How is it possible to be a "creationist scientist"?

Question

Isn't the supposition of creationism outside of the scope of science?

luvdalz68: Yeah, "The Evolution Cruncher" is pretty mind-blowing insomuch that it is a collection of gross misrepresentations, skewed logic, and out-and-out lies.

http://pooflingers.blogspot.com/2005/11/crunch-squared-archives.html

Questioner: Thanks for the article, I really tried, but when I read : "Evolutionists reject recorded history, and have effectively made up their own pseudo-history, which they use as a starting point for interpreting evidence," I just couldn't go any further.

Answer 1

I am not a "Scientologist," but I am a scientific kind of guy that totally believes in Creation. I'm actually working on a way to combat the school board when I start teaching high school biology when they tell me I can't teach Creation as a valid theory.

I believe that God created His creatures to be able to adapt as the world developed. I don't think man spawned from monkeys. We were created the way we were and have grown over the years. It seems a bit irresponsible to think that with all of the complexities of existence that we were merely some cosmic accident. Some intelligent design is definitely involved. It makes sense that God, being a bit of a tinkerer, would do what He did to inspire us to learn.

An exerpt from Isaiah 1:18 - ""Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD."

This was in regards to sin, but God is obviously a thinker and wants us to be as well. It makes sense to me that we were created and we were expected to try to figure out why and how.

Faith does NOT require us to believe without questioning. How could one believe without knowing why?! I'm sorry, I'm not about to risk my eternal soul on an ideology simply because it seems like a good idea and I get free wine and crackers on Sunday.

Answer 2

No, it isn't. Creationism uses the exact same scientific facts that evolutionists use, they just have a different interpretation of those facts. The problem is that evolutionists want you to believe that their interpretation is also part of the fact, which it isn't.
For example, two people can look at the same thing and come away with two different explanations of how it got there. Take the Grand Canyon. A creationist and an evolutionist are looking at it and the evolutionist says, "Wow, look what the Colorado River did over millions of years!" and the creationist says, "Wow, look what the Flood did in about 1/2 hour!"
Today, we have a natural laboratory in Mt. St. Helens in Washington. The canyons created by the volcano mimic the formations in the Grand Canyon. It is obvious that it doesn't take "millions of years" for a canyon like that to form. The canyon started out as soft sediment, and then the humongous Lake Bonneville burst through the Kaibab uplift, tearing through miles of sediment, leaving what we see today. The layering is caused by hydrologic sorting from the Flood, not "millions of years" of soil buildup - especially since there's no erosion marks between the layers. One would think that if evolution were true, that you could find all animals from the geologic column there, but the truth is the GC only contains about 3 layers out of 20 that fit the geologic column, and evolutionists don't date rocks according to what layer they are in, but according to what fossils they contain. Then they date the fossils according to what rocks they are in, which is circular reasoning.
For a really good read, you should try reading "The Evolution Cruncher" by Vance Ferrell. It will blow your mind.

Answer 3

I believe that the supposition of creationism is outside the scope of modern science, but "science" is a pretty big tent. There are people who study areas of science that have nothing to do the beginnings of the universe. They are still scientists. Aren't they?

Answer 4

It depends on your point of view.

If you are of the opinion that the Creation theory is truth, then you can believe someone is a "creationist scientist".

If you have any real understanding of scientific method then the words "Creationist" and Scientist" would be mutually exclusive and would view the term Creationist Scientist as basically a marketing term or spin that would not be respected by the general scientific community.

Its kind of like saying you are a "Jew for Jesus".

Answer 5

I don't think so. Fascinatingly, the Creation Week is virtually identical to what we call the "scientific theory" of how all this happened. First was a lifeless rock. Then plants. Then sea animals, and then land animals. Lastly, humans. I mean, it's frigg'n incredible, the mirror!

Answer 6

It is...an I am...a scientist who believes in Creationism. Despite the opinions of those who know very little about Science, Creationism and Evolution may think...it's very possible.

What is the definition of "science?"

1a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. 2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study


Both THEORIES only take you to a certain point...and then it's all faith from there.

Answer 7

Only a creationist can be a true scientist since he does not try to prove creation by misusing science like the evolutionists do.

Unprovable wishful thinking does not qualify as science.

Answer 8

Science requires a person to have questions.

Faith requires a person to believe *without* questions, and Creationism is a religious position.

The two positions are mutually exclusive.

Answer 9

It's something the religious person created because they saw the logic of science, and therefore had to make a way to combine the two so that their belief could still stand. It's just a way of creating evidence where there is none. If you look for something hard enough, you'll find it.

Answer 10

Only if you're willing to accept a paradox and be in denial...

Hard creationism has no science behind it at all. But it is possible to be a scientist and belive that evolution was guided.