Why do evolutionist lie about the fact that there are real scientist that believe in biblical creation?

Question

Dr. Eric Norman Ph.D. Biochemistry, Asst. Professor of research and medicine at Univ. of Cinn., has published numerous scientific papers, pioneer in vitamin B12 research. Quote: "Evolution is just plain unscientific. It violates the laws of chemistry including the second law of thermodynamics, the laws of probability, and information theory."

Dr. Andrew Snelling - Ph.D. Geology, numerous published papers on a variety of geological topics, from coal formation to uranium deposits. Quote: "The flood was a global event, therefore we should expect to find global patterns of sedimentation, volcanic activity, mineral deposits, etc."

Dr. Raymond Damadian - Inventor of the MRI, National Tech. Metal winner, National Inventors Hall of Fame inductee. Quote: "Rejection of (the Bible's) account of creation...is basic to the spiritual, social, and economic sickness of our times."

Scientist that believe biblical creation.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

Creationist such as Psychologist, Geneticist, Biochemist, Geologist, Immunologist, Physiologist, Geophysicist, Biologist, Palaeontologist, Archaeologist, Pharmacologist, Entomologist, Cosmologist, Botanist use science to support the Biblical Creation account. This should be an eye-opener for those who have been told otherwise. Remember that creationism in public school has been replaced with humanism. Censorship is alive and well in the United States.
.

Answer 1

Can creationists be scientists?
by Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D., astrophysics, AiG–USA speaker and researcher

First published in
Answers Update–USA
April 2005

It has been often said that “creationists cannot be real scientists.”

Several years ago, the National Academy of Sciences published a guidebook entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science.1 This guidebook states that evolution is “the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things.”

In addition, the late evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky once made the now well-known comment that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”2

But is a belief in “particles-to-people” evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution?

Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all.

In fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton, who speaks at many conferences, has stated, “The fact is that, though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”3

Nor has technology arisen due to a belief in evolution. Computers, cellular phones and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible. How can a belief in evolution (a belief that complex biological machines do not require an intelligent designer) aid in the development of complex machines which are clearly intelligently designed?

Technology has shown us that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers—not random chance. Science and technology are perfectly consistent with the Bible.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that there have been many scientists who believed in biblical creation. In my own research field of astrophysics, I am reminded of several of the great minds of history. Consider Isaac Newton, who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics.

Consider Johannes Kepler, who discovered the three laws of planetary motion, or James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. These great scientists believed the Bible.

Today as well, there are many Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and instead believe that God created in six days as recorded in Scripture. Consider Dr. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. nuclear physicist who has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields4 which was able to predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all.

On the contrary, Dr. Humphreys was able to make these predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scripture. Dr. John Baumgardner, a Ph.D. geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which the journal Nature once featured (this model is based on the global Genesis Flood).

Additionally, think of all the people who have benefited from a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan. The MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian5 who has been featured twice in our Creation magazine.

Clearly, creationists can indeed be real scientists. And this shouldn’t be surprising since the very basis for scientific research is biblical creation. The universe is orderly because its Creator is logical and has imposed order on the universe. God created our minds and gave us the ability and curiosity to study the universe. Furthermore, we can trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent. This is why science is possible.

On the other hand, if the universe is just an accidental product of a big bang, why should it be orderly? Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver? If our brains are the by-products of random chance, why should we trust that their conclusions are accurate? But if our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by the Lord as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature.

Yes, science is possible because the Bible is true.

Answer 2

I don't see anything in your statement that provides evidence that evolutionists are lying about the fact that there are other scientists that believe in biblical creation. It's true that they probably don't agree with the scientists you've named, but it is not like they're hiding those scientists from the public eye. I don't think they say, "All scientists believe in evolution!" Common sense would refute that statement. Of course there are scientists that believe in the bibical creation story, and there are also religious people who believe in science.

Now, if your question was really meant to argue evolution vs. God, that's a different story. I believe that everyone is too focused on the differences between the two ideas, and not thinking about the countless simililarities. There are more things in common than many would think, and if only both sides could keep an open mind, those common ideas would be found out.

In response to it's your own fault's lacking comments, I believe everyone should do research before making opinions that they will express and stick to. The theory that you mentioned was 'continental drift'. The continents do not 'float'. It involves the movement of tectonic plates and all sorts of other things that are too complicated to explain for someone like you. Please, do your research and make sure the facts you try to refute are even true. And by the way, the land mass was called 'Pangaea'. I also suggest a high school education for you, too.

Regarding the Bible, it's all about how to translate it: literally or figuratively. Realize that the original Bible was written in Hebrew, and that there are words in the Hebrew language that cannot truely be translated into English. The people who translated had to interpret it to what they thought everything meant.

People ought to learn Hebrew and interpret the texts for themselves.

