Out of the "many very intelligent people that are creationists", have any made advances in "creation science"?

Question

Real biologists have found many practical applications for the theory of evolution, including bioinformatics, developing drugs, and managing fisheries for greater yields ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html ).

I was just wondering how all these many very intelligent people that are creationists are doing. I mean, some of them must have found practical applications for creationism, right?

Answer 1

Ironically, every major branch of science was established upon the work of creationists. In fact, today’s evolutionists are merely standing on a mountain of work built by creationists. The early scientists—whose ranks include the likes of Francis Bacon, Galileo, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Sir Isaac Newton, Carl Linnaeus, Matthew Maury, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, and James Maxwell—believed in a Creator who laid down the laws of nature for us to study (men who founded the modern disciplines of scientific study).



There are a couple of good books you can get called "21 Great Scientists Who Believed The Bible," and "Men of Science, Men of God" that you ought to read.



And today, there are plenty of creationists who are good scientists. Like the men who invented the MRI (Dr. Raymond Damadian) and the Gene Gun (Dr. John Sanford).



Successful predictions by creationists:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions



Can creationists be real scientists? http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-creationists-be-real-scientists



I love the circular reasoning often used by evolutionists: No “real” scientist rejects Darwinism (because as soon as a scientist begins to question Darwinism, they label them as a pseudo-scientist).



The fact is, although in the minority, there are many “real” scientists with PhDs from major universities who have a problem with Darwinism. There are long lists on websites like Discovery.org and AnswersinGenesis.org that you can check out.



===============================



Most of the time, people just give examples of natural selection and assume it points to molecules-to-man evolution (chemical and biological evolution). Creationists believe in natural selection and even "speciation." Take a look at these:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/speciation

Answer 2

Creation science is an oxymoron. You can't call yourself a scientist and adhere to a religion. The two things conflict with each other because you're explaining the existance of something and to top it all off - God created it. Wtf? You can't have it both ways. Most of these "Creation scientists" probably adhere to Pascal's Wager. They know the truth, but they're afraid of the consequences in the afterlife. It's idiotic.

Answer 3

I'm alive right now because of drugs that were designed using evolutionary ideas.



Still waiting for the creationists to contribute a single useful thing, a single actual productive insight. The idea is entirely intellectually bereft.

Answer 4

http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/prove_it.htm



Much like in the above article, when it comes to real life, many "creationists" prefer the scientific method. It is only when a God is concerned that they hold to their beliefs; when presented with any other problem or argument, they either use actual science, use a stupid cop out, or leave.



By the way, that question you linked to almost made me spit water all over my computer screen. But it was totally worth it. xD

Answer 5

Probably. They are the ones most likely to have done so.



I have always enjoyed the 'prediction' by the 'intelligent design' branch of creationism that 'Living things will be very complex'. Good thing somebody pointed it out, or we would not know.

Answer 6

Ever seen Expelled? That's a big step forward in terms of the science of propaganda.

Answer 7

You mean you don't remember that incredible discovery of a fossilized caveman wearing a WWJD bracelet riding a fossilized dinosaur?



BTW, thanks for the link to the question...it was hi-larious!

Answer 8

None. It's because it can't be tested. All creationists can do is to try to cast doubt on concepts that they don't understand (please see above responses for examples/"the data" proving my hypothesis).

Answer 9

"Creation science" sounds too much like "Paris Hilton Einstein" to me.

The words just do not compute by any standard.

Answer 10

There is no such thing as creation science, creationism has to be accepted on faith alone.

Answer 11

*Stereotypical tumbleweeds roll past with a lonely-sounding gust of wind*

Answer 12

creationism has nothing to do with science

Answer 13

I'm struggling to see how natural selection and random mutation, which are the very core of the molecules to man hypothesis, have played any significant role in the examples given in the article you quoted?



Wouldn't the discoveries owe more to Genetics than to Darwinism?



As for practical examples of creationism, Almost all the Founders of modern science, including Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Maxwell, Kelvin, Newton and Einstein believed in a God who created a universe of order, a universe that now operates under natural laws or processes, and that belief led them to try and discover and understand those laws and processes. So it was hardly a burden on progress, rather it was the inspiration to progress and discovery!



On the other hand Darwinists claim that their theory is the foundation of all science. Indeed, we are often told that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of it. Darwinists take credit for advances in biology and medicine that owe nothing to evolutionary theory.



Darwinists sometimes claim that their theory helps us to understand which animals are most closely related on the basis of their genetic and biochemical similarities. But this is just comparative biology at the level of genes and proteins. Linnaeus did comparative biology, yet he was a creationist who lived a century before Darwin; Owen and Agassiz did comparative biology, yet they rejected Darwin's theory.



Darwinian theory has been worthless: How many millions of hours have been wasted by paleontologists looking for transitional intermediates that never existed, and by evolutionary biologists doing “research,” making up evolutionary stories, and writing books about stuff that never happened or didn’t happen the way Darwinian theory says it did?



How much time, and how many professional lifetimes, have been wasted chasing down false paths looking for evolutionary pathways that never existed?



The squandered effort must be indescribably huge.

Answer 14

Better question, what have YOU done for the world lately?

Answer 15

"Creation science"???



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Answer 16

Lol ...