$27 million 7-day Creationism Museum set to open in KY

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
So will secular scientists actually go there with an open mind and evaluate the evidence? Or is evolution their blind religion?

Will libs respect the freedoms of speech and religion, and engage students in mindful discussions on the scientific evidence presented there? Or will they try to shut down this place because it offers scientific evidence for God and Creation? Give it bad press in the lib media?

Wow, are you defensive or what? But never mind all of your fearful loathings about the "libs" who in your paranoid delusions want to do nothing but shut down this museum (trust me, we don't), tell me about this evidence you have that proves without a doubt that creationism is true. Can you provide some peer-reviewed papers that illustrate what you're talking about precisely? Links please.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: hellokeith
So will secular scientists actually go there with an open mind and evaluate the evidence? Or is evolution their blind religion?

Will libs respect the freedoms of speech and religion, and engage students in mindful discussions on the scientific evidence presented there? Or will they try to shut down this place because it offers scientific evidence for God and Creation? Give it bad press in the lib media?

Wow, are you defensive or what? But never mind all of your fearful loathings about the "libs" who in your paranoid delusions want to do nothing but shut down this museum (trust me, we don't), tell me about this evidence you have that proves without a doubt that creationism is true. Can you provide some peer-reviewed papers that illustrate what you're talking about precisely? Links please.

Duh, it's called the Bible. Peer-reviewed by many, uh, men of faith. But they talk directly to God so we know they're right.

 

[Martin]

I'm a big fan of clear communication, so let me put it this way: you people (that is, the poeple who built this, who funded it, the believers who will support it, and everyone that will defend it) are humanity's failures. Humans aren't very impressive physically speaking and really the only thing that sets us apart from animals is a very large and impressive brain. Unlike billions of other people who have never had the time or resources to get an education or to learn much, you people have had all the opportunities in the world and have not only squandered them, but are extremely proud of the fact that you're stupid and uneducated, and devote much time and energy disparaging those that aren't like you.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Since I know this question will be raised, I thought I'd go ahead and answer it with an article:

Can creationists be scientists?

It has been often said that ?creationists cannot be real scientists.?

...

Consider Dr. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. nuclear physicist who has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields which was able to predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all.

Additionally, ... [t]he MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian who has been featured twice in Creation magazine.

Clearly, creationists can indeed be real scientists.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0405lead.asp

His area of research has nothing to do with origins of the universe or man. I think it's fair to say that young Earth creationists cannot be evolutionists or geologists (at least not honest ones) but if you're researching nuclear physics or biochemistry then there's no reason your YEC belief should conflict with your work.

Well, you may be surprised to find out that there are a lot of Evolutionists out there who think if you believe in Creation you can't do any type of scientific work at all...

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Oh, and I forgot to mention -- I visited the museum last year when it was under construction. They've definitely done a respectable job in terms of quality. And despite those who would label them "backwards Kentuckians," their team of PhD scientists have done excellent work both in research and presentation.

I knew a large portion of the resident fundies would be supporting and going there.

Well, I won't call you any names, but I make no apologies for supporting what these people are doing. You may say I'm an idiotic "fundie", but I would wager that I know more about evolution than you.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Martin
I'm a big fan of clear communication, so let me put it this way: you people (that is, the poeple who built this, who funded it, the believers who will support it, and everyone that will defend it) are humanity's failures. Humans aren't very impressive physically speaking and really the only thing that sets us apart from animals is a very large and impressive brain. Unlike billions of other people who have never had the time or resources to get an education or to learn much, you people have had all the opportunities in the world and have not only squandered them, but are extremely proud of the fact that you're stupid and uneducated, and devote much time and energy disparaging those that aren't like you.

Well at least this thread didn't turn into a bunch of ad hominem attacks...

 

[THUGSROOK]

LOL!
this is one of the stupidest things ive ever heard.

 

[fskimospy]

So will secular scientists actually go there with an open mind and evaluate the evidence? Or is evolution their blind religion?

Will libs respect the freedoms of speech and religion, and engage students in mindful discussions on the scientific evidence presented there? Or will they try to shut down this place because it offers scientific evidence for God and Creation? Give it bad press in the lib media?[/quote]

See this is a great flaw in society today that creationists always try to hide behind. They try and take advantage of our own sense of fairness and decency to wedge their stupidity into. The creater of this place says in the article that the main thrust for their exhibits is resting on biblical authority. That right there tells you that this whole place is moronic.

