(April 26, 2014 at 8:30 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:(April 25, 2014 at 5:57 am)orogenicman Wrote: The bulk of creationists are not scientists. As such, they don't get to define scientific terms, particularly outside of published scientific journals and scientific organizations.
By the way, the entire argument about transitional fossils is bogus. Yes, it is very important that we search for transitional fossils in the fossil record in order to give as complete a history of organisms in the fossil record as possible. But whether we find them for all species or any particular species is irrelevant to the question of evolution. Why? Because ALL species are, by convention as well as by definition, transitional. There is no ambiguity with regard to species being transitional. They are.
There are many Christians who are brilliant. There are scientists and college professors who believe in God and question what they were taught but are scared to share this in fear of being ostracized.
The issue is not whether or not scientists who believe in god are conducting valid science. The issue is whether they allow their religious bias to influence their science. If they are scientists worthy of their titles, they don't allow such biases to influence their work. As Galileo (who was a very devout catholic) once said:
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
I am certain that there are scientists who do believe. And I am also pretty sure that most of them think the way Galileo did. The fact remains that most scientists are not creationists, and most of the so-called creation scientists are not actually conducting any scientific research that makes creationist conclusions that is being published in peer reviewed science journals. I often see creationists list specific scientists as supporting creationism, and yet when you check their lists of publications, none of their peer reviewed research involves creationism. So it is disingenuous to refer to their works as supporting creationism when they clearly do not, regardless of whether they offer personal support for the belief.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
