How many experts, even Christian experts, accept Creation Science?

[notto]

I'm simply stating why the figure provided in this thread does not say anything useful about the debate. Do you have an objection to my statement about what is a useful statistic and what isn't?

The statistics show that the more individuals study the related science, the more they reject young earth creationism. What is being explained to you is why there is no need to go back and objectively look at YEC 'evidence'. Your addition to the statistics would not be important because even if Christians did objectively look at the YEC's evidence, there is no indication that they would not come to the same conclusions that others like themselves have come to when objectively looking at the evidence. YEC has been falsified.

This is like asking if scientists who accept that alchemy cannot turn lead into gold have really looked objectively at the alchemists claims. Why would they? Alchemy turning lead into gold has been falsified. It can't happen. This is like asking if scientists who accept that the world is round have objectively looked at the flat earthers evidence. Why would they? A flat earth has been falsified. The world is not flat.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I'll be starting to repeat myself a bit now, but that's ok.

The statistics show that the more individuals study the related science, the more they reject young earth creationism.

As I said in this thread or another (I can't keep track), it is absolutely no surprise that a student studies a field of science that teaches Darwinism and comes out accepting it (and therefore rejecting YEC).

What is being explained to you is why there is no need to go back and objectively look at YEC 'evidence'. Your addition to the statistics would not be important because even if Christians did objectively look at the YEC's evidence, there is no indication that they would not come to the same conclusions that others like themselves have come to when objectively looking at the evidence. YEC has been falsified.

This is exactly the question at hand. You are saying there is no indication they would come to different conclusions if they objectively examine YEC claims (you keep saying evidence because I think you are trying to avoid the question: multiple explanations for the evidence can exist, some good, some bad. It is these I am talking about). I am saying, give me a statistic of how many Christian scientists who objectively and seriously study YEC claims become YEC's. That statistic would confirm or deny your statement here. Now, you haven't given any sources or statistics to do that. You've just stated your opinion. "No indication" you say - do you have a statistic that demonstrates "no indication"? This is what I'm asking for. This is the kind of statistic I am saying might be useful for demonstrating something.

I should add, I'm not much of a fan of statistics. While interesting, you can't always trust them.

This is like asking if scientists who accept that alchemy cannot turn lead into gold have really looked objectively at the alchemists claims. Why would they? Alchemy turning lead into gold has been falsified. It can't happen. This is like asking if scientists who accept that the world is round have objectively looked at the flat earthers evidence. Why would they? A flat earth has been falsified. The world is not flat.

I remember reading a play in high school about Galileo, I can't remember the name. He sets up a telescope for some of the respected men in the Church to show them how his model was accurate. As he was about to show them, they stopped and began to argue. They offered up some reasons why they thought that Galileo was wrong. He said something along the lines of, "Why don't you simply look through the telescope and see for yourself?". They answered, "If we deduce beforehand that we will not see what you claim, then there is no need for us to look through the telescope, because we know what we will see."

Now let's assume the following:
* The world is not flat
* 99% of scholarly authorities claim the world is flat

They would say the same thing as you said, and as the Church authorities said in that play. They would say, "Why look for evidence of a round earth? We can conclude already beyond doubt that it is flat, so there is no need for us to consider your arguments."

So while you may not be persuaded, think about it from my perspective. Do you really believe that someone like myself will be persuaded by your statement? I can understand why a scientist may not give consideration to YEC claims, for the reasons you list. That does not mean he *shouldn't* - and this is my core point. Your argument only gives excuse to those satisfied with their current position. It does nothing to persuade those who disagree with Darwinism (such as myself), nor does it present a legitimate reason for refusing to examine YEC claims. Laziness is a better excuse, in my opinion (just opinion).

 

[notto]

So while you may not be persuaded, think about it from my perspective. Do you really believe that someone like myself will be persuaded by your statement? I can understand why a scientist may not give consideration to YEC claims, for the reasons you list. That does not mean he *shouldn't* - and this is my core point. Your argument only gives excuse to those satisfied with their current position. It does nothing to persuade those who disagree with Darwinism (such as myself), nor does it present a legitimate reason for refusing to examine YEC claims. Laziness is a better excuse, in my opinion (just opinion).

