Are evolutions here insecure? No? Then why are they HERE?

Question

I'm listing great scientists who believe in creation ONLY in response to evolutionists who can be confident in their belief ONLY by persuading creationists that NO serious scientist can be a creationist. NO serious scientist would claim to be a creationist without SERIOUSLY investigating the issue. Evolutionists are here ONLY because they lack conviction; otherwise, why would they try so hard to criticize creationists? Hence:

Dr. Arthur H. Compton, Christian, Nobel Laureate (Physics) for his discovery of the Compton effect which provided the final confirmation of the validity of Planck's quantum hypothesis.
"It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence - an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered - 'In the beginning, God.'"

Answer 1

And Ken Miller is a Catholic. But he still accepts evolution as a Biologist (physicists do not study evolution, hon).

In fact, he argued agaist the teaching of intelligent design in the Dover, Pennsylvania courts.

Evolution does not disprove god and any good scientist would tell you that. Evolution can make some gods seem very unlikely, and can show some holy texts to be fallible, and can make a creator less necessary.

So, who's insecure again? The creationist who accepts both, or the one with his fingers stuck in his ears while he says, "LALALALALA I'm not listening" ?

Answer 2

I'm here to counter the misstatements, deceptions, flagrant lies of Creationists.

Yes, Arthur Compton believed in God, but the statement says NOTHING about evolution. I believe that the quote is from his pamphlet, "Life After Death" which was written to reconcile science and religion after the Scopes trial. Of course, I notice Creationists never list their sources, lest the truth be uncovered. Talk about lack of conviction.

The pamphlet "Life After Death" is put into perspective in an article by Edward B. Davis.
"Fellow physics Nobelist Arthur Holly Compton also saw room for science and religion to coexist. His pamphlet, Life After Death, argued against a materialist view of consciousness and defended the reasonableness of belief in an afterlife. Yet he did not specifically mention the resurrection—a curious omission for a Christian tract on this subject—underscoring the fact that many modernists (perhaps including Compton) did not believe in the literal truth of such biblical stories."

As for calling him a Creationist, he believed that God created the universe. I'm sure he would laugh at "Scientific" Creationism (especially the intentional misapplication of thermodynamic laws) which he could not discuss since he died in 1962.

I would classify your feeble attempt as a typical misstatement -- a quote out of context.

Answer 3

This is a tricky subject and you seem to have a definate view of those who believe evolution exists. But, since you want an answer...

Those who believe in evolution tend to seperate that belief from whatever religious convictions they may or may not have. The evidence points them in that direction and that's what they believe, regardless of religious conviction. However, those who push creationism have pushed their ideas onto society, claiming that they have equal validity as a scientific theory.

Here's where things get tricky. Evolution is a scientific theory, which is one step away from a scientific law. It can be tested in a lab. I have several examples of this, if one is interested. However, creationism begins with an assumption that cannot be tested. Therefore, it is a better example of a philosophic idea, not a scientific theory and therefore cannot be put in the exact same spot as evolution.

Most scientists become upset when a nonscientist tries to claim that creationism is a valid scientific alternative to evolution simply because it is an example of the lack of scientific knowledge the general public has. It has nothing to do with basic belief. I know several scientists personally who are religious and yet believe in evolution because that's what science tells them is truth. One does not have to deny God to believe in science.

Answer 4

"NO serious scientist can be a creationist."

The sort of absolutist straw man a Creationist would depend on. No evolutionist would set themselves up for such an obvious knock-down. I could name over 100 serious "scientists" (these include engineers, mathematicians and medics, and even a few who have studied biology) who believe in Creationism. However, consider the weight of numbers. Scientists are a pretty discerning constituency. There are an awful lot more serious scientists who hold that evolution has the weight of evidence behind it. You can't legislate for a man's blindness to his faith and fear of death. Good physicist, though.

Answer 5

You wouldn't make it very far as a scientist if you think an untestable, unobservable, unprovable claim based on a supernatural explanation can be called science. Creationism fails just about every test that a topic needs to pass in order to be accepted by the scientific community. And creationism isn't something that you need to "try hard" to criticize, trust me.

Answer 6

Evolutionists are here to correct the christian falsehoods that are routinely promulgated.

Reputable scientists don't deny evolution. Anyone with any cognitive skills whatsoever does not deny evolution.

If creationism is "science", all you have to do is prove it. Provide a theory that explains the evidence. Parroting well-know gaps in evolutionary theory does NOT give a default answer of "goddditit".

Genesis does not match the available evidence, it contradicts the evidence.

Answer 7

They are here to: enlighten people, help others with ignorance and be the voice of reason. Thats what they will say. Really they are here to push their unbeliefs and then criticize those who believe. I see much more pushing of non belief than pushing of beliefs around here.

Really its alot of psychological problems, primarily validation and approval seeking, self hate and a lack of consciousness.

Blessings
David

Answer 8

To learn about opposing views.

Answer 9

Your good at putting words in other peoples mouths, I'll give you that much.

Answer 10

like after a "question" heading like that anyone would take you seriously. riiight.