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: 2018
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 80.
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Stone, This is curious and circular reasoning. You presuppose that your theory is true to support that your theory is in fact true. This argument is illogical.
hi Feynman Lives!, welcome to 4.
Level 4? Please explain... Should I have brought my hip boots?
4 as in short for Freedom4um.
Ahhhh.... do I get a secret decoder ring? (it would have been most useful to decode your first statement!) :)
:) Jerk - you are certainly not a RF. He prolly would have got the connection between freedom4um and welcome to 4, ya think?
Tom, I never claimed to be Richard Feynman, especially because he died in 1988. I am simply a fan of his work and how he lived his life. I have noticed that the people on this site are very big on name calling when it comes to people who disagree with them, how ironic.
I didn't disagree with you, you were just being a jerk, very simple.
So you AGREE with me AND you call me names? How am I being a jerk?
"It's an Inside Job" christine posted on 2006-02-12 15:12:02 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #3. To: christine (#2) Level 4? Please explain... Should I have brought my hip boots? Feynman Lives! posted on 2006-02-12 15:19:06 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #4. To: Feynman Lives! (#3) 4 as in short for Freedom4um. "It's an Inside Job" christine posted on 2006-02-12 15:30:42 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #5. To: christine (#4) Ahhhh.... do I get a secret decoder ring? (it would have been most useful to decode your first statement!) :) Feynman Lives! posted on 2006-02-12 15:35:12 ET If you can't figure it out... Maybe you need to consider how you come across to others, the decoder ring statement and the "most useful" statement is fifth grade pompousness. But I will put aside all of this and let it go - maybe you are not the troll "Richard" that got canned for being a disruptor a week or so ago (tho you really sound exactly alike). If so, I do apologize.
Maybe you need to consider how you come across to others, the decoder ring statement and the "most useful" statement is fifth grade pompousness. But I will put aside all of this and let it go - maybe you are not the troll "Richard" that got canned for being a disruptor a week or so ago (tho you really sound exactly alike). If so, I do apologize. Tom, Clearly you read the worst into EVERYTHING. I was being PLAYFUL with Christine. "Level 4" sounded like a secret access, so I was keeping in her playful vein. Who the hell is Richard, and what did he do to your family? I happen to be a fan of RICHARD FEYNMAN, do you have a hatred for all things Richard? (for the record, MY name is Monty - I hope you don't hate that name as well) Why are you taking all of this mis-directed anger out on ME? I didn't do anything to you and you are being King of the Assholes to me. Go talk to a counsellor. I was looking for a site that had access to many global newspapers, and your site came up (it rocks if you like to read international newspapers). I found your chatboard to be intruiging, and thought I would join in the fray. Now, I will accept your apology if you stop trying to antagonize me.
Monty? It's been awhile :P
Zipporah, How the heck did you do that picture? ROFLMAO! (uh, and who the heck is that dandy? He looks like the love child of Tom Jones and Art Garfunkel)
LOL! He does, he really does! Good call.
It creeps me out that this photo is NOT some kind of photoshop creation... this guy was a real person? Well, he certainly had a good self image! LOL
We should all, I think, respect the thought and work of Richard Feynman, arguably one of the finest mathematical minds of the 20th century, a specialist in, teacher of and contributor to quantum mechanics. He was also humble. He said that anyone who maintained they understood quantum mechanics hadn’t studied it enough, or words to that effect. The flood “myth” is found among virtually all the peoples of the world and should thus not be discounted. (Myth is in quotes as some use it these days as a synonym for “lie”, a very bad habit, because myth can convey more truth than supposed fact.) A tsunami of cataclysmic proportions would fill the bill. And Evolution does not come close to being established scientific theory. It is failed hypothesis at the very best. Basically, Evolution has never been seen to occur, in the lab or in nature, despite decades of effort in the lab (fruit flies). Mutation has, however, been shown to be uniformly destructive of genetic information, hardly a fact that favors evolution. And on and on … I respectfully suggest that you need to again review the facts and evidence before you conclude that Evolution is not full of holes. We inhabit a universe that is eloquently and beautifully mathematical, and beyond all rational expectation. It is “governed” by the mathematical laws of physics. There is no “reason” why this should be so, but it is. Do these laws just happen to be? Did they appear out of nowhere? Or is it consistent to think these laws were “written” by a Creator far deeper and more able than our capacity to comprehend? I think that it is. Welcome to 4um.
