Does science function to supress knowledge of God and God's work?

Seemingly, the fundamentalist creationist view is that the various sciences have a long history of conspirering to deny God and the works of God.Do the creationist here truly believe that mainstream biology, geology, etc. beliefs are not a result of solid, valid work?Are all these scientists guilty of putting together a vast, complicated story, to replace the obvious and simple story of God and God's creation?Or is the story truly vast and complicated?Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

schrafinator had a nice message, that I thought worthy of further exposure. I also thought it might jump-start this topic.From http://EvC Forum: Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!! -->EvC Forum: Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!! I quote:

quote:

---

Ned posted a great reply, but I would just like to add that nearly ALL "naturalists" 180 years ago were members of the clergy or religiously-trained, because that's the kind of educational system that existed for the best and the brightest (men only, of course).

​

This was prior to science, as we know it today, becoming completely formalized and professionalized.

​

At that time, wealthy religious "gentlemen naturalists" went on expeditions to document and study nature and then reported their findings back to their societies. Not that their findings weren't scientific; Darwin was a great scientist in that he constantly questioned himself, and his premise of common descent with modification and proposed mechanism of natural selection have certainly held up to the most intense tests and scrutiny for nearly 200 years.

​

So, Buzsaw, there were nearly 100% Christian Creationists in all of western science back then.

​

There are very, very few accredited scientists who give Creation 'science' the time of day, and that's only in the US:

​

"According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%"

​

Less that one percent, Buz. Of course, I could be wrong, as this data is from the late 80's.

​

I suppose you could just dismiss this statistic by saying all the scientists are brainwashed and that's why they don't use the Bible as a science book and invoke miracles in their work.

​

LOL!!

​

Anyway, it's becoming clear that you aren't interested in learning anything; not even the basic science you have rejected without understanding it.

---

Moose

I'll use this to give one of my old "never went anywhere" topics a bump.At http://EvC Forum: The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D) -->EvC Forum: The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)Stephan is quoted as saying:

quote:

---

But, evolutionary biologists do not seem to be interested, as they ought to be, in the objective, Bayesian, plausibility of the God as creator idea. They thus neglect all three of the standards I was taught made one a true scientist.

---

To which Edge replied:

quote:

---

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps they considered the plausible alternative and then rejected it long ago for lack of evidence? It seems to me that you are committing an error common to YECs in that they think history began with them.

---

Since my formal training is in geology, I'll focus in on geology, although the situation is the same in the other sciences.In the past 200 years or so, the earth's geology has been intensely studied. Ideas of how things came to be have come from this study. Some ideas hold up under further study, some do not.The bottom line, is that a "big picture" of vast complexity has been developed, made up of countless tiny details. Details that require certain conditions and time to happen. These details are fit together in a manner that makes sense.Now, most creationists (and the population in general) don't have a clue of how complex the earth's geology really is (I barely claim to have that clue myself). But it seems that many of the creationist movement think they understand the earth's geology. They seem to think that the long chain of geologic study, that indicates an old earth, has somehow been blotched, and that the geologists are doing a grand cover-up, just to deny the truth of a young earth creation.Enough for now,Moose

I must point out that you are replying to the TrueCreation of 2 years ago. Many of TC's positions have changed considerably since then.Moose

I think I've made my statements already, upstring. I will, however, quote the following, to justify the bump.

quote:

---

"...scientists must be open to evidence & new ideas."

---

True, but they must also recognize that the state of the art theory is pretty strong. Some things may be overturned, but mostly you will be working on adding detail to, and building on what came before.Moose[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 02-14-2004]

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

quote:

---

Seemingly, the fundamentalist creationist view is that the various sciences have a long history of conspirering to deny God and the works of God.

​

Do the creationist here truly believe that mainstream biology, geology, etc. beliefs are not a result of solid, valid work?

​

Are all these scientists guilty of putting together a vast, complicated story, to replace the obvious and simple story of God and God's creation?

​

Or is the story truly vast and complicated?

---

I think there was much good discussion between message 1 and here, and it's time for a bump.I also think that I've said pretty much all I have to say in this topic, between message 1 and here.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham