Creation Scientist
Secularists try to make out that creationists can’t be real scientists! Not only does AiG employ a number of highly qualified scientists with PhD degrees in many fields, but works with many other scientists outside of AiG. Here is just one of many such examples.
Our long-time ministry friend Dr. Stewart Turner—he has a PhD in aeronautical engineering from the University of Arizona—comes by from time to time to visit us and walk through the Creation Museum. As a museum member, Dr. Turner is always interested to see what’s new at the museum. On a recent visit, he dropped off a set of 36 video talks that he had just produced on a wide variety of creation/evolution topics. Now, we haven’t watched all the videos, but we know that Dr. Turner is in line with us regarding Genesis and we appreciate the fact that this highly professional man is on our side.
To find out more about this academic and fine Christian gentleman, who has a passion to reach young people and adults with the creation/gospel message, go to his newly updated website of www.CreationLectures.com. You can find out something about his new video set when you go to that link. Dr. Turner has also recently added 10 downloadable PDF files about each DVD that can be printed out, with an outline of each DVD lecture, a “Questions and Answers” section for each lecture, and a bibliography. You can watch some sample videos at http://www.creationlectures.com/sample-video/.
We find it so encouraging that there are hundreds of Christians who are now giving live creation lectures around the country—many of them having earned doctorates—who accept Genesis and reject evolution. Dr. Turner—who also knows his Bible very well—has gone even further by producing an ambitious video set of his live talks.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken
newest »
As creation science is an oxymoron, creation scientist must also be an oxymoron. I don't care what science background your people have, they have turned their back on science in favour of myth and superstition.
Then evolutionary science is not science either. It is an oxymoron as well, for it is also not knowledge. Science is observable. The past is not observable. When using science to attempt to determine past events, one has to Interpret the scientific data. When one interprets the data, they interpret it based on their presuppositions (i.e. - a gradualistic (evolutionary) origins model or perhaps a young earth (creation) origins model). Both creation science and evolutionary science are based on presuppositions. Let me explain what I mean.For example, if I take a reading of Carbon 14 in a sample of biomatter, I can use science to measure how much C14 is in the biomatter today. But the number that I get doesn't tell me anything. It is just a number. I have to Interpret the number to assign an age to the biomatter. In order for the reading to have meaning, I need to know some things. First off, I need to know how much C14 was in the organism at the time it was alive. I have no way of knowing that. So I have to assume some variables. I have to assume a certain absorption rate for the specimen and hope that it is similar to an extant analogous organism (an educated guess). I have to make a wild guess about what the conditions were when the organism was alive, namely, how much C14 was in the atmosphere at the time the specimen was alive. It would also help to know how long the organism was alive (how long it was absorbing C14). It would be good to know if the specimen was at all discriminating (some plants for instance, resist C14). Next, I'll assume no contamination after the specimen died. Last, I have to assume that the decay rate of C14 is a constant, but as it turns out in recent discoveries, using science, that radioactive decay rates are not constant after all (google "radioactive decay rate not constant". Things like solar activity can speed up the decay rate.)
[It is worth noting that the last mentioned issue invalidates all possible measurements I might make now. I can never know what events might have affected the decay rate since the organism was alive. Any number I come up with with be wrong, even if I somehow knew for sure all the variables mentioned. In fact, it invalidates any dating technique that relies on radioactive decay, and automatically means any existing derived dates are too old, that is, at least until someone finds some phenomena that can actually cause radioactive decay to slow down. In any case we can never trust even our best guesses.]
Now I have a host of variables that I need to plug into my formula to calculate the age of the specimen. Please note that All of the values except the actual measurement of the amount of C14 in the specimen today are Guesses. They cannot be otherwise. So how do I determine what numbers to plug into my formula? Well, if I am an evolutionist, I will naturally assume it is very old, and I will, as the theory requires, assume a very different environment than today -- one that is Very rich in C14, for instance. With this assumption (and others) and the numbers I plug into the formula, I get a very old age for the specimen. Maybe even close to 100,000 years old (of course, this is the upper threshold for Carbon 14 dating, for it doesn't matter how much C14 you had to start with, given a decay rate [even at a constant rate] of ~5730 years, after 100,000 years, there would be so little left that you could scarcely detect it. C14 cannot be used to measure anything beyond 100,000 years. If anyone says C14 dating gave a date beyond that, they are confused at best.) Now if a creationist plugs in different numbers based on their model, they get a much younger age for the specimen.
This type of activity is required if a scientist is going to attempt to predict ancient events that are not observable. It is inescapable. All scientists must Interpret scientific data based on a presupposition in order to do so.
So the question isn't which is truly Science: creation science or evolutionary science? Neither is Science by your definition. Both use Science, but Both are based on guesswork -- guesswork that is based on a theoretical origins model -- so neither is "knowledge." The real question is... which origins model do you choose to put your faith in?
As I am not an expert in radiometric dating techniques, I suggest you address your with people who are. Find out where the nearest lab is to you, arrange a visit and explain to the working scientists why they are wrong. Make sure you take your holy book along and point out to them where it at odds with their studies. Make sure they realise that according to you, they are nothing but fakers and liars. Let me know how you get on.As to your final question, which origins model do I put faith in? Why, the one that deals in reality, on science analysis, thought, observation and intellect. The model based on ancient book of fantasy stories I reject wholesale, just as I reject the one based on the myths and legends of ancient Norsemen.
"Science is the crystallized intelligence, which defeats prejudice and superstition." Kazuaki KurodaThis is a quote from a real scientist (one not engaged in research related to evolution) which I think answers your original question.
"Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him." -- Proverbs 26:12. This is a quote from a real God. The God who invented time, light, matter, energy, life, love, free will. I suggest you take your humanist manifesto to a local church and explain to them where they went wrong.
Ken Ham's Blog
- Ken Ham's profile
- 353 followers