Answer 3

Actually, I have never heard anyone say a scientist can’t be a creationist. A scientist is one who studies natural phenomena and personal belief in the supernatural does not, in and of it’s self, preclude anyone from being a scientist.

However, I have know many religious people who subscribe to evolution, but I’ve never met a creationist who wasn’t a religious person… for a creationist to remain a creationist, the evidence must coincide with his religious views. He must therefore dispute any evidence, observation or measurement that conflicts with his belief or else change his beliefs. This makes the creationist suspect in regard to the politically controversial topic of evolution.

Furthermore, I have only heard creationists try to build their case by attempting to nullify evolution. I have never heard anyone describe the overwhelming empirical evidence that points directly to god… how does the fossil record point directly to god, the geological record, DNA, genomics, etc, etc. Arguments could be made about why god might have done something a certain way, but nothing points directly at a creator. It always boils down to personal incredulity, which is an assumption of fact based on a belief…

By the way you quote Dr. Eric Norman, regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics… the second law specifically speaks to an isolated system and the earth is not an isolated system since it obtains external energy from the sun… This argument has been so completely discredited for so long now, it’s a joke and It only makes your position look dishonest.

Answer 4

Because every branch of science has a few crackpots. The life sciences included. A few crackpots who can't let go of sunday school fairy tales that is.

Medical doctors and engineers haven't got the creds to speak on the validity of any biological theory. MD's ans surgeons are clumsy meat carpenters and engineers don't have enough knowledge in the life sciences. Dentists are not scientists (I laughed when I read that one, they are really scraping for 'em). 'Natural philosophers' from more than three hundred years ago are not scientists. Philosophers are not scientists.

Publishing a paper isn't the same as being a contributing scientist, the paper's contents have to pass peer review and independent confirmation otherwise all the writers are doing is advertising for their real business, the creationist lecture circuit.

Bible spewing fools who earned a PHD only to do nothing but earn a living giving lectures to church groups are also, not scientists.

Answer 5

Evolutionists ignore any facts or refuse to make any conclusions to support the theroy they put their faith in. It's just that simple.

As far as evidence and the flood. They accept that a tiny little river carved the grand canyon. Well, if you looked at a topographical map , then it would make more sense that it was actually a huge water runoff that made it, and it didn't take millions of years. They view in recent days, that rivers can carry houses away and deposit tons of soil in a new location, but they refuse to see that as any type of evidence in the reactions of the earth's surface to a global scale flood.

Oh, they also believe in "Pangera" ...the continents all being one huge land mass at one time......well, I hate to be the one to point this out, but, if you were to drain the oceans, I think you'd still find land down there. And how can land float and move on land.

Answer 6

You are like one of those people hundreds of years ago who refused to believe that the earth revolved around the sun because they felt/were told that it was an idea that went against biblical teachings. Well, it's indisputable that the earth does go around the sun, but that doesn't any problems or conflicts now for you with your religious beliefs, does it? Don't let people force you into making false choices. You can be a good Christian and believe in evolution as well. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.

Answer 7

they have discover animals frozen in ice at the north and south poles, anmimals from a hot climate.

the bible was telling every one that the earth is round at time when most believe that the world was flat

the bible is more accurate.

the big bang theory is like taking a wind up watch apart placing all the parts in a paper bag and shaking it for a million years what would be the odds of the watch being put back together again

Answer 8

HAH!! your clan is really funny. You know, believing without a doubt, without geneous scientists trying to tell you there is proof we, not including the universe is at least MILLIONS. You are trying to say thousands!!not hundreds of thousands, but TENS of thousands. What you are trying to push sounds like it is coming from a six year old having a temper tantrum because he doesn't understand how far away disney land is!!
My point is, is that, even if, giving it a benefit of a doubt, scientists are a bit off, they are still more right than you. Right by hundreds of millions of years as opposed to you being WRONG by hundreds of millions of years. Because they rely on actual evidence, MOUNTAINS of evidence, and a theory is something that under scrutiny and experiment time and time again an overwhelming amount of scientists have observed to be true.
Do you know that GRAVITY is also a theory? something to think about. Don't you think it's kind of pathetic sometimes, trying in vain to fit dinosaurs and the millions of species of animals and the millions of examples of ancient rock formation in with your bible STORIES--some thoughts jotted down on scrolls by some old (worldly wise for their time--but ignorant to science) men in caves a few thousand years ago?

Answer 9

I'm sure there are. Though I doubt you'll find any biologists. The problem is the science they do doesn't go any way to supporting a theory of special creation. So while they may believe something, they must keep their science practise separate from it.

Answer 10

In any argument you can find a expert to back up your position.

I'm glad that there are people out there testing many hypotheses.

However, remember that the overwhelming majority of scientists think evolution is the way to go.