Why can't creation scientists do "science"?

[pitabread]

I'm pretty sure I nailed it when I pointed out that Creationism still exists in the sciences, due unsatisfactory explanations in regards to the induciveness of life.

Yes and no.

I do believe that creationist beliefs and religious fundamentalism in general exist largely to satisfy psychological need for closure. You're right that science doesn't explain everything and even it what it does explain is still largely provisional.

For those with high need for closure, lack of definitiveness in science is uncomfortable. Whereas dogmatic religious beliefs provide the level of assurance that satisfies that need for closure.

That said, creationism doesn't actually exist in the sciences. At best, modern day professional creationists exist on the pseudoscientific fringe.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm one of those who remember scientists promising cross contamination of GMO genes was impossible.

It didn't stay "impossible" for long.

My GMO canine is pretty rad. I am a fan of her, she's very cute. Though she does eat her own poop sometimes.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm pretty sure I nailed it when I pointed out that Creationism still exists in the sciences, due to widespread feelings of unsatisfactory explanations in regards to the induciveness of life.

...It's so widespread, that even scientists have taken up creationism.

No, you just made a vague and unsupported claim. If you want to claim that creationists do use the scientific method you need to give specific examples.

By the way, false "refutations" of evolution are not evidence for creationism. That is a false dichotomy. I have yet to see one iota of scientific evidence for creationism.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Citation needed.

Of course the anti-GMO crowd has of yet to show how GMO's are a threat.

GMOs use glyphosate. Courts have awarded millions in reparations for damages.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think everyone knows Stephen Hawking was open minded and supportive of creationism.

Is that sort of like how everyone knows we've always been at war with Eastasia?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think everyone knows Stephen Hawking was open minded and supportive of creationism.

Until considerable pressure was applied for him to support the opposite stance.

The motive behind schools endorsing atheism involves money and power in the world overwhelmingly supporting that view over religion.

Citation needed.

And even if he supported creationism (which I strongly doubt) it would be rather meaningless since he was a physicist. A plumber telling an electrician that he is doing his job wrong is never too convincing.

 

[pitabread]

I think everyone knows Stephen Hawking was open minded and supportive of creationism.

Until considerable pressure was applied for him to support the opposite stance.

The motive behind schools endorsing atheism involves money and power in the world overwhelmingly supporting that view over religion.

More random claims with no support whatsoever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

GMOs use glyphosate. Courts have awarded millions in reparations for damages.

Some GMO's use glysophate. And so what if courts have awarded damages? Courts are not arbiters of what is right in science. Courts also awarded millions in damages in various other "scientific" cases and were later shown to be wrong.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Yes and no.

I do believe that creationist beliefs and religious fundamentalism in general exist largely to satisfy psychological need for closure. You're right that science doesn't explain everything and even it what it does explain is still largely provisional.

For those with high need for closure, lack of definitiveness in science is uncomfortable. Whereas dogmatic religious beliefs provide the level of assurance that satisfies that need for closure.

That said, creationism doesn't actually exist in the sciences. At best, modern day professional creationists exist on the pseudoscientific fringe.

...But the OP says there are trained scientists who value the concept of Creationism. It can only be, that they are still reaching out for answers, whereas their colleagues have settled with the current science as being the final capping off of their quest for discovery.

 

[Subduction Zone]

...But the OP says there are trained scientists who value the concept of Creationism. It can only be, that they are still reaching out for answers, whereas their colleagues have settled.

Oh my! No, that is one hundred percent backwards.

If creationists were looking for answers they would be using the scientific method. They do not do so.

 

[Landon Caeli]

No, you just made a vague and unsupported claim. If you want to claim that creationists do use the scientific method you need to give specific examples.

By the way, false "refutations" of evolution are not evidence for creationism. That is a false dichotomy. I have yet to see one iota of scientific evidence for creationism.

Sorry, you must have me confused with another poster, as none of that is relevant to me, or anything I've said.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Citation needed.

And even if he supported creationism (which I strongly doubt) it would be rather meaningless since he was a physicist. A plumber telling an electrician that he is doing his job wrong is never too convincing.

Stephen Hawking astrophysicist*

More random claims with no support whatsoever.

"No support whatsoever."

Speaking as if one is all knowing is not a very scientific mentality.

I had two excerpts that showed the change in his stance over time, incidentally. Let me see if I can find it.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Some GMO's use glysophate. And so what if courts have awarded damages? Courts are not arbiters of what is right in science. Courts also awarded millions in damages in various other "scientific" cases and were later shown to be wrong.

