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

[Vance]

I often hear YEC's say that there are many scientists who do not accept evolution, and are coming around to the Creation Science point of view. Here is the truth:

"Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory [Robinson, 1995]. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that's just the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1%."

from http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CA/CA111.html




But, what about those scientists who are Christians, don't THEY come down on the side of Creation Science?

How many of those 480,000 scientists do we think are Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians? Just the 700 who believe in Creation Science? Of course not. Let's say that only 10% of all the scientists were Christians, that is still 48,000, or 68 Bible-believing, Spirit-filled CHRISTIAN scientists who do NOT believe in Creation Science for every 1 that does. Even if only 1% were such Christians, this would still mean that almost 7 out of every 8 Christian scientists do not believe in Creation Science.

The assertion that Creation Science concepts are believed by even the *Christian* scientific community is simply not supportable.

 

[Vance]

bump, since the issue came up in the Creation Science forum

 

[TwinCrier]

I agree, the number of scientists who accept YEC as a relevant theory is virtually non-existent. I think dismissing it is their greatest error. I don't expect many to be convinced of YEC because it's not profitable for them, but to refuse to give it a look is a stubborn intolerance I can't abide.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I agree, the number of scientists who accept YEC as a relevant theory is virtually non-existent. I think dismissing it is their greatest error. I don't expect many to be convinced of YEC because it's not profitable for them

That's a bit harsh. Do you think they only think with their wallets?

but to refuse to give it a look is a stubborn intolerance I can't abide.

Some have given it a look and found it has no scientific credibility.

Others have never even heard of it.

Still others are amazed that anyone in this day and age could seriously suggest something so obviously wrong.

It's only stubborn intolerance if refusal to give phlogiston theory a look is also stubborn intolerance. How many times does it have to be falsified before we can stop having to worry about it?

 

[Vance]

I feel absolutely confident that if YEC scientific propositions (a young earth and a global flood and that evolution is not the cause of the diversity of species) were in the least scientifically persuasive, we would see many, many non-YEC scientists agreeing with the science even if they don't believe the supernatural aspect.

Even if it was only 1 or 2 percent, that would be thousands of non-YEC scientists accepting the scientific models and theories presented by groups like AiG.

As it is, not even a majority of Christian scientists agree with YEC propositions. As shown above, probably only a very small percentage of Christian scientists accept them.

If YEC science had any subtance to it at all, it would be a major breakthrough in the world of science. Contrary to the conspiracy and inertia theories presented by YEC's, science actually rewards thinking outside the mainstream of science when the result is new discoveries that are actually sound and supportable. Any scientist who provided solid scientific evidence and scientifically sound theories for a 10,000 year old earth or a global flood would probably receive the Nobel Prize, and would be rich and famous, and held in the highest esteem. Any who effectively falsfied evolution would go down in history as the most famous scientist of his generation, if not the century.

 

[fishstix]

Are we talking about scientists accepting creation or accepting specifically young earth creation? I know of several scientists who believe in creation although I have no idea whether they believe in young earth creation or some other type. They include a couple of biology profs I've had and some of my fellow M.Sc. grad students (although I know we don't really count as experts yet).

 

[Vance]

I am specifically referring to the Young Earth Creationist propositions: a 6,000 to 10,000 year old earth, the whole flood geology concept, and the idea of recent special creation combined with hyper-evolution after a supposed global flood.

All Christians believe that God created everything and, in that sense, believe in "creation".

 

[Dracil]

For what it's worth - http://www.asa3.org/ - site by/for Christian scientists.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Considering Darwinism was accepted before there was proof (in fact, neo-Darwinism was created precisely because the model as Darwin presented it was not workable), I find it unsurprising that people would accept proof.

Vance, was this thread an attempt to answer my complaint about the statistics? I said that for the statistic to be useful we would need to find out how many Christian scientists who have given serious consideration to YEC arguments compared to the number of Christian scientists who are YEC's. There are plenty of Christian scientists who have never given a second thought to evolution - even biologist Christians.

 

[Gold Dragon]

There are plenty of Christian scientists who have never given a second thought to evolution - even biologist Christians.

Yes, but the statistics show that they are a miniscule proportion of the scientific community and the Christian scientific community.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Here is some more data on the subject:

Relgious Tolerance: Public Beliefs about Creation and Evolution

1997 Gallup Poll in the US

Everyone
44% YEC
39% TE/Old Earth
10% Naturalistic Evolution

Scientists
5% YEC
40% TE/Old Earth
55% Naturalistic Evolution

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Yes, but the statistics show that they are a miniscule proportion of the scientific community and the Christian scientific community.

That's not what stastic I said would be useful. It would be the subset of scientists that:
a. Are Christian
b. Have given serious objective (as best as possible) consideration to YEC claims

The statistic you provide in your second quote is far more favourable than the 0.15% or whatever was being given earlier. 5% seems to be a significant number of the scientific community.

