Christianity, Knowledge and Science

No, you're still missing the point: the peer review process cancels out the biases. It doesn't matter if there is one bias or one million biases going into the process. Somebody will point out each bias (if only to further his own bias). And that is not a problem, because somebody else will throw them out for them. Science is not an individual effort, it's a community effort. A scientific theory is not the product of one set of biases, it has all known biases removed. Yes, you most certainly do. Show us any examples you have.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

What does any of that have to do with scientific theories? But that isn't what you claimed. You claimed that people looked at the evidence with different biases and came to different conclusions. In the examples you cited, new evidence changed the conclusions. Where are the biases that you've been going on about? Where have I done that? The "creationist camp" is more than welcome to point out any biases in the "evolutionist camp". Why don't they do that? So far, all they have done is show that they are more interested in selling videos than in doing real science. So, give us some examples of scientists who have honestly looked at the evidence and turned from evolution to Biblical Creationism.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No matter how many times you repeat it, that's still completely false. The only way to come to a different conclusion on, say, evolution or the age of the earth, is to ignore some of the evidence. That is what the deniers are doing, whether you like it or not, whether you know it or not, whether you admit it or not.You are confirming the OP contention that (your brand of) Christianity promotes ignorance.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Actually, I don't have an "ilk". I'm unique. Y'know what would convince me? You producing examples of those people.I have made a negative claim: there is practically nobody who has looked at the evidence honestly and come to a conclusion other than old-earth/evolution. You could easily prove me wrong by citing examples.Any innocent bystander who happens to be reading this might come to the conclusion that if ya don't provide any, ya ain't got any. Sure they do, but when come up with a theory to explain the findings, they have to agree. In the case of evolution, for example, there simply is no alternative theory.Now, the topic here is whether or not Christianity "hinders progress", promotes ignorance, etc. If Christianity did deny an old earth and evolution, it certainly would be guilty of promoting ignorance. It has been pointed out to you, however, that Christians who do look at all the evidence honestly do not deny the fact of an old earth or the fact of evolution.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I've asked you before: where did I ever say that? Try responding to each poster individually instead of lumping everybody who disagrees with you into one "ilk". Yes, God would forbid you referring to those two charlatan organizations.Neither ICR nor AIG does science. Neither publishes in scientific journals. Neither subjects their "work" to peer review.They are in the business of selling videos and books, not doing scientific research. They are in the business of pushing a religious agenda, not seeking knowledge.I asked you for examples of scientists, not propagandists. That's not the way it works. You have to support your position. No, I didn't say that at all. I said that if you disagree with virtually every scientist on earth, you must be ignoring the evidence. STILL not true. Are you going for the record number of repetitions? A different opinion, based on a priori religious belief rather than scientific evidence, is not a different "conclusion".We are talking about conclusions in the sense of scientific theories. Nobody, nobody at ICR or AIG has come up with a scientific theory as an alternative to evolution. Bear in mind that it isn't my OP and I'm not necessarily agreeing with it. You are the one who is demonstrating that some segments of Christianity promote ignorance. I agree. We are talking specifically about those who promote ignorance by denying evolution.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Wrong. I have asked you a simple question: where are the scientists that you claim have come to a different conclusion than evolution? Until you answer that question, you have no right to accuse me of rejecting your answer. I don't have a "list". Those "studies" have been falsified on their own lack of merit. Then show us. Once again, I don't have a "side". Making wild assumptions doesn't help your case.Everything that ICR and AIG do has been examined thoroughly. That's why it is rejected. Your everybody-hates-me defense won't fly. I couldn't possibly care less whether or not you "believe" me. We're talking about facts here, not beliefs. Scientists do science. The people on your list don't do science. They are no more scientists than I am an astronaut.And again, your everybody-hates-me defense doesn't work. The organizations - ICR and AIG have been proven time and again to be dishonest. They are incapable of - and uninterested in - doing science. You have provided not one iota of evidence that they do science. No. There are none. I keep repeating that because you have produced no evidence to the contrary. The negative position prevails until some positive evidence exists. Yes you do. That's what a theory is - an explanation. Until you come up with an alternative explanation, the current one prevails, no matter how preposterous.If evolution is wrong, why do you suppose it is that nobody has been able to come up with an alternative theory in 150 years? It isn't semantics, it's a matter of understanding the terminology. For a start, a theory is not just some made-up fairy tale. It has to explain the evidence.ICR and AIG have no theory. It's as simple as that.As long as you insist on ignoring the evidence and ignoring the theory that explains the evidence, you are confirming the OP: some segments of Christianity do actively encourage ignorance.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Once again, repeating it don't make it true.If there are problems with a theory, you fix them. You don't just throw it out before you look for a different one.If there are problems with the theory of evolution, it evolves into a different theory of evolution. Throwing out the whole thing would be like tearing down your house because the hinges squeak. We hear that all the time around here. I don't remember a single example where it turned out to be true. Invariably, somebody decides that evolution is wrong and then they "look at the evidence". But their idea of looking at the evidence is memorizing a few pages of drivel from ICR/AIG.Does Christianity itself promote/require ignorance? I don't think so.Are there people who would rather ignore the evidence than take the time to understand it? Yes.Do those people gravitate toward Christianity?Those who won't put any effort into understanding science usually won't put any effort into understanding Christianity either.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC