Rejection of modern science leads to....?

[Numenor]

What do you think the effects would be of science regressing to holding Creationism as true?

 

[shernren]

No way it will. Asking what will happen if science regresses into creation science is like asking what the weather was like during Noah's Global Flood, given the current status of science.

 

[Numenor]

Smarty pants

Ok a different tack, so how about how would modern science now be deficient if Creation Science was still held to?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

We wouldn't have science. Experiments would bring up too many problematic questions for creation science to exist with science.

 

[shernren]

Alright - attempting to answer seriously now. thought about this from Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World (don't like it that much, actually), that religion is prescriptive whereas science is descriptive. In other words:

Religion: This should happen because it is right.
Science: This should happen because we've seen it happen this way often before.

Basically, when taking a religious approach to the study of nature, one ends up with "because this isn't right, this isn't happening." To wonder at God's work is one thing: to keep invoking His irrational cataclysmic interruption, when explanations that make more sense without detracting anything from faith are available, is a bit too much. On a practical note, this is what I can come up with:

Creationists should support a massive increase in the number of nuclear power plants. There is no need either to bury nuclear waste securely. After all, if God can magically accelerate nuclear decay and then suck the heat out of the universe, this would be the perfect time for Him to do so.

It's my pet argument and a good example of what happens when you conflate miracle with science. Any others?

 

[wiske]

What do you think the effects would be of science regressing to holding Creationism as true?

The only implication would be that the Theory of Evolution would have been rejected.

I'd like to ask a different question, however: what would have happened if no creationists had ever been interested in science?

Answer: modern science would not exist.

Isaac Newton was the first scientist who produced a modern scientific theory; prior to Newton, certain laws of Nature had been discovered, but a scientific theory, in the modern sense of the term, had never been proposed. Now Newton was a believer in Biblical creation, who considered his theological writings of greater importance than his scientific work. Thus, modern science itself is the invention of a creationist.

Without creationists, our understanding of the cosmos would not be different from the model proposed by Ptolemaios in the Almagest. In this old model, the sun, the planets and the firmament, evolved around the earth. It was Copernicus, a Christian believing in the literal creation of Genesis 1, who proposed the heliocentric model. It was Kepler, a creationist, building on Copernicus' work, who paved the way for Newton to formulate his theory of Gravity.

Without creationists, no Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory was first proposed by George Lemaitre, a Belgian Catholic priest. Initially, his theory was laughed at by most of the scientific community, who at the time adhered to Einstein's steady state model, which he proposed in 1917 (his greatest mistake, as he later admitted). In 1935, however, Einstein applauded Lemaitre and had this to say about his theory: "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened". And a theory of creation it was; Lemaitre thought of the Big Bang as the day without yesterday (i.e. Day 1 of Creation).

Without creationists, no modern physics. Michael Faraday, a creationist, and James Clerk Maxwell, a creationist and strong opponent of Darwin's theory, developed the classical theory of electromagnetics; this theory was a necessary predecessor of modern physics, without which its rise could not have occurred. Also, without this classical theory, we would have no modern technology: no radio, no TV, no computers, no modern medicine etc. In fact, without these two creationists, I would now be unable to post this on the internet.

Without creationists, no:
genetics (Gregor Mendel);
bacteriology (Louis Pasteur);
comparative anatomy (Georges Cuvier);
systematic biology (Linnaeus);
paleontology (James Woodward);
EVOLUTION (cannot be developed without most of the sciences mentioned above);
gynecology, electronics, calculus (without which no modern science can be developed), non-Euclidean geometry (without which general relativity and modern cosmology could not be developed), etc. etc.

Of course, logically speaking, it can not be entirely excluded that, had the above-mentioned creationists not discovered science, someone else might have come up eventually with their discoveries. My only point, however, is to show that creationists in no way have hampered science, on the contrary, they have made science. It is a gross fallacy to think that the Atheists-did-it or that the Evolutionists-did-it. In fact, the advancement of knowledge nowadays is hampered and handicapped by the naturalistic paradigm, in that it restricts (constricts!) science to materialism and chooses to ignore the problems that materialism poses.

 

[shernren]

This is highly ironic.

Newton was a complete heretic who was an anti-Trinitarian - believed that Jesus was not God, the Arian heresy. He also had numericist leanings, reading far too much into Ezekiel's plan of the Temple, and fervently practiced alchemy - it is believed that he died from mercury poisoning.

