Some creationists do change their minds.
Why I left Young-earth Creationism
My Search
Young-earth Advocate who works in Geology
What is the Inspiration for the Genesis Panthesis Website?
Steve Smith’s Testimony
Creation Science arguments always include the stated assumption that scientists who attempt to publish evidence which shows errors in some fundamental aspect of the current scientific view of things will be silenced, and shunned by their peers. Here is an example of the real facts of such an occurrence.
For those to whom physics is Greek, the constant under discussion is a fundamental value, and if it has changed over time, the basic assumptions of the standard model of physics will have to be rewritten in very large measure. This constant is a function of the electron charge, the speed of light, and Planck’s constant, all believed to be uniform in both time and space. If any one of them varies, our assumptions about the universe are wrong. Fundamental discoveries for decades will have to be reexamined.
So, it would seem this is the time for the forces of the scientific establishment to leap forth and silence the individuals who challenge their view. And the team that did the study in question should be adamantly demanding that their work be accepted as truth. But that is not what is happening. What is happening is that the members of that team, specifically Jason Prochaska, an astronomer is asking that others repeat his work, with different instruments and protocols, to verify the validity of the results obtained. Several members of the original team itself are skeptical of the results, and have repeated their own work, thus far only further supporting the original conclusions.
So, here is a specific example of scientists proving the “sacred cows” of previous scientific views to be in question, and the answer of science is to do the experiment again, with different people and equipment, and see if the results remain the same. There is a name for this process. It is called the “scientific method.” The debate is not related to evolution, but the method is the same. If there is even one single scrap of evidence that species do not originate by changes occurring in existing species over time, that evidence would not be covered up to protect the reputation of scientists, living or dead. Many scientists would examine it, and there would be an intensive search for other evidence as well. The reason that has not happened is that no one has ever found any evidence that shows such a thing.
The much beloved persecution of creation scientists simply does not exist. What does exist is the wide spread contempt by scientists for those who misinterpret, misquote, misapply, and finally just lie about the work of other scientists in order to curry favor and power in the very lucrative market for pseudoscientific crap that will serve the political desires of a few who use a mask of faith to aggrandize themselves before the masses.
Evolution is not antithetical to faith. Stop trying to keep God in your little box. Open your heart the Lord, and your mind to the world that He made. Until you can make a universe on your own, don’t decide for yourself how He must have done it. Jesus loves you. He loves Darwin too. He even loves Jack Chick, go figure.
Tris
“Stoning non conformists is part of science. Stoning conformists is also part of science. Only those theories that can stand up to a merciless barrage of stones deserve consideration. It is the Creationist habit of throwing marshmallows that we find annoying.” ~ Dr Pepper ~
Triskademus:
That was one fine damn post.
You’re correct.
No, not because of opinions. Because Setterfield’s work, like almost all of “creation science”, is shoddy, arbitrarily ignores data, uses arbitrary and often unstated assumptions to make the answer come out the way he wants, does not consider the implications of the hypothesis, and is overall so poorly done that it’s difficult to believe that the dishonesty is not intentional. In this particular case, in addition, Setterfield’s math is just plain wrong. His stuff wouldn’t be published by a mainstream science journal because it’s so horribly done. His hypothesis has been rejected by many “creation scientists” (see HAS THE SPEED OF LIGHT DECAYED? and Making Light of Apologetics {the author is an Old Earth Creationist astrophysicist, well-qualified to evaluate Setterfield’s claims but, sadly, not well qualified in biology}).
See also Is the Speed of Light Decreasing? The Decay of c-decay, and Is the Speed of Light Slowing Down?.
Nice post. I’d like to add that already several creationists have posted claims on talk.origins that this discovery invalidates the theory of evolution and proves creationism.
No, an article entitled “The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time” really doesn’t cut it as evidence against evolution.
It’s not an opinion, it’s a statement of fact. Do you have any facts to counter it?
FWIW, most real numbers do contain the entire text of the Bible an infinite number of times. They also contain every possible variation on the Bible, each one an infinite number of times.
To the OP, I would be convinced if a large number of scientists found an extremely large body of evidence that could be explained better by a creationist theory than by anything else. Of course, that creationist theory would have to have predictive power and whatnot. Call me crazy, but I’m not gonna hold my breath.
ultrafilter:
Could you explain? I don’t quite understand.
DaLovin’Dj
There’s a thread over in GQ titled “Pi: the source of all information”. Find that (sorry, too busy to provide a link) and it’ll all be explained.
