Do you know that there is at least on creation believing scientist for every one that believes in evolution?

Question

Every scientist who approaches things with a different preconceived belief or notion will come to a slightly different conclusion. A creationist scientist will come up with totally different findings that one who starts with the "premise" of evolution. The theory of evolution proves nothing. As for the Big Bang, I am sure that when God created the Earth there was a big bang!

Get the book "Men of Science, men of God" by Henry Morris. Init are 101 simple short biographies of scientists who made pioneering discoveries and founded modern scientific disciplines who also believed in the Bible and in a pesonal Creator!

If you "don't care" why read it I am sure there are other questions you could read and answer.

As I have said before evolution proved would not change my faith in the Creator one bit as I do not need to know exactly how he did it. I am just discussing. Amazing how many atheists get upset when one questions their idol.

Scientific Criteria

There is a dirty little story about something disgusting that evolutionists did to make evolution a scientific fact. Over 30 years ago when I began studying science in college, I had to learn the names and definitions for the three levels of scientific criteria. These were as follows:

Fact: Proved to be absolutely true and never changing.

Theory: Must be directly supported by at least one scientific fact.

Postulate: Must be directly supported by at least one scientific theory. This means that it must also be indirectly supported by at least one scientific fact.

By the late 1960's and early 1970's, we evolutionists (remember that I used to be one) had a problem with these definitions. Science had disproved all of our proofs and evolution did not have one scientific fact. This meant that, not only could evolution not be called a theory but it couldn't even be call a postulate. Evolution was only an idea with no supporting evidence or criteria. Of course creationists had been kind enough to point this out to us and everyone else.

After a number of national and international meetings by evolutionists to solve this problem, it was decided that they should simply change the definitions for scientific criteria so evolution could legitimately be considered a scientific criterium. The new definitions and one new term are as follows:

Hypothesis: An idea.

Theory: An idea that has been tested.

Fact: An idea that has been tested and is accepted by most of the scientific community. It can also change.

Notice that none of the scientific criteria have to be supported by any scientific evidence or other criteria to be a scientific criterium. The term hypothesis replaced the term postulate and only has to be an idea. It does not have to be tested or tried in any way to be a scientific criterium. This obviously opened the door for evolution.

Next, notice that a theory only has to be tested and does not have to be proved correct. It can be proved completely

Answer 1

I will grant your question with an open-minded answer:

Evolution is a theory of which parts are at least completely proven facts.

Creation is a theory of which not even one single part is proven.

My guess is that in the end they will be both wrong. It's impossible for us humans to know how the universe was created, until we see the borders, the limits of that universe. For now we humans are simply too small to understand.

But at this moment in life evolution is the more logical choice, for the simple reason that big parts of it are proven facts.

Answer 2

Science is based on approaching things WITHOUT a preconceived belief. That is what makes it science!

Did YOU know that after the Creation Science folks published their list of 200 prominent scientists who have doubts about evolution, the NCSE started a list of "200 prominent scientists named Steve" who signed an antithetical statement which read: "There is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism of evolution. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to 'intelligent design,' to be introduced into the science curricula of the public schools."

Since they all had to be named Steven or Stephanie, and since about 1% of scientists have this name, one can extrapolate over half-a-million likely signatories!

Where the creationist folks had 200 volunteers, so far the evolutionists have only mustered 541 "Steves", but more will follow, I'm sure!

Answer 3

cute! I liked that Big Bang theory! There more than likely was a Big Bang! God does everything Big, doen'st He?

I had heard that before actually that there were some scientists that actaully had an open mind!
It was so hard for me to believe until you gave me a second opinion! It's still difficult to imagine. But the more I think about it, with all the scientists, there has to be at least one, doesn't there?

Answer 4

That 'Creation Science' website has a list of scientists who have refuted evolution. However, if you've not heard of it, look on Wikipedia for what's called 'Steve's List' - it's a list, longer than the creationist list, of scientists who support the idea of evolution - and only who have the name Steve!

If the list of evolution-believing scientists names Steve is longer than the list of creation-believing scientists with any name, what does that tell you?

You are being fed lies from someone and you are not even stopping to question them...

If you'd like, I can find the web page for you.

Answer 5

Honestly I don't think so, creationist scientists are hard to find and let me tell you I've never seen a single one, I've heard there are some in the US and only in the US. I've never met one.
so maybe in the whole world there is one creationist out every 1000 scientists.
Sicetists tend to be pragmatic and objective so I see no reason for a true scientist to be a creationist. It does not mean scientists are not religious people, in my humble opinion I believe evolution is the "tool" God used to create humans and that God is so wise and merciful that he allowed us all to see how he managed to create mankind.

Answer 6

That's not true. And evolution is not a "premise". It is a result that is supported by findins in every science. Creationism begins with the assumption that nature must have been designed by an intelligent being. That's actually a pretty gosh darn big assumption to start with.

Answer 7

I went to see Ken Ham of "Answers in Genesis" and was really impressed with the wealth of scientific data that supports Creation and proves true lack of evidence for evolution. I always believed Creation but was happy to see that there are scientists that are Christian and unafraid to debunk evolution.

Answer 8

You simply made this up. It's not true. Truth matters, and the fact is that there is no "god" who created the Earth. I'm sure it's extremely difficult to accept, but the whole "god" thing is really just a persistent fairy tale, and one that persists largely because believers are so unconcerned with the truth.

Answer 9

That's another creationist lie.
Trust me, most of the "scientists" that call themselves creationists are like "Dr." Ken Hovind. No actual credentials at all. Just a $300.00 "diploma" that isn't worth the toilet paper it's printed on.
So please, before you continue to post such drivel, think first ok? I know it's a stretch for you, but try.

EdSawyer, LOL I forgot about the Steve list! Doh! Glad someone is on the ball this morning!

Answer 10

I did know that. Also, there is a high incidence of scientists who begin to believe in God the more they research astronomy and other scientific areas. The same thing happens often with doctors and nurses. Some things are just hard to deny when you see it in action in front of your face.