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

[inquiring mind]

"Credentialed scientists" is meaningless if they have no clue what they are taking about. A physicist is a poor person to go to for arguments on biology.

Trust. There is a well earned trust in the sciences. Faith is what one uses when one does not have a reliable belief. I don't have "faith" that a bus will stop at a certain time. I don't have "faith" that a rock will fall when I drop it. People that rely on faith recognize its unreliability so they will accuse others of the same fault.

Done

 

[inquiring mind]

"Credentialed scientists" is meaningless if they have no clue what they are taking about. A physicist is a poor person to go to for arguments on biology.

I'd be impressed if you actually watched the entire video. I thought you would welcome fellow geologist's views anyway.

 

[inquiring mind]

There is a huge difference in the science. One side applies the scientific method. The other orders their workers to shun it, in fact they have to swear to do that. That makes one work scientific and the other not.

Your're using a broad brush there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd be impressed if you actually watched the entire video. I thought you would welcome fellow geologist's views anyway.

What "fellow geologist"? Hopefully not Steve Austin. He has yet to apologize for openly lying when trying to "refute" radiometric dating.

 

[inquiring mind]

What "fellow geologist"? Hopefully not Steve Austin. He has yet to apologize for openly lying when trying to "refute" radiometric dating.

He is a geologist... maybe he didn't consider it a lie. Didn't he mostly say it was inconsistent and that decay rates are slower today than in the past?

 

[pitabread]

Is there an actual difference in the science, or as I think the video says only a difference in the history?

There is an actual difference in the science. Creationists are proposing completely different mechanisms to explain the geological column, and those different mechanisms have different physical consequences.

This is why Glenn Morton left young-Earth creationism. He started working in the petroleum industry and started running into all sorts of things that contradicted all the young-Earth stuff he'd been taught. And when he started bringing up these issues to his young-Earth creationist brethren, they were quite hostile to him about it.

You can read his story here: Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism

 

[pitabread]

He is a geologist... maybe he didn't consider it a lie. Didn't he mostly say it was inconsistent and that decay rates are slower today than in the past?

Accelerated radioactive decay is something that YECs need to use to explain the billions of years worth of radioactivity on Earth. The problem is they need to:

• arbitrarily adjust certain physical constants with no mechanism to do so;
• explain how it only affected certain nuclei (but not all of them);
• explain how these adjustments would occur at certain times but not other times;
• explain how living things somehow survived the massive amounts of heat and radiation that resulted during these periods; and,
• do all of the above without the demonstrable evidence that this actually occurred.

This is why I mentioned earlier that creationists invariably run into the "brick wall" of reality. Essentially they are trying to rewrite physics in a manner that isn't consistent with what we know of the physical universe. What they propose has serious physical consequences that are non-demonstrable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

OK; so that's your opinion on how the creationists you know come to their conclusions. My experience of creationist views of evolution suggests that a significant proportion simply reject it out of hand as contrary to scripture.

But, in any case, it's a pretty loose description of how we explore the world in general - even small children crudely follow that sequence when exploring their environment.

The scientific method has developed from that kind of informal exploration as a formal and rigorous way to avoid or minimise the problems associated with informal means of discovery. IOW, it's about the details, the specifics of how the exploratory process should be managed, not that those stages can necessarily be identified.

So it seems to me that informal explorations of the kind you describe stand in contrast to the scientific method. YMMV.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your man is a good example, as I said he puts evolution in a positive light, yet he openly states he is a creationist who believes God's Word.

He appears to be a notable exception among creationists for that very reason...

 

[inquiring mind]

There is an actual difference in the science. Creationists are proposing completely different mechanisms to explain the geological column, and those different mechanisms have different physical consequences.

This is why Glenn Morton left young-Earth creationism. He started working in the petroleum industry and started running into all sorts of things that contradicted all the young-Earth stuff he'd been taught. And when he started bringing up these issues to his young-Earth creationist brethren, they were quite hostile to him about it.

You can read his story here: Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism

I think they're just saying there is a slow mechanism paradigm and a fast one. I'm not trying to put a date-stamp on creation... the Bible doesn't. Many think they can extrapolate a date from presented lineages, etc., but I don't know about that. I don't think you can account for a compressed history without Divine intervention (i.e. starlight travel), as the video points out. What did you think about the Todd Wood section of the video, or did you get that far?

 

[inquiring mind]

This is why I mentioned earlier that creationists invariably run into the "brick wall" of reality.

And evolutionists haven't?

 

[Speedwell]

And evolutionists haven't?

No, they have no a priori reason to deny reality.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, they have no a priori reason to deny reality.

