Uses of Creationist Science

[ReverendDG]

Hmm sorry AV, but all those scientists arn't 'creationists' as people consider them, in the 20th century or after

none of them believed in a literal genesis or flood or believed the animals evolved from hyper-evolution or believed in a genetic defect that got passed through decent
they believed in god but thats not really what makes you a creationist now does it?

 

[Tomk80]

Hmm sorry AV, but all those scientists arn't 'creationists' as people consider them, in the 20th century or after

none of them believed in a literal genesis or flood or believed the animals evolved from hyper-evolution or believed in a genetic defect that got passed through decent
they believed in god but thats not really what makes you a creationist now does it?

I disagree, regardless of beliefs about things they had no knowledge of, we would definitely consider a huge number of them scientists.

However, did they use "creation science". No.

 

[AV1611VET]

...they believed in god but thats not really what makes you a creationist now does it?

The first list was preceded by the author's comment that some of these scientists held pretty unorthodox beliefs, yet all were creationists.

Here's the comment:

• Furthermore, many - probably most - of the greatest scientists of all times, the founding fathers of science in fact, believed in a personal Creator God, the inspiration of the Bible, and special creation. They also professed faith in Christ and the gospel. Whether all were truly "born-again", as we would understand that term in a Bible-believing church today, we cannot know. Some were unorthodox in their specific doctrinal beliefs, but all were creationists.

The Defender's Study Bible, by Dr. Henry M. Morris, Appendix 7, p. 1518.

 

[Valkhorn]

The first list was preceded by the author's comment that some of these scientists held pretty unorthodox beliefs, yet all were creationists.

Here's the comment:

• Furthermore, many - probably most - of the greatest scientists of all times, the founding fathers of science in fact, believed in a personal Creator God, the inspiration of the Bible, and special creation. They also professed faith in Christ and the gospel. Whether all were truly "born-again", as we would understand that term in a Bible-believing church today, we cannot know. Some were unorthodox in their specific doctrinal beliefs, but all were creationists.

The Defender's Study Bible, by Dr. Henry M. Morris, Appendix 7, p. 1518.

Ugh. Creationism does not equal Christianity. Even when I was a Christian many years ago I was not a Creationist and I also knew Evolution to be true.

Why can't you accept that?

 

[BVZ]

The first list was preceded by the author's comment that some of these scientists held pretty unorthodox beliefs, yet all were creationists.

Here's the comment:

• Furthermore, many - probably most - of the greatest scientists of all times, the founding fathers of science in fact, believed in a personal Creator God, the inspiration of the Bible, and special creation. They also professed faith in Christ and the gospel. Whether all were truly "born-again", as we would understand that term in a Bible-believing church today, we cannot know. Some were unorthodox in their specific doctrinal beliefs, but all were creationists.

The Defender's Study Bible, by Dr. Henry M. Morris, Appendix 7, p. 1518.

The question in the OP is where has creation science helped mankind.

Repeat: Where has Creation Science helped mankind.

Everyone on those lists were christians. Many of them might even have been supporters of creation science.

However, none of the discoveries they made were made with the aid of creation science.

Get it?

Can you show us where anyone has used creation science to make a discovery?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ugh. Creationism does not equal Christianity. Even when I was a Christian many years ago I was not a Creationist and I also knew Evolution to be true.

Why can't you accept that?

I gave 4 axioms why evolution can't be true. Every response was from the perspective of science. Not one was from the perspective of Scripture.

I have no respect whatsoever for science that contradicts Scripture --- absolutely none.

 

[AV1611VET]

Get it?

Can you show us where anyone has used creation science to make a discovery?

If I misunderstood the question, that's fine. It certainly won't be the first time.

If you don't like my answer, kindly disregard it.

 

[Split Rock]

The Defender's Study Bible, by Dr. Henry M. Morris, Appendix 7, p. 1518.

I thought the King James Bible was the ultimate, God-inspired translation of the bible?

 

[TheBear]

None to date.

There are no creation models that have been used in medicine, agriculture, geology, zoology, astronomy, or any of the natural sciences. There have been no new discoveries, advances or applied sciences, attributed to creation "science" models. Oil companies do not use creation "science" models for oil exploration. (Although, there was a company in the past who took a gamble, and lost big time.) No vaccines have been developed using creation "science" models.

Creation "science" hasn't produced anything even remotely considered to be applied science.


But all that doesn't matter. An irrational belief in Middle Bronze Age writings, has such a strong hold on these people, that no amount of evidence will change their minds.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

It's kind of hard to claim that science is "athiestic" in one breath then claim that most of the greastest scientists in history were christians. So which is it/

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I gave 4 axioms why evolution can't be true. Every response was from the perspective of science. Not one was from the perspective of Scripture.

Ok then
Here is a little project for you. There is a thoery in science for why the sky is blue called Rayleigh Scattering.
Your project, is to either support of defeat this thoery USING SCRIPTURE AS YOUR SOLE REFERENCE.
.Once you have found the futility of using scripture to address a scientific theory you will see how asburd your assertion that scripture be used as a perspective for evaluating the validity of evolutionary theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought the King James Bible was the ultimate, God-inspired translation of the bible?

Inspiration and translation are two different things.

