What is a creation scientist?

[juliod]

We often get into debates about the existance of creation scientists. Often we see creationist web pages offereing the Argument from Authority with lists of supposed scientists that are creationists. In another thread, a member posted this list in response to my use of the phrase "creation 'scientists'".

• Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
• Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist
• Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
• Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
• Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
• Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
• Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
• Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
• Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
• Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
• Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
• Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
• Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
• Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
• Dr David Menton, Anatomist
• Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
• Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
• Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
• Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
• Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
• Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
• Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist

Aside from the fact that it is wrong to list people like this as proof of anything, it is subject to sarcastic responses like this:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articl ... 6_2003.asp

But I've been through lists like this before, on other forums, looking for actual scientists or actual creationists. I haven't found someone who is both. That's what lies behind my repeated claim that 100% (all of them) of research biologists accept evolution.

The only qualification put on this is that we are talking about active scientists, not just someone with a degree. It's very easy to get a degree in a subject, and then turn your back on the knowledge you (should have) gained.

So if we are talking about creation scientists we are talking about people doing science. There is no reason that people at creationist institutes can't "do" science. But creationists often claim that there are many real scientists out in the real world who are creationists.

The question is, can we find them? We are looking for active researchers, and that means in their own field. I don't care that an electrical engineer thinks evolution is wrong. Or that a microbiologist may think the earth is 6000 years old. It's not information they use in their professional activities.

So, for the above list, I decided to look of the first biologist and see if he (Dr. Andrew Bosanquet) is in fact 1) an active scientist, and 2) a creationist.

There is a Dr. Andrew Bosanquet at an institute called Bath Cancer Research, associated with Royal United Hospital in Bath in the UK. I can not be sure this is the same person as in the list. This person has published over 80 papers in the scientific literature.

I have looked at the titles of all the papers, and read the abstracts of the ones that might possibly be evolution-related. None of them seem to indicate a creationist outlook. At least one paper reports on an evolutionary topic (the aquisition of resistance to cancer treatments via mutation-inducing drugs).

This is the usual result, as I have found it. This person does not appear to be a creationist in terms of his actual scientific work. I don't know how he came to be on that list. I don't know if he knows he's on the list, or whether he approves of it. I don't know what his personal beliefs may be when he is not acting as a scientist.

But he fails, completely, in terms of being a "creation scientist".

DanZ

[McCulloch]

Actually, no, they aren't arguments from authority. Maybe you didn't read the original thread in which this came up. My providing a list was, as I said, a direct response to Juliod saying there are no Creation Scientists. As I said, maybe you didn't read it, it doesn't matter how many Creation Scientists there are, it wouldn't make Creation any more true. In the same way, Evolutionists assert that all Scientists are evolutionists, which is an argument from authority since no one claims that all scientists are creationists.

I thought about my reply to you last night at work and realized that I'd done so terribly. First off, I stick by my response that the "dueling" lists of PhDs/scientists is nothing more than an attempt at arguing from authority... worse yet it's a red herring and that get's back to where I went wrong in my repy to you.

It does not matter one iota as to whether one or all scientists are creationists. Whether they were or not doesn't address the fossil, biogeographic, atavistic or genetic evidence in the least. Who cares whether 1 PhD or 1000 PhD accept or reject evolutionary theory (though the Project Steve of NCSE results are pretty funny) since no person makes the evidence stick or falter?

It's simply a red herring issue, and if you want to reject it's being an issue of Argument from Authority, at least own up to it being a rediculous tangent from actually addressing the evidences that evolution has occured.

An appeal to authority is a valid form of debate if

1. the person is genuinely qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
2. experts in the field agree on this issue.
3. the authority was not making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious

All that is left, is to show that experts in the field of biology agree or disagree on the specific issue. It really does not matter if a PhD in Theology or Geology accepts or rejects evolutionary theory. But if all bona fide experts in biology accept or reject evolutionary theory, then an appeal to authority is a valid argument. (I am not saying that the experts are necessarily correct. Expert opinion has been known to be wrong before, just that as a non-expert, I have a better chance to hold a correct opinion if my opinion agrees with the experts' consensus. ) However, if a significant number of experts in biology disagree, then any appeal to authority is not valid. Then, unless we are planning to become experts in the field, all we can do is try to evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by the differing experts.

