Science, dogmas, and AiG Creation Museum statement of faith

This is a discussion about creationism and science. Creationism is often excluded from science, and creationists often attribute this to the faults of science, such as the dogma that supernatural conclusions cannot be considered (Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism).I agree with creationists that supernatural claims can have their time in the scientific courts. However, if we are going to talk about dogmas and science, then we can all agree that the two principles do not belong together. Dogmas have no place in science. And, on that note, creationism seems to have a lot to answer for.Dogmas are only a thing of the Catholic church, right? Well, sort of. With Catholicism, dogmas are decided by the central hierarchical authority. With the development of the Protestant Reformation, there was no longer a central hierarchical authority governing Christianity. But the Protestants carried over many of the Catholic dogmas as core beliefs--especially the inerrancy of the Catholic scriptures (though not all of the books). The central reason that Protestants hold the belief that the modern Bible is infallible is that it is a tradition of the Christian church, albeit an evolving tradition. The Protestant New Testament was compiled by Athanasius in 367 AD, and the modern Bible as we know it did not exist until shortly after the Protestant Reformation, when Protestants settled on the Protocanonical books of the Old Testament and Athanasius' books of the New Testament, discarding some Catholic additions. Of course, Protestants know that church traditions do not make for truth, but this is primarily a point of faith, not necessarily a conclusion that easily follows from facts and logic. It could very well be true that the Bible is infallible, but it doesn't seem to be a conclusion that can be made by the application of reason alone. Such points of faith of any ideology can be included under the term, "dogmas."So what happens when dogmas and scientific conclusions seem to conflict? The stereotype is that scientists dismiss the religion in favor of science, and that religious people change the science to fit the religious conclusions. The stereotype, though abrasive, seems to be true. To illustrate, here is a sign at the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum. On the left, there is a stack of books with the heading, "The philosopher Ren Descartes said, 'I think, therefore I am,'" and the footer, "HUMAN REASON."On the right, there is a scroll with the heading, "God said, 'I AM THAT I AM,'" and the footer, "GOD'S WORD."The left side is a reasonable argument. The right side seems to be nothing more than a tautology--that is: repeating the conclusion. And yet the implication is that the image on the right surpasses the image on the left in authority. This principle strikes me as embarrassing to display on a large sign, but AiG does not seem to feel that embarrassment.After viewing the image of that sign, I remembered something that reminded me that it should not be surprise. I remembered the last item in The AiG Statement of Faith."By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."To paraphrase, no seeming evidence is valid if it contradicts the Bible. To creationists, maybe this is understandable. To people like me, it seems appalling. Imagine what your reaction would be if this statement published on the NCSE (pro-evo think tank) website:"By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts The Origin of Species or The Descent of Man."No such statement exists, and the explanation they are likely to give is that it would be a huge embarrassment and contrary to the highest scientific ideals. This link goes to the NCSE About page, where no "Statement of Faith" of any sort can be found. A retort to this point might be, "Well, some things are not said, but it can be seen as their operating policy." Maybe that is true. I have seen the NCSE mangle the facts in favor of their conclusions. It is unfortunate, but it is not unusual, and, at the same time, I believe it is to be appreciated that they don't openly uphold a scientific vice as a virtue. In other words, they do not celebrate dogmas.The prominent creationist organizations do just that. The AiG statement of faith means that the scientific conclusion must change, not the dogma, when a pair of such ideas conflict. And AiG seems to have no qualms about advertising this point. To them, it is a moral responsibility, not anything to be ashamed about. And AiG is not unique with this behavior--every website for large creationist organizations seems to have a "Statement of Faith" that declares their absolute commitment to the Bible (ICR, CSE, Reasons.org). But dogmas and science do not go together, and it is for that reason I personally believe that creationism does not have a place in science.Edited by ApostateAbe, : reduction of aggressiveness and additions of materialEdited by ApostateAbe, : title change

You are absolutely right. I didn't mean to be snarky, but I was, and I cleaned up the topic to reduce the snark. I included more of the creationist perspective and more humility, in addition to more relevant facts. I think the discussions are best without the primitive attacks, and anything else is a step backward.

I like my own title better, but I think your version of the title is almost as good and it cuts to the most relevant point. I changed it.EDIT: I also sent you an email containing an older version of the thread.Edited by ApostateAbe, : No reason given.