What has creationism ever done for us?

[MagusYanam]

My question is simply this: in light of the fact that Darwin's model of biological evolution has contributed vastly to our understanding of genetics and has advanced beyond question the fields of agriculture, medicine, environmental ecology, palaeontology and thus geology, what has the creation model done to further man's more noble pursuits? Exactly what purpose is it serving? In other words, where is the utility in creationism and how is it supposed to better our lot in the universe?

[Bart007]

Must be a limit on how many letters can be in a post, there were another 30 or so pages on scientific papers by creationary scientists that have been published in secular Science journals that did not show up in my last post. I personally noted several scientists whose works are missing from that list, must be many more. Still, the majority who do get published are secular scientists.

[Sender]

Just post a page/post and make thirty posts, this is the best stuff come down the pike since I been here.

[Grumpy]

Sender

The problem with your pages and pages of papers published by so called creationists is that not one of them are on a topic related to creationism. It proves exactly what??? That scientists publish papers??? Hint, we already knew that.

Grumpy 8)

[Lotan]

Must be a limit on how many letters can be in a post, there were another 30 or so pages on scientific papers by creationary scientists that have been published in secular Science journals that did not show up in my last post.

I'll bet you couldn't post 30 pages of scientific papers that actually had something to do with 'creation science'. This other stuff is pretty pointless.

[Bart007]

Must be a limit on how many letters can be in a post, there were another 30 or so pages on scientific papers by creationary scientists that have been published in secular Science journals that did not show up in my last post.

I'll bet you couldn't post 30 pages of scientific papers that actually had something to do with 'creation science'. This other stuff is pretty pointless.

They get banned from the Secular Science Journals by advocates of Evolution. I have a friend, a Creationists with a Ph.D. in Biology. He has had many papers published, but the secular Journals will not permit anything that supports Creation. As an example, he told me of a blood analysis in a species we he made a unique find that totally contradicted the evolutionary line on this animal. This find clearly supported Creation. He was not allowed to state this in his article if he wanted to get it published. He said he was allowed to report his finding without mentioning the negative impact it had on evolution theory. He said his colleagues whoe read the report may pick up on it, but the public and lay people would pick it up if they read the published article.

Two pro-Creation articles made it through the peer review process recently, and when dogmatic evolutionists became furious and organized a campaign attack the editor, the peer review board, the Board of directors for allowing pro-Creation articles published. A governement investigation that the critics engaged in unprofessional and unwarranted harassment in the Meyers paper.

The Peer review process is corrupt with advocates of particular points of view censoring other points of view that challenges theirs, and not just those of Creationists, but other scientists as well.

If you want to read articles by scientists on creation, you will have to go to their Science Journals. That is, if you wish to be informed on their science findings.

On the other hand, I read many articles from secular peer reviewed science magazines such as Science, and I'm amazed how many papers are published that reference evolution and darwin when the their scietific paper had noting at all to do with either. So I was surprised when a Frank admission of this was printed in The Scientist:



Why Do We Invoke Darwin?
The Scientist (reprint on DI) ^ | August 29, 2005 | Philip S. Skell


Posted on 08/31/2005 9:04:10 AM PDT by flevit:


When I recently suggested this disconnect publicly, I was vigorously challenged. One person recalled my use of Wilkins and charged me with quote mining. The proof, supposedly, was in Wilkins's subsequent paragraph:

"Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing. More and more issues in biology, from diverse questions about human nature to the vulnerability of ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting evolutionary events. A spate of popular books on evolution testifies to the development. If we are to fully understand these matters, however, we need to understand the processes of evolution that, ultimately, underlie them."

In reality, however, this passage illustrates my point. The efforts mentioned there are not experimental biology; they are attempts to explain already authenticated phenomena in Darwinian terms, things like human nature. Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self- centered and aggressive - except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed - except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.

[Grumpy]

Bart007

They get banned from the Secular Science Journals by advocates of Evolution.

Pure BS.

The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985).

In the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.


Creationists are free to publish in other venues, such as books and their own journals. These venues are as reputable as their authors and editors. Note that Darwin's major works were published in books.


Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:
Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal für Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)

In addition, many creationists have published science articles not related to creationism.


Scientists themselves are prevented from publishing in peer-reviewed journals when their science is not up to par. The peer-review process prevents lots of substandard work from being published, even from noncreationists such as myself. (The process, of course, is imperfect and produces a substantial borderline area, so some fairly good articles get rejected and some fairly poor ones get accepted. On the whole, however, it keeps quality up.) Creationists face no obstacles that mainstream scientists do not face themselves.


Creationists prevent others from publishing critical views in creationist journals. Glenn Morton, for example, has had papers rejected by the Creation Research Society Quarterly for violating their view that the Flood must be global and for criticizing Carl Froede's poor geology (Morton 1998).
Links:
Flank, Lenny. 1995. Does science discriminate against creationists? http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... iscrim.htm
References:
Morton, Glenn. 1998, The letter the Creation Research Society Quarterly didn't want you to read. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/letter.htm
Scott, E. C. and H. P. Cole. 1985. The elusive scientific basis of creation "science", Quarterly Review of Biology 60: 21-30.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA325.html

As I said, those poor creationist ARE NOT being kept out of peer reviewed journals, they are not even submitting any real science to be published dealing with creationism.

Grumpy 8)

[Lotan]

I have a friend...

If your friends findings are all that you claim, it would be easy enough for him to simply publish his data himself on the net. Other 'creation scientists' could duplicate his results and presto, evolution is falsified and your friend is a hero!
I won't hold my breath.

A governement investigation that the critics engaged in unprofessional and unwarranted harassment in the Meyers paper.

That sounds interesting. Do you have a source I could look at?

The Peer review process is corrupt with advocates of particular points of view censoring other points of view that challenges theirs, and not just those of Creationists, but other scientists as well.

I agree. Atlantis hunters and folks who think that the pyramids were built by aliens make those exact same charges.

If you want to read articles by scientists on creation, you will have to go to their Science Journals. That is, if you wish to be informed on their science findings.

Nothing would please me more. Where does one obtain these "Science Journals"?

On the other hand...

I have no idea what you are trying to get at with the rest of your post. It sounds like you don't like to see people putting the ToE to work. It would help if you had put quotation marks around the last paragraph. I thought these were your own words at first. One line from that article caught my eye...
"None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false."

[QED]

Just post a page/post and make thirty posts, this is the best stuff come down the pike since I been here.

The best stuff you've seen posted here is a long list of irrelevant material If any of those papers were to actually reference creationist issues then we might be able to count them as support for creationism but with titles such as "Anti-hydrogen production with cold trapped plasmas" and "Electrical Resistivity and Thermopower of the Liquid Alloy MgZn" it makes the assumption that they are all relevant seem exceedingly unsafe. Still, if you want to stand by this as the cream of the crop then that's entirely up to you.

[Cathar1950]

As a fan of Whitehead I would like to point out Christianity is not the same thing as creationism.
If Europe had not ran into the Arabs during the crusades we wouldn't have math, Greek and soap. There would have been no Renaissance . Europe was in the dark ages due to Christianity.
I am not taking sides but you have to take the good with the bad.
I find it interesting when some Christians wan credit for all the good in the world but deny the evil done in it's name.
But back to the point Christianity is not Creationism. Whitehead would say Creationist were simple minded.

[juliod]

He said he was allowed to report his finding without mentioning the negative impact it had on evolution theory. He said his colleagues whoe read the report may pick up on it, but the public and lay people would pick it up if they read the published article.

Please give us the citation information for this paper. I very much want to read it.

DanZ