See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Creationists: can they be scientists? You bet!
Source:
Answers In Genesis
URL Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part9.asp
Published: Feb 11, 2006
Author: Pam S. Sheppard
Post Date: 2006-02-11 17:02:42 by A K A Stone
Keywords: Creationists:, scientists?, they
Views: 1928
Comments: 382
As an astrophysicist, Dr. Jason Lisle (author of chapters 5, 6, and 10 of War of the Worldviews) knows that a belief in molecules-to-man evolution is not needed to understand how planets orbit the sun or how telescopes operate. While some evolutionists are spreading the false idea that creationists can’t be real scientists, Lisle is busy doing real science. In fact, he (along with hundreds of other scientists) knows that science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Dr. David Menton, cell biologist and popular AiG speaker and writer, has often said that although it is widely believed, “evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.” As Lisle points out in this chapter, even the rise of technology is not due to a belief in evolution. He writes, “Computers, cellular phones and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics, which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible.” So, why are there such differences between evolutionary scientists and creation scientists if both groups have the same evidence? Lisle addresses these differing conclusions by explaining that each group starts with different assumptions when interpreting evidence. Creationists and evolutionists have a different view of history, but the way they do science in the present is the same. Lisle writes that both creationists and evolutionists use observation and experimentation to draw conclusions about nature. Since observational scientific theories are capable of being tested in the present, creationists and evolutionists generally agree on these models. For instance, they agree on the nature of gravity, the composition of stars, the speed of light in a vacuum, the size of the solar system, etc. On the other hand, historical events cannot be checked scientifically in the present. We don’t have access to the past. As Lisle points out, we can make educated guesses about the past and can make inferences from fossils and rocks, but we cannot directly test our conclusions because past events cannot be repeated. With evolutionists and creationists having such different views of history, is it any wonder that each group arrives at such varying interpretations? Biblical creationists accept the recorded history of the Bible as their starting point while evolutionists reject this recorded history and have made up their own pseudo-history from which to interpret evidence, Lisle explains. The fact that there are scientists who believe in biblical creation is nothing new. In this chapter, Lisle discusses several “real” scientists who believe in the Genesis account of creation, including Isaac Newton (1642–1727), who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, and computed the nature of planetary orbits, among other things. Today, there are many Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and believe that God created in six days, a few thousand years ago, as recorded in Scripture. As Lisle points out, his Ph.D. research (which was completed at a secular university) was not hindered by the conviction that the early chapters of Genesis are literally true. In fact, it’s just the reverse, he writes. “It is because a logical God created and ordered the universe that I, and other creationists, expect to be able to understand aspects of that universe through logic, careful observation and experimentation,” Lisle explains. Lisle concludes the chapter by posing the question, “Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver?” “If our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by God, as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature. Science is possible because the Bible is true,” says Lisle.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-188) not displayed.
.
.
.
#189. To: Feynman Lives! (#183)
By contrast, you HAVE provided MANY substantive points to support MINE. See what I mean about gross and radical mischaracterization?
Phaedrus, YOU are the one engaging in sophistry, my friend. You don't have anything of value to contribute to the debate, so you simply resort to 5th grade retorts. Most impressive. I suppose next you will go with the "I'm rubber, you're glue" approach?
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
See what I mean about gross and radical mischaracterization? Phaedrus, That was not a gross and radical mischaracterization, it was a statement of FACT. You have provided AMPLE evidence that supports MY position and no substantive evidence to support yours. That is a fact, not a gross nor radical mischaracterization.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
Dogs are like kind. God created them. Just variation in species. Nothing new. If we came from monkeys. Does that mean it would be ok to have sex with them? Do monkeys turn you on?
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
Richard. You can wallow in the thought that your ancestors sprang up from some primordial soup, or once swung unshaven from a tree, as for me I’ll chose the Garden of Eden route. That thought makes me comfy :)
A K A Stone, Sorry, but once again you are mistaken. Dogs and wolves are completely different species, they are not "Variations in species." The rest of your post is just nonsense... (much like most of what I have seen you post)
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
Jethro, Actually, the name's Monty, even though I am a huge fan of Dr. Richard Feynman. Hey, you are free to believe whatever you will about how you came to be, I am quite fine with that. Glad it makes you feel comfy.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
Okay let them throw this in for sport.. what about genetic racial differences?
