Why are creationists so threatened by science?

Carmella Prochaska · Feb 16, 2013

I am a creationist but I don't feel threatened by science. In what way should I feel threatened by science?

Let's see, science, by definition, is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Of course, people have their own definitions of these things and so may choose to agree or disagree with the Wiki definition. In accord with the definition of science, I don't think I've ever "gone out of my way to misinterpret and misrepresent science as a process". Science is a wonderful enterprise that I enjoy studying. In my opinion, science itself has shown engineering, complexity and design in nature, so I refuse to submit that everything came from nothing by faith ...

Seeking confirmation from observation does not really lead to "more faith" but rather further confirmation of that faith I think. Blind faith is something you have without evidence. I like a faith that has some evidential grounds to it. As the Apostle Paul once said, "but test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

God showing His face might probably kill someone, but I'm sure if He showed His face, anyone would believe, that's a given. I'm not exactly sure by what yardstick you're measuring faith. Faith is a fickle thing, great at times and little at others. You can't confirm Genesis 1 by anything really tangible. There are other independent creation myths in other parts of the world with remarkable similarity to Genesis and considering the difficulties of generating life from physics and chemistry, one might choose Genesis where God created. In what way does my definition of science above not confirm Genesis? I disagree with the notion that "science" has disproved Genesis. Science can mean anything for anyone.

Subduction Zone · Feb 17, 2013

Carmella Prochaska said:
I am a creationist but I don't feel threatened by science. In what way should I feel threatened by science?

Let's see, science, by definition, is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Of course, people have their own definitions of these things and so may choose to agree or disagree with the Wiki definition. In accord with the definition of science, I don't think I've ever "gone out of my way to misinterpret and misrepresent science as a process". Science is a wonderful enterprise that I enjoy studying. In my opinion, science itself has shown engineering, complexity and design in nature, so I refuse to submit that everything came from nothing by faith ...

Seeking confirmation from observation does not really lead to "more faith" but rather further confirmation of that faith I think. Blind faith is something you have without evidence. I like a faith that has some evidential grounds to it. As the Apostle Paul once said, "but test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

God showing His face might probably kill someone, but I'm sure if He showed His face, anyone would believe, that's a given. I'm not exactly sure by what yardstick you're measuring faith. Faith is a fickle thing, great at times and little at others. You can't confirm Genesis 1 by anything really tangible. There are other independent creation myths in other parts of the world with remarkable similarity to Genesis and considering the difficulties of generating life from physics and chemistry, one might choose Genesis where God created. In what way does my definition of science above not confirm Genesis? I disagree with the notion that "science" has disproved Genesis. Science can mean anything for anyone.

You do realize that the theory of evolution fits that definition, don't you?

It has been tested tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of times. In the field, in the laboratory, in the fossil record, and I am sure in other ways too. It has passed all major tests.

Given that it is one of the most well tested theories ever made and one of the most well accepted do you accept evolution or are you, at least in this case, anti-science?

Wiccan_Child · Feb 17, 2013

Mediaeval said:
From what I gather, radiometric dating methods are inconclusive.

They're not. What makes you think they are?

This is why I mentioned their correlation - all these techniques based on unrelated physical phenomena, correlate to the same date.

juvenissun · Feb 17, 2013

RickG said:
Survive yes, thrive, hardly.

I made no such suggestion. Do not try to twist what I say.

If creationists you referred to are so stupid and the general population are not, then how could they even survive?

RickG · Feb 17, 2013

Mediaeval said:
From what I gather, radiometric dating methods are inconclusive.

From what I gather from that comment is that your understanding of radiometric dating methods probably does not go outside the "creationist literature".

If I may, I would like to pose some questions to consider.

Why is that when several different isotope methods are used on the same sample or group of samples, the results are the same?
Why do radiometric and non-radiometric methods both agree when performed the same sample(s)?
Are you aware that there are more than 40 different isotopes that are used in radiometric dating and nearly as many non-radiometric dating methods?
Can you name a single geochronologist who has even hinted that radiometric dating methods are inconclusive?
Can you cite any published research in the peer review scientific journals that demonstrate that radiometric dating methods are inconclusive?
Do you understand how radiometric dating works?

RickG · Feb 17, 2013

juvenissun said:
If creationists you referred to are so stupid and the general population are not, then how could they even survive?

