The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Soul Winner

When one is convinced by evidence which supports a particular theory, then the next logical step is to assume that that theory is true. That assumption is an act of faith. But when conflicting new evidence suggests otherwise, then a reassessment of one's position must take place. When it does then science is working, when it doesn't, and dogmatic scientists refuse to let go of their pet theories then science is broken. Richard Dawkins looks at life and concedes that it has the illusion of being designed, but it can't be designed because Darwin's theory won't allow it. Who do we put our faith in? :rolleyes:

lmaopml

Overheal wrote: »

Anyway I break it down like this, and its why this debate is pointless and I shant be attempting to be sucked into it again.

Creationism demands Faith
Evolution demands Science

Love this post Overheal! It's perfect..:)

...and I am so thrilled the penny is dropping.

And Science by its very methodology strips away faith and supposed things. Its based upon skepticism, which is not unhealthy. That skepticism challenged why the Earth is flat and why we can't put a man on the Moon. The benefit of Faith I'll let someone else answer in their own words.

There is indeed a Scientific method, curiosity is a plus, and further unbiased testing is always a good thing...

I don't know if Science is based apon skepticism though - perhaps it would be good to be skeptical of 'everything' but then, we're only human. I just see it as a tool for understanding the natural world...There is no 'creed' in Science that says one must be Atheist also, thank's be to .....

It dawned on me then that if Creationism requires Faith and Evolution requires Faithless Scientific Method, we can't even really have this discussion. They are two completely different modes of thought. And a debate requires its own mode of thought, which depending on your choice of Ethos or Logos, can be closer to Faith or Scientific Method; but never quite a bridge between both.

There are many people who live 'on' the bridge that connects science and faith...it works rather well too, depending on what we dig our heels in over! I think JC has done a really good job trying to debate with so many people who have tried to strip that faith away from him in the name of 'reason'....! I don't particularly care about Creationism philosophy, because it's besides the point, or evolution(ism) and science(ism) philosophy because they are totally at unproductive odds, other than who is 'right'. That's why I agree with you that the debate would be a bit 'weird'...

..but it could be colourful..lol...

tl;dr - I don't think you will ever establish a medium, at least on this forum, to sanely debate Creationism and Evolution. It would be like trying to get oil to mix with water.

Evolution is what we understand so far, and Creationism is what it is...

I think the problem only arises when Atheism claims science and Creationism claims science...

...and the unconcerned gallery watch on..

Galvasean

Soul Winner wrote: »

Richard Dawkins looks at life and concedes that it has the illusion of being designed, but it can't be designed because Darwin's theory won't allow it. Who do we put our faith in? :rolleyes:

Personally I'd go for the one with testable evidence.

Soul Winner

Galvasean wrote: »

Personally I'd go for the one with testable evidence.

And that's fine, but it is still an act of faith because you are assuming that because you can test something you can prove the truth of it. You can't! Testing theories has be done in science for centuries and many of the old one time solid ideas have fallen by the wayside. Did you know that there were two types of scientists up until not very long ago? 'The Theorist' and 'The Experimentalist'. The Theorist's took the position that finding truth can be obtained by reason of the mind alone and that we should not trust in our own cognitive faculties via the mechanism of input from observation. The Experimentalist took the position that the mind is not a trust worthy vehicle by which we can judge truth and that theories must be tested with experimentation. Darwin himself conceded that if we evolved from more primitive life forms then how can we trust our cognitive faculties to be proper grounds in ascertaining the real truth about anything in the world around us? Modern science proceeds on the basis that we can, but that's as much (if not more) of a leap of faith than anything that any religion claims wouldn't you agree?

Overheal

Soul Winner wrote: »

The Experimentalist took the position that the mind is not a trust worthy vehicle by which we can judge truth and that theories must be tested with experimentation. Darwin himself conceded that if we evolved from more primitive life forms then how can we trust our cognitive faculties to be proper grounds in ascertaining the real truth about anything in the world around us? Modern science proceeds on the basis that we can, but that's as much (if not more) of a leap of faith than anything that any religion claims wouldn't you agree?