[matt1]

To me the true measure of a creation scientist is at what point does the "scientist" abandon science and finish an explanation with a miracle.

Take RATE and ICR currently they work on helium diffusion through zircon. They are claiming that their findings (in a nut shell more helium left in Zircon than what should be based on the fact that old earth theory would have left plenty of time for it to have escaped) invalidates old earth theory. They had previously argued that that much decay did not happen, it didn't exist. Now they say their helium studies show that it did happen but was accelerated. Their work is dubious to me on several parts. Their science included but the part that is relevant to my thoughts here is this.

Their explanation for accelerated decay. Jesus is controlling the rates.

Here is a quote from a book by Humphreys

Humphreys (2000, p. 334) also acknowledges that young-Earth creationism depends on miracles and actually welcomes them. Concerning the decay rates of radioactive isotopes, Humphreys (2000, p. 367) states:

"It appears that Christ already has direct control of the nuclear (and other) forces, and furthermore that He is intimately involved with them. So even if we cannot follow all the links in the chain of causes back past a certain point, we can be confident that Jesus Christ is not only at the end of it, but at every link along the way. The point I am trying to make is that we should avoid the pitfall of insisting on completely naturalistic explanations for accelerated [radioactive] decay. Instead, my approach is to push the science we think we know as far as is reasonable, but remain ready at every point to see that God has intervened, and is intervening."

How can you consider yourself a scientist when at some point you take your data and explain an outcome with a divine intervention? The evidence does not point to Jesus. Its not science.

[Sender]

To me the true measure of a creation scientist is at what point does the "scientist" abandon science and finish an explanation with a miracle.

That's how evolution began

ke RATE and ICR currently they work on helium diffusion through zircon. They are claiming that their findings (in a nut shell more helium left in Zircon than what should be based on the fact that old earth theory would have left plenty of time for it to have escaped) invalidates old earth theory. They had previously argued that that much decay did not happen, it didn't exist. Now they say their helium studies show that it did happen but was accelerated. Their work is dubious to me on several parts. Their science included but the part that is relevant to my thoughts here is this.

Their explanation for accelerated decay. Jesus is controlling the rates.

Are rates decaying at accelerated rates no matter what the cause?

How can you consider yourself a scientist when at some point you take your data and explain an outcome with a divine intervention? The evidence does not point to Jesus. Its not science.

So then this theory of theirs is unequivically false?

[ShieldAxe]

If you're talking about real science as practiced by real scientists, creationism is not a science because it is unfalsifiable. It cannot be disproven.

Can anyone offer any experiment which would disprove "god created the universe" or "god created life on earth'? It's impossible an therefore not science.

Creation science is a made up field by religionists to sway the scientifically ignorant.

[The Happy Humanist]

So then this theory of theirs is unequivically false?

It is unequivocally not science.

[The Happy Humanist]

Thank you Matt for addressing this RATE nonsense so quickly. If this is their big breakthrough, they have some more breaking through to do.

And welcome to the forum, I can tell already you will be an interesting addition here.

[matt1]

To me the true measure of a creation scientist is at what point does the "scientist" abandon science and finish an explanation with a miracle.

That's how evolution began

ke RATE and ICR currently they work on helium diffusion through zircon. They are claiming that their findings (in a nut shell more helium left in Zircon than what should be based on the fact that old earth theory would have left plenty of time for it to have escaped) invalidates old earth theory. They had previously argued that that much decay did not happen, it didn't exist. Now they say their helium studies show that it did happen but was accelerated. Their work is dubious to me on several parts. Their science included but the part that is relevant to my thoughts here is this.

Their explanation for accelerated decay. Jesus is controlling the rates.

Are rates decaying at accelerated rates no matter what the cause?

How can you consider yourself a scientist when at some point you take your data and explain an outcome with a divine intervention? The evidence does not point to Jesus. Its not science.

So then this theory of theirs is unequivically false?

