The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Scientific community

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Police.png
Cleanup Required
This article does not meet the CreationWiki standards of quality. You are encouraged to improve this work by making revisions. {{{1}}}


Beliefs of Scientists

Research performed by James Leuba in 1916 illustrated that 60% of US scientists do not believe in God.[1] Leuba's survey was repeated by Edward Larson in 1996 showing that these percentages have remained unchanged over the last 100 years. [2] These researchers were further supported by a 1997 a Gallup poll. This survey of US scientists reported that 55% believed that man developed over a period of millions of years from less developed forms of life and that God had no part in the process, 40% believed in Theistic Evolution, and 5% of scientists believed that God created man fairly much in his current form at one time within the last 10,000 years. [3]

The beliefs of the larger scientific community are in stark contrast to those of the United States National Academy of Sciences where it was found that only 7% profess belief in God.[4] These number are most disturbing when it is considered that it is the NAS which advises US government officials on scientific issues that effect policy decisions[5] , such as how science should be taught in public schools[6].

While it is clear that most scientists today are atheists, many recognize the evidence for intelligent design. From 2001 to 2007, over 700 scientists signed a manifesto, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, published by the leaders of the intelligent design movement, the Discovery Institute. [7]

Discrimination of Creation Scientists

According to the young earth creationist scientists community, there is widespread discrimination against young earth creationist scientists.[8]


Historical Accuracy

Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The history of science shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, bloodletting was practiced from antiquity and still had many practioners up until the late 1800s.[9] In his essay, A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready? , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. wrote the following: "...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgement was flawed. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy." [10] Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991 BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, David Eddy professor of health policy and management at Duke University, told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."[11] Next, alchemy was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Roger Bacon, and Gottfried Leibniz.[12][13] Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts, [14][15][16] the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument.

In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970's the scientific communities consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.[17] Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New Encyclopedia Britannica stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.[18] In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct. [19] Many creationists believe that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed.

References

  1. Leuba, J. H. The Belief in God and Immortality: A Psychological, Anthropological and Statistical Study (Sherman, French & Co., Boston, 1916.
  2. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
  3. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
  4. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
  5. http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_main_page
  6. http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/
  7. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
  8. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp
  9. http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/Text/5d.html
  10. http://www.dcmsonline.org/jax-medicine/2000journals/may2000/editorial.htm
  11. [1]
  12. http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html
  13. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon
  14. http://www.jstor.org/view/03697827/ap020019/02a00050/0
  15. http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm
  16. http://www.easst.net/review/dec1998/bastos
  17. http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BLions87.htm
  18. http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BCobra94.htm
  19. http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm

See Also

Creationwiki science portal.png
Browse