Uses of Creationist Science

[dawiyd]

Can I ask all the Creationists what has creationist research done to help mankind?

While looking round http://www.icr.org/ Institute for Creationist Research to see what good they have done to help mankind, I could see NOTHING, not one thing that helps mankind.

So my question is what practical uses of there is for 'Creationist Science' and how is it helping mankind in a practical way.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can I ask all the Creationists what has creationist research done to help mankind?

Antiseptic Surgery --- Joseph Lister
Bacteriology --- Louis Pasteur
Calculus --- Isaac Newton
Celestial Mechanics --- Johann Kepler
Chemistry --- Robert Boyle
Comparative Anatomy --- Georges Cuvier
Computer Science --- Charles Babbage
Dimensional Analysis --- Lord Raleigh
Dynamics --- Isaac Newton
Electrodynamics --- James Clerk Maxwell
Electromagnetics --- Michael Faraday
Electronics --- Ambrose Fleming
Energetics --- Lord Kelvin
Entomology of Living Insects --- Henri Fabre
Field Theory --- Michael Faraday
Fluid Mechanics --- George Stokes
Galactic Astronomy --- William Herschel
Gas Dynamics --- Robert Boyle
Genetics --- Gregor Mendel
Glacial Geology --- Louis Agassiz
Gynecology --- James Simpson
Hydraulics --- Leonardo da Vinci
Hydrography --- Matthew Maury
hydrostatics --- Blaise Pascal
Ichthyology --- Louis Agassiz
Isotopic Chemistry --- William Ramsay
Model Analysis --- Lord Rayleigh
Natural History --- John Ray
Non-Euclidean Geometry --- Bernhard Riemann
Oceanography --- Matthew Maury
Optical Mineralogy --- David Brewster
Paleontology --- John Woodward
Pathology --- Rudolph Virchow
Physical Astronomy --- Johann Kepler
Reversible Thermodynamics --- James Joule
Statistical Thermodynamics --- James Clerk Maxwell
Stratigraphy --- Nicholas Steno
Systematic Biology --- Carolus Linnaeus
Thermodynamics --- Lord Kelvin
Thermokinetics --- Humprey Davy
Vertebrate Paleontology --- Georges Cuvier

 

[AV1611VET]

Can I ask all the Creationists what has creationist research done to help mankind?

Absolute Temperature Scale --- Lord Kelvin
Actuarial Tables --- Charles Babbage
Barometer --- Blaise Pascal
Biogenesis Law --- Louis Pasteur
Calculating Machine --- Charles Babbage
Chloroform --- James Simpson
Classification System --- Carolus Linnaeus
Double Stars --- William Herschel
Electric Generator --- Michael Faraday
Electric Motor --- Joseph Henry
Ephemeris Tables --- Johann Kepler
Fermentation Control --- Louis Pasteur
Galvanometer --- Joseph Henry
Global Star Catalog --- John Herschel
Inert Gases --- William Ramsay
Kaleidoscope --- David Brewster
Law of Gravity --- Isaac Newton
Mine Safety Lamp --- Humphrey Davy
Pasteurization --- Louis Pasteur
Reflecting Telescope --- Isaac Newton
Scientific Method --- Francis Bacon
Self-Induction --- Joseph Henry
Telegraph --- Samuel F. B. Morse
Thermionic Valve --- Ambrose Fleming
Trans-Atlantic Cable --- Lord Kelvin
Vaccination and Immunization --- Louis Pasteur

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

None of those have anything to do with a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

He's asking about how the belief in creationism led to advances. For example how did creation science lead to chloroform?

oh Louise pasture wasnt a creationist

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

How was the electric generator developed using a literal interpretation of Geneis?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Uses of Creationist Science

Can I ask all the Creationists what has creationist research done to help mankind?

While looking round http://www.icr.org/ Institute for Creationist Research to see what good they have done to help mankind, I could see NOTHING, not one thing that helps mankind.

So my question is what practical uses of there is for 'Creationist Science' and how is it helping mankind in a practical way.

The question is not what have theists or what have Christians contributed to science, but a specific one of what has Creation Science as a research program contributed to science.

I could ask what have Marxists contributed to science, and i could ask what has Marxism as a philosophic system contributed to science. They are distinctly different questions.

Creation Science is a distinctive system, has it's roots in Morris' _Genesis Flood_ and the subsequent ICR platform which has resulted in several textbooks on the topic. So the question is not a general one of what have people who believed that God created the heavens and the earth contributed to science but what has this particular set of ideas labelled "Creation Science" contributed to science.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

The question is not what have theists or what have Christians contributed to science, but a specific one of what has Creation Science as a research program contributed to science.

I could ask what have Marxists contributed to science, and i could ask what has Marxism as a philosophic system contributed to science. They are distinctly different questions.

Creation Science is a distinctive system, has it's roots in Morris' _Genesis Flood_ and the subsequent ICR platform which has resulted in several textbooks on the topic. So the question is not a general one of what have people who believed that God created the heavens and the earth contributed to science but what has this particular set of ideas labelled "Creation Science" contributed to science.