That's how evolution began

I would argue that evolution began with people trying to rationalize scientic ideals. The explanation of evolution or at least the idea of it requires no miracles

Are rates decaying at accelerated rates no matter what the cause?

No, I believe that they are not. Aside from these two groups no one makes that claim. These two groups make this claim with little for evidence. only a slightly higher Helium retention in some zircon samples. There is no comprehensive sample base (one area of new mexico was tested), no explanation of why natural causes couldn't have contributed to the levels, i.e. contamination, Rock structure, heat etc. also no explanation for why todays rates are published and consistant with old earth theory. Only Jesus did it before we were able to measure it. Why, when did it start, stop, are never addressed. By the way the baseline for their rates was established in man made zircon with perfect crystalline structure much easier for helium diffusion.

So then this theory of theirs is unequivically false?[/

My belief is that it is. However very easy to see that it is unscientific to make the argument. A miracle? How can you lend credence to an organization that argues radio active decay doesn't exist (in print) changes its mind says that it does but its accelerated. It does not address the strict standards that it called for on other forms of dating nor does it address any sort of link proving acceleration other than slightly higher levels of helium. Thats a huge leap to take even for the spiritual.

[Sender]

To me the true measure of a creation scientist is at what point does the "scientist" abandon science and finish an explanation with a miracle.

That's how evolution began

ke RATE and ICR currently they work on helium diffusion through zircon. They are claiming that their findings (in a nut shell more helium left in Zircon than what should be based on the fact that old earth theory would have left plenty of time for it to have escaped) invalidates old earth theory. They had previously argued that that much decay did not happen, it didn't exist. Now they say their helium studies show that it did happen but was accelerated. Their work is dubious to me on several parts. Their science included but the part that is relevant to my thoughts here is this.

Their explanation for accelerated decay. Jesus is controlling the rates.

Are rates decaying at accelerated rates no matter what the cause?

How can you consider yourself a scientist when at some point you take your data and explain an outcome with a divine intervention? The evidence does not point to Jesus. Its not science.

So then this theory of theirs is unequivically false?

That's how evolution began

I would argue that evolution began with people trying to rationalize scientic ideals. The explanation of evolution or at least the idea of it requires no miracles

Are rates decaying at accelerated rates no matter what the cause?

No, I believe that they are not. Aside from these two groups no one makes that claim. These two groups make this claim with little for evidence. only a slightly higher Helium retention in some zircon samples. There is no comprehensive sample base (one area of new mexico was tested), no explanation of why natural causes couldn't have contributed to the levels, i.e. contamination, Rock structure, heat etc. also no explanation for why todays rates are published and consistant with old earth theory. Only Jesus did it before we were able to measure it. Why, when did it start, stop, are never addressed. By the way the baseline for their rates was established in man made zircon with perfect crystalline structure much easier for helium diffusion.

So then this theory of theirs is unequivically false?[/

My belief is that it is. However very easy to see that it is unscientific to make the argument. A miracle? How can you lend credence to an organization that argues radio active decay doesn't exist (in print) changes its mind says that it does but its accelerated. It does not address the strict standards that it called for on other forms of dating nor does it address any sort of link proving acceleration other than slightly higher levels of helium. Thats a huge leap to take even for the spiritual.

I would say let's give these guys a chance to fully explain themselves. This is a teaser of things to come. The finished product is due out later this year. I will wait until then to comment. It was nice to get a sneak preview imo.

[matt1]

Thank you Matt for addressing this RATE nonsense so quickly. If this is their big breakthrough, they have some more breaking through to do.

And welcome to the forum, I can tell already you will be an interesting addition here.

Thank You and thanks for the welcome. RATE and ICR are two of the most easily discovered "science" based creationist groups. The theories are all over the web. So are the dissenting rebuttals, however they do employ a number of published doctors and former professors. Their papers however always seem to lack the completeness you might expect from other scientific journals. On the surface they can be convincing but upon futher examination they rarely address all aspects and usually ignore some of the same arguments they have used in the past to debunk old earth arguments it is frustrating that they don't get called out more for those things.

[Sender]

Did you ever email them your question? If so, how did they respond? And I also welcome you matt1.