 

[notto]

That's not what stastic I said would be useful. It would be the subset of scientists that:
a. Are Christian
b. Have given serious objective (as best as possible) consideration to YEC claims

The statistic you provide in your second quote is far more favourable than the 0.15% or whatever was being given earlier. 5% seems to be a significant number of the scientific community.

The first statistics only deal with life science and earth science scientists (who have studied the issues that YEC addresses). The second includes all scientists from unrelated fields (of which there are many)

When the evidence is examined by the experts, it does not point to YEC.

As far as your other point, why would scientists waste time and look objectively again at a theory that has been falsified? We know the earth isn't flat, we know the earth isn't young. We know you can't turn lead into gold. We know that rotting wheat doesn't produce rats. Why would scientists continually have to look at these things. They were false yesterday and they continue to be false today.

 

[seebs]

We know you can't turn lead into gold.

Hate to spoil a good riff, but you can, actually. With a particle accelerator. It's been done. Costs are on the order of a million bucks a milligram or something similarly insane, but it's possible. If a particle hits lead atoms hard enough to knock loose protons, see...

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

The first statistics only deal with life science and earth science scientists (who have studied the issues that YEC addresses). The second includes all scientists from unrelated fields (of which there are many)

iirc, the 0.15% was calculated by hand on these forums. 480,000 or so scientists from all fields, and 700 YEC's. Unless that figure of 480,000 was just for the life and earth sciences.

As far as your other point, why would scientists waste time and look objectively again at a theory that has been falsified? We know the earth isn't flat, we know the earth isn't young. We know you can't turn lead into gold. We know that rotting wheat doesn't produce rats. Why would scientists continually have to look at these things. They were false yesterday and they continue to be false today.

It is exactly this attitude which is the reason why objective analysis of the theory is virtually non-existent. How can you say "We don't need objective analysis because it's been falsified". Wouldn't falsifying it require objective analysis? And aren't these 'falsififactions' part of what I'm including in what one should objectively analyse? (hint: yes). Or are you just going to be told, "that crackpot theory has been falsified" and move on?

But anyway, your argument does nothing to help the situation. If a statistic like the one I require was revealed and left the figure at 0.15% then sure, it would seem pretty self evident that YEC claims are bunk. But if it shot up to 5, 10, 20% then there would be a different argument. That's why it's not useful to state what you did, and would be more useful to address the debate on hand.

I probably made little sense then, sorry if it's confusing.

 

[notto]

iirc, the 0.15% was calculated by hand on these forums. 480,000 or so scientists from all fields, and 700 YEC's. Unless that figure of 480,000 was just for the life and earth sciences.

That figure came from here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

It is exactly this attitude which is the reason why objective analysis of the theory is virtually non-existent. How can you say "We don't need objective analysis because it's been falsified". Wouldn't falsifying it require objective analysis? And aren't these 'falsififactions' part of what I'm including in what one should objectively analyse? (hint: yes). Or are you just going to be told, "that crackpot theory has been falsified" and move on?

young earth creationism was falsified using objective analysis by Christians who were looking for evidence for a young earth and a flood. How much more objective can you get? The falsifications are the same today as they were yesterday, are well understood by those working in geology and life science, and are certainly covered in objective analysis.

But anyway, your argument does nothing to help the situation. If a statistic like the one I require was revealed and left the figure at 0.15% then sure, it would seem pretty self evident that YEC claims are bunk. But if it shot up to 5, 10, 20% then there would be a different argument. That's why it's not useful to state what you did, and would be more useful to address the debate on hand.

I did address the debate at hand. When looked at objectively by scientists in the proper fields, the evidence does not point to young earth creationism. As far as science is concerned, it has been falsified a hundred times over with a hundred different independent lines of evidence. These are not going away. Once a theory is falsified, it does not merit further investigation, objective or otherwise.

Evolution is accepted by biologists and an old earth is accepted by geologists from all faiths, countries, and political points of view. Valid science and theories do not depend on these things. Creationism only works for a particular religious point of view and is not based in any way on objective analysis.

 

[gluadys]

It is exactly this attitude which is the reason why objective analysis of the theory is virtually non-existent. How can you say "We don't need objective analysis because it's been falsified". Wouldn't falsifying it require objective analysis? And aren't these 'falsififactions' part of what I'm including in what one should objectively analyse? (hint: yes). Or are you just going to be told, "that crackpot theory has been falsified" and move on?

What you are forgetting is that creationism is not a new theory that is being dismissed unexamined as a crackpot theory. Creationism was the accepted theory, the one respected scientists supported, right into the 19th century (and by some of them for much longer).

Every plea made on behalf of creationism today was made by the most respected scientists of Europe and America in the 19th century. It took falsification of creationism (beginning with the geological falsification of the flood and the young earth) for creationism to be dislodged as the theory of choice. Scientists themselves (a surprising number of them Christian clergy who were looking for evidence to support the biblical record) had to be convinced that the evidence showed the opposite of what they expected and hoped for.

