Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?

[emmy27sf]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

[AV1611]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

I believe in Creationism because that is what the Holy Bible says happened.

[bernee51]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

I believe in Creationism because that is what the Holy Bible says happened.

But why is the "Holy Scripture" true? Why can it not be a series of myths?

[seventil]

I agree with many of the posts here.

I believe in a Creation, but I also believe that evolutionary theory is a respectable and sometimes factual theory.

It's when people include their personal philosophies (like believing in God or neo-Darwinism) that science and pursuit of truth gets skewed.

[seventil]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

I believe in Creationism because that is what the Holy Bible says happened.

But why is the "Holy Scripture" true? Why can it not be a series of myths?

I think we're getting down to the quesiton of whether you can prove the Bible to be empirically correct. I do not believe that is possible at this time.

Believing in Creation or Evolution both required faith. It's when you start trying to disprove Creation with evolution - stated as empirical fact - that's when there is a problem.

[Lotan]

seventil wrote:

I think we're getting down to the quesiton of whether you can prove the Bible to be empirically correct. I do not believe that is possible at this time.

What do you think would be required to prove the bible empirically incorrect? Would you be able to accept such proof?

[harmonium]

I would think that it would behove creationists to encourage more and more scientific research into evolution.

If they are so certain in their beliefs then they must believe that eventually science will prove them correct.

Why are they so down on the scientiific?

Where did you get the idea that creationists are not into science, nor into researching evolution? It's not to say that there aren't some fringe creationist groups that may hold such a view. However, if you actually did some research I think you would find that such groups are definitely the exception, and not representative of the creationist world-view. The fact that many leading and respected scientists in major universities adhere to an "intelligent design" or creationist view attests to this.

In actuality, creationism is very much pro-science and pro scientific research. It is simply providing an alternative to evolution as the answer to the question of origins.

[ENIGMA]

Where did you get the idea that creationists are not into science, nor into researching evolution? It's not to say that there aren't some fringe creationist groups that may hold such a view. However, if you actually did some research I think you would find that such groups are definitely the exception, and not representative of the creationist world-view. The fact that many leading and respected scientists in major universities adhere to an "intelligent design" or creationist view attests to this.

Many? Have a number in mind or just spouting off rhetoric?

Also, judging from a few of the articles I have read on the subject, I must inquire:

How many of the universities in question happen to be larger than a post office box? (Okay, a house if you count the administrative building)

In actuality, creationism is very much pro-science and pro scientific research. It is simply providing an alternative to evolution as the answer to the question of origins.

Name one experiment or iota of original on-topic research (Namely something that does not merely quote-mine someone else or that doesn't just offer "proof" by mere assertion of Creationism's validity) that has been done by said creationists on the topic of creationism.

Methinks they want the title and the lab coat but don't care for the standards that come with them.

[harmonium]

Many? Have a number in mind or just spouting off rhetoric?

It's funny that you speak of rhetoric, because isn't that what you were spouting off when you made your claims in the original posting that I responded to? In my reponse I asked you for some evidence of your claims and yet you don't provide any. Instead of answering my questions you just respond with questions. Generally this is a sign that you don't have any evidence.

Since I actually do have evidence to support what I'm saying, I will respond to your questions.

Also, judging from a few of the articles I have read on the subject, I must inquire:

How many of the universities in question happen to be larger than a post office box? (Okay, a house if you count the administrative building)

You really need to research things before you make any more claims. Based on what you say you claim you've got your information from some articles, don't you actually do research on your own or do you always just trust other people's opinions?

Here is a link to the discovery institute which has more than 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts. You can check their bios (which list all their affilliations with universities) and examples of their research work:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/

Additionally is here a list of creation scientists, along with many online bios, which include references to education, research projects, and publications - among other things:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... efault.asp

A few individuals that stand out to me are Michael Denton (http://www.designinference.com/) who has taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas.

Also Michael Behe (http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm) who teaches at Lehigh University.

There is David Berlinski (http://www.anova.org/bio/berlinski.html) who has taught at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Universite de Paris.

That is just the tip of the iceberg, if you just do a little research on your own you will begin to find many very credible scientists who adhere to an intelligent design/creationist theory.

Name one experiment or iota of original on-topic research (Namely something that does not merely quote-mine someone else or that doesn't just offer "proof" by mere assertion of Creationism's validity) that has been done by said creationists on the topic of creationism.

For this just go and check out the above pages of those scientists and you will find dozens of examples of publications and research projects.

To meet your criteria for one experiment or original research project I point you to the the following article on the work of Michael Behe:
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/behe.html

Methinks they want the title and the lab coat but don't care for the standards that come with them.

You can think something all you want, but it doesn't make it true. If you want to be taken seriously you've got to provide some evidence for your statements.

[ENIGMA]

Here is a link to the discovery institute which has more than 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts. You can check their bios (which list all their affilliations with universities) and examples of their research work:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/

Additionally is here a list of creation scientists, along with many online bios, which include references to education, research projects, and publications - among other things:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... efault.asp

A few individuals that stand out to me are Michael Denton (http://www.designinference.com/) who has taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas.

Also Michael Behe (http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm) who teaches at Lehigh University.

There is David Berlinski (http://www.anova.org/bio/berlinski.html) who has taught at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Universite de Paris.

That is just the tip of the iceberg, if you just do a little research on your own you will begin to find many very credible scientists who adhere to an intelligent design/creationist theory.

You and your lists, how funny.

Apparently the National Center for Scientific Education thought so anyway.

So they decided that although the number of people on each side doesn't really matter, they decided to play ball and have a nice little bit of fun with Project Steve, which includes names of various scientists who think that evolution is generally correct, who happened to be named some permutation of Steve.

Name one experiment or iota of original on-topic research (Namely something that does not merely quote-mine someone else or that doesn't just offer "proof" by mere assertion of Creationism's validity) that has been done by said creationists on the topic of creationism.

For this just go and check out the above pages of those scientists and you will find dozens of examples of publications and research projects.

To meet your criteria for one experiment or original research project I point you to the the following article on the work of Michael Behe:
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/behe.html

Fails the criteria. It makes no determinations over any critical aspects of Creationism.

Just because a creationist does an experiment doesn't mean that it is determining the validity of some aspect of creationism. People have an amazing ability to compartmentalize.

Methinks they want the title and the lab coat but don't care for the standards that come with them.

You can think something all you want, but it doesn't make it true. If you want to be taken seriously you've got to provide some evidence for your statements.

I find it rather difficult to provide a lack of peer-reviewed experiments on the given topic. I can, however, say I find it rather interesting how much of discovery.org/csc was dedicated to complaining about some conspiracy of scientists trying to keep creationism from getting published, or how "300+ scientists sign a piece of paper saying that they agree with Creationism" as if that were supposed to mean anything. It's almost as if they think of science as something that one decides by fiat based on an old book rather than what one discovers when looking at the universe.

[harmonium]