• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Let's compare real science to "scientific creationism".

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Zadok, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Zadok

    Zadok The Fossil Hound

    199
    +2
    Let's compare real science to "scientific creationism".

    1. Real scientists, as did Darwin, usually spend some time pointing out the possible weaknesses they see in their theories. This is done not only to highlight areas which need further study but in order to strike a balanced presentation that will not mislead the reader. Truth is the overriding goal.
    Creationists usually minimize or ignore the weaknesses in their theories unless the cat is out of the bag. Inserting their views into the public educational system is usually their goal.

    2. Real scientitsts publish scientific literature, which can be very unorthodox, in refereed journals. This serves as a clearing house for ideas as well as a common testing ground.
    Creationists, who apparently have nothing worth saying to the scientific community, invariably write for the layman. They have found it necessary to publish their ideas in special "creationist journals" because none of the hundreds of legitimate scientific journals find their work acceptable. Creationist journals mostly serve as a rallying point for the faithful, rarely as a means for criticizing their fellow believers.

    3. Real scientists are quick to criticize their colleagues if they suspect an error. Catching errors improves their status in the scientific community even as it improves the level of science.
    Creationists have a fortress mentality, and they are quick to circle their wagons. To admit error is considered bad form among creationists, and most of them must literally be smoked out before admitting any errors whatsoever. With no effective mechanism for weeding out error, errors are passed down like the family jewels. Today, one can buy many creationist books containing errors that should have been eliminated 20-30 years ago.

    4. Real scientists are quick to test promising new ideas (however unorthodox) and those which don't pan out quickly dissapear from the literature. Fame and fortune await any scientist who successfully advances a new idea.
    Creationists are largely concerned with protecting their dogma. Rejection is the likely lot of any creationist who questions the central dogma. Creationist arguments having serious errors, including arguments based solely on obsolete data, circulate indefinitely in the creationist literature.

    5. Real scientists are often involved in meaningful laboratory and field work. They are looking for new data which might clarify, overturn, or confirm their views.
    Creationists spend most of their time combing through books and technical journals for quotes with which to snipe at evolution, geology, astronomy, and other areas of science which challenge their central dogma. When they're not doing that, they can usually be found out on the stump drumming up support among the uneducated.

    6. Real scientists base their theories on the available evidence. They are not immune to the effects of prejudice, but they all understand that the facts dictate the conclusion. Conclusions are subserviant to the data; data are not subserviant to conclusions.
    Creationists take their science straight from the bible. Many creationists leaders have publicly stated, often in print, that any evidence at variance with their literal interpretation of the bible should be rejected out of hand. Their a priori conclusions dictate what data are acceptable. Thats not science!!!

    7. No self-respecting scientist would ever think of signing an oath of allegiance to Darwanism as a condition for employment. Evidence is "king" in good science, and there is no room for competing loyalties.
    Many creationists societies actually require a 'loyalty oath', which is tantamount to an admission that their minds are closed!!! Such minds are slammed shut and rusted tight.

    8. All good scientists admit that they might be wrong, that absolute certainty is not part of science. Scientists long ago recognized that our knowledge of the physical world is largely a product of inductive reasoning. In principle, inductive reasoning can yield a high degree of confidence, but it can never confer 100% certainty. The uncertainty of inductive reasoning follows from the fact that any set of observations can be explained, in principle, by an infinite number of hypotheses!!! One can never rule them all out no matter how much data one has. Thus, the proper scientific attitude includes a touch of humility no matter how great ones's success.
    Execpt for trivial details, creationists cannot concieve of the possibility that they are in error as that would take down their concept of biblical inerrancy. Since "scientific" creationism is really a branch of bible apologetics, there is no room for compromise. "Scientific" creationism is there to defend the faith, not probe the unknown.

    9. Real scientists are often found in the great universities, where real science is done and advanced. None of those institutions take creationism seriously.
    Creationists are usually associated with creationist societies. Those few "universities" where creationism is featured have either failed to get full accredation or have done so only through the pulling of political strings. What discoveries have they made? Name their Nobel laureates!!!

