Why do scientists try so hard to avoid other views of creation?

Question

Thanks to all who have responded so far. Let me clarify a little bit. I'm not looking for a creation vs. evolution answer. Some points of evolution are hard to disprove with science and, let's face it, the bible isn't exactly an instruction manual for how to build a universe. It just seems to me that the bulk of science is so dead set against ignoring any other view that they won't even dare to ask the basic question of where did it all come from?

Answer 1

About 30% of all scientists is still religious, if they had any clue where and how to look for a god, they would. If they'd find one, they'd be more than happy to share it with you. The fact that this hasn't happened yet.
The problem lies in the creationists claims. First of all, what kind of creationism would you like. There are many versions, all contradicting each other in the first place.Furthermore, these creationists only try find blank spots and leaks in the theory of evolution, but never try to prove creationism itself. As if a flaw in the theory of evolution would prove creationism, which is not the case. More important is they are not founded on any scientific bases. They even contradict anything that's been found out so far by science. The only branch in creationism that is really looking into science is ID, but their problem is they only fill in the blank spots in evolution with a creator they have no clue about themselves, except for what hey believe to be true from the bible.

Answer 2

As a scientist, but in a different field, we know certain ideas do not work because they have been so repeatedly shown not to work that repeating past mistakes is pointless. In fact, many elements of my own field will not work if evolution is false. The difference is that spontaneous speciation, or macroevolution, has been observed about a hundred times in the field and in laboratory controlled circumstances. Many medicines that do exist could not under creation explanations. You can touch evolution and see it happen. Creation has no empirical support.

For example, we are reasonably sure Angels do not push the planets around and that gravitation is a sufficient explanation. We cannot, in the strictest sense, disprove it; although if you admit limit theory and an idea similar to a weakly perfect Bayesian equilibrium you can in fact disprove it and disprove creation too. There is no point in investigating the Angel theory further, people have long since shown it is a poor explanation. Likewise, it has long since been shown that creation is a very poor explanation.

Answer 3

Johnny Zondo has a good point. By definition, a scientist is supposed to analyze things scientifically, and there is no scientific evidence that of necessity *leads* scientists to the biblical account of creation.

As a Christian, I accept the biblical story of creation to a large extent (4th day creation of the sun is the only sticking point I have). As a scientist, I am not very accepting of any *other* theories which lack scientific basis.

The interesting thing about the Bible account is that it agrees almost entirely with modern scientific theories except for 1) earth created before sun and stars 2) 4th-day creation of sun 3) time scale. If you assume (as I do) that Moses was unable to comprehend billions of years and was instead recording "ages" as days, I feel that the primary scientific *objection* to Bible creation is removed. If you assume (as I do) that Moses could not comprehend any type of existence without the earth, the other differences are also explained.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 4

Which creation do refer to? There is a plethora of creation stories. The native North Americans have a creation story and the Mayans and the Aztecs have creation stories too. What about the Egyptians and their story about how everything was made. Personally I dismiss all of them including the bible myth as well.

Answer 5

Science is dead set against superstition and fantasy, yes you are quite correct. It is not an option for anyone with a reasonable, rational mind. Creationism is not an 'other view' it is biblical rubbish which has no place in science.

Answer 6

You understand, while I seem by way of that supply record, I'm seeing plenty of philosophers, scientists, and Jewish writers....and one very, very liberal bishop from an more and more liberal denomination. What I do not see is plenty of persons that experience faithful plenty in their time to learning and know-how Scripture. Paul used to be some of the first theologians of the Christian church, and lots of of his letters are addressing targeted disorders inside regional groups of religion. In none of his letters does Paul particularly lay out the gospel message, however as a substitute, the results of the message that he preached to that neighborhood. Now, one exception might be the letter to the Romans. Paul had not ever been to Rome, and what you uncover in Romans is Paul's theology, Paul's know-how of the results of Christ - no longer the gospel message itself. And Paul does allude to the lessons of Jesus in a number of locations. He might not be straight quoting the phrases discovered within the gospels, however he's definitely good versed in Jesus' instructing. So, to reply your query, I might say that almost all Christians do NOT accept as true with the above statements.

Answer 7

Not true.

How do you go about testing a hypothesis concerning creationism? You cant. So, science avoids it, because it is untestable and nothing more than fanciful dreams.

We have a fossil record for horses that clearly shows their descent (or ascent, depending upon viewpoints) from ancient sources. Should science ignore that evidence and instead concentrate on trying to prove that God made horses exactly as we find them today?

Answer 8

How is there more than one view of Creation? Either God did it or it happened itself. The rest is a matter of faith.

Origin of species is religion. There is nothing scientific about it. It cannot be tested, it cannot be observed, it cannot be repeated, we cannot find concrete evedence of any "form of Creation" Therefore, science has no choice but to avoid it.

Can science determine what color paint would look better in my bathroom, or wether jiffy or jewel beanut butter will taste better? Hardly! Do not mix science with an opinion.

Answer 9

ID was submitted to the scientific community and rejected from cursory examinations. In fact FSM hit more of the requirements. Since it was rejected the only option was to engage in a propaganda war on the internet.

Answer 10

Don't be so general, what scientist? About what questions? Most scientist do not avoid anything...they like to get to the bottom of questions and like the work involved in finding answers