It would take intellectual honesty to answer the OP with this in mind.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Antiseptic Surgery --- Joseph Lister
Bacteriology --- Louis Pasteur
Calculus --- Isaac Newton
Celestial Mechanics --- Johann Kepler
Chemistry --- Robert Boyle
Comparative Anatomy --- Georges Cuvier
Computer Science --- Charles Babbage
Dimensional Analysis --- Lord Raleigh
Dynamics --- Isaac Newton
Electrodynamics --- James Clerk Maxwell
Electromagnetics --- Michael Faraday
Electronics --- Ambrose Fleming
Energetics --- Lord Kelvin
Entomology of Living Insects --- henri Fabre
Field Theory --- Michael Faraday
Fluid Mechanics --- George Stokes
Galactic Astronomy --- William Herschel
Gas Dynamics --- Robert Boyle
Genetics --- Gregor Mendel
Glacial Geology --- Louis Agassiz
Gynecology --- James Simpson
hydraulics --- Leonardo da Vinci
Hydrography --- Matthew Maury
hydrostatics --- Blaise Pascal
Ichthyology --- Louis Agassiz
Isotopic Chemistry --- William Ramsay
Model Analysis --- Lord Rayleigh
Natural History --- John Ray
Non-Euclidean Geometry --- Bernhard Riemann
Oceanography --- Matthew Maury
Optical Mineralogy --- David Brewster
Palsontology --- John Woodward
Pathology --- Rudolph Virchow
Physical Astronomy --- Johann Kepler
Reversible Thermodynamics --- James Joule
Statistical Thermodynamics --- James Clerk Maxwell
Stratigraphy --- Nicholas Steno
Systematic Biology --- Carolus Linnaeus
Thermodynamics --- Lord Kelvin
Thermokinetics --- Humprey Davy
Vertebrate Paleontology --- Georges Cuvier

Absolute Temperature Scale --- Lord Kelvin
Actuarial Tables --- Charles Babbage
Barometer --- Blaise Pascal
Biogenesis Law --- Louis Pasteur
Calculating Machine --- Charles Babbage
Chloroform --- James Simpson
Classification System --- Carolus Linnaeus
Double Stars --- William Herschel
Electric Generator --- Michael Faraday
Electric Motor --- Joseph Henry
Ephemeris Tables --- Johann Kepler
Fermentation Control --- Louis Pasteur
Galvanometer --- Joseph Henry
Global Star Catalog --- John Herschel
Inert Gases --- William Ramsay
Kaleidoscope --- David Brewster
Law of Gravity --- Isaac Newton
Mine Safety Lamp --- Humphrey Davy
Pasteurization --- Louis Pasteur
Reflecting Telescope --- Isaac Newton
Scientific Method --- Francis Bacon
Self-Induction --- Joseph Henry
Telegraph --- Samuel F. B. Morse
Thermionic Valve --- Ambrose Fleming
Trans-Atlantic Cable --- Lord Kelvin
Vaccination and Immunization --- Louis Pasteur

What we've got here is a list of scientists who made great discoveries despite creationism. How about one or two who did something useful because of it?

 

[platzapS]

Did any of the scientists on the list either:

A) Do their science after 1859, or
B) Use a literal interpretation of the Bible to arrive at their conclusions?

 

[h2whoa]

AV's list shows the fundamental flaw in Creationist thinking.

Allow me to demonstrate.

I like coffee with a splash of milk and one sugar.

Therefore the contamination protocol I developed for Unilever was because of my belief in the goodness of coffee with milk and one sugar.

The discovery of new genes in the dog was because of my belief in the goodness of coffee with milk and one sugar.

The discovery of 50 novel mutations was because of my belief in the goodness of coffee with milk and one sugar.

The developing of a protocol to allow PCR and sequencing of previously unworkable areas of genomic DNA was because of my belief in the goodness of coffee with milk and one sugar.

Ridiculous.

 

[Dannager]

Good try, AV1611VET. I know you put a lot of effort into coming up with that list.

 

[TheBear]

What we've got here is a list of scientists who made great discoveries despite creationism. How about one or two who did something useful because of it?

Exactly. And let's not forget Project Steve. So far, over 700 current scientists named Steve, have signed the following statement.

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Maybe Vet could give an example of a scientific discovery that was made that used a literal interpretation of Genesis in it's formulation.

Lord Kelvin's temperature scale perhaps? That would be the Lord Kelvin who accepted that the Earth could be at least 20 million years old (but did reject billions of years). Still, 20 million is a heck of a lot longer then 6000.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

This thread is perhaps THE saddest example I have seen of someone trying to prop up a failed idea EVER.

 

[AV1611VET]

Good try, AV1611VET. I know you put a lot of effort into coming up with that list.

Thank you, Dannager.

T'wasn't that hard actually - just a matter of copying from a couple appendices in the back of my Bible.

 

[tocis]

This thread is perhaps THE saddest example I have seen of someone trying to prop up a failed idea EVER.

Will Vet ever learn?

That said, will any YEC ever learn?

At least to not reuse long-debunked nonsense time and again?

...

Well Vet, any takers from you? You've been pointed to why you didn't really reply to the original request quite a few times now... can you offer more than that list?

(And I won't mind if other creationists provide something useful either...)

 

[tocis]

Thank you, Dannager.

T'wasn't that hard actually - just a matter of copying from a couple appendices in the back of my Bible.

Duh. I see I should have read one more posting before typing what I typed just above.

So Vet... did you just copy that or did you (sometime, whenever) stop for a moment to really think about what's in there? After all, your first posting wasn't exactly a demonstration of your intellectual capabilities (not wanting to say you don't have any... just that you didn't show it there).

 

[JohnR7]

Can I ask all the Creationists what has creationist research done to help mankind?

It depends on what you mean by "creationist". It has been said that science is a study of how and the Bible is a study of why.

The Bible answers the question that science is not able to answer and solves the problems science can not solve. When man and science fails us, we can turn to God, because He does not ever fail or disappoint us.

 

[BVZ]

Well I guess you COULD say that at least SOME of the people on the list stumbled upon scientific answers while they were looking for God in nature...

Though that wouldn't be Creationism...

Also... the 'theory' of Creation Science (which I am not sure even exists) wouldn't have helped them in this scenario, their curiosity (about God) would have been the driving force.

I don't know.

To answer this question, a Creation Scientist should first tell me what their theory actually sais, and how it can be tested.