Changes

[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|left|19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]

[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|left|19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]

Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The [[History of science|history of science]] shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, [[bloodletting]] was practiced from antiquity and still had many practitioners up until the late 1800s.<ref>[http://www.bcmj.org/premise/history-bloodletting History of bloodletting]</ref> In his essay, ''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. wrote the following: "...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy."<ref>''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D.</ref>  

Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The [[History of science|history of science]] shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, [[bloodletting]] was practiced from antiquity and still had many practitioners up until the late 1800s.<ref>[http://www.bcmj.org/premise/history-bloodletting History of bloodletting]</ref> In his essay, ''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. wrote the following: "...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy."<ref>''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D.</ref>  

Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991 [[BMJ]] (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, [[David Eddy]] professor of health policy and management at [[Duke University]], told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1932964&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]</ref> Next, [[Alchemy|alchemy]] was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as [[Isaac Newton]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Roger Bacon]], and [[Gottfried Leibniz]].<ref>http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon</ref> Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts,<ref>http://www.jstor.org/view/03697827/ap020019/02a00050/0</ref><ref>http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm</ref><ref>http://www.easst.net/review/dec1998/bastos</ref> the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument.

Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991 [[BMJ]] (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, [[David Eddy]] professor of health policy and management at [[Duke University]], told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1932964&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]</ref> Next, [[Alchemy|alchemy]] was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as [[Isaac Newton]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Roger Bacon]], and [[Gottfried Leibniz]].<ref>http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon</ref> Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts,<ref>[http://deskarati.com/2011/08/17/scientific-revolutions-or-paradigm-shifts/ Scientific revolutions or paradigm shifts]</ref><ref>http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm</ref>the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument.

In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970s the scientific consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref> Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BCobra94.htm</ref><ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BBritannicaCobra38.htm</ref> In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref> Many creationists such as the creationists at [[Creation Ministries International]] assert that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge  beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge at Creationwiki]</ref><ref>http://creation.com/content/view/1718/</ref> In addition, [[Christianity]] had a profound influence in regards to the [[Christianity and Science|development of modern science]].

In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970s the scientific consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref> Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BCobra94.htm</ref><ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BBritannicaCobra38.htm</ref> In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref> Many creationists such as the creationists at [[Creation Ministries International]] assert that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge  beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge at Creationwiki]</ref><ref>http://creation.com/content/view/1718/</ref> In addition, [[Christianity]] had a profound influence in regards to the [[Christianity and Science|development of modern science]].