? Are you a published Scientist?

Ive been published and Im a creationist… Just as an Undergrad, but just to let you know there are plenty of Scientists who believe in Creation. Do you mean, why dont they write about the Creation?

I would even venture to say that MOST Scientist, even throughout history, have believed in God. I really dont know how anyone who has studied Biology in depth couldnt believe in a Creator…

***PS do you ever follow up on your questions or are you just trying to be a pest…just so i now whether or not to answer or pay attention to any of your future questions…

It’s all bullshit.

Great scientists like Johannes KEPLER saw God’s magnificance and constantly gave praise to God Almighty for his wonderful laws built into nature. He was a creationist.

So was Isaac NEWTON…….and he wrote 1 million words about his LITERAL belief in the Scripture. He was a creationist.
” I have a fundamental belief in the Word of God….I study the Bible daily”. – Isaac Newton

The electromagnetic equations of James Clerk Maxwell attest to the Magnificant mathematical inginuity of the Creator.
He was a Creationist.
Louis Pasteur…was a avid Christian and Fundamental Bible believer….

Thousands of other scientists freely admit it was their faith in God and Jesus Christ that led them to great discoveries…

Its only the ignorant who can’t figure it out. Please get an education.

Those’n dern Ph.D.s don’t got the right fetchin’ up.

They weren’t schooleld in the only book lernin’ t’ counts… bible book lernin.

Because these are nonsense. Creationism isn’t science, just philosophy trying to look the part. Creation “science” is not about discovery, but is invention.

Creation Science is not science. That’s why it’s never listed on the National Science Foundation site. That’s why no one who does “creation science” ever publishes in reputable scientific journals like “Nature” or “Science” or “PNAS” (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) or PLoS (Public Library of Science). Creation Science is religion, pure and simple. It is the Bible story, in fact. There are other creation stories from other religions also which don’t agree with it. So, if we really want to teach religion in science classes, we ought to turn around and teach science in church.

The same reason there aren’t any creationist findings on Pubmed, which happens to include retracted papers and articles from some very minor journals.

Evolution produces testable results that benefit humanity.
Creationism doesn’t.

Edit: Okay, that does it. Creationism will now be listed as “crackpot conspiracy theory.” It can sit right next to reptilian humanoids and the moon hoax.

Because of the “good ole boy’ syndrome that says “we will exclude you if you do not think like us.”

There have been many science discoveries made by scientist’s who believe in creationism. They just don’t get published as much since they don’t fit what the rest of the scientific world thinks.

They prefer to display their work at the Fertilizer Hall of Fame.

It’s funny, because I almost thought you used the words “creation” and “science” in the same sentence….

LOL

It is all about extreme religious people trying to erode science because they feel science weakens their religion and the role of God. There’s even a strategy paper called the “Wedge Document” that outlines how creationists will try to get science re-defined to include supernatural causes. Imagine that – scientists finding an unexplained phenomenon would then be able to just say “ahh, God did that”, close up the lab, and go home. Part of their strategy is to publish scientific-looking articles, and to confuse the public with pseudoscientific babble.

In the Kitzmiller v Dover case, Intelligent Design (a version of “creation science”) proponents presented many days of the best evidence they had to prove that their form of creationism was science.

In the Kitzmiller testimony, Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe admitted under oath that Intelligent Design was no more scientific than astrology.

In the end, the Conservative, Republican, Christian, Bush-appointed judge heard all the evidence and concluded: Intelligent Design (and all forms of creationism) ARE NOT SCIENCE.

Now if they couldn’t convince him, it must really be weak. The fact is, when constrained by rules of evidence (in court, in scientific journals) “creation science” loses. There simply is no way to prove supernatural intervention. Every time evidence is cited to “scientifically” support some creationist claim, it is debunked by science.

It would really be better for everybody if people stopped trying to get science to validate their faith. Keep faith out of science classes and science journals, and we’ll keep scientific experiments out of church.