(4).jpg)
That's it for me.
No more sweeping statements such as "scientists say..." from folks who are smarter about some things than I am.
No more intimidation from folk who know words I can't spell.
No more "I am smarter than you because you don't understand what I am saying" attitude.
I am confident I can speak in languages and use words that many scientists don't know.
Folk are no longer permitted to say "Scientists say..." as if all the scientists were in their pocket and make some all encompassing statement about the origin of life, evolution (micro or macro) old earth creationism or theistic evolution.
There are not a few, make that a LOT of scientists who are equally qualified and just as confident in the young earth creation world view of the beginning of things not to mention the latter have Bible writers on their side.
Statements such as "Some scientists believe..." are permissibile with 'believe' being the operative word.
But no more "Scientists say..." and pushing me or any/all other Christians into a corner.
No more.
Here's just a few places to start to find scientists who can support their view of young earth creationism (YEC) with their research.
Institute for Creation Research
No, that's not all there is.
Comments
None of the organistaions you list are even vaguely scientific. Perhaps you should try consulting some real scientist rather than just listening to the ones who bolster you own view of the world.
The reason you are getting the kind of reply you obviously don't like is that the creationists have NEVER produced any real research or evidence to back up their claims. Scientists on the other hand have published vast amounts of evidence. Maybe you should go check some of it out, rather than publish rather weak, whiny articles like this.
To Gold Dragon: I guess the word 'scientist' as defined in the dictionary and according to universities across the globe does not apply to scientists unless they are working to thward the idea of creationism and God? Give us a break. Science in many areas is just as subjective as religion, art, and morality. What some say is 'proof' others will disprove with their 'proof' but don't go on with a lie that the organizations listed aren't even vaguely 'scientific' when they have well respected, tenured scientists working with them. You insult yourself and show how you're stretching to make a point.
Dear Ann,
Before you call me a liar try checking out who these organisations really are, rather than accepting what they say because it agrees with your interpritation of the bible.
As someone who actually has a science degree I have some idea of what the definition of science is. One of it's main principles is that you start with the evidence and then work towards the best fit answer with the current evidence and that the answer may later be revised in the light of further evidence.
All the organisations listed here have a reputation for starting with a conclusion, the bible being right, and then choosing the evidence they think best fits that.
There is also the issue that several off these organisations have some rather unsavoury political aims.
As to well respected Scientists. Please don't make me laugh. A prime example is Michael Behe of the Discovery Institute whose own university disown him and he was also made out to look a total fool at the Dover trial.
Finding oil is a very high-stakes issue for oil companies. Trillions of dollars are riding on it. When they need to find the most likely spots to drill, do they use Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?
If the Earth is only 6000 years old, where did the oil come from? If it was created in the ground, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plankton, but 10,000 times faster than any chemist thinks it could? A young Earth and a Flood would imply some interesting questions to ask, some extremely valuable research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?
Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why is no one doing this?
The references cited are all just creationist apologetic groups. Any claims these organizations have made have been disproved and debunked time and time again but the still appeal to those who desperately try to hold onto the myth of craeationism. These sources are not only wrong but they are dishonest in that they know what they are saying is false Research Kitzmiller v Dover.
Although legitmate science (ie non-creationist) cannot explain every detail of origins yet it is clear to any well-educated person that the Christian Creation Myth did not nor could not have happened.
All you have to do to get a fairly complete understanding of this writer's misunderstanding is to search "Why do people laugh at creationists?" The title alone tells you enough but if you want exhaustive details you will get them.
Ray Ingles: Interestingly, one of the most expert geologists who makes the creationsists a laughing stock is a geologist who works for the oil industry. What's even more interesting is that he started out as a creationist until he learned the facts and realized that creationism, meaning that oxymoron, scientific creationism, are dead wrong, frequently confused, and sometimes downright dishonest.
Gold Dragon says that the Christians who call themselves scientists start with a conclusion. Excuse me but a scienctific theory about something is based first on hypothesis. Answers.com: The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
And ONE case referring to Dover does not make a bit of dif. I am sure we can site many false scientists of all different faiths or lack thereof.
For the life of me, I'll never understand why evolutionists and atheists continue to insist that their nearest relative is a hairy, grunting, stinky, slobbering, knuckle-dragging, cootie-picking primate. But if they insist, who am I to second-guess their miserable self-image?
Ann: The aim of science is to obtain whatever facts we can, verify and check them, have the data reviewed and critiqued by other competetive scientists and then, when we think the data is reliable create explanatory models. There are some areas of science where had data is hard to come by which are called soft sciences. Their data is less reliable,but their methods must remain in accord with established scientific method, the method we humans have to assure maximum likelihood of correct observation.
