Bias against creationism in biology

[JustMeSee]

No one is stopping the discovery of evidence to support biblical creation. If people can find it, have at it.

Well, having very little biology learning formally, I can't have at anything in the field.

My passion is more in tune with the arts and application development. A undergraduate bioinformatics course was my deepest formal bridge into biology. I relied heavily on the biology peers for the scientific stuff.

Learning can from self research, there is nothing wrong with that; but a formal education can be viewed more as a credible source of knowledge.

If anything is actually stopping creationists from finding evidence, it is the inability to even know how to find evidence. This can be said of most of us when looking at other people's fields.

You say something is so. Either I believe you, refuse to believe you, or actually seek my own hands on answer.

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe there is a strong bias against creationism in the field of biology.
I believe we should have more creationists with doctorate level degrees in biology.

Graduate students in the biological sciences are expected to work on a research thesis as part of larger research project run by their advising professor. What research are creationists doing?

Secondly, there are plenty of christian schools out there that could afford to start graduate programs in the biological sciences. What is stopping them from instituting a creationist program? It would seem that the creationists are self-censoring. I think even the creationists realize that a scientific argument for creationism is nonsense.

Of note, Dr. Kurt Wise was a creationist and continues to be a creationist. He graduated from Harvard and studied under Stephen Jay Gould. Wise's papers were on evolution, not creationism, but he certainly wasn't discriminated against, and Gould actually had good things to say about him.

 

[JustMeSee]

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread ... nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
-Isaac Azimov

Was your last quote referring primarily to American politics? I hope you realize that politics are inextricably linked to the funding for research, among other things. Did you happen to take the time to watch the documentary-style movie called No Intelligence Allowed, with Ben Stein? Is it intellectually honest for professors and universities to essentially declare; "Evolution is the answer...just don't ask any question that doesn't lead to that conclusion"?

I'm also curious...did you happen to read Antony Flew's book, THERE IS A GOD? I hope you realize that he was a long-term mouthpiece for the evolutionary worldview who essentially recanted the basic premises and conclusions of that view, based on following the evidence wherever it leads. Under your "logic", you would have to say that Flew was a good intellectual for many years but sadly became an anti-intellectual. If this is your opinion, it belies only propaganda rather than serious thinking.

I shall research those sources. Thanks.

I believe Mr Ben Stein is a expert on financial stuff, and an actor on the side. I am curious to see, not what he has to say, but those who actually have great knowledge in sciences have to say in his documentary.

Yes, every detail of evolution should be tested and retested. Honest findings should be shared. If prior knowledge is found to be in error, it should be addressed and updated.

The theory of evolution is not a conclusion. It is a body of evidence that is linked together. Any of the evidence can be validated or invalidated. Removing or adding a single marble to a case of marbles does not change the fact that you have a case of marbles.

Learned creationist biologists could start removing broken marbles from the case of evolution.

Creationist biologists could fill the case of marbles with those which shows evidence for a created origin.

Empty the evidence box for the theory of evolution and you will have an empty box. There would no longer be a theory of evolution. The professors alleged comments would then have no merit.

Are there any marbles in the evidence box for created origins? Is there even a box? Creationist biologists could work on getting that box filled.

 

[bhsmte]

I shall research those sources. Thanks.

I believe Mr Ben Stein is a expert on financial stuff, and an actor on the side. I am curious to see, not what he has to say, but those who actually have great knowledge in sciences have to say in his documentary.

Yes, every detail of evolution should be tested and retested. Honest findings should be shared. If prior knowledge is found to be in error, it should be addressed and updated.

The theory of evolution is not a conclusion. It is a body of evidence that is linked together. Any of the evidence can be validated or invalidated. Removing or adding a single marble to a case of marbles does not change the fact that you have a case of marbles.

Learned creationist biologists could start removing broken marbles from the case of evolution.

Creationist biologists could fill the case of marbles with those which shows evidence for a created origin.

