scigirl

Ok, let me clarify my position a bit. . .

If you want to be a good scientist, can you believe in creationism? Sure. Anyone can become a good purifyer of proteins, or learn how to run gels, or figure out how to put plasmids in cells and express them.

I think you can hold all sorts of wacky beliefs, and still do good, publishable science. Why? I don't really know.

However, you want to make Nobel Prize winning discoveries? You want to take science to a new level, and be able to explain complicated things such as the force behind gravity, or the origins of human violence? And you believe that ancient stories written by primitive men are a good source of scientific knowledge? It ain't gonna happen. Sure, people who reject huge tenets of science (like YECS do) can pipet reagents, and get data published.

But can they make great advancements in the cause of scientific, rational discovery, such as Einstein or Koch or Galileo, while clinging on to ancient myths?

I have my doubts.

scigirl

Doubting Didymus

Its because, if you are doing a scientific experiment and you are properly following proceedure, you should always get the same result no matter who you are or what you believe. The problem comes when YEC scientists are dismissing results, or rationalising them away, when they don't agree with the result.

Jimmy Higgins

Its the power of myth. Intelligence and religious understanding are completely unrelated. I've got an uncle who is a Physics teacher who always thinks its going to be the Flyers this year. Its a neurotic belief, but I don't hold that against him.

The difference between him and YEC'ers, though, is that he doesn't believe that his faith is both caused by the Flyers and that he can be rewarded by his faith in the Flyers. YEC'ers do, well if you replace Flyers with god. I don't really know any timelines for YEC scientists, however, I will go out on a limb to say they are generally raised as conservative to extreme conservative christians. Education is very important and stressed in their family model, as well as god. They are raised to think the global flood happened, that the earth is 6000 years old. Being intelligent, they realize that there is no evidence of such things. If god made it easy there would be no faith, etc...

So they believe that god gave them this intelligence to find the evidence. So they go to college and excel in the sciences. They ignore all the old earth stuff because it is merely an illusion to them. Finally, when they are a scientist, they can find this evidence that is hidden by god, because this is their mission for god. It is their way to spread the gospels. I think this is where ego becomes involved as well. They want to be the ones with the great discovery to transforms faith. They want to prove god so that they are the one who does it.

I think it is less that they want to prove to scientific world their worth. Rather they are trying to show the secular world they are right. The idea of being the catalyst for god must be a powerful motivator. They are doing it for god and for their ego.

So while their brains allow them to be smart, it is their engraved convictions of religion that make them search for the unicorn. They realize they need science to do it, so they learn it, but their motive is what makes them fail.

scigirl

Good post, Jimmy.
What, you don't believe in unicorns? <a href="http://www.geocities.com/ipuprophecy/ipu.html" target="_blank">Blasphemy!</a>

scigirl

GeoTheo

I honestly did read a book by a guy who has two p.h.d's and was widely published in scientific journals and was a creationist and got rejected. When I moved to Bemidji it accidentally (or purposefully, my wife believes I have too many books) got placed into a box for my sister in law who has an online Christian bookstore. I can't remember the Guys name, but I think I quoted it on here last year under the Theo the Logian moniker and I will do a search and see if the Guy has a website.

Dr Rick

If he was "widely published," from what was he allegedly rejected?

Rick

scigirl

But Theo, if a "flat earther" got a paper rejected, would it be because of his religious beliefs, or because, frankly, he's wrong?

Papers should be evaluated on their merits, not on the belief systems of the author. However, in order for a paper supporting YEC to be published, it would have to be extremely long, and refute all the physics, geology, and biology that we have compiled over the last 150 years that supports an old earth and evolution.

Here's an assignment for you. Read a <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html" target="_blank">non-christian creation story</a>, and imagine a person trying to 'twist' science to fit it. Here's an example, from Finland:
Now, suppose a "YEC" (Young Egg Creationist) proposes the following paper:

YEC: Now see, the eggs were REAL, and the 6 eggs became what we know of today as limestone quarries. If you carefully analyze limestone quarries today, you will see that they exactly match the egg creation, made by the Mother of the Water. (YEC provides data that he did not collect, rather he "borrowed" from geologists that spent their lives studying limestone quarries but for some strange reason, don't believe in the Egg Theory). See, the sun used to be an egg yolk too. If you study sun spots, you will see the evidence. (Again, provides data that was collected by astronomers).

This paper would clearly get rejected - but is this because there is an evil anti-egg conspiracy, or because the paper is plain wrong, and not science?

I do agree that the peer review process in science has some flaws, and yes of course scientists can be dogmatic and make mistakes.

However, this is no reason to abandon what good and careful scientific scrutiny of the universe has shown us: the earth is very old, and we evolved from chimp-like primates.

(NOTE: this is not directed at you Theo - but rather just a rant at theists in general
Anytime a theist points out flaws in science, I have to laugh (sorry but I do). When was the last time a pastor opened up his sermon for questions? When was the last time a church did an objective evaluation of all the religious texts in existence, without assuming a priori that the Bible is the one true one?

When a theist points out how a scientist can be dogmatic, and refuses to look at evidence, all I can say is, Pot...Kettle...Black.

Heh, does your wife want to help me move? I have way too much stuff!

scigirl

GeoTheo

Well, I can't find the Guy but I found this Guy:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=42&t=000481&p=" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=42&t=000481&p=</a>

The other Guy that wrote the book,(red and white cover if any body has seen it) that I can't find, put forth a theory about the Universe not being in a closed system of cause and effect. He compared supernatural creation it to an "event horizon" as in a Black Hole. It is where the Universe in a way comes in contact with another dimension.
Is there not a bias on the part of the scientific community that would preclude the investigation of an open system of cause and effect?
I understand the thought behind that. Where to stop would be the question. If you open the explanation of one phenomena to the supernatural where will it end? But by the same token, If somthing actually does have a supernatural origin,
wouldn't the methodology of only looking at the Universe as a closed system of cause and effect prevent the scientist from obtianing the truth? Would not that stunt Scientific inquiry?

GeoTheo

She might be able to help, but she's not perfect in that department either. We brought a one million pound couch half way across the country that I would have left in a heart beat.

Dr Rick

Your question introduces a Strawman fallacy; there is nothing in science that precludes "the investigation of an open system of cause and effect," whatever that means. If there is a way of objectively evaluating a claim based on natural phenomena and explanations, then it can be done with the scientific method. Black holes can be evaluated this way; "supernatural creation" and "the other Guy"'s proposal cannot be, so neither is scientific.

<strong> Science does not only look at the universe as " a closed system of cause and effect," whatever that means, too; rather, it calls upon natural and ultimately observable phenomena to explain the universe.

The use of supernatural explanations instead of scientific ones "stunted" the truth and kept humanity in the Dark Ages for generations.

Rick