Again, the YEC's claim has been falsified. Do you think that every astronomer needs to look through a telescope and verify that the earth travels around the sun? Why or why not?

Science is certainly based on previous discoveries. There is no need to validate that discovery or evidence each time.

I guess the things that we can state with regards to this.
1) The majority of scientists accept an old earth and that a young earth has been falsified.
2) There is currently no persuasive evidence being presented to the scientific community that would cause a shift in that acceptence
3) Because there is no new evidence to either falsify an old earth or to give good reason to reevaluate the evidence that falsifies a young earth, science will continue to move on with the evidence it had yesterday that falsified a young earth position.

You approach has little effect on the scientific process. Go ahead and look through that telescope objectively. Most creationists admit that they wont, especially creationist ministries. They state clearly that they will not objectively look at the evidence. You may be different. If so, they feel free to look at the evidence for both sides objectively. I'm guessing that if you truley did this, you would end up where 99.9% of all scientists do. Accepting mainstream science and the fact that YEC has been falsified.

Don't confuse evolution with young earth arguments. Even if evolution is falsified (that's a big if), the world would still be old. The evidence that falsifies a young earth position is independent of evolution. The YEC position is not one that is gained objectively. If you were not a literalist Christian, you would have no reason to investigate it, as the statistics would seem to show.

 

[Vance]

There is absolutely no way of knowing if all 99.95 percent of those scientists in the relevant fields *objectively* looked at YEC science because I am not sure ANY objective view of anything is truly possible. But I feel absolutely confident that the vast majority of these scientists are fully aware of the YEC claims since they are current issue due to the schools.

I have two basic points:

1. IF YEC science had any substance at all, was actually supportable AS science, then there would be a significant percentage of scientists accepting it. Good, supportable science ALWAYS find adherents, even if contrary to mainstream theories. If it is sound science, it will eventually come to be recognized as such, regardless of political or religious implications.

2. Another question is how many of the current YEC scientists actually objectively reviewed true evolutionary theory? How many of them did not have YEC beliefs before beginning their studies? Very few, I am sure, and almost none in the relevent fields (although I am sure you can find a few).

 

[gluadys]

Honestly, our understanding of the world has changed so much since then - even for the Creationists. Should we then suppose that the arguments used then are the same today? Even Darwin's ideas were not correct, which is why we see other explanations like neo-Darwinism and Punctuated Equillibrium. The fact that it was defended then and was rejected says little (not nothing), unless you want to tell me precisely how this is relevant to the debate.

It's not that the arguments are the same. A theory is not falsified by arguments. It is that the evidence is the same. The evidence which convinced people who wanted the flood story to be true, but were honest enough to accept that it could not be in light of what they had observed.

It does not seem very objective to claim that objective analysis has "already been". One may conceive of the following:
* Results given under biased conditions
* Biased interpretations
It seems decidedly subjective, in fact, to claim objectivity. At least personally I assume there are always some biases present, including in my own actions.

The point of having an open discussion is to weed out bias. Any one person can be biased one way or the other, but in open discussion of the evidence, such biases are challenged by those with the opposite bias.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

You are all offering me what you think the results of a statistical analysis would be like the one suggested.

I never asked for your arguments as to what the results would be and your reasons why. I asked if you had any actual hard facts.

I disagree with you all on these points - and there's no way we can get into more details of that without entering debate that's appropriate in another thread.

Vance quoted statistics of 700 creationists out of 480,000 scientists. I pointed out why that figure is useless. I pointed out what would be a more useful statistic. None of you said that statistic wouldn't be more useful. Instead, you've all offered me arguments as to why:
* we'll never find out that statistic
* what you think it would be
That's not at all answering my objection. I can't do any better than the rest of you at guessing what the statistic would be, or suggesting a way to provide the statistic. That's why I'm not demanding you provide one. I'm just trying to point out why the one in the first post is not useful for determining anything.

Facts are never determined by majority. As you say, if YEC has been falsified, then it has been falsified independently of how many people ascribe to it. If 99% of the world believed in YEC it wouldn't make it any more or less true.