I've said it before, and I'll probably have to say it a thousand times again: All points of view are not equally valid.

Basically you are asking "Will secular scientists go in there and treat their millions of hours of research, reams of evidence, and empirically validated predictions as an equal intellectual viewpoint to some guy who made a diorama based off what he read in a book about his sky beardo?" Hell no, that's an insult to all the work the scientists did.

You can also get rid of the feelings of Christian Persecution. You can have your "museums" to wallow in your own ignorance all you want and nobody will stop you. You can't expect people not to point and laugh at you when you do though.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: K1052
How anyone can look at he fossil record, geology, and astronomy and argue for the young earth theory with a straight face is quite simply baffling beyond all comprehension. It is an exercise in preserving a belief in the face of all logical evidence to the contrary. Being intentionally obtuse is not what I call "having an open mind".

See, when I raise clear scientific arguments based on empirical evidence that goes against the evolutionary establishment, I get attacked, insulted and dismissed as a heretic. I imagine someone who blindly believes in evolution without having analyzed the evidence himself as fitting into the same category you are describing.

I know these kind of objections to evolution are very challenging to most people, and will be strongly resisted to the point of anger. I think this thread and the million others have demonstrated this... but I don't think it has anything to do with the science involved, otherwise people would be happy to discuss it with me, and not resort to ad hominem attacks.

I think people get extremely upset when the foundation for their worldview is challenged, like it is when the natural origin for life is questioned.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: K1052
How anyone can look at he fossil record, geology, and astronomy and argue for the young earth theory with a straight face is quite simply baffling beyond all comprehension. It is an exercise in preserving a belief in the face of all logical evidence to the contrary. Being intentionally obtuse is not what I call "having an open mind".

See, when I raise clear scientific arguments based on empirical evidence that goes against the evolutionary establishment, I get attacked, insulted and dismissed as a heretic. I imagine someone who blindly believes in evolution without having analyzed the evidence himself as fitting into the same category you are describing.

I know these kind of objections to evolution are very challenging to most people, and will be strongly resisted to the point of anger. I think this thread and the million others have demonstrated this... but I don't think it has anything to do with the science involved, otherwise people would be happy to discuss it with me, and not resort to ad hominem attacks.

I think people get extremely upset when the foundation for their worldview is challenged, like it is when the natural origin for life is questioned.

Obviously.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: nonameo
Creationists can be scientists, but creationism isn't science.

Creation models make predictions about the observable world, predictions that are falsifiable and can tested empirically. Much of the Creation literature is this nature of study, which is most certainly scientific...

No, creation or intelligent design is NOT falsifiable. There is no way to disprove the existence of a higher being. It simply can't be done. Simple as that.

As it is not falsifiable, it cannot be valid science.

Yes, this was the first argument I countered, and I will say it again: The Creation model proposes scientific arguments based on empirical evidence that are indeed falsifiable.

It's not just a matter of whether God exists, as you put it, but whether the earth is young, whether their was a worldwide flood 4,500 years ago, whether all of mankind came from two individuals, whether it is possible for a human to live 900 years, etc.

These things are most certainly falsifiable.

I'm not sure why you persist with your line of reasoning, since many would as quickly as you claim that Creation is indeed falsifiable and has been proven false. While I would disagree with the latter, at least we can make some intelligent progress here...

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Additionally, ... [t]he MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian who has been featured twice in Creation magazine.
[/L]

[/quote]

First of all, Damadian did NOT create the MRI scanner despite his own claims. He did, however, make some important contribution to the field.
I did not even know that Damadian was a creationist. The main reason why many physicists (including me ) know of him is because he is essentially seen to be somewhat mad; and he had that reputation even before he went ahead and published full page ads NY Times and other newspapaers complaining about being passed over for the Nobel prize in 2003.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

See, when I raise clear scientific arguments based on empirical evidence that goes against the evolutionary establishment, I get attacked, insulted and dismissed as a heretic. I imagine someone who blindly believes in evolution without having analyzed the evidence himself as fitting into the same category you are describing.

I know these kind of objections to evolution are very challenging to most people, and will be strongly resisted to the point of anger. I think this thread and the million others have demonstrated this... but I don't think it has anything to do with the science involved, otherwise people would be happy to discuss it with me, and not resort to ad hominem attacks.

I think people get extremely upset when the foundation for their worldview is challenged, like it is when the natural origin for life is questioned.

First of all, if you ever want to have a discussion about evolution I am more then willing to take you on. If you're coming from the creationist perspective I'm also willing to take any and all bets that you will lose.