Phaedrus, I never stated that the scientific theory of evolution has answered 100% of the questions in the universe. Evolution is also one of the most misunderstood and controversial concepts in the eyes of the general public. This situation is unfortunate, because the controversy surrounding evolution is unnecessary. Resistance to evolution stems in part from misunderstanding science and how it is distinct from religion. Science and religion provide different ways of knowing the Earth and universe. Science proceeds by testing hypotheses and thus is restricted to natural, testable explanations. By definition, science is unable to confirm or deny the existence or work of a Creator; such questions are beyond the realm of science. As a scientific concept, evolution therefore can make no reference to a Creator. Many people of faith, including scientists, find no conflict between evolution and their religion; in fact, many religious denominations have issued statements supporting evolution. Science and religion need not conflict. Numerous lines of evidence show that life has changed through time. Evolution is the best scientific explanation for this change. Individuals change throughout their lifetimes; they grow, receive injuries, color their hair, or pierce their eyebrows. These changes are not evolutionary, because they cannot be inherited by the next generation. The changes are lost when the individual possessing them dies. Individuals do not evolve, only populations evolve. Species evolve over successive generations as their local populations interbreed and change. The biological definition of a species embodies this concept: a species is a group of naturally occurring populations that can interbreed and produce offspring that can interbreed. This point is very important: species always consist of changing and interbreeding populations. There never was a irst ‘saber-toothed cat,’ ‘first mastodon,’ or ‘first dinosaur.’ Instead, there was a first population of interbreeding individuals that we call ‘saber-toothed cats,’ or ‘mastodons,’ or ‘dinosaurs.’ At any given time in the past, members of populations of a species were capable of interbreeding. In Darwin’s time, the nature of inheritance and the cause of variation were very poorly understood. The scientific understanding of heredity began with the work of Gregor Mendel in the 1860s in Brno, Czech Republic. This understanding accelerated throughout the 20th century and now includes knowledge of chromosomes, genes, and DNA with its double helix. Evolution could not occur without genetic variation. The ultimate source of variation can now be understood as changes or mutations in the sequence of the building blocks of the genetic material carried on the chromosomes in eggs and sperm. I am not sure if you are unaware but there have been MANY studies that show how evolution has occurred in lab conditions. For example: -Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli. -Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas. -Selection for Large Size in Chlamydomomas. -Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast. -Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. -Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions. -Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions. Here are the basics for what is required for evolution: 1. All organisms produce far more offspring than can survive to adulthood and reproduce. This means that many of those offspring will die without reproduction. 2. Organisms vary in many ways, and much of that variation is heritable - that is, variations that exist in the parents are passed on to the offspring. 3. Some of those heritable, variable traits affect an organism's fitness - its ability to survive to reproductive maturity. 4.(This is the kicker.) Those traits that increase an organism's fitness will tend to be passed on to the organism's offspring and to subsequent generations. However, there IS evidence in nature that shows the evolution of many species over millions of years, man included. You need only look back in the last century and see how man is evolving. We have managed to find ways to significanlty increase our population, are taller, live longer, and infant mortality rates have dropped dramatically. I appreciate your reverence for the good Dr. Feynman, a man who thought that the entire concept of religion was ridiculous.
Whenever I run into someone such as yourself that attempts to bowl me over with lots of volume in the debate over Evolution, I find it worthwhile to parse their post. You are being so honored. Your post is in italics. I never stated that the scientific theory of evolution has answered 100% of the questions in the universe. Nor did I characterize your position as such. Evolution is also one of the most misunderstood and controversial concepts in the eyes of the general public. So you assert. I don’t think so. This situation is unfortunate, because the controversy surrounding evolution is unnecessary. No, it’s not; i.e. the controversy is absolutely necessary. Resistance to evolution stems in part from misunderstanding science and how it is distinct from religion. Does it? Maybe. Science and religion provide different ways of knowing the Earth and universe. Science proceeds by testing hypotheses and thus is restricted to natural, testable explanations. By definition, science is unable to confirm or deny the existence or work of a Creator; such questions are beyond the realm of science. As a scientific concept, evolution therefore can make no reference to a Creator. To be clear, my quarrel with Evolution is that its hypotheses are unsupported, are in fact contradicted, by the evidence. It does not stem from my knowledge of (not belief in) a Creator. Many people of faith, including scientists, find no conflict between evolution and their religion; in fact, many religious denominations have issued statements supporting evolution. So what? I would say they’re misled and, again, my position does not rely on the authority of the Bible or any Christian denomination. Science and religion need not conflict. Evolution and Christianity are in inherent conflict to the extent that Evolution is Materialist, which is by definition Atheist. Numerous lines of evidence show that life has changed through time. “Change” is extremely vague and is not adequate to show the evolution of one species into another. And