Thats....astonishingly profound o_O

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

When one is convinced by evidence which supports a particular theory, then the next logical step is to assume that that theory is true. That assumption is an act of faith. But when conflicting new evidence suggests otherwise, then a reassessment of one's position must take place. When it does then science is working, when it doesn't, and dogmatic scientists refuse to let go of their pet theories then science is broken. Richard Dawkins looks at life and concedes that it has the illusion of being designed, but it can't be designed because Darwin's theory won't allow it. Who do we put our faith in? :rolleyes:

Firstly, if you are convinced by evidence that something is true, that's the exact opposite of assuming it's true in an act of faith. One does not follow from the other.

Secondly, nature is absolutely jam packed with things that do not work properly, do not work anymore, do not work at all, do not work nearly as well as they could, do nothing but harm etc etc etc. A library could literally be filled with improvements to the "design" of human bodies that would eliminate millions of diseases and afflictions. There is no good reason why animals as diverse as humans, dogs, bats, giraffes, whales, dolphins and elephants should all have the same basic body structure with ten fingers, legs and toes but they do because they had a common ancestor and, for example, natural selection never had the foresight to do away with the legs of dolphins and whales that were useful millions of years ago but now serve no purpose and didn't have the intelligence realise that the recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe could be a few inches long if its wiring was changed so it stayed wired the same way ours is and kept lengthening until it reached its current 10 feet or so

Life is exactly as we would expect it to be if it was the result of mutation and natural selection and it is nothing like what would be expected from an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity. At best it could point to an incompetent designer but in reality it points to natural selection, a process that can give the illusion of design but leaves tell tale signs all over the place that shows that it had no intelligent foresight; it just tried a lot of different things through mutations and the stuff that worked hung around, even if any intelligent being could have seen a much better way of solving the problem than the one that was arrived at.

You are absolutely right to say that when conflicting new evidence suggests a theory is wrong, then a reassessment of one's position must take place but an illusion of design is expected by evolutionary theory, it is not conflicting evidence. There definitely should be a reassessment going on here due to a massive amount of conflicting evidence, you're just wrong on who should be doing the reassessing

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

The Experimentalist took the position that the mind is not a trust worthy vehicle by which we can judge truth and that theories must be tested with experimentation. Darwin himself conceded that if we evolved from more primitive life forms then how can we trust our cognitive faculties to be proper grounds in ascertaining the real truth about anything in the world around us? Modern science proceeds on the basis that we can, but that's as much (if not more) of a leap of faith than anything that any religion claims wouldn't you agree?

You might say it's a leap of faith right up until it puts planes it the sky, men on the moon, food on your plate and your words on the internet. Once something has been demonstrated to work, accepting that it works no longer requires a leap of faith. It just takes you to open your eyes and look.

For 1500 years people thought that heavy objects fell faster than lighter ones because that's what their intuition told them should be the case. Then Galileo came along and dropped some stuff from some tall buildings. From that point on no amount of argumentation or reason or logic would have done any good because one simple experiment proved them all wrong. No faith required, you can go to the top of a building right now and do the same thing he did

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Richard Dawkins looks at life and concedes that it has the illusion of being designed, but it can't be designed because Darwin's theory won't allow it. Who do we put our faith in? :rolleyes:

Darwin's theory won't allow it? Really?

Please expand on that one because at the moment it sounds like ill informed nonsense.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have doctrinal grounds to reject evolution, but also logical ones: while I'm not trained in forensics, I can recognise evasive answers, suppression of evidence and intimidation of witnesses.

When I see those, I suspect the case those folk promote.

Who are "those folk"?

Do you mean 99% of all geologists, evolutionary biologists, palentologists, astro-physics on the planet, of all faiths and backgrounds, who use scientific theories such as neo-Darwinian evolution, the expanding universe, the big bang, decay rate of atoms etc etc etc etc?

Yes there could be a massive global conspiracy covering millions of scientist across the globe to suppress the fact that most modern science is wrong and has been promoting thousands of false scientific theories to form a non-Biblical view of the world for at least 150 years. But lets look at the alternative.

On the other hand we have a small set of religious individuals and groups such as the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis with strong religious backgrounds and strong ideological views towards a particular interpretation of the Bible who believe that theories such as the big bang or evolution or plate tectonics or solar system formation or any number of other modern scientific theories conflicts with this interpretation of the Bible and must be wrong, irrespective of whether it is scientifically sound or not.

