Question:
Do Creationists understand what science is?
Beletje_vos AM + VT
2014-11-12 21:23:08 UTC
Unfortunately, today, I found out my own roommate is a Creationist. She claimed there is a lot of emerging evidence against evolution in the scientific community, saying her sources are not religious based.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Scientific+evidence+against+evolution

Well, in a simple google search the sources I see are not only religious based, but specifically Christian which claim that the "fact" evolution is false automatically leads credence to Creation being true.

I wonder if they seriously see "scientific proofs/facts" from other Creationists to be from actual research articles from scientists that have been peer reviewed and confirmed. It's like just SEEING the word science mean what they're reading is factual.
28 answers:
qxzqxzqxz
2014-11-12 21:41:50 UTC
If they truly understood what science is they would not be creationists...
Nous
2014-11-13 02:08:35 UTC
Was God not clever enough to use the big bang, evolution and science as his tools then?



The Pope, Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches all accept the big bang and evolution!



Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”!



Nice that Christians and atheists can agree and laugh together even if it is at fundie expense!



But behind the laughter is the despair at the fundamentalists striving so hard to destroy Christianity by turning it from a religion to an ideology!
james o
2014-11-12 22:24:09 UTC
You can find all sorts of material on the internet. Some of it is intentionally falsified; some is accidentally false; some is reasonably accurate. It takes a bit of common sense and an alert eye to spot the fakes and phonies.



The loony tune right wing fundamentalist types have no idea what is involved in science. they know nothing about scientific procedures; Replication of experiments, double blind studies and stuff like that? They wouldn't know what you're talking about, and would assume you're just talking gibberish from satan.



Sad, isn't it?
mckenziecalhoun
2014-11-12 21:46:41 UTC
Many do.

Some even better than some anti-theists who seem to think "believing" in science isn't an oxymoron.

All scientific theories are open to debate and question. Those who don't get that don't get science. Those who whine about contenders, who say "they deny science" are full of nonsense. No Creationist is trying to discredit all of science - they question a single theory.

If you think that is wrong, you've made science into dogma and lost any understanding of scientific theory.

If you call them morons for questioning a scientific theory, you've truly gone off the deep end and are lost as to what science is.



Let them question - science is made for that.

I'm not religious - just tired of people who have no idea what science is and expect it to be accepted universally, like some belief system.



That's utter rubbish.
Paul B
2014-11-12 21:25:44 UTC
Some creationists do in fact understand science, but they choose to selectively accept it. If they feel a scientific concept doesn't clash with their belief system, they're fine with it.



Anyway, what do you mean "unfortunately"? You realise how much fun you can have confusing her, right?
?
2014-11-12 21:44:32 UTC
Yeah, the scientific community has been working steadily to boot creationists from all realms of academia regardless of whether or not the creationists in question are intelligent, capable etc. There was a NON-CREATIONIST who was fired from the Smithsonian magazine for publishing a pro intelligent design article which had been peer reviewed! Like, you don't understand that there is truly an anti-creationist agenda in the scientific community and anybody who comes out of the closet lol as a creationist or believes in intelligent design is fired, demoted, transferred, denied tenure, denied a promotion, no longer gets grants, no longer gets articles published etc. So I know when you say she should be reading articles from peer-reviewed scientists you mean well, but the books are cooked and creationists don't "get to play" even if their work merits serious consideration. Maybe you should be willing to take a look at the evidence she is telling you about and judge it ON IT'S OWN MERITS rather than write it off prematurely because you are prejudiced against the source.
2014-11-12 21:32:12 UTC
Everybody approaches a bias in what they do; they only see facts that they want to see.

It is smart to objectively approach information.



For example, the creation institute has list of scientists against evolution. The best one that they put together has 500 signees, which is not overwhelming. Only about 150 of of them have any training in biology, which is not overwhelming. Finally, you don't need a reason, or even a good argument to sign the list, so the list is weightless in the scientific community.



The real dissent would be done in debates, and there isn't any. The most recent evolutionary debates are creationists being silent in the face of factual data about evolution.
Adam
2014-11-14 05:34:23 UTC
A clue: no.



Creationists deny science, but attempt to use it to discredit it. In short, they are all morons.
2014-11-14 01:58:55 UTC
There is simply no arguing with a mind that firmly welded shut.



Maybe take her to a really good natural history museum.
2014-11-13 21:00:37 UTC
There is simply no arguing with a mind that firmly welded shut.