what is the mechanism of change? Where is the evidence that ANY specific species has evolved into another. Among million (s) of species, where are the transitional forms? Science explains, it doesn’t speculate. Evolution is the best scientific explanation for this change. WHAT change and WHAT explanation? Individuals change throughout their lifetimes; they grow, receive injuries, color their hair, or pierce their eyebrows. These changes are not evolutionary, because they cannot be inherited by the next generation. The changes are lost when the individual possessing them dies. Individuals do not evolve, only populations evolve. If it’s not evolution, why discuss it? Species evolve over successive generations as their local populations interbreed and change. You are asserting it. You have not shown it. The biological definition of a species embodies this concept: a species is a group of naturally occurring populations that can interbreed and produce offspring that can interbreed. This point is very important: species always consist of changing and interbreeding populations. There never was a [f] irst ‘saber-toothed cat,’ ‘first mastodon,’ or ‘first dinosaur.’ Instead, there was a first population of interbreeding individuals that we call ‘saber- toothed cats,’ or ‘mastodons,’ or ‘dinosaurs.’ A “first population”? So, did you will them into being? That is not science, that’s supposition. At any given time in the past, members of populations of a species were capable of interbreeding. In Darwin’s time, the nature of inheritance and the cause of variation were very poorly understood. The scientific understanding of heredity began with the work of Gregor Mendel in the 1860s in Brno, Czech Republic. This understanding accelerated throughout the 20th century and now includes knowledge of chromosomes, genes, and DNA with its double helix. Evolution could not occur without genetic variation. Well, OK, but so what? The ultimate source of variation can now be understood as changes or mutations in the sequence of the building blocks of the genetic material carried on the chromosomes in eggs and sperm. Ah, the crux of the matter -- it is a fact that mutation has not been shown to result in new species. That is pure conjecture on your part, speculation. The evidence is that mutations are destructive of genetic information, not creative. I am not sure if you are unaware but there have been MANY studies thatsshow how evolution has occurred in lab conditions. For example: -Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli. -Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas. -Selection for Large Size in Chlamydomomas. -Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast. -Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. -Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions. -Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions. It is well-known that species exhibit genetic variation within sometime broad boundaries (dogs) while maintaining their species integrity. It has NEVER been shown that one species evolves into another, either in nature or in the lab. The operative word is shown And so on … You have not established anything but that Evolution succeeds in explaining nothing.
This assertion is correct. It has never - unless someone can show me now - been shown that one species evolves into another. What evolutionists proffer as proof of evolution consists of changes - however dramatic - within ONE species. A dog is a dog is a dog. A flower is a flower is a flower. I don't think dogs will ever mutate into flowers or vice versa. To the best my knowledge it has NEVER been shown that one species has ever evolved into another. So how did everything come into being - through what mechanism? Something I believe God created, but exactly how? I have no idea and neither does any one else.
Ok... so what created god? God can't create himself.
I don't know. And that actually is the...CORRECT answer. You don't know either. No one KNOWS.
Yep. But you can't then say that you have any evidence that god actually exists, where as you CAN say that there is evidence to support evolution.
You are so wrong.
#89. To: Phaedrus (#80)
You are so wrong. Please, Phaedrus, Show me FACTS that support your belief in your imaginary friend. Not circumstantial evidence or whistful theories, actual FACTS.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Feynman Lives! (#1)
#3. To: christine (#2)
#4. To: Feynman Lives! (#3)
#5. To: christine (#4)
#19. To: Feynman Lives!, christine (#5)
Ahhhh.... do I get a secret decoder ring? (it would have been most useful to decode your first statement!)
#20. To: tom007 (#19)
Jerk - you are certainly not a RF. He prolly would have got the connection between freedom4um and welcome to 4, ya think?
#22. To: Feynman Lives! (#20)
I have noticed that the people on this site are very big on name calling when it comes to people who disagree with them, how ironic.
#23. To: tom007 (#22)
I didn't disagree with you, you were just being a jerk, very simple.
#24. To: Feynman Lives! (#23)
hi Feynman Lives!, welcome to 4.
#25. To: tom007 (#24)
If you can't figure it out...
#26. To: Feynman Lives! (#25)
Monty
#27. To: Zipporah (#26)
#29. To: Feynman Lives! (#27)
uh, and who the heck is that dandy? He looks like the love child of Tom Jones and Art Garfunkel
#30. To: Elliott Jackalope (#29)
#32. To: Feynman Lives! (#30)
#35. To: Phaedrus (#32)
Evolution has never been seen to occur, in the lab or in nature, despite decades of effort in the lab (fruit flies).
#54. To: Feynman Lives! (#35)
#58. To: Phaedrus, all (#54)
It is well-known that species exhibit genetic variation within sometime broad boundaries (dogs) while maintaining their species integrity. It has NEVER been shown that one species evolves into another, either in nature or in the lab.
#64. To: mehitable (#58)
Something I believe God created, but exactly how?
#66. To: Feynman Lives! (#64)
#68. To: mehitable (#66)
I don't know. And that actually is the...CORRECT answer.
#80. To: Feynman Lives! (#68)
But you can't then say that you have any evidence that god actually exists, where as you CAN say that there is evidence to support evolution.
Replies to Comment # 80. But you can't then say that you have any evidence that god actually exists, where as you CAN say that there is evidence to support evolution.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 80.