    10. Scientists build upon previous knowledge accumulated over the years, and only rarely participate in great, revolutionary breakthroughs.
    Creationists fancy that they are in the process of overthrowing modern biology, geology, astronomy, antrhopology, linguistics, paleontology, archaeology, oceanography, cosmology, physics, and numerous other branches of science. Some creationists (the flat-earth societies) would add the "grease-ball" theory of round-earth geography to that list. Anything that dosn't conform to their interpretation of the bible is suspect and in need of revision.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    hmm..cite?
     
  3. Zadok

    Zadok The Fossil Hound

    199
    +2
    Whoops forgot it.

    How good are those young earth arguments? (Revised edition, July 30, 1998) By Dave E. Matson, Mathamatician [Pgs 99-100]
     
  4. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    ahh..a mathematician..thanks :)
     
  5. Sinai

    Sinai Well-Known Member

    +15
    Protestant
    Zadok, what is your definition of a creationist? Thank you.
     
  6. Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden <font size=1><font color=red><b>"Up the Irons"</b>

    128
    +4
    Hogwash, many mathematicians and physics professors are creationists, many scientists are creationists, why? Because of a preponderance of evidence and lack of a better theory. If you trust the math a good Mathematician can deduce that creation is the most likely theory. Mathematicians and Physicists more than not, "Trust the math"
     
  7. chickenman

    chickenman evil unamerican

    +6
    what exactly does pure maths have to do with biology?
     
  8. blader

    blader Evilutionist

    809
    +0
    90% of all scientists accept evolution. (Source: Barna Research).

    Using this argument from authority, why don't agree with the majority of scientists then?
     
  9. Lanakila

    Lanakila Not responsible for the changes here.

    +208
    Atheist
    Private
    US-Others
    90% huh? Well, that number is up for argument. I like Barna, but unless he is telling us what types of scientists these 90% are, then the statistic is lacking a great deal. Also, what type of evolution do these 90% believe in? In other words has it been divided into macro and micro? If not than the statistics are totally flawed.
     
  10. Zadok

    Zadok The Fossil Hound

    199
    +2
    I'm not answering this. I think you all know what type of creationists the article was talking about.

    What do you base this?

    Since when can and does a good mathamatician deduce that creation the most likely theory without going into other scientific fields that back evolutionary theory? Care to explain how? Does 3+3=God did it? So much for skepticism...

    Its obvious that he's reffering to those who do not accept common descent because of the dogmatic outlook from the book of genesis.
     
  11. Sinai

    Sinai Well-Known Member

    +15
    Protestant

    Sorry, Zadok. I didn't mean to make you so testy, and I certainly didn't think it was too difficult a question for you to answer. I was merely giving you a chance to correct your error in apparently misusing the term.

    You raised what could conceivably have been a number of reasonably valid observations and comparisons in your piece--except that you unduly exposed your bias by painting with too broad a brush. Despite having this same error pointed out to you previously, you insisted on extending your comparisons to all creationists--i.e., to all persons who believe that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God (the basic definition of "creationist" according to Webster's Dictionary).

    A significant number of the persons who would probably qualify as being some of the top "true scientists" of the past century (at least by anyone else's criteria) have been Christians or Jews who have believed that there is a God who created the universe.
     
  12. Zadok

    Zadok The Fossil Hound

    199
    +2
    Sinai pull your head out. If you acctually read my other post and the thread itself you would have already have been answered.

    I put the traditional creationist person in traditional creationist terms. Yet you have failed to even grasp an inkling of what is being said on this thread.

    And yet this isn't the type of creationism we are fighting against. We are fighting the die hard pseudoscientific dogmatic beliefs of the creationists I was reffering too.

    Just believing in god, and saying he created does not make you a creationist in the psuedoscientific term. But you have your 'bible vision' on, so you are obviously blinded by the incredible amount of monotinous ramblings which are written within its pages.
     
