evolution and scientists motives

[Tatian]

I have been through many discussions concerning a harmony of my faith and science, both online and in person with loved ones. When one of us, whether a creationist or an evolutionist, posts a thread, we have our knee-jerk responses ready.

I really want to talk about a narrow subject. I would like to talk about scientists in general, and maybe in specific, but not so much about whether intermediate species exist, or whether I can have my faith and keep science also.

My interest is more for what my creationist brothers and sisters have to say on the subject of the scientists that have developed the theory of evolution through the years.

I am the kind of guy who goes to the doctor on a regular basis because I believe he can do good things for my health. I do believe in getting second opinions if the doctor has told me something about my health that I find unusual, unexpected or maybe even not in agreement with what I believed was the case. But if I go to a second doctor and a third and a fourth and a fifth and they all tell me the same thing about my health, I would do what I believe is the most reasonable thing to do. I would conform my viewpoint to what all these doctors have agreed upon.

I am sure everyone can figure out where my analogy is going. I am operating on the assumption that nobody can produce a legitimate scientist who has a relevant degree to the subject of evolution that is also a creationist . So, if you say you know one and he has a masters degree in engineering, this won't mean anything to the subject at hand.

If, however, you believe me to be wrong, that you know of a scientist who is a creationist, please post this persons name. A minimum standard on this would be a Ph.D in biology, chemistry and even fields such as physics and astronomy would have some less direct bearing.

If you feel, as I imagine many of you do, the academic system that I refer to when I mention my "minimum standard" is through a corrupted educational system, then please argue for why that is. This will contribute to what I want to get at anyway, sense I am interested in the creationist view point of the science community.

My thesis is this. To say that the community of science is vastly in support of evolution is an understatement. Practically as one voice, scientists of all pertinent fields confirm the theory of evolution.

Do you, as a creationist, believe that these scientists are simply all wrong, corrupt, mislead or something else?

I look forward to your responses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I could name one biologist who is a creationist. That would be Michael Behe. Unfortunately for him he lost all authority in the Dover trial.

 

[sfs]

I could name one biologist who is a creationist. That would be Michael Behe. Unfortunately for him he lost all authority in the Dover trial.

Behe's a biochemist, by the way, not a biologist. He also accepts common descent, which makes him pretty far out there for a creationist.

Three people with real qualifications in science who are creationists: Todd Wood (PhD in biochemistry, U of Virginia); Kurt Wise (PhD in geology from Harvard); Jeffrey Tomkins (PhD in genetics, Clemson). I believe all three are young-earth creationists.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I am very interested in responses to this thread.

Also:

Duane Gish
Marcus Ross

And more comprehensive lists can probably be compiled by examining the AiG and DI lists.

 

[Adaephon]

I look forward to another thread in which I can be accussed of being part of a huge, nebulous Satan-worshipping conspiracy working to drag souls down to hellfire motivated by my evil naturalistic, nihilistic despair and anti-god rebellion or some such. All totally ignoring the fact that I'm a Christian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Behe's a biochemist, by the way, not a biologist. He also accepts common descent, which makes him pretty far out there for a creationist.

Three people with real qualifications in science who are creationists: Todd Wood (PhD in biochemistry, U of Virginia); Kurt Wise (PhD in geology from Harvard); Jeffrey Tomkins (PhD in genetics, Clemson). I believe all three are young-earth creationists.

Thanks for the correction. I have heard of Kurt Wise before, he is well noted for admitting:

If all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

As a scientist he has lost all of his claims to objectivity.

 

[Shemjaza]

I think it isn't that there aren't any biologist who believe in YEC or OEC... but that they don't use biology to get there.

To continue your initial analogy if you go to five doctors and they tell you that they think you have cancer... then you go to another qualified MD who tells you that you don't have cancer because he saw it in a dream quest. He may be a doctor, but it wasn't medicine that he was practising at the time.

 

[Elendur]

I look forward to how this thread develops. Cheers!

 

[sfs]

Thanks for the correction. I have heard of Kurt Wise before, he is well noted for admitting:

You should check out Todd Wood, too. I think he annoys a lot of creationists, since he spends a lot of his time telling them why their arguments are bogus.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you feel, as I imagine many of you do, the academic system that I refer to when I mention my "minimum standard" is through a corrupted educational system, then please argue for why that is. This will contribute to what I want to get at anyway, sense I am interested in the creationist view point of the science community.

I believe the acel... er ... academic system is corrupted today; and started its downhill descent after Isaac Newton.

In the Bible, Egypt is a type of the world, and "Egyptian" is a viable adjective to describe a fallen planet. So is "tares."

Therefore, I believe that the tares of the Egyptian world system (the scientific community as a whole) are beginning to outgrow the wheat.

In other words, I believe that scientists at one point in time (mainly after Isaac Newton), stopped giving credit to God and started patting themselves on the back.

And when they labeled themselves and us as "wise man," I believe that to be a formal scientific "declaration of independence" from God.

The last straw, so to speak.

I believe God has turned the scientific system over to reprobate minds.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

I believe the acel... er ... academic system is corrupted today; and started its downhill descent after Isaac Newton.

