Creationists, their Statements of Faith, mainstream science

[rikuoamero]

Something confuses me here. Creationists and creationist groups tend (more often than not) to have Statements of Faith that essentially push as primary a dogma and holy book over any and all data either previously gathered or yet to be gathered. Look up ICR or Carm, or Answers in Genesis.

What I find confusing is the approach by mainstream scientists to work published by creationists and creationist groups. Papers are written refuting the creationists work...but my confusion is why they do this refuting at all. Why bother? A scientist who is bound by a Statement of Faith cannot be trusted to have not done any tampering with his work; indeed, the SoF requires it!
Why don't mainstream scientists just say, whenever ICR et al publish "You have a Statement of Faith, therefore your work is not valid scientific work" or words to that effect? Why bother going through the creationist publication at all?

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by rikuoamero]

The same reason people do here on the forums - to argue against something which the other side believes is nonnegotiable - without understanding the futility of such activity.

It is time wasting and likely prompted by egocentric-based motivation.

But habits are hard to break and such habits have been going on through the generations, for hundreds of years...

Perhaps there is also a fear-based reason for the motivation, I don't know.

It happens.

Identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs
What to look out for which is non-debatable...

[Realworldjack]

Something confuses me here. Creationists and creationist groups tend (more often than not) to have Statements of Faith that essentially push as primary a dogma and holy book over any and all data either previously gathered or yet to be gathered. Look up ICR or Carm, or Answers in Genesis.

What I find confusing is the approach by mainstream scientists to work published by creationists and creationist groups. Papers are written refuting the creationists work...but my confusion is why they do this refuting at all. Why bother? A scientist who is bound by a Statement of Faith cannot be trusted to have not done any tampering with his work; indeed, the SoF requires it!
Why don't mainstream scientists just say, whenever ICR et al publish "You have a Statement of Faith, therefore your work is not valid scientific work" or words to that effect? Why bother going through the creationist publication at all?

As a Christian, I happened to agree with you. In fact, I am on record here on this site as saying, "once a scientists proclaims to be a creationists they clearly demonstrate a bias, and therefore, I tend not to pay much attention to such a one."

Because you see, the origin of the universe, and ourselves as humans, has not been demonstrated, or proven scientifically. With this being the case, I have no problem with a scientist being a Christian, but I do not need to know this about them. Rather, all I need to know is, they acknowledge the fact that, "the origin of the universe, and ourselves as humans, has not been demonstrated, or proven scientifically" and they are able to place anything else they may believe to the side, when they do their work, and allow the facts to speak for themselves.

On the other hand, I am also on record here on this site as saying, "once a scientist proclaims to be an Atheist, or evolutionist, they clearly demonstrate a bias, and therefore, I tend not to pay much attention to such a one."

Because again you see, I have no problem with a scientist acknowledging the fact that, "the origin of the universe, and ourselves as humans, has not been demonstrated, or proven scientifically", and maybe going on to say that, "I tend to believe the evidence points, on way, or the other."

My problem comes in when, they proclaim to be a, Christian, creationist, Atheist, or evolutionist, and act as if the case has been closed.

My point in all of this is to say, if you are under the impression that bias would only apply to those scientists who proclaim to be, Christians, and or creationists, then I am afraid you are mistaken.

Because you see, it certainly demonstrates a bias, when one is under the impression that the only ones who could possibly be bias, would be the ones I am opposed to, but those I agree with could not possibly have a bias.

So then, I am afraid that a "statement of faith" is not the problem, but rather a demonstrated bias.

[Deleted]

"Replying to OP post 1 by rikuoamero"

What I find confusing is the approach by mainstream scientists to work published by creationists and creationist groups. Papers are written refuting the creationists work...but my confusion is why they do this refuting at all. Why bother?

It used to be the case that the only critique of evolution came from an appeal to choose the Bible over science.

That's not the case anymore. There is a legion of creationists who publish critiques of evolution using evolutionary science's own terminology, research and artifacts.

Stephen Meyer is one who argues against evolution from the Darwinian version by disclosing errors of science regarding the Cambrian Explosion, and argues extensively from supposed microbiological evidence for evolution.