This is a key point. Groups like AiG don't say evolution or the big bang fails simply as a scientific theories. That isn't their starting position. They aren't concerned scientists worried scientific standards are slipping and unsound models are slipping through.

They say it must not be true irrespective of how scientifically supported it is because it conflicts with their religious outlook. And then they try and find reasons why it is scientifically unsound. And shockingly they claim to find lots of this because after all that is the only thing they are searching for and it is easy to find support for an idea when you are convinced it must be true. When you have a nail everything looks like a hammer.

I think you picked the wrong side to see the conspiracy on, though (no offense) you seem knee deep in this conspiracy yourself!

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

But when conflicting new evidence suggests otherwise, then a reassessment of one's position must take place. When it does then science is working, when it doesn't, and dogmatic scientists refuse to let go of their pet theories then science is broken.

Evolution is not a pet theory. It is incredibly obvious that it is not a pet theory.

Richard Dawkins looks at life and concedes that it has the illusion of being designed, but it can't be designed because Darwin's theory won't allow it. Who do we put our faith in? :rolleyes:

Richard Dawkins does not concede this. It is incredibly obvious that he does not concede this.

The Theorist's took the position that finding truth can be obtained by reason of the mind alone.

Where do you get this stuff from? Please provide an example of 'a Theorist' from 'not very long ago' who believed this? I'm a Theorist and I'm certainly nothing like that.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

And that's fine, but it is still an act of faith because you are assuming that because you can test something you can prove the truth of it. You can't! Testing theories has be done in science for centuries and many of the old one time solid ideas have fallen by the wayside. Did you know that there were two types of scientists up until not very long ago? 'The Theorist' and 'The Experimentalist'. The Theorist's took the position that finding truth can be obtained by reason of the mind alone and that we should not trust in our own cognitive faculties via the mechanism of input from observation. The Experimentalist took the position that the mind is not a trust worthy vehicle by which we can judge truth and that theories must be tested with experimentation. Darwin himself conceded that if we evolved from more primitive life forms then how can we trust our cognitive faculties to be proper grounds in ascertaining the real truth about anything in the world around us? Modern science proceeds on the basis that we can, but that's as much (if not more) of a leap of faith than anything that any religion claims wouldn't you agree?

Yes, modern scientists are not concerned with absolute truths, which is why theories are always tentative. If you want to hold the position that evolution, despite being established by evidence from several fields, is an illusion, then go right ahead. But that is not the creationist movement. The creationist movement claims that Evolution is not established by scientific evidence.

Would you agree that, regardless of the issue of 'absolute truth', evolution is well established by scientific evidence?

Sam Vimes

Morbert wrote: »

Richard Dawkins does not concede this. It is incredibly obvious that he does not concede this.

Actually he does use the term "illusion of design": http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-11-23/

But as he says it's just an illusion.

Morbert

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Actually he does use the term "illusion of design": http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-11-23/

But as he says it's just an illusion.

It's the "It's an illusion because Darwin's theory won't allow it" that Dawkins never says.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

This is a key point. Groups like AiG don't say evolution or the big bang fails simply as a scientific theories. That isn't their starting position. They aren't concerned scientists worried scientific standards are slipping and unsound models are slipping through.

They say it must not be true irrespective of how scientifically supported it is because it conflicts with their religious outlook.

The funny thing is that people on this thread and creationists in general accuse supporters of evolution of dogmatically clinging to evolution and "refusing to let go of their pet theories and reassess their position in the face of conflicting evidence" when groups like AiG proudly declare their unshakeable belief in the bible, their unequivocal rejection of anything that might contradict it as automatically false and their determination never to reassess their position because they already have the absolute truth. Even if it could be argued that they have not found anything to contradict their position (which it can't), they proudly acknowledge that they would not reassess their position if they did.

How can one say that "science is broken" on the evolution side because a perception that they do something that creationists proudly declare they do

Sam Vimes

Morbert wrote: »

It's the "Darwin's theory won't allow it" that Dawkins never says.

