Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past
-
senseibushido — 9 years ago(December 25, 2016 10:09 PM)
https://ncse.com/project-steve
lol
Thus modern creationists are conveniently excluded as scientists merely by definition! Science does not mean "knowledge" or "truth," or "facts," as we used to think, but "naturalism" or "materialism," according to this new definition.
As with most things creationists say, this is yet another lie. If a person wants to abandon the scientific method because it conflicts with their beliefs in this one area, they cannot claim that their beliefs are scientific. It has nothing to do with naturalism or materialism.
A prime example of someone who is unwilling to compromise her scientific integrity in favor of her faith is Mary Schweitzer. The person whose discoveries creationists try to point to when they say, "Blood was found in dinosaur bones, so they can't be as old as the
evil
utionists claim!"
One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. Theyre looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesnt do anybody any favors. Still, its not surprising theyve reacted this waythe bone that I first studied I got from Jack, and when I gave him our initial results he was rather angryI called him a few times and by my third call he said, Dammit Mary the creationists are just going to love you. But I said, This is just what the data say Im not making it up.
I dont think my being a Christian has anything to do with the fact that the data Im proposing is challenging. Ive only had one or two people say they dont trust my science because of my faith. So if Im doing science according to the rules, which Im doing to honor God, and Im aware that anything and everything I do could be proven wrong tomorrow, then my job is to be as careful and cautious as I can and not overstate my data. All I can do is the best that I can do.
[]
How has your research influenced your faith, and your relationships with other Christians?
I think probably you better ask other Christians! I really dont know. But, I do go to pretty conservative churches. One time I was visiting a church and the pastor got up and started preaching a sermon about people not being related to apes, and he started talking about this scientist in Montana who discovered red blood cells in dinosaur boneshe didnt know I was in the audienceand it was my research he was talking about! Unfortunately, he got everything wrong. I just got up and left. I dont feel that Im discrediting God with the work Im doing, I think I am honoring him with the abilities hes given me.
http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/not-so-dry-bones-an-interview-with-mary-schweitzer -
graham-167 — 9 years ago(December 26, 2016 03:25 AM)
Its perfectly possible to be a creationist and do science.
And certainly if you were born in an era when our knowledge of science was far weaker than it is now, it is even understandable why a scientist might be a creationist; they were ignorant and didn't know any better.
And yes, when Darwin published his famous theory, it was possible to oppose it on a scientific basis. This only really changed as the evidence began to pile up and it became necessary to remain ignorant of it or lie about it in order to remain a creationist.
However, it remains true that today, if you claim that creationism itself is scientific then you have stopped doing science in that particular subject and ceased to be a scientist where that subject is concerned.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god. -
Tas-1010 — 9 years ago(December 26, 2016 03:28 PM)
.the evidence began to pile up
Please list some
specific
evidences that began to "pile up", please. Three will do. (Or as much as you'd like.)
www.jw.org
or
https://tv.jw.org/#en/home -
graham-167 — 9 years ago(December 26, 2016 07:11 PM)
The discovery of DNA, which behaved exactly as it needed to in order to allow evolution to happen. Scientists were predicting DNA or something functionally identical had to exist to explain how evolution worked, long before it was discovered and analysed.
Observations of evolution in action in the fossil record.
Observation of evolution, including speciation events, in living species.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god. -
Melanie000 — 9 years ago(December 26, 2016 08:12 PM)
Observation of evolution, including speciation events, in living species.
More detail please and links would be nice! Because afaik, change within species has been observed, but that's not evolution, it's mutation.
Laws are silent in times of War - Cicero -
senseibushido — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 01:59 AM)
And in doing so you acknowledged that changes
have
been observed. No one's all that impressed by the "mutations aren't evolution" line, considering mutations are one of the major components of evolution. -
senseibushido — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 02:41 AM)
That goal post has to be in constant motion. The alternative is acknowledging that speciation isn't all that special. If humans can breed something like a pomeranian from something like a wolf in a few thousand years, the leap from something like a four-legged sea lion to something like a whale in a few million years isn't all that extreme. (which is, of course, why they need to deny that things have been around that long as well)
-
jmarkoff2 — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 02:44 AM)
Paleontologist Donald Prothero compared the constantly moving baramin goal post to Lewis Carroll's version of Humpty Dumpty, who said that when he used a word, it only meant what he wanted it to mean for as long as he was saying it.
-
Melanie000 — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 03:49 AM)
No kidding. They are still cats, and breeding a house cat with a lion is theoretically possible. So where are those details?
Evolution happens at far too slow a rate to be observed so your claim to know otherwise deserves ridicule. I am not a creationist but your defence of evolution actually harms it. -
-
OldSamVimes — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 11:38 PM)
which you well know.
I didn't know, that's why I asked.
It's fine whatever you believe, it's just that most Christians I know believe that God created the Universe.
If God created evolution, isn't that still creating?
so grow up.
Someone should give you a hug Debbie. -
RedBaroness1966 — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 05:18 AM)
I think there are plenty of examples of observed speciation in plants but on the whole it's a pointless argument, as you say the evolution of species is extremely slow in the animal world so comparative genomics is how we work out phylogenetics. I've seen studies on fruit flies that work out the genes involved in speciation and possibly Mice, this is possible because they're both genetic model organisms but the 'show me examples of speciation in action' argument is facile.
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England. -
Melanie000 — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 04:14 PM)
but the 'show me examples of speciation in action' argument is facile.
Meh, it was his claim. He can't back up his argument. Neither you nor he seems to realise that he's not doing evolution any favours by his 'defence'. If his claim is so easily torpedoed, and it is,
then don't use it! Find a better one!
Laws are silent in times of War - Cicero