Michael Behe is a scientist and argues from the point of irreducible complexities.

Neither of these treatments argues from faith-based beliefs.

[Filthy Tugboat]

My problem comes in when, they proclaim to be a, Christian, creationist, Atheist, or evolutionist, and act as if the case has been closed.

My point in all of this is to say, if you are under the impression that bias would only apply to those scientists who proclaim to be, Christians, and or creationists, then I am afraid you are mistaken.

Because you see, it certainly demonstrates a bias, when one is under the impression that the only ones who could possibly be bias, would be the ones I am opposed to, but those I agree with could not possibly have a bias.

So then, I am afraid that a "statement of faith" is not the problem, but rather a demonstrated bias.

As the purpose of their role as a scientist is science, "evolutionist" is an obvious acceptable and even expected stance to take in regards to biology. There isn't any other alternative that matches evolution in explanatory power nor evidence. If someone, especially a biologist acts as if evolution is not a reality it would injure their ability to do work as evolution has played a massive role in understanding everything from genetics to medicine.

The difference between Christianity or any other theistic approach to life and atheism, is that theism posits a great many propositions, it is a position of belief in usually supernatural forces rather than the absence of it. As the sciences necessarily rely on methodological naturalism, atheism doesn't really affect any scientific process since supernatural forces would not be study-able with the scientific method.

the action of supporting or opposing a particular person or thing in an unfair way, because of allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment

As atheism is simply an admission that you don't believe theists it would be misguided to suggest that this is a form of bias. Theism on the other hand is commonly held to be a belief that supernatural forces exist and intervene to supersede the laws of the universe.

[Jagella]

Look up ICR or Carm, or Answers in Genesis.

Wait a minute! Where are the links to what you're claiming here??? It's your job to post those links. Don't make a lazy claim telling us to look that information up.

[rikuoamero]

Look up ICR or Carm, or Answers in Genesis.

Wait a minute! Where are the links to what you're claiming here??? It's your job to post those links. Don't make a lazy claim telling us to look that information up.

Your glib attempt to turn your previous fault on me is noted and shown to not work. In the OP, I don't just lazily tell my opponents to look up whatever it is that makes them look bad, with no specificities at all. I specifically tell them that it is the "Statement of Faith" that I am talking about, and as such, anyone with a functioning mind would know to look for that phrase on the a-formentioned groups's websites.
If anyone were confused about what it was I was talking about, I would have been more than willing to quote, cite and link, with no song and dance performed. In fact...here you go...

https://carm.org/statement-faith
The Bible is the Word of God and its original manuscripts are free from errors and contradictions. It is the one and only infallible, authoritative, and trustworthy rule for faith and life,
Also, we are to refute false doctrines, false religions, and whatever else might contradict the word of God
We did not evolve from other species into our present condition. God did not guide evolution of species by which humanity, the animal kingdom, or the plant kingdom was developed. The General theory of evolution is unscriptural and counter-factual.

https://www.icr.org/tenets
The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.
All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false.
Each believer should participate in the "ministry of reconciliation" by seeking both to bring individuals back to God in Christ (the "Great Commission") and to "subdue the earth" for God's glory (the Edenic-Noahic Commission). The three institutions established by the Creator for the implementation of His purposes in this world (home, government, church) should be honored and supported as such.

https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/
In order to preserve the function and integrity of the ministry in its mission to proclaim the absolute truth and authority of Scripture and to provide a biblical role model to our employees, and to the Church, the community, and society at large, it is imperative that all persons employed by the ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith, to include the statement on marriage and sexuality, and conduct themselves accordingly.
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe.
The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since creation.
The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:

Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation.
The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.
The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 7 by rikuoamero]

It's too late. You should have posted those links in the OP. As an honorable man I refuse to answer the question for debate.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 7 by rikuoamero]

It's too late. You should have posted those links in the OP. As an honorable man I refuse to answer the question for debate.

