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.
You did not answer my question. In the post to which I made the creation "scientist" reference, you stated:
...evolutionary scientists are not the only scientists. There are creation scientists who challenge the claims of evolution scientists - even though the majority wins in regards to having the loudest voice, there is another voice and one in which has every right to be heard.
It would appear from Linear's perspective, that it is ok to challenge/dispute/question the claims of Creation scientists and Genesis, but almost blasphemy if one dares to challenge the claims of mainstream evolutionary scientists/biologists
It was in response to the context of your statement about scientists who challenge the theory of evolution, that I made the comment and asked about the experiments performed. You haven't answered the question at all.
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.
Yet you cannot point to any scientist's experiments that resulted in positive evidence of a young earth or instantaneous creation of all the life forms....which was the request. I don't have a problem with scientists or anyone else questioning evolution, but how about some of them doing at least one experiment to support their side.
Despite your denial, there is a large amount of evidence for evolution. Find any bunnies in the Cambrian deposits yet? Maybe God didn't create bunnies in creation week. or horses, or dinosaurs or elephants or gophers or bats....etc.
How about endogenous retroviruses and the close match up between their presence in chimp DNA and their presence in human DNA. Did God purposely infect the seed cells in chimps and man in the exact same place in the DNA or did He just build the DNA to look like it was infected the same way? The prevailing conclusion of geneticists (interview with a biologist notwithstanding) is that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. What is the reigning creationist scientist explanation and what experiments/research have they done to support that explanation?
How does believing in an unobserved process and mechanism, with imagined scenarios to explain missing evidence contribute to true science?
Strangely, most biologists can point to experiments/research that show the mechanism and process for evolution.
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....
That was not the point of this discussion.
Yes it was as is shown by my comments above.
As above, it is the point of people using science (true science), without the evolution theory of origins/process.
I never said they couldn't. However, this doesn't support your creation scientist argument because they don't depend on the creation theory either. It's like saying that someone can repair an automobile without a pipe wrench when the subject of discussion was plumbing.
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.
They're scientists? What field of study?
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.
A couple of problems here. You don't define what a transitional form should be but imply here that it is not "fully formed". Now you should have to explain what full form means in order to use it to refute the idea that there are no transitional forms.
You also say that the fossils suddenly appear in the record as if that means they were suddenly created fully formed. However, there is that sticky problem of where they show up in the fossil record. No bunnies in Cambrian deposits. No pollen from flowering plants in the Jurassic, or Cambrian.
Seems you are now attacking the sciences of physics and geology.
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!
Then it is OK for them to lie to keep their jobs?
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.
Yet Michael Behe continues in his job at Lehigh University despite his adherence to ID. So the "he will get fired" line has been refuted by evidence. Frankly, I find the story to be suspect. George Caylor refuses to provide any support for this story. He won't even tell creationist supporters who the biologist is.
From the interview, a question arises: If "nobody" in the genetics field believes that "information" evolved, then who would this geneticist be afraid of? Surely not his peers in the field because all of them believe that information did not evolve. Must be some kind of conspiracy in the halls of power that run the genetics labs and profit so much on their work that depends on the theory of evolution to be true.
ABE: I found that Russ posted a link to
this list that scientists have signed stating their doubt concerning Darwin's theory. Looks like it's not placing their jobs in peril. Maybe the idea that dissenters will be fired is just a bunch of trumped up baloney.
