This Should Be Fun

[kellychaos]

I can buy those that follow and support their religious views based on faith but some of the so called scientific "proofs" on this "Institute For Creation Research" creationist website are just ridiculous ... really. Anyway, without further adieu, I bring you the next entry in Vinth's favorites menu:

Link to Institute For Creation Research

My Favorite Part:

Today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists and who repudiate any form of molecules-to-man evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. Creation scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science, and their numbers are increasing rapidly. Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is "science" and creation science is "religion". When news media personnel and others make such statements today, they merely reveal their own liberal social philosophies—not their awareness of scientific facts.

Lists of scientists are divided into sections. Choose a list below.


Biological Scientists - Physical Scientists (Links)

Creation Scientist List FAQ

1. Why must ICR and other creationist organizations continually appeal to authority by using these types of lists to support their case?

This list and others like it are primarily in response to false claims and appeals to authority by evolutionists. Below are some of these false claims.


"professionally trained scientists, virtually to a person, understand the factual basis of evolution and don't dispute it"

S.J. Gould

"A few so called "creation scientists" are much touted as possessing PhDs, but it does not do to look too carefully where they got their PhDs from nor the subjects they got them in. They are, I think, never in relevant subjects."

Richard Dawkins

"The Institute for Creation Research ... staffed by self-proclaimed 'professors' which lack any discernable credentials in the field within which they pontificate."

The Skeptic Tank

"no real scientist believes in creation"

Anonymous

"all or most creation scientists have bogus degrees"

Anonymous

"no intelligent person believes in creation"

Anonymous

2. Your lists are extemely small in the grand scheme of things. Is that it?

No, this is a small sampling of real scientists from around the world who believe in a literal creation. Nobody has ever taken a comprehensive survey of the world's universities, research organizations, etc. to find out who is an evolutionist or creationist. Whether evolutionist or creationist, most scientists do not get involved in the creation versus evolution controversy. Also, many creationists keep their beliefs secret depending on the situation for fear of discrimination, etc.

3. Why do you list so many scientists who are in fields not related to biological evolution?

The creation versus evolution controversy is not just about biological evolution. It also includes Chemistry, Physics, Geology, real History, Anthropology, Archaeology, Paleontology, Paleoclimatology, Astronomy, Geophysics, etc. It involves many different areas like design, alleged vestigial organs, age of the earth, origin of life, noah's flood, and much more.

4. Isn't "Creation Scientist" an oxymoron?

No. This simply means a scientist who believes in creation. These partial lists give irrefutable evidence that these two words can go together.

5. If these people are real scientists and really do or did work for these big universities and companies, why do they deny that biological evolution happens or call it just a theory when all it means is cumulitive change over time? We see examples of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, Galapagos finches and peppered moths changing, and many other observable examples of "evolution" happening even today

Generally, they are referring to the common descent of all life from a single ancestor, primates and humans sharing a common ancestor, etc. Some have termed this "true" evolution, "vertical" evolution, and "macroevolution" which entails very large steps in morphotype reconstruction. Variations of bacteria, viruses, birds, moths, dogs, etc., which falls within limited expression of existing traits, are also a part of the creation model and thus are not a problem for creation scientists. They observe and study these things like any other scientist. Look for a more detailed faq on the term evolution in our faq database some time in the future.

[Zero Signal]

They were on Penn & Teller: Bullshit! several months ago.

Here is the topic page for that episode: http://www.showtimeonline.com/ptbs/topics.cfm?topic=c

Note the first expert: Dr. Duane Gish, Senior Vice President, Institute for Creation Research

That was a great episode. Creation Science is a joke, plain and simple. Religion requires faith, and Creation Science seems like it is trying to get rid of it. :/

-----------------------------------------------------

edit: I just noticed #4:

"4. Isn't "Creation Scientist" an oxymoron?

No. This simply means a scientist who believes in creation."

As Penn Jilette would say on the show, "BULLSHIT!". They do not simply believe that it is someone who is a scientist and believe in creation. They are presenting Creationism as a SCIENCE, and not a belief based in faith. Jilette even said he has no problems with people believing in Creationism, just do NOT try to pass it off as science.

They are not as what they would have you think they are, really.

[mburbank]

Do you suppose it hurts when Vinth tries to take the hook out, or does he have no nerves around his gills?

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Do you suppose it hurts when Vinth tries to take the hook out, or does he have no nerves around his gills?

There are nerves there all right but there's also so much scar tissue from past "throw backs" that, trust me, he doesn't feel a thing.

[O71394658]

Man, this is tough stuff. Personally, I'm a hxc Catholic...so I tend to lean towards the creation bit.

But, I would be the first to recognize that "creation science" is itself a pseudo-science. Because it can't follow the "laid down" scientific theory, it doesn't actually qualify as a science. It's merely a science trying to prove the existance of God, or therein trying to disprove the existance of evolution. Such people try to transcend traditional scientific boundaries and wrongly attempt to explain faith through scientific reason. My beliefs dictate that God isn't really bound to laws of science or reason.

[CaptainBubba]

Evolution exists now and has existed since whenever life started existing. I can show it to you. I can explain it to you and you can not argue with it within the bounds of logical reason regarding biology. Whether any god exists or no, currently life on Earth evolves.

Creationism is nothing more than backwards scientific method and therefore worthless (From a scientific standpoint) and in many ways dispicable in the sense that so many decide to peddel it as indisputable truth, threatening eternal torture to those who argue otherwise.

They do not have to be related in any way however.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

Creationism is nothing more than backwards scientific method and therefore worthless (From a scientific standpoint) and in many ways dispicable in the sense that so many decide to peddel it as indisputable truth, threatening eternal torture to those who argue otherwise.

Indeed, a worst case of "assuming the conclusion" I have yet to see ... not only scientifically backward but logically flawed. As I've said, I have no problem with seeing religion as an article of faith but don't try to peddle it as a science. It just doesn't work!