So the objective analysis has already been made. And it resulted in the falsification of creationism. There is no reason to believe that if the objective analysis is made again that the result will be any different. The evidence that falsified it the first time hasn't changed. That is why scientists have no interest in revisiting the question.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

young earth creationism was falsified using objective analysis by Christians who were looking for evidence for a young earth and a flood. How much more objective can you get? The falsifications are the same today as they were yesterday, are well understood by those working in geology and life science, and are certainly covered in objective analysis.

Are you referring to specific falsifications, or would an inquiry into your sources simply result in a link to the index page of talkorigins?
If specific falsifications, I am most interested to see them.

I did address the debate at hand. When looked at objectively by scientists in the proper fields, the evidence does not point to young earth creationism. As far as science is concerned, it has been falsified a hundred times over with a hundred different independent lines of evidence. These are not going away. Once a theory is falsified, it does not merit further investigation, objective or otherwise.

You are telling me about scientists objectively analysing the evidence. I didn't ask that. I asked about scientists objectively and seriously analysing YEC claims. Examining the evidence produces an explanation, YEC being one of those. Can you say to me, knowing it truthfully, and with references:
"Out of all the Christian scientists who have objectively evaluated YEC claims <x>% are YEC's"?

I'm not really interested in finding a proper statistic. I was simply informing whoever quoted the 0.15% (Vance was it) about why that statistic is useless, and what statistic would be useful. Nothing more.

What you are forgetting is that creationism is not a new theory that is being dismissed unexamined as a crackpot theory. Creationism was the accepted theory, the one respected scientists supported, right into the 19th century (and by some of them for much longer).

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.

So the objective analysis has already been made. And it resulted in the falsification of creationism. There is no reason to believe that if the objective analysis is made again that the result will be any different. The evidence that falsified it the first time hasn't changed. That is why scientists have no interest in revisiting the question.

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.

There is no reason to believe that if the objective analysis is made again that the result will be any different.

Au contraire - did not Darwin's 'objective' analysis provide different results? May we not then assume at least the possibility (not plausibility) that another 'objective' analysis may provide a different result, either one uncommon or another entirely unheard of?

It seems close minded, at the least, to assume that an explanation for which one is convinced of does not at least have the possibility (however minute) of being flawed. I personally ascribe to YEC, but I do believe in the slight possibility that it is flawed in minor ways, or flawed in utterly irreconcilable ways.

Anyway, this thread isn't about specific evidences. It was about scientists who become YEC's and statistics of that. I'm sure most of you are aware that there are various realms and disciplines which all touch on this debate. Simply claiming that the jury has reached a verdict is unfair - it is far beyond the scope of this thread and one man (myself) to answer every one of those points. So, please don't say things unless you are willing to back them up.

 

[notto]

I personally ascribe to YEC, but I do believe in the slight possibility that it is flawed in minor ways, or flawed in utterly irreconcilable ways.

It is flawed in utterly irreconcilable ways. A young earth has been falsified. There are several independent lines of evidence that simply could not exist if the world is young. Once these lines of evidence are found, studied, and confirmed, the theory is falsified. It cannot be unfalsified because the evidence is the same today as it was yesterday. Objective, peer reviewed science has determined this. This was done over a hundred years ago and continues to be supported with each new find. YEC was accepted prior to it being looked at objectively (it was assumed to be true because of religious texts and beliefs). Once it WAS looked at objectively (by scientistis, including many Christians) it was rejected as being flawed in utterly irreconcilable ways.

Until the evidence and observations that provided this falsification are shown to be incorrect, the theory remains falsified. The evidence and observations have not been shown to be incorrect. No matter how much evidence is gathered to support a theory, if there is a single piece of evidence that falsifies it, the theory is falsified. This is how science works.

The theory of evolution certainly has changed, but it has not been falsified. It has been changed to deal with new evidence (as good science does) and the current model is still unfalsified. The only way that YEC can change to avoid this type of falsification is to remove the young claim from its title. A young earth has been falsified.

Scientists are very rational in their approach and have come to the consensus that the world is old and that evolution happened. There are no rational or objective arguments or tests left that do not rely on a religious faith. Can you think of one that has not been addressed by mainstream science?

I would argue that YEC's don't even look objectively at their own theories. When organizations such as ICR and AIG specifically state that they will ignore evidence to the contrary, that removes their objectivity. Their theories are ad-hoc and often conflict with other ad-hoc explainations they use.

Can you provide an objective source for YEC's claims that does not depend on claims of conspiracy or 'fallible man' claims? What independent line of evidence would lead scientists to conclude that the world is young? What lines of evidence presented by YEC's do you feel have not been looked at objectively by maintstream scientists?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Notto, you're missing my point. I'm not asking for your opinion on whether YEC is flawed or not. Nor are you providing me with any proof of that. I'm also not interested in debating the specifics of why I think Darwinism is wrong and YEC is correct. One thing I've learned in debating is to not cover multiple topics at once. If you have no complaints with the main point of my thread, then why are you responding? It seems like you are trying to draw me into a different topic - defending YEC and providing objections to the falsifications you say exist but do not reference. I'm not interested in that. Not here. Not in this thread.

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?