Honest Creationist = not a scientist

Picked up from wickedthought‘s LJ.

Q: What if experimentation and observation yielded evidence that appeared to contradict the statements in the scriptures?

A: Well, that can always happen, but since our mind isn’t perfect and our observations aren’t always perfect, if we find some experiment that, on the surface, seems to disagree with the word of god, we go with the word of god.



12 thoughts on “Honest Creationist = not a scientist

      • Please see my other response to you under this journal entry.

        And agnostics ridicule people of faith when they claim to use science to prove their faith, when (1) faith does not require proof, that’s why it’s faith, and (2) the “proof” comes about from blatantly ignoring evidence that contradicts the presupposed conclusion the theist is trying to prove.

        If I say I believe that all flowers are blue, and that I am going to PROVE this with science, and I do so by ignoring all the non-blue flowers in the world, you’d ridicule me, and deservedly so. Now, if I said, “I believe there is one flower that exists that is so beautiful, so perfect, that it makes all other flowers seem ugly by comparison,” that wouldn’t be worthy of ridicule–but it wouldn’t be PROVABLE by science, either.

        See the difference?

      • I think you are projecting or being overly sensitive, as there is nothing in my statement about flowers that is condescending; that’s why I deliberately used it as my comparison.

        But given that you walked into this discussion uninformed and started making assumptions and accusations based on your own impression of what was going on shows me that you’re not really interested in discussion–much like the “scientist” who sparked this blog entry in the first place.

    • From the video, which you didn’t watch but felt you were informed enough to comment on:
      “One of the [Creationist museum’s] resident scientists agreed to talk to me. I was curious to know how he reconciles his faith in the Biblical account of creation with contradictory scientific evidence.”

      scientist: an expert in science, esp. one of the physical or natural sciences.

      science: (1) a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. (2) systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

      scientific method: a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

      If you are a scientist, you believe in the scientific method. If you use the scientific method and DISREGARD evidence that contradicts your hypothesis or your conclusions, you are NOT a scientist.

      Any more than a Christian priest who thinks it’s okay to molest boys is truly a Christian.

      I’m not asking scientists to disprove God, Christianity, or religion. I AM expecting that someone who claims to be a scientist and is using the scientific method to test hypothesis won’t simply DISMISS RESULTS because they disagree with his desired result.

      • From the video, which you didn’t watch but felt you were informed enough to comment on:

        Try re-reading my post. I was reacting to your comment, not the video.

        Thanks for trying, though.

      • My point is that you felt that my comment about the video gave you enough information about the video itself to join the discussion. You didn’t (and presumably don’t) know the context of the discussion, yet you think you know why I’m saying what I’m saying.
        If you had watched the video, you would have understood that I was quoting someone who claimed to be a scientist, and understood that I was pointing out that his idea of science is actually contrary to the scientific method: and that contradiction is what I was criticizing. Then you jumped in and assumed that I was implying that to be a scientist you have to “be out to disprove God, Christianity, or religion in general,” which is clearly not the case. The point of science is to study facts and truth; dismissing facts derived from experimentation is NON-SCIENTIFIC, regardless of whether you’re studying psychology, chemistry, atoms, religion, art, or anything else.

        But thank YOU for trying.

  1. OK, I’m European, so the entire facepalm issue goes with the territory, but you gotta like people who accuse you of one thing and do the same while they’re at it … *damatic pause* NOT.

    Elephant, get with the program, science is science, religion is religion. To take the bible literally is … well … how can I put this nicely? Um… I can’t.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s