Do Creationists Reject Science?

AiG ^ | February 4, 2008 | Peter Galling

[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!

[Fichori]

(The above [and below] is just the first paragraph, see the full article[s] at the link[s])

We should recognize that the lefts attempts to smear conservatives with claims of being anti-science, etc, are nothing but a canard to marginalize their opponents.

See also:

Evolution: The Anti-science

Some evolutionists have argued that science isn’t possible without evolution. They teach that science and technology actually require the principles of molecules-to-man evolution in order to work. They claim that those who hold to a biblical creation worldview are in danger of not being able to understand science! ^{1, 2, 3}

(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...

[freedumb2003]

Have a blessed day.

[anniegetyourgun]

Nah - I know Who created science.

[valkyry1]

It has nothing to do with science, evolutionists hijack science for their own ends.

[Wolfstar]

Do Creationists Reject Science?

Based on the many posts I've read here on FR through the years, the answer is largely yes.

[RobbyS]

They teach that science and technology actually require the principles of molecules-to-man evolution in order to work.

It would have surprised Galileo and Newton to heard that.

[Fichori]

No comment on the article[s]?

[MortMan]

Do strawmen love to get knocked down?

[Carl LaFong]

No, they just reject Charles Johnson.

[RobbyS]

If one tries to make evolution into a general theory of knowledge, a new metaphysics, and call this metaphysics “science,” yes.

[Fichori]

“It would have surprised Galileo and Newton to heard that.”

Well, apparently they didn't attend Berkeley.

[allmendream]

Creationists reject the science of...

Geology (age of Earth, no evidence of contemporaneous worldwide flood, etc).

Physics (radioisotopic decay, universal constants)

Biology (common descent of species, evolution through natural selection, directed evolution, genomic analysis, phylogenetics, etc)

Astronomy (age of the universe, speed of light).

What science do Creationists accept?

They accept uncritically anything that tells them what they want to hear or what confirms what they already think they know; but then again that isn't science.

[Big_Monkey]

You can't pick and choose only scientific theorums, proofs, theories or facts that fit your mythology. Science is accepted in it's entirty, or it's rejected. Creationist do just this.

Every piece of empirical science, be it mathematics, biology, geo-physics, physics, anthropology, archeology and astronomy just to name a few, all point conclusively to an Earth, a Solar-System, a Galaxy and a universe that are billions of years old. If you can't accept that as proven, unequivocal scientific fact, then yes you're rejecting science.

[headsonpikes]

Falsifiability is one characteristic of scientific claims.

Let me know when you’re prepared to consider it.

[Colvin]

A couple of Creationists I know are Heart Surgeons, rather good ones, in Portland.
They obviously should be flipping burger. Biden believes in evolution, he can do the operations much better.

[OpeEdMunkey]

I dunno, but it appears that both sides reject how well the two theories dovetail.

[Fichori]

“You can't pick and choose only scientific theorums, proofs, theories or facts that fit your mythology. Science is accepted in it's entirty, or it's rejected.” [excerpt]

So because I reject Gerbil Swarming, I'm reject all of science?

Sorry, thats just a canard.

No sale.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Old Earth Creationism

[Fichori]

“Falsifiability is one characteristic of scientific claims.” [excerpt]

Is testability a prerequisite of falsifiability?

[Rudder]

We should recognize that the lefts attempts to smear conservatives...

Most conservatives I know aren't stupid enough to fall into the creationist/ID trap.