Creationists, can you give the scientific community any good reason to take you seriously?

I mean, other than your rather obvious religious agenda - science has no need of that hypothesis.

Update:

hardi: If I really have to explain to you why scripture fails as evidence for anything, you should probably turn off your lights and hide under a blanket...

Update 2:

mike: I said "Creationists," not "Christians." Y'know, those people who believe the earth is 6000 years old and want that to be taught as science in the classroom? Surely you've heard of them.

Update 3:

JBT: I reject that hypothesis because there is no evidence to support it's validity. If that makes me a poor scientist, then someone has changed the rules in the last few minutes. Rejecting hypotheses that have no supporting evidence is exactly what we're supposed to do...

Update 4:

kiwiSDA: Walter Veith is employed by the Institute for Creation Research, a psuedoscience organization with a clearly religious agenda. I don't care what Veith believes, I care what he can prove through the proper use of scientific inquiry. This, so far, has amounted to nothing at all.

Update 5:

arthvader: Since when did the argument from personal experience ever count as evidence that god is real? I can tell you that there pink unicorns in my backyard, but you will want to see them for yourself before you will have faith that they are truly there.

Update 6:

Liberal Asskicker: That's pretty much why I ask these questions - to watch the show...

Update 7:

arthvader: I wanted to address the end of your answer - yes, we do need something to explain the mysteries of life. We can do this one of two ways: we can continue the process of scientific advancement in order to learn as much as possible, or we can give up and accept that god did it, ignoring the fact that there is no evidence for this. What you are suggesting is that, because we don't yet know everything, we should stop looking and turn to god. I'd rather keep learning, thank you.

Update 8:

Matt D: Actually, to creationists, it IS about science vs. religion. Science had no need of that fight until it was thrust upon it. And, by the way, I suggest you check your number on your "scientists and prayer" claim. Please provide a link to the study (and not one that links to "answers-in-genesis." Prayer studies have shown that prayer has no statistically significant effect on hospital patients. If god was going to intervene, why not cure the sick?

Update 9:

Clark B: There are no "Intelligent Design 'Scientists'" out there that are not religious. Intelligent design is religion with a catchy new name.

Update 10:

Clark B: I would like you to read up on Archaeopteryx. This is just one of the transitional forms that shows the path from one species (dinosaurs) to another (birds). Macroevolution is as much of a fact as microevolution. Please visit www.talkorigins.org - they have a very good list of transitional forms that you guys like to claim do not exist in the fossil record. Also, don't bother quoting Hoyle anymore - he misused probabilities when he wrote that. Things happened the way they happened - but that doesn't mean that was the only way they could have happened. If we set the whole process in motion from the beginning again, we might wind up with a completely different universe in which we never evolve at all.

Update 11:

nita: If a scientist was going to "put me in my place" by presenting practical applications of creationism (which is really what I asked for), it would have happened already, and it would have been big news in the scientific community. Websites like "answers in genesis" would not be necessary because it would be general knowledge, not psuedoscience. Not one scientist has ever been able to come up with a purpose for creationism that isn't meant to advance religious interests. In order for something to be useful as a science, it must have practical applications in the real world - that is the nature of science, whether you like it or not.

Update 12:

Paulywog: Wow, good work buddy... it takes at least a second grade education to come up with a shot like that. Keep up the good work! A few more, and I just might accept creationism... unfortunately, it takes a third grade education to gain a good understanding of sarcasm - sorry for telling jokes that are above grade level for you... I'll dumb it down a shade next time.

Update 13:

Edge: Judging by the lack of respect you seem to have for science, I find it somewhat hard to believe that you are actually a scientist... In what field do you work?