I have made no reference to anyone being stupid. Again, please stop suggesting that I have. In post #24 I said the following"

Unsupported absurd claims by people outside of whatever professional expertise they may have about science is not a threat to science. It is a threat to the credibility of all Christianity by association. I think it is really sad that there is are few organizations and groups of people who seem to take pride in deliberately misrepresenting many different fields of science for their own personal satisfaction and gain. They have strayed far from the path that Jesus put us on.

Let's break it down:

Unsupported absurd claims by people outside of whatever professional expertise they may have about science is not a threat to science.

I am simply saying here that people who comment about science outside their expertise have neither the knowledge nor the expertise to know what they are talking about. Further more those claims made are unsupported in any legitimate scientific literature. This is the equivalent of a urologist presenting research on heart surgery at a medical conference and in some cases a shade-tree mechanic doing the same thing. People debasing something they have little or no knowledge of is not a threat to it.

It is a threat to the credibility of all Christianity by association.

By this I mean that most Christians and particularly "main-stream" Christianity have no problem with the earth being as stated in the scientific literature, 4.54 billion years old, while a small minority does. Those outside the Christian community upon hearing the minority view may perceive that most, if not all, also believe in a 6,000 year old earth. This gives the wrong impression of what Christianity is all about.

I think it is really sad that there is are few organizations and groups of people who seem to take pride in deliberately misrepresenting many different fields of science for their own personal satisfaction and gain. They have strayed far from the path that Jesus put us on.

I think my last comment speaks for itself. The creationist literature pertaining to science is well documented with the use of deliberately misrepresented material by non-experts in the scientific fields they write about, and in many cases do not have any scientific credentials what-so-ever.

All of the above has nothing to do with anyone being stupid and everything to do with a small group of people engaging in intellectual and/or academic irresponsibility and in some cases dishonesty.

AV1611VET · Feb 17, 2013

Wiccan_Child said:
They're not. What makes you think they are?

This is why I mentioned their correlation - all these techniques based on unrelated physical phenomena, correlate to the same date.

Do they calibrate before the correlate?

Halfmaker · Feb 17, 2013

Despite the zest this current conversation has I'd like to add my input.

Religion is a great thing and I admire those who can have faith, they have a manual on how to live well and a leader with whom they can confide in and trust will always keep their best interest at heart. The very exercise of being religious affirms many people and defines them intimately, it is not simply their belief it is what they are.

It is not just a theft of identity suggesting that their ideology is not true but it is a basic affront to them as human beings.

That's at least one of the reasons why some creationists are so vocal.

variant · Feb 17, 2013

It makes a very convincing argument that can not coexist with their particular interpretation of their religion.

This leads people to feel cognitive dissonance between what their rational sides of their brains think and their emotional sides. They will reduce that mental tension and conflict by rationalizing away the issue and seeking out sources of evidence that can explain it all away so they can sleep at night without resolving their break with reality.

Wiccan_Child · Feb 17, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Do they calibrate before the correlate?

Not to each other, but they are calibrated to the relevant variables, yes. Carbon-dating, for instance, give the current ratio of C14-C12 in the object, which is then calibrated by the amount of C14 in the atmosphere in the past to give an absolute date.

Alienated · Feb 17, 2013

Maybe because science in mans hands, goes places that should only be occupied by GOD.
Science should be used to investigate Gods creation, not kill it ! Because without a loving God,to give moral laws, just look at our nature, is this good enough scientific proof for you ?

1. Man-Made Avian Flu Virus More Deadly Than Scientists Expected In Mutations

2. quote by J. Robert Oppenheimer : I am become death, the destroyer of worlds
3. Horror Of US Depleted Uranium In Iraq Threatens World

4. Agent Orange

5. Cancer causing chemicals in food

6. Chemical Warfare Agents

7. New mutations of cured diseases now untreatable and drug resistant.

8. Pollution

This sounds more like de-Evolution, just like God said we would do.

RickG · Feb 17, 2013

Halfmaker said:
Despite the zest this current conversation has I'd like to add my input.

Religion is a great thing and I admire those who can have faith, they have a manual on how to live well and a leader with whom they can confide in and trust will always keep their best interest at heart. The very exercise of being religious affirms many people and defines them intimately, it is not simply their belief it is what they are.

It is not just a theft of identity suggesting that their ideology is not true but it is a basic affront to them as human beings.

That's at least one of the reasons why some creationists are so vocal.