Oh right, carry on, nothing to see here :pac:

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The funny thing is that people on this thread and creationists in general accuse supporters of evolution of dogmatically clinging to evolution and "refusing to let go of their pet theories and reassess their position in the face of conflicting evidence" when groups like AiG proudly declare their unshakeable belief in the bible, their unequivocal rejection of anything that might contradict it as automatically false and their determination never to reassess their position because they already have the absolute truth. Even if it could be argued that they have not found anything to contradict their position (which it can't), they proudly acknowledge that they would not reassess their position if they did.

How can one say that "science is broken" on the evolution side because a perception that they do something that creationists proudly declare they do

+1

Long ago in this thread I asked either Wolfsbane or JC to name a part of Genesis, which forms the model of creation that groups like AiG use, that has been discovered to be wrong. Not miss understood or miss interpreted, but wrong by Creationists.

They said none of it was wrong, it was the infallible word of God, or at least that is what they believed.

And yet they accuse scientists, who regularly update their theory and thus their understanding of nature as new information becomes available, of being dogmatic and refusing to adjust to new information.

Shows the bankrupt nature of the Creationist position, critizing science which while often slow to accept new data still eventually does when the support is so strong, which an ideology that believes from the very get go that it cannot ever be wrong not matter what evidence is presented that conflicts with this original axiom.

AiG even states this (or used to), that all evidence that contradicts their Biblical interpretation must be re-interpretated. Must be.

token56

Just to keep the earlier discussion (re: the thread in general) going, has any more thought been given to the formalized debate structure etc.

Should we wait until J C gets back, as to be fair he is a large contributor, and get his opinion on what he would be up for?

I'd say he would be fairly shocked if he came back to find everything had become civil and organized.

Morbert

I think, even if JC does come back, we should focus less on his posts, and more on the other, more consistent and coherent posts made by people like Wolfsbane and SoulWinner.

Galvasean

Morbert wrote: »

I think, even if JC does come back, we should focus less on his posts, and more on the other, more consistent and coherent posts made by people like Wolfsbane and SoulWinner.

I would tend to agree. The last couple of pages made very good reading.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

AiG even states this (or used to), that all evidence that contradicts their Biblical interpretation must be re-interpretated. Must be.

It did indeed. I was looking for that quote on their website to stick into my post but I couldn't find it. Maybe they realised it made their hypocrisy even more obvious.

wolfsbane

liamw wrote: »

Any examples for the scientific case for creationism?

Lots. Check out the creationist sites (and the specific articles) I have linked/posted here many times.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No you quite clearly can't recognise these things I'm afraid. The mere fact that you cannot see how badly J C is at defending creationism proves this. Everyone can see it, christian and atheist alike. Everyone it seems except you and possibly one other person I can think of who also comes to the thread with the unshakeable belief that evolution is false. Even if creationism is true, J C still has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and spends his time dodging questions, posting stupid cartoons, bible quotes and smilies and repeating the same crap over and over again no matter how many times he's corrected on it. But you somehow can't see this.



Science is not based on the opinions of scientists, it's based on what can reliably shown to be the case. All these "creation scientists" have to do is submit their work to the peer review process just like every other scientist in the world. But they don't. They prefer to write books and set up websites and force their way through the courts. But then that's because the whole world including for some bizarre reason millions of christians are all involved in a massive conspiracy against christianity isn't it :rolleyes:

Your accusation that JC doesn't know what he is talking about is the same dismissive nonsense evolutionists use against other evolutionists who challenge their pet ideas. Your pet idea has an enormous emotional pull on your judgement, so you need to think again about just how impartial is your judgement.

As to JC's smilies, etc., I take them as a natural part of a personal interaction on a discussion list. This is not a formal scientific or theological arena. Lighten up!

Has he repeated himself? Yes, many times. For the thread is massive and you guys have made the same arguments again and again. He has corrected you, but you still post the same material. (See how your accusation works both ways?)

When creationist scientists do submit their openly creationist material to the establishment for peer review it is rejected as not conforming to their view of what science says. Only when they can hide their creationist credentials (and leave it to implication to present the creationist findings) do they get published.

Conspiracy? Yes, there is a conspiracy to prevent any challenge to evolution. Why are so many involved? Because most are not aware that the establishment dogma is not as solid as they have been assured, and those who do know are aware of the career damage they face if they give any credence to the scientific opposition. The establishment elite and their atheist zealot supporters are the real culprits, not the mass of ordinary scientists. Sad to say that many Christians also refuse to speak up, and some even ridicule their creationist brothers, rather than suffer the offence of the cross.