Specifically I realized you were full of it when you said that creationism makes predictions that are empirically testable. I would simply LOVE to hear what those are. That statement right there betrays your lack of knowledge of what constitutes science.

You then tried to equate evolution with the origin of life, this also betrays your marked lack of knowledge of the theory of evolution. Evolution makes no claims whatsoever to the origin of life, only to how life changed from wherever it started to the form we see it in today.

Basically I think the hostility comes from frustration. Creationism has been so thoroughly discredited that its only defenders tend to be people who have embraced one or more logical fallacies, base their arguments on evolution on things they wish evolution said instead of what it actually does, or are immune to reason. It just gets tiring showing people how they are wrong over and over and then have them bounce right back up like one of those inflatable hulk hogan punching things and keep right on their merry way as if nothing happened.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Aisengard

The tour continues to take visitors through a series of rooms. One depicts biblical times and the prophets, the next shows Martin Luther posting his 95 Theses, the printing press, and the Scopes monkey trial of 1925. Visitors are then led through rooms depicting modern times, where exhibits imply that a lack of faith hurts the family and society.

The next part of the tour journeys through the various stories of Genesis, including the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark, and marries them with science. Adam and Eve are seen living alongside dinosaurs and Noah's Ark is used to explain why certain species went extinct.

This isn't science, it's religion. I can't even see any arguable reason for this to even be considered 'science'. The only way for someone to accept this as science is if their mind was so open everything fell out.

Thank goodness only nutcases in the laughingstock we call the Kentucky board of education consider this drivel and storytelling to be anything close to 'science'.

The scientists who believe in Creation are not simply trying to empirically prove that God created the world in 6 days... they are showing how historical events recorded in the Bible are fully compatible with empirical evidence. They are offering a framework hypothesis, a model -- like evolution does -- to explain the facts.

I'm familiar with a lot of that "scientific" work, and it's all smoke and mirrors to give religious folks at least SOME semblance of scientific argument so they feel alright trying to bring religion into the realm of science. But it all seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors, especially since nothing I've read has anything to say about the creation of the earth or the development of the species.

Creationism, from top to bottom, is bad science. To the extent that it offers a "framework hypothesis" (using sciency sounding words doesn't make it science), it does nothing to explain the facts. There are a lot of scientific facts surrounding the existence of the earth and the various species that inhabit it. The big bang theory, evolution, etc, do a respectable job of using the scientific method to explain WHY what we know happened, happened. Creationism does not...it simply offers a set of alternative facts, with no evidence to suggest they in any way reflect reality, and then offer an explanation for those new facts. If you start from a religious basis, instead of a scientific one, what comes out will almost certainly not be science.

While I would certainly like to hear about the Creation postulates you are referring to that are simply "smoke and mirrors", since you didn't mention any, I'll just move on to your other points.

You say that Creation "does nothing to explain the facts"... really? Care to defend that point? Let me give you a specific example. Creation's worldwide catastrophic flood hypothesis explains the presence of porphyrin molecules in crude oil deposits better than current evolutionary thoughts.

Now, to your next point, that Creation starts "from a religious basis, instead of a scientific one". What exactly is the current "scientific basis" we start from with evolution? It is a presuppositional, philosophical belief in naturalism, that there absolutely must be a natural explanation for the origin of life, the origin of the earth, and the origin of the universe. So all possibility of Creation being true is ruled out, a priori. So while Creation models predict all sorts of things, and many arguments are made, and much evidence is produced in support of specific hypotheses within the Creation framework, you will simply dismiss them as "unscientific", regardless of whether they are true.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: f95toli

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Additionally, ... [t]he MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian who has been featured twice in Creation magazine.
[/L]

First of all, Damadian did NOT create the MRI scanner despite his own claims. He did, however, make some important contribution to the field.
I did not even know that Damadian was a creationist. The main reason why many physicists (including me ) know of him is because he is essentially seen to be somewhat mad; and he had that reputation even before he went ahead and published full page ads NY Times and other newspapaers complaining about being passed over for the Nobel prize in 2003.
[/quote]

Well... it's not just his claims...

