Creation scientists - do they exist?

[Hoghead1]

That isn't quite true, Jrfsmth. There is a long tradition in Christianity of assuming that Genesis is not exegete properly if taken literally. This was a major point Augustine made, for example, in his "Genesis in the Literal Sense." Although a dogmatic literalist, Calvin did state , in his commentary on Genesis, that God did not intend Scripture to give us a science lesson. He held with what is called the doctrine of accommodations, that God accommodates himself to our level of understanding and therefore has to take "baby talk" to us. I'm not arguing here whether this is right or wrong, just that it represents a traditional and well-respected Christian tradition to interpret Genesis as largely poetic figures of speech, not science.

 

[Jfrsmth]

It is fair to say that creationist organizations have already stated that they ignore evidence if it contradicts their religious beliefs. Are you the same?

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."--Answers in Genesis
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

You are inferring ignore, but they did not state that. It seems you are reading into their statement. As I have already suggested, it appears that they are stating their worldview. Evolutionists exclude the supernatural from their purely natural worldview, don't they?

Here's an idea, since I am NOT the creator of AiG, nor did I write their statement; why not send them an email and ask them what they meant? We can speculate from now until the cows come home and still get nowhere.

 

[Cimorene]

What it indicates to me Stanfordella, is that the apparent majority of these "theologians" can and are reading into the plain reading of Scripture in order to accommodate evolutionary science, in contradiction to exegetical practices of extracting meaning from the text. However, that is another thread. This thread is a celebration of creation scientists, and it appears that, that irritates a lot of people, based on the amount of negativity its getting.

Furthermore, it is NOT only my choice, but a number of creation scientists who have been of great blessing in helping me enjoy the glory of the Lord as plainly revealed in His Word. You just don't seem to like it.

By the way, what evidence are they "manipulating"? What are those instances where YECs are guilty of manipulating the evidence? Please share.

If you want to throw accusations around, we could simply come up some against evolution as well:

Haeckel's embryo fraud
Piltdown man fraud
Nebraska man from a pig's tooth
... to name only a few

https://evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com/evolution-frauds/

In fact, there are entire books devoted to the subject of poor, bad, weak, or even false science from evolutionary science:

The Darwinian Delusion: The Scientific Myth of Evolutionism (Michael Ebifegha)
EVOLUTION: A Grand Monument to Human Stupidity (Daniel Jappah)
Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Marvin Lubenow)
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth (Jonathan Wells)
... to name only a few

In fact, if you want to argue evolutionary theory, these authors and or websites might be people you could try and make your case with. But, based on my own observations from the Bible and from creation scientists, they are right on. So, there is no sense bashing me about it. They make very good points.

You're throwing out a rude attitude and you're posting a WORDPRESS BLOG. Do you really expect people to engage with you?

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm having trouble, Jfrsmth, with your comment abut many theologians reading evolution into the plain meaning of Scripture. That makes no sense. What is your source or basis for this claim? I am a theologian and my view on Genesis is that we should go on the plain meaning of the text, and that if we do, we end yuup with two conflicting chronologies, two contradictory accounts of creation. I'm not reading evolution into the text; I'm interested in studying the content and structure of the texts.

 

[Hoghead1]

Also, Jfrsmth, I have some concerns about the authorities or books you are appeal to here. Daniel Jappa has no advanced credential in science and is working as a free-lance writer, not as a scientist. That explains why his writing is largely inflammatory rhetoric, yellow-dog journalism. Lubenow has been amply reviewed and found to provide very weak arguments at best. As I recall more than one creation-science group have therefore dumped him. Wells at least has solid credentials. However, I am a bit uncomfortable dealing with anyone in the Unification Church. Maybe I'm biased, or missed something here, but from anything I have seen, it is really a kind of cult. Also Wells is not without criticism. You cannot take any of these sources for granted.

