Can creationists make good scientists?

Originally posted by Kepler
I think you'll find that a lot of those Islamic scholars were more like 600-800 years earlier than Newton. Alhazen, the optics chap, lived from 965 to 1040. The algebra chap, al-Kwarizmi (after whom algorithms are named, one of his book titles is the origin of the word algebra), lived around the year 800. The work of Islamic science continued but Europe seems ...[text shortened]... simultaneous discoveries in optics, mathematics and other fields in Europe and the middle east.

Yes they were simultaneous, not in any way plagarised by the europeans 🙂

It is a bit funny tho you have these atheists, and its like, look we can see the solar system ... yes cos a muslim invented a telescope ... look we can prove x y z, thus god does not exist ... yes because a muslim invented algebra...

Originally posted by e4chris
1. My case for religious morals is they have stood the test of time, through conflict for 1500+ years.
2. Interestingly do you ever read about ejyptian or roman morality, no because those societies collapsed.

1. As has been pointed out by many on these fora religious morals have in no
way "stood the test of time".

2. Morals of a defunct society are not going to be current are they?

Society's ethics increasingly come from non-religious sources; common-sense,
logic, equality and practicality. Religion is not needed as a source of
morality and it is dangerous to suppose it is.

Take a look at:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

Originally posted by wolfgang59
1. As has been pointed out by many on these fora religious morals have in no
way "stood the test of time".

2. Morals of a defunct society are not going to be current are they?

Society's ethics increasingly come from non-religious sources; common-sense,
logic, equality and practicality. Religion [b]is not needed as a source of
morality and ...[text shortened]... dangerous to suppose it is.

Take a look at:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics[/b]

You might disagree, but i often think when i see 'atheists' talk about morals on this site, saying they don't need christianity to teach them... they sound like they are spouting christian morals anyway, its like jesus has got them, sonhouses freedom from religion post is a prime example.

You probably would not have the subject of secular ethics without Jesus giving us a push in the right direction, you would be reading about the art of war, not ethics if it was not for him.

Originally posted by e4chris
Also going back to the original point - so yes creationists can make very good scientists.

But not nearly as good as atheists. In general, religion held back many great scientists.

For me one big place i find god lacking in Science is Drugs, I studied chemistry.. badly but it struck me that attempts to turn that subject into life saving drugs were pathetic. big pharma companies just do antidepressants. academics do nothing whilst moaning at the drug companies for doing nothing... That was the impression i got.
So who cares what antidepressant makers do. (well, people with depression I suppose). I am more interested in the people making other useful drugs. Somebody made all those drugs in my local chemist. Who was it I wonder?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But not nearly as good as atheists. In general, religion held back many great scientists.

For me one big place i find god lacking in Science is Drugs, I studied chemistry.. badly but it struck me that attempts to turn that subject into life saving drugs were pathetic. big pharma companies just do antidepressants. academics do nothing whilst moaning king other useful drugs. Somebody made all those drugs in my local chemist. Who was it I wonder?

If you have a serious illness you will quickly find out the drugs at the chemists only go so far and your life is dependant on 'reaserch' that never happens.

I'm afraid it is true that pharmaceutical companies spend almost all there R&D on new anti depressants / pills to be taken daily. They patent chase and will push an inferior new drug over a better old one just because a patent is valid. thats how it works and it is no good.

Originally posted by e4chris
You might disagree, but i often think when i see 'atheists' talk about morals on this site, saying they don't need christianity to teach them... they sound like they are spouting christian morals anyway, its like jesus has got them, sonhouses freedom from religion post is a prime example.

You probably would not have the subject of secular ethics without ...[text shortened]... right direction, you would be reading about the art of war, not ethics if it was not for him.

Actually Jesus spouted a remarkably large amount of secular morals. But he missed out a whole lot and got some wrong. Your belief that he is the source of such morals just shows your ignorance of the subject.
Give us an example of a moral teaching that Jesus initiated and I can guarantee that someone will be able to either show that there is a prior equivalent teaching, or that the teaching is immoral.
Jesus was heavily constrained by the religion of his society and could not speak out as much as he should have. Often, instead of directly saying that something was immoral (such as stoning adulterers) he had to use round about routes. In the end of course he still got killed by religious people for religious reasons.

So you appear to have hear of "The Art of War". Have you also heard of Confucius? He lived 500 years before Jesus and managed to discuss morals without making it into a religion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually Jesus spouted a remarkably large amount of secular morals. But he missed out a whole lot and got some wrong. Your belief that he is the source of such morals just shows your ignorance of the subject.
Give us an example of a moral teaching that Jesus initiated and I can guarantee that someone will be able to either show that there is a prior equi lived 500 years before Jesus and managed to discuss morals without making it into a religion.

I think richard dawkins is a fascist and his ideas are very very dangerous, and the last century proved them so, but still he pushes them.

I have little time for scientists who slag of religion and i would never ever give them any responsibility if it were my choice.

Originally posted by e4chris
I think richard dawkins is a fascist and his ideas are very very dangerous, and the last century proved them so, but still he pushes them.

I have little time for scientists who slag of religion and i would never ever give them any responsibility if it were my choice.

