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: 2002
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 (1-204) not displayed.
.
.
.
#205. To: Zipporah (#203)
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
Maybe this what Bush was talking about when he mentioned human-animal hybrids??!
Now you meanie liberal, Bush is against human-animal hybrids.
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
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. RE animals .. it basically has to do with dominance. I'd say not natural.. deviant behavior...in humans that is.
I hear you snack cake man. No problem, all folk should be as good and kind as you are… I'm not very religious, but in reading this thread, mehitable scored some solid points. To his credit, Monty (yeah sure) (g) also presented a strong case. My bottom line is simple. I'm not comfortable living on this rock believing that, when the ride is over, I take the dirt nap. Fineto, do not pass go. I need more. So, perhaps my thoughts on where we came from and where we might end are no more than the rants of an AARP member plus 6, but as I said, I'm comfy :)
Hey ..Bush had better be talking to Cornyn.. seems he's for it..
Gulp....sure.......:P
I think he wants to buy you a cup of coffee. Be careful.
I'm completely ok with you feeling that way, I just get kinda pissy when I'm called a communist by someome with an agenda or a room temperature IQ supporting that agenda. We're all agents, sure, but "leave me hell alone", the political philosphy which drew me to this site, isn't really much of an agenda, is it? Sort of an anti-agenda, really.
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
I'd say not natural.. deviant behavior...in humans that is. Zip, You would be incorrect. Homosexual behavior is completely natural in humans. It is documented as far back as you want to go in human history. Homosexuality is natural. You don't have to LIKE it, you don't have to AGREE with it, but you can't DENY it.
"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
Homosexuality is natural. You don't have to LIKE it, you don't have to AGREE with it, but you can't DENY it. Deviance has been documented? BFD
Jethro, No one is asserting that when you die that the "ride is over." That never entered into this discussion. You can have your belief system if it pleases you, not a problem.
"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
Would horses have sex with donkeys if men didn't intervene?
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
By that definition murdering your own brother is natural too.
Mr Rumsfeld said the emergence of populist leaders through elections in Latin America was "worrisome".
Jethro was waxing philosophical with me, lighten up.
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
Do you mean mules or donkeys?
Mr Rumsfeld said the emergence of populist leaders through elections in Latin America was "worrisome".
Comments (246 - 382) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestTrue!.. 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)
#230. To: Dakmar (#229)
Where do these Box Turtle freaks come from and how can we make them join our band on electric bass?
#231. To: Zipporah (#230)
#232. To: Feynman Lives! (#222)
Homosexuality is natural, Trace.
#233. To: Dakmar (#223)
#234. To: Dakmar (#231)
Now you meanie liberal, Bush is against human-animal hybrids.
#235. To: christine (#224)
you can reposition your consider. :P
#236. To: Trace21231 (#225)
#237. To: Jethro Tull (#233)
#238. To: Zipporah (#232)
RE animals .. it basically has to do with dominance.
#239. To: Feynman Lives! (#238)
Homosexual behavior is completely natural in humans. It is documented as far back as you want to go in human history.
#240. To: Jethro Tull (#233)
My bottom line is simple. I'm not comfortable living on this rock believing that, when the ride is over, I take the dirt nap. Fineto, do not pass go. I need more
#241. To: Feynman Lives! (#238)
#242. To: Feynman Lives! (#238)
It is documented as far back as you want to go in human history.
#243. To: Feynman Lives! (#240)
#244. To: Dakmar (#241)
Would horses have sex with donkeys if men didn't intervene?
#245. To: Dakmar (#241)
Would horses have sex with donkeys if men didn't intervene?
.
.
.