Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

[Zipa]

Isn't Creationism more theology than science? People can believe whatever they want, but how do you scientifically explain God?

It is theology and pseudo science mixed , creationists simply try to pass it off as actual science to attempt to gull the uninformed. Or they try to debunk actual science with it.

 

[Hagi]

There is no "creationist theories". In a scientific context, "theory is the highest level of truth. Socalled "creationist theories" do not pass this test and can at best be call a "hypothesis".

Technically not even that. A hypothesis is, by definition, both falsifiable and testable.

Creationism is neither.

It's just a random idea a lot of people happen to share.

 

[Brownie80]

The irony of these posts is palpable...

Unless the defininition of ignorance has shifted to the complete opposite of what it used to be, I don't see how my post was in any way ironic given that I was advocating the acceptance of alternative ideas.

Ermmm... i am not sure what school you went to, but we know A LOT more about EVERYTHING, universe included, than we did back in the Bronze age. Such as, what the sun is, how a solar system works, evolution, electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces. True, there is still a massive amount we don't know, but we do indeed know more than we did a few 100 years ago.

People have always thought they've "known" what the sun is etc etc etc.

The universe is infinitely more complex than we give it credit for, the limits of our knowledge are defined by the limits of our ability to comprehend, the one and only thing that I cannot believe is possible is that the human race has reached the pinnicle of comprehension.

Note: I'm in no way saying that I believe that the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago by a singular god that incarnated into the form of a man named Jesus roughly 2000 years ago etc etc etc etc etc... I'm just saying, that for all we know, it's not compeltely outside the realm of possiblity that a higher intelligence had a hand in humanity's/the universe's creation.

We can't just blanketly rule out points of view because they seem outlandish.

Is it me or did this just hit it on the head? I mean, you had to expect that posting something like this on the internet would only bring about the whole "I'm ok with religion because can be wrong dummy-heads all they want" cliche out in force. But it kind of amazes me that in the era of such "open mindedness" people can't see how creationism and science are not mutually exclusive. Believing that God created the universe does not supplant any sort of scientific evidence. The two can compliment each other. Some people don't choose to believe that the really abstract questions can be explained by a god. Some people do. I find that in this case the anti-creationist, hardcore science people are just as elitist and close-minded as religious fanatics on Fox News because they have science to wave in people's face.

This post is kind of what I'm trying to get at.

I think what Shaidz was saying is that we know a heck of a lot more about the universe than in the Bronze Age. We know Our Solar System is heliocentric, and we know a lot more about outside our solar system. Also, what we DO know invalidated the Bible's "facts", because the Bible says that the sun revolves around the Earth. So forgive me for not giving a grain of salt about creationism since the Bible can't even get our own solar system right. Evolution has been supported over and over again and creationism has not. The Big Bang has been supported over and over again and creationism has not. In fact, young-earth creationism is completely false and has been since Clair Cameron Patterson calculated the 4.55 billion-years age of the Earth in the FIFTIES. The fact that the universe was apparently proofed from light and darkness is crazy since the Earth is made up of elements, and light radiates heat, caused by atoms moving extremely fast. Considering the hottest things in the Universe-stars-can't burn any element with a bigger atomic number than Iron, which is only the 26th element, humans could exist, yes, but gold, lead, silver, tantalum (which is almost in every electronic), tungsten, and cobalt couldn't come from light alone. If a creationist could provide EVIDENCE other than the book, I'll listen to them. Otherwise? Not on your life, buster.

 

[persephone]

Or, you know. All science that we see everywhere is true because God did it. Why is it so hard for these two views to coexist? God made the universe able to run on science. He made it with a firmly established set of rules for physics, biology, geology, etc, etc... Why is this so hard to understand?

Thank you! I completely agree. I'm Christian, but I have always supported a scientific approach to just about everything. I had an anthropology professor in college who I thought put it very well; he said that science is a tool, a mindset that can be used to tackle and explain things, but that it couldn't be used to explain everything. Does that mean that science or religion are wrong? No, it just means that sometimes science is the wrong tool. Now, I consider science to only seldom actually be the wrong tool. And I think that being religious doesn't give you license to throw that tool out the window, either. It's a damn useful tool!

The best interpretation of Genesis I've ever heard is simply this: it's *poetry*, not science. You have to remember that science as a tool/paradigm is, historically speaking, incredibly new. The scientific method as we understand it did not exist for most of human history. And expecting a scientifically accurate accounting of the creation of the world from a book written thousands of years ago is just ridiculous. Similarly, expecting said accounting to be inherently incorrect purely because it's not scientific is also ridiculous.

So, Genesis says God made the world in six days. But what does "day" mean, in the context of the poetry? The Bible is riddled with symbolism and allegory, and there is zero reason that can't be true for Genesis, too. Is a "day" an eon? Who knows? When you realize Genesis isn't literal, just as a poem isn't literal, then you can also see that there isn't any conflict between science and religion when it comes to where life came from.