There is nothing wrong with ones literal belief of the Bible in all aspects. The problem arises when we see deliberately misrepresented science, specifically for the purpose of influencing others. Bearing false witness and following false profits seem to come to mind with me. Would the Christian thing not be to ignore the science instead of deliberately misrepresenting it.

Nevertheless, if they could present some legitimate science to support their position, that would be fine and encouraged as well.

variant · Feb 17, 2013

Alienated said:
Maybe because science in mans hands, goes places that should only be occupied by GOD.

Science should be used to investigate Gods creation, not kill it ! Because without a loving God,to give moral laws, just look at our nature, is this good enough scientific proof for you ?

1. Man-Made Avian Flu Virus More Deadly Than Scientists Expected In Mutations

2. quote by J. Robert Oppenheimer : I am become death, the destroyer of worlds
3. Horror Of US Depleted Uranium In Iraq Threatens World

4. Agent Orange

5. Cancer causing chemicals in food

6. Chemical Warfare Agents

7. New mutations of cured diseases now untreatable and drug resistant.

8. Pollution

This sounds more like de-Evolution, just like God said we would do.

Let's see if I can paraphrase your argument correctly.

Increased technology leads to some bad results, therefore evolutionary theory is factually incorrect?

How does that follow?

What about the good things that technology does for us?

I know you're not Amish because you are using a computer.

How exactly do you expect to convince anyone with such fallacious arguments?

RickG · Feb 17, 2013

Alienated said:
Maybe because science in mans hands, goes places that should only be occupied by GOD.
Science should be used to investigate Gods creation, not kill it ! Because without a loving God,to give moral laws, just look at our nature, is this good enough scientific proof for you ?

1. Man-Made Avian Flu Virus More Deadly Than Scientists Expected In Mutations

2. quote by J. Robert Oppenheimer : I am become death, the destroyer of worlds
3. Horror Of US Depleted Uranium In Iraq Threatens World

4. Agent Orange

5. Cancer causing chemicals in food

6. Chemical Warfare Agents

7. New mutations of cured diseases now untreatable and drug resistant.

8. Pollution

This sounds more like de-Evolution, just like God said we would do.

So we should still live in caves? You seem to have the prospective because some advances in science have been misused that science is bad.

Perhaps you might review some of the religious atrocities throughout history, including those documented in the bible where women, children and animals are murdered.

Alienated · Feb 17, 2013

variant said:
Let's see if I can paraphrase your argument correctly.

Increased technology leads to some bad results, therefore evolutionary theory is factually incorrect?

How does that follow?

What about the good things that technology does for us?

I know you're not Amish because you are using a computer.

How exactly do you expect to convince anyone with such fallacious arguments?

{fallacious: deceptive: misleading: fallacious testimony. {

What I said if you take God out of it, then it gets perverted. True science only deals with facts.
You call me a liar ! Every one of those things mentioned is fact. I question your scientific approach. Sounds more bias than you accuse me of, you ignore the fact that science is not complete either. A true scientist will examine all evidence.

Technology can do good, but all I mentioned were and do had deliberate intent.

variant · Feb 17, 2013

Alienated said:
What I said if you take God out of it, then it gets perverted. True science only deals with facts.

What does any of this have to do with the theory of evolution then?

Evolutionary theory is false because? What?

You call me a liar ! Every one of those things mentioned is fact. I question your scientific approach. Sounds more bias than you accuse me of, you ignore the fact that science is not complete either. A true scientist will examine all evidence.

I am a biologist, I have a bias only towards objective evidence. Present some and I will give it a good go.

I did not call you a liar. I asked you a few questions.

If my understanding of your original argument is wrong please reword it. Tell me why it follows from your argument that evolutionary theory is incorrect.

Technology can do good, but all I mentioned were and do had deliberate intent.

Technology that does good is usually deliberate too. It's harder to build things than to destroy them.

How are we to determine what is good science and what is bad science?

And If so what does that have to do with what is correct science?

Alienated · Feb 17, 2013

variant said:
What does any of this have to do with the theory of evolution then?

Evolutionary theory is false because? What?

Because it's just as incomplete as they say my faith in a creator is.

I am a biologist, I have a bias only towards objective evidence. Present some and I will give it a good go.

I study inorganic/environmental chem. and Earth sciences. And you yourself said
I rejected the direct inspiration of the Bible by God in favor of a loose moral inspiration of the Bible. Sounds vary bias to me.

