Scientists find what they expect to find (Talk.Origins)
- Scientists find what they expect to find.
Source: No source given.
CreationWiki response: (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
The main reason creationists say this is because since uniformitarian theory and naturalist assumptions have become popular, most scientists have interpreted their findings based on the assumption that no supernatural power could have been involved. Creationists and evolutionists can interpret evidence very differently. For example, we sometimes find seashells on top of mountains. A creationist will say that is evidence for a global flood that once covered the mountains. An evolutionist will say that is evidence that, millions of years ago, that mountain was once underwater. Based on what assumptions a person has to start with, that can drastically affect their conclusions.
3. At the start of the nineteenth century, scientists expected to find evidence for creation and a global flood. Instead, they found evidence for evolution, which is why evolution was the accepted theory by the end of the century.
Actually, at the start of the 19th century uniformitarianism was already a popular theory in the scientific community. That's why, based on scientists' preassumptions, most scientists, for example, Charles Darwin, interpreted what they saw based on uniformitarian theory. Most scientists simply questioned the idea of a young earth because they saw how long it took for most natural processes to occur (without the aid of God's reforming during the global flood), not based on any fossil evidence. So when scientists eventually began looking at fossils, most did so from a uniformitarian point of view.
4. Creationists find what they want to find. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to see it. Scientists, on the other hand, usually welcome disconfirming evidence when it comes along.
Of course, the author couldn't miss the chance to turn the accusation back around on creationists, ignoring the fact that his own atheistic worldview is threatened by creationism; thus, his points apply to evolutionists, too, probably more so than to creationists. Where he gets the idea that scientists will welcome disconfirming evidence is beyond me. There are always some who oppose ideas and some who support ideas.
A creationist's worldview, however, is not threatened by evidence for evolution. Why? Because there isn't any and it is impossible to come up with any unless we can travel back through time. Like I said before, creationists can interpret common "evidences" for evolution in a completely different way.