To put it another way: Let's say that your significant other gazes deeply into your eyes, and then writes down what they see there. They'll probably write down something about the beauty of your eyes, or the depths of your soul, or if they're feeling snarky, how the flecks in your eyes resemble something weird or something like that.

Now let's say your opthamologist gazes deeply into your eyes, and writes down they see there. They'll probably record some numbers and jargon about what kind of glasses you may need, as well as anything else significant to their line of work.

So, now we have two detailed records of what your eyes look like, from two very different sources operating under two very different paradigms. But here's the thing: *both records are accurate*. Neither one is superior to the other; they're just different. They're not incompatible, and the existence of one doesn't invalidate the other. They were written for different purposes and using different approaches, but they both accurately describe your eyes in the context of those approaches.

It's the same way with Genesis and evolution and all that. They're two very different approaches constructed by very different authors that both happen to describe the same thing. Expecting one to invalidate the other makes as much sense as insisting that a metaphor-laden poem written about a cat's beauty can't be correct because it's not a scientific accounting of your cat's biology.

 

[The White Hunter]

Or, here's an idea: it focuses on science.

 

[Kinitawowi]

To put it another way: Let's say that your significant other gazes deeply into your eyes, and then writes down what they see there. They'll probably write down something about the beauty of your eyes, or the depths of your soul, or if they're feeling snarky, how the flecks in your eyes resemble something weird or something like that.

Now let's say your opthamologist gazes deeply into your eyes, and writes down they see there. They'll probably record some numbers and jargon about what kind of glasses you may need, as well as anything else significant to their line of work.

So, now we have two detailed records of what your eyes look like, from two very different sources operating under two very different paradigms. But here's the thing: *both records are accurate*. Neither one is superior to the other; they're just different. They're not incompatible, and the existence of one doesn't invalidate the other. They were written for different purposes and using different approaches, but they both accurately describe your eyes in the context of those approaches.

And here's the problem with your argument - one of them is not accurate, because it's not consistent enough.

Ask an opthalmologist and he'll write down some things. Ask another opthalmologist and he'll write down the same things. Ask a significant other - who goes in there with the expectation of what they'll find - and they'll write something down. Ask a random off the street and they'll write something completely different.

Therein lies your problem. Science is about observable, repeatable results verified in a particular way (the "scientific method"). Religion is about nothing more than gut feelings. Strong, powerful, but when it comes to understanding the real actual physicality of certain structures, utterly irrelevant.

 

[hazabaza1]

No offense to whoever did the writing and posting of this whole article, but... why even bother?
I like the escapist as much as the other guy but I think we all knew how this would end up. A big ol' eight page circlejerk where anyone of dissenting views gets insulted and the people insulting get warnings and probations.

 

[SargeSmash]

We ask that readers remain respectful in their comments and not attack anyone's religious views. Thank you.

Not a good sign when it feels like I should report like half of the posts here.

As others have already pointed out, religion and science are not mutually exclusive. To believe that they are is rather condescending and close-minded. I try to understand the atheist point of view, and while I might not agree with it, if one is honest in their scientific endeavors, it matters not if they have faith or do not. I'd ask that those bereft of faith in a higher power extend the same courtesy to those of us who do scientific research yet maintain belief in a higher power, an organizing force in the universe.

 

[Goliath100]

There is no "creationist theories". In a scientific context, "theory is the highest level of truth. Socalled "creationist theories" do not pass this test and can at best be call a "hypothesis".

Technically not even that. A hypothesis is, by definition, both falsifiable and testable.

Creationism is neither.

It's just a random idea a lot of people happen to share.

I'm getting somewhat pissed off about this: you are the 4th person saying this, and after I made a post pointing out that "AT BEST can be called a "hypothesis".

 

[JarinArenos]

A creationist scientist is simply someone that does not adhere to the theory of evolution, but either works on other branches of science or adheres to any version of creationism in regards to the origin of life. Not that weird at all, considering there are many scientists that don't agree with the Big Bang theory or Strings theory, without being considered pariahs.

Moving the goalposts a bit here. There's a huge gulf between "thinks there's some issues with current scientific models" and "thinks 'God' created everything"... and then another huge step between that and "believes, in the face of all evidence, that the earth is 6k-10k years old". (the last being what these "creation scientists" claim)
The first is perfectly acceptable. It's even laudable, as it should encourage further testing and experimentation to improve our scientific models. The second is fuzzy, but not inherently a bad thing; as people have said repeatedly, religion and science do not have to be in conflict, they just shouldn't overlap. The third is absurd, anti-scientific, and blind self-deception.

 

[Hagi]

I'm getting somewhat pissed off about this: you are the 4th person saying this, and after I made a post pointing out that "AT BEST can be called a "hypothesis".

Which is why my post took the form of a clarification and not a denial.

If you're tired of replies then by all means edit your post to say it can't even be called a hypothesis. But don't get mad at a stranger for simply adding onto what you've said.