 

[Hoghead1]

The statement form AIG is direct, to the point, and does not need a lot of haggling over as to its meaning. Creation=science people function on the premise that it is their beliefs that validate science. Anything contrary to their beliefs is automatically wrong and excluded. Science is not equipped to deal with the question of God. That's the role of theology and philosophy. Scientists may have stated their views on God, but they are not speaking as scientists strictly speaking. So no, you would not expect to find any discussion one way or the other of the supernatural in science.

 

[Jfrsmth]

You're throwing out a rude attitude and you're posting a WORDPRESS BLOG. Do you really expect people to engage with you?

Did you even check the blog before you dismissed it. It had plenty of references if you had cared to check. No, I'd say my attitude has been relatively pleasant compared to the nastiness I encounter.

 

[Jfrsmth]

I'm having trouble, Jfrsmth, with your comment abut many theologians reading evolution into the plain meaning of Scripture. That makes no sense. What is your source or basis for this claim? I am a theologian and my view on Genesis is that we should go on the plain meaning of the text, and that if we do, we end yuup with two conflicting chronologies, two contradictory accounts of creation. I'm not reading evolution into the text; I'm interested in studying the content and structure of the texts.

If you are plainly reading, those should not be a problem for you:

day means day

Gen 1 Creation overview
Gen 2 Garden view

How do we know that there are conflicting chronologies?

 

[Jfrsmth]

Creation=science people function on the premise that it is their beliefs that validate science.

It seems that they are operating from a worldview, a particular perspective.
Evolutionary scientists don't function on the premise that there are only natural means?

 

[Jfrsmth]

Also, Jfrsmth, I have some concerns about the authorities or books you are appeal to here. Daniel Jappa has no advanced credential in science and is working as a free-lance writer, not as a scientist. That explains why his writing is largely inflammatory rhetoric, yellow-dog journalism. Lubenow has been amply reviewed and found to provide very weak arguments at best. As I recall more than one creation-science group have therefore dumped him. Wells at least has solid credentials. However, I am a bit uncomfortable dealing with anyone in the Unification Church. Maybe I'm biased, or missed something here, but from anything I have seen, it is really a kind of cult. Also Wells is not without criticism. You cannot take any of these sources for granted.

Because someone does not have an advanced degree in science, does that mean that they cannot research? This is quite similar to saying that only the clergy are qualified to read and interpret Bible passages. The scientific data is prolific these days, and the Bible was written for all men. God clearly says in His Word that His glory in creation is clearly seen and that Creation speaks forth His glory. So, why can't someone write a book exposing the fallacies of evolution based on observations? Do the fallacies somehow stop being fallacies because a non-scientist, or other-church wrote about them?

The point of my comment, was to address the poster's comments about "manipulating".

 

[Hoghead1]

Your sources, Jrfsmth, do precisely that, try and expose fallacies in evolutionary science. Problem is, their arguments have generally been found to be weak.

 

[Cimorene]

- This is futile, so I'm deleting, and ignoring.

 

[Jfrsmth]

...

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are inferring ignore, but they did not state that. It seems you are reading into their statement.

What else can be read into that statement?

If they flat out state that "no evidence can be valid if it contradicts our a priori beliefs", what could they mean other then they won't be accepting such evidence, by default, and thus ignore such evidence?

As I have already suggested, it appears that they are stating their worldview.

No, they are stating their dogmatic position concerning their religious views. They are flat out stating that their interpretation of the bible has to be correct and that nothing at all could possible convince them otherwise. And if evidence comes up that doesn't agree with this view, that they'll flat out reject that evidence at face value (and thus ignore it).

This is quite literally what dogmatic beliefs are. It's about as anti-science as it gets.

Evolutionists exclude the supernatural from their purely natural worldview, don't they?

No. They exclude any ideas that can't be supported and / or falsified.
The day one can demonstrate that the supernatural exists and plays a role in the development of life, is the day that it will be taken into account. And not a second sooner. Why is that a problem? It's not a problem. It's only a problem if you have dogmatic beliefs regarding the supernatural, as shown above...

