Are Creationist scientist really scientists?

Question

They don't really seem to have created a very good theory. They just seem to try and poke holes at evolution without providing evidence for an alternative theory. In fact they don't even have an alternative theory. What do you think?

Answer 1

Nope. Scientists seek to prove or disprove a theory (a scientific theory is different from what we regularly think of as theories). Creationists are sure that what they think is right, and are therefore not scientists.

Answer 2

It all depends on how one defines creationism... A lot of "high profile" creationist scientists don't mean it against scientific evidence, otherwise they are biased and should be dismissed nowadays (the same way science has historically been driven by dogmas and beliefs ever since it became an issue. ie the earth is not a hemisphere, and more recently AIDS is not caused by HIV and so many more). But when it comes to the very beginning of matter (ie BIG BANG....) neither scientists or creationists have a clue of Why and exactly How it happened! So in terms of theories, before,... WE DON'T KNOW. After that It might be all about evolution of an ORDERED world following physical, chemical and biological rules that may have nothing to do with creationism unless you see the potential "god" as a clock minder (see Voltaire and much later Nietzsche in philosophy terms)

Answer 3

They have no claim to science at all, though some have genuine scientific qualifications.

There have been several exposures of their complete lack of scientific method, elementary fact checking and ethics. These exposures include -

The bombardier beetle where a word was "accidentally" mistranslated from the German. German "instabil" was rendered as "explosive" by "creation scientists" when the real meaning is, not surprisingly, "unstable".

The teriyaki sauce soaked, microwaved cooked piece of Noah's Ark that was actually from a pine exclusive to North Americas. This became the basis of a 1993 TV program. George Jammal who supplied the wood with a letter recounting how he found it, had videotaped himself faking the wood. The hoax was exposed soon after broadcast.

The Paluxy "human footprints" which must have been made by a 12 foot human of varying foot shape and stride length.

The ancient "paper" supposedly found in coal near Newcastle Australia. This was mailed to an Australian "creation science" group and was duly published as disproof of the scientifically accepted age of the Earth etc. When someone hinted that it was not paper but a fibrous mineral called palygorskite, they withdrew the earlier publication and said it was actually palygorskite. In fact it was not paper or palygorskite but another mineral called attapulgite. The "creation scientists" included a man with a geology PhD. He did not write the article in the creationist publication.

You can search most of these stories as they are on the net.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax/sun.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle

A number of creations scientists have been exposed as continuing to publish incorrect material years after they had been forced to publicly admit that it contained errors. Others have been exposed as habitual liars.

In addition the financial affairs of at least one group have been dubious.

chas asks why evolutionist are afraid to debate creationists. It is because creationists will not stick to the point. It is because explaining all the creationist misconceptions and straight out lies would take more than the time allowed. It is because creationists do not answer evolutionist points but engage in lengthy statements full of logical errors, misconceptions and lies. It is because creationists bus in supporters. It is because creationists threaten and sometimes use personal violence on those who ask awkward questions.

I wonder if Dr. Duane Gish is keen on debating Prof. Ian Plimer again. Plimer went for him with both boots on and them put them in when Gish was down. I urge you to read the second of these links at least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html

Plimer was unapologetic. Dr. Gish has not returned to Australia.

I regard creationism, creation science and intelligent design as the characteristics of a cult at best and a criminal enterprise at worst.

Answer 4

I believe that creationist scientists are a disgrace to the profession and to the human race. To accept the creation 'theory' is to disregard much, if not all, rational and scientific thinking.
Scientists are on a quest for knowledge and to base their world theory on an illogical and irrational lot of ****-gravy is totally unacceptable.

Answer 5

No.

Nobody in the scientific fields takes the creation scientist theories seriously because they rely on faith and miracles.

Scientists use logic, evidence, and reason as the basis for their theories.

Answer 6

They are what is known as 'Pseudoscientists'

Creationist's are more focused on theology than anything else and picking holes in other peoples ideas that have grounds rather than studying the subject with the foundation of any real science.

Answer 7

By the usual use of the word "scientist" creation scientists are not scientists. They have not made observations, have not proposed a hypothesis, have not thought of and run an experiment that can prove or disprove their hypothesis. So, if they are not using the scientific method they are not scientists.

This does not mean they are not sincere.

And being sincere does not mean they are not knuckleheads.

I personally suspect most of them are being willfully stupid for ulterior motives, usually for raising money, from people who are belligerently ignorant.

Answer 8

No they are not. If your only argument with something is that it doesn't tally with your religious texts, you can't be called a scientist in any meaningful sense. And don't get me started on the Intelligent Design brigade. I find it quite sinister that either lot are allowed into teaching as well as research institutes.

Answer 9

Not by any reasonable definition of 'scientist'. Perhaps 'creation philosophers' would be a more accurate term.
edit - I see Shoeless Joe beat me to it.

Answer 10

Many of the best scientists of all time were creationists!
Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, Pascal, Kepler, Kelvin, Boyle, Pasteur, Mendel, Babbage, etc.

The lack of understanding of science displayed above is very sad.

Creationists have a very good theory - you should check it out.
You are right that they poke holes in evolutionary ideas - that is very easy to do since evolution is easily refuted
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/

All scientists have exactly the same evidence.
All science relies on assumptions. When it comes to the question of origins these assumptions are all-important.
Noone knows what happenned in the past, since noone was there to observe it. Origins science is not subject to the scientific method of observation, test, repeat, etc.
Much info on nature of science here
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3033/

In fact Creationists are very open about the fact that they have assumptions and they are biased. Unfortunately many evolutionists refuse to acknowledge that they are biased at all. A common approach of the secular humanist is to deny the possibility of creation a priori - that is not scientific!

A good scientist should acknowledge their assumptions and be open to other points of view.

One has to wonder, if evolutionsts are so sure of their evolutionary hypothesis, then why are they so afraid to debate creationists?

Here's an example of assumptions at work. An evolutionist dates a fossil by the sedimentary rock it is found in. The rock is dated on the basis of uniformitarian assumptions which assume rocks were laid down very slowly. In fact rocks are also dated based on the fossils found in them - circular reasoning!

A creationists assumes that the sedimentary rocks were laid down quickly during the global flood.

What is the evidence we share:
Sedimentary rocks were laid down by water - everyone agrees.
Sedimentary rocks cover most of the world
Sedimentary rocks are full of billions of dead creatures which were clearly buried very quickly.
Much sedimentary rock shows evidence of youth - fossils contain carbon 14. Coal contains carbon 14.
Sedimentary rock shows evidence of rapid formation - tightly folded strata, polystrate fossils, etc.
We also have dozens of global flood accounts from nations all over the world.
We also have the Bible which claims to contain an eye-witness account by Noah who witnessed it.
Even if you don't accept the authority of the Bible, it is bizarrely unscientific not to take into account potential eye-witness accounts. Do you think forensic scientists ignore human testimony in trying to recreate past events? Of course not!

Given the evidence, the creationist position is, I believe, a much more reasonable explanation. Most people are not even aware of much of the evidence, since evolutionists are very quiet about the things that are hard for them to explain.

The reason for ignoring the creationist position is not scientific - it is religious.

Much more info on Geology here:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3007/