Creationist Research

doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
Creationist Research

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. 

 


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
I like the point you bring

I like the point you bring up. Seeing as I am not a scientist, nor do I know any, I can't really answer your question about creationist scientists presence in the field. Although, I would agree to suspect that it would be a quite lower number of creationist scientists working side by side in a laboratory or field site with other scientists.

Personally, I feel it would make sense if there weren't many out in the field because it takes a bit of risk to investigate the things that may challenge your faith's evidence. I would venture to agree that a scientist holding back his research from areas where it may challenge his faith is quite unscientific.

Having begun my own research into scientific explanation and theories, I realize the risks, but feel that investigation and learning should not shake my faith. If my faith is in something that is true, then scientific research should not be able to shake it so badly that I lose it. Atleast, that's how I look at the whole thing. If a creationist scientist is afraid of investigation, what does that say about his faith?   

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Personally, I feel

Quote:
Personally, I feel it would make sense if there weren't many out in the field because it takes a bit of risk to investigate the things that may challenge your faith's evidence.

What kind of excuse is that?

It's actually more of a pride question: "Should I allow the possibility lof me being wrong?" If the faith is challenged and proven wrong, then you've got nothing to fear, because you're not actually doing any harm.

Quote:
Having begun my own research into scientific explanation and theories, I realize the risks, but feel that investigation and learning should not shake my faith. If my faith is in something that is true, then scientific research should not be able to shake it so badly that I lose it.

VERY good point!

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

 

What kind of excuse is that?

 

A very bad excuse. I didn't mean to appear to be giving excuses to justify the lack of creationist scientists doing research. I don't feel there is any good reason that a creationist scientist should not investigate.   

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


hellfiend666
Rational VIP!
hellfiend666's picture
Posts: 192
Joined: 2007-01-15
User is offlineOffline
I think the answer is pretty

I think the answer is pretty simple. They've gotten so used to cherry picking the bible that it's carried over to science. They dig for facts that might possibly further their own agenda, then throw the rest in the trash.

The darkness of godlessness lets wisdom shine.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13248
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Whatever "science" they

Whatever "science" they attempt to use is ultimatly a propaganda tool to get people to buy outrageous claims like dirt POOF turning into flesh.Their goal is not to find truth. Their goal is to get you to believe in a book that makes absurd magical comic book claims.

Talking about evolution or macro vs micro or "second law" on their part is a distraction away from claims of "spirits" knocking up girls and human flesh surviving rigor mortis.

How seriously should they be taken? Unfortunatly they are a well followed and well financed propaganda machine.

To understand their intent all you have to do is look at other religious people outside Christianity pulling the same "my book matches science" crap.

I've heard Muslims argue that a verse in the Quran that talks about "mountains moving" proved that Muhammed knew about plate tectonics.

Jews have "Kabbalah" and Tom Cruise follows Scientology. It is all the same crap. People too proud to admit that they baught a myth so rather than face it, they attempt to use science AFTER THE FACT to attempt to prop up their myth.

It is the same junk psuedo science as "paranormal" research.

Unfortunatly the emotional appeal overrides critical thought.

The same "bait and switch" tactic is used in TV comercials. Ever watch a laundry detergent comercial? They talk about how great it is at removing stains playing on the fact that people dont like to wear ruined cloths.

BUT, did you ever notice that the "stains" are fresh and not set in? You'd never see them let jeans with a grass stain or ink stain dry for days and days, then use that as an example.

"Pay no attention to the comic book claims behind the curtain"

Thats all crapinism is. Anyone quoting any  holy book of any label claiming it matches science is a lier and nothing but a cheerleader. There agenda is to get you to buy hocus pockus in the end.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Part of doing scientific

Part of doing scientific reserach is to add something new to the field. To add some new knowledge, new facts, new method of collecting data. If God did it already, there is no reason for continued learning and research. Dawkins articulates this very well.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Real Science has evidence

Real Science has evidence and then comes up with a conclusion to fit.

Creation "Science" has the conclusion then finds the evidence to fit.  


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
They don't even really use

They don't even really use science. They either pull stuff out of their ass or distort actual science.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
The various scientific

The various scientific disciplines destroy creationism at all levels. By it's very nature, creation "science" forbids field work of any kind. The role of the creationist in the community is to stand on the sidelines and pick holes in the theories of legitimate researchers. Unfortunately for them, the sidelines are shrinking, and they'll have to play ball eventually.