1. Joined
    19 Jan '13
    Moves
    2106
    04 Mar '13 12:532 edits
    I guess many of you will say no.

    But to me the skeptisim they have of theories like evolution is healthy, dare i say it almost scientific, almost, a prove me wrong attitude can be good in science.

    It says in a brief history of time that the universe sits on top of four turtles, so i think there is room for creationist ideas in science, you would have a hard time proving them but trying is healthy i think.

    Anyway, your thoughts?
  2. Standard memberKepler
    Demon Duck
    of Doom!
    Joined
    20 Aug '06
    Moves
    20099
    04 Mar '13 13:21
    Originally posted by e4chris
    I guess many of you will say no.

    But to me the skeptisim they have of theories like evolution is healthy, dare i say it almost scientific, almost, a prove me wrong attitude can be good in science.

    It says in a brief history of time that the universe sits on top of four turtles, so i think there is room for creationist ideas in science, you would have a hard time proving them but trying is healthy i think.

    Anyway, your thoughts?
    I think skepticism is very healthy. Unfortunately those who take the big book of fairy tales literally aren't being skeptical. The creationist view is that evolution cannot happen because "god done it" and any evidence to the contrary is either ignored or "falsified" by some oaf spouting rubbish in an amateur video. I am very skeptical that creationists can make good scientists.
  3. Joined
    19 Jan '13
    Moves
    2106
    04 Mar '13 13:444 edits
    To be honest i don't care if someone is a creationist, the fact they have thought about it is positive.. what pains me is when it makes them blind to there own eyes, you can sometimes see evolution, and i don't like it when they try to deny such cases, when you can see it with your own eyes. But some oaf posting a creationist video on the net has put more thought into it, and a kind of scientific thought, they use the word prove just pointed in the wrong direction, compared to someone who just parrots wikipedia at them...

    There are some people where if its in wikipedia it must be true, thats just as bad as being a creationist.
  4. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    04 Mar '13 13:49
    Originally posted by e4chris
    I guess many of you will say no.

    But to me the skeptisim they have of theories like evolution is healthy, dare i say it almost scientific, almost, a prove me wrong attitude can be good in science.

    It says in a brief history of time that the universe sits on top of four turtles, so i think there is room for creationist ideas in science, you would have a hard time proving them but trying is healthy i think.

    Anyway, your thoughts?
    scientists have skepticism towards theories, but they base that skepticism on proof (or lack of it). creationists accept a theory without any kind of proof other than a mystical book that was clearly not intended as a historical or scientific treaty,



    they might be good psychologists, good doctors (if they don't invoke god or chtulhu for cures), architects(that's not really a scientist), mathematicians. if you think of more fields, go ahead.


    fields they cannot be good in include biology, genetics, physics, chemistry. i wouldn't trust a creationist physicist that cannot comprehend isotope dating.


    this is assuming we are talking about yecs. if it is old earth, the conditions could be more lax
  5. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    04 Mar '13 14:29
    If they were skeptical they would reject creationism, wouldn't they?
  6. Joined
    19 Jan '13
    Moves
    2106
    04 Mar '13 15:07
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    scientists have skepticism towards theories, but they base that skepticism on proof (or lack of it). creationists accept a theory without any kind of proof other than a mystical book that was clearly not intended as a historical or scientific treaty,



    they might be good psychologists, good doctors (if they don't invoke god or chtulhu for cures), archi ...[text shortened]... s is assuming we are talking about yecs. if it is old earth, the conditions could be more lax
    RJ posted a thread on DNA being devine, If you can think that as a creationist then chemistry is no problem... biology maybe
  7. Joined
    22 Sep '07
    Moves
    44172
    04 Mar '13 15:46
    NO.Creationists and logical thinking - Oil and water!
  8. Joined
    19 Jan '13
    Moves
    2106
    05 Mar '13 02:321 edit
    yes... why not? I can't see why not, with muslims any observation is just as seen as part of gods plan so no problem studying any science to my knowledge... it just depends how you interpret it. Also i think some scientists are a little god phobic, if you work in business, corporate types can spend ages analysing christmas sales, its not religious at all but they could probably quantify something like that if asked , just no reason to.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Mar '13 05:48
    Originally posted by e4chris
    To be honest i don't care if someone is a creationist, the fact they have thought about it is positive..
    No, they have clearly not thought about it. If a creationist thought about what they were saying, they would realize how stupid their claims make them look and they would shut up. They do not think about it but rather believe blindly what they read in the Bible and are told by their Church elders.
  10. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    05 Mar '13 08:419 edits
    A better question than:

    "Can creationists make good scientists?"

    would be:

    "why creationists usually make the worst scientists?"
    or
    "why no good modern scientist is a creationist?"

    and the answer in both cases would be:

    "because Creationists, at least the modern ones, either choose to be confused by science or have insufficient intelligence to be a scientist or both (and usually both)"

    Creationism is usually an indication of very bad parenting or very bad education.
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    05 Mar '13 11:14
    Originally posted by humy
    A better question than:

    "Can creationists make good scientists?"

    would be:

    "why creationists usually make the worst scientists?"
    or
    "why no good modern scientist is a creationist?"

    and the answer in both cases would be:

    "because Creationists, at least the modern ones, either choose to be confused by science or have insufficient intelligence ...[text shortened]... h)"

    Creationism is usually an indication of very bad parenting or very bad education.
    A creationist, an avowed one, will twist his work and others in an agenda to destroy evolution and much of geology. That is what is meant by being a creationist. They have a built in agenda to DESTROY sciences not learn truth.
  12. Joined
    19 Jan '13
    Moves
    2106
    05 Mar '13 13:005 edits
    If you believe in god, its not much of an extention to call him a creator, saying DNA is created by god, the big bang is the hand of god etc.... there is nothing wrong with that way of thinking, and a good scientist would agree it can't be proven wrong.

    I suspect the 6000 year creationists don't really believe what they are saying, it is more pig headedness. what they are saying is the only science/ history worth reading is in the bible. I'm not a fan of Richard Dawkins, and i find it funny watching him bang heads against that way of thinking... what they are saying is he is immoral, not worth reading.... not proven wrong... thats what i see anyway, although i don't want to defend it to much because some creationists can be verrrrry dumb, I knew one who was thick as two short planks, but not all of them are.
  13. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    05 Mar '13 13:1813 edits
    Originally posted by e4chris
    If you believe in god, its not much of an extention to call him a creator, saying DNA is created by god, the big bang is the hand of god etc.... there is nothing wrong with that way of thinking, and a good scientist would agree it can't be proven wrong.

    I suspect the 6000 year creationists don't really believe what they are saying, it is more pig headedne can be verrrrry dumb, I knew one who was thick as two short planks, but not all of them are.
    and a good scientist would agree it can't be proven wrong.

    a good scientist would agree that believing in something that cannot be proved wrong even if it is wrong is totally unscientific.
    For a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be FALSIFIABLE! (which is not to be confused with it being false!!!)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

    Demonstration:

    We cannot disprove that the is a supernatural teacup orbiting Mars -so is a belief in such a thing scientific and part of science? Answer, no. Why not? Because even if it is wrong, it STILL cannot be disproved and it is stupid to believe something just because you cannot disprove it!
    The same applies to the belief that a god created the universe: it is not falsifiable thus cannot ever be part of science. Thus no 'good' scientist would ever say a god created the universe.

    some creationists can be verrrrry dumb, I knew one who was thick as two short planks, but not all of them are.

    What does that indicate to you about the likely general validity of creationism? I mean, why do you think so many creationists are so unintelligent while so many scientists, few of which are creationists, are so clever?

    http://creationscience.atspace.org/Proof.html
    -the bottom graph says it all!

    http://www.ehow.com/info_8115822_studies-iq.html

    http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nontheism/liberalism-atheism-male-sexual-exclusivity-linked-to-iq-t779.html
    "Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found."

    -This is going completely off-topic but I also noticed this same link says:
    "The study found that young adults who said they were "very conservative" had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were "very liberal" averaged 106." and also see http://createperfection.hubpages.com/hub/University-Study-Shows-People-With-Lower-IQs-Are-Conservatives
  14. Joined
    19 Jan '13
    Moves
    2106
    05 Mar '13 14:313 edits
    There is muslim science tho, the early muslims were brilliant at it. Also where science does not have an explanation god is valid, Hawking said something like that.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Mar '13 16:01
    Originally posted by e4chris
    There is muslim science tho, the early muslims were brilliant at it.
    There is no such thing as Muslim science. Muslims often are scientists and do science just as some Christians do (and some Hindus, Jews, Buddhists and atheists). And there are still plenty of brilliant Muslim scientists.

    Also where science does not have an explanation god is valid, Hawking said something like that.
    If Hawking said that, he was wrong. Taking wild guesses as fact is never 'valid'.
Back to Top