GeoTheo

Intersting that you should bring that up. In a discussion on the existence (or lack of) moral absolutes That I had in my freshman English class with a post-modernist college professor some one brought up animal behavior as a basis for morality.
His objection was that you can find examples of all sorts of animal behavior and there is no reason to believe that any of it is any more superior than any other. Some animals mate for life, some are promiscuos, some even eat their mates.
It was very interesting being in his class, though he was probably an atheist, he was open to the idea that evolution might be false.
Not that he objected on Biblical grounds (far from it) It is hard to debat with people that don't think in terms of antithesis. i.e 'A' is not non 'A'. He didn't think like that.
Most people hear at least will accept that evolution is either true or not true not niether.

ex-robot

Who is stating that they are looking for supernatural explanations in regards to aids, malaria, and even canola oil in current scientific endeavors? I don't think a supervisor is going to care whether G*D showed the scientist the way or not as long as the goods are on the table.
Who says that?
Praying to *** to help solve a problem scientifically which is a far cry from what you have continually put forth about "goddidit", etc. If God is supposedly on your side, it seems logical to ask him for help. Reference is In Six Days by Ashton. See chapter on John Kramer. Bio is at ICRs list.

xr

Mageth

Who is stating that they are looking for supernatural explanations in regards to aids, malaria, and even canola oil in current scientific endeavors? I don't think a supervisor is going to care whether G*D showed the scientist the way or not as long as the goods are on the table.

I think we've been talking in circles a bit. I agree a supervisor probably won't care much if a scientist *thinks* God showed the way to a discovery.

Who says that?

The scientists who tout Intelligent Design are one well-known example.

Praying to *** to help solve a problem scientifically which is a far cry from what you have continually put forth about "goddidit", etc. If God is supposedly on your side, it seems logical to ask him for help. Reference is In Six Days by Ashton. See chapter on John Kramer. Bio is at ICRs list.

I'll take 10 scientists who spend time thinking or studying to solve a problem over 100 scientists who spend the time praying to solve a problem any day.

As many if not most scientific discoveries are made without resorting to prayer, what does that say about the need for prayer in making scientific discoveries, anecdotal stories notwithstanding?

Tabula_rasa

Joining in late:

Creationism has been, and continues to be, an American phenomenon. If (very big if) Creationism 'wins' it won't have an effect on other countries except to make their research better. This will happen due to the huge exodus (hmmmm, biblical connotations?) of scientists out of this country and into theirs. But I predict that reason will rule the day in the end.

My 2 centavos,
Tabula_rasa

Skeptical

If that was _all_ creationists believed, we wouldn't have a continual push by religious interests to teach what is _at best_ a religious theory as science. Perhaps your not aware, but from what I have seen "creationists" typically believe much more than that god created the universe. They typically claim:

1) The earth is only a few thousand years old (YEC's). In response to the mountain of evidence that the earth and universe are billions of years old, they typically resort to various forms of lying and appeals to magic. (quote-mining and selective use of evidence are some favorites)

2) The story in the OT are literally true, such as the creation story of Adam and Eve and the Flood. In response to the mountains of evidence...see 1 above

3) They seem to believe that although physicists and chemists know what they are doing, geologists, biologists and astronomers are complete idiots and cannot even interpret their own data. The also believe that even though scientists in their own field cannot interpret their data, a non-specialist, non-scientist who probably didn't even take science in college can somehow see things the real scientists cannot. When someone points out they are wrong, they typically will either ignore it or claim they are inspired by satan. (yes, this does happen)

4) They think that religion should be taught in schools. The bottom line is that creationism is religion, pure and simple. I would assert that there is not a single creationist who does not want it taught because they want religon taught. Creationism is not in any way science and anyone who understands what science is knows that. My personal belief is that there are numerous creationists who understand that what they want taught is not science, they just don't care. (the end justifies the means)

To answer your original post, the problem is that people who are creationists tend to

a) not understand science
b) don't care that they don't understand science
c) do not have anything resembling a logical mindset
and
d) are liars

(this is based on personal experience in online and "real life" conversations and surfing the web. Kent Hovind, for example, is a blatant liar, although he's probably in it for the $$)

I think it should be obvious as to why having people with this mentality dictate science curricula is why over half of the US is "science illiterate". We are close to last (if not in fact last) when it comes to science literacy among developed nations. We also seem to have the largest number of creationists. Hmmm...coincidence?

What creationists typically fail to realize (because they are not logical), is that if they don't trust science, they really should be living like the Amish. Most do not (I once had a debate with one on an airplane). They want only the "good science", by which they mean science that does not contradict their religious views. God didn't say anything about airplanes and microwaves, so those are cool, but start talking about biology or geology and watch out!

scigirl

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

scigirl

scigirl

I would clarify that creationists can be one, but not the others. I have some friends who are open-minded, honest, and intelligent, yet they still believe in Young Earth Creationism. I attribute this to early indoctrination by their church at young ages (before logical thinking has fully developed), usually by pastors who claim that "evolution is evil" and other such nonsense.

I also attribute it to #1 above - lack of education about science. I just found out that one of my boyfriend's co-workers is a creationist although he is not religious! He just can't fathom how evolution occured so he thinks it must have been some alien or creator outside of the Earth. I think a few science classes would straighten him out, but he's already finished with college. :sad:

scigirl

Stephen T-B

1) GeoTheo: "Creationists believe they have true revelation from God, with respect to origins."
What? That man was made in the image of god?
Come on . . . God a physical entity complete with all the survival and reproductive attributes of a male human being? Teeth? Heart? Lungs? Nose hairs? Testosterone? etc etc. And WHAT did god model woman on?
Or are you being metaphysical, and thinking the "in the likeness of..." has a different meaning? If so, you stand accused of putting a private interpretation on the explicit revelation of God Almighty.
If Creationists see sense in that, then they will see sense in every kind of imaginable nonsense from the Flood to Jonah's whale. And this degree of irrationality does not sit comfortably with rational inquiry without which no scientific knowledge can be acquired.

2) GeoTheo is being disingenuous when he suggests that Creationists come with no other baggage than their straight-forward belief in god's revelation "with respect to origins." I note, for instance, that no-one has disputed my suggestion that Creationists consider the Theory of Evolution to be the work of Satan; that Darwin and **** (the guy who's name I've forgotten but whose work preceded that of Darwin - he just didn't get published as soon) were the tools of the devil.

scigirl

His name is Alfred Wallace, I believe.

scigirl

scigirl

See <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001090" target="_blank">this thread</a> for the answer to that question.
Excellent point, Stephen. So. . . either Biblical literalists believe that God has testicles and nose hairs, or they believe (shudder): that part of the Bible is a metaphor.

Interesting conundrums that YECS face, isn't it?

scigirl