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?

[Zzyzx]

.

just like we found for physics/ chemistry; great fusion reactors in stars did not produce the elements needed to support life by chance, but by very specific instruction

Who is the 'we' that made such finding?

Where is it published?

Max Planck/Quantum Mechanics/ subatomic physics- i.e. not covered by classical physics

Kindly cite sources / reference / URLs to show readers that you know what you are talking about.

What 'elements needed to support life' are not produced by stars?

Good question; boron arguably, still indirectly from stars but through primordial spallation as opposed to their own fusion reactions

In other words, elements needed to support life are produced by stars.

How does any of this indicate a ‘design’ (or designer)?

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 87 by Guy Threepwood]

You are welcome to your opinions but I would prefer some reasoning or evidence based approach.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 91 by Zzyzx]

In other words, elements needed to support life are produced by stars.

How does any of this indicate a ‘design’ (or designer)?

same reason a watch indicates a design and a designer

dozens of universal, electromagnetic, atomic and nuclear, physico-chemical, constants alone are extremely finely tuned just to allow space/time matter/energy to exist in stable form let alone produce life- I think most people know what I am talking about here but feel free to google these things if not.

Though this in turn pales in comparison to DNA which takes finely tuned information systems to another level entirely.


The staggering improbability of happening upon these finely balanced information rich systems by chance, is the explicit rationale behind various multiverse theories-

And if you were forced to come up with an explanation for a watch- while enforcing an arbitrary rule that you are not allowed to invoke intelligent agency at any stage- some sort of infinite probability machine would be your last resort here also.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 87 by Guy Threepwood]

You are welcome to your opinions but I would prefer some reasoning or evidence based approach.

Likewise!

As used by forensic scientists and archaeologists to deduce intelligent agency behind various events and artifacts.