Empty the evidence box for the theory of evolution and you will have an empty box. There would no longer be a theory of evolution. The professors alleged comments would then have no merit.

Are there any marbles in the evidence box for created origins? Is there even a box? Creationist biologists could work on getting that box filled.

No one has stopped a creationist who decides to study science from finding evidence and filling the box you speak of.

Meanwhile, the theory of evolution has withstood 150 years of rigorous review and the theory has only gotten stronger as time goes on, because more evidence (like DNA) has been discovered that supports the theory.

Ever heard of Francis Collins? He is a devoted christian and a physician, geneticist and former head of the human genome project. Look up his take on the theory of evolution. His take is, the evidence to support the theory of evolution is so strong, doing biology without evolution, is the equivalent of doing physics without math.

 

[JustMeSee]

Depending on one's psychological makeup, people can reconcile a whole lot of beliefs, if the belief is important enough to them.

There is a reason, 99% of Phd biologists, agree quite strongly with the theory of evolution and some of those, are biologists who happen to be christian.

I did not use the word christian. The origin beliefs of Christians vary greatly. In myunderstanding, on a world scale, a larger percentage of Christians DO NOT take The Book of Genesis literally.

Created origins can be any religion or lack there of. You say 99%, but if evidence can be found for some other history or process, that major percentage can be reduced.

The accusation may be that doctors of biology are not honest, or are misleading. Well, a great way of addressing that would be to have students, created origin, get in there and start shattering the evidence. Testing with knowledge. If something is being falsely represented, have the knowledge to actually be able to poke holes in the evidence. Doing it blindly isn't going to cut it.

 

[JustMeSee]

My point is that there are people who stick their whole bodies in the sand rather than just their heads, just to emphasize the level of denial. You can physically touch DNA and see it, measure it, etc. It is a quirk of one of the ways people replicate DNA and study it, it becomes unwound enough that you can see it with the naked eye.

I saw my DNA at the Franklin Institute. I don't recall how I did it. I was just following the instructor's directions. I saw it floating, but really can't defend what it was. With my poor eye sight, it could have been sea monkeys.

 

[Loudmouth]

I shall research those sources. Thanks.

I believe Mr Ben Stein is a expert on financial stuff, and an actor on the side. I am curious to see, not what he has to say, but those who actually have great knowledge in sciences have to say in his documentary.

You only need to look at what the peer reviewed papers say. The authority in science is the evidence, and that evidence is published in peer reviewed journals. Creationists are found nowhere in these journals. Creationists aren't found in labs. Creationists aren't found in the field. The only place you find creationists is in the church collecting speaking fees.

 

[Loudmouth]

I saw my DNA at the Franklin Institute. I don't recall how I did it. I was just following the instructor's directions. I saw it floating, but really can't defend what it was. With my poor eye sight, it could have been sea monkeys.

Probably something similar to this:

Grade 10-12

 

[bhsmte]

I did not use the word christian. The origin beliefs of Christians vary greatly. In myunderstanding, on a world scale, a larger percentage of Christians DO NOT take The Book of Genesis literally.

Created origins can be any religion or lack there of. You say 99%, but if evidence can be found for some other history or process, that major percentage can be reduced.

The accusation may be that doctors of biology are not honest, or are misleading. Well, a great way of addressing that would be to have students, created origin, get in there and start shattering the evidence. Testing with knowledge. If something is being falsely represented, have the knowledge to actually be able to poke holes in the evidence. Doing it blindly isn't going to cut it.

It is hard to be misleading or dishonest with empirical evidence, that is objective and available for all to see. That is, unless one wants to ruin their career as a scientist.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Probably something similar to this:

Grade 10-12

Yup, that is what I was talking about, essentially.

 

[Strathos]

Why should evidence and education change one's religious belief?

It shouldn't, but it can change people's interpretations of those beliefs (and unfortunately often leads to them abandoning the belief entirely once they see that their interpretation is flawed).

