Bias Check: Institute for Creation Research

[Cavebear]

Scientific research, observations and experiments (from creationists and non-creationists) produce data, but differing world views effect interpreting the same data. Science does not have a consensus, but the interpretation of data from scientific investigation can have a consensus. I think that is a more honest characterization of science and the data obtained through it.

We can agree that consensus does not make something right.

We can also agree that everyone has a bias.

Show me ONE scientific study, and the data produced and peer reviewed, done by a "creationist".  

No. Everyone does not have a bias. A real bias would be challenged by a peer review.
That's the way real science is done.  

All "creationism" is, ... is mythology. That's fine. Mythology is how humans have created explanations for themselves for eons.
But now is the scientific age. As Joseph Campbell said, all religions have some truth. It's when they take them literally, they get in trouble.
https://billmoyers.com/content/ep-2-jose...-the-myth/

Agreed. But I do allow that older cultures were searching for answers to questions without much information at hand. When there was an erupting volcano or an earthquake, they made their best guess. I don't blame them for that. What annoys me is when modern people, with access to modern knowledge, still stick to old superstitions like deities.

[bluewater]

Scientific research, observations and experiments (from creationists and non-creationists) produce data, but differing world views effect interpreting the same data. Science does not have a consensus, but the interpretation of data from scientific investigation can have a consensus. I think that is a more honest characterization of science and the data obtained through it.

We can agree that consensus does not make something right.

We can also agree that everyone has a bias.

Problem for the faithful is, one of these two worldviews has a method for reducing, with the goal (even if never actually achieved) of removing bias. The other worldview embraces, if we're being honest, can not survive without, it's inherent bias.

If you want to complain about the mote in the eye of science, you should address the beam in your own, first.

The bias of non-creationists is that God does not exist, and so God could not have created the universe. Even when evidence points to God's existence, the evidence is tossed out because of the bias.

[bluewater]

Scientific research, observations and experiments (from creationists and non-creationists) produce data, but differing world views effect interpreting the same data. Science does not have a consensus, but the interpretation of data from scientific investigation can have a consensus. I think that is a more honest characterization of science and the data obtained through it.

We can agree that consensus does not make something right.

We can also agree that everyone has a bias.

Show me ONE scientific study, and the data produced and peer reviewed, done by a "creationist".  

No. Everyone does not have a bias. A real bias would be challenged by a peer review.
That's the way real science is done.  

All "creationism" is, ... is mythology. That's fine. Mythology is how humans have created explanations for themselves for eons.
But now is the scientific age. As Joseph Campbell said, all religions have some truth. It's when they take them literally, they get in trouble.
https://billmoyers.com/content/ep-2-jose...-the-myth/

Peer reviewed by other creationists?

[Bucky Ball]

Show me ONE scientific study, and the data produced and peer reviewed, done by a "creationist".  

No. Everyone does not have a bias. A real bias would be challenged by a peer review.
That's the way real science is done.  

All "creationism" is, ... is mythology. That's fine. Mythology is how humans have created explanations for themselves for eons.
But now is the scientific age. As Joseph Campbell said, all religions have some truth. It's when they take them literally, they get in trouble.
https://billmoyers.com/content/ep-2-jose...-the-myth/

Peer reviewed by other creationists?

Peer reviewed by other SCIENTSTS.
Creationism is nothing but ignorant nonsense by creationism.

[adey67]

Problem for the faithful is, one of these two worldviews has a method for reducing, with the goal (even if never actually achieved) of removing bias. The other worldview embraces, if we're being honest, can not survive without, it's inherent bias.

If you want to complain about the mote in the eye of science, you should address the beam in your own, first.

The bias of non-creationists is that God does not exist, and so God could not have created the universe. Even when evidence points to God's existence, the evidence is tossed out because of the bias.

I disagree my friend, any bias of non-creationists is based on there being precisely zero evidence for creationism, that's not the same as saying "god does not exist" 
 
The overwhelming majority of atheists base their beliefs on the paucity of evidence for creationism or any supernatural deity, we tend not to say "a god does not exist" because that's what I'm told is an unfalsifiable claim in the same way asserting one exists is.

A "word to the wise" you might find your tenure here less combative if you refrain from 1) attempting to use the bible as evidence for your beliefs, it's part of the claim for christianity not the evidence for it,  2) making classic christian assumptions about atheists and atheism and making erroneous definitions and pronouncements, in short telling us what we do and don't believe. I believe the overwhelming majority of atheists base their beliefs on lack of evidence and would change their minds if irrefutable evidence presented itself but in 2000 years it hasn't happened ever. We're all atheists about thousands of deities, some of us just go one deity further.

[Minimalist]

The ICR thinks the earth is 6,000 years old.


They are fucking idiots.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Problem for the faithful is, one of these two worldviews has a method for reducing, with the goal (even if never actually achieved) of removing bias. The other worldview embraces, if we're being honest, can not survive without, it's inherent bias.

If you want to complain about the mote in the eye of science, you should address the beam in your own, first.

The bias of non-creationists is that God does not exist, and so God could not have created the universe. Even when evidence points to God's existence, the evidence is tossed out because of the bias.

Two things:
First, you obviously have no fucking clue how the scientific method works.
Second, what fucking evidence?!? 


I am curious about something, though. Is it hard work remaining as ignorant as you are, or does it come naturally?

[Astreja]

The bias of non-creationists is that God does not exist, and so God could not have created the universe. Even when evidence points to God's existence, the evidence is tossed out because of the bias.

No, it's tossed out because it doesn't meet the scientific standard for evidence.  It has to be testable and it has to be falsifiable.

But even if there were such evidence, it wouldn't point to the Christian god specifically but to an undefined god-like entity.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Conspiracy-Pseudoscience by Media Bias Fact Check:

Overall, we rate the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) a quackery level Pseudoscience
source based on the promotion of young-earth creationism and rejection of evolution which
is supported by the consensus of science.

Institute for Creation Research.

"For over five decades, the Institute for Creation Research has equipped believers with
evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational
programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework".

For a real laugh, check out this ICR page:  Principles of Scientific Creationism.     

Scientific research, observations and experiments (from creationists and non-creationists) produce data, but differing world views effect interpreting the same data. Science does not have a consensus, but the interpretation of data from scientific investigation can have a consensus. I think that is a more honest characterization of science and the data obtained through it.

We can agree that consensus does not make something right.

We can also agree that everyone has a bias.

Some world-views skew (and even invent) facts more than others. When one world-view is self-corrected, and another is faith-driven and finds questioning abhorrent, I know which one I trust more.

ETA: it ain't the faith-driven variety. I like perspectives, but perspectives must bow to reality.

[Minimalist]

But these morons think their fairy tales ARE reality.

Aye, there's the rub, to quote the Bard!

[airportkid]

But these morons think their fairy tales ARE reality.

I thought I'd misread the thread title as "Cretin Research", but it appears the error is theirs, not mine.

[Gwaithmir]

Problem for the faithful is, one of these two worldviews has a method for reducing, with the goal (even if never actually achieved) of removing bias. The other worldview embraces, if we're being honest, can not survive without, it's inherent bias.

If you want to complain about the mote in the eye of science, you should address the beam in your own, first.

The bias of non-creationists is that God does not exist, and so God could not have created the universe. Even when evidence points to God's existence, the evidence is tossed out because of the bias.

What evidence in particular are you talking about? Give us some examples. I've yet to see evidence for any god's existence that stood up to rational scrutiny.

[Minimalist]

Teleological argument incoming in 5.....4......3........2........1.................

[Bucky Ball]

Science is done by scientists. There is no "evidence" anywhere that the Christian triple headed god(s) exist, or that any gods exist.
If there were any actual "evidence", then faith would be unnecessary, and they would not be "saved by faith".
Can't have it both ways. The existence of gods is not supported by anything ... not the scientific method, not logic, not arguments, not Philosophy.

"In scientific research, the null hypothesis is the claim that no relationship exists between two sets of data or variables being analyzed. The null hypothesis is that any experimentally observed difference is due to chance alone, and an underlying causative relationship does not exist, hence the term "null". Wikipedia   Unfortunately for Creationists, any sets of data they have are the same, and cannot possibly due to gods, by definition. They can't do any legitimate scientific studies which include posited god data.  