In the Bible, Egypt is a type of the world, and "Egyptian" is a viable adjective to describe a fallen planet. So is "tares."

Therefore, I believe that the tares of the Egyptian world system (the scientific community as a whole) are beginning to outgrow the wheat.

In other words, I believe that scientists at one point in time (mainly after Isaac Newton), stopped giving credit to God and started patting themselves on the back.

And when they labeled themselves and us as "wise man," I believe that to be a formal scientific "declaration of independence" from God.

The last straw, so to speak.

I believe God has turned the scientific system over to reprobate minds.

There's so much "believing" in your post and very little "thinking". Why should God get credit for scientific phenomena if he shows no signs of being involved? To say that your god should take credit is to say that your god should plagiarize.

 

[good brother]

As a scientist he has lost all of his claims to objectivity.

Not dissimilar to these people:


“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation – which is unthinkable.” ~Sir Authur Keith, famous British evolutionist

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” ~Professor Richard Lewontin

“Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth”…(we must change) “our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern…the God hypothesis…is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought. ...we must construct something to take its place.” ~Sir Julian Huxley

But I suppose the same logic does not apply to both sides.


In Christ, GB

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I believe God has turned the scientific system over to reprobate minds.

The scientific system or method is open to everyone as long as they are capable of thinking. Even you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not dissimilar to these people:


“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation – which is unthinkable.” ~Sir Authur Keith, famous British evolutionist

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” ~Professor Richard Lewontin

“Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth”…(we must change) “our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern…the God hypothesis…is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought. ...we must construct something to take its place.” ~Sir Julian Huxley

But I suppose the same logic does not apply to both sides.


In Christ, GB

You should be careful where you get your quotes from and you should supply a link for any quote to allow others to see if it is valid or not.

On your quote of Sir Arthur Keith I checked him out on Wikipedia and found that your quote of him is "spurious" (or in layman terms, it is a lie)

Spurious Quotation

Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.
This quote is often utilized in Creationist publications and websites in an attempt to demonstrate that Sir Arthur Keith, and thus by extension promoters of evolution in general, simply dismiss creationist viewpoints outright due to a presumed antitheistic bias.[8] However, in attempting to research this statement, one finds that it usually appears without primary source documentation.[9] In those instances where seemingly original documentation is provided, it is stated to be a Forward for a centennial edition or “100th edition” of Origin of Species.[10] However, several facts show that the attribution of these words to Arthur Keith is erroneous.
Keith passed away in 1955, some four years before the 100th anniversary of Darwin’s work, so that he was clearly not available to write an introduction for the centennial edition (this was actually done by William Robin Thompson).[11] Furthermore, while Keith did write an introduction to earlier printings of Origin of Species, in use from 1928 to 1958, the words given above do not appear in that introduction.[12] Finally, the last “edition” of Origin of Species is the sixth edition published 1879.[13] It is for this reason that all later publications of Origin of Species are actually reprints of this or earlier editions so that there is simply no “100th edition” of Darwin’s work. In light of the fact that the documentation provided by Creationist publications is specious, one is still left with trying to explain the source of this citation. It is enough to say, however, that since this “quote” lacks valid documentation, it should not be regarded as one that originates with Arthur Keith himself until it can be properly documented.

Arthur Keith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I did not stop to check your others. Perhaps you should.

Now I am not saying that there are no rabid atheists out there. And I was ready to show how Keith's quote was wrong, we have advanced quite a bit in the last 60 years when it comes to evolution. Now it is considered as proven as the theory of gravity. In other words the Theory of Evolution explains the fact of evolution just as Einstein's Theory of Gravity explains the fact of gravity.

ETA: There really is nothing wrong with the third quote. It is merely a statement of fact and is not irrationally anti-religious in any way.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not dissimilar to these people:


“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation – which is unthinkable.” ~Sir Authur Keith, famous British evolutionist

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” ~Professor Richard Lewontin

“Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth”…(we must change) “our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern…the God hypothesis…is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought. ...we must construct something to take its place.” ~Sir Julian Huxley

But I suppose the same logic does not apply to both sides.


In Christ, GB

You can read the entire Lewontin quote here:

Lewontin on materialism - EvoWiki

It is unfortunate that these discussions are once again muddied by creationists using red herrings. First, Lewontin was not even talking about evolution. Second, he was talking about theories that go against common sense such as quantum mechanics, but are nonentheless still true. If you read the entire quote you will start to see where Lewontin was coming from, and it is from a position of objectivity. The last part of the quote is quite telling:

"The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

And indeed, that is the problem. Once you introduce the supernatural you have lost any ability to construct testable hypotheses. You have ended any hope of doing science. You might as well give Phillip Gosse his posthumous Nobel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_(book)

 

[Loudmouth]

If, however, you believe me to be wrong, that you know of a scientist who is a creationist, please post this persons name. A minimum standard on this would be a Ph.D in biology, chemistry and even fields such as physics and astronomy would have some less direct bearing.