  13. Sinai

    Sinai Well-Known Member

    +15
    Protestant
    Oh, I understood what you were saying--and I understood that you probably intended for your comments only to apply to the young earth creationists. And that is why I asked you how you defined the term creationist; I was trying to gently point out that you misused the term, and to give you a chance to correct yourself.

    Instead, you insisted on perpetuating your error by responding, "I'm not answering this. I think you all know what type of creationists the article was talking about." Since your response indicated that there was a very real possibility that you did not know the actual meaning of the term creationist, I gave you the definition and again gave you a chance to correct your prior post. You have again refused to do so, posting instead the tripe I quoted above. At least you did slightly modify your prior post by continuing with the following:

    By saying that you were referring to creationists who have "pseudoscientific dogmatic beliefs" (Judging from statements made in your initial post, I presume this is probably a reference to young earth creationists) and by admitting that "Just believing in god, and saying he created does not make you a creationist in the psuedoscientific term," you come close to admitting that what you mean when you say creationist is not the actual definition of creationist, but that you are referring to only a very narrow segment of the total spectrum. Thank you at least for that much; I see no point in responding to the rude, boorish and offensive comments in your post.

     
  14. Zadok

    Zadok The Fossil Hound

    199
    +2
    Way to go, it took you HOW long to understand?

    And yet you DID respond.
     
  15. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    +1,463
    Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    Arguably wrong though it may be, the use of "creationist" to refer to "young earth creationist" is actively pushed by many YEC groups.
     
  16. Morat

    Morat Untitled One

    +2
    Atheist
    &nbsp; *nods*. Theistic evolution is the term used to describe the ones that have no problems with modern science. I'm not sure what Hovind calls people like Behe in private. Although having heard a Ross/Hovind debate, I know what Hovind calls Ross publically.

    &nbsp;
     
  17. alexgb00

    alexgb00 Senior Member

    649
    +24
    Pentecostal
    Single
    Zadok,

    1. Darwin wrote:

    "Absurd in the highest degree," yet he babbles on about how it must've, since we have eyes today. That's good logic, Chuck.

    Christians want the Bible taught in schools because that is the way it originally was in America. Darwinism showed up and slowly spread. The intruder is darwinism, not Creation or Christianity.

    2. Real "scientitsts?"&nbsp;You mean the people whose discoveries and theories are "acceptable?" Robert Gentry found a way to prove that the earth was never a mass of molten magma. He wrote his findings for Science magazine to publish in fall of 1976. They never published it. Don't say so boldly that Creationists don't publish their findings in magazines -- it's the magazines that do the censoring. Your claim is the equivalent of a Soviet citizen saying "if capitalism is so much better than communism, why don't we have proof for this in our newspapers and magazines?"

    3. Your claim is unfounded, Zad. Moreover, it's the evolutionists who hold on to "facts" which were disproved decades ago. Some college texts still print that the human embryo goes through the stages of looking like a bacteria, fish, ape, then human. This was disproven half a century ago. You are full of useless rubbish.

    4. You contradict yourself. You are scared to death of Creation, yet claim to try&nbsp;different ideas. How is this different from what you're accusing Creationists of doing? And you don't think darwinists aren't dogmatic people?
    :)
    Evolutionists are more&nbsp;nervous about&nbsp;new&nbsp;ideas than a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

    5. You are an overweening idiot to imply that Creation is mostly accepted by the uneducated. I can't believe&nbsp;your arrogance. Most of the evolutionists i know can't give one shred of evidence for evolution. They believe it because it's the only explanation they heard, not because it's convincing. As for scientists trying to overturn their views, yes. But only if you understand that darwinism isn't science. Darwinists pick up anything they can to support their meager theory.

    Your blind bias against Creation is clearly seen here. You just can't accept a Creationist scientist. There are quite a bunch today. Here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp.

    6. Sure, and the "peppered moth" experiment proves your theory. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4105.asp. Why do you and other darwinists, if you are real scientists, still believe this moonshine? Because it's beneficial to you. You decide what goes (Creation) and what stays (darwinism).&nbsp;That's not science!!!