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It did indeed. I was looking for that quote on their website to stick into my post but I couldn't find it. Maybe they realised it made their hypocrisy even more obvious.

Nope it is still there, under their 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.

And JC and Wolfsbane wonder why we don't accept links to Answers in Genesis :pac:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your accusation that JC doesn't know what he is talking about is the same dismissive nonsense evolutionists use against other evolutionists who challenge their pet ideas.

JC regularly and consistently uses a incorrect definition of neo-Darwinian evolution is and predicts.

Not states it is false, not says it can't work, but actually gets what it says wrong.

How seriously would you take an atheist who came to challenge you on the correctness of your faith if he kept quoting the Bible wrong. I mean you would probably expect that someone who thinks you are wrong would have at least bothered to read the Bible properly and tried to understand it.

If someone (yourself included) can't be bothered to actually understand evolution (maybe he is worried if he did it would actually make a lot of sense to him) then why exactly would we be that interested in the claims he makes that evolution can't work?

I don't mean this to be a dig at JC, I've no idea if he is doing this on purpose or genuinely doesn't understand evolution. But it makes anything he say just seem uniformed.

wolfsbane wrote: »

When creationist scientists do submit their openly creationist material to the establishment for peer review it is rejected as not conforming to their view of what science says.

Correct, it is rejected because it isn't science. Peer review scientific papers accept submissions of science. If you are not submitting science they don't care, just like Alive don't publish atheist material.

There are plenty of religious outlets that seem more than happy to publish un-scientific papers and articles on Biblical Creation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Conspiracy? Yes, there is a conspiracy to prevent any challenge to evolution.

Is there a conspiricy by various groups to promote literal Biblical interpretation in evidence irrespective of whether or not these interpretations have scientific merit??

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sad to say that many Christians also refuse to speak up, and some even ridicule their creationist brothers, rather than suffer the offence of the cross.

Christians are happy to speak up, speak up and say that Creationism is nonsense science.

This is where the conspiracy falls down, millions of people of all faiths a happy working in modern science (remember it is not just evolution but most of physics and geology that contradicts AiG style Biblical interpretation).

The only people who claim this conspiracy exists are disgruntled Creationists, which is hardly shocking. Of course they are going to claim that, they aren't going to claim they actually don't have the science to back their position.

Its like the guy who thinks lizard people working the department of transport because he has been refused a van license 12 times.

wolfsbane

Overheal wrote: »

Anyway I break it down like this, and its why this debate is pointless and I shant be attempting to be sucked into it again.

Creationism demands Faith
Evolution demands Science

And Science by its very methodology strips away faith and supposed things. Its based upon skepticism, which is not unhealthy. That skepticism challenged why the Earth is flat and why we can't put a man on the Moon. The benefit of Faith I'll let someone else answer in their own words.

But PDN put it to me like this:



It dawned on me then that if Creationism requires Faith and Evolution requires Faithless Scientific Method, we can't even really have this discussion. They are two completely different modes of thought. And a debate requires its own mode of thought, which depending on your choice of Ethos or Logos, can be closer to Faith or Scientific Method; but never quite a bridge between both.

tl;dr - I don't think you will ever establish a medium, at least on this forum, to sanely debate Creationism and Evolution. It would be like trying to get oil to mix with water.

You are making the same mistake as several others here: confusing the faith presupposition of creationist individuals and organisations with the scientific arguments they use in service of that faith.

As I've said several times before, if science appeared to contradict the Bible, the creationist would have to admit that. They would say that they have no contrary explanation at present, but look for one in confidence of their faith position. They would not deny the appearance of contradiction.

So faith and scientific method can co-exist.

liamw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Lots. Check out the creationist sites (and the specific articles) I have linked/posted here many times.

Ye Sam, you were right...

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Nope it is still there, under their 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.

And JC and Wolfsbane wonder why we don't accept links to Answers in Genesis :pac:

My post to Overheal:
You are making the same mistake as several others here: confusing the faith presupposition of creationist individuals and organisations with the scientific arguments they use in service of that faith.

