Scientific Fact is not Determined by Majority Rule

Page Contents:

Truth is Not Determined By Majority Rule

Scientists used to examine evidence and then make conclusions. But, The field of science has been redefined to insist that everything have a natural explanation. That determines the desired conclusion before the evidence is examined. That process is anything but scientific.

I’m told repeatedly that most scientists are evolutionists so creation by God is not true. The fact is, most people who go into a field of science are evolutionists already, and they examine the evidence based on that mindset.

Many scientists who are creationists now weren’t creationists until they examined the evidence for themselves. They found things that just did not fit into the naturalistic framework. They found things that required intelligent design.

Here is a very interesting book:

In Six Days
In Six Days
Edited by John F. Ashton PhD.

This is the sequel:

On the Seventh Day
On the Seventh Day
Edited by John F. Ashton PhD.

These books have essays by scientists, each with their own story about how they came to believe in God and creation. Each essay gives evidence from that scientist’s field of science for why they don’t believe that life came from inorganic chemicals and gradually developed into all life on earth. There are many reviews of this book, both pro and con, on the Amazon.com page if you’d like to see what others have to say about this book. I have many more books on my Recommended Reading page. See for yourself what scientists who believe in creation have to say.

Yes, Creationists Can Be Scientists

Contrary to what you might have heard, creationists can be real scientists. Atheists like to say that creationists do not publish in peer reviewed science journals. In fact, Many scientists who believe in creation have published in peer reviewed science journals.

I have links below to a site with the qualifications of many people who believe in creation and the science journals where they have published. (Not everybody on the lists are scientists with a Ph.D. Some are medical doctors for instance.)

These are not the ONLY scientists who believe in creation. The people on this list volunteered to be listed to show that God exists :
Creation scientists and other biographies of interest

The Definition Of Science

Scientists who believe that life came from non-life have redefined what science means. It used to mean “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation and theoretical explanation of phenomena”. But the newly “evolved” definition of science is: things that happen without the help of a superior being.

According the book “Men of Science/Men of God” by Dr. Henry Morris, many of the great early scientists believed in a superior being including the following: da Vinci, Kepler, Pascal, Galileo, Brahe, Copernicus, Newton, Faraday, Babbage, Morse, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin, Lister and Carver. All these men were men of science but they all believed that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Many scientists today still believe that God created the heavens and the earth. They are called creation scientists. The Institute for Creation Research has many scientists associated with their organization.

The Red Team and the Blue Team

The red team was challenged by the blue team to play a game of football. Before the game started, the red team took a vote and concluded that the blue team was not a football team. Then the red team, having no other team to play, declared themselves victorious.

And they never had to compete in the game.

This little story refers to the debate between scientists who believe in evolution and scientists who believe in creation. It is widely reported that all scientists support evolution, and this is not true.

The scientists who believe in evolution have decided that if a scientist concludes that evolution is not supported by the evidence than he is not really a scientist. What, then, is a scientist?

What is a Scientist?

If a person has a PhD in a field of science then they are a scientist, even if they determine that creation is supported by the scientific evidence. Many think that all scientists believe in evolution. That is not true.

Creation believing scientists do a lot of research. However, the “peer” reviewed scientific journals are reviewed by peers who are evolutionists. They reject anything that supports creation scientifically. Creationists must post in their own scientific journals and in books, magazines and websites. However, as long as they are not talking about creation, they are published in scientific journals and many have.

Creation scientists and other biographies of interest

7 responses to “Scientific Fact is not Determined by Majority Rule

  1. Pingback: Reasons Why I Believe in God: Outline of X-Evolutionist.com | Reasons Why I Believe in God

  2. Pingback: Reasons Why I Believe in God: Outline of my website X-Evolutionist.com | Life in Our Backyard

  3. Pingback: A list of things that I believe: Pages from my website X-Evolutionist.com – Reasons Why I Believe in God | X-Evolutionist's Space

  4. Kurt

    The red team was challenged by the blue team to play a game of football. Before the game started, the red team noticed that the blue team was wearing shorts and cleats with no padding except for shin guards, and that the ball they had brought was round with black and white spots. After analyzing the differences between the two teams and comparing them to the precedent definition of American football that has been well documented and established over many years, the red team determined that while the blue team considered themselves a football team, they actually played an entirely different game. They took a vote and concluded that the blue team was attempting to play a different sport than the misleading name they had given themselves implied, and ruled them unfit to challenge. Then the red team, having no other team to play, declared themselves victorious and waited for a team to challenge them in the actual sport they played.

    And they never had to compete in the game.

  5. Matt

    You said “Creation believing scientists do a lot of research. However, the “peer” reviewed scientific journals are reviewed by peers who are evolutionists.”
    The fact is that peer reviewed scientific journals reject so called Creation Research because it is crap or fraud. You criticize Pitdown man as a scientific fraud and yet somehow you want creationist frauds to be published. Give me a break. Your lack of basic scientific knowledge, your quote mines, your use of contradictory evidence from so called trust worthy sites like answersingenesis, just shows that the peer reviewed scientific journals are right in rejecting your bull.

    Heck you don’t even do basic scientific experiments like your dirt layering mayonnaise jar experiments from your Noah’s Ark page.

  6. “Scientists used to examine evidence and then make conclusions”
    > Not really science, there needs to be predictions and testing. This is perhaps one aspect of science

    “The field of science has been redefined to insist that everything have a natural explanation.”
    > This has always been part of science. Scientists may praise God for creation, but do not jump to the conclusion that God must be responsible for everything that cannot be immediately explained- Newton did not say God threw an apple at me, he said things have a tendency to fall to the earth.

    “If a person has a PhD in a field of science then they are a scientist,”
    > And if you read this blog then you must be an expert in evolution, and how to debunk it!. This website is either an intentional joke by yourself or a sad, sad example of the nader of human intellect. There are plenty of PhD’s (even from fields of science) that lack the neural capacity to even make a basic inference from data. A degree means less than actual experimentation, proper deduction, and subsequent investigation.

    >>It is nice that you have put some thought into science, but maybe you should learn a bit about it before you spew any more of this santorum onto a publicly accessed site. There are plenty of materials available for people genuinely interested in the topic of science, and no need for your drivel. If your compulsions still persist- maybe write further blogs on toilet paper and use appropriately.

  7. Sure majority makes right. For example the majority used to believe the world was flat but it didn’t make it any less round now did it? There are many examples of the folly of this argument

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s