Ben Carson is a creationist

[planosteve]

He said, “I personally believe that this theory that Darwin came up with was something that was encouraged by the adversary.” The Adversary is a nickname for the devil; it’s the actual translation of the word “Satan.”

He also dismissed the Big Bang, calling it a “fairy tale.” The irony of this is palpable. When recently called on this claim, he dug in, saying (about people who think the Big Bang is true), “Here’s the key, I then say to them look, ‘I’m not gonna criticize you, you have a lot more faith then I have.’ I couldn’t, I don’t have enough faith to believe that.”

It bothers me greatly when a presidential candidate is so cavalier in dismissing facts. That’s a route we’ve been down before, and it leads to Very Bad Things.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/09/24/ben_carson_anti_science.html

[Mark]

I believe the facts in the Bible. I agree with Dr. Carson.

[BillB]

I believe the facts in the Bible. I agree with Dr. Carson.

I'm not sure the Big Bang contradicts the Bible.
It says that God created the heavens and the Earth.
That could have been the Big Bang.

[millergrovesue]

When you deal with ultra conservatives you are going to get some creationists. Ya either accept it or look for less conservative folks. I'm not a creationist but I'm certainly not going to pass negative judgment on someone who is. Doesn't effect my life one way or the other.

[planosteve]

Bobby Jindahl is a creationist also. Walker may be. Also some others. But, Carson is a medical doctor and medicine is a science which makes him different. Sort of a walking contradiction, doing one thing while apperantly believing the opposite. Why does nobody bring up these basic facts in the debates?

[Sangersteve]

Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
by Kyle Butt, M.A.

The Universe exists and is real. Every rational person must admit this point. If it did not exist, we would not be here to talk about it. So the question arises, “How did the Universe get here?” Did it create itself? If it did not create itself, it must have had a cause.

Let’s look at the law of cause and effect. As far as science knows, natural laws have no exceptions. This is definitely true of the law of cause and effect, which is the most universal and most certain of all laws. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect.

Material effects without adequate causes do not exist. Also, causes never occur after the effect. In addition, the effect never is greater than the cause. That is why scientists say that every material effect must have an adequate cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall off the table because the fly landed on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we see, we must present adequate causes.

Five-year-olds are wonderful at using the law of cause and effect. We can picture a small child asking: “Mommy, where do peaches come from?” His mother says that they come from peach trees. Then the child asks where the trees come from, and his mother explains that they come from peaches. You can see the cycle. Eventually the child wants to know how the first peach tree got here. He can see very well that it must have had a cause, and he wants to know what that cause was.

One thing is for sure: the Universe did not create itself! We know this for a scientific fact, because matter cannot create matter. If we take a rock that weighs 1 pound and do 50,000 experiments on it, we never will be able to produce more than 1 pound of rock. So, whatever caused the Universe could not have been material.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=879

[millergrovesue]

Bobby Jindahl is a creationist also. Walker may be. Also some others. But, Carson is a medical doctor and medicine is a science which makes him different. Sort of a walking contradiction, doing one thing while apperantly believing the opposite. Why does nobody bring up these basic facts in the debates?

Because, to many of us, it just doesn't matter. Carson is far from alone in being a physician and a creationist. Fundamentalism is a very large belief system.

[Red Oak]

It takes as much blind faith to believe in most scientific theories, as it does to believe in religious creation scriptures, IMO.

[Fitzroy]

If I had to write it down, I'd probably be an evolutionist who can accept that it may have all begun with creation, overlaid with a dash of extraterrestrial intervention. But at times I've wondered if we're not just a science experiment sitting on some guy's desk. I believe that the "universe" is far more complex than we can comprehend and that pretty much anything could be possible. I know I'm not gonna change anyone else's mind on this stuff, and its doubtful anyone could change mine. Doesn't mean any of us are wrong.

When it comes to picking a President, I'll stick to more pragmatic considerations. Carson's one of the good guys and we could do far worse than having him as our next President.

[grouchy]

It takes as much blind faith to believe in most scientific theories, as it does to believe in religious creation scriptures, IMO.

Very well put.

[grouchy]

I guess my biggeststruggle is believing that the bible as we know it is the truth, the whole truth and the unerring word of God. Fraternity accept it based on faith. I believe that it is a good thing and we need to try to live by its teachings. But please remember that it basically exists in its present form because a bunch of guys were ordered by a Roman emperor to boil things down to some "basics" @and blow off the rest.

[mayhem]

I don't know whether Creationism is true or not, but I do know a thing about evolution.

Let me just say: if you're gonna do science in America (or anywhere for that matter), you'd better
not only be up with evolutionary teaching -- you better do your science within the grand
design ... of evolution. Because, if you don't, you'll be laughed outa the lab.

Most scientists don't often refer to the 'theory of ...' as it's one of the two or three most
confirmed by science (the other two being relativity and quantum mechanics.)

Not a single thing wrong with having opinions. We all do. But if we don't honestly see
whether there's any daylight between our opinions and what is, we aren't getting
anywhere. We're trying to swim against the tide.

Creationism is bad theory and bad science. If a respected, peer-reviewed scientist
had any thought that evolution was not accurate, he or she would have that on the
front page of every legitimate scientific paper a
nd it'd be on the front page of Time
and Newsweek. And every one would jump on board to see what magnificent
changes the new information would make possible.

[Mark]

I am amazed at the number of people that claim to be Christian and deny the words in the Bible.

[GFB]

I don't deny the words in the Bible..I've never read it.

It's generally not a part of being a Catholic, but at some point I learned that the Bible was written many decades after Christ died?

So..wouldn't that mean that pretty much all of it is 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand?

..at best?

[Mark]

I don't deny the words in the Bible..I've never read it.

If you've never read the Bible, then what in the world guides you spiritually?

[Kiamichi]

Can someone explain to me how people can be religious believers and not be "creationists" of some sort? Do they believe the cosmos was created by a supreme being who then left it to the random chance of Darwinian evolution to decide whether a human race even developed or not? If they do not believe that God can and does intervene in the lives of mankind why do they pray to him, and how can there be any such thing as a miracle or the divinity of Jesus?

[GFB]

I don't deny the words in the Bible..I've never read it.

If you've never read the Bible, then what in the world guides you spiritually?

I guess I'd have to say..spirituality is not what guides me.

..though I do believe in God, and that Christianity is an overwhelming force for good in the world.

..and I do believe in Creation as well as evolution.

They fit together quite nicely.

[BillB]

Evolution does not deal with how life began. It deals strictly with what happened to life after it began.
I believe that God created life. Evolution does not refute that and does not try to refute it.

[planosteve]

I think it's possible for life to evolve from nonliving matter into living matter. Probably given certain conditions are required especially water, and a mild temperature. That's why we haven't discovered it yet elsewhere in the universe.
But, it may be that a different kind of life can also evolve from nonliving matter in very different conditions. Not much information on that yet.

[mayhem]

But, RO, evolution, quantum mechanics and relativity are overwhelmingly support by years of thousands of tests.

Religious 'creation scriptures' are supported by nothing except themselves.

It takes as much blind faith to believe in most scientific theories, as it does to believe in religious creation scriptures, IMO.