Why do creationists only use science when it benefits them somehow?

Question

Last night, I answered a question on here regarding evolution, and another answerer gave a link for the creationist site www.drdino.com. I went there, and they use archaelogical evidence vaguely so that it benefits their creationist position. Do all creationists do this?

Answer 1

ISN"T this what you do with evolution theory. God is still in the process of creation,the expanding universe an evolution proves GOD exist and is hard at work. OPEN YOUR MIND AND LOOK AT IT>

Answer 2

No, not really. The man behind drdino.com (Dr. Kent Hovind) has been rejected by other young earth creationist because of some of the claims he makes. Here are some sites that you might find interesting concerning Kent Hovind.

Science is an epistemological tool that uses repeated empirical evidence to make a conclusion about how something works in nature. When people take scienctific observation and use it as a premise make claims that cannot be empirically proven or denied or claims about things that are not in nature, it steps outside the realm of science and more into the realm of metaphysics which is not empirically observable.

Answer 3

I use this approach because I am not a scientist. There are BETTER sites than the one you sited. Before you condemn creationists check these sites out:

http://www.halos.com/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm
http://www.grisda.org/

These should not present vague evidence. These sites do provide valid research. I recommend the first site listed. The other sites do a good job as well.

Answer 4

Of course they do. The people arguing against creationism obviously value science, so the creationists try and dig up as much as they can to support their position. They feel that if it comes down to a choice between facts and faith they might not win too often, so they try and blur the lines.

Answer 5

I don't think all of them do. I remember a girl that didn't believe in dinosaurs because the bible never mentioned them. But like most scientific information, Christians pick and chose what they want to use in their favor. It doesn't make sense because they never say they are exercising faith for what they know is true.

Answer 6

Yes, they see what they WANT to see. In other words, they have already come up with the answer before looking at the evidence. That's not how science works.

Answer 7

Dr. Dino is a known fraud with a fake Ph.D. and a number of indictments for tax evasion (Which he's admitted to).

Even creationists are starting to back away from him, for fear of losing credibility

Answer 8

I can't speak for Dr Dino or other creationists but I can say that the Christian religion is not against science when it is engaged in the business of discovering and proclaiming truth. That's a very Christian pursuit. On the other hand when people who call themselves scientists refuse to consider the possibility of God and come up will far fetched theories designed to explain something that they cannot prove by pursuing every other avenue of research and hypothesis and then present their "findings" as virtual facts and call upon people to believe them they step outside of the boudaries of pursing truth in the pure scientific tradition. That's where Christians find a source of criticism of those in the scientific realm.

http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm

Dr. Francis S. Collins is Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. He currently leads the Human Genome Project, directed at mapping and sequencing all of human DNA, and determining aspects of its function. His previous research has identified the genes responsible for cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, Huntington's disease and Hutchison-Gilford progeria syndrome. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences.

Collins spoke with Bob Abernethy of PBS, posted online at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/transcripts/collins.html, in which he summaries the compatability of fact and faith thusly:

“I think there’s a common assumption that you cannot both be a rigorous, show-me-the-data scientist and a person who believes in a personal God. I would like to say that from my perspective that assumption is incorrect; that, in fact, these two areas are entirely compatible and not only can exist within the same person, but can exist in a very synthetic way, and not in a compartmentalized way. I have no reason to see a discordance between what I know as a scientist who spends all day studying the genome of humans and what I believe as somebody who pays a lot of attention to what the Bible has taught me about God and about Jesus Christ. Those are entirely compatible views.

“Science is the way -- a powerful way, indeed -- to study the natural world. Science is not particularly effective -- in fact, it’s rather ineffective -- in making commentary about the supernatural world. Both worlds, for me, are quite real and quite important. They are investigated in different ways. They coexist. They illuminate each other. And it is a great joy to be in a position of being able to bring both of those points of view to bear in any given day of the week. The notion that you have to sort of choose one or the other is a terrible myth that has been put forward, and which many people have bought into without really having a chance to examine the evidence. I came to my faith not, actually, in a circumstance where it was drummed into me as a child, which people tend to assume of any scientist who still has a personal faith in God; but actually by a series of compelling, logical arguments, many of them put forward by C. S. Lewis, that got me to the precipice of saying, ‘Faith is actually plausible.’ You still have to make that step. You will still have to decide for yourself whether to believe. But you can get very close to that by intellect alone.”

Answer 9

There are 2 types:

(1) those that believe a creator must exist (more fact based)
(2) those who believe the genesis account (not fact based)

Which did you mean?

Answer 10

Yes. Modern creationism is an elaborate system of special pleading and