Jump to content


Photo

Who Are The Creationist Scientists?


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#1 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 29 October 2009 - 04:41 PM

I've become very confused by YEC arguments for Intelligent Design, and their arguments against evolutionary biology.

On the one hand YEC's want to assert Intelligent Design is true, and evolutionary biology is false, yet all the Intelligent Design theorists I know, deny YEC and accept evolutionary biology. Maybe there are some I'm not yet aware of?

I've brought this issue up several times in threads, because I could not make sense of YEC's arguments in this forum. But all my questions about this issue have been ignored.

Can anyone explain who exactly are the Creationist Scientists?

I keep hearing broad and unsubstantiated claims about "not all scientists" accept evolutionary biology and that some embrace Intelligent Design, but I'm yet to see any meat to these claims. It seems like they are making this stuff up.

Can anyone provide some evidence to the claim that there are Intelligent Design theorists who completely reject evolutionary biology?

#2 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 October 2009 - 05:42 PM

On the one hand YEC's want to assert Intelligent Design is true, and evolutionary biology is false, yet all the Intelligent Design theorists I know, deny YEC and accept evolutionary biology.  Maybe there are some I'm not yet aware of?

View Post

Paul Nelson

#3 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 29 October 2009 - 05:43 PM

Paul Nelson

View Post

Thanks Adam. You always come through with something. I'll look into his work.

#4 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 October 2009 - 05:44 PM

Is a biology teacher in the science camp?

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2571

#5 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 October 2009 - 05:48 PM

Thanks Adam.  You always come through with something.  I'll look into his work.

View Post

Your welcome.

I believe Dean Kenyon is also a YEC but he argues from the ID perspective just like Paul Nelson. I could stand to be corrected on this.

The funny thing about this thread is Eugenie Scott's and other evolutionists' charges that ID is just reheated creationism. :D

#6 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 October 2009 - 05:55 PM

How about a high caliber scientist who was rolled over because of his YEC views by the Nobel committee:

Raymond Damadian

#7 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 October 2009 - 05:57 PM

Louis Pasteur was a YEC and his work stands, to this day, as the final nail in the coffin of abiogenesis and her pseudo-scientific speculations.

#8 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 October 2009 - 06:01 PM

Gregor Mendel's work (a YEC) was the antithesis to Darwins' hopes of demonstrating Lamarkism in some form. Even with today's twisted efforts to get genetics and evolution to fit in the same box, the efforts spearheaded by that YEC stand today as some of the best evidence for intelligent design and one of the most robust fields in science... The vision of a YEC, go figure. :D

Should I go on?

#9 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 October 2009 - 06:10 PM

The RATE group is also a good place to rummage around for creation scientists:

http://creationwiki.org/RATE_group

#10 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 02 November 2009 - 10:08 AM

Hey Adam, thanks for all the names. We could be reading forever--not! You have to make a decision on this stuff at some point in time.

Issac Newton, Edward Blythe, Galileo and Kepler were YEC too. I understand that some of these guys had never read the later geologists and evolutionists, but they made huge contributions and applications to science without the ToE.

#11 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2009 - 11:34 AM

Gregor Mendel's work (a YEC) was the antithesis to Darwins' hopes of demonstrating Lamarkism in some form. Even with today's twisted efforts to get genetics and evolution to fit in the same box, the efforts spearheaded by that YEC stand today as some of the best evidence for intelligent design and one of the most robust fields in science... The vision of a YEC, go figure. B)

Should I go on?

View Post



I wonder if there is a difference between a "creation scientist" and a "scientist who studies creationism" or "a person who believes in creation and is a scientist"?

A person could be a hindu, scientologist, or a flying saucer buff and still do a good job of studying chemistry, say.

Nothing about being a Christian / creatonist / atheist or anything else inhibits a person doing good work UNLESS they let their beliefs color their observations, and just see what they want to see.

Now IF someone says they are a scientist who studies creationism, and that creationism is a science, then I would have to see data.

Chemistry has a great abundance of solid data, more data points than a person would ever care to hear about.

I dont believe that creationism has even one data point of any kind to support it. if it does, then please tell me, someone, what that is. The absence of such data certainly makes it hard to call it a science, let alone a robust one.

#12 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2009 - 11:41 AM

Hey Adam, thanks for all the names.  We could be reading forever--not!  You have to make a decision on this stuff at some point in time.

Issac Newton, Edward Blythe, Galileo and Kepler were YEC too.  I understand that some of these guys had never read the later geologists and evolutionists, but they made huge contributions and applications to science without the ToE.