LOL... this should be interesting....
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
hehehehehehehe (g)
Arent we just one big family.. all part of the human race?
Yes, I already saw the picture of Monty Rock, Zip posted it awhile ago.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
LOL... I think we are losin' dat race...
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
As long as it's not Monty as in Full.. or Monty Rock .. :P
True!.. Okay then explain the racial differences.. are they due to evolution or are the differences just nonexistent?
I think a full Monty is in order. Guys...????
Zip, They are examples of evolution, yes. Remember, evolution does not necessarily mean you will have a completely new species. Like with dogs, for example, you get new BREEDS first, not species. Same goes with humans, you get new RACES first. That is what we have now. It is a long process.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
Averts his eyes... (think happy thougts, it will be over soon...) LOL
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
That is what we have now. It is a long process. First? On that I dont know if I agree.. do you believe that there are differences that are measurable ?
I dunno JT.. this could get ugly :P
That's adaptation. The definition of evolution is entirely different.
Mr Rumsfeld said the emergence of populist leaders through elections in Latin America was "worrisome".
You think ??
Zip, Sure... that is easy. The differences in the races is all you need to look at. The longer eyelids of the asians, the darker skin of the africans, these are easy examples of evolution as the different races passed on different genetic mutations across their populations.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
Robin, Adaptation IS evolution. What is YOUR definition of evolution?
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
Sure... that is easy. The differences in the races is all you need to look at. The longer eyelids of the asians, the darker skin of the africans, these are easy examples of evolution as the different races passed on different genetic mutations across their populations. Mutations .. or something else? Some say there are no differences..
Zip, Evolution IS mutation of a given species.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
Evolution IS mutation of a given species. I'm not disputing that.. That would be saying that genes were mutated.. rather than family groups that migrated to different areas and reproduced .. groups that had certain genetic traits.. some reproducing and reinforcing so to speak, recessive genes others 'reinforcing' dominate genes.
But how do you account for homosexuality in the evolutionary scheme? It seems that something that has such a huge reproductive hit should breed out of the poplation within a few hundred generations.
Which is precisely what happens with evolution, Zip.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
Can I reconsider my position? I recognize this couple as former neighbors.
Well not exactly.. but depends of course on what one means when they use the term.. Genetic differences based on mutuations or differences based upon recessives and dominate genes which were in the DNA without mutating.
Homosexuality is natural, Trace. It has been documented in nearly every mammallian species. Most mammals that engage in homosexual behavior also engage in hetrosexual behavior, so the species is not impacted nearly as seriously as you might think. It's just sex. Man is not the only mammal to have sex for pleasure.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
I think I'm going through a crisis of faith that started when I was about two. I hope it's not also a mid-life crisis, that doesn't bode well at with my being +40 anyway. I sometimes wish I believed in some sort of all-powerful deity, it would make wrasslin with humanity much easier, but I just dont. It wasn't a conscious decision, I didn't sit down and think "do I want to believe in God?", writye down a list of pros and cons all Brady-bunch style, read books I didn't want to read, none of that. It just doesn't make sense that a power-hungry, all controlling type deity would create such a nasty race as us humans. I cant reconcile the two, sorry. I hate that vapid Hollyweird types have stumbled upon the phrase "I'm not religious, but I am spritual", because that truly desrcribes where I'm at. There is a life force, shared by all of us, even chipmunks. Be good and you'll feel love, and being good doesn't require a bunch of stupid rules about which bracelet to wear during the fucking eclipse or anything, dig? Try to help, I think that's my religion, just try to help, to make things better. Try to help and make things better and always buy Dakmar brand snack cakes. See, that's where I screw up every time, back to the drawingboard...
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
you can reposition your consider. :P
OK.
Evolution - any change in a population's allele frequencies over time Pretty simple, isn't it? It's hard to believe all the fuss that's been caused over such a simple concept.
