Will you oppose to scientific conclusions if they'll lead to theology?

Hi Peddler, While it's pretty obvious that all scientific knowledge is not a direct result of the Theory of Evolution, quite a lot of it was around well before Darwin wrote the Origin for instance. Also a lot of scientific knowledge doesn't have an awful lot to do with the the field of evolution. I'd like to know for example which part of the MRI technology directly contradicts the ToE? This, I think illustrates some misconceptions about how science works. The people who where looking at the age of the earth and the origin of life on it were originally creationists! They believed that they were looking at God's great work. The trouble is the more they looked into it, the more they found that the Bible account of events could not be true because it directly contradicted the evidence.It's interesting that every Creo that starts to list great creationist scientists always mentions Newton. One of Newton's great passions was Alchemy. Do you believe he was correct about Alchemy as well? Yeah, sure there are scientists who do believe in creation throughout the world. The trouble is not one of them has been able to provide a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. That is why you don't hear from these scientists in publications etc, not because of some secret Evilutionist plot, but they can't be scientific when it comes to promoting creationism. Their position is based on large dollops of faith and not an inconsiderable amount of personal incredulity.There's actually a creationist student in my department at work, who can carry out experiments and analyse his data as well as anyone. As soon as I start discussing evolution with him all of his scientific method flies aout of the window and he retreats (quite literally some times) to saying "I don't believe in it" because his personal faith won't let him examine the facts properly. I don't know about Frog, but I certainly remeber the creationist propaganda machine getting the issue a lot of publicity, without too much evidence to back up the assertion that it was all a result of the Atheist/Evolution agenda. Here's another link with a short review of the issue. Probably the most pertinant statement is this one:

quote:

---

Many people made substantial contributions to MRI but did not win the Nobel Prize. H. Y. Carr, who pioneered the gradient technique that Lauterbur used, has at least as good a case for being unjustly passed over as Damadian does.

---

Why wasn't there a big bru ha-ha about this ommission? My guess is that H. Y. Carr was not a creationist.

Right! Time for you to start answering some questions and providing some evidence.You are implying that the ID article was condemned because it was simply 'anti-evolution'. This is blatantly not true: the strong response to the article was because it was unscientific. If you don't think this is the case please point to a paragraph in the article that is a reference to a testable and falsifiable hypothesis (and therefore is worthy of a place in a scientific 'review' article).Stop Trolling around and start to back up your assertions!