If courts are not arbiters of morality and ethics in science.

Then who is?

 

[pitabread]

...But the OP says there are trained scientists who value the concept of Creationism. It can only be, that they are still reaching out for answers, whereas their colleagues have settled.

There are individuals with legit scientific credentials that are creationists. Though the circumstances of them obtaining and utilizing their credentials do vary.

I do think there are rare cases of creationists with scientific background and sincere interest in scientifically demonstrating creationist ideas. Todd Wood is one of those rare cases*. Though as I stated, when push comes to shove, the results of their scientific inquiries do not support their ideas.

(* Todd Wood is also a rare case in that he's a creationist who openly honest about evolution being a legitimate and useful scientific theory.)

 

[Landon Caeli]

Oh my! No, that is one hundred percent backwards.

If creationists were looking for answers they would be using the scientific method. They do not do so.

Not sure what sparked this response... I was just explaining your OP for you, in that scientists and other people have accepted possibilities forming conclusions in other ways to satisfy their quest for answers.

...Not everyone is closed off to finding answers where science has ended. For right, or wrong... For better or worse, it is what it is.

 

[Rescued One]

Wrong question, because it fundamentally misunderstands "atheism".

Take any number of things that you or I don't believe in: pixies, unicorns, other gods such as Zeus or Odin, anything. Is non-belief in those things something that needs to be proved in order to not believe them?

Atheists believe things. The atheist believes that God can't be believed in. Most atheists probably believe a lot of science. Atheists actually believe a lot of things. But to draw a conclusion that God doesn't exist requires some reasoning. Two of my three brothers have PhDs. They must believe some of what they were taught.

If lack of faith in God is a conclusion that hasn't been proven, that doesn't make a person an atheist. The person might be an agnostic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, you must have me confused with another poster, as none of that is relevant to me, or anything I've said.

No, it all applied. Instead of denial it is better to ask questions when one does not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not sure what sparked this response... I was just explaining your OP for you, in that scientists and other people have accepted possibilities forming conclusions in other ways to satisfy their quest for answers.

...Not everyone is closed off to finding answers where science has ended. For right, or wrong... For better or worse, it is what it is.

And you were wrong. That was why you got the response that you did.

No one has settled on the evolution side. That is what creationists appear to have done. You had your claim one hundred percent backwards.

 

[Landon Caeli]

There are individuals with legit scientific credentials that are creationists. Though the circumstances of them obtaining and utilizing their credentials do vary.

I do think there are rare cases of creationists with scientific background and sincere interest in scientifically demonstrating creationist ideas. Todd Wood is one of those rare cases*. Though as I stated, when push comes to shove, the results of their scientific inquiries do not support their ideas.

(* Todd Wood is also a rare case in that he's a creationist who openly honest about evolution being a legitimate and useful scientific theory.)

I'm sure we're both aware that there are forms of Creationism that involve no God or gods... There are some highly intelligent people who value these hypotheses as potentially relevant... These people would naturally also view evolution as legitimate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Atheists believe things. The atheist believes that God can't be believed in. Most atheists probably believe a lot of science. Atheists actually believe a lot of things. But to draw a conclusion that God doesn't exist requires some reasoning. Two of my three brothers have PhDs. They must believe some of what they were taught.

If lack of faith in God is a conclusion that hasn't been proven, that doesn't make a person an atheist. The person might be an agnostic.

No. atheists just lack a belief in God. They are not telling others that they cannot believe in God. Most atheists do not claim that a God does not exist. You are arguing against a strawman.

I'll be honest, I've done no rigorous testing to figure out if pixies do or do not exist. I wouldn't even begin to know how to do that. Yet I do not believe in pixies.

My lack of belief in pixies is not a belief, but an absence of belief.

So you are an apixieist.

So there is no burden of proof on atheists to prove there is no god.
In the same way that there is no burden of proof on you or me to prove there are no pixies.

Atheism isn't a belief system, it is simply the absence of a belief in this one particular thing, namely the existence of God(s).

And most importantly, the subject of atheism is immaterial to the topic of this thread.

Creationism vs Evolution isn't a Theist vs Atheist, or a Religious vs non-Religious, or a Christian vs non-Christian debate.

I'm a Christian. A Bible-believing, Creed-confessing, devout and dedicated Christian passionate for the Gospel.

I'm also an "Evolutionist".

-CryptoLutheran

[/QUOTE]

Oh rats!!! She messed up her quotes. I thought that she was getting it for a while.