Science isn't interested in religion. Religion entails discussion of the supernatural which is, by definition, unobservable. As such it is completely irrelevant to science. Its also rather remote from the notion of fact.
A person of reason who is also a person of faith is one who distinguishes faith from fact. Creationism, is intent on confounding and confusing the two. They are therefore intellectually corrupt.
GM, your own text from Answers.com refutes your assertion. A scientific theory is a conceptual explanatory model based on, shaped to, and kept consistent with the verified facts.
No one said one couldn't be a scientist who is a Christian. One can believe as a Christian as a matter of pure faith, but accept the observed and verified facts, and work, as a scientist according to the methods of science designed to prevent factual and reasoning errors.
Creationists are not scientists, even if they have scientific training because they violate central concepts of science. The most obvious one is the exclusion of consideration of the supernatural. That may seem arbitrary to a believer, but it is simply common sense. If something is supernatural, it cannot, by definition be observed. If it can't be observed there's nothing to say about it so considering it is useless in determining fact.
Van, that is about the silliest argument known to civilization. In fact, I'd rather acknowledge descent from apes (however described) than kinship with some humans whose vile behavior makes gorillas look like paragons of virtue.
The fact that our species is derived, going back 150,000 years to a descendent of some animal with a common anscestor of gorillas bothers me not a whit. What's important is what we are and what we do. Why your ancient lineage is of interest is best left for you to discuss with a psychotherapist.
Dear GM,
In future please do not try putting words into my mouth, it only makes you look like a liar and a fool. I did not say all Christians and only pointed to the organisations mentioned here.
As to only mentioning one very well know legel case, well there is a character limit on this site.
By the way, the ICR, one of the main creationist institutions requires that its fellows affirm and swear that they believe in the literal inerrancy of the Bible and everything in it.
If this isn't deciding on a conclusion and then looking for reasons to support it, I don't know what is. Of course, they don't succeed. This is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
Not one of those sources provided contain a single Peer Reviewed Scientific study published in a credible Scientific journal. If you don't know what that is, or what that means, then go back to school and get an education.
If science was wrong and these clowns were correct, then everything from Radio Waves, satellites orbiting the earth, and the flight path of Voyager 2 is a hoax. If science was wrong about evolution, then all our advances in agricultural pest control and our understanding of diseases is a lie. If science was wrong and these clowns were correct, then Atomic and Nuclear energy is a fake.
Lets face the facts for a change. Peer reviewed scientific studies over decades have allowed us to look at the stars and know what they are. For the first time in history.
Develop a thirst for knowledge and truth and grow. Don't return to the superstitious darkness and the ravings of disingenuous fools who peddle the nonsense found in those so called "studies".
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha
Yeah! I've had it up to here with these people who go through years of education, study, and peer-review and then make me feel uncomfortable with my faith! All of their large words and their... smaller... also difficult words!
Oh, but I'll still take scientific advancements in computers and medicine without hesitation though.
The Discovery Institute DOES NOT endorse YEC.
This is an error that people on both sides of the debate seem to continually make. It's simply not true.
ID =/= YEC
For a detailed description of the differences in purpose, methodology, conclusions and scope between ID and YEC, please read "The Design Revolution" by Dembski.
Disagree with the positions if you will, everyone, but at least be accurate in what you're disagreeing with. Anything else is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually lazy...or both.
www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/aprilweb-only/117-22.0.html
www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
So much mis-information, so little time.
ID is not Creationism.
Evolution is a fact.
The MECHANISM for it is a theory.
Evolution is not Common Descent.
Common Descent is a hypothesis, not a theory OR a fact.
Come and discuss this, and ANY origins issue at Talk About Origins:
www.tao.invisionzone.com
One more place "to find scientists who can support their view of young earth creationism (YEC) with their research" is:
Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation
Traditional Catholic Creation Apologetics on Origins.
www.kolbecenter.org
See also:
Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation - Advisory Council
www.kolbecenter.org/KCAdvisorsforWeb8.htm
What does the Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm
A summary of the magisterial statements on the subject of Adam and Eve, the book of Genesis, the Flood and Creation Ex nihilo. The second page summarizes the teaching of evolution and how cutting edge science says "No" to evolution.
Bill, If you had to have heart surgery, would you go to a brilliant podiatrist, or would you prefer a competent heart surgeon?
If you wanted to know if evolution was true, and what the evidence for it was, would you talk to the greatest mechanical engineer who ever lived, or an evolutionary biologist?
The opinion of a scientist outside of his field is not necessarily more informed that is yours or mine, even if they're geniuses in their own field.