You are completely delusional for thinking that Dawkins was fascist. Where did you get that from? he couldn't be more anti-fascist. He is NOT Christian so, with all else being equal, that makes him a bit less likely to be fascist for starters. In WW2, the Nazis, who where nearly all christian with no noteworthy exceptions and ALL the Nazi leaders with no exception were Christian. Nazis were fascist. I have already proven this to you with the historical records. Atheists like me and Dawkins are nothing like such Christians.
Show us your EVIDENCE that Dawkins was fascist.....

Originally posted by humy
You are completely delusional for thinking that Dawkins was fascist. Where did you get that from? he couldn't be more anti-fascist and most
He is NOT Christian. In WW2, the Nazis, who where nearly all christian with no noteworthy exceptions, were fascist. Atheists like me and Dawkins are nothing like you lot.

you think about that for a while and you might come up with a different answer. I doubt he considers himself a fascist, just what he argues for, when applied manifests as fascism. Dawkins philosophy is a mix of Nietzsche and Darwin. Where does that lead?

Originally posted by e4chris
you think about that for a while and you might come up with a different answer. I doubt he considers himself a fascist, just everything he argues for, when applied manifests as fascism. Dawkins philosophy is a mix of Nietzsche and Darwin. Where did that lead to before?

Dawkins philosophy is old an out of date dangerous mix of Nietzsche and Darwin. Where did that lead to before??

where did that “lead to before” then? You obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche#Nietzsche.27s_criticism_of_anti-Semitism_and_nationalism
“...Nietzsche's criticism of anti-Semitism and nationalism

Although Nietzsche has famously been represented (some strongly argue misrepresented)[17] as a predecessor to Nazism, he criticized anti-Semitism, pan-Germanism and, to a lesser extent, nationalism....”

I don't know whether Dawkins agreed with everything Nietzsche said or believed, but, either way, Dawkins is clearly no fascist.
You still haven't shown us your evidence that Dawkins was fascist. Show us now....

And how is accepting the fact that evolution happens “dangerous”? Please explain....

I doubt he considers himself a fascist, just everything he argues for, when applied manifests as fascism.

Exactly HOW would “applying” what he argues for “manifests as fascism.”? -that makes no sense whatsoever. Can you give us just ONE example of how? ( -answer, no) He generally argues for rational thinking -not the kind of thing that naturally leads to fascism.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually Jesus spouted a remarkably large amount of secular morals. But he missed out a whole lot and got some wrong. Your belief that he is the source of such morals just shows your ignorance of the subject.
Give us an example of a moral teaching that Jesus initiated and I can guarantee that someone will be able to either show that there is a prior equi ...[text shortened]... lived 500 years before Jesus and managed to discuss morals without making it into a religion.

I agree you will find lots of moral thinkers other then jesus. But I think you must admit no one else convinced that many people of the importance of compassion. Even the roman empire eventually fell to his way off thinking. They might of discussed morality before then, but Jesus got them to convert to it. I guess he holds a lot a weight not only because of his arguments, but for getting them across to so many people.

Originally posted by e4chris
I think richard dawkins is a fascist and his ideas are very very dangerous, and the last century proved them so, but still he pushes them.

I see you simply sidestep the challenge with regards to Jesus.
Not only are you wrong about Dawkins and facism, but it wouldn't matter if it was true. It wouldn't make you right.

I have little time for scientists who slag of religion and i would never ever give them any responsibility if it were my choice.
But you have been totally unable to justify this stance. And luckily for the rest of us, it isn't your choice.

Originally posted by e4chris
I agree you will find lots of moral thinkers other then jesus. But I think you must admit no one else convinced that many people of the importance of compassion. Even the roman empire eventually fell to his way off thinking. They might of discussed morality before then, but Jesus got them to convert to it. I guess he holds a lot a weight not only because of his arguments, but for getting them across to so many people.

Pity so many people are so unintelligent as to always need to be told how to be moral by somebody else rather than have the intelligence and critical independent rational thinking to work out the extremely obvious for themselves.

Originally posted by e4chris
I agree you will find lots of moral thinkers other then jesus. But I think you must admit no one else convinced that many people of the importance of compassion.

No, I will not admit it. You don't seem to realise that Christians are a minority, and even Christians are not 'convinced of the importance of compassion' by Jesus, but rather Christians follow Jesus because they recognise the importance of compassion and that resonates with Jesus' teachings.
In fact, I find Jesus' argument for compassion (that you should do so to get in Gods good books) to be wanting.

Originally posted by humy

Dawkins philosophy is old an out of date dangerous mix of Nietzsche and Darwin. Where did that lead to before??

where did that “lead to before” then? You obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche#Nietzsche.27s_criticism_of_anti-Semitism_and_nationalism
“. enerally argues for rational thinking -not the kind of thing that naturally leads to fascism.

Maybe to be fair...

Darwin was not a fascist.

Nietzsche was not a fascist

Maybe Dawkins isn't either.

But the first 2 were unquestionably precursors to fascism. I'm not saying it was eithers fault. But there ideas were picked up and used by fascists.

Dawkins lives 100 years later, But he still pushes those ideas like they will benefit us all in some way. They didn't the last time.

To be fair he does have a place playing devils advocate with some creationists, he is progressive in that sense, but surely a man as smart as Dawkins must see his argument is dangerous in the wrong hands.