interpretation of evidence are two different things.

 

[pitabread]

By 'in a sense' I was referring to an everyday garden variety Christian, not published ones. I just meant they all (or most) question certain aspects of evolution proportionally to their knowledge in the subject, they even read or even monitor debates like this for knowledge (research), they use reasoning based on what they read or hear to form opinions (their hypotheses), they make observations, and draw conclusions. As I said, it's not a matter of rocket science for most creationists, myself included.

Depending on the sources they are using, they may not exactly be relying on correct information. This is one of the reasons I started this thread. Anyone relying on predominantly creationist sources and not fact-checking them could be subject to misleading or false information.

See the example highlighted earlier in the thread.

This is why I also started the other (now locked) thread. If people are assessing a strawman caricature of something (e.g. evolution), they aren't necessarily assessing the real thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not sure where you got this, or what context it was in???

It was implied, but if there are not then that is fine.

Yes, evidence and interpretation of evidence are two different things.

Correct, but to date it does not even appear that creationists have any scientific evidence. Why do you think that they cannot find any?

 

[inquiring mind]

Correct, but to date it does not even appear that creationists have any scientific evidence. Why do you think that they cannot find any?

Evolutionists have trust in man and the scientific method to provide an interpretation of what they consider evidence. Creationists primarily use faith in God's Word (some stop there), and also use the scientific method to provide an interpretation of what they consider evidence. You must mean they can't find any evidence that evolutionists will accept (why this forum is alive and well)... such interpretations of evidence are all over the internet and in published works.