The Copernican theories and Galileo's understanding of heliocentrism were steadily opposed by the Catholic Church as being contrary to the revealed word of Scripture. Sound familiar?

Georges Cuvier was a gifted paleontologist who, it was said, "could deduce the anatomy of an entire animal from a single fossil tooth" - a practice creationists dismiss as producing the results evolutionists want to believe. Would you put forth Cuvier as a Christian scientist and then later in the table of beliefs deny that his extrapolations were often right and had significant scientific basis?

Amusing inconsistencies.

 

[wiske]

This is highly ironic.

Newton was a complete heretic who was an anti-Trinitarian - believed that Jesus was not God, the Arian heresy. He also had numericist leanings, reading far too much into Ezekiel's plan of the Temple, and fervently practiced alchemy - it is believed that he died from mercury poisoning.

Whether Newton was an heretic or not, is beside the point; he believed in the literal creation story, the Flood etc. He is still regarded by many as the greatest scientist of all time.

The Copernican theories and Galileo's understanding of heliocentrism were steadily opposed by the Catholic Church as being contrary to the revealed word of Scripture. Sound familiar?

I didn't mention Galilei. Mikolaj Kopernik has never been in conflict with the Church.

Georges Cuvier was a gifted paleontologist who, it was said, "could deduce the anatomy of an entire animal from a single fossil tooth" - a practice creationists dismiss as producing the results evolutionists want to believe. Would you put forth Cuvier as a Christian scientist and then later in the table of beliefs deny that his extrapolations were often right and had significant scientific basis?

I don't know what practices creationists dismiss; fact is that Cuvier was a creationist. I don't understand why you ask if and what I would deny about Cuvier's extrapolations.

Cuvier was not just a "gifted paleontologist", he was the founder of comparative anatomy.

Amusing inconsistencies.

What inconsistencies??

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Of course Newton was a creationist. The geological and biological evidence against creationism didn't come until the 19th Century. Most likely, he would reject creationism if he were alive today just as he would probably admit Einstein's understanding of gravity surpassed his own.

 

[shernren]

Whether Newton was an heretic or not, is beside the point; he believed in the literal creation story, the Flood etc. He is still regarded by many as the greatest scientist of all time.

So it's not important that Newton didn't believe Jesus was God, as long as he was a creationist.

I didn't mention Galilei. Mikolaj Kopernik has never been in conflict with the Church.

Rethink that:

Opposition was first raised against the Copernican system by Protestant theologians for Biblical reasons and strange to say it has continued, at least sporadically, to our own days. A list of many of their Pamphlets is enumerated by Beckmann. On the Catholic side opposition only commenced seventy-three years later, when it was occasioned by Galileo. On 5 March, 1616, the work of Copernicus was forbidden by the Congregation of the Index "until corrected", and in 1620 these corrections were indicated. Nine sentences, by which the heliocentric system was represented as certain, had to be either omitted or changed. This done, the reading of the book was allowed.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm

I don't know what practices creationists dismiss; fact is that Cuvier was a creationist. I don't understand why you ask if and what I would deny about Cuvier's extrapolations.

Cuvier was not just a "gifted paleontologist", he was the founder of comparative anatomy.

Here's a typical creationist argument:

Several of the supposed finds have relied on mere tooth or jaw fragments. These include Piltdown man, Dryopithecus, Ramapithecus, and Hesperopithecus. (see picture #1) ([9], p.42; [15], p.44)

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid4.htm

and a typical evolutionist reply:

Bones are never considered in isolation; rather, they are compared with other bones from more complete skeletons. If you have a bone that looks like an Iguanodon femur but smaller, to give a simple example, the reconstruction would look a lot like a smaller Iguanodon. A complete reconstruction, however, is possible only if you can match the single bone to an animal for which there is a complete skeleton already.

The ability to deduce much about a fossil from a single tooth or bone was made famous by anatomist and paleontologist Georges Cuvier. In 1804, for example, he confidently announced that a French fossil was an opossum (then unknown from France) on the basis of only its teeth (Zimmer 1998, 135-137). Cuvier was a creationist.

What inconsistencies??

