Why young-age creationism is good for science

Journal of Creation ^ | Brett W. Smith

[GodGunsGuts]

The current treatment of young-age creationists in the scientific community and society at large is unfair and unwise. Scientists and philosophers of science, including old-age creationists and naturalists, should respect youngage creationists as legitimate contributors to science. Young-age creationists offer to the current origins science establishment a competing rational viewpoint that will augment fruitful scientific investigation through increased accountability for scientists, introduction of original hypotheses and general epistemic improvement...

[metmom]

Hey, is that any worse than claiming that we came from pond scum?

[freedumb2003]

>> Depends on the methods/experients used in the process.<<

You have experiments that test a creator? Wow — publish now and you will be rich beyond your dreams.

>>Scientific methods can be used to prove that a form of intelligence created computers (if anyone needed such proof). If scientific methods can also be used to prove that a form of intelligence created the cell let them proceed in the name of science.<<

AI can be interrogated (via source analysis, etc.) As of this moment, no creator has stepped forward (in Christianity nor AI) to allow one on one corporeal interrogation, nor said how He (or it) will ensure than the supernatural processes can be used and repeated.

Trust me, there is no ID nor creation rule that fits in science.

[GodGunsGuts]

Thanks R4P, every little bit of encouragement counts, believe me! :o)

[metmom]

Creationism is NOT a “competing idea” any more than astrology is a “competing idea” to astronomy.

It meets exactly zero scientific criteria.

It may have some currency in a philosophical/theological arena, but that isn’t where the so-called “debate” is occurring.

Neither creationism nor ID are science. To suggest they are is to purposely misrepresent science and the scientific method.

This takes it our of the “arena of ideas” and into the “arena of fraud.”

************************************************************
Spoken like a true accountant, or pencil pusher, or some other non-scientist.

[freedumb2003]

>> I didn’t see anyone mention your name. Why so defensive?

One could be led to think that you have a guilty conscience that way.

You know, the old *Throw a rock over the fence* and all.<<

No, I was accused of it the other night (once I parsed the accusation) and I was the first Scientist on the thread. More like preemptively defending against “guilt by association.”

:)

[tacticalogic]

Or to put it another way, in the marketplace of ideas, competition is a good thing, and unfair barriers to the same leads to poorer products for the consumer, and laziness amongst the monopolists. I see plenty of evidence for those phenomena.

So scientists should adopt Madison Avenue advertising tactics to get their theories accepted?

[GodGunsGuts]

Good point, Metmom. Indeed, given the nature of the scientific method, one wonders why anyone would both to redicule past scientific beliefs as, at least in most cases, said scientific beliefs reflected the state of the art science at that time.

[freedumb2003]

>>Spoken like a true accountant, or pencil pusher, or some other non-scientist.<<

No, spoken like someone who understands science and the scientific method.

The fact you don’t like the proper and only logical conclusion of a thought doesn’t mean you can eliminate the analysis via ad hominem.

[editor-surveyor]

Laughable that the dumb one associates astrology with astronomy! There is no historical reason to believe that such an association was ever even contemplated before the dumb one cooked it up in his head.

[Old Landmarks]

They banned God and prayer and creationism from public schools and public places, but I’ll be damned if they’re gonna ban Him or it from FR!”

And the Hardcore Evolutionist on Free Republic and other liars applauded in support of the leftist revisionists who used illegal judicial activism to do their dirty work.

[freedumb2003]

>>Good point, Metmom. Indeed, given the nature of the scientific method, one wonders why anyone would both to redicule past scientific beliefs as, at least in most cases, said scientific beliefs reflected the state of the art science at that time.<<

Well, the state of science today and in the foreseeable future does not include deities.

[GodGunsGuts]

Correction:

Good point, Metmom. Indeed, given the nature of the scientific method, one wonders why anyone would bother to ridicule past scientific beliefs as said scientific beliefs, at least in most cases, reflected the state of the art science at that time.

[freedumb2003]

>>Laughable that the dumb one associates astrology with astronomy! There is no historical reason to believe that such an association was ever even contemplated before the dumb one cooked it up in his head.<<

As usual, your netiquette matches your wit. Astronomy is to astrology as creationism is to TToE. Astronomy and creationism both meet the same number of scientific criteria.

[editor-surveyor]

"So scientists should adopt Madison Avenue advertising tactics to get their theories accepted?"

There is no problem with actual scientists; its the evolutionists, and teachers, neither of which have the slightest idea what science even is, that are the problem.

[freedumb2003]

>>And the Hardcore Evolutionist on Free Republic and other liars applauded in support of the leftist revisionists who used illegal judicial activism to do their dirty work.<<

Do not be led down the garden path. Religion can and should be taught — as philosophy and history (and of course, theology).

But religion has no place in science (although the study of the WHYs is in place, again as philosophy).

Unless you are just saying flat-out that the US Government should declare an official Government Religion (and here I thought we had that little dust-up in 1776 to stop that).

[tacticalogic]

There is no problem with actual scientists; its the evolutionists, and teachers, neither of which have the slightest idea what science even is, that are the problem.

Are you counting the geologists as "evolutionists"?

[freedumb2003]

>> There is no problem with actual scientists; its the evolutionists, and teachers, neither of which have the slightest idea what science even is, that are the problem.
<<

Irony of the Year award there.

[editor-surveyor]

"Astronomy and creationism both meet the same number of scientific criteria"

Agreed, so why the absurd association with astrology, which has never had any physical science association in history?

[editor-surveyor]

As long as geologists stick with geology, there is no conflict. Its when they attempt to use geology as fortune telling that the absurdity arises.

[freedumb2003]

>>Agreed, so why the absurd association with astrology, which has never had any physical science association in history?<<

It is an analogy. There are those who believe that astrology is very much a physical science (whose physicality affects us). Theoretically, that perspective is as valid as any other idea based in the conceptual over the physical.