Maybe take her to a really good natural history museum.
Mackenzie
2014-11-15 14:24:35 UTC
There is simply no arguing with a mind that firmly welded shut.



Maybe take her to a really good natural history museum.
Lauren
2014-11-15 14:22:03 UTC
There is simply no arguing with a mind that firmly welded shut.



Maybe take her to a really good natural history museum.
2014-11-14 03:45:05 UTC
There is simply no arguing with a mind that firmly welded shut.



Maybe take her to a really good natural history museum.
ANDRE L
2014-11-12 21:24:01 UTC
-Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.-Scott D. Weitzenhoffer



"Many believers admit that nothing could change their mind about their religious beliefs, which means they are no longer seekers of truth and have become, in essence, mindless religious robots. Religion consistently and effectively discourages introspection and inquiry. That isn't by accident."-- Bob Peters



“If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that proves they should value evidence?

If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument would you invoke to prove they should value logic?”

― Sam Harris
2014-11-12 21:25:14 UTC
There is simply no arguing with a mind that firmly welded shut.



Maybe take her to a really good natural history museum.
ennui
2014-11-12 21:26:25 UTC
A clue: no.



Creationists deny science, but attempt to use it to discredit it. In short, they are all morons.
2014-11-14 05:15:04 UTC
Creation is a belief which is devoid of science and facts requiring only the "belief" of the individual hence it is "religous" in substance and bases.
Archer
2014-11-12 21:27:00 UTC
Creation is a belief which is devoid of science and facts requiring only the "belief" of the individual hence it is "religous" in substance and bases.
Makayla
2014-11-15 13:10:21 UTC
Ever hear of the Piltdown Man? It can go both ways.
Trevor
2014-11-12 23:58:59 UTC
It is the Evolutionists that have hijacked the definition of science for their own ends.



Evolution is not science, it is NATURAL HISTORY.



Science is study of the natural world by the scientific method of "testing by repeated observations".
2014-11-12 21:28:15 UTC
this debate is really futile you know... I mean how will it improve one's economic/political or even social standing in the world community once they have been proven right?
Olivia
2014-11-15 03:19:04 UTC
Ever hear of the Piltdown Man? It can go both ways.
carl
2014-11-14 19:45:44 UTC
Ever hear of the Piltdown Man? It can go both ways.
isaiah5336
2014-11-12 21:30:22 UTC
Observable, repeat-ability...So yes.
Brigalow Bloke
2014-11-13 03:17:41 UTC
Ask her to give the original references to the "emerging evidence". Who did the research, where was it published, and when?



A proper bibliography looks something like this:



Bloggs, J. et al., Journal of Biological Research, (May 2011) Volume 27, No. 5 pp 634 - 643.



Unless she can give you something like that then she is talking through her hat. It is as simple as that.

-----



In the meantime these are typical creationist lies which you can find refuted here and there.



There is evidence of a global flood - virtually every fundamentalist. No sign of it in Australia, for instance. Flood in the past several thousand years have been where floods usually happen, near rivers and on low-lying country.



The Grand Canyon was formed by a great rush of water after the flood - Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling and others. Utter tosh. Fast flowing water does not form meanders. Slow flowing water does. This is first year geology and may by now be taught in high schools. Simple to demonstrate experimentally.



Lie - Charles Darwin recanted from his theory of evolution just before he died - Lady Hope, sometime in the late 1800s and interminably repeated ever since. This has the distinction of being the oldest creationist lie. Refuted by one of Darwin's daughters in the 1920s and Lady Hope was in North America when Darwin died.



The modern Wadjak skulls were found nearby and at about the same level as the Java man fossils. - Duane Gish, 1979. It has been repeated from time to time ever since. it works if you are utterly ignorant of the fact that the Solo River where the Java man remains were found is about 105 miles from the Wadjak cave in a hill by a marble quarry.



Lie - The Piltdown fraud was intended to "prove evolution" - Just about every fundamentalist. Fact - As far as can be told, Charles Dawson faked the finds to get into an antiquarian society, as he had been faking other antiquities for years. They did not accept him.



The Piltdown fraud fooled all scientists - Fact - Not Marcellin Boule, Ales Hrdlicka, Gerrit Miller or Ernest Lenoir. By 1927 even an English scientist, Grafton Elliot Smith, who had originally been fooled wrote that the jaw might have been from a chimpanzee.



