Creationists, how has denying and ignoring science benefitted your lives?

Question

Please list examples.

Sparkles9, nice try but I am not narrowminded. If I was I might insist that I knew for certain there was a god and that I had a personal relationship with this god. lol

John_d_ayer, allow me to show you the irony I find in your answer. You said you are a creationist and use science everyday. Well we all use science everyday, however creationists by definition, deny parts of science that would lead them to no longer be creationists and intellectually honest at the same time. Here's the ironic part, you only answered my question half way.

Answer 1

The ONLY benefit is that it allows them to feel comfortable maintaining their delusion. If they acknowledged modern science, they would have a very difficult time rationalizing their delusion to themselves on a daily basis.

And that I can understand, I suppose. If you REALLY don't want to live in reality, that's really the only way to do it.

Answer 2

I'm a creationist but I'm also a bible researcher and when possible I like to try harmonizing science and religion.

I wrote an article about the Genesis account of creation several months ago but since the article as a whole doesn't pertain specifically to your question, I'm only going to copy and paste portions of it here. If my answer makes you curious about the whole article, you can read it by clicking on the link I provide as one of my references.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

"In the beginning" comes from the Hebrew word "reshiyth" meaning "first" and the word heaven comes from shamayim meaning "sky", so the first verse should read "First, God created the earth and sky."

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

In the first sentence, the translations for the words "was", "without form" and "void" are not completely accurate. The Hebrew meanings of these words are:

"was"
hayah meaning become or come to pass

"without form"
tohu meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface)

"void"
bohu meaning to be empty; a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin

In the second sentence, the "Spirit" of God comes from ruach meaning wind and "face" is from paniym meaning "surface.

There are a couple of ways to interpret this verse so I will give both translations.
1. The earth became desolate and empty, darkness was over the face of the deep. The wind of God moved over the surface of the waters.
2. It came to pass that the earth was laid waste and ruined, darkness was over the face of the deep. The wind of God moved over the surface of the waters.
As you can see, both versions say the same thing. We'll come back to this after looking at verse 3.

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

This verse is actually translated pretty accurately, at least close enough that nothing is really lost in the translation. The only reason I even mentioned this verse is because it's important to subject at hand.

Let's put all three verses together and see what the scriptures tell us. I will take the liberty to paraphrase:

First, God created the earth and sky. The earth became a wasteland, desolate, empty and ruined. Darkness covered the surface of the oceans. God caused a wind to blow over the waters allowing light to filter through.

The leading scientific theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs is a meteor impact in the Yucatan Peninsula:
"The shock wave from the impact would indeed have triggered massive earthquakes in the region and indirectly triggered other earthquakes around the globe. A tsunami would have formed from the impact, which occurred in a shallow sea. The giant waves would also have been generated by the earthquakes and undersea landslides triggered by the shock wave."
"The dust thrown up by the impact, the soot generated by the firestorms and the smog formed from the oxides of nitrogen and sulfur particles would have blocked sunlight for many months. The surface of the Earth would have plunged to freezing conditions -- typically 70 degrees Fahrenheit below normal -- and photosynthesis would not have been possible, even if plants had survived the fires and acid rain."

This scenario certainly fits the description of the wasteland as depicted in the Hebrew Scriptures. The earth would certainly have become desolate, empty of life and ruined. Darkness would have covered the earth. In Genesis 1:2, God caused a wind to blow that started ridding the planet of the soot and dust particles that caused the darkness giving the earth light once again as seen in Gen 1:3. Once there was light again, the rest of the new creation process could begin.

Billions of years ago, God created the earth and sky (the universe), it was populated with the plants and animals that we now see only as fossils. At some point the earth was destroyed in a great catastrophe, not only causing the extinction of plants and animals but also altering the topography of the earth. Somewhere around 6 to 10 thousand years ago (according to theologians) God "re-terraformed" the planet, created the new plants and animals and, of course, man.

As a creationist, I believe that if the Big Bang happened, that's the method God used to create the universe and evolution is part of God's design.

I just wanted to let you know that not all creationists deny or ignore science.

Answer 3

John D's answer is awesome. Creationism doesn't ignore science. What an interesting statement you've made, though, in your question. I assume you are implying the creation v. evolution issue. Both creationists and evolutionists have the same scientific data available. Both make predictions based on that data. Evolutionists love to argue that their theory is correct because they assume someone, somewhere, in one scientific discipline or another has stumbled upon the "proof" of evolution. But no one has yet. If you are an evolutionist and serious about exploring whether or not your theory is valid, check out the link below. Evolutionists believe by faith that proof for their theory will be found in the future. Creationists point to existing scientific data and say, well, that's what we've been saying all along.

As an example, I'll use the fossil record: Evolution tells us that all life evolved from a single-celled ancestor millenia ago. And from that one remote ancestor, all the variety of life eventually arose over the course of time. In his book, Darwin knew that his theory would be disproven if no transitional forms were found. He assumed, 150 years ago, that the fossil landscape would be littered with literally thousands of transitional forms. He also assumed that as we went back farther in time, it would become more and more difficult to distinguish between species and there would be less and less variety. That was his prediction based on evolutionary theory. Creationists, however, predicted that the fossil record would show no transitional forms, but all forms would be complete, fully functional, in great variety, and capable of multiplying after kind. Both creationists and evolutionists have had the same 150 years and the same fossils to examine. Which prediction has been more accurate? Well, to date, of all the fossils found, there have been NO transitional forms found. That's right...NONE. What else has been shown? That the variety of life in the fossil record is GREATER than what we have today, not less. And that all the forms found are complete, fully functional, and capable of multiplying after kind. Fish have always been fish. Birds have always been birds. People have always been people. This has been EXACTLY as Creationists, who have based their predictions upon God's Word, expected.

The fossil record certainly is not the only difficulty with evolution. Check out Dr. Parker's book if you are serious about wanting to know more. The sad truth is, evolutionists are the ones who have ignored science in order to hold onto a belief that is not supported by evidence. The sad truth is, that evolutionism and humanism have brainwashed so many of us, that we fail to see the glory of God all around us. But there is hope for us, for God so loves us that He sent His only son to die for us on the cross. I urge anyone reading this to repent and put your faith in Christ, who died so that you may yet live.

Answer 4

I am a creationist and I use science every day.

I am an engineer and I use practical science fact in my work constantly.

I generally do not listen to theories that explain how something is impossible, like Evolution explains Creation is impossible.

For example:

An engineer and a theorist were at a bar having a drink together and a beautiful woman came in.

The theorist said "she is beautiful" and the engineer started walking toward her. "Wait," said the theorist, "what are you doing?" "I am going over to talk to her," said the engineer.

"Nope," said the theorist, "You can't do it. You can go half way, and you can go half way and half way again. You can never get all the way there."

The engineer smiled and said, "I don't plan on going half way."

Answer 5

I do not ignore science, not at all. I take it a step further and believe there is One greater than myself. I believe no one will ever have all the answers to the beginning of time. There is no way in denying the there are benefits to science, there are many many many. . .but there are even more benefits to knowing God.

How does being some narrow minded benefit your life? Please list some examples. :)

Answer 6

Not many creationists ignore or deny science. But many people, not just creationsts, ignore theories that are not proven.

Answer 7

Its so nice. I never have my preconcieved notions bothered by anything as trivial as the facts. Using this logic I can now justify anything in my own mind and still believe I'm holy.

Answer 8

Where do you think the saying "Ignorance is bliss" came from?

Answer 9

LMFAO...
Less Questions, Less Thinking, Less Living
They'll all take their Rx Meds tho

Answer 10

You are asking them a HARD question!