integrity in the evolution-creationism debate

[BH]

In your opinions how far back does one have to go in time where Creationism of its biblical variety could be held by a scientist and he still have his integrity? In other words creationism was still a viable hypothesis.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In your opinions how far back does one have to go in time where Creationism of its biblical variety could be held by a scientist and he still have his integrity? In other words creationism was still a viable hypothesis.

I think that's two different questions.

A scientist can believe in creationism, perpetual motion machines, Superman and hold that Holmes and Watson had a sexual relationship and still be a scientist with integrity. At least, as long as he doesn't take any unsupported beliefs to work withhim... If his published results are in accord with his observations and the methodology is above reproof, he's got integrity. Even if he votes Tea Party...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In your opinions how far back does one have to go in time where Creationism of its biblical variety could be held by a scientist and he still have his integrity? In other words creationism was still a viable hypothesis.

I don't believe it's ever been a viable theory because it's not a theory in the first place--it's not testable.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'd say at some point within the last hundred years or so. If someone's using Occam's Razor and assuming that, in the absence of other evidence, the simplest explanation is the correct one, then taking a goddidit position due to the lack of any other credible alternatives is an acceptable choice. Once genetic research confirmed what Darwin was saying, astronomy detailed the age of the universe, the fossil record got properly catalogued, the existence of continental drift was established, etc, etc, etc, that ceased to be a reasonable position for one to have.

If you're in the early 20th Century and you conclude that the goddidit people are the only ones making a credible case, then there's nothing particularly wrong with your position given your current level of possible knowledge. If you're in the early 21st Centry and concluding that, then you're a fucking idiot.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'd say at some point within the last hundred years or so. If someone's using Occam's Razor and assuming that, in the absence of other evidence, the simplest explanation is the correct one, then taking a goddidit position due to the lack of any other credible alternatives is an acceptable choice.

Like, Occam, by uncanny coincidence....

 

[Elixir]

IME, creationists with integrity still exist, but they're a rare breed steeped in ignorance; they are NOT scientists. Anyone who has ever gotten out of the house in the 21st century knows that there is near unanimity among scientists regarding the reality of evolution and the antiquity of the earth. The last honest creationist scientists were probably the geologists who first noted that the earth had to be at least millions of years old, which they discovered while looking for evidence of Biblical Creation. That was in the 19th century...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

IME, creationists with integrity still exist, but they're a rare breed steeped in ignorance; they are NOT scientists. Anyone who has ever gotten out of the house in the 21st century knows that there is near unanimity among scientists regarding the reality of evolution and the antiquity of the earth. The last honest creationist scientists were probably the geologists who first noted that the earth had to be at least millions of years old, which they discovered while looking for evidence of Biblical Creation. That was in the 19th century...

As in interesting historical footnote, this was actually one of the early arguments against Darwin's ToE. It was thought by many to be an interesting idea, but since the scientific consensus was that the Earth was a few million years old at best, there just wasn't enough time for the evolutionary process to have occurred. It was only after better dating methodologies were developed and the time period in question was expanded to billions of years instead of millions that it became accepted that all this could have gone on without the need for fully fledged species to have been popped in whole through some sort of goddidit process.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/04/17/battle-of-the-beards-darwin-vs/

 

[Musing Man]

Coming strictly from my personal experience, creationism seems to have gained a mind of its own, surpassing its original biblical (or otherwise) premises.
I'm dumbstruck by the growing number of people around me - none of them otherwise stupid by any means - that are somehow convinced that there must be a creator.

So, the answer to the OP would be, in their words: „since the beginning of time, and even before that”.
I'm still trying to make sense out of that myself...

 

[Bomb#20]

The last honest creationist scientists were probably the geologists who first noted that the earth had to be at least millions of years old, which they discovered while looking for evidence of Biblical Creation. That was in the 19th century...

That would be this guy...

God may have been sending creationists a message with that one. David Starr Jordan purportedly commented that Agassiz always had been better in the abstract than in the concrete.