I think we can also add Jonathan Wells to the list since he did earn a PhD, even if it was at the instruction of the Moony leader in an attempt to add legitimacy to creationism.

What is more important in my eyes is the complete lack of any scientific research within the creationist movement. It is one thing to hold a degree. It is another to actually put that degree to work. Is Kurt Wise doing scientific research into the origin of species, or any scientific work that could conceivably support YEC? No.

Given the education and convictions of these YEC scientists, why aren't they doing any science? Is it because they already know that they don't have a leg to stand on?

 

[Split Rock]

Not dissimilar to these people:


“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation – which is unthinkable.” ~Sir Authur Keith, famous British evolutionist

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” ~Professor Richard Lewontin

“Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth”…(we must change) “our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern…the God hypothesis…is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought. ...we must construct something to take its place.” ~Sir Julian Huxley

But I suppose the same logic does not apply to both sides.


In Christ, GB

Oh goody! A Quote Mine. Time for me to post mine!!!

Here, Creationist Icon, the Hydraulic Engineer Henry Morris admits that a 6,000 year old universe is absurd :

“If the stars were made on the fourth day, and if the days of creation were literal days, then the stars must be several thousand years old. How, then, can many of the stars be millions or billions of light years distant since it would take correspondingly millions or billions of years for their light to reach the earth?”
-Henry Morris (1972) The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p 61-62


Here he admits that evolution is a Law of Nature:

“Continuous evolution is a universal law of nature…”
-Henry Morris (1967) Evolution and the Modern Christian. p.34


Here he admits that index fossils are an accurate way to determine the age of rocks:

“That is, since evolution always proceeds in the same way all over the world at the same time, index fossils representing a given age … constitute infallible indicators of the geological age in which they are found. This makes good sense…”
-Henry Morris (1977) ICR Impact Series, no. 48.


Here he admits that theistic evolution is a perfectly fine belief:

“People can believe in theistic evolution (or progressive creation) and still believe in the Bible. They feel that the evolutionary ages of geology can … be accommodated in Genesis, by means (usually) of the ’local flood’ interpretation of the Noachian Deluge and the ‘day/age’ interpretataion of God’s week of creation.”
-Henry Morris (1980) Acts & Facts, March issue cover letter


Here Creationist Robert Ginskey admits to the fundamental flaws with a 6,000 year old earth:

“The fact is, fundamentalists face a real problem in trying to squeeze dinosaurs into 6,000 years of earth history. The facts just don’t allow it, even when Noah’s Flood is invoked as an explanation.”
-Robert Ginskey (1977) The Plain Truth , May, p 30-31


Here Creationist Geologist/Paleontologist Kurt Wise admits the truth about transitional fossils:

“It’s a pain in the neck. It fits the evolutionary predictions quite well.” (discussing a fossil sequence showing reptile to mammal evolution)
-Kurt Wise (2007) The New York Times Magazine, Nov 25, p34.


Here, Intelligent Design Icon and Lawyer Philip Johnson admits that science is the only reliable path to knowledge:

“Science, which studies only the natural, is our only reliable path to knowledge.”
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 40.


Here Old Earth Creationist and Astronomer Hugh Ross talks about the limited usefullness of religion:

“A mechanical chain of events determines everything. Morality and religion may be temporarily useful but are ultimately irrelevant.”
-Hugh Ross (1993) The Creator and the Cosmos


Here I.D Icon Philip Johnson admits that evolution does not equate with atheism:

“The blind watchmaker thesis makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist by supplying the necessary creation story. It does not make it obligatory to be an atheist, because one can imagine a Creator who works through natural selection.”
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 77


Here Creationist Geologist Andrew Snelling admits that granites taking millions of years to form:

“Especially the huge masses of granites outcropping in the Yosemite area, must surely have taken millions of years.”
-Andrew A. Snelling (2008) Rapid Melting of Source Rocks, and Rapid Magma Intrusions and Cooling, Answers Research Journal, 1: 11-25


Here Creationist Icon Kent “Dr. Dino” Hovind admits that both deep time and evolution are true:

"The Earth is billions of years old. The geologic column is the way to interpret it, and Charles Darwin's evolution is right."
-Kent Hovind (1996) Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution, Chapter 4

 

[RickG]

In other words, I believe that scientists at one point in time (mainly after Isaac Newton), stopped giving credit to God and started patting themselves on the back.

I guess I need to get my 666 hat back on again.

 

[Split Rock]

“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation – which is unthinkable.” ~Sir Authur Keith, famous British evolutionist

GB

You should be careful where you get your quotes from and you should supply a link for any quote to allow others to see if it is valid or not.

On your quote of Sir Arthur Keith I checked him out on Wikipedia and found that your quote of him is "spurious" (or in layman terms, it is a lie)

No scientist would talk about a particular theory as being "unproved and unprovable." No scientific theory is "provable."

 

[RickG]

But I suppose the same logic does not apply to both sides.

It obviously doesn't. Because fossil record is not a perfect genealogy creationists say it is not a fact.

By the same logic one could say because the biblical genealogy is not perfect the bible is not fact.

Think about it.