I did not call you a liar. I asked you a few questions.

I gave you the definition of {fallacious: deceptive: misleading: fallacious testimony. (Maybe the confusion was in your loose moral inspiration), that blinds like selective hearing.

If my understanding of your original argument is wrong please reword it. Tell me why it follows from your argument that evolutionary theory is incorrect.

Technology that does good is usually deliberate too. It's harder to build things than to destroy them.

Yes but when you take morals out you loose the ability to question ( I can but should I ). And learn from past mistakes.

How are we to determine what is good science and what is bad science?
That takes counting all aspects, and weighing the outcome. Like the preservitives in food, they save money but killing people.... ? Good or Bad science ?

And If so what does that have to do with what is correct science?

Finding the truth. Weather you like it or not. Not by deciding what you choose you want to believe.

variant · Feb 17, 2013

Alienated said:
Because it's just as incomplete as they say my faith in a creator is.

Evolutionary theory says nothing about God. Criticizing it because it doesn't include your theology is hollow.

I rejected the direct inspiration of the Bible by God in favor of a loose moral inspiration of the Bible. Sounds vary bias to me.p

We call this the ad hominem fallacy, you are attacking me and not my arguments.

Atheists can't be scientifically unbiased? But you are? Wow.

I at least understand what evolutionary theory is, what it does and doesn't say about morality and God.

You don't seem to have that same capability

I gave you the definition of {fallacious: deceptive: misleading: fallacious testimony. (Maybe the confusion was in your loose moral inspiration), that blinds like selective hearing.

Sorry, I expected your reading comprehension to be better.

Fallacy

1: embodying a fallacy <a fallacious conclusion>

2: tending to deceive or mislead : delusive

Fallacious - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

You do not need to be a liar to be making fallacious arguments, those arguments that contain logical fallacies that undermine their soundness.

Specifically I found your argument to contain a non-sequitur that which does not follow. Your conclusions don't seem to follow logically from your premises.

Evolutionary theory does not agree with my interpretation of God and thus it is incorrect.

Or,

Evolutionary theory is bad by my theology and therefore factually incorrect.

variant said:
If my understanding of your original argument is wrong please reword it. Tell me why it follows from your argument that evolutionary theory is incorrect.

Unanswered.

Yes but when you take morals out you loose the ability to question ( I can but should I ). And learn from past mistakes.

What does evolutionary theory say about morality? How specifically does a theory that draws no conclusions about God or morality taking such things out?

It's really not my fault that you've muddled all these extraneous concepts into your scientific understanding.

Finding the truth. Weather you like it or not. Not by deciding what you choose you want to believe.

Take a cup full of your own advice here.

mandelduke · Feb 17, 2013

CabVet said:
I wanted to start a thread specifically about this because it is a theme we keep coming back to in every other thread, so maybe we can try to discuss specifically this issue here. Why are creationists so threatened by science?

Seriously, why do they have to go out of their way to misinterpret and misrepresent science as a process (and I don't mean just evolution here, but mostly that)? Is it to strengthen their own beliefs? If so, how would seeking confirmation from observation lead to "more" faith? I always thought faith was something you had without evidence. Would God showing his face "increase" someone's faith? I think that if it did, the faith would not be large enough to begin with. Likewise, would confirmation of what happened in Genesis 1 "increase" their faith? If not, why does the fact that science does not confirm Genesis bother them to a point of lying about it?

I am not threatened by science at all. Real science proves creation!

Alienated · Feb 17, 2013

variant said:
Evolutionary theory says nothing about God. Criticizing it because it doesn't include your theology is hollow.

Maybe it's because it says that the Only source of love that I have ever recieved, and know to exist, is being disreguarded. And then replaced by a group of people that want to reduce me to a monkey's uncle.

I have a personal relationship with God, and I wish you could experiance it. By saying my know experiance that is more real to me than any words, doesn't exist. Is insulting. And it's hollow of you to disrespect my believes by comeing to a Christian Forum to do it.

And real science proves my stance. And you just cant show a color blind person color.

But one thing stands true "If you are wrong, you aren't going to be happy!"

Why are creationists so threatened by science?

Carmella Prochaska

Guest

Regular Member

Contributor

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

super effective

Happy Cat

Contributor

Greateful servant

Senior Veteran

Happy Cat

Senior Veteran

Greateful servant

Happy Cat

Greateful servant

Happy Cat

Newbie

Greateful servant

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency