What scientific fields are the most/least tolerant to Creationists?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

All in all, Creationism is heavily despised in most of the scientific world, but are there any fields that are more tolerant than others? y contrast, which field is the least tolerant?

I'd say the least tolerant is palentology or geology or anything involving earth's age, but what is the most?

[DC Al Fine]

Physics.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Physics.

I think this would depend on both the type of creationist and the branch of physics.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I want to say... anything dealing with medicine or neuroscience?  Basically, anything that doesn't deal with evolutionary biology.

[DC Al Fine]

Physics.

I think this would depend on both the type of creationist and the branch of physics.

I'm assuming YEC and any branch that's not filled with those pseudo scientists pumping string theory.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Physics.

I think this would depend on both the type of creationist and the branch of physics.

I'm assuming YEC and any branch that's not filled with those pseudo scientists pumping string theory.

I imagine it would be very difficult for YEC believers to do much in, for example, astrophysics, or anything involving absolute dating (although that's mainly geology).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

pseudo scientists pumping string theory.

What's your beef with string theory?

[the jmfcst]

All in all, Creationism is heavily despised in most of the scientific world, but are there any fields that are more tolerant than others? y contrast, which field is the least tolerant?

I'd say the least tolerant is palentology, but what is the most?

Creationism may be heavily despised by most of the scientific world, but not by science.  Until the scientific world can use a physical process to demonstrate the creation of time, space, matter, and energy...then all science is in agreement with Creationism.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

All in all, Creationism is heavily despised in most of the scientific world, but are there any fields that are more tolerant than others? y contrast, which field is the least tolerant?

I'd say the least tolerant is palentology, but what is the most?

Creationism may be heavily despised by most of the scientific world, but not by science.  Until the scientific world can use a physical process to demonstrate the creation of time, space, matter, and energy...then all science is in agreement with Creationism.

That's true for generic Creationism, since generic Creationism says absolutely nothing about the manner or timescale in which creation occurred save that there was a creator who did something.  However, Young Earth Creationism makes some specific claims which conflict with the scientific evidence.

[John Dibble]

All in all, Creationism is heavily despised in most of the scientific world, but are there any fields that are more tolerant than others? y contrast, which field is the least tolerant?

I'd say the least tolerant is palentology, but what is the most?

Creationism may be heavily despised by most of the scientific world, but not by science.  Until the scientific world can use a physical process to demonstrate the creation of time, space, matter, and energy...then all science is in agreement with Creationism.

No, it would be agnostic on the subject even in the broadest sense. Agreement would mean it actually supports the notion, and currently there is no evidence to support this.

[the jmfcst]

That's true for generic Creationism, since generic Creationism says absolutely nothing about the manner or timescale in which creation occurred save that there was a creator who did something.  However, Young Earth Creationism makes some specific claims which conflict with the scientific evidence.

YEC makes specific claims which conflict with the bible.

[John Dibble]

Answering the question, my understanding is that fields involving mechanical engineering have a number of creationists in them. In regards to least tolerant, biology for any form of creationism that denies evolution and probably quantum physics for those that don't.

[DemPGH]

The answer is really none - because science uses material machinations, not mythology, to explain the cosmos. Even extremely theoretical work has a basis in mathematics. However, it's not been the case that the scientist has knocked on the church door to tell the pastor that he is wrong, although the pastor has knocked on the science door many, many times to tell the scientist that he or she is wrong, and the pastor has usually been proven incorrect in each instance, and we need only start with Galileo.

There's a little bit of a bias built into the question. As a matter of course you don't go into a lab, a science building, classroom, etc. and talk about "Creation" or worse, prophets, or the like. Such talk simply has no bearing on the proceedings at hand and will be met with raised eyebrows, to say the least. "I can think of a deity who at some point in the past created magnesium, as well as everything else, and I feel a personal connection to this deity which operates exclusively on faith, so it must be" - well, that is not science. It cannot be science.

And finally, religion saying "you cannot disprove it" is no answer - science does not work that way. Science was invented so as to specifically not work that way. Its basis is in the empirical. And its purpose is to build knowledge, not say knowledge was revealed, passively and past tense.

I think any in depth study of science, scientific thought, and the origins of life will erode faith if the said study is undertaken with a truly open mind.

[ilikeverin]

I think any in depth study of science, scientific thought, and the origins of life will erode faith if the said study is undertaken with a truly open mind.

Oh yes, clearly, the idea of a scientist who is a Christian is a complete myth.

[RI]

There is a serious lack of defining terms in this thread.

pseudo scientists pumping string theory.

What's your beef with string theory?

It is, at this point at least, non-falsifiable just as intelligent design is.

[DC Al Fine]

pseudo scientists pumping string theory.

What's your beef with string theory?

It's practically impossible to test, making it philosophy masquerading as science.

[the jmfcst]

The answer is really none - because science uses material machinations, not mythology, to explain the cosmos...I think any in depth study of science, scientific thought, and the origins of life will erode faith if the said study is undertaken with a truly open mind

Science has no explanation (apart from non-scientific conjecture) for the existence of the cosmos, nor does science have any observational evidence of anything that led to its origin.

