Dr Rick

Christian concepts include the belief that all things were created by a supernatural god, and that the supernatural god can do anything and can control everything. Since "everything" includes the universe and physical laws, then the universe and the physical laws are subservient to the supernatural god and his commands or laws. To deny this is to deny the omnipotence of the supernatural god.

Rick

Starboy

Hi GeoTheo,

On that we can definitely agree!

Starboy

Starboy

Please don’t get me wrong. Even though it is not about the truth and it can't figure out everything, I still think that science is the MOST SUCCESSFUL HUMAN ENDEVOUR FOR UNDERSTANDING OUR SURROUNDINGS IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND. I consider it the only game in town. But if your gonna play the game, you gotta know the rules.

Starboy

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Jimmy Higgins

Aw, the IPU has been proven wrong!

Actually is there a website devoted to disproving the IPU?

ex-robot

Exactly!!! But nowhere does ICR pretend that the theory of creation had a part in it.
I don't know where you got that from, but here is what they say about their list:

"This list and others like it are primarily in response to false claims and appeals to authority by evolutionists."

I see nothing of the sort to back up your claim. It obviously does what it was intended for without a doubt.

xr

ex-robot

Does inventing the MRI, using microbes to detect land mines, discovering ways to use yeast to fight aids, malaria, etc. fall under your list of mundane tasks that ordinary scientists do? Even if I did agree with your point, it is still way to generalized. It still wouldn't apply to everyone. Even if they believe the Bible spoke directly in their field, it would still only cover 1% of it and probably none of that particular situation.

xr

RufusAtticus

No. It's more like. "These people do good astronomy (or whatever). Therefore, they're opinions on biology must be right."

Too bad ICR can't produce a single population biologist, former or otherwise, who considers special creation to be an correct explaination about the diversity of life.

scigirl

Were those on that site too? If not, please provide a link. They sound interesting.
If believing in the Bible, and creation, doesn't make a whit of difference in the every day live of a scientist, than why mention it at all?

So you are willing to agree with me that creationism does not automatically help a scientist. Ok.

I still maintain that it can also hurt scientists. Let's look at the examples you mentioned. Inventing an MRI is engineering, not science, and you do not need to accept evolutionary priniciples to be an engineer.

Also, all the other examples dealt with microbes. I'd be willing to bet that the scientists that did study yeast and HIV still believed in microevolution (you'd have to be a bloody fool not to). So in their cases, their beliefs about human origins is irrelevant, because they are not studying human origins.

However, show me a person who used YEC to make advances in research into human behavior, or population genetics, ecosystems, etc (things that are intricately tied to ToE).

A person who believes that humans are the way we are because some chickee and guy ate a fruit in a garden are going to have a very tough time making progess in behavioral research, if they are mistaken, wouldn't you agree?

Things like drug addiction, the origins of human violence, and adultery--these are behaviors that we are starting to figure out by studying our evolutionary history. No, we haven't found "cures" for these things yet - but maybe if we actually educate the public, get them to accept science, than we will have a reniassance of scientific discovery. I just read a book called "The Moral Animal" (I linked to it somewhere in this forum recently), and although I did not completely agree with the author's conclusions, it was a wonderful book - finally, after 150 years, we are starting to examine humans through the lens of evolution. If it wasn't for creationists, we'd probably have done so much earlier.

Why do you think I fight so hard to educate people about ToE, and science in general? It isn't because I'm just bored - it's because I believe that it is the best way to understand and learn about ourselves in order to improve our condition. And yes, the YECS are impeding this research big time.

And don't even get me started on the young earth crap!

scigirl

P.S. I disagree with your theory that the ICR is not trying to show that creationism helps science. They think they are a science (I disagree), so of course they believe that creationism helps you as a scientist!

Tabula_rasa

GeoTheo, you are mischaracterizing atheism. Atheism is not a doctrine of hedonism as you (and many xians) would like to believe.

Tabula_rasa

Oolon Colluphid

Maybe some atheists are hedonists, but I suspect that most are, rather, Epicureans: life is the pursuit of pleasure, but not so that it causes pain (to self or others).

Or the simpler inscription at the temple of Apollo at Delphi: meden agan, ‘nothing in excess’ (along with the other one, gnothi seauton, ‘know thyself’).

Alternatively, dum vivimus, vivamus -- while we are living, let us live!

Oolon Colluphid, BA (hons), Classical Studies

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>