 

[Neta]

There is no "creationist theories". In a scientific context, "theory is the highest level of truth. Socalled "creationist theories" do not pass this test and can at best be call a "hypothesis".

Technically not even that. A hypothesis is, by definition, both falsifiable and testable.

Creationism is neither.

It's just a random idea a lot of people happen to share.

I'm getting somewhat pissed off about this: you are the 4th person saying this, and after I made a post pointing out that "AT BEST can be called a "hypothesis".

That's like saying a boiled egg can "at best" be called a roast chicken.

 

[Azure23]

Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

Well, yes. I mean, unless he was one of those open-minded people who actually accepted, you know, science. But a Creationist into science is like a fish not only out of water, but in the desert on a horse with no name.

This is like a scientologist asking for an audience with the Pope, or Stephen Hawking getting up and walking like Dr. Strangelove, or god apologizing for the inconvenience. We'd love to see it, but we know it ain't gonna happen.

I looked this guy up, distinguished professor emeritus at USC at Lancaster, a PhD in Astronomy, and several other degrees as well. I read an article of his about belief in quantum mechanics and string theory as a creationist. He seems like a smart guy, who clearly understands scientific method and the difference between hypotheses and theories. So why the hell did he even bother asking for this? He had to know the answer and where his beliefs stand in the scientic community.

 

[Ratty]

All you're doing with this post is propagating the stereotypes about "atheists" (in reality the neo-atheist movement). If you actually take the time to analyse what I posted you would have discerned that the only thing I said was that being religious and a scientist are not mutually exclusive, and proved my point with evidence. Not only have most great minds leading up until the modern era religious, I know more people in research positions that are religious than irreligious. These are two facts, the second one obviously being anecdotal and impossible for you to verify, but none the less a fact. I'm not religious. I wasn't not arguing "from authority" because I was not in an argument or debate, but clarifying a fact. Just because someone has a different opinion than you does not mean that they have the opposite opinion.

Actually I did realize that was one interpretation of your post, but with the way it was worded the intent seemed a bit ambiguous. And I'm used to hearing Newton etc. held up as examples of why theism in general (and creationism in particular) are super awesome and irrifutable so I decided to point out the problems with that argument as I usually do. (Also I should have said appealing to authority instead of arguing from it but meh.) Plus, I think the person you were responding to was talking specifically about someone claiming that Creationism was science, though I could be wrong.

That said, of course someone can be religious and still be a scientist. Most people are religious to one degree or another, and it seems that an inclination towards faith may have had some sort of evolutionary advantage. One interesting possibility I've heard is that faith may have given a slight boost to the immune systems of our ancestors through the power of positive thinking. Even if this only had an extremely slim effect on survival rates (say an extra 1 in 10 people living a little longer to reproduce for example) this would have had a profound effect on the human population over the span of a few hundred thousand years.

But if there is a problem with the new more vocal forms of atheism, it's mostly that nobody likes outspoken evangelicals of any worldview but their own. From donation begging TV preachers to door-to-door Mormons to airport dwelling "Hare Krishnas"[footnote]Members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness[/footnote]. The outspoken internet atheist is destined to join the ranks of those constant sources of cheap comic relief.

But "new atheism" is an inevitable reaction to decades (since at least the late 1970s) of the politically powerful "religious right". Particularly with all of the high profile scientific work and personal liberties (like stem cell research and birth control) that have been threatened or even actively held back by these (relatively) newly revitalized religious groups. Perhaps I and a lot of my fellow skeptics can be a little reactionary, but when you grow up in a town that had mass Harry Potter book burnings you learn to be wary.

 

[KissingSunlight]

There was a documentary on HBO couple of months ago called "Questioning Darwin". Where creationists were expounding their views against evolution. All they were able to come up with is, there was no mention of evolution in the bible. It was really disappointing to watch. With all their protests about evolution, they could not come up with one single fact that proved evolution was wrong or, at least, should not be considered as fact.

 

[Westaway]

You wrote things here that I'm replying to

I hope you realize that swinging on the idealogical pendulum is highly unintelligent. Just because the neocons exist doesn't mean that having an equally outspoken group on the other side of the spectrum is necessary.

 

[Mau95]

Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

Well, science is a pretty broad term. He could be a literary scientist or something.

 

[Ratty]

You wrote things here that I'm replying to

I hope you realize that swinging on the idealogical pendulum is highly unintelligent. Just because the neocons exist doesn't mean that having an equally outspoken group on the other side of the spectrum is necessary.

Oh I do realize that it's not purely a result of unemotional analysis. But it's an inevitable reaction none the less. Particularly in a time like this when, as I said, religion[footnote]Or, more precisely, politically herded religious congregations.[/footnote] is being used as a supposedly criticism-proof stick to beat down progress. Including social progress like equal rights for LGBTs. Of course many skeptics are going to get defensive and, after a while, outspoken.