"There are not a few, make that a LOT of scientists who are equally qualified..." Let's define our terms. What's a "LOT"; let's say 500. I think we can all agree that 500 is at least a "lot", if not a "LOT".
And "equally qualified"; let's say with PhD degrees in the field. Certainly someone with a PhD has demonstrated an understanding of the subject.
Do you know of 500 PhD biologists who reject evolution? Or 500 PhD's in geology who reject the current scientific thinking on the age of the Earth - and on a scientific, not a fait
Completing my last post:
Do you know of 500 PhD biologists who reject evolution? Or 500 PhD's in geology who reject the current scientific thinking on the age of the Earth - and on a scientific, not a faith basis?
JM Smith -
You are correct that ID doesn't endorse YEC. They do regularly attempt to support any, even vaguely scientific attack on evolution, and some, like Dembski, even get into attacking naturalism. The ID'ers are the elites of creationism, so they don't back the really silly stuff as YECs do.
That doesn't, on the other had mean their argument is valid. And their pretense at not proposing their designer is the usual deity, simply dishonest.
Joseph, we meet here again. You're still pushing the same reheated creationist pablum you did in the other places like the Dallas morning news.
News flash for you. The Kolbe center folks aren't real scientists in the appropriate fields and have nothing interesting to say. They're just the same fundamentalists who got some scientific training which they pursued in compartmentalized areas.
Terry Trainor writes:
"So much mis-information, so little time."
Indeed, you're carrying on with the task of misinforming.
"ID is not Creationism." Indeed it is. Its an attempt to misuse science to support a theistic proposition.
"Evolution is a fact."
Ok.
"The MECHANISM for it is a theory."
The scientific theory (not a guess) is a fact based conceptual model of speciation.
"Evolution is not Common Descent."
Common Descent is a conclusion drawn from observation and integrated with evolutionary theory, so thoroughly supported that to deny it is, as Gould put it, is perversity. It can be regarded as fact.
"Common Descent is a hypothesis, not a theory OR a fact."
Wrong. See above.
Al,
ID's lack of claim regarding the identity of proposed origins of design isn't dishonest; it's simply consistent with the scope and aim of actual ID theory as its currently used in various fields of study (i.e. forensics, archeology, cryptography, SETI, etc.). It's simply applying the criteria of design detection (which is not controversial in and of itself) to the natural world (which makes it immediately controversial, given the current climate of debate between naturalistic evolution and YEC).
James-Michael:
I hope you'll forgive my continued disagreement. Having read the original Wedge document before access to the site was secured years ago I have reason to suspect motives, reconfirmed by the writings, positions and affiliations of the proponents, not to mention the serious assaults on science its proponents maintain.
No matter how you want to slice or dice it, assertion of an intelligent being having designed the universe fits the common understanding of a deity, named or otherwise. To just not name it, I suppose, would allow for a possible interpretation of deism but it hardly qualifies and as non-religous.So I do think its dishonest.
The search for patterns such as SETI is merely a device to start an inquiry, not to draw a conclusion. ID asserts there MUST have been a creator because of patterns. Its an appeal to an argument from ignorance, not a investigatory tool.
One more point about ID. Using patterns to investigate archeology, cryptology, and such aren't relevant because they are about a phenomenon we are quite certain about and know about: ourselves. We know that people carve statues, create codes, build building etc. Looking for patters of what WE do is hardly analagous to inferring intelligence from a vast array of phenomena of unknown history.
Humans don't like saying "I just don't know". That it promotes inquiry and search for explanatory models is useful. When we simply make stuff up and decide its true, it isn't.
Al,
I understand doubting the motives of some ID proponents, but that does not render the line of investigation incorrect.
Also, just because we know the source of human-designed systems doesn't mean that all aspects of design are innately human. Design is design--whether human, primate, SETI-intelligence or unknown. It has properties that can be recognized and determined with a high degree of probability. This is the core of ID.
Oh looky, it's another Christian America retard.
James-Michael writes "Design is design--whether human, primate, SETI-intelligence or unknown." Really?
Design implies intent. To be a design there must be an intending being. If I examine archeology there is no question of what sort of intending being we are discussing. There is no other known instance of such a being.
In the SETI project we are merely looking for the possibility of an intending intelligence by patterning it, again after our own. Even detection of a suggestive pattern would simply be cause for an additional search, not proof of such being.
ID on the other hand pretends that their observation of nature implies such an intender as its designer. They haven't as much as a smidgen of evidence of such an intender. There are no criteria for detecting design absent a designer. Their only criteria, which isn't valid, is their experience of incredulity. Irreducible complexity has been refuted.
With no data,no criteria and no method this isn't science.