 

[WisdomSpy]

PsychoSarah said: "You can physically touch DNA and see it, measure it, etc. It is a quirk of one of the ways people replicate DNA and study it, it becomes unwound enough that you can see it with the naked eye. "

Umm, could you provide a credible source for this statement? I think you are confusing animation with reality. Or perhaps you speak of chromosomes as seen at certain stages of mitosis, under light microscopy. Are you aware of the size of a single DNA nucleotide and what it would take to "see" it?

 

[JustMeSee]

Probably something similar to this:

Grade 10-12

Great thanks. It was 45 minute info class for members. This looks more involved. I am guessing that some prep was made prior to the class.

Sadly, my arts high school was new and we had little hands on work.

 

[JustMeSee]

It is hard to be misleading or dishonest with empirical evidence, that is objective and available for all to see. That is, unless one wants to ruin their career as a scientist.

Sadly, I often struggle to understand details, lack of basic knowledge on my part. Reading peer review leads me to having multiple tabs open in my browser. Looking at a big thing, and getting sidetracked with basic knowledge.

 

[PsychoSarah]

PsychoSarah said: "You can physically touch DNA and see it, measure it, etc. It is a quirk of one of the ways people replicate DNA and study it, it becomes unwound enough that you can see it with the naked eye. "

Umm, could you provide a credible source for this statement? I think you are confusing animation with reality. Or perhaps you speak of chromosomes as seen at certain stages of mitosis, under light microscopy. Are you aware of the size of a single DNA nucleotide and what it would take to "see" it?

Someone else already posted it. As it happens, DNA only fits in cells thanks to some extreme compression and protein induced coiling. The molecule itself is big enough to see with the naked eye once you uncoil it. It looks like stringy, white snot.

 

[Queller]

Never mind. I didn't realize the OP was sarcasm.

 

[bhsmte]

Sadly, I often struggle to understand details, lack of basic knowledge on my part. Reading peer review leads me to having multiple tabs open in my browser. Looking at a big thing, and getting sidetracked with basic knowledge.

To be critical of any topic, it would first require a basic understanding of the topic at hand.

 

[Loudmouth]

Who is stopping Liberty University from starting a biological research department that is based on creationism, or a geology department that is based on flood geology?

The answer is "no one". I think that says a lot about how confident creationists are in their own arguments. There are millions of dollars in the creationist coffers, and more than one conservative christian university that would be willing to commit lab and lecture space. The reason these programs don't exist is because creationists already know their claims are based on bovine excrement.

 

[JustMeSee]

Never mind. I didn't realize the OP was sarcasm.

It was a bit tongue in cheek, but my desire is real. I would really like to see more created origins professionals holding doctorate degrees in life sciences.

I am not being a Poe's Law comedian. I just want to see how and if creationist can find evidence for a created universe.

I do not know of religious colleges offer advanced degrees in life sciences. If the don't, they should. If they do, it is a good thing.

I am often told that life scientist are deceitful with evidence. If this, possibly slanderous, claim is factual, a created origins biology doctor could start researching and try to find the answers to the right questions.

I apologize for my OP. I do have an honest intent behind it.

 

[JustMeSee]

Who is stopping Liberty University from starting a biological research department that is based on creationism, or a geology department that is based on flood geology?

The answer is "no one". I think that says a lot about how confident creationists are in their own arguments. There are millions of dollars in the creationist coffers, and more than one conservative christian university that would be willing to commit lab and lecture space. The reason these programs don't exist is because creationists already know their claims are based on bovine excrement.

Well, then we are left with experts in unrelated fields making claims that are based on claims by other non life sciences experts to support a created world.

I was told by a 12 year old that plate tectonics was a extremity non evidence based claim. His source was his biology teacher.

I had great deal of trouble arguing that considering that I only completed one college level course in geology. My professor had several doctorate degrees in the sciences, primarily inorganic chemistry.