Here's an idea, since I am NOT the creator of AiG, nor did I write their statement; why not send them an email and ask them what they meant? We can speculate from now until the cows come home and still get nowhere.

We know what they meant. Ken Ham said it literally in his "debate" with Bill Nye.
During the Q&A, both were presented with the question "what would change your mind?"

Bill's answer: "evidence"
Ken's answer: "nothing"

Case closed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It seems that they are operating from a worldview, a particular perspective.

Indeed, which is exactly the problem. They start with a priori beliefs that are dogmatic in nature. In other words, they already have their conclusions and answers ready before they ask the questions.

Evolutionary scientists don't function on the premise that there are only natural means?

Not really, no...
It is true that science looks for natural causes for natural phenomena. But do you also know why?

I'll help you out: it's because the supernatural is literally defined as something that can't be tested, that can't be observed, that can't be falsified.

In other words, the supernatural can not be distinguished from the non-existant.

It's not like science is dogmatic about "only the natural". It's that science requires evidence for its conclusions. If the supernatural can be shown to be real and to play a role in certain phenomena, then science will be more then happy to incorporate it.

In fact, science will be obligated to incorporate it. Science doesn't care what the nature of the answers are. There are no "prefered outcomes".

 

[Jfrsmth]

What else can be read into that statement?

If they flat out state that "no evidence can be valid if it contradicts our a priori beliefs", what could they mean other then they won't be accepting such evidence, by default, and thus ignore such evidence?

No, they are stating their dogmatic position concerning their religious views. They are flat out stating that their interpretation of the bible has to be correct and that nothing at all could possible convince them otherwise. And if evidence comes up that doesn't agree with this view, that they'll flat out reject that evidence at face value (and thus ignore it).

This is quite literally what dogmatic beliefs are. It's about as anti-science as it gets.

No. They exclude any ideas that can't be supported and / or falsified.
The day one can demonstrate that the supernatural exists and plays a role in the development of life, is the day that it will be taken into account. And not a second sooner. Why is that a problem? It's not a problem. It's only a problem if you have dogmatic beliefs regarding the supernatural, as shown above...

We know what they meant. Ken Ham said it literally in his "debate" with Bill Nye.
During the Q&A, both were presented with the question "what would change your mind?"

Bill's answer: "evidence"
Ken's answer: "nothing"

Case closed.

Maybe you should take it up with AiG. . .

 

[Derek Meyer]

... Evolutionists exclude the supernatural from their purely natural worldview, don't they?...

All the natural sciences exclude the supernatural from all the natural sciences. All of them. From chemistry to physics to geology, etc.

The hint is in the name. Natural. If the supernatural could be shown to have any influence on nature, then the supernatural will be included.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Maybe you should take it up with AiG. . .

There is nothing to take up. They are perfectly clear about their stance on evidence that contradicts their a priori dogmatic religious beliefs.

You were challenging that that is what the statement meant. Clearly, your challenge is in vain. It's crystal clear that that is exactly what it means.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are inferring ignore, but they did not state that.

Yes, they did. They will not consider evidence that contradicts their dogmatic religious beliefs. They directly stated so.

Evolutionists exclude the supernatural from their purely natural worldview, don't they?

The supernatural isn't excluded. We will gladly accept any evidence you have of the supernatural. Where is it?

Here's an idea, since I am NOT the creator of AiG, nor did I write their statement; why not send them an email and ask them what they meant? We can speculate from now until the cows come home and still get nowhere.

Their meaning is as plain as day. It was reinforced by Ken Ham's own words during his debate with Bill Nye, where Ken Ham stated that no evidence would change his mind.

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe you should take it up with AiG. . .

It is the same as your position, is it not? Let's see if you can answer these questions.

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional between humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps?

What shared genetic marker or pattern of similarity in genomes would you accept as evidence for common ancestry?