what gives credibility?

[gseeker]

This is just to see who people think when it comes to the hot topic of evolution vs creation.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Following the scientific method and submitting your works for peer-review. That's what I look for in a scientist. If the work is honest and passes the peer-review, then it's worthy of credibility.

Also, education in the relevant scientific field. I've seen way too many creationist "scientists" that try to debunk evolution while not having any education whatsoever in a field related to evolution.

 

[gseeker]

Please vote now, a technical issue kept me from putting the poll up earlier. I do agree that the field a person is in has a lot to do with credibility but there are a lot of fields of study that relate to evolution.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Please vote now, a technical issue kept me from putting the poll up earlier. I do agree that the field a person is in has a lot to do with credibility but there are a lot of fields of study that relate to evolution.

I'm not gonna vote, because I don't find any of the answers fulfilling.

Education at a fine University doesn't matter if the scientist refuses scientific method and peer-review.
Rejecting evolution doesn't hurt a scientists credibility IF he/she does it with a firm scientific basis. However, I've yet to see a scientist reject it on those grounds. A scientist should always be able to reject a hypothesis or theory if it's proved wrong, as well as accept, at least to a certain degree, a theory that is currently the best available and supported by a vast amount of evidence.

 

[gseeker]

I'm not gonna vote, because I don't find any of the answers fulfilling.

Education at a fine University doesn't matter if the scientist refuses scientific method and peer-review.
Rejecting evolution doesn't hurt a scientists credibility IF he/she does it with a firm scientific basis. However, I've yet to see a scientist reject it on those grounds. A scientist should always be able to reject a hypothesis or theory if it's proved wrong, as well as accept, at least to a certain degree, a theory that is currently the best available and supported by a vast amount of evidence.

Who are you though to say that the grounds a scientist rejects evolution based upon isn't good enough, where is your credibility?

 

[Draka]

It would be one thing to be a scientist who happens to be a Christian, but a true credible scientist could not be a literal Creationist as there is no scientific evidence that supports it, and only evidence which contradicts it. A credible scientist could hold to a Theistic Evolution idea, but not literal Creation as described in any mythology.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Who are you though to say that the grounds a scientist rejects evolution based upon isn't good enough, where is your credibility?

Well, if it is just "the Bible says it, therefore it is true" then he/she isn't using science to draw his/her conclusions. If it was backed up by well-performed scientific studies then it would be perfectly ok, though. There are many different views among scientists, especially in fields that have barely been studied, like abiogenesis.

I'm not a scientist and I don't claim to be yet.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I also found the answers to the poll to be lacking.

Credibility in science is not only knowledge of the subject, but also an acceptance of the complete scientific method, including falsifiability.

Creation Science, by definition, rejects many of the tenets of the scientific method. How does one test the supernatural? Is the Creator falsifiable? Has baraminology passed any peer review? What predictions have been verified through Creation Science? Why is it that every other field of science confirms the predictions made through evolutionary biology?

 

[Quintessence]

"Credibility" is a human construct designated by some particular group of humans. Therefore, that which gives credibility is some particular group of humans who concedes to say "these things makes this other thing credible." To answer "what makes a creation scientist credible" we must also ask (and answer) "credible to which group" and "credible in what context/subject."

However, I am confused on a point here. Do you mean to ask about creationists who happen to also be scientists or about creation science? Which type of creationism do we mean?

 

[sojourner]

Scientific natural process can be understood theologically, but spiritual metaphor cannot be understood scientifically.

 

[Tonix]

If a person can truly believe something, then it holds credibility to them.

 

[gseeker]

"Credibility" is a human construct designated by some particular group of humans. Therefore, that which gives credibility is some particular group of humans who concedes to say "these things makes this other thing credible." To answer "what makes a creation scientist credible" we must also ask (and answer) "credible to which group" and "credible in what context/subject."

However, I am confused on a point here. Do you mean to ask about creationists who happen to also be scientists or about creation science? Which type of creationism do we mean?

A scientist who after working in his field accepts creation over evolution, a lot of creation scientists didn't start out that way.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A scientist who after working in his field accepts creation over evolution, a lot of creation scientists didn't start out that way.

The question is whether or not their reasons for doing so are based on science rather than personal belief. So far, I've yet to encounter a single creation scientist whose opinion isn't founded on their religious inclinations rather than scientific study and facts.

 

[Me Myself]

Let´s make it simple:

Name me 3 non-christian non-islamic BIOLOGISTS of TODAY that believe evolution to be false.

 

[gseeker]

Let´s make it simple:

Name me 3 non-christian non-islamic BIOLOGISTS of TODAY that believe evolution to be false.

So your saying if the scientist is religious he has no credibility? That if he or she is Christian or Islamic that they must simply ignore scientific study and they choose to be ignorant so they can believe Scripture instead?

 

[mycorrhiza]

So your saying if the scientist is religious he has no credibility? That if he or she is Christian or Islamic that they must simply ignore scientific study and they choose to be ignorant so they can believe Scripture instead?

Nope. You can be both religious and a good scientist. Some Christian and Muslim scientists do choose to ignore evidence so that they can believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible or Qur'an and then they aren't doing actual science.

 

[Draka]

So your saying if the scientist is religious he has no credibility? That if he or she is Christian or Islamic that they must simply ignore scientific study and they choose to be ignorant so they can believe Scripture instead?

A scientist can be religious. That's not really the issue. The point is that you will not find a scientist that rejects real science in favor of taking myth literally that is not religious.

 

[gseeker]

What makes you think that a scientist who is religious will ignore science so he can believe his faith. That's laughable if a scientist knows evolution is true and ignores it to follow the Bible then he can't really believe the bible fully and so isn't a true Christian or saved. You really think its that easy to ignore something that is s proven fact, if it were a proven fact, and instead imbrace a myth, if it is a myth.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Who are you though to say that the grounds a scientist rejects evolution based upon isn't good enough, ...

The overwhelming consensus of science across multiple dsciplines affirms it daily. The creation scientist is an idiot.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What makes you think that a scientist who is religious will ignore science so he can believe his faith.

Most do not, which is precisely why most are not creationists.