What is a "Creation Scientist" ??

Just having a discussion with the GF... she mentioned that she likes science

But she also said I follow secular scientists... while she reads about Creation scientists



Can anyone explain what a "Creation scientist" is to me...

sounds like an oxymoron

reply to post by Akragon


I had no idea such a thing existed. It peaked my curiosity so I wiki'd it. Here is the best explanation on that page!!

Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.

There is tons of them around. Scientists who believe in biblical creation, not evolution.

reply to post by Akragon


i could post my own opinion - but the tennents of faith from self identifying " creation scientists " is far funnier

Akragon
Just having a discussion with the GF... she mentioned that she likes science

But she also said I follow secular scientists... while she reads about Creation scientists

Can anyone explain what a "Creation scientist" is to me...

sounds like an oxymoron

edit on 21-11-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

Akra

What is a scientist?

Isn't a scientist one who observes, records and conduct experiments, and then observes said experiments, records observations of said experiments and then observes records and experiments observations?

So how is a creation scientist not a scientist? Max Planck, the founder of the Max Planck Institute, was a creationist, and yet a lot of scientists work there. I would hardly call Max Planck a pseudo-scientist.

For those that aren't convinced in Macroevolution (goo to you), it seems nearly as likely that we were created in some variation by a Creator, rather than, we are where we are now from an explosion which occured from nothing. Just my opinion but many secular scientists aren't skeptical enough of the Big Bang and how we have progressed to where we are now and how ridiculous its actually sounds.

reply to post by WarminIndy


I think the reason it is considered a pseudo science is that they are trying to take something and make everything fit into it.

Kind of like doing the edges of a puzzle first. Science should be about starting with the middle piece and finding out which ones fit where.

reply to post by Akragon


All creation scientists advocate the biblical account of creation, but not all scientists accept that claim, even if they are devoutly religious. True science sticks to the assumption of methodological naturalism, whereas creation science does not acknowledge this limitation. It stubbornly tries to tiptoe in the realm of the supernatural.

The ICR (Institution for Creation Research - it should stand for Illogical Creationist Reasoning) is a privately funded independent research group that largely supports the concordance of the Bible and modern science.

"Science was my most favorite subject, especially the Old Testament."

-- Kenneth Parcell, 30 Rock.

I believe that she is suggesting that she is a fan of Intelligent Design, which does border on mainstream science, regardless of what its opponents claim.

Creationism, on the other hand... that's more philosophical than scientific, in my opinion, because the claims of creationists are not supportable or refutable.

the bible is full of science, it's just that three hundred years ago, when the enlightenment period set hard core science on the map, they didn't recognize any of it. to them, describing people flying in the sky in odd vehicles or on weird platforms, emerging from fiery holes in the sky, people being copied in the image of others, and so and and so on, just wasn't possible, so therefore, scientifically speaking, the bible was unscientific. today we can describe almost every supernatural event in the bible, with real science.

reply to post by adjensen


So our species coming from the product of incest is not proveable?

I'm pretty sure a creation scientist is someone who tries to connect biblical accounts of creation to actual science. That's pretty much impossible though, so I wouldn't exactly call them scientists myself. Science is based on logic, creationism is not. So you're right, it is an oxymoron.

Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

So our species coming from the product of incest is not proveable?

definitely not since there was more than one adam (and some were female), so naturally there were other humans. incest not necessary. although i would argue that the first adam (males and females) were not homo sapiens

3NL1GHT3N3D1
I'm pretty sure a creation scientist is someone who tries to connect biblical accounts of creation to actual science. That's pretty much impossible though, so I wouldn't exactly call them scientists myself. Science is based on logic, creationism is not. So you're right, it is an oxymoron.

it's not impossible.
i'm hesitant to list all my evidence as i'm working on a book idea

adjensen
"Science was my most favorite subject, especially the Old Testament."

-- Kenneth Parcell, 30 Rock.

I believe that she is suggesting that she is a fan of Intelligent Design, which does border on mainstream science, regardless of what its opponents claim.

Creationism, on the other hand... that's more philosophical than scientific, in my opinion, because the claims of creationists are not supportable or refutable.

ID is just Creationism in a cheap lab coat worn in the hopes of being taken seriously. They both alude to the same thing, the claim of a super being that made everything. And who specifically? The Christian god. Sure there are others, but generally whenever anyone mentions creationists or ID, it's in the biblical sense.

Claims made by creationists/ID proponents are anecdotal at best, and don't stand up to scientific scrutiny. They often hop on the back of scientific discoveries claiming that they were in the bible all along, but never ever put forward any discoveries or new information of their own.

There's a reason why....

reply to post by Prezbo369


not just the christian god but also the jewish god and the muslim god. you missed them. also some less known branches, like the mormons, gnostics, some orthodox, some not. i think the issue is people who have compiled critical papers on the subject, have based their entire critique on the papal interpretation instead of what the text actually says. and those interpretations usually date back to before the advent of universitiy sciences and archaeology. i view that approach as the lazy strawman. it's easy. 1) go find an indefensible interpretation, 2) add a few scholarly critical papers that can easily debunk it, 3) rinse, wash, repeat. forever.

superman2012
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I think the reason it is considered a pseudo science is that they are trying to take something and make everything fit into it.

Kind of like doing the edges of a puzzle first. Science should be about starting with the middle piece and finding out which ones fit where.

