Reasons for Creationist Persistence

Insufficiently specific. All scientists are skeptical of evolution, as all scientists are skeptical of all models, waiting until evidence has been presented before accepting the hypothesis.That's what skepticism is, after all - waiting for evidence before you make up your mind. All evolutionists are skeptical of evolution, under that definition. Well, wait now. You said that your friends didn't believe in the 6000-year-old Earth or the Noaic flood. You certainly whined pretty loudly and accused me of putting words in your mouth when I told you that's what creationists believed.Now you're telling me that, indeed, your friends believe in the 6000-year-old Earth and the Noaic flood? Then what the hell were you complaining so loudly about? The fact that I was right? Jeez.

Unless you work with round things, that is. In that case you might find the Bible's contention that pi = 3.0 somewhat troublesome.

I think given the context that my choice of words was sufficiently lucid; But for your sake, I'll modify it to "doubtful of evolution"...better? My point was that you were assuming positions that I had never taken. Furthermore, you attacked those [i]assumed[/qs] positions as if they were the basis for my skepticism (disbelief) and that of my acquaintances, when in fact, our skepticism is scientific in nature.It's no different than when a creationist attacks evos as being humanists and atheists. It's a mis-direction from why the evo actually believes in the theory...

I see I must have been posting my repeat of Crash's question at the same time you were posting an answer, so let me now reply to your answer.We need more detail. Do you actually have friends and acquaintances who accept a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation stories (these would be YEC's) *and* who work in scientific fields that contradict these stories?Concerning your OEC friends and acquaintances, isn't an OEC stance even more problematic for them? Aren't they picking and choosing which which parts of Genesis they accept? In fact, isn't Genesis a heck of a lot more clear about recent origins than about evolution?Anyway, the bottom line is that however many billions of practicing scientist-creationists there are out there, the creationists who come here are woefully uninformed about science. So if you have friends and acquaintances who are working in scientific fields and so are familiar and perhaps even in love with science, they would be a most welcome addition here.Allow me to suggest a screening question for your friends and acquaintances. You can ask them this question before deciding whether to refer them here. Say to them, "Evolution is false because you'll never get a cat from a dog, right?" If they respond, "Yes, of course," then don't mention EvC Forum to them.--Percy

To elucidate:Yes, I have friends (and family) who work in the biological sciences (and paleontology) who reject darwinian evolution (if that's what you meant by the "unifying theory of all biology.")AND as I pointed out to Crash, some are YECers, a few are OECers. That's not the point. The point is their skepticism of ToE as practicing scientists. Believe me, i've been begging and pleading...

That could mean almost anything. What do they doubt, specifically?It's not like all evolutionists are in lock-step agreement about every single aspect of evolutionary science. Presumably, some evolutionists are "doubtful" about the positions of other evolutionists. I see no reason why just having unspecified "doubts" makes them "creationists." But you did take that position. You asserted, just now, that some of your friends were young-Earth creationists. I asserted that some of your friends were young-Earth creationists, and you complained that I was misrepresenting you.What gives? You seem indignant just because I was accurate in understanding what you meant. Is it just that you didn't know what "young-Earth creationism" was until I described the beliefs of YEC's? If your skepticism was scientific, you wouldn't call yourself "creationists." (You can take that one of two ways.)I never said those were your positions. You never claimed to be a YEC, as far as I know. But those are the positions of young-Earth creationists, which is why I wondered if you really meant to suggest that you knew biologists who were young-Earth creationists. Nobody's ever heard of such a thing. A lot of them are. I don't see the relevance of that. I don't even see how it's an attack.

Okay, so allow me to keep the focus narrow by asking about just the friends/family in the biological sciences. What do they do?--Percy

I am a Creationist.That said, anyone who believes in a Young Earth, or a Biblical Creation, or Special Creation, or the Biblical Flood, is simply wrong.Those folk though continue to try to con the public by misdirection. They make claims, as you have, false claims, such as the DI list of "Creation Scientists" implying that there is anyone who has done "Creation Science".The fact is that no one has ever presented a model that explains the evidence seen using theology, beyond the simple assertion that Goddidit, which explains nothing.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, and now it seems I've engaged in some redundant posting myself. That depends on what you consider those fields to be; paleontology? chemistry? biochemistry? genetics? bioengineering? While I agree with you whole-heartedly (horaay) I don't see how their theology is relevant to the practice of their respective fields. That's the point I keep emphasizing. Please, I wouldn't embarass myself by asking them such a question.

Well, wait a minute. That's not what you said before.I worked in the biological sciences; I was a research assistant with the USDA. Despite my enthusiasm for biology, I wouldn't describe myself as a "biologist" or even as a scientist just because I planted some corn and innoculated it with insects (and took readings, etc), for a couple of different reasons:1) I don't have a terminal degree in the biological sciences;
2) I don't develop, lead, interpret, or publish research (I just take orders from those who do)
3) I've published no articles in peer-reviewed journals of any kind.Are we talking about "people who work in the biological sciences", or are we talking about biologists? Medical doctors aren't biologists. Chemists aren't biologists. Engineers, even medical or agricultural ones, aren't biologists. (Genetic engineers might be, depending on their training.)

No, you're really not. Just like a "Socialist" isn't just somebody who likes to hang out with their friends. Just like a "Skinhead" isn't just somebody who likes a good clean shave.

Did I take the position or did I not? It's relevant because my (or anyone's) religious views are distinct from my skepticism based on science. Exactly. That many evos are atheists and humanists is irrelevant to the evidence that propels them to accept ToE. By the same token, there are people who doubt ToE for scientific reasons, independent of their religious beliefs. As a rule, the evo is incapable of recognizing that distinction.

A slight derail: that's a rotten argument. You don't calculate to more significant digits that you've got.And since pi is a non-repeating decimal, you'd always be able to complain about insufficient inaccuracy. Unless the relationship between the radius and diameter of the sea was given in the form of a convergent series.If you want to try this sort of thing, then the bit about the earth being immovable and resting on pillars works fine.

I think you're confused.Yes, you did take the position that some of your friends were YEC.No you did not take the position that you are a YEC, as far as I can tell. Are there? I've only ever encountered people who doubted the fundamental accuracy of the ToE for religious reasons or for reasons of not knowing what the evidence was.I've never encountered any scientific objections to evolution. That there are none is the reason for evolution's acceptance by a very broad consensus of scientists.

In the biological sciences (does medicine count or not?) I count 3 biochemists (Ph.Ds), a geneticist, and a bioengineer, 4 doctors (2 neurologists, one neurosurgeon, and one thoracic surgeon), 2 paleontologists...I myself have a B.S. in biochemistry (but am currently studying medicine). I believe that is all for the biological sciences.