Why Hasn't A Creationist Scientist Published The Scientific Proof That Creationism Is Real? (hell, genesis)

[MontanaGuy]

I've asked this question a number of times and I've never received a response from anyone so I'm going to start a thread on it. Scientists who have made progress in any field of study often want to present their work to the scientific community by writing a paper and submitting it to a scientific journal. Scientific journals contain papers that have been peer reviewed in order to establish their credibility and to keep a high standard in scientific publications. If there are scientists who have discovered solid evidence that can be demonstrated following the scientific method that creationism has a foundation based on fact why don't they present this evidence to the scientific community in the same manner that other scientists do? There are countless scientific journals on any topic you can think of in which professional scientists present their work following a rigorous set of established guidelines. I would think that if any scientist could really lay out all of the evidence they've discovered that proves the earth is only a few thousand years old and that mankind has descended from Adam and Eve that they'd be chomping at the bit to get it published because they'd be in Nobel Prize country. Contrary to what creationists are always saying about science it's clear that scientists thrive on controversy and overthrowing a previously accepted idea because a new one can be shown to be more plausible is what scientists do. That's how progress is made. So why hasn't anyone presented the scientific evidence for creationism and published it in a scientific journal?

[Simple Living]

If you are looking for scientific arguments for Creation and/or against evolution, try these sites: Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics
and Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry.

Here's the reason why the whole Creation vs Evolution debate even exists:

Romans 1:25, "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen."

[MontanaGuy]

Simple Living,
I've looked at those types of websites and in fact they are one of the reasons that I'm asking the question in the first place. Answers in Genesis is not a scientific journal, it's a website for people who are promoting creationism. The reason I'm asking the question is that if there is indeed evidence that creationism has a foundation that can be explained in a scientific manner why doesn't a scientist present this information to the scientific community in the form of a published paper that lays out all of the documentation and evidence that conforms to the high standards of scientific publications.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by Simple Living

If you are looking for scientific arguments for Creation and/or against evolution, try these sites: Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics
and Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry.

Here's the reason why the whole Creation vs Evolution debate even exists:

Romans 1:25, "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen."

Well, anyone can make a website and say it's "scientific" based on their interpretation. I don't think that's what MG was getting at.

His point was more along the lines of why places like ICR and AiG refuse to present their materials to the scientific community. If, as he said, ID/Creationism is scientifically plausible than it should be able to publish papers based on critically robust methodologies. On top of that, all they really need to do is provide an enveloping metric for the measure of "design" that can produce valid results when applied to entities of known provenance. By that deduction, this "design" can also be applied to unknown derivatives as well.

However, the problem that is inherently found on that side of the argument is that because they are unable to explain the natural mechanisms in which this occurs, they are left with "God did it". That does not even do a good impersonation of science nor does it stand as a decent metric by which we can incur "design".

Now, if ID/Creationism and their supporting websites can provide evidence (using the same critically robust methodologies that this Creator exists) than perhaps it'll be worth looking at but until then it is merely a matter of conjecture to imply "design" because it makes one feel warm inside.

[b. frank]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

Contrary to what creationists are always saying about science it's clear that scientists thrive on controversy and overthrowing a previously accepted idea because a new one can be shown to be more plausible is what scientists do. That's how progress is made. So why hasn't anyone presented the scientific evidence for creationism and published it in a scientific journal?

This is such a great point!
Creationists seem to always point out that secular scientists are so biased against God that they won't listen to anything outside of their narrow view (isn't that the plot of the movie Expelled? I don't know - haven't seen it).

If you know how scientific journals read, then you know that they consist of constant back-and-forth arguing much like we have here on the internet. Only the arguments are extremely long and almost esoteric in their displays of knowledge. Scientists love nothing more than destroying each others arguments. And no scientist ever concedes victory. So why wouldn't they welcome an entry that defends Creationism? It's because there would be no place for it in the debate among secular scholars. Religious scholars would have an unfair advantage in a real debate with them because they are privy to higher powers that speak only to them. Scientists who argue on religious grounds are Apologists (an exclusive group) and they probably run their own journals.

[Simple Living]

Originally posted by GCSTroop: I don't think that's what MG was getting at.

Then he'll have to ask Creation Scientists his questions. Whose to say they haven't published? I'm not a scientist and I don't read scientific journals, so I don't know. To me, it's not a matter of having to have science's approval. It's not about science because, in my opinion, science is fallible and not the last word on things. Science has made gross errors for years.

Taking the Christian belief of creationism and saying it boils down to "God did it" doesn't make that true. Christians can say the same thing: "Non-believer's views boil down to "No, He didn't." It's the same thing as "Prove God Does/Does Not Exist." There is no proof that He doesn't exist and non-believers can't accept the views of why He does, so it's just another stalemate and endless debate.

In my view, no one was there at the creation of the world except God, so I'll take His word over it over the theories of men (which is all evolution is, there is no "proof" of that, either, or the debate would be over).

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by Simple Living

Then he'll have to ask Creation Scientists his questions. Whose to say they haven't published? I'm not a scientist and I don't read scientific journals, so I don't know.

Taking the Christian belief of creationism and saying it boils down to "God did it" doesn't make that true. Christians can say the same thing: "Non-believer's views boil down to "No, He didn't." It's the same thing as "Prove God Does/Does Not Exist." There is no proof that He doesn't exist and non-believers can't accept the views of why He does, so it's just another stalemate and endless debate.

In my view, no one was there at the creation of the world except God, so I'll take His word over it over the theories of men (which is all evolution is, there is no "proof" of that, either, or the debate would be over).

And that's the crux of my argument and that's why ID/Creationism is not science. There is no proof that "He" does exist either so, as I said, it is a matter of mere conjecture to postulate that God exists and therefore "God did it" in such a manner.

After all, nary is the day that I hear a believer say they don't have faith. That's an important word, because faith is a lot different than proof.

And, yes, there is an astounding amount of proof of evolution backed by the exact methods I explained in my previous post. However, strictly understanding or "believing" in evolution does not negate the existence of God. It does, however, negate implications of "design".

[Frankie117]

Last time I checked, Creationism is based on faith, so why in the hell would we need any other reason to believe it?

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by Frankie117

Last time I checked, Creationism is based on faith, so why in the hell would we need any other reason to believe it?

You can believe whatever the heck you want but it doesn't mean that it's scientifically supported. The argument tends to be that Creationism/ID is science or that it is scientifically supported and the OP was asking why these people don't submit their "scientific findings" to the scientific communities if that is the case.

[Frankie117]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

You can believe whatever the heck you want but it doesn't mean that it's scientifically supported. The argument tends to be that Creationism/ID is science or that it is scientifically supported and the OP was asking why these people don't submit their "scientific findings" to the scientific communities if that is the case.

Last time I checked Creationism isn't a science, it's a belief. And if it is a science, then that seems rather silly to me. Plus, even if they did 'submit' anything, do you really think an Atheistic scientific community would really take it seriously?