Creationist Scientists, can it be?

Over and over I have seen the complaints of supporters of Uniformitarianism say that a person claiming to be a scientist whom is a Creationist can not possibly be one... Now to put your $ where your mouth is and show us the evidence of this!
And by evidence I want to see that the credentials of any of the more promenant Creationist Science to be false or dummy credentials... obviously this would be easy for some of you whom slander these hard working folks, seeing that you are so intent on calling the ICR scientists to be quakes...I on the other hand fully achknowledge them to be scientists in there own right having down hard work and contributed to society in a needful way.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
will give you a good start on several...

I have never studied from any of the listed men save Don Patten who wrote The Biblical Flood and Ice Epoch, which is an interesting book, definitly scientific as far as I am concerned but in a huge need of an update...I wonder how many of these degree mills have earned the right to give them out... but I do stand weary of any person whom gets a degree for such, I will handle all writings and debates with a cautious look.

Hello Jesuslover,Many creationists are scientists doing good work in the fields in which they were trained. But a lot of them have turned from their own field to areas where they do not have the training, and are then no better than any other educated layman.Where creationists fail as scientists is in starting with a hypothesis (creationism, God) for which they can provide no evidence, instead of starting from facts which can be verified by other observers, and then building a theory derived from these facts.Scioence starts from the ground that we walk on, and builds up its theories from evidence. It does not start with a Grand Theory, and then try to squeeze the facts to fit.The greatest achievement of science over the last 50 years is the consistency of all the branches - physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc - as they have merged into a unified theory of the universe. The boundaries of the various sciences have disappeared.Mike.

Science draws conclusions from facts. Creationists create facts to fit to conclusions...------------------
My English is Bad

So that's where the "create" in "Creationist" comes from! --Percy

Brux- I'm gonna put in with JL531 as I already sans Uniformitarinism said Identically the same to my brother who is also a Christian but would not spend the time to distinguish Hugh Ross and Henery Morris etc.Percy noted that create facts indeed but these by evolution law BECOME factual for society. Now just look at the different science research tradtions of Brit and France. One could almost sans some physics find that this "creates" facts as well only these"" are thought then by this thread not to be discovery facts but truth facts. In fact the reverse seems to me to be the case.That analysis a-side, in the actual state of creation and evolution I had thought as in Epperson that if the Lousiana Legeslature only purported to ADD information in this case which could if the students were able to communicate and utilize it that that would be by this legal fact 'ok'. But it seems that evolutionists, and Ron Allan for instance who argues about Morris' notion of first cause who is a presbyterian minister think that because of this synthesis say of Ruse and Gould that the student MUST be prevented from acquiring the added information or that which was to have been hadded in NEw Orleans etc was not of such a fact finding theory as to have the teachers let alone one believe the students could for science gain say the ADDED information. I found this then and still to to be false.Thus if creating facts creates a better science and this I think was JesusLovers' point is possible by a priori PREventing students this *advanced* info that this whole site represents and/or committing students to other cognitive maps of no relevance then this seems to me to be prima facie reason to distrust NO MATTER THE INFORMATION the exclusion of the pre-text it was...I hope this is not immaterial to what you thought.

Jesuslover,I wouldn't worry too much about the continuous claims that creation science is not science. You and I both know that the work that they are doing is science, whether or not mainstream thinking agrees. However I would be cautious, and critical of some of these creation scientists. There are those who bold face lie to support their ideas, pray for discernment as you continue to research.------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

Well said, Funk. I don't think anyone denies there are scientists who are also creationists. Behe springs to mind, as does Denton. Unfortunately for creationism, many of the scientists involved in that effort are not working in their scientific fields (ex, there are engineers and physicists making claims about biology), and many others are spurious or promulgate erroneous information. ALWAYS double check the claims - from creationists OR biologists. Even Darwin got stuff wrong.

"Creation science" is bad - and often less than honest - religious apologetics intended to falsely present YEC beliefs as science.Going on lecture tours is not science.
Mining scientific - and often popular science - literature for quotes that can be taken out of context is not science.

One of the big reasons that it is stated that Creation 'scientists' aren't real scientists is because in order to be associated with the major Creation 'science' organizations, such as ICR and AiG, these people must adhere to a statement of faith which basically says that any evidence from nature which might be or is found which contradicts their interpretation of Biblical scripture is wrong and should be ignored.Such requirements are deeply anti-science and anti-open inquiry, and make plain the true objective of these organizations as existing to promote a particular religious view by coopting the power and prestige of science to impress the ignorant.The following is several key parts of the statement of faith from AiG: Statement of Faith | Answers in Genesis "1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.* By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

quote:

---

I wouldn't worry too much about the continuous claims that creation science is not science. You and I both know that the work that they are doing is science, whether or not mainstream thinking agrees.

---

Care to back that up, Funk?

quote:

---

However I would be cautious, and critical of some of these creation scientists. There are those who bold face lie to support their ideas, pray for discernment as you continue to research.

---

How are these liars treated inthe Creationist comminity, Funk?In the legitimate scientific community, anyone caught falsifying data or making anything up is finished as a scientist. Their career is ended, just like that.By contrast, "lying for Jesus" is not that big of a deal in the Creation 'science' community. You can tell all of the falsehoods and mislead people with incomplete information all you want; as long as it sounds good and you win converts, intellectual integrity and honesty is not important.

Scahaf, I doubt if I looked I would be able to find that *they* "ignore" (IT-anything Ill agree to you on) for in trying to read what actually comes out of ICR for instance they have TWO model interpretations in mind which is a more difficult but not impossible culutre of science to cultivate. I would claim that this added difficulty is part of the reason creation science is more on the frindge of creationisms.

Schraf,C'mon there are legitimate scientists that believe in a creation. Scientists working in their own field of expertise that are well trained and knowlegable. Your continuous attempts to lump the whole community together as uneducated liars, is the same as saying all Indians are drunks."Lying for Jesus" as you put it is not tollerated in the creationist community. Once a scientist has been shown false, or a liar they are no longer believed. Just because they are out there doesn't mean that creationists condone what they are doing.It is unfortunate that these liars still have outlets for their faulty information.That said, I care nothing for this argument, the intent of my original post in this thread was to encourage Jesuslover, I know how frustrating it is to constantly hear the assertion that creation science is in and of itself false.------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

quote:

---

C'mon there are legitimate scientists that believe in a creation. Scientists working in their own field of expertise that are well trained and knowlegable.

---

However, none of them use creation science in their work. Practically without exception these scientists have to go outside their field of expertise when attempting to do or support creation 'science.'

quote:

---

Your continuous attempts to lump the whole community together as uneducated liars, is the same as saying all Indians are drunks.

---

This is a natural consequence of generalizations. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that the general applies to the specific as this only makes your arguments sound whiney.

quote:

---

That said, I care nothing for this argument, the intent of my original post in this thread was to encourage Jesuslover, I know how frustrating it is to constantly hear the assertion that creation science is in and of itself false.

---

We are very sorry that this bothers you, but you will likely continue to hear it. Creationism has little at all to do with science and though there are many excellent scientists and engineers who are creationists, it does not mean that they are practicing science. The human mind can rationalize ANYTHING.