Posted on 03/26/2009 2:29:09 PM PDT by Fichori
Anyone familiar with the creation/evolution debate should know that anti-creationists love to lob the accusation that creationists are “anti-science” or that they “reject science.” Evolutionists frequently label creationists “flat-earthers” and even go as far as suggesting that consistent creationists should deny the law of gravity!
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
I think you go to far with that. There are creationist who do do good science in fields other than biology.
Today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists and who repudiate any form of evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. Creationist scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science and their numbers are increasing rapidly. In the Creation Research Society (2717 Cranbrook Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48104) alone there are over 650 scientist members with either doctor’s or master’s degrees in some field of natural science. Among the additional 2,000 + sustaining members of the Society, many are also scientists with bachelor’s degrees, in addition to numerous social scientists and other highly educated people with postgraduate degrees in their own fields. Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is “science” and creation is “religion.”
Add to the list of creationists with hard science degrees: my son the Physics dude.
Some do but most don’t.
It depends. Are you rejecting Global Warming because you believe a benevolent God wouldn't create an environment that might endanger all planetary life? Or, are you rejecting Global Warming because you don't appreciate people with a political ideology picking and choosing certain scientific principles, facts and calculations to fit their own political narrative?
For me, it's the latter and not the former. Which is exactly why I know evolution to be sound, unimpeachable scientific fact. But, it's the latter that modern day creationists are doing to support their ideas of "intelligent design" and the like.
The ages of the earth, the sun and the universe are BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT, well over 5,000 years old.
And those who insist the Earth is 10,000 years old don’t?
Which “Creationists” are you talking about? The term is actually a theological one and applies to anyone believes in a Creator. That would include Jefferson. This means a “being” who confers being on all things and keeps them in existence, a “person” who is not a personal force.
But even as applied to Fundamentalists your list leaves out a lot of “science,” or knowledge of things and their relations. The Chinese managed quite nicely on their knowledge even before they learned western science, and so did the people of the West before Galileo. Thousands of machines were at work in the Netherlands, and that technology certainly provided a basis for modern mechanics. I would say, iac, that mathematics is more fundamental than evolution and that even snake-handlers know.
There are also "creationists" whose belief is that the universe came into being less than 10,000 years ago, that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaries, and that the earth was once flooded with water to the point that the highest mountains were covered (almost six miles of water above current sea level). If you believe this, then yes, you and science are strangers.
Do you know how the "bird of paradise" got its name??
AIG would disagree with nearly everything posted on that site.
To be clear then, your son believes that the Earth is only 5,000 years old and that man walked the Earth at the same time as dinosaurs? Because that's what it takes to be a creationist.
“Most conservatives I know …” [excerpt]Most liberals I know, know a lot of conservatives who are really liberals but like to pretend to be conservatives.
True, but the point is that they are both “creationists”.
From Websters....
Creationist: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis
“There are "creationists" whose belief is in a supreme being who brought life into existence, so that life did not originate from the random interactions of molecules. You can believe that and not have any problem with 99.9999999% of today's science.” [excerpt]Except that science asserts that all life originated via natural process. (ei, nothing created)
“There are also "creationists" whose belief is that the universe came into being less than 10,000 years ago, that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaries, and that the earth was once flooded with water to the point that the highest mountains were covered (almost six miles of water above current sea level). If you believe this, then yes, you and science are strangers.” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]So, if I don't agree with you, I'm a stranger to science?
They reject the substance, but will embrace the perception.
How - exactly - does one go about testing for the supernatural?
Regarding the reglious aspects, it is someone's belief, to which they are entitled.
Regarding the author's attempt to say there are two kinds of science, and that creationists believe in one and not the other, I say rubbish.
“They reject the substance, but will embrace the perception.”And I ask for testability in science and all I get are strawmen and canards.
“How - exactly - does one go about testing for the supernatural?”The same way you test Evolution.
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.