And even if we ignore the lack of a mechanism, if we simply assume it came into its own being, the chances the cosmos could have randomly been so finely tuned to support life (or even form stars) is stupidly small (without non-scientific theories such as multi-universes).

As to science eroding faith...to the contrary, until science can explain the existence of the universe and/or falsify the bible, science will continue to support faith.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

That's true for generic Creationism, since generic Creationism says absolutely nothing about the manner or timescale in which creation occurred save that there was a creator who did something.  However, Young Earth Creationism makes some specific claims which conflict with the scientific evidence.

YEC makes specific claims which conflict with the bible.

Too bad you're banned, 'cause I'd love to hear your explanation for this.

[the jmfcst]

That's true for generic Creationism, since generic Creationism says absolutely nothing about the manner or timescale in which creation occurred save that there was a creator who did something.  However, Young Earth Creationism makes some specific claims which conflict with the scientific evidence.

YEC makes specific claims which conflict with the bible.

Too bad you're banned, 'cause I'd love to hear your explanation for this.

very well, but someone once posted on this forum: "using a 24 hour period as a definition of the word "day" in Genesis ch 1 is actually contrary to the context of the Genesis account of creation:  a) the sun and moon were not created on the first day, thus the Sun can NOT be assumed to define the length of the word "day"; and b) the length of 7th day of which God rested is eternal (it had no evening in the Genesis creation account, which is why Hebrews ch 4 interprets it as an eternal rest)...eternity is a tad longer than 24 hours."

[Sbane]

I want to say... anything dealing with medicine or neuroscience?  Basically, anything that doesn't deal with evolutionary biology.

Are you saying the medical field is tolerant of creationists and those who deny evolution? I think that is false. This in the medical field have to deal with the consequences of increased drug resistance in bacteria and viruses. They don't have the luxury of opposing evolution.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I want to say... anything dealing with medicine or neuroscience?  Basically, anything that doesn't deal with evolutionary biology.

Are you saying the medical field is tolerant of creationists and those who deny evolution? I think that is false. This in the medical field have to deal with the consequences of increased drug resistance in bacteria and viruses. They don't have the luxury of opposing evolution.

Yeah.  I'm not too sure about medical scientists, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least some who accepted increased drug resistance in bacteria, but don't believe that humans evolved from apes.  How someone manages to juggle those beliefs together, I know not.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I want to say... anything dealing with medicine or neuroscience?  Basically, anything that doesn't deal with evolutionary biology.

Are you saying the medical field is tolerant of creationists and those who deny evolution? I think that is false. This in the medical field have to deal with the consequences of increased drug resistance in bacteria and viruses. They don't have the luxury of opposing evolution.

Yeah.  I'm not too sure about medical scientists, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least some who accepted increased drug resistance in bacteria, but don't believe that humans evolved from apes.  How someone manages to juggle those beliefs together, I know not.

They generally accept that evolution to improve the survival of a species occurs but deny that evolution into different species occurs.  Seventh Day Adventism is definitely not only pro-Creationist, but pro-YEC, but they do have some reasonably good medical schools associated with their seminaries.

[DemPGH]

The answer is really none - because science uses material machinations, not mythology, to explain the cosmos...I think any in depth study of science, scientific thought, and the origins of life will erode faith if the said study is undertaken with a truly open mind

Science has no explanation (apart from non-scientific conjecture) for the existence of the cosmos, nor does science have any observational evidence of anything that led to its origin.

And even if we ignore the lack of a mechanism, if we simply assume it came into its own being, the chances the cosmos could have randomly been so finely tuned to support life (or even form stars) is stupidly small (without non-scientific theories such as multi-universes).

As to the first point, the Big Bang. It's the most sensible empirical explanation.

As to the second point, how can you possibly assume that? We have no evidence of other universes and must assume, if we're to assume anything, that with the expansion and cooling of the universe that these constants are where we would expect them to be.

The answer is really none - because science uses material machinations, not mythology, to explain the cosmos...I think any in depth study of science, scientific thought, and the origins of life will erode faith if the said study is undertaken with a truly open mind

As to science eroding faith...to the contrary, until science can explain the existence of the universe and/or falsify the bible, science will continue to support faith.

How?

And science can not only explain the existence of the universe, but has discovered chemical and physical laws that maintain it.

With knowledge God has been demoted from every-day maintenance man to some kind of aloof architect in the 18th century to now some sort of deity who made everything to evolve or pushed the "go" button and then sat back and popped a cork on a bottle. In time He / She / It will not even have done that, because we'll have an explanation for that.

[John Dibble]

Science has no explanation (apart from non-scientific conjecture) for the existence of the cosmos, nor does science have any observational evidence of anything that led to its origin.

Right, so science doesn't support your position as it has no data on which to support it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really? And do pray tell us with your infinite wisdom how exactly you know that all other possible variants of the physical laws and constants would make the universe unable to sustain life in any area, much less that you know exactly what other possible variants there are? Do you have access to some supercomputer that has done these calculations for you? Because I'm not sure on what basis you could possibly know this outside of pulling it out your arse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, which is why I know a bunch of former Christians who lost their faith after learning a bunch of science. Their loss of faith is clearly due to science's support of faith.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The big names in physics (Kaku, Tyson, Sagan) were vehemently against Creationism.