Creation science II

A theme that seemed to keep resurfacing in the previous thread concerned the nature of the creation "scientist". Posts were made asserting that since Newton, among a long list of others, was both a creationist and a scientist that creationism was therefore scientific. For purposes of this argument let's set aside his many pseudoscientific pursuits.It is apparent to me that this is an entry level logical fallacy, and I am curious to know if the resident creationists actually believe what they posted, or did they just repeat something without really thinking about it.If they do really think this makes sense, I am curious to know how far they apply it. Many scientists believe in... [Islam, pagan gods, Judaism, Hinduism, Republicanism, Communism, free love etc.]...does that mean that each of those is a science? If not, why not?Capt.

I think you have hit the nail directly on the head with the "resource center" thing. In my estimation that is precisely the point. Anyone conversant with the scientific method would consider that high praise. A discussion about science that just follows the natural flow of conversation, doesn't use precise definitions, doesn't follow through on claims, and allows endless changing of the subject (google "gish gallop"), leads to the kind of misapprehensions about science that you have brought with you. Your arguments show every evidence of never having been subjected to any kind of organized critical analysis.What you call creation "science" is the result of following just the approach you seem to want to take. It is a mile wide and an inch deep. You unwittingly illustrate this in your biographical sketch of Morris. He is an hydraulic engineer. Why would he be expected to have any insight into evolutionary biology, paleontology, thermodynamics, and all the other disciplines he approaches in his book? I know a few biologists, and I cannot imagine any one of them having the hubris to write a book about hydraulic engineering. And if they were so foolish, and their books were methodically dissected, line by line, by real engineers, (as Morris' books have been shredded by many specialists in the various fields he misrepresents) I cannot imagine why anyone would take them seriously.You keep saying that we don't understand scientific creationism, yet you make statements like Yet Morris states: "All ICR staff members adhere to a Statement of Faith in the form of two documents:
"Tenets of Scientific Creationism, " and "Tenets of Biblical Creationism." (see Impact No. 85)"These documents simply, utterly, and unequivocally remove him from the realm of science. He, and other members of ICR clearly state that their conclusion is foregone, and that they do not believe that any evidence (science, remember) can change that conclusion.
At this site:
The Institute for Creation Research
he elaborates:

"It all seems to us to hinge on one overriding question. Do we really believe the Bible to be God's inerrant Word or not? If the Bible is really the Word of our Creator God, then--by definition--it must be inerrant and authoritative on every subject with which it deals. This assumption leads clearly to the conviction that the creation took place in six literal days several thousand years ago. We believe this simply because God said so and said it quite plainly! And then we find also that this revealed fact will fit all the facts of science much better than the long-age evolutionary scenario does.

​

It is no good to say, as one evangelical leader said recently: "Well, I believe that God could create in six days or six billion years--it makes no difference." Yes it does, because it has to do with God's truthfulness! It is not a matter of what God could do. The question is what God says that He did! And what He said in writing was this, recorded with His own finger on a table of stone: "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day"So this is the problem. You claim that we don't understand scientific creationism. Yet you refer to Morris as a scientist first and a Christian second when his organization's pledge, and his own writings, confirm that that is a falsehood. You reaffirm, as you have with every post, that you are utterly ignorant of this subject and of the personalities whose lies have misled you. This is not new ground for anyone here. I would estimate that I have read something like 50 or more books on this subject alone, in addition to having received my university science education at Christian institutions. Go to Amazon, order up Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism by Philip Kitcher or The Counter-Creationism Handbook by Mark Isaak. Learn something about the subject you are embracing and the men you are believing.Capt.

All of which is moot, arrogant skeptics, since I clearly demonstrated way back in the thread that every scientific observation available is perfectly explained by Last Thursdayism Science.Capt.

---

Is it getting solipsistic in here, or is it just me?

You're correct, of course. It's a hazard endemic in multinational discussions, where subtleties of language are often lost.Capt.

As evidenced by Morris' statement posted earlier. Repost for the forgetfull: Could that be more clear? Precisely why peer review is essential. And why CS avoids it like herpes.Capt.

I believe you are correct. The creationist attempts to misrepresent copyright law are as dishonest as their science. Surprising? I think not.Capt.

But since geology (and biology) as we know it arose during an era when creationism/young earth was the boss, that would seem to be a particularly inept analogy for this subject.Capt.

No, the realist suggests marbles are imperfect replicators and that there is a selective advantage to rounder marbles. You're not really very good at this analogy thing, are you?Capt.

What makes you think they aren't? How would you go about determining if they were or not?KP