About the pi thing: Since pi never repeats ( don’t ask me how they proved that ), and pi is infinite, any string of numbers will appear somewhere, from 0101010101 to 1134 etc. It is essentially the “an monkey banging at a keyboard an infinite amount of time will produce shakespeare”. Of course, “does the bible appear before Macbeth?” is an unanswered question.
Sigh. If I don’t believe in gravity, I just drop an apple. If I don’t believe in fossilization, I wander around utah noticing how the same fossils always show up in exactly the same patterns. Nothing to do with belief systems unless your belief systems are intentionally disconnected from reality.
Oh, and btw, if I don’t believe in a God who loves me, I put a written number in my wallet ( between 1 - 1 million ), and wait for an “inspired by god” person to guess it. So far, hasn’t happened. I guess god so loved the world that he didn’t bother saving me.
Me’Corva
If you use Occam’s razor to beat a dead horse, whaddya get but ground chuck?
Why does a world that’s older than a few thousand years threaten some Christian’s faith? So the Bible is not literally true. Never mind the age of the planet, Christ said on Mount Olive “Many now living will not die.” All of the people that were alive then… …died. The man spoke in parables. Some things can’t be expressed plainly.
If you’re going to insist on literalism, you’re never going to get anything of value out of the book, and most people are going to think your an ignoramus. Where is the profit in that?
Not quite, but that’s a subject for a different thread.
I would like to request a moment of silence in tribute to the gratifying and inspiring posts from Mangetout and Mars Horizon. No, I’m absolutely serious, people: doesn’t it kind of choke you up to see sincere testimony that at least a couple of times, this board fought ignorance and (with the help of intelligence and intellectual honesty on the part of the temporarily ignorant) won an important and lasting victory?? It does me. sniff Thank you, gentlemen, and I mean it.
In order to answer the OP, it is necessary to recognize that while belief in God may be a requirement for belief in Creationism, they are not the same thing.
I believe in God, but I also believe in evolution. In order to prove Creationism to me, you wouldn’t have to prove the existence of God. As far as I’m concerned, God is already a given.
I would be perfectly happy to accept peer-reviewed, experimental, scientific evidence that the Earth was created on a specific day some thousands of years ago, with all animals already in the form that we see them today (accounting for microevolution, extinction of the dinosaurs, etc.) However, that still wouldn’t necessarily prove that God was the motive force behind Earth’s creation (and remember, I already believe in God.)
So the standard of proof that I would require to believe in a young, fully populated earth would be a general acceptance by the scientific community of that theory, along with whatever experimental evidence is available. No proof could make me believe that God was responsible for such a creation, that would be a matter of faith between me and God.
And on preview I’d just like to second Kimstu and say how nice it is to see the SDMB winning the fight against ignorance. It may be taking longer than we thought, but at least we’re making progress.
The are more ‘assertions’ than that, including this of mine: God devised it billions of years ago so that the environment on this planet would be conducive to life. Before too long, life flourishes on the planet. Then, using evolution as one of the tools, with occasional tweaks made along the way in DNA recombination, God came up with homo sapiens. The real debate is how much ‘tweaking’ the Divine have done to develop man when it was developed.
What if the powers that be created the big bang and then sat back and waited to see what happened. Kinda like a big science expirement, there-by giving credibility to both theroies at once (except for the whole adam and eve thing, ohh and the let there be light thing and the…)
What evidence would it take to make me accept Young Earth Creationism–the world was made in six 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago, there was a worldwide flood a few centuries after that, and so forth, and the physical evidence actually supports all this better than our multi-billion-year-old evolutionary universe?
To tell the truth, I haven’t got the faintest idea. What evidence would it take to convince you that Earth is flat, or that the Sun revolves around Earth instead of the other way around?
Capacitor:
That isn’t Creationism in the sense of Creation Science, which is what I thought we were asked to consider. What you’ve described in no way contradicts evolution, Big Bang, the generation of stars from gassy clouds, the expanding universe, etc. I have no argument with you, other than to deny that there exists something called “tweaking” that is in some measure different from the rest of the unfolding of the intentionality that has been intuited and recognized since the dawn of our species’ time and given (among others) the name of God.
I’ve already hinted (in the 11 questions thread) at what it would take to convince me. The creationists would have to formulate a scientific hypothesis and show that it explains the evidence better than evolution. As is, they don’t know how to formulate a scientific hypothesis, and some of the replies I’ve gotten on the SDMB and through email indicate that many creationists find the idea of explaining the evidence to be so foreign that my request makes them genuinely indignant.
-Ben