That when creation science comes up with a long list of "creationist scientists", the most illustrious ones include:

- Newton, who started disbelieving that Jesus was God,
- Copernicus, whose heliocentric theory was opposed by both Catholics and Protestants, and whose Copernican Principle is the first major principle of astronomy Dr. Russell Humphrey discards in reaching his white hole theory,
- Cuvier, whose expertise and contributions creationists routinely ignore in claiming that the fossil record disproves evolution, and
- Linnaeus, who was a confirmed sex maniac as witnessed in many of his Latin names, and who also systematized the nested hierarchies that form a good proof for evolution,

and many others, none of which (as far as I can see) were / are alive in the last 10 years.

 

[Numenor]

That's an interesting list of names, but wasn't everybody a Creationist back then?

 

[wiske]

So it's not important that Newton didn't believe Jesus was God, as long as he was a creationist.

What he believed about the Trinity has nothing to do with his science. Besides, it is not at all certain that he rejected the Trinity or that he adhered to Arianism. His only published work which touches upon the Trinity, was a proof of two errors in the King James Version of the Bible; these mistakes have been corrected in modern Bible translations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Corruptions_of_the_Scriptures
Also the following online commentary on 1 John 5:7, by Jamieson, Fausett and Brown, may be of interest:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1129109316-2335.html

According to Wikipedia:
"Newton is often accused of being a unitarian and arian, and not believing in the church's doctrine of divine trinity. However, T.C. Pfizenmaier argued that he more likely held the Eastern Orthodox view of the Trinity rather than the Western one held by Roman Catholics, Anglicans and most Protestants."

Rethink that:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm

This merely confirms what I wrote: Mikolaj Kopernik had never been in conflict with the Church. If his work was temporarily forbidden by the Church in 1616, that would have been more than 70 years after his death.

Here's a typical creationist argument:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid4.htm
and a typical evolutionist reply:

Yes, a typical creationist's argument and a typical evolutionist's reply... What am I supposed to answer to that?

That when creation science comes up with a long list of "creationist scientists", the most illustrious ones include:

- Newton, who started disbelieving that Jesus was God,
- Copernicus, whose heliocentric theory was opposed by both Catholics and Protestants, and whose Copernican Principle is the first major principle of astronomy Dr. Russell Humphrey discards in reaching his white hole theory,
- Cuvier, whose expertise and contributions creationists routinely ignore in claiming that the fossil record disproves evolution, and
- Linnaeus, who was a confirmed sex maniac as witnessed in many of his Latin names, and who also systematized the nested hierarchies that form a good proof for evolution,

and many others, none of which (as far as I can see) were / are alive in the last 10 years.

Your argument seems to be, that when creationists come up with lists of creationists who have contributed to science, then such a list should better not include notorious sinners or scientists with differing views?

Well, first of all I don't know whether creationists do come up with such lists, and secondly, if they do, so what?

As I wrote in an earlier post, my sole purpose was to show that creationists have greatly contributed to science. I am not interested in a debate about "creationism" and - up till now - I have not even mentioned the word in this thread.

 

[wiske]

That's an interesting list of names, but wasn't everybody a Creationist back then?

No.

 

[Numenor]

No.

Ok, so my use of hyperbole must have zipped by you

...wasn't nearly everybody in the scientific community a Creationist back then?

 

[wiske]

Ok, so my use of hyperbole must have zipped by you

...wasn't nearly everybody in the scientific community a Creationist back then?

Again: no. My list contains mostly names from the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. The "Age of Enlightenment" took place in the 18th century; many educated people then became Deists and rejected both the Bible and Christianity. The 19th century witnessed the disease of Atheism winning ground.

In Europe, the debate that took place after Darwin published his theory, was mostly one of Darwinism versus Lamarckism and other alternative theories, rather than one of Darwinism versus Creationism.

In the twentieth century creationists became an endangered species or became totally extinct, except perhaps in the US. I can safely say that the only believer in creationism that I ever met in my life, was a JW.

 

[Athene]

Wiske, I don't believe Newtons discoveries were dependent on creationism being true. Why don't you try examining scientists whose discoveries directly relate to evolution and the universe forming from a singularity being true.
Newtons, Gallileos, Copernicus's discoveries wouldn't be affected because Lematre and Darwin hadn't done their thing yet.

I took the OP to mean, discovereis which are directly linked to not believing creationsims to be true, these would suffer if creationism was the dominant scientific belief. Apologies to Numenor if I've misunderstood his OP)

If creationism was dominant then molecular biology would suffer, because it meddles with God's creation.

Astrophysics would suffer becuause it is based on stars being millions of light years away.

