DireStraits

A REAL scientist working in academia or some other reseach center may try to publish an article in a journal that mentions creation. No body will touch it with a ten foot pole. They respond by saying somthing polite like" That is outside of the purpose and scope of our publication."

DS: Did it ever occur to you that the reason why they get rejected is the same reason why no-one in astronomy will touch geocentrism with a ten-foot pole? That reason being that the notion was discarded long ago, and there are no new arguments in its favor?

So they don't get published.

DS: Oh they published in the creationist press. And all the arguments put forward there just don’t hold water for anyone who knows anything about the subject matter. But professional creationists are not aiming at people with knowledge.

Then you get wise remarks like "why don't any of these Creationist have things published in legitimate Scientific journals?"

DS: Actually I asked about discoveries by creation scientists. You have come up with nothing except a conspiracy theory.

There are Scientists like this and I will dig some up. They may have other things published that don't mention creation.

DS: Pleaase do dig them up. I am not looking for people who happen to be creationists, mind you, I am looking for people who have used creation “science”.

So they could just keep plugging away at research in whatever area they work in and keep quiet about it. Or they could decide to go off and be a preacher for one of the Creation ministries, but not all people are called to be a preacher.

DS: So you agree that creation “science” is ultimately based on religious fundamentalism.

There is a Medical Doctor I know of that is a Scientist also because he did research in genetics that is a creationist and I don't see why their would not be several others in various fields. There are other areas in academia that are hostile to a Christian Worldview also but their are conservative Christians working there.

DS: Please give a list of discoveries over the past fifty years that have used creation “science” in their methods and explanations.

Clutch

As usual, scigirl hits it outta the park.

hezekiah jones

- Philip L. Quinn, "Creationism, Methodology, and Politics," 1985

Nothing has changed since then, and the above applies equally well to "intelligent design."

Aside from political and religious considerations the pursuit of "creation science" and/or "intelligent design" is apparently useless to scientists.

Tabula_rasa

Holy crap. You had me going for a second there. I thought I was going to be able to scroll down and see a posting where you actually provided links to all those rejected articles, with the rejection letters from the peer related community. I'll keep looking. Maybe with the hoards of scientists researching Creation, we'll get a chance to see the fruits of Creation Science someday.

Naaahhhh. Who am I kidding? These articles don't really exist.

Tabula_rasa

scigirl

Well here's what <a href="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html#jkramer" target="_blank">ICR</a> claims about John Kramer:
A <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/" target="_blank">Pubmed</a> search for Kramer JK yielded 82 abstracts. However, not all of them are from the same John Kramer. Apparently there's an immunology PhD with that name as well.

But most of them are from this guy. I find it very hard to believe that a guy who does that much biochemistry is a YEC. Has anyone purchased that "Why 50 scientists believe in creation?" book? Is this guy a YEC or simply an ID'er??

I read through a few of his abstracts. He may be religious, but his publications are a result of careful HPLC and and mass spectroscopy. Do these titles sound religious to anyone?

"Improved separation of conjugated fatty acid methyl esters by silver ion-high-performance liquid chromatography."

"Identification of conjugated linoleic acid isomers in cheese by gas chromatography, silver ion high performance liquid chromatography and mass spectral reconstructed ion profiles. Comparison of chromatographic elution sequences."

"Effects of conjugated linoleic acid on oxygen diffusion-concentration product and depletion in membranes by using electron spin resonance spin-label oximetry."

I think in some cases, ICR is over-stating their case. Let's say that the TV show "Law and Order" wants to claim that they have contributed much to science. So they find a bunch of scientists who watch Law and Order all the time, and believe it to be the only show worth watching. My name would of course be on that list. But do I use my "Law and Order" knowledge at work? Um, no. Did Law and Order contribute to my thesis work? I doubt it (if anything, it detracted! ).

scigirl

NeilUnreal

Hey! As a "Christian evilutionist (tm)" I'm proud of the contribution "our side" made to the original development of old-earth geology, taxonomy, and -- yes -- common descent and evolution. As for YEC's? Well, we're a big family... maybe we just like to keep all the bases covered.

-Neil

p.s. Excuse the bad humor, it was a long, technically-intense day at work!

scigirl

Absolutely. It's too bad there is even "sides." There should be scientists working towards common goals, and no opposition. As long as people's beliefs do not affect their ability to do science, I think having a diverse scientific community in terms of beliefs (religious, political, etc) is a strength.

scigirl the idealist

NeilUnreal

I agree, which is why I put "our side" in quotes. We're all individuals first and labels second.

It pays to remember that even people like Darwin and Huxley, or Ussher and Wilberforce (or Plato or Socrates or Amelia Earhardt...), weren't pawns and caricatures -- they were real people -- as real as us. And just like us, from their perspective they were living at the cutting edge of time, eating and sleeping and having headeaches and trying to make sense of the world.

(But there's nothing wrong with being labeled an idealist!)

-Neil

ex-robot

I have it, and everyone in that book is yec and so is everyone on icr's list I believe.
Why? Are they supposed to, scigirl?
What case is that?

xr

scigirl

Ex-robot:

When I say "overstating their case," I mean simply this:

These scientists did not use their theory of creation to come up with their discoveries. The discoveries came about with pure, good, repeatable science. Just like all other scientific discoveries.

ICR makes it sound as if the belief in YEC caused the good science. I say, it happened in spite of the YEC beliefs.

scigirl