What would be the "null hypothesis" an any actual study which posited a god and one that didn't ?
All claims about the gods are this : https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resource...0you%3F%22
Appeals to ignorance. Any appeal to any god could easily be countered by an appeal to any other god and is unfalsifiable as Paleo said.  

A few Christians appeal to "prophetic accuracy" as evidence. But Christian scholars do not buy that prediction accuracy
is at all what prophecy is, and even Christian Church fathers (Origen) agree that is not what prophesy is.
Neither did the writers of the OT. The role of a prophet (a well known "office" in Hebrew culture) was to tell  their people what was the will of their god to the people of their own day. There may be almost no other misunderstanding about the OT (this Hollywood notion of what the role of a prophet was) and what prophesy was. that is more prevalent and wrong. There are also all kinds of well known failed predictions, and those that may be claimed are easily explainable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfulfille...redictions

Prophesy by prediction is nothing other than "brush your teeth or you'll get cavities", (which is actually what a prophet did. Advised the people of their own time).

[Paleophyte]

Science begins with a question and goes looking for answers.

Religion begins with the answers and prohibits the questions.

[Cavebear]

Problem for the faithful is, one of these two worldviews has a method for reducing, with the goal (even if never actually achieved) of removing bias. The other worldview embraces, if we're being honest, can not survive without, it's inherent bias.

If you want to complain about the mote in the eye of science, you should address the beam in your own, first.

The bias of non-creationists is that God does not exist, and so God could not have created the universe. Even when evidence points to God's existence, the evidence is tossed out because of the bias.

I have yet to see any evidence of the existence of any deity, from the earliest sun god to the latest to the latest Joseph Smith Moroni angel.  

Not believing in what has no evidence is not actually a "bias".  It is a statement that proof matters and that those who claim one does exist need to provide evidence to support that claim.

If I said there were unicorns or dinosaurs in my backyard, I would be expected to provide some facts supporting that claim.  Same with you about "god".  And don't quote any theistic text; those were all written by humans who already believed what they wrote.

So offer your best evidence of any deity...

[adey67]

The bias of non-creationists is that God does not exist, and so God could not have created the universe. Even when evidence points to God's existence, the evidence is tossed out because of the bias.

I have yet to see any evidence of the existence of any deity, from the earliest sun god to the latest to the latest Joseph Smith Moroni angel.  

Not believing in what has no evidence is not actually a "bias".  It is a statement that proof matters and that those who claim one does exist need to provide evidence to support that claim.

If I said there were unicorns or dinosaurs in my backyard, I would be expected to provide some facts supporting that claim.  Same with you about "god".  And don't quote any theistic text; those were all written by humans who already believed what they wrote.

So offer your best evidence of any deity...

Hope you bought snacks and soda, it's gonna be a long wait.

[SYZ]

Scientific research, observations and experiments (from creationists and non-creationists) produce data...

I'd have to disagree with this.

No so-called "creationist" has ever—in all our recorded history—ever proposed
and/or verified a single purely scientific claim, notion, or hypothesis.  And the
use of the word "data" by any creationist is a nonsense.

Data is a collection of discrete values that convey information, describing quantity,
quality, fact, and statistics.  Data is collated using techniques such as measurements,
observations, or analyses.

Simply put, science is a systematised undertaking that builds and organises
knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the
universe.

A channel named Modern Day Debate reached out to David Farina, B.SC, M.Sc
to see if he'd debate Kent Hovind about Young Earth Creationism.   Dave says:

"Normally I stay out of religion, but I dug into this guy a little, and he is a total
scumbag. The epitome of a con man. Nothing but lies and misrepresentations of
science out of his mouth for several decades now. He's really no different than
the flat earthers, manipulating people to make money. So I decided to take a
chunk out of him. He's a slippery little greased pig, watch for his signature move,
the Gish gallop".

Differing world views effect interpreting the same data. Science does not have a
consensus, but the interpretation of data from scientific investigation can have a
consensus. I think that is a more honest characterization of science and the data
obtained through it.