Update 14:

JBT: The question of what set off the big bang is hardly evidence of a creator god. Not knowing something does not automatically default the answer to "god did it." Any thinking person knows this. I do not reject the evidence out of hand - I reject the evidence because it is not really evidence of anything except that we don't have all the answers yet. The validity of evidence has to be questioned, in this case as in all inquiries. You are commiting a logical fallacy when you seem to state, because you can't think of any other way for the big bang to happen, that god must have done it. God does not win by default. Please do not assume that I am unfamiliar with the things that religion points to as evidence for god. I am well versed in the evidence and the reasons that none of it can be considered valid. If there was good reason to consider it, I would be happy to do so.

Update 15:

JBT: I was thinking about your big bang statement, and I wanted to expand on it. The question of what caused the big bang is not evidence of anything. The question is the point of inquiry. You have stated a hypothesis - that "god caused the big bang." Now I will ask you provide evidence of that hypothesis. From much experience in this type of debate, I know what the evidence is; you will tell me that there is no other explanation, and no other way it could have happened, so that shows that god caused the big bang. Now, I must evaluate your evidence. Immediately, I can tell you that it is invalid because it makes an assumption, and I'm sure you know why assumptions are not allowed. Without any other evidence, it is now fair for me to discard the hypothesis on the basis that the evidence is invalid - I am not obligated to continue searching ad nauseum for new evidence. I do the same with creationist arguments - I never dismiss evidence without first evaluating its validity.

24 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I take these CHRISTIANS seriously......

    Dr. David H. Rogstad

    Earned a Ph.D. in physics from Caltech before launching his career as a rocket scientist. During his 31 years at Caltech and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Worked on a number of high-profile projects, including the supercomputers used to simulate national defense scenarios dubbed "Star Wars." Also led the technical team credited with saving the Galileo Mission to Jupiter. In addition to publishing more than 20 papers on radio astronomy in scientific journals, was commissioned to co-author and edit Antenna Arraying Techniques in the Deep Space Network (Wiley, 2003). This book is part of the prestigious JPL series that lays a foundation for innovation in deep space navigation and communications. Still serves as a technical consultant to the Lab.

    Dr. Hugh Ross

    At age seventeen he was the youngest person yet to serve as director of observations for Vancouver's Royal Astronomical Society. With the help of a provincial scholarship and a National Research Council (NRC) of Canada fellowship, he completed his undergraduate degree in physics (University of British Columbia) and graduate degrees in astronomy (University of Toronto). The NRC also sent him to the United States for postdoctoral studies. At Caltech he researched quasars, some of the most distant and ancient objects in the universe.

    Dr. Jeffrey Zweerink

    From the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) where he still serves (part-time) on the physics and astronomy research faculty. Although science has been a major interest for most of his life, Jeff developed a fascination with gamma rays-messengers from vastly distant black holes and neutron stars-during his graduate studies at Iowa State University, where he earned his Ph.D. in 1997. Conducted research using the STACEE and VERITAS gamma-ray telescopes. Involved in research projects such as the Solar Two Project and the Whipple Collaboration. Has co-authored more than 30 journal articles and numerous conference proceedings.

    Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

    Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

    Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)

    Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)

    Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

    Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

    Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)

    Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

    Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

    David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

    Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)

    Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)

    Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

    Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

    Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)

    Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

    Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

    Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)

    Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

    Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)

    Duane T. Gish (biochemist)

    John Grebe (chemist)

    Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

    William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

    George F. Howe (botanist)

    D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)

    James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

    Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

    John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)

    Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)

    Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)

    Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

    Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

    Frank L. Marsh (biologist)

    Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

    James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

    Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

    Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

    Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

    Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)

    Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

    Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

    William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Religious agenda aside there are a majority of intelligent design scientists out there that have no religious faith. If you are looking for good reasons, I would say the best one being the law of probability. The law of probability states that the odds of any life happening by pure accident go well beyond impossible. Noted Scientist Frederick Hoyle said this:

    "supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein"

    Another great example is the fossil record. THere has never been a discovery in the fossil record to supply a missing link connecting one species to another. The only evidence found supports microevolution(interspecies) not macroevolution(species to species). When Charles Darwin wrote Origin of Species there was no knowledge of the complexity of the single cell. DNA was unknown as well. a single cell has a complex DNA strain that can be stretched out to 6 feet in length. In one cell.