Very well. That's your prerogative. I'm not going to hound you to answer the question. I do hope readers will notice that unlike your own earlier situation, I gave the links when asked, I had no problem doing so. My situation here is completely unlike your own.
I also have to point out that my creationist opponents here apparently didn't even need me to post links. No-one asked for them. So it seems they were unnecessary anyway. My opponents understood what it it was I was saying and referring to.

Lastly, I have to ask why this response from you anyway? Are you just trying to throw shade my way, to try to make me look a hypocrite for my having called you out on your shall we say earlier less than stellar conduct? Doesn't this make you look even worse than before, in that it seems that you are not interested in actually improving and taking stock of mistakes made, but rather just want to do a childish "Nuh-uh! You do it too!"?
Here I thought you were better than that...I count myself disappointed.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 5 by Filthy Tugboat]

As the purpose of their role as a scientist is science, "evolutionist" is an obvious acceptable and even expected stance to take in regards to biology.

This is not the question. The question would be, is evolution a demonstrable fact? No it is not, and to insist anything otherwise would be to demonstrate a certain bias.

There isn't any other alternative that matches evolution in explanatory power nor evidence.

This is another way of saying, "evolution is not a demonstrable fact." Moreover, since I am not a scientist, I would have to take your word for such things, and I am not willing to do that.

If someone, especially a biologist acts as if evolution is not a reality it would injure their ability to do work as evolution has played a massive role in understanding everything from genetics to medicine.

Right, or,

Evolution has been elevated to a status of unquestionable truth to the extent that biologists who may have doubts on its fireproof status would not admit so in public in case they become pariahs in their community. The other downside of holding such an absolutist position is that any proposal that may hint at other mechanisms that do not comfortably fit with the orthodox beliefs are dismissed outright as they may imply some universal intelligence or teleological plan that smack of a heavenly planner. Its most enthusiastic adherents assert that the theory of evolution has no room for other mechanisms hence no other possibilities are conceivable or indeed allowable. This in spite of the fact that an unresolved residue is always present in science even after the most successful application of reductionist principles with the corollary that all theories should be taken to be provisional and incomplete. In my view, this unscientific attitude burdens the Darwinian theory of evolution with a weight it just cannot carry.

Again, anyone who adheres to evolution as an undeniable fact demonstrates a certain bias, because there are certain things that evolution cannot explain.

Moreover, and again, I am not a scientist, which means I am at the mercy of scientists, and with this being the case, it would not be wise for me make certain decisions based upon what scientists have to say, when there is no doubt scientists, can, and do hold certain biases themselves.

The difference between Christianity or any other theistic approach to life and atheism, is that theism posits a great many propositions, it is a position of belief in usually supernatural forces rather than the absence of it.

You are exactly right, which is exactly why I have said, "once a scientists proclaims to be a creationists they clearly demonstrate a bias, and therefore, I tend not to pay much attention to such a one."

As the sciences necessarily rely on methodological naturalism, atheism doesn't really affect any scientific process since supernatural forces would not be study-able with the scientific method.

Are you for real? So, it is only those with whom you agree, that would not hold a particular bias, and attempt to slant the evidence toward that particular bias? Science should not be in the business of attempting to demonstrate there is a god, or there is not a god. Are you under the impression that there would not be any scientists at all, who are Atheists, and are in the business of attempting to eliminate the concept of god?

the action of supporting or opposing a particular person or thing in an unfair way, because of allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment

Exactly! And I cannot think of a better quote to go along with what I have just said above. The problem as I see it is, I have the ability to understand there would be bias on both sides of the equation, while we seem to have others who can only see the bias, on the other side.

As atheism is simply an admission that you don't believe theists it would be misguided to suggest that this is a form of bias.

Oh really? So then, as a scientist, it would be impossible for this unbelief to slant your methodology in any way, right? Because the only ones this could possibly affect, would be those who hold the belief, and surely not those who do not?

Theism on the other hand is commonly held to be a belief that supernatural forces exist and intervene to supersede the laws of the universe.

This is not exactly accurate, and I can see some problems we may have with semantics, but let's try it anyway.

How would what you have said, be proven to be false?