Do you think that, given a fair chance, creationists would be able to prove that evolution is bunk and creationism is true?
I think that, even with bias, the system works well enough to ensure that anyone with good research will get published and have an influence. Creationism simply isn’t real science. That's why you don't see any real scientific articles that support creationism.
What do you think?
2007-12-01 05:05:45 · 14 answers · asked by Alex H 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
If so, what would be their motive for suppresing creationism?
2007-12-01 05:10:17 · update #1
I believe in God ,but also believe evolution is the method God uses to create. I also subscribe to the big bang theory. I think its ludicrous to suggest scientists are misrepresenting the facts.
2007-12-01 05:12:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Yes, there's a conspiracy against creationism. Just like there's a conspiracy against astrology, fortune telling, and other forms of stupidity.
See, scientists don't like people trying to declare things that aren't science, science. It's really that simple.
Creationism (in various guises) has been around for a long time, but has yet to produce a single testable claim. Until it does, creationism can't be considered science.
Propose a testable claim about creationism, have it pass a fully scientific test, and we'll applaud you as one of the all-time great scientific thinkers. It's just that easy.
2007-12-01 13:20:59 · answer #2 · answered by battleship potemkin AM 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
But this has already happened. Fact. Not what I think.
Creationists are not accepted into scientific doctoral programs.
Scientists that are creationists are removed from state universities.
Scientific papers from creationist, even though peer reviewed (favorably) by evolutionists, are refused publication in leading scientific journals.
And all creation scientists are black-listed by the leading scientific organizations.
In other words, there is a systematic effort to suppress the evidence for creationism.
Even scientists who accept macroevolution but not all of it are discriminated against. For example, look how Behe (biochemist) is treated. He accepts common descent, he accepts macroevolution. All he is questioning is that SOME early system just could not have come about incrementally but must have been intelligently designed. That's the problem : I.D. But this is where the evidence leads.
2007-12-01 13:32:35 · answer #3 · answered by flandargo 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Scientist aren't really scientist anymore. They only represent the establishment and work for the elites who just want all the money they can get. Anything you hear from scientist, like global warming is true, you can bet it's only to make money in some perverted way that has nothing to do with anyone's survival but theirs.
They're probably suppressing creationism to make everyone think that God doesn't exist and because humans evolved from animals without a soul, then it's alright that they and you act like animals and have no social responsibilities and no concern for others but for yourself. That's what they want you to think, because that's the way they are.
I personally think that God does exist and that humans and Everything has a Soul. However souls have to evolve consciousness and that requires the evolution of forms.
2007-12-01 13:31:32 · answer #4 · answered by Neomaxizoomedweebie 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think you must be on drugs. Have you ever read any newspapers? Christians are constantly putting out articles in defense of Creationism! One former atheist said, "It takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian."
Why did he say this? Because he realized what you haven't: evolution comes from the imagination of a dead man who admitted it was nothing more than a theory. Creationism is the only true scientific explanation. Evolution is a load of idiocy. Creationism has been proven again and again and again. But for some reason people like you fail to recognize this... Why do you think that is? Just like the former atheist said in the quote above: blind faith.
2007-12-01 13:13:30 · answer #5 · answered by Darkwing Duck 2 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I think that there is no way, even given unlimited resources, that scientists would be able to prove "creationism" is true. It by definition, is outside the realm of science.
Evolution is a fact get used to it. If you think otherwise, there is nothing preventing YOU from disproving it. Do so, and you'll win a Nobel Prize. I won't be holding my breath, though.
2007-12-01 13:13:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
There are indeed motives for suppressing creationism: firstly, it is bilge, as evolution is a proven fact; secondly, it has no predictive power so it is useless as well as wrong; thirdly, it is a pollution of logical thought, and logical thought is in short supply these days.
2007-12-01 13:16:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Creationism isn't a science. It's an explanation of how we got here. Evolution as stated is presently incomplete. At present, it violates the LAWS of Thermodynamics and Statistics. I would have no problem with evolution if it acknowledged its limitations.
2007-12-01 13:13:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
If there were evidence, they would fund research instead of filling "museums" with fictional entities like dinosaur saddles.
2007-12-01 16:45:22 · answer #9 · answered by novangelis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No
There is no science behind creationism.
Most Christians don't believe in it and Genesis does not support it.
2007-12-01 13:09:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