"Less than two years later he filed his idea for using magnetic resonance imaging as a tool for medical diagnosis with the U.S. Patent Office, entitled "Apparatus and Method for Detecting Cancer in Tissue." A patent was granted in 1974, it was the world's first patent issued in the field of MRI. By 1977, Dr. Damadian completed construction of the first whole-body MRI scanner, which he dubbed the "Indomitable.""

http://inventors.about.com/od/mstartinventions/a/MRI.htm

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Yes, this was the first argument I countered, and I will say it again: The Creation model proposes scientific arguments based on empirical evidence that are indeed falsifiable.

It's not just a matter of whether God exists, as you put it, but whether the earth is young, whether their was a worldwide flood 4,500 years ago, whether all of mankind came from two individuals, whether it is possible for a human to live 900 years, etc.

These things are most certainly falsifiable.

I'm not sure why you persist with your line of reasoning, since many would as quickly as you claim that Creation is indeed falsifiable and has been proven false. While I would disagree with the latter, at least we can make some intelligent progress here...

See there you go, logical fallacies flying everywhere! If the world was somehow proven to be 4,500 years old that would not prove prove creationism was correct. Same goes with adam and eve, or 900 year old people. The earth only being 4,500 years old would do a lot to disprove large parts of modern geology and biology, but it would do nothing to prove that a sky beardo conjured up the earth before he took a day off.

Anyways please provide some creation models that are making current predictions and I will shoot them full of holes for you.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Aisengard

The tour continues to take visitors through a series of rooms. One depicts biblical times and the prophets, the next shows Martin Luther posting his 95 Theses, the printing press, and the Scopes monkey trial of 1925. Visitors are then led through rooms depicting modern times, where exhibits imply that a lack of faith hurts the family and society.

The next part of the tour journeys through the various stories of Genesis, including the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark, and marries them with science. Adam and Eve are seen living alongside dinosaurs and Noah's Ark is used to explain why certain species went extinct.

This isn't science, it's religion. I can't even see any arguable reason for this to even be considered 'science'. The only way for someone to accept this as science is if their mind was so open everything fell out.

Thank goodness only nutcases in the laughingstock we call the Kentucky board of education consider this drivel and storytelling to be anything close to 'science'.

The scientists who believe in Creation are not simply trying to empirically prove that God created the world in 6 days... they are showing how historical events recorded in the Bible are fully compatible with empirical evidence. They are offering a framework hypothesis, a model -- like evolution does -- to explain the facts.

I'm familiar with a lot of that "scientific" work, and it's all smoke and mirrors to give religious folks at least SOME semblance of scientific argument so they feel alright trying to bring religion into the realm of science. But it all seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors, especially since nothing I've read has anything to say about the creation of the earth or the development of the species.

Creationism, from top to bottom, is bad science. To the extent that it offers a "framework hypothesis" (using sciency sounding words doesn't make it science), it does nothing to explain the facts. There are a lot of scientific facts surrounding the existence of the earth and the various species that inhabit it. The big bang theory, evolution, etc, do a respectable job of using the scientific method to explain WHY what we know happened, happened. Creationism does not...it simply offers a set of alternative facts, with no evidence to suggest they in any way reflect reality, and then offer an explanation for those new facts. If you start from a religious basis, instead of a scientific one, what comes out will almost certainly not be science.

While I would certainly like to hear about the Creation postulates you are referring to that are simply "smoke and mirrors", since you didn't mention any, I'll just move on to your other points.

You say that Creation "does nothing to explain the facts"... really? Care to defend that point? Let me give you a specific example. Creation's worldwide catastrophic flood hypothesis explains the presence of porphyrin molecules in crude oil deposits better than current evolutionary thoughts.

Now, to your next point, that Creation starts "from a religious basis, instead of a scientific one". What exactly is the current "scientific basis" we start from with evolution? It is a presuppositional, philosophical belief in naturalism, that there absolutely must be a natural explanation for the origin of life, the origin of the earth, and the origin of the universe. So all possibility of Creation being true is ruled out, a priori. So while Creation models predict all sorts of things, and many arguments are made, and much evidence is produced in support of specific hypotheses within the Creation framework, you will simply dismiss them as "unscientific", regardless of whether they are true.

Again, 'evolution' doesn't try to describe the origin of anything. The origin of oil, say, falls under geology.

And while that article makes a nice story, it is unscientific simply because it is trying to fit something into a book some people wrote a long time ago. It doesn't observe the evidence and come up with testable theories, it already has a conclusion, and then uses bits of evidence (ignoring many others) to say it happened. Its ultimate goal is not seeking out knowledge, but manipulation of facts to fit already (unscientifically) pre-determined conclusions. That is the opposite of science.

