why 'creationist science' is oxymoronic

[ragordon168]

'I'll leave that to creationist scientists' is a claim used by many on this forum when they run out of things to back up their beliefs. Unfortunately this doesnt work as creation science is worthless.

when a scientist does an experiment he will go in with a blank mind, he knows either his hypothesis will prove correct or incorrect.

a creationist scientist however goes in already with the preconception that he will be correct in his assumption and if his expiriment disproves his theory then he will claim the experiment is improperly set up and giving bad results - regardless of how often he modifies and repeats the experiment, he will always be right and the data wrong.

going in to the experiment with the ardent belief you will be right and not accepting the result when they disprove you means you can never carry out proper scientific expiriments.

now there is no problem with being religious and agreeing with mainsream science. these two things are not mutually exclusive but believing in creationism against all evidence is nonsensical.

 

[johnhanks]

'I'll leave that to creationist scientists' is a claim used by many on this forum when they run out of things to back up their beliefs. Unfortunately this doesnt work as creation science is worthless.

when a scientist does an experiment he will go in with a blank mind, he knows either his hypothesis will prove correct or incorrect.

Sorry to nitpick, but if the experiment is well designed (s)he knows the hypothesis will either be falsified or not falsified (not the same as proven correct).

In every other respect I agree with you completely.

 

[Man of Faith]

When we are talking about evolution, a scientist does not go in with a blank mind, they already either accept evolution or reject it before the experiment. It is impossible for a scientist or anyone to have a blank mind. The mind doesn't work that way, we are a product of our biases.

 

[MSizer]

When we are talking about evolution, a scientist does not go in with a blank mind, they already either accept evolution or reject it before the experiment. It is impossible for a scientist or anyone to have a blank mind. The mind doesn't work that way, we are a product of our biases.

That doesn't mean we all seek only the data that appears to support what we believe or wish to be true. Certainly there are many who do not. Sadly those who espouse creationism are notorious for it.

 

[Man of Faith]

That doesn't mean we all seek only the data that appears to support what we believe or wish to be true. Certainly there are many who do not. Sadly those who espouse creationism are notorious for it.

They are notorious for admitting it.

 

[MSizer]

They are notorious for admitting it.

Really? Shall we list the "arguments" creationists continue to use even though they've been disproven? I'm not sure we have room in one post.

 

[Man of Faith]

Really? Shall we list the "arguments" creationists continue to use even though they've been disproven? I'm not sure we have room in one post.

If you think about it, an argument that has been "disproven", really just means someone showing what they would rather believe. I have disproven every evolution evidence on this forum.

 

[MSizer]

If you think about it, an argument that has been "disproven", really just means someone showing what they would rather believe. I have disproven every evolution evidence on this forum.

If the first part of your statement were correct, then so would be the second.

 

[Beyondo]

When we are talking about evolution, a scientist does not go in with a blank mind, they already either accept evolution or reject it before the experiment. It is impossible for a scientist or anyone to have a blank mind. The mind doesn't work that way, we are a product of our biases.

Yes and No, when it comes to evolution scientist demonstrate processes of selection through delibrate selection that humans do to produce animal traits. So the theory of natural selection is proven because humans can reproduce the results and get consistent data that supports the theory. Genetic mutations and adaptations to those mutations have been observed in biological organisims. So 2 for 2 for evolution. Now the fossil evidenece can be explained from the two processes of evolution that have been proven.

The creationist try to nullify the theory of evolution by virtue of their logic and not evidence. The mechanism of the creationist theory is an intelligence created life but inorder to prove their theory they try to make evolution an impossible process and so by deduction it means a god created life. But such an approach doesn't prove an intelligence created life, it only demonstrates that a theory maybe incompelete. So the creationist do not evaluate the evidence with a greater objectivity than evolutionist. Scientist didn't discover genetic mutations because they were trying to prove evolution nor did animal breeders discover the means to breed traits in animals to prove evolution.

Of course many creationist believe that evolution is infact a real process but the begining of life had to be started by an intelligence. But one can easily see the flaw in that logic since that kind of thinking never explains how an intelligence comes about to create life...:sarcastic

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I have disproven every evolution evidence on this forum.

Setting aside your delusions of grandeur, do you understand the difference between "proof" and "evidence"?

Can you grasp that you have "disproven" nothing? I am asking if you are even capable of understanding that concept.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

The creationist try to nullify the theory of evolution by virtue of their logic and not evidence.

I realize this is nitpicking, but I cannot let this pass.

Creationists do not use logic as a basis for defending their position. There is no such thing as "their logic". Creationists bastardize logic, using a multitude of fallacies and ignoring faulty premises - all while wrongly believing that their faith somehow validates their claims.

MoF's posts are a perfect example of this.

Sorry for the rant.

 

[dust1n]

When we are talking about evolution, a scientist does not go in with a blank mind, they already either accept evolution or reject it before the experiment. It is impossible for a scientist or anyone to have a blank mind. The mind doesn't work that way, we are a product of our biases.

That's why it is very important for one to realize there biases and then eradicate them.

 

[Gabethewiking]

If you think about it, an argument that has been "disproven", really just means someone showing what they would rather believe. I have disproven every evolution evidence on this forum.

So you are saying that it is just a belief?

So the Planet Earth is not spherical/spheroid, but it is a belief it is and the evidence provided proves nothing but what the person wants to believe, and if you consider it Flat (as in the Bible) that would simple be a different worldview, is this correct?

 

[Krok]

When we are talking about evolution, a scientist does not go in with a blank mind, they already either accept evolution or reject it before the experiment. It is impossible for a scientist or anyone to have a blank mind. The mind doesn't work that way, we are a product of our biases.

That's exactly why the scientific method includes peer-review. This addresses the issue of biases. That's also why creationists don't have this process.

 

[sonofskeptish]

I have disproven every evolution evidence on this forum.

Looking things up on the "Answers in Genesis" website is not you disproving anything, it's just you proving that your willing to believe and spew nonsense.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have disproven every evolution evidence on this forum.

:biglaugh:

[youtube]BS5vid4GkEY[/youtube]
YouTube - Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1)

 

[tumbleweed41]

I have disproven every evolution evidence on this forum.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1905966-post12.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1904880-post60.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1904596-post27.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1901227-post10.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1901185-post8.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1899892-post38.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1897684-post159.html

etc, etc, etc.....ad nauseum....

 

[The Voice of Reason]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1905966-post12.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1904880-post60.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1904596-post27.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1901227-post10.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1901185-post8.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1899892-post38.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1897684-post159.html

etc, etc, etc.....ad nauseum....

You have to understand, Tumbleweed, that by ignoring evidence presented to him, MoF has (in his mind and in the eyes of his God) effectively refuted said evidence.

Apparently, in the lexicon of creationists, "ignored" is synonymous with "disproved".

See how easy that was?

 

[Gabethewiking]

You have to understand, Tumbleweed, that by ignoring evidence presented to him, MoF has (in his mind and in the eyes of his God) effectively refuted said evidence.

Apparently, in the lexicon of creationists, "ignored" is synonymous with "disproved".

See how easy that was?

Sorry? What was that? I was to busy ignoring you and deciding I was right...

 

[Man of Faith]

That's exactly why the scientific method includes peer-review. This addresses the issue of biases. That's also why creationists don't have this process.

Creationists do have that process but I don't necessarily think it is all cracked up to be all that. For one thing if we can't observe something it doesn't matter how many people agree to it none of them can observe it. Also peer review sometimes means peer-pressure in some instances.