Well, you may think that, but you'd be wrong.  To claim that the sciences can
never reach a consensus is truly absurd.  If you sincerely believed that, then
you'd be afraid of getting out of bed every morning, and you most definitely
would never travel in an aeroplane, undergo an appendectomy, or SCUBA dive.

To make the false claim that science seldom reach a consensus is merely a straw
man that religionists regularly raise in an effort to give their own nonsensical
stance a veneer of credibility.

And as far as consensuses goes, I'd ask you to check out this site (and note the "s" in bibles):

101 Contradictions in the Bibles.

We can agree that consensus does not make something right.

Of course, and I'd be the first to agree.  But unlike religious tenets that are millennia
old, science tests and test again its theories, as well-substantiated, unifying explanations
for a set of verified, proven hypotheses.  


Whereas the religionist simply says "God did it".      No hypothesis; no theory; nothing.

[SYZ]

The bias of non-creationists is that God does not exist, and so God could not have created the universe. Even when evidence points to God's existence, the evidence is tossed out because of the bias.

Afterthought...

There is NO such person as a "non-creationist".        That's like defining
someone as a "non-stamp collector" or a "non-pregnant woman";  it's
ultimately meaningless.

Your implication that your god created the world, as "evidenced" by his/her
existence is a non-sequitur.      You've not yet provided any empirical
evidence that gods exist—not one single instance.

If you disagree with this, please feel free to post half a dozen facts that
proves your god exists.

[Minimalist]

.... or even one!

[Bucky Ball]

The bias of non-creationists is that God does not exist, and so God could not have created the universe. Even when evidence points to God's existence, the evidence is tossed out because of the bias.

Nope.
There is no evidence for any god. Where in the scientific method would you insert a deity ?
Have you ever even read the steps of the method ?

If there actually were any that discovery would have received a Nobel.
There is no evidence that points to any of the gods.
We know you accept (in error) that ancient prophetic texts which you think (in error)
predict something or other, somehow point to your gods. The fact that even Christian scholars agree "prophesy is not prediction",
(as you were shown in the posted links), demonstrates you are way out on the fundy fringe and not at all in the mainline of scholarship.
The "design" argument also has totally been debunked. There in no evidence that points to the gods. What we observe is precisely what one would expect to see, if there were no gods. Complexity and order arise in this universe spontaneously. (See Chaos Theory).

As for Yahweh Sabaoth, the Babylonian war god, and 40th son of El Elyon, ... the Most High God, (not Yahweh) who in Deuteronomy 32: 8-9

"When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel, for the LORD’s portion he gave his people, Jacob his (Yahweh's) allotted inheritance." .... the Most High god gave Yahweh his portion. That's what the Bible says.

[Full Circle]

The bias of non-creationists is that God does not exist, and so God could not have created the universe. Even when evidence points to God's existence, the evidence is tossed out because of the bias.

Afterthought...

There is NO such person as a "non-creationist".        That's like defining
someone as a "non-stamp collector" or a "non-pregnant woman";  it's
ultimately meaningless.

Your implication that your god created the world, as "evidenced" by his/her
existence is a non-sequitur.      You've not yet provided any empirical
evidence that gods exist—not one single instance.

If you disagree with this, please feel free to post half a dozen facts that
proves your god exists.

It's a dog chasing its own tail. 

[Bucky Ball]

Afterthought...

There is NO such person as a "non-creationist".        That's like defining
someone as a "non-stamp collector" or a "non-pregnant woman";  it's
ultimately meaningless.

Your implication that your god created the world, as "evidenced" by his/her
existence is a non-sequitur.      You've not yet provided any empirical
evidence that gods exist—not one single instance.

If you disagree with this, please feel free to post half a dozen facts that
proves your god exists.

It's a dog chasing its own tail. 

It's also presumptuous.
There is no reason an omnipotent god would have had to have created universes.
It could have created robot universe *maker makers*, (ad infinitum) whose purpose was to entertain the gods by making universes where the beings that evolved believed in all sorts of crazy shit. The nuttiest one wins. The presumption of "one proximate cause" is not founded on anything.