2. Another question is how many of the current YEC scientists actually objectively reviewed true evolutionary theory? How many of them did not have YEC beliefs before beginning their studies? Very few, I am sure, and almost none in the relevent fields (although I am sure you can find a few).

You are sure it's very few, do you know that as a fact? Do you have any basis for believing what you do, besides deductions from certain assumptions you make:
a. Darwinism is true
b. People who examine the evidence almost invariable conclude Darwinism is accurate
Do you have any hard facts?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Hit submit too early, and didn't want to edit in case anyone was replying to my post.

1. IF YEC science had any substance at all, was actually supportable AS science, then there would be a significant percentage of scientists accepting it. Good, supportable science ALWAYS find adherents, even if contrary to mainstream theories. If it is sound science, it will eventually come to be recognized as such, regardless of political or religious implications.

And that it may still do. There is still very much we do not know about this world we are in. Out of all the people I've argued with, never has anyone been able to tell me how life evolved from a simple single celled organism to the complexity we see today. There are ideas, but nothing that says "this is how it happened". Why do we look for a reason? Because it is assumed that Darwinism is accurate. Therefore, such a mechanism must exist.

Perhaps that mechanism will be discovered one day, and I will change my view. Perhaps it will be concluded that such a mechanism does not exist, and Darwinism is wrong. Things change, and we learn more. So, as you suggest, if it's sound science it may yet be accepted.

Darwinism and YEC both hold a lot of philosophical arguments, new evidence arises and understandings changed. Unless we get into the specifics in this thread, I can't see how we can say more on this topic.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

The mechanism does exist and has been well known for decades.

In what way is variation and natural selection not a sufficient mechanism?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

The mechanism does exist and has been well known for decades.

In what way is variation and natural selection not a sufficient mechanism?

Um...lots of ways.

The way you've asked me this makes me wonder just how much you know about the YEC position?

Anyway, to summarise, here's the words of a Darwinist I was talking with via email a while ago. I don't think he'll mind, since I'm not trying to insult him or put him down.

Currently, evolutionary theory holds that mutations and natural
selection are most likely the most important mechanisms in the process of evolution. However, the mechanism by which evolution occurred is still under study.

The idea that these are the mechanisms by which it occurred is less certain than the fact of evolution itself, which is that over many billions of years, biological life on Earth developed from one or more extremely simple common ancestors, and by a process of slow changes in allele frequencies in the biological populations of Earth, eventually changed into lifeforms as we see them today, including humans. Of this, there is no question -- the evidence is simply undeniable, as I will
explain. In other words, the claim that life on Earth does not share a common ancestor or ancestors and that the Earth is only a few thousand years old flies in the face of veritable mountains of evidence. This is what biologists mean when they speak of the "fact" of evolution.

The *Theory* of Evolution, on the other hand, is modern theory regarding what mechanisms, exactly, brought this about. As I said, the most popular theory today is that a combination of mutations and natural selection were the major driving forces in this process. This is what biologists mean when they speak of the "theory" of evolution.

As he points out, the mechanism is not so certain, and the mechanism is what I'm interested in. Natural selection and variation are a part of it, but they are only very broad explanations. Like someone asking, "how are children born?" and being told, "by a male and a female lying together". It's true, but it doesn't really explain the details. After all, natural selection and variation are an integral part of the YEC model - which is why I wonder how much of the YEC position you understand.

Anyway, I can't really get into this in much detail without starting an in-depth debate - and right now I'm studying for an exam in two days.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

No, the existence and sufficiency of the mechanism is very certain, especially in general terms.

However, what is not certain is whether:

• these mechanisms are solely responsible for evolution;
• these mechanisms are the main engine behind evolution.

That they are adequate for the task is not seriously doubted to the best of my knowledge, but in the same way that wind is perfectly adequate for getting sailing boats over the sea, but oars and engines are also used, that does not mean that the known mechanism is the whole, or even the main, story.

I am aware of Creationist criticisms that the mechanism is not adequate, but I have not yet seen an evidenced and precise description of what the species barriers that prevent it from working are, nor the mechanisms that prevent the gaining of new functions by mutation of DNA. That is what I would like to see.