Why don't creationists use the Scientific Method?

Question

How can you have you answer first before you ask the question? Wouldn't it be more logical to examine and study the earth and it's organism and then come up with a theory about it's origin, rather than having a pre-packaged answer and shaping your questions around your answer?

Answer 1

are you sure you are not talking about evolution?
Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Physiologist, Atomic Energy Commission. As quoted in: Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, 3D Enterprises Limited, 1983, title page
Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups." Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France, J. Rostand, "LaMonde et la Vie," October 1963, p. 31 from V. Long, "Evolution: A Fairy Tale for Adults," Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol 78 (1978), no. 7, pp. 27-32

One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'." Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981

"I know that, at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of actual data." Dr David Pilbeam (Physical Anthropologist, Yale University, USA), 'Rearranging our family tree'. Human Nature, June 1978, p. 45.

Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants." Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia), 1980 Assembly Week address
A true scientist would say that nothing in biology makes sense except in
the light of evidence." -- Jonathan Wells,

Answer 2

Because using the "scientific" method, that is, recreating the event in a laboratory environment cannot be done, for either creation or evolution. Scientific methods Neither can be tested or duplicated, they both are taken as a matter of faith. We both have the same evidence, it is simply a matter of interpretation. It is more logical to take a "legal" method, that is, examining the cumulative evidence to see which way it tilts logically. Having done so, I can confidently say that creation makes far more sense considering the present evidence than does evolution. The dirty secret is that classic Darwinian evolution is quietly being abandoned by academia, it is horribly flawed and a hoax. Anyone who honestly looks at the evidence with an open mind will see that it tilts in favor of creation or intelligent design.

Answer 3

I'm sorry, but we do. Everyone has some presuppositions prior to examining a piece of evidence.

Evolutionists presuppose that evolution is fact and therefore interpret any new facts through that assumption. The same goes for Creationists belief in God creating everything in 6 days.

Here is a great website with articles from scientists that use the Scientific Method for evaluating evidence from every branch of science that are pro-creationism.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

Answer 4

You actually want me to believe-- that you believe in evolution solely because of the evidence that has been confirmed by the scientific method? Are you aware that there is no basis for evolution in science what so ever. There is no empirical evidence to support evolution-none. If anyone had that evidence they could be the wealthiest person to have ever lived on this planet. Look at modeling. That's where the the only hope for support is. And it is weak at best. It is all speculation.

Answer 5

Because the chicken came before the egg.

No. It's not more logical.

The scientific method is flawed. It doesn't even answer all Science questions perfectly, much less Existence, which is much more than merely science.

Answer 6

Because the scientific method implies that the theory could be falsified. In other words, by using the scientific method, creationists therefore implies that god can be proven false!

Answer 7

Because they would realize that God or a higher being does not exist. They would be using logic and science to prove a religious point, which is by definition impossible.

Answer 8

For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, so that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Answer 9

There is no science involved with "creationism".

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I am amazed so many people today believe they are.

Our creationists are not that far from Islamic extremists. It's their way or no way & God (Allah) is great.

Answer 10

You mean you believe something as complex and beautiful as a hummingbird had no cause?
(We don't just ignore theories, we use them to support the truth that God exists)