EDIT: This is a perfect example of the 'smokes and mirrors' that other guy was talking about.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
First of all, if you ever want to have a discussion about evolution I am more then willing to take you on. If you're coming from the creationist perspective I'm also willing to take any and all bets that you will lose.

Wonderful.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Specifically I realized you were full of it when you said that creationism makes predictions that are empirically testable. I would simply LOVE to hear what those are. That statement right there betrays your lack of knowledge of what constitutes science.

I'm not sure you are making much sense here. My statement that Creation makes predictions that can be tested with empirical evidence betrays my lack of knowledge on science?

I'll keep it simple. Creation says the earth is young. There are scientific ways to date rocks, correct? You can test that claim. You would say you can prove the earth is not young, right?

I'm not sure why so many people persist on this nonsensical line of arguing. It's like you just want to shut me up as quickly as possible...

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You then tried to equate evolution with the origin of life, this also betrays your marked lack of knowledge of the theory of evolution. Evolution makes no claims whatsoever to the origin of life, only to how life changed from wherever it started to the form we see it in today.

Yes, I'm aware that the natural selection + mutation model of the NDT requires self-replicating life. This is not a complicated point, or something unknown to me. It was not my attempt at equating the two. But evolution does require a starting point, a simple life form. This is why the Miller-Urey experiment is so famous.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Basically I think the hostility comes from frustration. Creationism has been so thoroughly discredited that its only defenders tend to be people who have embraced one or more logical fallacies, base their arguments on evolution on things they wish evolution said instead of what it actually does, or are immune to reason.

Actually, Creation has only made the most exciting increases in the past 30 years or so. It's a relatively young field of study, since its reinvigoration by the late Dr. Henry Morris. There is a plethora of statements on what evolution claims to be out there -- there really is no need to make anything up.

Since we're speculating, I think the hostility comes from the facts that people are resistant to findings which challenge their basic assumptions. A pretty basic assumption is where you can from, and the answer to that question can have an impact on your whole life.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
It just gets tiring showing people how they are wrong over and over and then have them bounce right back up like one of those inflatable hulk hogan punching things and keep right on their merry way as if nothing happened.

Ha ha, well I won't put it quite like you have put it, because I don't think you have shown me to be wrong here to any significance, but I will agree with you that most debates never amount to anything at all, because most conversations don't progress beyond the "You're wrong, I'm right, Why are you so dumb?"

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Well... it's not just his claims...

"Less than two years later he filed his idea for using magnetic resonance imaging as a tool for medical diagnosis with the U.S. Patent Office, entitled "Apparatus and Method for Detecting Cancer in Tissue." A patent was granted in 1974, it was the world's first patent issued in the field of MRI. By 1977, Dr. Damadian completed construction of the first whole-body MRI scanner, which he dubbed the "Indomitable.""

http://inventors.about.com/od/mstartinventions/a/MRI.htm

The problem is that filing a patent does not neccesarily mean that you have "invented" something in the true sense of the word. Damadian DID make important contributions but to a large extent he built upon work done a earlier by Lauterbur and Mansfield who, as far as I know, also did the firsts scans of live humans (albeit not a full body scan). If I remember correctly the method for scanning suggested by Damadian also turned out to be impractical in real applications.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
It doesn't observe the evidence and come up with testable theories, it already has a conclusion, and then uses bits of evidence (ignoring many others) to say it happened.

Honestly, that sounds exactly like what evolutionists are doing today. Evolution happened, and here is how the evidence can be shown to support it.

Nevermind if we find soft tissue in supposed 65 million year old T-Rex bones, our theory is still true!

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: f95toli

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Well... it's not just his claims...

"Less than two years later he filed his idea for using magnetic resonance imaging as a tool for medical diagnosis with the U.S. Patent Office, entitled "Apparatus and Method for Detecting Cancer in Tissue." A patent was granted in 1974, it was the world's first patent issued in the field of MRI. By 1977, Dr. Damadian completed construction of the first whole-body MRI scanner, which he dubbed the "Indomitable.""

http://inventors.about.com/od/mstartinventions/a/MRI.htm

The problem is that filing a patent does not neccesarily mean that you have "invented" something in the true sense of the word. Damadian DID make important contributions but to a large extent he built upon work done a earlier by Lauterbur and Mansfield who, as far as I know, also did the firsts scans of live humans (albeit not a full body scan). If I remember correctly the method for scanning suggested by Damadian also turned out to be impractical in real applications.