 

[wiske]

Wiske, I don't believe Newtons discoveries were dependent on creationism being true.

My posts are not at all about creationism, but about creationists.

Why don't you try examining scientists whose discoveries directly relate to evolution and the universe forming from a singularity being true.
Newtons, Gallileos, Copernicus's discoveries wouldn't be affected because Lematre and Darwin hadn't done their thing yet.

Newton's discoveries directly relate to all of modern science, since he discovered calculus, without which modern science would be unable to proceed.

I took the OP to mean, discovereis which are directly linked to not believing creationsims to be true, these would suffer if creationism was the dominant scientific belief. Apologies to Numenor if I've misunderstood his OP)

I answered the OP's question by saying that only the Theory of Evolution would be affected; other branches of science have not been affected negatively by the existence of creationism or creationists, on the contrary (as I have shown).

If creationism was dominant then molecular biology would suffer, because it meddles with God's creation.

It is not creationism which calls a halt to certain types of research, it is Christian ethics. What is technically feasible, is not necessarily morally right.

It should be noted that only a tiny fraction of Christians believe in creationism, but the majority of Christians is opposed to certain types of research.

Astrophysics would suffer becuause it is based on stars being millions of light years away.

I don't know about that, but I think you are referring to Young Earth Creationists, an even rarer species.

We can wonder a lot about how science would suffer if certain beliefs were held. Would zoology suffer from a (dis)belief in sea monsters?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0927_050927_giant_squid.html

Many beliefs that were dominant three centuries ago, are no longer dominant. It is likely that many beliefs that are dominant today, will no longer be dominant three centuries from now.

 

[shernren]

Your argument seems to be, that when creationists come up with lists of creationists who have contributed to science, then such a list should better not include notorious sinners or scientists with differing views?

Well, first of all I don't know whether creationists do come up with such lists, and secondly, if they do, so what?

As I wrote in an earlier post, my sole purpose was to show that creationists have greatly contributed to science. I am not interested in a debate about "creationism" and - up till now - I have not even mentioned the word in this thread.

It is very important because the validity of an argument to authority rests upon how impeccable the character of that authority is. The basic argument that is presented through having a long list of creationist scientists is that "Because a lot of good scientists hold to creationism, creationism must be true, or at least meritorious." Let's look carefully at that argument. The first possible explanation of that argument is:

Observation: many good scientists were creationists.
Deduction: much good science came from creationism.

But that's easily knocked down. Newton didn't come up with calculus because he believed in the 6-day creation. Mendel's pea experiments wouldn't have been any different whether he believed the peas had evolved or been instantaneously created. The science which these scientists developed finds itself independent of the creationism its founders believed in.

The second possible explanation of the argument is:

Observation: many good scientists were creationists.
Assumption: that they were good scientists shows that they were good people.
Deduction: good people should be creationists.

This explanation of the argument lies on the assumption that they were good scientists because they were good people. And of course, if their character is questioned then the whole argument falls apart. Which was precisely my point.

It makes much more sense to think of these great scientists (as an aspiring scientist myself I cannot doubt their expertise) as people who happened to believe in creationism alongside being scientists, rather than people who became good scientists because of creationism or even as scientists who stood out because of creationism. If there were an alternate history in which there had been no creationists, doubtless some evolutionists would have stepped up and invented calculus or relativity. Creationism in a time when there was no understanding of its nature or the evidence it demanded did no harm to science. But creation science in a time when it is rightly challenged on all sides with little or no answer will.

 

[LightEagle]

What do you think the effects would be of science regressing to holding Creationism as true?

I would like to ask a question in turn. Why would you want to reject modern science? Evidence from a multitude of different scientific disciplines point to an old universe and old earth.

I have found that many christians (I was once one of them) base their faith on the percieved fact that Genesis is to be taken as a literal chain of events when the universe and the earth came into existence. I have since come to realise that whether the earth is old or young does not change Jesus's message of the Kingdom of God an salvation. The Bible is not a book a science, but of profound spiritual truth. The Bible does not tell how the universe came into being, only that God created, that he elevated a part of His creation to take responsibility for His creatures and that this part of creation (us) were disobedient and brought the Fall. Modern science does not disprove God. In fact more scientists are coming to believe in God as the Architect of the universe and maker of the laws that governs it. As long as God is worshiped and not science.

 

[Merlin]

Modern science is a search for order in the chaos.
In effect, they search for the design, while denying the idea of designer.

.