As I've said several times before, if science appeared to contradict the Bible, the creationist would have to admit that. They would say that they have no contrary explanation at present, but look for one in confidence of their faith position. They would not deny the appearance of contradiction.

So faith and scientific method can co-exist.

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sad to say that many Christians also refuse to speak up, and some even ridicule their creationist brothers, rather than suffer the offence of the cross.

I wouldn't go so far as to ridicule (although you have to wonder at some of the more comical characters like Kent Hovind).

However, having followed the evo vs. creo discussion on a site more dedicated to that purpose (evcforum.net) - a site involving far more detailed and rigorous analysis of the evidences/arguments by folk far more equipped to debate it than usually seen on discussion forums, sees the creo side woefully - and I mean woefully, lacking. This across the full spectrum of evo-science: biological, geological, genetic, cosmological.

I don't believe in the evo tale. Nor do I have a problem suffering the offence of the cross. It's just that the creation side don't seem to be able to hold their own when it comes to tackling the evolutionist side head on.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
When creationist scientists do submit their openly creationist material to the establishment for peer review it is rejected as not conforming to their view of what science says.
Correct, it is rejected because it isn't science. Peer review scientific papers accept submissions of science. If you are not submitting science they don't care, just like Alive don't publish atheist material.

There are plenty of religious outlets that seem more than happy to publish un-scientific papers and articles on Biblical Creation.

Catch 22.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your accusation that JC doesn't know what he is talking about is the same dismissive nonsense evolutionists use against other evolutionists who challenge their pet ideas. Your pet idea has an enormous emotional pull on your judgement, so you need to think again about just how impartial is your judgement.

Evolution is not "my pet idea". I knew very little about it until very recently and didn't particularly care about it either until I saw that science both within and beyond evolution was being attacked by a well funded and powerful group of religious zealots whose beliefs depend on it being false. I was an atheist before I knew anything about evolution and atheists existed long before the theory was even devised. I know I've said this to you before so do you think I'm lying when I say that if evolution was proven false tomorrow it would not make one tiny little bit of difference to my position as an atheist? Evolution is irrelevant to my atheism but it is far from irrelevant to the christianity of creationists

And J C has demonstrated time and time again that he does not know what he is talking about. Everyone can see this, including other Christians. You don't need to be a scientist to see it, you just need to be able to apply basic logic, google stuff and recognise when a question is being dodged.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Has he repeated himself? Yes, many times. For the thread is massive and you guys have made the same arguments again and again. He has corrected you, but you still post the same material. (See how your accusation works both ways?)

I'm afraid the accusation doesn't work both ways wolfsbane. J C posts something for the tenth time and everyone gives the same response for the tenth time. Instead of dealing with the response J C just soap boxes, declares us all to be delusional, gives us some bible quotes or just ignores us. then he posts the same nonsense again which elicits the same responses and the circle begins again.

Take just one example from recently. I asked J C a number of questions in this post in relation to his interpretation of CSI. You will notice that he never answered them. Do you think we're somehow faking things like this, maybe getting the mods to delete his devastating responses?

wolfsbane wrote: »

When creationist scientists do submit their openly creationist material to the establishment for peer review it is rejected as not conforming to their view of what science says. Only when they can hide their creationist credentials (and leave it to implication to present the creationist findings) do they get published.

It's rejected because it's nonsense. You might have a point if it was rejected by hard hearted atheists but the work is rejected by Christians too. Christians who have managed to reconcile their beliefs with reality and so do not have an extremely powerful motive for debunking evolution at all costs.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Conspiracy? Yes, there is a conspiracy to prevent any challenge to evolution. Why are so many involved? Because most are not aware that the establishment dogma is not as solid as they have been assured, and those who do know are aware of the career damage they face if they give any credence to the scientific opposition. The establishment elite and their atheist zealot supporters are the real culprits, not the mass of ordinary scientists. Sad to say that many Christians also refuse to speak up, and some even ridicule their creationist brothers, rather than suffer the offence of the cross.

I'm sure (at least I hope) that you will agree that creationists have a powerful motive for believing evolution to be false, at least as powerful as the supposed motive of atheists to believe it to be true. Could you ever conceive of the possibility that creation scientists may, in some cases at least, also be guilty of dogmatically rejecting evidence that appears contrary to their position?