Lie - Lord Solly Zuckerman studied the "Lucy" fossils for more than a dozen years - Duane Gish, 1982. Fact - The fossil was only found in 1974. Eight years is not more than a dozen, and it's doubtful that Lord Zuckerman ever saw the fossil, as he had mostly retired from science. Though Gish was corrected, he continued to repeat that little fib for some years.



"I am not a liar." - Duane Gish. There are multiple examples of his deliberate and persistent lying, including about the bombardier beetle, "Lucy" and "Java man".



Lie - All or most fossils were laid down in a global flood - Andrew Snelling, Ken Ham and others. Fact - Fossils are found over thousands of feet of different layers of sediments, the smallest are at the bottom. If they had all formed at the same time, the sediments would be much the same and the largest fossils, like dinosaur bones, would have sunk fastest and been at the bottom.



Claims about polystrate trees fossils. These claims carefully ignore the fact that where these occur the tree bases are often at different levels.



The decay rates of radioactive isotopes are variable and so radiometric dating is false - assorted fundamentalists. Some isotopes have slightly variable decay rates. None of them are in the decay chain from isotopes of uranium or thorium to isotopes of lead or carbon 14.



Carbon 14 and marine animals and plants. It has been known for 50 years why it does not work on marine organisms and is dubious on river or lake animals or plants. Therefore it is not used by scientists on these items.



Potassium-argon dating. The Institute for Creation Research tried a scientific fraud with dacite rocks from recent Mt. Saint Helen's eruptions and had them dated, giving much greater dates than over the past 30 years. However in 1969 the man who did most to develop the potassium - argon method warned that it was not suitable for rocks less than 5,000 years old.



Lie - Carbon 14 in coal and diamonds means carbon dating does not work. Fact - Some rocks are mildly radioactive and can convert traces of nitrogen in coal and diamonds to carbon-14 in exactly the same way as it is converted in the upper atmosphere.



Faked calculations of the probability of forming enzymes or other proteins - Henry Morris, about 1970. They might look convincing to anyone who doesn't know anything about proteins but it won't fool those who do. Same applies to DNA and RNA sequences.



There has been a rapid deceleration of the velocity of light over the past several thousand years, it was infinite at one time - Barry Setterfield and others, 1980s. Checked by mathematicians in the early 1980s and found to have several errors, all of which lead to the result wanted by Setterfield. Funny, that.



Lie - There are human and dinosaur footprints beside each other in the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas - Carl Baugh and other liars. Ham and Co correctly state that these are frauds but continue to promote the idea of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time. Is Baugh a commercial rival?



Lie - I have a Phd - Kent Hovind. Fact - His "thesis" would have been rejected by an high school teacher, let alone a PhD supervisor.



Lie - The modern coelacanth is the same as the fossil one. Fact - All modern coelacanths are different anatomically from the fossil.



Lie - The Miller - Urey experiment did not produce life. Fact - It was not expected to do that. It established that some chemical compounds essential to life could be formed from basic chemical with an electric spark.



Lie - The second law of thermodynamics prevents evolution - various fundamentalists, carefully omitting the fact that the second law applies only to energy in closed systems.



Lie -The "Nebraska tooth" was believed by scientists to be from a human ancestor but came from a pig. Fact - One scientist believed it might have been, soon after, another scientist correctly identified it as a tooth of an extinct cavy, which was a rodent, not a pig. Publicity in the 1920s in "The Illustrated London News", which was never a scientific publication.



The Chinese archaeoraptor fossil. Found and damaged by a Chinese farmer, "repaired" by him with parts of another fossil, illegally sold to an agent for fossil collectors, publicised by non-experts in the National Geographic as genuine but dismissed as a composite by the first real expert who saw it. The National Geographic is usually reliable but it is not a scientific publication.
?
2014-11-12 21:44:34 UTC
Evolution claims we are evolving. The story of the fall of man says we are degenerating.



Why then do evolutionists claim degeneration (the opposite of evolution) to be evolution?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140513161730.htm



https://www.google.com/search?q=wow+signal+of+terrestrial+genetic+code&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&gws_rd=ssl
2014-11-12 21:39:24 UTC
Show her this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf5ovSpS2GU



As well as:

http://www.oldearth.org

http://www.theistic-evolution.com
James O
2014-11-14 16:32:39 UTC
no


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...