Has a "creationist scientist" ever produced any SCIENTIFIC evidence?

Answer 1

The lack of evidence is the only evidence.

Answer 2

Yes, there have been several quite reliable creationist scientists, but the scientific evidence they have produced has been in topics other than creation. For example, a creationist hydrologist could do quite good work on river systems, etc. Creationism in itself is not a scientific theory, so nothing scientific can be done with it. The best they can do is to challenge evolutionary theories to prove them wrong, but that isn't the same as proposing original scientific theories.

Answer 3

Creation scientists have made observations of known evidence and proposed alternate theories which contradict the mainstream ones. Usually they are based on dubious conclusions, or "shaky" science. They also take gaps in evolution theory and submit them as proof of the implausibility of evolution, which is just plain ridiculous.

The key is to recognize that all science is based upon consensual agreement. A theory can be sound, based upon good, solid evidence, but if it gets little peer acceptance, it may never enter into the collective body of scientific knowledge. At the same time, controversial theories are sometimes accepted as "fact" by the mainstream, but are later shown to be incorrect (although this happens less and less nowadays.) For the most part, the foundations of the main branches of science (Chemistry, Biology, Physics) are considered beyond question. Nobody really debates Newtonian physics, since it's quite easy to test Newton's theories at any given time.

More troubling is that strongly supported theories with good evidence are often rejected by the public because they are unpalatable, and nonsense beliefs (old wives's tales) linger despite volumes of evidence to the contrary. (Too) many people are still convinced that going outside in cold, damp weather will make you sick!

Evolution is one of those unpalatable theories because it stabs at the heart of a belief that many people base their entire lives upon - the existence of god. That doesn't alter the fact that evolution is a scientifically sound, well supported and agreed upon theory.

In the vast majority of cases, the only scientists that agree with creation science are other creationist scientists. They represent a very small minority, whose scientific degrees are usually in areas like mathematics, psychology, meteorology, linguistics, etc.

I doubt you'll find too many creationists in the fields of palaeontology, astronomy, biology, geology, anthropology, or archeology, because all those fields deal with prehistory, which there shouldn't be any evidence of if the earth was created in the manner the creationists propose.

Answer 4

No. Creationist science is not science in the way that natural selection or physics is a science. For any theory or proposition to be considered scientific it must be

- Emprirically testable
- Based upon controlled and repeatable experimentation
- Parsimonious, i.e limited in assumptions
- Must be correctable i.e. must adapt as new evidence becomes available

The problem with creation science:

1. It is not testable. It assumes the existence of a supernatural deity, which by definition is beyond the means of natural emprical testing.

2. It is not correctable: CS assumes an absolute truth, the inerrancy of the Christian Scriptures

3. It is not parsimonious:CS proposed more complex explanations for natural phenomena than other theories.

It has not produced any evidence because it has not performed controlled experiments. Compare this to natural selection, which has been shown in laboratories with fruit flies and observed in the field.

The US Academy of Sciences has ruled the CS is nothing more than religion in disguise. Various court rulings have struck down attempts to teach it in public schools.

On a personal note: As a Christian myself, I am deeply saddened that fellow Christians have attempted to explain natural phenomena by a literal interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is a great guide for spiritual and emotional sustenance but it is not a blueprint for the creation of the natural world. Let's leave to science only what science can do and leave to personal faith what faith does best.

Answer 5

No.

In fact, the current batch of "Creationist Scientists" don't to any testing, experiments, or serious research at all. They just spend a great deal of time trying to rewrite their political press releases, going on loud and long about arguements from incredulity, and working to obfuscate the First Amendment. As of this date, they have produced no new data, new arguments, and no evidence whatsoever.

Answer 6

The creationists were all the time try to discredit evolution based on the fact that fossils for transitional species did not exist(though the theory said they should and would eventually be found)

Lucky for us, they were found less than a yr ago. And the only potential hole in evolution was plugged. Yippi

Answer 7

Oxymoron, Contradiction in terms

The scientific method requires an open mind, searching for the truth, not for preconceived truths

Hence, a creation scientist is no scientist at all because they are not open explanations that don't align with their world view

Answer 8

it is kind of silly to make attempts at fitting something transcendent into the newtonian paradigm.

There is an emerging paradigm of science whch is open to including the subjective nature of observation as a fundamental variable and component in scientific investigation though...and perhaps in time we may be able to quantify experiential reality according to some absolute...in which case it might be considered scientific evidence THEN...though the limitations of the current scientific paradigm would reject it as being scientific NOW.

-Rob

Answer 9

There is a lot of evidence they call coincidence. But only a few people know for certain, the same as knowing there are spirits and ghosts, mainly being regarded as schizophrenics. This is the way it is supposed to be. Ask Joan of Ark.

Answer 10

Has an evolutionist scientist ever produced any scientific evidence that wasn't a lie? How many frauds have we gone through by now? Environmental changes are not evolution. Animals produce after their kind. If they produce a dog with only 3 legs for example, they will let it die. Animals don't tolerate weakness and to strengthen the species you get a stronger father or mother to make the species better. Most small species will refuse to breed with larger species. I've been around dogs all of my life.

Answer 11

properly, permit's see... Evolution works by potential of path and mistake, 'admitting' failure by potential of letting persons devoid of required effective mutation or those with a improper one to die off and/or fail to reproduce. Creationists, in the event that they are to be coherent, would deny themselves a potential to be taught from their mistake. So i assume catching up on their incoherence is probable previous the psychological potential of maximum creationists. by potential of addressing their question to atheists, on the extreme opposite variety of their very own perception as much as now as fundamentalism and literal (and relatively stubbornly constrained) interpretation of the bible; they greater or much less sense empowered to take on the unmovable merchandise with their 'impossible to stand as much as' stress; different than that they are merely like 15 year old young ones leaping in the hoop against Georges St-Pierre... So... no. they gained't be taught. in any different case they'd have already got understood some issues.