The Creationist

[MarkNigro]

 

 

So if a handful of scientists who are creationists is compelling to you, why then isn't the fact that the vast majority of earth and life scientists are "evolutionists" even more compelling?  I mean, I'm surprised to see a creationist try and argue from numbers of scientists. ~ Gerald McGrew post #41 "Are God's actions falsifiable?"

 

Furthermore, you seem to have trouble distinguishing the difference between the words "scientist" and "believe". Many scientists believe in a creator god. Being a scientist does not in anyway shape or form indicate one's beliefs. It simply means they are a scientist.

 

If a mathematician told you 2+2=5 would you believe him just because he is scientist?

 

 

Surely you understand the difference between:

 

"Evolution is true because the majority of scientists say so"

 

...and...

 

"If you find a handful of scientists who believe in creationism compelling, why then isn't the fact that far more scientists believe evolution even more compelling to you?"

 

 

The former is the fallacy of argument from popularity, whereas the latter is merely pointing out another person's faulty reasoning.  The two are not at all the same.

 

Popularity never  was a great indicator of truth.

[Ninevite]

Popularity never  was a great indicator of truth.

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

Yet this is the stance of most evolutionists today. They hold onto outdated and archaic theories all the while arguing that "most scientists believe it". In my OP I was attempting to point out the fact that "most scientists" is pitiful in comparison to the vast majority of the planet's population.

 

While I hold the stance that popularity means nothing in the creation/evolution debate, I think it is note worthy to point out that creationists are on the rise among the scientific community. To me this indicates that more and more scientists are starting to go where the evidence leads and abandoning their presuppositions.

[Ninevite]

 

While I hold the stance that popularity means nothing in the creation/evolution debate, I think it is note worthy to point out that creationists are on the rise among the scientific community. 

 

 

Can you provide data backing up this claim?

 

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highereducation

 

"A growing number of science students on British campuses and in sixth form colleges are challenging the theory of evolution and arguing that Darwin was wrong."

 

"In the United States there is growing pressure to teach creationism or "intelligent design" in science classes, despite legal rulings against it."

 

And this:

 

"There is an insidious and growing problem," said Professor Jones, of University College London. "It's a step back from rationality. They (the creationists) don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with argument. And irrationality is a very infectious disease as we see from the United States."

 

All quotes from the link above. And another article here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/the-big-question-why-is-creationism-on-the-rise-and-does-it-have-a-place-in-education-927035.html

[OakWood]

 

No, it adds a third possibility.  So we have...

 

1) The universe "came from nothing".

 

2) The universe was created by a god.

 

3) The universe has always existed.

 

If the  universe has always existed there would have been no big bang. 

 

keep trying

 

Bad use of the words. What should have been said is that the Omniverse has always existed.

[enoob57]

That's another ploy of science when the present belief becomes ridiculous just add more techno of terms to hide the ridiculous!

This is what really reveals the agenda of spirit behind evolution... 'after it's kind from the beginning does not allow evolution to be'

Love, Steven

[Ninevite]

Ninevite,

 

You claimed, "creationists are on the rise among the scientific community".

 

The first article you link to gives no data to support this claim.  Further, it specifically talks about students, not members of the scientific community as you claimed.

 

The second article talks about state-run and private schools in England, not members of the scientific community as you claimed.

 

In order to support your claim, you need to present actual data describing the views on evolution and creationism among members of the scientific community, and that the numbers of "creationists" in that group are increasing.

 

You and I have a very different idea of what constitutes the scientific community, Gerald.

[Guest]

Surely you understand the difference between:

 

"Evolution is true because the majority of scientists say so"

 

~

 

Surely

 

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Romans 3:3-4

 

I Do

 

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:19-22

 

Will You?

 

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

[bestrfcplayer]

 

Did nothing create matter, order, life, intelligence and compassion? Or did some higher creative power give rise to what we have before us?

If there was a higher power, than who created God?

[RobbyPants]

 

No, it adds a third possibility.  So we have...

 

1) The universe "came from nothing".

 

2) The universe was created by a god.

 

3) The universe has always existed.

 

If the  universe has always existed there would have been no big bang. 

 

keep trying

 

 

This isn't necessarily true. I've heard a theory that the big bang is something that happens repeatedly, and we are likely on the nth iteration. The idea is that once everything is collapsed down into a singularity after the previous heat death of the universe, this would technically make everything ordered to the maximum degree. Thus, as entropy increases, the next step is for another big bang.

 

Now, two things:

1. I may be seriously misrepresenting some part of that theory as I paraphrase it, and
2. It's just a theory that doesn't have any evidence (that I know of) backing it up. It's more of an intellectual exercise talking about what may have come before and happen after.

That being said, I'm not asserting this is the case, but rather pointing out that it's technically possible for the universe to have always existed and for there to have been a big bang (or rather, many of them).

[RobbyPants]

 

 

Did nothing create matter, order, life, intelligence and compassion? Or did some higher creative power give rise to what we have before us?

If there was a higher power, than who created God?

 

 

Yeah, this is one thing I've never liked about the cosmological argument for creationism. The standard answer is "God is timeless/eternal", but I've never understood why the universe couldn't also be timeless or eternal.