View Post



Yes those were all good scientists. Galileo of course had not read Newton, and Newton had not read Einstein.

Making good observations and making the best theory one to explain it is what science does. Galileo''s observations would not come to much unless he got the idea that they all added up to something. Newton improved on it.

Einstein came along and falsified a lot of Newton's work.

Science also operates by coming along later finding errors or incompleteness in earlier work to correct, up date, and improve the theory.

#13 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 02 November 2009 - 01:59 PM

I wonder if there is a difference between a "creation scientist" and a "scientist who studies creationism" or "a person who believes in creation and is a scientist"?

View Post

Actually, there are alot of people in science who believe a literal Biblical interpretation of Adam and Eve. A typical evangelical (I say this because the majority of evangs take a more literal view of scripture) church cogeregation is going to have a YEC who works in a science related field.

My pastor is a retired medical doctor who also started the k-12 private school my kids went to. I also know personally a geologist, two chemical engineers, and a sixth grade science teacher that are committed Christians and creationists.

But among mainstream research scientists and professors you are not going to find alot of outspoken creationists. They are going to be doing their work, like my geologist friend who worked for an oil company for a long time. His personal beliefs about geological formation did not hinder his work.

If they are interested in emphasizing origins by using research in their field--they will not do it with government grants or on a state university's time clock. They will have to do it discreetly on their own time, or get private funding.

A person could be a hindu, scientologist, or a flying saucer buff and still do a good job of studying chemistry, say.

View Post

I agree. I would include skate boarders, coin collectors, atheists, agnostics, theists, pantheists.

I dont believe that creationism has even one data point of any kind to support it.  if it does, then please tell me, someone, what that is.  The absence of such data certainly makes it hard to call it a science,  let alone a robust one.

View Post

I'm wondering what kind of evidence you might imagine would ever be acceptable to point taikoo toward creative fiat.

Obviously, if you have a naturalist, physicalist, matererialist philosophy nothing will be categorized as a possibility toward creation.

You spoke of chemistry and so many evidences. The rule of 8 and periodic table shows me a pre-fab pattern which makes for the design of all biological interactions as well as the geometric crystallization in minerals. However even they (elements, compounds, molecules) are insufficient to assemble themselves into the order needed for life without catalysts--enzymes and all kinds of systems I am unqualified to speak on.

#14 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 02 November 2009 - 02:30 PM

I've looked at the list, and I'm disappointed. There is very little evidence of a coherent creation science.

Paul Nelson is a philosopher, not a scientist. Philosophy of science is his specialty. He might believe in creationism, but he is not a creationist scientist in the sense of testing and developing scientific theory or advancing scientific knowledge of biological design. In Touchstone Magazine, Nelson says,

"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design."

Dean Kenyon is biophysicist, his field of research is chemical evolution, protocell models, and the RNA-world hypothesis. His field of research appears to be based in the building blocks of biology; RNA, molecular biology, and genetics. I'm not sure what contribution any of his work make towards Creationism.

Raymond Vahan Damadian is a medical doctor, and his field of expertise is medicine. His major contritution to medical science is MRI scanning. There is no indication how Intelligent Design or Creationism Science contributed to or was advanced in the development of the MRI scanner.

Louis Pasteur, is a nineteenth century chemist and microbiologist. I think its scrapping the barrel to say his work is creation science because he happen to believe in creationism. Nothing in his work has advance creation science as a field.

Louis Pasteur was a YEC and his work stands, to this day, as the final nail in the coffin of abiogenesis and her pseudo-scientific speculations.

Adam, refuting a scientific theory might show a theory to be false, but in no way does it advance or propose a scientific theory of its own. All the so-called refutation does is keep the belief Genesis is literally true - alive.

Gregor Mendel's work (a YEC) was the antithesis to Darwins' hopes of demonstrating Lamarkism in some form. Even with today's twisted efforts to get genetics and evolution to fit in the same box, the efforts spearheaded by that YEC stand today as some of the best evidence for intelligent design and one of the most robust fields in science... The vision of a YEC, go figure.

This is factually incorrect.

Lamarckian inheritance is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring. Darwin evolutionary theory does not promote that idea. Darwian evolution is the idea characteristic are aquired through natural selection.

Mendelian inheritance, the transmission of hereditary characteristics from parent organisms to their children; underlies much of genetics, and is complimentary to the modern evolutionary synthesis. Are you denying mendelian inheritance operates in micro-evolution?

RATE are specialists in Geology, Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Physics. They have no contribution to biological design.

#15 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2009 - 02:32 PM

Actually, there are alot of people in science who believe a literal Biblical interpretation of Adam and Eve. A typical evangelical (I say this because the majority of evangs take a more literal view of scripture) church cogeregation is going to have a YEC who works in a science related field.

My pastor is a retired medical doctor who also started the k-12 private school my kids went to.  I also know personally a geologist, two chemical engineers, and a sixth grade science teacher that are committed Christians and creationists. 

But among mainstream research scientists and professors you are not going to find alot of outspoken creationists.  They are going to be doing their work, like my geologist friend who worked for an oil company for a long time.  His personal beliefs about geological formation did not hinder his work.

If they are interested in emphasizing origins by using research in their field--they will not do it with government grants or on a state university's time clock. They will have to do it discreetly on their own time, or get private funding.
I agree.  I would include skate boarders, coin collectors, atheists, agnostics, theists, pantheists.
I'm wondering what kind of evidence you might imagine would ever be acceptable to point taikoo toward creative fiat.

Obviously, if you have a naturalist, physicalist, matererialist philosophy nothing will be categorized as a possibility toward creation.

You spoke of chemistry and so many evidences.  The rule of 8 and periodic table shows me a pre-fab pattern which makes for the design of all biological interactions as well as the geometric crystallization in minerals.  However even they (elements, compounds, molecules) are insufficient to assemble themselves into the order needed for life without catalysts--enzymes and all kinds of systems I am unqualified to speak on.

View Post




IS there, in your opinion, a difference between a "creation scientist" and a "scientist who studies creationism" or "a person who believes in creation and is a scientist"?

The persons you mention, that i mentioned are people who believe God made the universe, but do not study creation as a science. Frankly I think it is an oxymoron to say creation science; this is no science, and there is no falsifiable theory.

......................

Out at the edge of human understanding we inevitably arrive at awe and wonder.

You take it differently than I. i figure we are just a critter, not as different from other ones as we like to imagine. A cat will never be able to do calculus or even figure out how to open a cat food can for that matter. They can figure out more than a grasshopper can but nowhere near what a chimp can do.

I think we may be equally incapable of understanding the nature of reality, past a certain level. Just my thoughts... who knows.

Im just me... I dont hold with these labels.."naturalist, physicalist, matererialist philosophy" Maybe i think like Chinese or maybe nobody thinks like me.

Personally, I think it kind of spoils the "wonders of nature" if one looks and instead of seeing what it is on its own, a person then interprets it in terms of what I think is just an aspect of human psychology (religion). Then one is really just kind of looking at the universe and seeing himself in a mirror. Too bad...then a person will never see past his own image, not really.

In a sort of extreme or simple minded case, i was walking on c ampus with this other girl. She picks up a leaf. "oh" she says, "Look. God made this to represent the Trinity". I said, Well, it has five points, not three. "Oh" she said, not missing a beat, "then it means that God is representing the......".



What sort of data? If i were going to believe the Christian God, who to me is no more real or interesting than any other, then I would need to see some data that confirmed that for example, the earth is but a few thousand years old, that evolution is just a mistaken theory.

Instead, the data points in their millions from all over the world, thousands of scientist of many nations and many fields all confirm the ToE, not a one to contradict or falsify it.

If all evolution had going for it was something like a purported footprint and a youtube video to tell how it is actually old and not a fake...ToE would be an utter laughingstock if it was ever even heard of.

That sort of thing, for good or for ill, is all that creationism has to try to counter ToE. What would a reasonable person, who has no axe to grind, dog in the fight, etc, think of this remarkable imbalance?

#16 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 02 November 2009 - 02:45 PM

If all evolution had going for it was something like a purported footprint and a youtube video to tell how it is actually old and not a fake...ToE would be an utter laughingstock if it was ever even heard of.

That sort of thing, for good or for ill, is all that creationism has to try to counter ToE.  What would a reasonable person, who has axe to grind, dog in the fight, etc, think of this remarkable imbalance?

View Post

From what I can tell Creationism is a reactionary ideology. It reacts to the claims of evolutionary biology, always attempting to refute it. But never puts forward a theory of biological design of its own.

At times I'm not sure if creationism embraces micro-evolution or rejects it. The politics of creationism is so infused within its claims against evolutionary biology that I never see a clear statement of creationism science. If there really was a creation science, I should be able to know the exact theories it uses, so I can do my own research. Replication of experiments is central component of science.

Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, and Specified Complexity are nothing but metaphysical theories to explain what people think they are seeing. And the proponents themselves accept micro-evolution, which is evolutionary biology without speciation.

