Evolution scientists...yeah, but creation scientists?

[JC333]

Can someone point me in the right direction of a creation scientist(s)? I have been told that they only exist as a negligible minority in the scientific community?


EDIT:Feel free to take discussion in any direction. Original question has been answered.

[zoegirl]

Well, that depends on what type of "creation scientist" you want to find

Young Earht?

Progressive creationsist?

Theistic evolutionist?

[JC333]

Young Earht?

Yes.

Progressive creationsist?

What's that?

Theistic evolutionist?

No.

[Daniel]

Well, for young earth, try http://www.answersingenesis.org.

[Robert Byers]

There are no evolution scientists. As the great Dr Morris said all origin subjects are not open in any important ways to the scientific method. All that researchers can do is gather data and make conclusions by the weight of evidence but no method of science.
However in the real world creationists must use the word scientists for themselves to bring understanding to the public.

[Himantolophus]

wow, that's all I have to say...

[Cross.eyed]

Hi JC333, for yec scientists go to icr.org.
There is some interesting reading there and I occasionally go check out the newest articles and to see what are the latest projects.

I don't really care how much time was involved in God's creating everything so I try to keep up with both debates.
I guess if I had to choose, I might be a little more OEC than YEC but still undecided. God made it all the way He wanted to.

[JC333]

Thanks for the all the responses guys and girls.

[Gerald McGrew]

I hardly think anyone who signs this document as a pretext for doing work can be properly referred to as a "scientist". The statement:

No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

...is the opposite of science. The same holds true for ICR's tenets as well.

[zoegirl]

Young Earht?

Yes.

Progressive creationsist?

What's that?

Theistic evolutionist?

No.

Our main site is progressive creationist. Check it out.

IMO, I really dislike YEC "Science" because, quite frankly, think they are willing to ignore, manipulate data to fit what they think scripture says. Not tom mention that most of the links provided claim that other ideas about scripture are essentially heresy.

But, that's not what you asked, was it?

[JC333]

IMO, I really dislike YEC "Science" because, quite frankly, think they are willing to ignore, manipulate data to fit what they think scripture says. Not tom mention that most of the links provided claim that other ideas about scripture are essentially heresy.

But, that's not what you asked, was it?

Well please explain? I am open to different viewpoints other than my own.

Our main site is progressive creationist. Check it out.

Ok, will do. Thanks for the tip.

[Pashan]

I have a question for YEC "creationist" scientists which I have not been able to have satisfactorily answered.

What is the one single most compelling piece of scientific evidence for a 6000 year old universe? Not including the Old Testament genealogy.

For an old universe, I find the fact we can behold light from galaxies ten billion light years away pretty compelling evidence our universe must be at least that old. I have heard it explained that God created trails of light back to those far distant galaxies that we might appreciate their loveliness, but you cannot see them with the unaided eye. We can only see their light through huge optical telescopes, and the Hubble Space Telescope. But then, if God created trails of light for modern space telescopes to intercept millenia after Genesis was written, why encode information concerning events within those trails of light that would, in effect, never have actually occurred? We can see supernova--exploding stars. Did the star in the galaxy that momentarily outshines the other hundred billion suns that are its neighbors really exist, or was that just light faked up to make it appear to modern astronomers as though some significant stellar event took place billions of years ago? If the latter is the case, why has God gone to such extraordinary lengths to deceive us?

To me, a simple and straight forward 6000 year old universe should contain no stars visible more than 6000 light years away. We can see almost no stars more than a few thousand light years away anyway, with the naked eye. The core of Andromeda is a little smudge of light only visible in very dark skies--no one would miss it if it had never been there. I'm almost half a century old, and I have only seen Andromeda naked eye less than half a dozen times--and then only because I knew exactly where I needed to look to find it. Besides Andromeda and one other, fainter galaxy 10 million light years away, there are no naked eye visible galaxies in the northern hemisphere.

