Creationist scientific contributions

I am interested in learning what Creation science has contributed to the body of scientific knowledge.What new knowledge, innovations, or discoveries have been made by Creationists using Creation Science?It can be in any field, not just in the Biological sciences.

What does 'using creation science' mean?

I think she means what I have asked Syamsu, Stephen ben Yeshua and many other creationists many times and have never been answered. They should provide even a single example of a scientific hypothesis or discovery that benefited from the inclusion of the supernatural. Creationists always claim that they have an equivalent or better alternative to evolutionary theory yet thus far no creationist in the entire history of any religion has ever presented a testable or falsifiable hypothesis of creation based on their beliefs.

quote:

---

What does 'using creation science' mean?

---

Simple, anything anybody wants it to mean but each individual has the one true answer that cannot be independently evaluated by anyone else...this of course makes creation science more compelling and rigorous ...sort of like a room full of color blind people arguing over what the one best color is.

quote:

---

What does 'using creation science' mean?

---

Dunno.That's what I'm hoping to have explained to me, along with how creation science has contributed to our knowledge of how the universe works.

I would suggest then, to a creationist, that creation science has two major accomplishments under its belt: the overthrow of the false science of evolution, and the re-establishment of the divine in its proper place at the centre of creation.Outside of creation itself, I don't really see how creation science could be considered to offer anything.

Well, I hope that this doesn't seem smart aleck, but it seems valid to me.Creation scientists have contributed the initial findings that led to understanding the age of the earth. They discovered the geologic column, and advanced the theory that life has transitioned on the earth.Lyell was a creationist, wasn't he? As were most of the scientists of his time. It's hard to find in depth analysis of the beliefs of these scientists of a by-gone time, but I think it's understood that they were almost all creationists.While these early theories were crude, involving series of creations and spontaneous generation of new life forms, they did introduce the idea of an ancient earth and a progression in life forms over time, and I believe they were advanced almost across the board by creationists.

That might be an important distinction to make, though... creationist scientists, as oppose to scientists who are creationists.In other words, "what advancements have been made by people specifically attempting to prove the biblical account of creation", not "what advancements have been made by people who, independent of their work, happen to believe in the biblical account of creation".I don't know if that made sense. It was meant to.

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

And what you usually post isn't?

Usually. I thought that was obvious by this point.

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

Yes, you are correct, and the distinction needs to be made between those who are creationist and also practive science and those who call themselves Creation Scientists a la ICR, AiG, etc.I want to know what contributions all of those scientists listed on the ICR website have made, for example.

This is not correct TL. Those "creationists" used methodological naturalism and excluded the supernatural in describing the best explanation for their observations. Theistic evolutionists are another example of believers in the spiritual but who accept methodological naturalism as the best way to explain the natural world. What schrafinator and I want to know is can anyone give an example of ANY scientific hypothesis or theory that has benefitted from inclusion of the supernatural or appeals to any diety? How can there be "Creation science" if there is no testable or falsifiable hypothesis with which to work from? Since most creationists on this site insist that methodological naturalism is either a conspiracy or hoax, (or at the very least inadequate), I would like to see an example of their better method and what progress in our understanding of the natural world it has brought.

In response to all, not just Mammuthus: Well, I don't know that "not correct" is the right wording. I think I knew that wasn't Schraf's point, which is why I was worried about coming off as a smart aleck.Somehow, it seemed pertinent that at one time "creationists" were open to the truth and loved discovery. Hey, it's the Bible that says "the skies declare his glory, and the dome of the sky his handiwork." Now, creationist seems to mean someone who doesn't like what the skies and the earth tell us about his handiwork.Anyway, I don't mean to distract from the main question. Let me close with it, so it's back up front:

quote:

---

What schrafinator and I want to know is can anyone give an example of ANY scientific hypothesis or theory that has benefitted from inclusion of the supernatural or appeals to any diety?

---

I agree with the others that there is a world of difference between a creationist being a scientist and creationist science. Terry Gray, a molecular biologist who's got a dandy website for us Behe-bashers, wears the 'creationist' tag with pride. He believes that all science bears witness to the glory of God's creation, etc. etc., but this belief does not impede his ability to accept (and literally see in his lab) the truth of evolution and the validity of common descent.You're right, the original uniformitarian geologists were creationists. However, their research did not rely on supernatural explanations or the assumption that God's miraculous intervention regularly nullifies natural law. In the same way, the mechanic fixing my car could believe (as Dan does) that he is the only human on Earth and we're all his robot minions. We shouldn't conclude that this bizarre belief was responsible for the nifty brake job he did.regards,
Esteban "Raelian" Hambre

We often forget how little was known geologically and biologically 150 years ago. Creationists, as we understand the term today, did not really exist then. Geologists largely accepted the Bible as recounting actual events, but also assumed the accounts were not perfect, and so they sought to uncover the particular details. The search was felt important to both geology *and* theology, and was pregnant with the possibility that it might reveal hidden Biblical or theological insights.Lyell was exceptionally devout, and often found himself disturbed by his own conclusions. As he grew older, he found it increasingly difficult to keep his religious views from influencing his scientific interpretations. While he accepted an ancient and slowly changing earth, despite his close relationship with Darwin he rejected any suggestion that species weren't fixed. But geologically, Lyell would probably no more have identified with the claims of modern Creationists than Jesus would those of modern Catholics, in other words, not much.When 19th century geologists unexpectly encountered evidence for an ancient earth, but not for a flood, there was no unanimous response. Some *did* deny the evidence in the way of modern Creationists, but Lyell was not one of them.--Percy

The Benzene ring cracked by August Kekule was inspired according to him by a dream. This advanced the science of chemistry by a "supernatural" event, If you believe a dream can be considered supernatural.