As far as I can tell there is no creation science that explains how life came from nothing. After all that is what God did; he created life from nothing. How can someone rationally claim, there is a science to that process, but have no explanation for it. Furthermore, design is about engineering, not about science. So Intelligent Design theory, if accepted, is just a theory about God's engineering. It tells us nothing about the science of that engineering.

#17 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 02 November 2009 - 03:36 PM

From what I can tell Creationism is a reactionary ideology.  It reacts to the claims of evolutionary biology, always attempting to refute it.  But never puts forward a theory of biological design of its own.

View Post

I think of it this way. There is science and there are scientists. True science is a body of researched knowledge--impersonal. Scientists are people who have beliefs and philosophies. There might be some who are Satanists I don't know.

The majority of evos are atheists and agnostics--a simple fact. Yes, there are theistic evolutionists, but they are a minority among evolutionists. The majority of creationists are Judeo/Christian or Muslim in theology. That simplifies alot of confusion in my mind.

At times I'm not sure if creationism embraces micro-evolution or rejects it.

View Post

I don't think any truly read science person will deny micro-evolution.

The politics of creationism is so infused within its claims against evolutionary biology that I never see a clear statement of creationism science.  If there really was a creation science, I should be able to know the exact theories it uses, so I can do my own research.  Replication of experiments is central component of science.

View Post

To me a good example of "we have the same science" is my geologist friend versus say Dr. Steve Austin. Both are geologists--both are YEC. One works for an oil company, is able to operate the equipment, has the knowledge and experience to find oil. His YEC beliefs are personal--but he is not going to Mt St Helen's to see if there is argon in a fresh lava dome--Steve Austin is.

Steve Austin is a YEC geologist on a mission to question standard geological interpretations that contradict long accepted scriptural history of the world.

And the proponents themselves accept micro-evolution, which is evolutionary biology without speciation.

View Post

No it's not. It is EB without macro-evolution. Species can and have changed. I can look at two different species of squirrels, or perhaps a bluejay and a cardinal and see that at one point there could have well been a common ancestor. But I can not look at a man and a gorilla, or a dinosaur and a bird, or a fish and a salamander and believe in a common ancestor.

As far as I can tell there is no creation science that explains how life came from nothing.

View Post

Neither does evolutionary biology by it's own volition. Abiogenesis is another subject to most evos. But since you brought it up--maybe you can explain how that life came into being.

Furthermore, design is about engineering, not about science.  So Intelligent Design theory, if accepted, is just a theory about God's engineering.  It tells us nothing about the science of that engineering.

View Post

So are you saying engineers take no science or math. I would think a computer engineer would have to take computer science.

Why is it evolutionists feel that they have some kind of corner on science or that science should be able to define/ account for everything. Isn't that a bit elitist?

Religious conviction or lack thereof should not inhibit the operation or study of operational science. Evolutionary biology has not yet seen itself as at least in part a historical science when speaking of origins.

#18 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2009 - 03:45 PM

I think of it this way.  There is science and there are scientists.  True science is a body of researched knowledge--impersonal.  Scientists are people who have beliefs and philosophies.  There might be some who are Satanists I don't know. 

The majority of evos are atheists and agnostics--a simple fact. Yes, there are theistic evolutionists, but they are a minority among evolutionists. The majority of creationists are Judeo/Christian or Muslim in theology.  That simplifies alot of confusion in my mind.
I don't think any truly read science person will deny micro-evolution.
To me a good example of "we have the same science" is my geologist friend versus say Dr. Steve Austin.  Both are geologists--both are YEC.  One works for an oil company, is able to operate the equipment, has the knowledge and experience to find oil.  His YEC beliefs are personal--but he is not going to Mt St Helen's to see if there is argon in a fresh lava dome--Steve Austin is. 

Steve Austin is a YEC geologist on a mission to question standard geological interpretations that contradict long accepted scriptural history of the world.
No it's not.  It is EB without macro-evolution.  Species can and have changed.  I can look at two different species of squirrels, or perhaps a bluejay and a cardinal and see that at one point there could have well been a common ancestor.  But I can not look at a man and a gorilla, or a dinosaur and a bird, or a fish and a salamander and believe in a common ancestor.
Neither does evolutionary biology by it's own volition.  Abiogenesis is another subject to most evos.  But since you brought it up--maybe you can explain how that life came into being.
So are you saying engineers take no science or math.  I would think a computer engineer would have to take computer science. 

Why is it evolutionists feel that they have some kind of corner on science or that science should be able to define/ account for everything.   Isn't that a bit elitist?

