scigirl

Thanks for your reply, ex-robot.
Exactly. I'm not sure why we keep 'arguing,' because on this point I agree.

However, my problem is not so much that they believe in creation but don't use it, my problem is that they don't believe in evolution but should be using it. Does that make sense?

For example, if there was a creationist studying origins of human violence - even if they didn't bring their bible into their theory, if they completely discounted evolution as a possible explanation, they could be missing out. For example, our territorial agression may be because we evolved from chimp-like animals, who are fiercely territorial. Also, read those examples from that Science paper in this same thread - a creationist may refuse to do phylogenetic analyses among species to find the causes of disease.

Again I reiterate: I'm not so much worried about what YECs might do as scientists, but what they wouldn't do.

Hey that's ok I guess. I suppose scientists all have unique and different motivations or ideas when they do science.

I tried to no avail to find something on the web about this, but didn't find anything (I do not have that book).

I did read through a few of Kramer's abstracts. Despite the fact that he characterizes proteins, I could find no phylogenetic analyses of them. Again, what is Kramer not doing because he does not accept a fundamental tenet of science (evolution)? And how is this hurting him, and his research? We may never know. . .
I fail to see how it is irrelevant. The point I was trying to make is - they believe in evolution of their particular system. Therefore, the fact that they don't believe that humans evolved from apes is probably not going to adversely affect their research.

Although now that I think about it - yeah it might be affecting their research in a big way. Bacteria and viruses did not 'evolve' independent of their hosts - they evolved along with their hosts (and their hosts' immune systems). Again, what types of experiments/studies/conclusions are NOT being carried out because the creation scientist does not believe that the immune system was adapted to the evolving bacteria? Again, this is purely speculative, and we have no way to measure.

The only analogy I can think of is Galileo. If the early church had not suppressed his studies, how much further along would we be in astronomy as a human race? Maybe we'd be the same, or maybe we'd be way further along in our understanding. We'll never know, will we, and I hate to see history repeating itself with theories as as important and encompassing as evolution and old earth.

scigirl

Here's a couple of threads from the archives:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001386&p=" target="_blank">Will it get down to this / ICR Contributors </a> and <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001576&p=" target="_blank">50 More Banjo Pickers? </a>

Talkorigins has a ton of stuff on credentials of YECS.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html</a>

Here's a site called "ICR Graduate School Catalogue and List of Publications"

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-catalog.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-catalog.html</a>

Enjoy!

scigirl

GeoTheo

You know what Richard Leakey has to say about this belief of the origin of human violence being related to our chimp like ancestors? He thinks its a bunch of hogwash. He states in "Origins Reconsidered" That he believes voilence is a result of Man'r free will. Which is exactly what a creationist would say. This type of thing, this evoulutionary psychology is not hard science. I would say less than psychology is hard science.

GeoTheo

And as for the phylogenic thing. Are creationists saying that Humans don't share genes with other animals? I haven't heard anyone say that.

ex-robot

Experts, authority,... still appealing. Both sides should weigh the evidence regardless.

xr

ex-robot

No problem.
One down.
No, not really. The way I usually see you using the term evolution indicates that they do use it.
I'm sure they feel the opposite as well.
That is a pretty broad statement. Kramer even did phylogenetic analysis among species for research into Canola oil, etc. Kramer and all the other creation scientists may not believe in the common ancestry of apes/monkeys/etc and humans, but they know about molecular similarities and use it in their research.
But we do know. He and others do use "evolution" in their research. Maybe approaching certain things from a creationist perspective might lead to a solution based on approaching a problem in a different way that someone hasn't tried. As long as he/she uses good science in the application, who knows...
My bad! I re-read and see your point now. I just see a lot of evolutionists pointing out that creationists believe in "microevolution" like it is a big surprise or something.
From what you describe, I don't see why they would have a problem with that.

xr

ex-robot

Me neither. Kramer mentions phylogenic comparisons and doesn't deny them.

xr

RufusAtticus

Of course, but the issue at hand is whether anyone actually familiar with the evidence thinks that special creation is an adequate explaination.

~~RvFvS~~

ex-robot

ex-robot

Mice and Humans? I believe these are compared in Kramer's notes about canola oil research. Molecular similarities is not an issue as mentioned in another thread. Creation scientists use this in their work.

xr