Honestly, I wasn't trying to make any point originally other than the fact that there are intelligent scientists who believe in Creation. Clearly, Damadian is an intelligent scientist.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

I'm not sure you are making much sense here. My statement that Creation makes predictions that can be tested with empirical evidence betrays my lack of knowledge on science?

I'll keep it simple. Creation says the earth is young. There are scientific ways to date rocks, correct? You can test that claim. You would say you can prove the earth is not young, right?

I'm not sure why so many people persist on this nonsensical line of arguing. It's like you just want to shut me up as quickly as possible...

Ugh, no. The tests you are proposing do not test the central claim of your theory, only outlying assertions from it. Creation does not necessitate a 4,500 year old earth in order to be correct. This means if you disprove the 4,500 year old earth, you have not disproved creationism. If all people only came from two idiots wearing fig leaves in a garden, this doesn't prove that some guy in the sky created them. Do you see the flaw in your logic?

The central tenents of creationism are not testable.

 

[Aisengard]

Unfortunately, the 'soft tissue' find proves absolutely nothing regarding creationism.

What creationism would need to do is completely debunk decades of research into carbon-dating, something it's not likely to do.

Like I said, simply coming up with random bits of evidence and saying "see! There it is!" is the opposite of science.

No one believed in evolution even after Darwin published his papers. No one had the fore-gone conclusion. Only when mounds upon mounds of evidence supported a trend Darwin discovered did scientists worldwide build upon it.

Smokes and mirrors, my friend. Hopefully one day your eyes will clear.

 

[sandorski]

Being an Intelligent Scientist only gives some credibility. You also have to be right concerning what you postulate.

Einstein is certainly one of the most brilliantly Intelligent Scientists to ever live. However, after his successful Theory of Relativity, his later attempts at Unified Theory fell out of favour with Scientists because other avenues were proving more promising. Science and Scientists resist accepting Ideas solely on whom presents them. The Ideas must stand up to Falsification.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Trevelyanbecause most conversations don't progress beyond the "You're wrong, I'm right, Why are you so dumb?"

Exactly. You already stated,

Originally posted by: Trevelyan"What exactly is the current "scientific basis" we start from with evolution? It is a presuppositional, philosophical belief in naturalism, that there absolutely must be a natural explanation for the origin of life, the origin of the earth, and the origin of the universe.

Which is of course an accurate statement.

Originally posted by: TrevelyanSo all possibility of Creation being true is ruled out, a priori.

This is also a correct statement. Creation by definition implies the actions of a supernatural creator, which is exactly why it is not science. One of the most brilliant minds of intelligent design creationism himself stated during the recent Dover trial that in order for creationism to be considered scientific, the very definition of science must be changed - and it must be changed in such a manner that astrology & alchemy would then also be considered scientific.

Originally posted by: TrevelyanSo while Creation models predict all sorts of things, and many arguments are made, and much evidence is produced in support of specific hypotheses within the Creation framework, you will simply dismiss them as "unscientific", regardless of whether they are true.

Any argument that makes an appeal to the supernatural, such as the actions of a Divine Being, is by definition not scientific.

The reason why these 'debates' don't go anywhere is because the arguments are derived from completely different frameworks for viewing the world. Creationists assume from the start that there can not be a natural explanation for the diversity of living beings; scientists assume from the start there is a natural explanation for the diversity of living beings.

The reason you encounter so much hostility is simple: you fail to recognize that accepting the reality of organic evolution devalues your religious beliefs no more than realizing that there is no Santa Claus devalues the meaning of Christmas. As the previous Pope so eloquently put it, "Truth can not contradict truth".

Furthermore, creationism has limited, if any, utility in solving problems, whereas evolution certainly does - from epidemiology to species conservation to genetic modification of food. Creationists' attempts to redefine science to suit their particular worldview are simply not productive for a modern civilization that is heavily dependent upon its technologies.

That said, creationists are not the only ones guilty of inappropriately attacking the other side. Recent works by scientists such as Richard Dawkins (i.e. The God Delusion) attempt to use scientific (materialistic) reasoning & evidence to disprove the existence of the supernatural, which is analogous to creationists using the supernatural to refute the natural. I myself have held similar views in the past, though I no longer accept that science can be used to disprove the supernatural.

It is a pity that so many are apparently incapable of recognizing the utility of both supernatural (religious) & natural (scientific) frameworks. There really is no contradiction, despite what fundamentalists like the AiG crew & militant atheists like Dawkins try to sell us.