"There are 10 the 11th power stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." Richard Feynman
And since we're on the topic..
http://www.qaiser.net/88/resource/001%20TDS%20man-turtle.jpg
Where do these Box Turtle freaks come from and how can we make them join our band on electric bass?
We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. - W
Comments (230 - 382) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYou have YET to provide substantive points to support YOUR case.
#190. To: Phaedrus (#186)
Is that the very BEST you can do?
#191. To: Phaedrus (#189)
You have YET to provide substantive points to support YOUR case. By contrast, you HAVE provided MANY substantive points to support MINE.
#192. To: Feynman Lives! (#187)
Yes, there is direct evidence that dogs evolved from wolves.
#193. To: Feynman Lives! (#191)
#194. To: A K A Stone (#192)
Dogs are like kind. God created them. Just variation in species. Nothing new. If we came from monkeys. Does that mean it would be ok to have sex with them? Do monkeys turn you on?
#195. To: Jethro Tull (#193)
#196. To: Feynman Lives! (#194)
#197. To: Zipporah (#196)
Okay let them throw this in for sport.. what about genetic racial differences?
#198. To: Feynman Lives! (#195)
Monty
#199. To: Feynman Lives! (#197)
#200. To: Jethro Tull (#198)
hehehehehehehe (g)
#201. To: Zipporah (#199)
Arent we just one big family.. all part of the human race?
#202. To: Jethro Tull (#198)
#203. To: Feynman Lives! (#201)
LOL... I think we are losin' dat race...
#204. To: Zipporah (#202)
#205. To: Zipporah (#203)
True!.. Okay then explain the racial differences.. are they due to evolution or are the differences just nonexistent?
#206. To: Jethro Tull (#204)
I think a full Monty is in order. Guys...????
#207. To: Feynman Lives! (#205)
They are examples of evolution, yes. Remember, evolution does not necessarily mean you will have a completely new species. Like with dogs, for example, you get new BREEDS first, not species. Same goes with humans, you get new RACES first.
#208. To: Jethro Tull (#204)
I think a full Monty is in order. Guys...????
#209. To: Zipporah, Feynman Lives! (#207)
#210. To: robin (#209)
That's adaptation. The definition of evolution is entirely different.
#211. To: Zipporah (#207)
First? On that I dont know if I agree.. do you believe that there are differences that are measurable ?
#212. To: robin (#209)
That's adaptation. The definition of evolution is entirely different.
#213. To: Feynman Lives! (#211)
Zip,
#214. To: Zipporah (#213)
Mutations .. or something else? Some say there are no differences..
#215. To: Jethro Tull (#193)
Adam and Eve?
#216. To: Feynman Lives! (#214)
Zip,
#217. To: Feynman Lives! (#214)
#218. To: Zipporah (#216)
I'm not disputing that.. That would be saying that genes were mutated.. rather than family groups that migrated to different areas and reproduced .. groups that had certain genetic traits.. some reproducing and reinforcing so to speak, recessive genes others 'reinforcing' dominate genes.
#219. To: christine (#215)
#220. To: Feynman Lives! (#218)
Which is precisely what happens with evolution, Zip.
#221. To: Trace21231 (#217)
#222. To: Trace21231 (#217)
But how do you account for homosexuality in the evolutionary scheme? It seems that something that has such a huge reproductive hit should breed out of the poplation within a few hundred generations.
#223. To: Jethro Tull (#193)
Richard. You can wallow in the thought that your ancestors sprang up from some primordial soup, or once swung unshaven from a tree, as for me I’ll chose the Garden of Eden route. That thought makes me comfy :)
#224. To: Jethro Tull (#219)
#225. To: Feynman Lives! (#222)
Homosexuality is natural, Trace.
#226. To: Zipporah (#220)
Well not exactly.. but depends of course on what one means when they use the term.. Genetic differences based on mutuations or differences based upon recessives and dominate genes which were in the DNA without mutating.
#227. To: Dakmar (#223)
#228. To: Dakmar (#227)
#229. To: Zipporah (#227)
.
.
.