899
edits
Creationism: Difference between revisions
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
→Popularity and Scientific Community Consensus
Creationist (talk | contribs) |
Creationist (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991 [[BMJ]] (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, [[David Eddy]] professor of health policy and management at [[Duke University]], told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1932964&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]</ref> Next, [[Alchemy|alchemy]] was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as [[Isaac Newton]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Roger Bacon]], and [[Gottfried Leibniz]].<ref>http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon</ref> Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts, <ref>http://www.jstor.org/view/03697827/ap020019/02a00050/0</ref><ref>http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm</ref><ref>http://www.easst.net/review/dec1998/bastos</ref> the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument. | Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991 [[BMJ]] (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, [[David Eddy]] professor of health policy and management at [[Duke University]], told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1932964&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]</ref> Next, [[Alchemy|alchemy]] was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as [[Isaac Newton]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Roger Bacon]], and [[Gottfried Leibniz]].<ref>http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon</ref> Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts, <ref>http://www.jstor.org/view/03697827/ap020019/02a00050/0</ref><ref>http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm</ref><ref>http://www.easst.net/review/dec1998/bastos</ref> the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument. | ||
In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970's the scientific communities consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.<ref>http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BLions87.htm</ref> Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New Encyclopedia Britannica stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.<ref>http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BCobra94.htm</ref> In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct. <ref>http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref> | In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970's the scientific communities consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.<ref>http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BLions87.htm</ref> Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New Encyclopedia Britannica stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.<ref>http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BCobra94.htm</ref> In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct. <ref>http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref> Many creationists believe that the [[Bible scientific foreknowledge|Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed]]. | ||
== Adherents and Opponents of Creationism == | == Adherents and Opponents of Creationism == | ||
