John,
When I came to PS, I made the point to avoid fruitless dialogs. I feel this is headed that way.
You seemed to be trying to raise awareness of a real problem in science (it being hindered by creationism), and eluded to both “data” and “evidence.” So I’m assuming you’ve actual seen this, and want to make others aware so that the integrity of science is not “hindered.” Because that can affect all of us.
I even tried to give you an opportunity to share that data/evidence, trying to side with your concern with the following statement:
John, those down-stream things are why we (“we” collectively) want you (scientists) doing what you do. You could have replied “Yes, I don’t want to see those things hindered.” I feel like you dismissed my statement a little too readily, and didn’t take the opportunity to enlighten us on this “problem.” Instead twice you pushed for this comparison of creationists’ publication numbers with yours.
I can’t help but get the feeling this “problem” isn’t the real problem. There must be something else here, some other reason for this animosity. Perhaps you know what this is. Or perhaps you’re not aware of it. If you want to talk about, “Peaceful Science” might be the place…
Lastly, I suggest you come back and read this again two days later. There’s been more than one occasion here when apparently I had a ‘wall’ up on my first read, but later ‘heard’ better after putting my wall down.
No its not. How can you appreciate science, when you reject the age of the earth inferred from techniques like radiometric dating because your interpretation of the bible says otherwise.
A YEC geneticist can take two different ape species, sequence their genome and determine how closely related they are to each other. Yet, when the same sequence comparison is done between humans and chimps, and the patterns observed are consistent with common descent, he/she doesn’t accept the results and will do everything possible to explain away the data.
That’s not how science is done and it largely represents what Mercer means by YEC hindering the (practice of proper) science. Its like a flat-earther telling you they appreciate modern physics, yet believe gravity is a faux.
Leisola wrote a quite-horrible book a while back, called “Heretic,” full of standard creationist misrepresentations. If I recall correctly, his principal work is in the chemical properties of saccharides – as far as I am aware he is untrained in anything dealing with evolutionary biology, and his book certainly gave no impression that he had anything worthwhile to offer on it. Part of what the book dealt with was his claim that every time he tried to get a hearing for creationist ideas, he was treated badly. However, the way it actually read was that he’d been trying for decades to quietly sneak creationism into such things as academic conferences, and kept getting caught.
I feel like you were trying to broaden the definition of science. Apparently that was not your intention. With your further explanation, I see your point and I agree. The inability of creationists to apply their creationism to geology, medicine, and safety is a serious thing.
I have done so ZERO times, Jeff. You completely misread me there.
I only offered mine as a template for understanding that only some publications count as productivity. The comparison I’m pushing for is over time for creationists before and after they embrace and advocate creationism. Nothing more.
The PubMed search results are from a Mátyás Cserháti. According to the Creation.com page Matthew Cserhati has only published in Journal of Creation, Answers Research Journal, and Creation Research Society Quarterly. Sounds like two different people.
The Creation article also states Matthew Cserhati has published under the pseudonyms J.O’Micks, D. Savanne, M.R.Arneigh, L.E.Shan, and A. Yaugh. Makes you wonder why a real scientist would use so many fake names?
Because maybe the creationists you’ve heard about have distracted you. Anyone who knows or works with Stuart Burgess, Matti Leisola, and Matthew Cserhati (I’m in that position) is aware of their research.
In his Autobiography, Darwin said that “though I cared in the highest degree for the approbation of such men as Lyell and Hooker, who were my friends, I did not care much about the general public.” In other words, what matters is the counsel and respect of a small circle of well-informed and wise colleagues.
Much of what is said in a critical vein here about “creationists” is amusing, but more or less irrelevant. Shouting and gesticulation in the marketplace, to no lasting effect, and of no consequence. Noise.
You can say some of the biological oddities we see make more sense in the framework of common ancestry given its working under constraints as opposed to special creation that isnt. That isn’t making any theological assumptions. It’s just stating a designer, while they could have designed it that way, didn’t have to. While on common ancestry, those kind of oddities are more expected. That isn’t saying it wasn’t designed but that it’s just more probable on CA.
Not by the ‘theistic’ part, no. The only expectations I have about features found in living things comes from evolution. Which is to say, it is not a model of intentional design.
That’s not the case. Scroll down a bit further on the creation.com page. Since 2011 he’s published 16 “secular publications”, although looking at the journals there are quite a few poor-quality/predatory ones like OMICS and The Scientific World Journal.
No, because the ones I’ve heard about had far more scientific productivity: Sanford, Behe, et al.
OK, but how is Burgess’s mechanical engineering research relevant to evolution vs. creationism?
What was Leisola’s productivity before and after embracing creationism?
And Cserhati supports my hypothesis: his productivity is in decline. But by just linking to a PubMed search, you are implicitly claiming that he authored a paper in 1968, which doesn’t seem possible. Is he some sort of creationist Benjamin Button?
That’s nice to have in a quality-of-life context, but the professional metric that matters is productivity.
I think you’re projecting. In what you’re trying to present to laypeople as a sophisticated dialectic, you’re the critic criticizing those of us who do science from the sidelines.
Given that you have a common name, it’s difficult to search for your papers. Am I correct in concluding that you have never published a paper in the primary scientific literature?
Not the definition, but the impact yes. You seemed to be raising awareness of an issue when you twice said:
And I’m just trying to follow you here.
Well I have some good news for you John. You see, creationists have quite often expressed that they fully believe there is a distinction between operational science and historical science. So when they are doing any work that effects medicine and safety, rest assured, they are doing their jobs correctly.
So that should settle your concerns John.
Ok, well good to know. At least me bringing it up allowed you the opportunity to clear that up. Left unsaid, I felt that could have distracted others from the issue you were raising.
BTW I am still a little confused. You seemed to be raising awareness of science being hindered. However now you’re talking about publication count. How does that connect to science being hindered?
(BTW @Chris_Falter, this same thing applies to your statement about “[generating] scientific contributions to any significant extent.”)
Michael, this is a very good question, and one I actually like answering. Unfortunately it’s very hard for me to find time to get on here, so my answer is going to have to be very brief.
As a YEC, I’d say our two biggest scientific challenges are 1) distant starlight, and 2) radiometric dating.
Creation scientist have proposed answers to each. And each are based on both science and scripture. So part of my “appreciation of science” is studying these answers. For one thing, it taught me a lot about general relativity. That was very interesting.
Next as a YEC, I get to spend a lot of time studying about all the scientific challenges that an old universe belief has. Honestly, that’s a lot of fun! That includes challenges at three levels: The universe, the solar system (one of my favorites!), and the earth. And it covers not just age, but origins also (stars, planets, etc).
Speaking of origins, abiogenesis is also a fun topic to study!
In the end, I find a young earth rather satisfying, and part of why I say that I find science more fulfilling as a YEC.
Now to all who want to counter everything I just said: As much as I’ve studied this topic, I doubt you’d share something I haven’t already heard. You’re more than welcome to rebuttal this. I doubt I’ll be able to read all of them (TL;DR), and chances are won’t have the time to reply.