    Everyday science in all fields is discovering more flaws with evolution. It take s more faith to believe in a cosmic accident that defies all known laws that govern life, than to believe in an intelligent design at work.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Hello there,

    That is a very valid question. I don't think one can write a complete answer to your question here.

    Instead please allow me to suggest to you someone who I think has some excellent material on youtube and videos etc that you may be interested in watching. His name is Prof. Walter Veith. He is a professor in Zoology I believe and he is a Christian who believe in a literal six day creation (like myself).

    His website is amazingdiscoveries.org I think, so maybe you could check it out. He has published in many peer reviewed journals over the years so he is not some "crackpot" but has a lot of credibility. If you can get your hands on his creation dvd's I would highly recommend watching them.

    Personally, my area is physics and mathematics. Having studied at university for 7 years, just finishing a phd now, I can see many gaps in peoples understanding of even basic ideas.

    The scientific method is great but unfortunately it is people that apply the scientific method, and they are not always so great or honest. There is a lot of politics involved in academia.

    Anyways, check out material by Walter Veith. Hope this answer helps you somewhat. Good luck

  • 1 decade ago

    Lets put it this way, if we rejected science and let your God Almighty heal us, most of us would have died in our early 20s. God doesn't cure anything, science does. Creationism is a joke, Dinosaurs and Humans living in harmony millions of years ago. Do any of these idiots go to museums that contain fossils. Are there any fossils of human beings as we look today in there along side a T Rex?

    Without science, the human race wouldn't have advanced to where we are today. God doesn't save, and he doesn't heal, and he doesn't exist.

    Good question mate. If we save atleast one of these idiots their Sunday mornings, then its well worth it haha.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • I am both a Scientist and a Christian. However creationism can never truly be science. No matter how much proof one could find for it. Science is set only to deal with the natural world. In order for science to function you need fixed laws and repeatability. God does not function under fix laws. He is not repeatable. And whenever He feels like it He can change the way things work. Thus it is truly impossible for science to deal with a supernatural being. Science is the study of the natural world. God is supernatural and thus beyond the scope of science.

  • 1 decade ago

    Why does science have no need of a specific hypothesis?

    If you reject hypotheses out of hand, then you are a poor scientist. Science, if it's not a tool used to further a personal agenda, isn't biased.

    -----

    Update: You should absolutely reject a hypothesis that has no merit. But you're first rejecting the evidence as a pretext to reject the hypothesis. Like it or not, there is evidence that a creator exists, starting with the question of what set the Big Bang into motion.

    If you reject the evidence out of hand, and then reject the hypothesis for lack of evidence, you're still a poor scientist.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    We cant give you a good reason not to be arrogant and disrespectful.

    Btw, most scientists statistically believe in a God that answers prayers. Your assumptions are all wrong. Its not about science VS religion. The 2 fields inquire into 2 different areas.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    First I would have you know that Christians are part of the scientific community, Secondly, You would have to specify what it is you believe we want the scientific community to take us serious on, Were not pushing a scientific agenda, The only thing we advocate is that God created everything, That does not mean we want to eradicate science, Maybe evolution ( which is not science) , But not science. God bless & Happy New Year.

  • Achmed
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Gen. 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree....

    Gen. 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life...

    In these two verses you find God commanded the waters and the earth to bring forth life. This was written 1220 B.C. Long before Darwin lived. So God knew long before man how the earth was made.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You know what I have learned? Not all scientist are Godless and many believe this earth was created. So, ask them this question so that you may be put in your place. I've learned these type of questions are not reflective of true scientist, both creationist and evolutionist.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I take it you work for nasa or just post that on the internet for all to see that you truely work for mcdonalds

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.