Posted on 04/12/2005 8:20:19 PM PDT by This Just In
It has been often said that "creationists cannot be real scientists."
Several years ago, the National Academy of Sciences published a guidebook entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. This guidebook states that evolution is "the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things."
In addition, the late evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky once made the now well-known comment that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
But is a belief in "particle-to-people" evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution?
Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how computers work, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all.
In fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist(and creationist) Dr. David Mention, who speaks at many conferences, has stated, "The fact is that though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education."
Nor has technology arisen due to a belief in evolution. Computers, cellular phones and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible. How can a belief in evolution(a belief that complex biological machines do not require an intelligent designer)aid in the development of complex machines which are clearly intelligently designed?
Technology has shown us that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers--not random chance. Science and technology are perfectly consistent with the Bible.
So it shouldn't be surprising that there have been many scientists who believed in biblical creation. In my own research field of astrophysics, I am reminded of several of the great minds of history. Consider Issac Newton, who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics.
Consider Johannes Kepler, who discovered the three laws of planetary motion, or James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. These great scientists believed the Bible.
Today as well, there are many Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and instead believe that God created in six days as recorded in Scripture. Consider Dr. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. nuclear physicist who has developed(among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields which was able to predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all.
On the contrary, Dr. Humphreys was able to make there predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scripture. Dr. John Baumgardner, a Ph.D. geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which the journal Nature once featured(this model is based on the global Genesis Flood).
Additionally, think of all the people who have benefited from a Magnetic Resonance Imaging(MRI)scan. The MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian who has been featured twice in our Creation magazine.
Clearly, creationists can indeed be real scientists. And this shouldn't be surprising since the very basis for scientific research is biblical creation. The universe is orderly because its Creator is logical and has imposed order on the universe. God created our minds and gave us the ability and curiosity to study the universe. Furthermore, we can trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent. This is why science is possible.
On the other hand, if the universe is just an accidental product of a big bang, why should it be orderly? Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver? If our brains are the by-product of random chance, why should we trust that their conclusions are accurate? But if our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by the Lord as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature.
Yes, science is possible because the Bible is true.
BTTT
Creationists are about as scientific as ESP and "Talking with the Dead" researchers.
Nor has technology arisen due to a belief in evolution. Computers, cellular phones and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible. How can a belief in evolution(a belief that complex biological machines do not require an intelligent designer)aid in the development of complex machines which are clearly intelligently designed?Yeah, well, simple answers for simple minds I guess; whereas the real answer is - the scientific method is the means by which science developed and from which engineering as an application of science worked to develop all these things ...
I tried to get to this web site, but, the server is down tonight (it would appear) .. it expounds more eruditely my beliefs: www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html
---"Creationists are about as scientific as ESP and "Talking with the Dead" researchers."---
Don't forget people who don't believe in global warming.
Man, the true scientists just laugh those people off the stage. They don't even get invited to debate the issue; because as every reasonable person knows, of course global warming is true! We must just accept that it is true; I mean basically the whole of the scientific community agrees -- who are we to doubt, lest we be zealots of the right?
(please note sarcasm here everybody)
Care to state your case?
"Talking with the Dead" is apparently what the paleontologists who believe in evolution practice.
Creationists are the best evidence for evolution, as they have not evolved.
Total ignoramus about biology, though. Sorry, it had to be said.
AMEN !!
Apology not necessary, although in all fairness I can't take your word for it. Unless of course this physics professor has been published. :^)
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of {science} falsely so called:
Oh Goody! Another CREVO thread. Maybe this'll be the one that solves it!
...or maybe not.
They were featured in the article.
"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the [Pope Pius XII Humani Generis] Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than a hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
"...because as every reasonable person knows, of course global warming is true!..."
Ahem...
Global warming IS true and that is an undeniable fact!!!
Of course, global cooling is also true and that is also an undeniable fact... heh heh heh
The true and undeniable fact is that everything in creation is a composition of exponential nature. Sinusoids, those things that go up and down periodically, are simply the sum of e+ and and e- factors.
Whether based upon mass, energy, position in space, or a varying composition of the three.
So what does this mean? It means things go up and down.
> Let's not forget Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler: creationists, both.
Wow! What a stunner! That astronomers and phsycists who died centuries prior to the theory of evolution first being written down, didn't actually ascribe to that theory! Amazing!
Next we'll find out that Abraham Lincoln did not support the war in Iraq! And that Tycho Brahe never once said a single thing in support of the idea of Pluto having a moon! Perhaps we'll soon discover that "Star Trek" was not Albert Einstein's favorite TV show!!!!!
I don't honestly "get it" with regard to the cre/evo dialogue. None of us were there. I don't see why either position is truly a threat to the other.
I don't honestly "get it" with regard to the cre/evo dialogue.'Turf' war; my ding's better'n-bigger than your ding; same 'ol same 'ol ...
I choose to revise and extend my remarks, Mr. Speaker.
;-)
I meant: the idea that we are causing mass global warming by driving cars.
Insert above idea into all thoughts from previous post.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.