The universe is clearly a testament to God's glory, greatness, and incredible patience. Imagine creating the universe, and waiting 13.7 billion years for mankind to evolve on one remote speck of dust of a planet orbiting an unremarkable star in one arm of an ordinary spiral galaxy far removed from many of the interesting places in space. There are galaxies far bigger and more wonderful than ours. Andromeda--our sister galaxy, fairly dwarfs our Milky Way. There is nothing all that spectacular about our galaxy. Yes it contains some 400 billion stars. Andromeda has more stars, over a larger volume of space. It is pretty much a better galaxy than ours in just about every respect. And even Andromeda, king of our local group, is not as impressive as some of the really remarkable galaxies in our universe. There are quasar galaxies, with rapidly spinning central black holes of a hundred million solar masses pumping streaks of matter and energy out its axial poles stretching across hundreds of thousands of light years. Some quasar galaxies have pumped highly collimated jets of matter out a million light years, flinging debris from interstellar clouds of gas and chewed up stars out massing dwarf galaxies distances that boggle the imagination.

Cosmologists have nailed the age of the universe to 13.7 billion years. I think it belittles God to dismiss the spectacular size and age of our universe as boffed up science just because that contradicts the overly simplistic literalist interpretation of ancient scriptures. I don't believe Genesis was written as a scientific explanation of origins. I find it pretty remarkable the author(s) of Genesis (attributed to Moses) was bright enough to realize snakes came from tetrapods. They seemed to have messed up on bats, however, classifying them as birds instead of mammals. Se la vie.

So, we have light from distant galaxies heralding an ancient universe. What bit of scientific evidence best supports a specific age for our universe of only 6000 years?

[Sarah]

I have read a number of answers in genesis and the other publication the more 'scientific' jargonistic one. As a young believer with a science degree i have tried really hard to become anti-evolution and pro-creationism but I just can't make my intelligent mind return to ignorance, i know what I know and God called me that way. Being born again was not a scientific endeavour it was a gloriously spiritual one and far outweighed the enjoyment of any science knowledge anyway.

However, there are things learnt in science that can't be denied just because my fellow believers are uncomfortable or offended by them. For instance every year the bacteria responsible for colds mutate and evolve and so remain contagious and able to slip past our immune defences and make us sick, and thus reproduce themselves successfully. If this were not true then we would get the cold only once and then gain immunity permanently, the bacteria would soon die out with no host to live in. The world around us is constantly changing in many complex and wonderful ways, this is only to God's glory and yes creation does beg the hand of a creator, at no time in my studies was evolution viewed as the ultimate source of creation itself rather the process of diversification and adaptation.

It is part of our inherent nature to evolve and adapt, when it gets too hot we come up with ways to cool down, when cold we seek warmth. These novel behaviours that allow us to adapt to and thus succeed in our environment are as much a natural part of life as putting food in our mouths. Evolution is defined as the change in frequencies of genes in a species. When a population of a certain species fail to reproduce themselves because they could not find the right environmental conditions to do so eg; not enough warmth for their young then it happens that their genes do not get passed on, other populations who raise their young successfully do pass on their genes to the next generation. This is basic evolution. I don't find it scary or really debatable in any rational kind of way. I also don't view it as threatening or compromising to belief in God as it is of course by God's grace that we have the ability to adapt and reproduce along with the rest of His creation. Its like His gift for dealing with a fallen world and its limitations so that life may continue. Living within God's will makes us highly adaptable and able to evolve and reproduce our genes to the next generation as Joshua and the Iraelites proved in Canaan.

I certainly have many gaps in my understanding in regards to the scientific processes associated with the origin of the universe. I do understand this in terms of the bible and God's word, but the bible is not a scientific text book. It is and always was a document concerned primarily with the spiritual wellbeing of humanity. The crux of the issue is this question; How did the hebrew people interpret Mose's account of creation as shown him by God, when we learn how to read the bible like a hebrew and thus understand its original intent then we will be better positioned to argue. A key here is that we must take into account our western cultural context based in the greek tradition of thinkers, it is based in form thinking, the hebrew culture was founded in function thinking. These paradigms are worlds apart, so we must leave room for the unknown before we decide that we know it all. Jesus was a hebrew and thought like one, how much do we really understand Him, thank God for the Holy Spirit's revelations.

[rodyshusband]

If anyone is interested, please listen to this lecture series presented by Hugh Ross Ph.D.
The entire lecture runs about 70 minutes, broken down into 10 minutes segments.
Students of the sciences will find it particularly compelling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuEYjYDrKH4

Thanks.

[JC333]

If anyone is interested, please listen to this lecture series presented by Hugh Ross Ph.D.
The entire lecture runs about 70 minutes, broken down into 10 minutes segments.
Students of the sciences will find it particularly compelling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuEYjYDrKH4

Thanks.

I might be interested. What is it about exactly?