Al,
Irreducible complexity isn't the ultimate argument of ID, it's a subset of the actual argument which is that of complex specified information. There is no case of complex specified information that is not immediately recognized as being the product of intelligence...except for that found in biological systems. This should be enough to give one pause before writing off ID as "creationism". Regardless of intentions of its proponents, it is a very logical and reasonable line of inquiry that should be allowed to develop rather than be immediately embraced or rejected.
I read harunyahya.com website lately and he is telling the same thing with Bill. I think you should take a look at this.
James-Michael Smith - Methodist Examiner said: "The Discovery Institute DOES NOT endorse YEC."
So? What's your point? The claim is: "Here's just a few places to start to find scientists who can support their view of young earth creationism (YEC) with their research."
Setting aside the fact that none of these places actually does any research, it is true that one can find YEC "scientists" at the Discovery Institute. Examples: Paul Nelson and Dean Kenyon.
While it is true that the Discovery Institute does not endorse YEC, it is also true that they do not deny or challenge it. Usually, DI bigshots avoid questions about the age of the Earth or a global flood. This is because DI is not about science, it is about politics, and taking stands on such clearly settled scientific questions would spoil their "big tent" strategy.
James-Michael says: "There is no case of complex specified information that is not immediately recognized as being the product of intelligence...except for that found in biological systems."
Has Dembski offered up a consistent, non-circular definition of "complex specified information" and told us how to recognize it?
(Hint: the answer is NO)
Science is not a democracy. You don't just run it through the school boards, have them vote for it and if it wins, call it science. This has been the tactic used by the DI. It has to be taken through the scientific process, including through the peer review process (and not just through like minded people). It has to answer the same questions the current theory does, like why the fossil record shows evolution-like steps through time, why a designer would route some of the plumbing and nerves the way they are (which look a lot like how you would expect them to if they were evolved the way evolution scientists believe) and more. Then it has to show how evolution fails (it hasn't), and more importantly it has to be fully testable.
ID proponents like to say evolution is only a theory (what this really means is another point of contention), but ID isn't even a proper theory. In fact I don't know that it's even been made a proper hypothesis (with a proper null hypothesis)
Reginald,
I'm assuming you've read "The Design Revolution" by Dembski? I mean actually read it yourself? If you haven't then I there's nothing really I can offer. If you have, then I'd be happy to discuss why you think it doesn't offer exactly what you are asking for.
BTW, for a different perspective than that of YEC on Genesis, see my recent article on Genesis 1. The link to it I posted was deleted, but I'm hoping that was accidental rather than intentional...
James-Michael: "I'm assuming you've read "The Design Revolution" by Dembski? I mean actually read it yourself? If you haven't then I there's nothing really I can offer."
I would think if it contains anything of merit, and _you_ have read it, you might have something to offer. But you cannot relay any convincing argument from the book unless _I_ have read it? How very odd.
No, I have not yet read "The Design Revolution." That's because I buy all my Creationist material at used book sales, so that none of my money goes to support the authors or publishers of such dreck.
I see a sidebar on the right labeled "Scientists who are Christian, believed in God." The list includes Francis Collins and Carl Giberson (I'll use the correct spelling of his name). Both these gentlemen are indeed scientists, and Christians, but neither one is a Young Earth Creationist. Collins even wrote a book to convince other Evangelical Christians that Creationism, including Intelligent Design Creationism, is not scientifically valid. You must be really desperate to pull this sort of stunt.
Gold Dragon, you said:
"Before you call me a liar try checking out who these organisations really are, rather than accepting what they say because it agrees with your interpritation of the bible."
What if what the Bible says really is true? To debunk the Bible's claims, you must first show that the miracles (supernatural acts) and prophesies (God foretelling what will happen) written of in the Bible are false. A good example of this is the reemergance of Israel and the miraculous survival of Israel against all odds, just as foretold thousands of years ago by God's prophets.
Interestingly, it turns out that the rational side of the debate (the side that understands the contents thereof and is capable of actual science) can field more scientists whose first names are all Steve, and all hold actual science degrees or above, and all have published peer reviewed papers, than even the most stretching and desperate list of dentists and homeopaths claiming to be scientists that the YEC refuseniks can muster.
This guy should be baneed from writing on this website. Why hasn't it been done yet?
Simple research will show his work is based on crap that's based on poo that's based on more crap.
you are actually retarded...... christians take up 90%of north america.....shut up and quit whining... why dont you just give up on the whole god thing...you believe in a fairy tale. science proves FACTS religion creates war and conflict.
religion is beyond the stupidest, most detrimental, and childish story ever told. shame on you for falling for it and believing it. i bet if i told you the sky is pink you'd believe that too if it was in the bible you crazy nut.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!