I have a simple question relating to creationist science:
-Do creationist "scientists" do any research or do they simply interpret the findings of other scientists?
I am certainly aware of guys like Dembski or Behe who base creationism on mathematical probabilities, but it does not seem that such "creation scientists" actually do any original research... either in a biology lab or in the field of geology/paleontology.
Where are the creationist paleontologists out in the field digging up bones of dinosaurs or early primates?
Where are the creationist geologists going out into the field to collect geologic data?
Where are the creationist biologists in biology laboratories doing original research with specimens and samples of biologic material?
I'd be amazed if they are actually out there. Creationist "scientists" appear to be more like political spinmasters of the science world than actual scientists who do research. They are interpreting all the data collected by individuals who are not seeking to support their views.
The problem with creationists is that they NEITHER look for evidence to prove OR test their theories. By test, I mean attempt to disprove.
Scientists constantly revise their theories and go looking for contradictory data all the time. And another big difference is that real scientists do not approach science with a pre-formed ultimate conclusion; they subject it to revision. If somehow we would find data that proved Lamarckism to be true, I think scientists would change their mind. (Although Lamarckism is silly, the newer field of epigenetics, in my opinion, may offer some significant changes to current theories on evolution.)
In sum, if creationists really claim to be scientists, they need to roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty. They need to come out of their ivory towers of postulation & truthiness and collect some data.
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM.