Why don't creationists see that they have it backwards?

Question

The scientific method, which informs us on our understanding of evolution, works by following the evidence to a conclusion. It is much like putting together a puzzle in the correct order to see what picture it makes. Creationists on the other hand start with a conclusion and search for evidence that may support their claim. To repeat the puzzle analogy they first decide that the picture should end up as a cat in a box. They search through the puzzle pieces to find the ones that might make this picture and force them together to best effect a cat in a box.

Let's look at it another way. Suppose there are two detectives. One represents science, the other creationism. The "science" detective arrives on a bloody crime scene. After a thorough examination of the scene he finds a receipt for a knife. He follows this lead to the store and finds out that Phil Smith bought the knife.

He then interviews Phil and searches his apartment finding a knife that in later tests turns out to be both the knife bought at the store, and the murder weapon. Phil is then arrested and charged with murder.

Now what if the "Creationist" detective arrived on the same murder scene. This detective trusts his gut and he has a hunch that Ted Robertson is the murderer. He sets out to find and arrest Ted, and then returns to the scene to gather any evidence that would incriminate Ted, ignoring the evidence that does not. In this case, the real murderer, Phil, gets off scott free.

Which detective would you want on your local police force?

Answer 1

I consider myself a creationist but probably not in the way that you are using the term. I believe that God created the Universe/Earth. However, I do not believe the Universe/Earth is merely 6,000 years old, neither do I discredit the evolutionary theory in its entirety.

However, I do agree that many "creationist" or "creation science" followers do have it back words. I was reading a book recommended to me by a fellow Christian about the Grand Canyon. It was OBVIOUS by the the things they choose to example and the conclusions they made based on their observations (they were doing science in that manner) was directed by a bias. Which in turn negates science all together.

I would point out to you that "creationist" however are not the only one with the problem. Bias approaches to the scientific method and various observations/experiments/conclusions are on both sides of the table. May we do all that we possibly can to remove these bias and approach science objectively.

However, I admit to remove all presuppositions is virtually impossible.

Answer 2

perhaps you're forgetting, the scientific method was developed by creationists like Lord Bacon

a better analogy would be two detectives who look at the same data and start with different unproven assumptions

but detective work is probably a better description of historical origin investigations since the scientific method requires things be observable, repeatable and testable... not always the case with historical questions

a naturalist looks at the world bring to the examination of the data allot of hunches as well that he holds very strongly, often coloring the interpretation without realizing all the hidden assumptions she's making

Answer 3

thats a nice try but scientist do it "backwards" as you put it all the time too - it works both ways for scientists sometimes you follow a trail sometimes you have an end in sight and need to do experiments to see what happens to either prove your theory is true or not
all theories have an end before you learn the details of how to get to that end

as for the detectives - am I alone thinking that cops sometimes pick out a bad guy before they do any actual detective work or do the tv shows and movies make all that stuff up

Answer 4

A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.

Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.

“American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University.

Politics is also contributing to America's widespread confusion about evolution, the researchers say. Major political parties in the United States are more willing to make opposition to evolution a prominent part of their campaigns to garner conservative votes—something that does not happen in Europe or Japan.

Miller says that it makes about as much sense for politicians to oppose evolution in their campaigns as it is for them to advocate that the Earth is flat and promise to pass legislation saying so if elected to office.

"You can pass any law you want but it won't change the shape of the Earth," Miller told LiveScience.

The researchers also single out the poor grasp of biological concepts, especially genetics, by American adults as an important contributor to the country's low confidence in evolution.

“The more you understand about genetics, the more you understand about the unity of life and the relationship humans have to other forms of life,” Miller said.

Answer 5

You watch any movie or documentery on evolution and I garrenty that you'll hear a bunch of "We believe, it's possible, sientists believe, it's thought that." You tell me if there really going by facts and "puzzle pieces" that "fit" together. Creationists start with the Bible, and then attempt to prove it. There doing a very goodd job at that too.

Answer 6

"Creationists on the other hand start with a conclusion and search for evidence that may support their claim."

Are you kidding me?!?! That is EXACTLY what secular scientists do...I am not even going to go there with you.

The scientific method is great, I just wish that you guys would stop trying to stretch the truth of microevolution and then say that it is direct evidence of macroevolution. Anyways, this conversation could go on forever, but it is obvious by your post that you are far beyond the point of considering anything other than the "truths" you so adamantly defend. My God has proven himself; Dawkins, on the other hand, is an arrogant fool, and I am sure, your personal hero.

Answer 7

The answer to your question is because said creationist Faiths are taught to children in the form of Facts and Truth.

Answer 8

Very amusing. Yes, we base evolution on the same beliefs and practices that EVERYONE else uses to solve problems in the world...

Here's an ultra-simplified view:
Everyone has to eat and no one can walk through walls, therefore science is true knowledge of the world. (I SAID it was the ultra-simplified version) therefore evolution is true!

Answer 9

I do not think creation is a theory. I believe it is real even as I believe God is real. Have you taken the time to review it? Since you ask us to

Answer 10

Excellent analogy, especially the murder detective. Unfortunately, it will be wasted upon the ID-iots (patriot IDers...)