Can you point to the experiments that these to did to show that the world was created by God in 6 days around 6000 years ago? Perhaps I was not clear. When I use the term "Creation Scientist", I am speaking of scientists who claim that there is more scientific evidence supporting creation of the universe by God in 6 days 6000 years ago than evidence that the earth is billions of years old.
Perhaps Newton and Pasteur didn't do those experiments. What about someone from that list of links you provided? Did any of them do experiments to show that the earth is young and God made all the animals in their final form in 2 days?
I answered your question in respect to creation scientists and their contribution towards science by pointing out that "scientists" in quotes was a disrespectful and dishonest generalisation in comparison with the reality.
My point was that science itself obviously does not require one to hold to an evolutionary viewpoint in order to study science and contribute to many different fields of science. Your insinuation that science relies on evolution therefore is not so. Let us not forget that the changes that are observed to take place (variation etc) are certainly not disputed by creationists. What may not be agreed upon is that which has not been observed to happen. There is no reason at all that a creationist need abandon his belief in regards to our origins - since there is no evidence at all that life evolved from simple celled beginnings when looking at the fossils. None whatsoever.
How does believing in an unobserved process and mechanism, with imagined scenarios to explain missing evidence contribute to true science?
Whatever these men believed in in regards to actual age of the earth? 6000 year history? I am not certain. I am aware that there are creationists who believe the earth itself is much older and some who do hold to the young earth belief.
None of those scientists make the explicit claim that there is scientific proof of the 6-day Genesis creation. Additionally they don't do any experiments to show that Genesis is an historically accurate rendition of the creation events. Their belief in the Christian God does not make them creation scientists in the manner in which I used the term. Show me the experiments that have been done by ANY scientist that provides positive evidence of a young earth creation.
Your "interview with a biologist" just shows that all of them are liars since nobody in his profession believes information evolved but none of them will stand up and show the evidence for their belief.
That was not the point of this discussion. As above, it is the point of people using science (true science), without the evolution theory of origins/process.
Perhaps Russ and CTD maybe more up on this than I am in regards to young earth belief evidence/testing. But certainly evolution obviously did not impact their studies/contribution or their own beliefs.
As for a process of evolution being responsible for what we observe today? The evidence in the fossils continues to display no indication whatsoever that any creature has evolved from simple celled life. This assumed history is MISSING. Fossils display full form, sudden/abrupt appearance in the fossil record - regardless of whatever date is placed on them. In fact, it evidence such as this that is most lethal to the evolution theory regarding life evolving on earth.
Well, the candid admission from the evolutionary biologist is indeed cause for concern. Denials in the face of the obvious may not be lying, but a difficulty in shifting a preconceived belief and indoctrination, and of course the motivation to keep ones position. Certainly it seems that they MUST attribute it to evolution, or they face real threat to their positions, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Certainly, one is motivated to hold to such a theory!
Make of this what you will. If you wish to claim we're calling them all liars? Go ahead. I simply posted up the interview from somebody who works in this field that made a very risky admission.