Scientists make inference everytime they find data--data must be interpreted.

View Post




Why is it evolutionists feel that they have some kind of corner on science or that science should be able to define/ account for everything. Isn't that a bit elitist?

Would be elitist if it were so! Really,"evolutionists" would not claim to know much about astrophysics, say, or chemistry or or or. Or about their own fields either.

I have been around scientists one way or another all my life. i cant imagine any of them ever saying that science "should" or ever could account for everything. Very much the opposite. Knowing a fair amount about some field like physics is very humbling, Im told.

I know that my poor grasp of any branch of science mostly equips me to peek into how little I know.

#19 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 02 November 2009 - 03:50 PM

Why is it evolutionists feel that they have some kind of corner on science or that science should be able to define/ account for everything. Isn't that a bit elitist?

Would be if it were so!  "evolutionists" would not claim to know much about astrophysics, say, or chemistry or or or.

I have been around scientists one way or another all my life.  i cant imagine any of them ever saying that science "should" or ever could account for everything.  Very much the opposite.  Knowing a fair amount about some field like physics is very humbling, Im told. 

I know that my poor grasp of any branch of science mostly equips me to peek into how little I know.

View Post

Then perhaps it is the historical science side of this debate that causes confusion. No one can deny that evo. bio. is in part operational science, but when it goes into origins it must make conclusions into the past. This would be historical science just like forensics or archaeology--would it not? And the debate is actually about the past.

#20 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 02 November 2009 - 05:29 PM

I think of it this way.  There is science and there are scientists.  True science is a body of researched knowledge--impersonal.  Scientists are people who have beliefs and philosophies.  There might be some who are Satanists I don't know.

I agree. And it implies creationism is merely a belief not a science.

There are atheist evolutionary biologists, such as Dawkins. There are christian evolutionary biologists, such as Behe and Miller. There are, however, no creation or design biologists. Especially in this post-Darwinian era. Adam might like to claim Mendel was a creation biologist, but it is a stretch because none of his research specifically points to design. His work is purely about inheritance, not about design or special creation.

The majority of evos are atheists and agnostics--a simple fact.

It is irrelevant to the science.

It seems the fact biologist are mainly atheists or agnostic is being used as a ideological tool to dismiss evolutionary biology as a science. Which is bizarre given that leading intelligent design theorists, such as Behe and Dembski are "evos" too.

That leaves Young Earth Creationism with no science what-so-ever. All YEC has is some philosophy of design, and some speculation about how Biblical text (as a literal history) relates to the current state of the world. That's not a science of biology at all.

The majority of creationists are Judeo/Christian or Muslim in theology.  That simplifies alot of confusion in my mind.

Sure, but what is their science?

I don't think any truly read science person will deny micro-evolution.

I don't either. But it's still not clear what is the science in creationism. It all looks like philosophy, and not anything that relates to science.

No it's not.  It is EB without macro-evolution.  Species can and have changed.  I can look at two different species of squirrels, or perhaps a bluejay and a cardinal and see that at one point there could have well been a common ancestor.  But I can not look at a man and a gorilla, or a dinosaur and a bird, or a fish and a salamander and believe in a common ancestor.

Looking at the Creationwiki article on taxonomy, creationists use the same taxonomic system as evolutionary biologists. In the cladistics article Creationwiki says Creationists do not equate ancestry of species with classification of species, so I wonder just how species are classified. The Creationwiki article says creationism doesn't, 'The creation science community is currently without a similar collaborative resource for the created kinds."

So how can YEC have a biology when there is no classifications. Again it seems YEC is simply a denial of science.

Abiogenesis is another subject to most evos.  But since you brought it up--maybe you can explain how that life came into being.

Asking me to explain where life comes from does not answer my question. If creationist believe life came from God, then there must be some science to it. If not, the belief is not scientific.

Forget what evolutionary theory has to says about the origins of life, because evolutionary theory is all bunk science anyhow. I'm assuming creationist science is something true, so where is the science for the origins of life?

So are you saying engineers take no science or math.  I would think a computer engineer would have to take computer science. 

Why is it evolutionists feel that they have some kind of corner on science or that science should be able to define/ account for everything.   Isn't that a bit elitist?

Religious conviction or lack thereof should not inhibit the operation or study of operational science.  Evolutionary biology has not yet seen itself as at least in part a historical science when speaking of origins.

View Post

'
Read my post again. I said engineers do design based on science. If Intelligent Design is God's engineering. What is the science?

I don't know any evolutionists, so I cannot answer your other question.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users