Where are the creationist scientists?

[McCulloch]

Creationists and other proponents of the literal flood base their arguments upon scripture (Bronze Age storytellers tales) rather than upon actual study of the fields of biology, meteorology, climatology, archeology, etc.

Nuts. There are scientists in various scientific fields on both sides of the issue who investigate physical data.

Are there scientists in various scientific fields on the side of the literal flood, as described by the Bible? Please cite examples of published scientists who are recognized experts in their fields who have published works in their areas of expertise supporting the creationist flood.

What not to do: cite, for example, a meteorologist who has published a critique of evolution.

Using Zzyzx's list, show us someone who is doing new recognized research work in biology who is a published supporter of all life being evolved from a single boat load of specimens within the last 5,000 years. Show us a leading meteorologist who advocates that there were no rainbows before the alleged flood. Find an archaeologist who is taken seriously when he asserts that all existing human civilizations are descended from a single family that emerged near Mt. Ararat about 5,000 years ago. Find a hydrologist who believes that there is enough water on earth to have flooded the world. Find a geologist who echoes the claims made by creationists that the mountains were significantly lower during the time that humans inhabited earth.

Where are the creationist scientists?

[Beto]

It's easy to find a list.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/

What I'd like to see is recognition from their peers of relevant contribution to their fields of "expertise".

It's a list full of professors and "doctors"... perhaps not one scientist.

[McCulloch]

It's easy to find a list.

Lists are easy to find. A list that fit the requirements in the OP would be both more difficult and more relevant.

[Fisherking]

Please cite examples of published scientists who are recognized experts in their fields who have published works in their areas of expertise supporting the creationist flood.

Ahh, the catch. (published works in their areas of expertise supporting the creationist flood).[/quote] Do you mean published in evolutionary dogmatic journals or just published?

[Rathpig]

People don't win the Pulitzer Prize for publications in the National Enquirer.

[McCulloch]

Do you mean published in evolutionary dogmatic journals or just published?

Published in peer reviewed journals dedicated to specific scientific fields of study.

[Fisherking]

Do you mean published in evolutionary dogmatic journals or just published?

Published in peer reviewed journals dedicated to specific scientific fields of study.

So, for example, a biologist with published work in Nature who also is a creationist? -- or must the published work in Nature by this biologist be an article about creation? If the latter, there will not be any --- anymore than there are evolutionists publishing evolutionary articles in creationist periodicals.

[Rathpig]

The issue at hand is that peer-reviewed scientific publications actually have standards and expectations of following a repeatable methodology. Religious publications merely require adherence to a doctrine.

If a creationists could provide evidenced research, then any scientific publication would give them top billing and all the space needed to make their point. Unfortunately, "goddidit" and "have faith my brother" is only evidence of a delusional psychosis. The difference in science and religion is that science only has a stake in demonstrable claims.

That is why science is important to actual life and religion is an emotional crutch.

[McCulloch]

So, for example, a biologist with published work in Nature who also is a creationist? -- or must the published work in Nature by this biologist be an article about creation? If the latter, there will not be any --- anymore than there are evolutionists publishing evolutionary articles in creationist periodicals.

Gold - A biologist who has published a paper in a peer reviewed biology journal supporting one of the centrally held ideas of creationist biology.

Silver - A biologist who is regularly published in peer reviewed biology journals, who has written a work, published elsewhere supporting one of the centrally held ideas of creationist biology.

Substitute meteorologist|meteorology archaeologist|archeology hydrologist|hydrology geologist|geology for biologist|biology above.

Does not count: a scientist writing outside of his field of expertise in a journal not reviewed by experts in the field being discussed. For example, a geologist making claims about evolution in a theology journal.

[PC1]

You could check out ICR's lists:

Physical Scientists: http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci/

Biological Scientists: http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_biosci/

Granted, the recent news of the MA research scientist Abraham getting fired for being a creationist, who isn't on any creationist lists, probably infers that there are a lot more out there like him who are not vocal enough in their beliefs to be placed on one of these lists.
See:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ham-affair


Edit:

To address some earlier posts about peer-reviewed journals; I know that in the process of getting a Ph.D (or even a Masters) your very likely to have at least 1 peer-reviewed research piece for your field, and I'm sure in the vast majority of cases these scientists have submitted plenty.