    7. You're a complete fool if you think there is no evidence for Creation. There's no&nbsp;friendly way to put it.&nbsp;I see you've&nbsp;never even&nbsp;researched it at all. You're no authority to speak on the subject.

    I've never heard of a "loyalty oath" required by Creationists. You need to cite such claims.

    8. I am a Creationist, and i believe the Bible is free of error. You are a hard-core darwinist who thinks your theory is without error. Otherwise, why can't you accept what the Bible says?

    Listen to me on this, because it is pretty complicated: logically, there is nothing in this world that is certain. Can you be sure of your birth date, for example? You couldn't have remembered, even though you were there. Your birth certificate says it, but it could be wrong, theoretically, too. That is why there are some things we accept by faith, even scientists. Nothing says for sure that air will hold up your airplane. You have faith that it will, though.&nbsp;A rocket scientist can't be sure that&nbsp;a given rocket will lift off and not blow up on the pad,&nbsp;so by faith,&nbsp;a billion-dollar satellite can be put aboard.&nbsp;I believe that God is, and i take that by faith. I believe that the Bible is true. Please don't attack me as stupid or ignorant because of this, because you believe that God doesn't exist, but can't be sure.

    9. So majority opinion is your way of proving evolution? Figures... :rolleyes: People with political power who share your view on this are responsible for such punishment on Creationists. A darwinist can be exhalted as a great scientist, but when he becomes a Creationist, he is called a religious fanatic. Your opinion of Christians is much like the Soviets'. You just can't stand us. If you had the chance, you'd just hang us all, right?

    10. I can't understand where you get this stupid trash. Name one Creationist who believes the earth is flat! And the Bible never mentions a flat earth. I doubt that mankind ever thought that the earth is flat. All you need to do is to climb a mountain and look at the horizon.

    And i can't let you get away with saying that Christians continuously try to disprove all these branches of science.&nbsp;The Bible&nbsp;has&nbsp;never contradicted biology, geology, astronomy, anthropology,&nbsp;etc.&nbsp;Give us a real quote, not something from your hole-riddled head.

    This all just shows that the only way darwinists will drop their crazy anti-science / anti-Christian dogma is to pry it from their cold, dead brains.

    &nbsp;
     
  18. Joe V.

    Joe V. Rabbit Worshipper

    240
    +1
    Alexgb00, tell me something, if you could? Who do you think those big oil companies hire to do the looking for their oil? Do you suppose they hire Creationist scientists who buy into a 6000 year old Earth, or do they hire geologists who advocate an Earth that's some 4 billion years old? Just curious...

    - Joe
     
  19. m.e.m.

    m.e.m. New Member

    5
    +0
    Hi Joe
    I am new to this board but couldn't help speaking up on this one. What difference do you think it makes if a person is educated as a geologist if he believes in creation or not? Alex just got done telling you that The Bible and creationists don't violate the laws of science, right? Maybe you could site an example where they do? Since I am new to this board I was wondering if any of you can tell me, where are the transitional species ...all this fossil record evidence that Darwin talked about. Nebraska Man maybe. And Zadoc, you talk about about hanging on to bad information?
     
  20. chickenman

    chickenman evil unamerican

    +6
    alex:

    1)
    http://www.maayan.uk.com/evoeyes1.html

    the stuff about pax 6 is especially interesting

    2) Creation scientists on the whole are not actually doing "scientific research" of their own. Mostly a creation scientists job seems to consist of denying evolution, rather than experimentation or research.

    3) which college texts?

    4) Evolutionists (I prefer the term biologist) aren't in the least scared of creationism. Creationism has no foothold in scientific circles. I don't think i've ever come across a single mention of creationism in any scientific journal i've ever read.

    5) you'd know because you've had a thourough scientific education?

    6) Natural selection has been shown so many times in so many different organisms that you're going to have to do more than "refute" the peppered moth example to "refute" NS

    7) I have seen most if not all the creationist arguments on the web, evidence is not on creationisms side.

    8) -

    9) ?

    10) anti-science? bizzare. read a scientific journal sometime
     
Loading...