 

[AV1611VET]

Once you have found the futility of using scripture to address a scientific theory you will see how asburd your assertion that scripture be used as a perspective for evaluating the validity of evolutionary theory.

The Bible and science walk side-by-side, since God is the Author of science; but when science contradicts the Scriptures, that's where I draw the line.

I can't show Rayleigh Scattering in the Scriptures, and that's simply because the Scriptures don't talk about it.

However, if by some stretch of the imagination, Rayleigh Scattering contradicts Scripture, then that part that contradicts needs re-evaluation.

Look at it this way: I can't show Rayleigh Scattering from a book on Oceanography, but if by some stretch of the imagination Rayleigh Scattering contradicts Oceanography, then a re-evaluation is needed somewhere.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Ok then
Here is a little project for you. There is a thoery in science for why the sky is blue called Rayleigh Scattering.
Your project, is to either support of defeat this thoery USING SCRIPTURE AS YOUR SOLE REFERENCE.
.Once you have found the futility of using scripture to address a scientific theory you will see how asburd your assertion that scripture be used as a perspective for evaluating the validity of evolutionary theory.

I'm just finishing up _Paradigms on Pilgrimage_, an excellent book, btw.

chapter 5 is titled: "Atheistic Meteorology or Divine Rain?"

The big idea is:
I wondered what part a person of faith should consider God to play in sending rain. Furthermore, what part, if not all, of meteorology should we not bother studying, because ttherein lies the domain of God, a reality beyond scientific scrutiny?" pg 84-85

This was an important analogy to the author, for he knew of all the verses in the Bible where rain is directly attributable to God. And as a matter of fact is a demonstration of common grace, in that the rain is caused to fall on both the evil and the righteous. The big question is where does -divine miraculous intervention- and the -providential natural means- two types of interaction for God and His world begin and end?

Because of the important of rain in a desert environment there is lots of verses about the rain and God's relationship to it in the Bible. As an exercise, develop "theistic meteorology" from the Scriptures alone. Now compare it to the evening news weather report.

The point is that the Bible is not exhaustive truth, something which ought to have been evident from John 21:25, which states:
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.".

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I can't show Rayleigh Scattering in the Scriptures, and that's simply because the Scriptures don't talk about it.

Well, since the bible specifically does not mention evolution then there can be no contradiciton between scriputre and science there. And since you imply that evolution is valid when viewed from a strictly scientific perspective - I guess the only conclusion is that you accept evolutionary thoery. Congrats!

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, since the bible specifically does not mention evolution then there can be no contradiciton between scriputre and science there.

Oh, I think there might be a few contradictions, if you look hard enough.

 

[Elduran]

I gave 4 axioms why evolution can't be true. Every response was from the perspective of science. Not one was from the perspective of Scripture.

Excuse me? As I recall, your "axioms" were entirely scripture based. In fact, could you quote them here so that everyone can juidge for themselves?

I have no respect whatsoever for science that contradicts Scripture --- absolutely none.

Good thing science really doesn't need your respect then.

 

[AV1611VET]

Excuse me? As I recall, your "axioms" were entirely scripture based. In fact, could you quote them here so that everyone can juidge for themselves?

Sure --- here they are again --- my 4 axioms against evolution:

• Evolution hasn't had enough time to operate.

Evolution requires millions of years with which to work. In view of the fact that this universe has only been in operation for 6000 years, evolution is impossible.

• Jesus believes in creation.

[bible]Mark 10:6[/bible][bible]Mark 13:19[/bible]

As followers of Jesus, we should too. Paul also believed in creation:

[bible]Romans 1:20[/bible][bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

As did Peter:

[bible]2 Peter 3:4[/bible]

• Natural selection is immoral.

Operating on the principle of survival of the fittest, natural selection takes the best, and leaves the rest. It is a brutal dog-eat-dog, last-man-standing, may-the-best-man-survive principle that God never would have set in motion.

[bible]Mark 10:31[/bible][bible]2 Corinthians 12:10[/bible]

• God pronounced His creation "very good".

Six times in Genesis 1, God says His creation is good. After that, He steps back and pronounces the whole thing "very good". This means the whole is greater than the sum of its parts --- meaning everything is "perfect".

Why then, the need for evolution, when God's creation is already "very good"?

 

[llDayo]

The Bible and science walk side-by-side, since God is the Author of science; but when science contradicts the Scriptures, that's where I draw the line.

So, using science, conduct the following experiment as described in the Bible:

Genesis 30:37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
30:38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

Perhaps you'd like to show this is possible?

 

[llDayo]

• Natural selection is immoral.

Operating on the principle of survival of the fittest, natural selection takes the best, and leaves the rest. It is a brutal dog-eat-dog, last-man-standing, may-the-best-man-survive principle that God never would have set in motion.

First off, it's survival of the fit. If an animal is fit enough to survive its environment until reproduction then its genes will be passed along.

Second, natural selection happens with or without evolution. Evolution requires natural selection but natural selection does NOT require evolution. Also, if God exists and created everything then he also created NS, which according to you is immoral. Don't believe NS really happens? Take, for example, a herd of wildabeasts being hunted by a pride of lions. One lion goes to one side of the herd to "rustle them up". Two other lions on the other side then dart into the middle of the stampeding herd, looking for a slow moving wildabeast. That one was naturally selected for because it requires the least amount of energy to capture.