Really?

Would you like the list of scientist who were atheist and became belivers? Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkings aren't the only scientists out there.

How eminent should one be for you to consider them a scientist? Would you care for me to post the ones with the best jobs at the best universities, or just the ones trying to make a nuclear reactor in their oven? You choice, but since you love real scientists to tell you how to think, here are some...

James A. Huggins
Professor and Chair, Department of Biology

University of Memphis: Ph.D. (biology) 1985
Arkansas State University: MS (biology) 1977
Arkansas State University: BSA (agricultural animal science) 1975

Dr Raymond Damadian is a Christian who was the founding pioneer of the MRI, that he had a patent on in 1971, but the Nobel Prize for its invention, went to atheists. The US Supreme Court in 1997 then upheld that he had invented it.

2001, the Lemelson-MIT program bestowed its lifetime achievement award on Dr Damadian as ‘the man who invented the MRI scanner’.

Dr Eugene Feigelson Dean of the State University of New York College of Medicine on Long Island said ‘The reason that we are so disappointed, and even angry is because the work was done here at this institution … all of MRI rests on the fundamental work that Dr Damadian has done here.’

So you have atheist scientist ripping the work off a Christian, claiming it as their own, winning the Nobel, for which the Nobel Prize committee would rather have people believe in evolution. Care to go on thinking there is no agenda?

Dr John Hartnett
Physics, Cosmology (Australia)

B.Sc. (hons) and his Ph.D. with distinction from the Department of Physics at the University of Western Australia (UWA). He works as an ARC DORA research fellow in the Institute of Photonics and Advanced Sensing and the School of Chemistry and Physics at the University of Adelaide. Winner of the 2010 W.G. Cady Award by IEEE Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control Society.

Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto), D.Sc.(Poznan), is head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland. He is on the editorial board of two international periodicals: Silvae Genetics, published in Germany, and Annales ses sciences forestieres published in France. He is a member of the Polish Academy of Sciences Committee on Forest Sciences, and on the Forestry Council in the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry. He is the author of about 150 scientific papers in Polish and international periodicals.

There you go, just a small list of scientists who are very preeminent, very well-educated and very well-respected in the scientific community.

And the reason you think evolution must be taught in school is because of Kitzmiller Vs. Dover, it didn't rule the science, but religion aspect.

Prezbo369

adjensen
"Science was my most favorite subject, especially the Old Testament."

-- Kenneth Parcell, 30 Rock.

I believe that she is suggesting that she is a fan of Intelligent Design, which does border on mainstream science, regardless of what its opponents claim.

Creationism, on the other hand... that's more philosophical than scientific, in my opinion, because the claims of creationists are not supportable or refutable.

ID is just Creationism in a cheap lab coat worn in the hopes of being taken seriously. They both alude to the same thing, the claim of a super being that made everything. And who specifically? The Christian god. Sure there are others, but generally whenever anyone mentions creationists or ID, it's in the biblical sense.

Claims made by creationists/ID proponents are anecdotal at best, and don't stand up to scientific scrutiny. They often hop on the back of scientific discoveries claiming that they were in the bible all along, but never ever put forward any discoveries or new information of their own.

There's a reason why....

Really? Cheap lab coats?

See my reply post to Superman.

Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto), D.Sc.(Poznan), is head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland. He is on the editorial board of two international periodicals: Silvae Genetics, published in Germany, and Annales ses sciences forestieres published in France. He is a member of the Polish Academy of Sciences Committee on Forest Sciences, and on the Forestry Council in the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry. He is the author of about 150 scientific papers in Polish and international periodicals.

Care to say this guy just wears a cheap lab coat?

reply to post by Akragon


I found this online somewhere a while ago and would like to share it with you:

The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22)
Science THEN: The earth was a flat disk
Science NOW: The earth is a sphere

Innumerable stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
Science THEN: Only 1,100 stars
Science NOW: Innumerable stars

Free float of earth in space (Job 26:7)
Science THEN: Earth sat on a large animal
Science NOW: Free float of earth in space

Creation made of invisible Elements (Hebrews 11:3)
Science THEN: Science was ignorant on the subject
Science NOW: Creation made of invisible elements (atoms)

Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41)
Science THEN: All stars were the same
Science NOW: Each star is different

Light moves (Job 38:19, 20)
Science THEN: Light was fixed in place
Science NOW: Light moves

Air has weight (Job 28:25)
Science THEN: Air was weightless
Science NOW: Air has weight

Wind blows in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
Science THEN: Wind blew straight
Science NOW: Wind blows in cyclones

Blood is the source of Life and health (Leviticus 17:11)
Science THEN: Sick people must be bled
Science NOW: Blood is the source of life and health

Ocean floor contains deep Valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6)
Science THEN: The ocean floor was flat
Science NOW: Ocean floor contains deep Valleys and mountains

Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16)
Science THEN: Ocean feed only by rivers and rain
Science NOW: Ocean contains springs

When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Lev 15:13)
Science THEN: Hands washed in still water
Science NOW: When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water

For further studies I recommend these sites: www.answersingenesis.org... , www.icr.org... , thatsafacttv.com...

reply to post by Prezbo369


The difference, again, is that Intelligent Design relies on a scientific approach, while Creationists are philosophical, not scientists. You can fault the findings and claims of ID, but to say that they're not approaching it differently than Creationists are is simply ignorant.