Well, I tried to answer the OP anyway. The “Is Genesis History?” video has geologist, biologist, zoologist, archeologist and astronomer viewpoints that favor creation, and they present scientific observations that influence their thinking in that regard. I don’t think they’re trashing science mechanisms, they’re scientists, more like saying the Bible has the story right and apply science to that, because as 2 Peter points out, you can’t look backward thinking and projecting it was always so. As for me, my thinking is we can speculate, fill in gaps and missing links all we want, but as far as the Grand Scheme goes, God did it like Genesis says is the best answer. I believe the Bible, and that the majesty and grandeur of the world around us testifies to it.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, I tried to answer the OP anyway. The “Is Genesis History?” video has geologist, biologist, zoologist, archeologist and astronomer viewpoints that favor creation, and they present scientific observations that influence their thinking in that regard. I don’t think they’re trashing science mechanisms, they’re scientists, more like saying the Bible has the story right and apply science to that, because as 2 Peter points out, you can’t look backward thinking and projecting it was always so. As for me, my thinking is we can speculate, fill in gaps and missing links all we want, but as far as the Grand Scheme goes, God did it like Genesis says is the best answer. I believe the Bible, and that the majesty and grandeur of the world around us testifies to it.

But that distorts the scientific method, because it allows conclusions about our origins to be influenced by something other than scientific evidence.

 

[inquiring mind]

But that distorts the scientific method, because it allows conclusions about our origins to be influenced by something other than scientific evidence.

I don't think so. It's using the scientific method and observing that there's some things going on here that we can explain, and some things we can't. Isn't that the case with evolutionists? But, instead of projecting backwards and filling in gaps, creationists think Divine intervention is the best answer. Not accepting Divine intervention will always be a problem for evolution.

 

[pitabread]

And evolutionists haven't?

Not as such, no.

Traditional science is in the business of going out and looking at the natural world and reporting back what they find. Creation science is in the business of first coming with a specific paradigm and then looking at the world to see how they can fit their observations in that paradigm.

In the case of Young Earth Creationism, they've decided based on Biblical genealogies that the Earth is only ~6000 years old. So when they are confronted with something like billions of years worth of observable radiation, they have to come up with a way to force-fit those observations into their paradigm.

 

[pitabread]

It's using the scientific method and observing that there's some things going on here that we can explain, and some things we can't. Isn't that the case with evolutionists? But, instead of projecting backwards and filling in gaps, creationists think Divine intervention is the best answer. Not accepting Divine intervention will always be a problem for evolution.

Arbitrarily invoking divine intervention isn't science though. If creation "science" rests on arbitrary miracles to explain things, then it's not science. They can't test divine intervention.

Now what can be tested are specific claims of creationists. For example, does the world look like it's only 6000 years, does it look like there was a global flood 4500 years ago, etc. And when those things have been tested, the answers that come back are "no".

 

[pitabread]

I think they're just saying there is a slow mechanism paradigm and a fast one. I'm not trying to put a date-stamp on creation... the Bible doesn't. Many think they can extrapolate a date from presented lineages, etc., but I don't know about that. I don't think you can account for a compressed history without Divine intervention (i.e. starlight travel), as the video points out. What did you think about the Todd Wood section of the video, or did you get that far?

I haven't watched the video yet. Rather, I'm referring to published material from various creationist sources. I suspect the video is probably just a rehash of things I've read previously. Creationist arguments don't seem to have changed much in the past couple decades.

In the case of Young Earth creationists they strictly use the Biblical genealogies to date the Earth and universe.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't think so. It's using the scientific method and observing that there's some things going on here that we can explain, and some things we can't. Isn't that the case with evolutionists? But, instead of projecting backwards and filling in gaps, creationists think Divine intervention is the best answer. Not accepting Divine intervention will always be a problem for evolution.

I don't see why it's a problem for evolution since
1. there is no need to invoke divine intervention as an explanatory cause, and
2. there is no evidence of divine intervention.
The problem seems to lie with the creationists, who embrace a lame theology which does not allow for divine involvement except on the plane of causality which the natural sciences study.

 

[inquiring mind]

I don't see why it's a problem for evolution since
1. there is no need to invoke divine intervention as an explanatory cause, and
2. there is no evidence of divine intervention.
The problem seems to lie with the creationists, who embrace a lame theology which does not allow for divine involvement except on the plane of causality which the natural sciences study.

Scientists such as James Hutton and Charles Lyell proposed the concept of millions and billions of years for the different ages and rocks to form (when they appeared to have no beginning or end), which was a pretty bold statement for the day, I suspect. Darwin bought it and based his book on it, observing small changes and projecting them backwards in time. Mainstream science bought it all, especially after dating techniques were developed, so here we go… now everything must conform to the deep time paradigm and evolution. I’m still not date-stamping, but if someone even asks questions like “Are dating techniques a reliable certainty?” or “Aren’t there missing links in evolution?” you’d think the scientific circle got tasered. So, Divine intervention is not a part of mainstream science… I get it, but its sort like the shell & pea game, if you upend two shells and there’s no pea under them, then it would be reasonable to assume that in all likelihood (or at least a strong possibility) it’s under the remaining shell whether you uncover it or not. I know analogies are easily turned, and please don’t say someone could be cheating, but it just saves a lot of words… you know what I’m saying.