[ianch99]

Originally Posted by passingbat

It can not be a fact if a group of scientists disagree with it. It's that simple. Yours may be the predominant view among scientists, but predominance does not make it a fact. You choose to believe the predominant view, therefore you have faith in that view and there is nothing wrong with that

I guess it depends on your definition of what a "fact" is?

This definition, in the context of this discussion, seems appropriate:

Fact may also indicate findings derived through a process of evaluation, including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation. Facts may be checked by reason, experiment, personal experience, or may be argued from authority

Have a view does not make it a fact. Publishing your reasoned arguments, scientific observations and evidence for peer review is a better route.

---------- Post added at 14:14 ---------- Previous post was at 13:58 ----------

Originally Posted by passingbat

This seems to give a list of both creation and evolution scientists. Click on a name and it gives a list of qualifications and papers they have written. It would then be a case of googling any name who's qualifications etc., take your fancy.


http://www.christiananswers.net/crea...ople/home.html

I have researched quite a few of these names. A lot of them appear as contributors to this book:

In Six Days: Why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation

I have tried to find some objective reviews of the book and did not fare too well. I found a pompous review by the infamous Mr Dawkins but as you might guess it is rather biased on this subject

From what I can see these scientists are coming to their scientific conclusions based on what their belief compels them to rather than looking at all the available evidence and then concluding that the 6 day Creation model is the best fit for this evidence.

I did not find any published, scientific papers where the Creation theory is presented alongside validated objective evidence from research programmes.