Why is creationist science only found on websites?

Question

Why are creationists science only found on websites?
When an idea such as evolution or radioactive dating is brought forth, that hypothesis or idea is published in a scientifc journal subject to peer review--along with the supporting arguements,observations and data. Science not only encourages but almost demands other scientists to look at the work--look at the implications that perhaps even the author hadn't thought of--reproduce the data--and either confirm or invalidate the work. This peer review is done by submitting a paper to a scientific journal with the new data, new information etc. that would either confirm, expand, or refute the original idea. This new paper likewise is subject to the same scrutiny the original paper was. This ensures in the sciences that false ideas are soundly trounced, mis-information or poor research is thusly self correcting by science--it is an adversarial system to a point. Posting creationist ideas in a web site mean nothing--false hypothesis

Science is not out to get creationism--if it can be independently verified by the scientific community it would be the discovery of the century. It can't--the arguments are flawed--the objections relegated to web sites. Science is a search for truth whatever that truth may be--has more fundamental honesty to it than the hand waving arguments of the fundamentalists.

Answer 1

Don't waste your time on the ignorant people that buy into creation 'science'. They deny, deny, deny, and deny all facts that contradict their archaic beliefs. No amount of evidence will ever change their convictions. Just look at the first two ignorant answers. They're representative of the fundamentalist mindset and the horrid state of America's educational system and are the reason why I abhor religious indoctrination.




By the way, it's creation speculation. Not creation science.

Answer 2

Creationist Websites

Answer 3

Oh, good grief, this really is too crazy to waste much time on. But I'll just mention that the writer has a fantasy that 'survival of the fittest' means that each INDIVIDUAL has to be 'fit' (not that they understand what that means anyway) rather than the SPECIES. And the whole point about 'helpless babies' is that the species is developed to care for infants and the result is that much greater development can take place as the newborn does not have to be so pre-programmed - i.e. learning is a key part of the species' life. So the lunacy that babies should become LESS helpless in the course of evolution is a total misunderstanding of everything. For those who don't understand 'fittest', the simplest explanation is that it is the ones who are most fit for their ecological niche, i.e. whose attributes enable them to make best use of their environment in order to survive. Babies do that rather well in fact - the adults' impulse to feed and care and protect is elicited by the baby's cries and facial expressions and response. As for the stuff about theories and facts and laws - whether you accept Popper's version of the philosophy of science or something else, a theory is something that fits the known facts (the data) and is testable. A 'law' is something that has proved good over a long period of time without needing to be adapted, within its own particular sphere (some 'laws' are local eg work on Earth but don't apply in conditions of space). Evolution is not even the sort of thing that COULD be a law as it is a complex overarching theory including innumerable different things. These people are really psychologically incapacitated, I think.

Answer 4

Many times, I'll be watching NOVA, or reading an article, and I'll think to myself, how does this prove, or disprove what I've already learned. I feel that it expands my understanding of the universe and of God.

Then I see people regurgitating they have proof that God does, or does not exist, and yet the only basis for their argument is the book of Genesis. I just want to tell them all to shut up.

If you believe (like I do) in an eternal God, you must not limit God with your human perceptions (such as referring to God as him). And regardless whether or not you believe in God, take this information and integrate it with everything else you know, and stop with the baseless attacks everyone who is different.

Answer 5

creationists believe that outer space is full of water (genesis 1: 6-10) and that mushrooms are poisonous (genesis 1:29).

(lots of other nutty stuff too - but let's keep to page 1).

in a peer-review situation ALL of their beliefs would be subject to examination.

on a website they can focus on just the ones that aren't obviously stoopid.

Answer 6

They've learned from holocaust-deniers that any nonsense can get published unchallenged on the web, or moronic books by second rate publishing houses.

By the way, don't you just love when creationists cite the beliefs of Newton, who both lived (and died) well before Darwin and the advent of modern biology, as well as having great insight into some sciences (physics of motion) while little in others (he believed in alchemy). Kind of illustrates the intellectual dishonesty of creationists, no?

Answer 7

Because even printers choke if you try to print these ideas in a publishable format. The Internet is immunized against idiocy, or it would have broken down decades ago.

Answer 8

This is a very good question. It really shed light on these Charlatans.

Albert, learn how to spell before you tell somebody else to get an education.

Answer 9

What are you talking about? There is plenty of creationist info out there without needing to look on the internet.

Answer 10

Because the atheistic God-hating scientists that control the not-so-scientific scientific journals won't print the truth when a scientist comes along with evidence against evolution.

Evolution has been demonstrated to be a fraud over and over again!

Just look at the fiasco with the "piltdown man", alledgedly the missing link, but this unscientific evidence was actually PLANTED, only to be "discovered" later.

Too bad these overzealous fools didn't know anything about biology, or they would have known they had planted bones from different KINDS of animals, one of which was the tooth of a BOAR! A dead pig!

There's your science for you!

Even Dr. Flue had to renounce evolution because, as he stated in an interview, it would be intellectual suicide to continue believing in evolution with all the information we now have on such things as DNA, etc.

So don't pile up the garbage any higher by saying that there's all kinds of evidence for evolution. Much of it is fraudulent to begin with, and the rest just can not be proven scientifically!