Are there any scientists that believe in Creationism/ID?

[otseng]

This has been brought up if there are any credible scientists that believe in Creationism/Intelligent Design. Many consider Creationism/ID to have so little scientific basis that no credible scientist would subscribe to it.

So, the question to explore - are there any credible scientists that believe in Creationism/Intelligent Design?

[otseng]

Here is a partial list:

- Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
- Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
- Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)
- Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)
- Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
- Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
- Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)
- Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
- Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
- David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
- Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)
- Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
- Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
- Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
- Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)
- Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
- Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
- Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)
- Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
- Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)
- Duane T. Gish (biochemist)
- John Grebe (chemist)
- Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
- William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
- George F. Howe (botanist)
- D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)
- James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
- Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
- John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)
- Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)
- Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)
- Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
- Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
- Frank L. Marsh (biologist)
- Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
- James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
- Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
- Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
- Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
- Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)
- Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
- Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
- William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
- John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
- Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
- Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
- James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
- Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
- George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
- Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)
- William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
- Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)
- Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
- Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
- A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)
- A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)
- John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

Source:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... tists.html

[Lotan]

Hi otseng

I've seen this list before and I've wondered "why do they bother?"
Why do they bother to include people like Kepler or Linnaeus or da Vinci who lived hundreds of years before Darwin and would have never considered the possibility of evolution? Why do they bother to include someone like Michael Faraday, who might have been a brilliant experimenter but was uneducated by modern standards? He knew nothing about DNA or australopithecines or homeobox genes, and neither did many of the "credible scientists" on this list. Why do they bother to list these famous scientists, whose opinions could not be informed by modern scientific discovery, and are therefore irrelevant?
Seems to me that the answer involves dishonest creationist name-dropping, in an attempt to sway opinion. Argument by authority does nothing to add to the credibility of the creationist position, and neither does this list.

[otseng]

As to why they would "bother" with listing scientists that lived in the past, I did not compile the list. So, I cannot comment on the reasons they did so.

If your accusation is that we can only cite contemporary scientists, here is a list of people in the biological sciences:

Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry (ICR)
Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology (ICR)
Patricia Lynnea Gathman Nason, Ph.D. (ICR)
David Dewitt, Ph.D. Neuroscience (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
Frank Sherwin, M.A. Zoology (Parasitology) (ICR)
Todd C. Wood, Ph.D. Biochemistry/Genomics
Robert Franks, M.D. (Adjunct Faculty/Board Member)
Robert H. Eckel, M.D. (Technical Advisory Board)
Gary Parker, Ed.D. Biology (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Microbiology
David Menton, Ph.D. Cell Biology (Technical Advisory Board)
Raymond V. Damadian, M.D. (Technical Advisory Board)
Joseph A. Mastropaolo, Ph.D. Kinesiology/Physiology (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
Carl B. Fliermans, Ph.D. Microbiology (Technical Advisory Board)
Ian G. Macreadie, Ph.D. Molecular Biology
Andre Eggen, Ph.D. Animal/Molecular Genetics
Lyubka P. Tantcheva, Ph.D. Biochemical Toxicology
Walter J. Veith, Ph.D. Zoology
John K.G. Kramer, Ph.D. Biochemistry
Benjamin L. Aaron, M.D. (Board Member)
Sharon K. Bullock, Ph.D. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
John R. Meyer, Ph.D. Zoology (Technical Advisory Board)
Lane P. Lester, Ph.D. Genetics (Technical Advisory Board)
Alan Gillen, Ed.D. Science Education
Gregory J. Brewer, Ph.D. Biology
Roger W. Sanders, Ph.D. Botany
Arthur J. Jones, Ph.D. Biology
Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D. Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology
Donna O'Daniel, M.A. Biological Sciences
Glen W. Wolfrom, Ph.D. Animal Husbandry
Mark H. Armitage, M.S. Biology
David A. Demick, M.D.
Randy Guliuzza, M.D.
Keith Swenson, M.D.
George F. Howe, Ph.D. Botany
David A. Kaufmann, Ph.D. Anatomy
Jonathan B. Scripture, Ph.D. Biochemistry
Richard Oliver , Ph.D. Biology
Inis J. Bardella, M.D.
Gary A. Eckhoff, D.V.M.

Source: http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/b ... tists.html

[Lotan]

As to why they would "bother" with listing scientists that lived in the past, I did not compile the list. So, I cannot comment on the reasons they did so.

I know that you didn't compile the list, like I said, I've seen it before. It's just propaganda, designed so that people can say "Of course I believe in Creation, (insert name here) believed it, so I do too."

The ICR list isn't all that impressive either, considering that the 'scientists' listed as belonging to ICR research groups are required to sign a statement of faith which effectively nullifies any objectivity they may have once had. Here's the beginning...
"1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs. To students of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths."
So, no matter where their research leads, we know where it will end.
As for the rest, how many have actually published, within their respective fields, anything that actually challenges the ToE? Zero, maybe?
To put this list in perspective, please consider Project Steve.

[otseng]

The ICR list isn't all that impressive either, considering that the 'scientists' listed as belonging to ICR research groups are required to sign a statement of faith which effectively nullifies any objectivity they may have once had. Here's the beginning...
"1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs. To students of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths."

Nullifies any objectivity? Are only those who disbelieve in the Bible objective?

To put this list in perspective, please consider Project Steve.

Perspective? How does it put things into perspective?

As a note, I'm not presenting the list of scientists as evidence to support creationism. I am simply responding to the initial inquiry, "Perhaps you could cite some examples of world leading biologists / paleontologists / etc that think “creationism” is a credible theory?"

[richic]

This is a fairly small list of respected scientists. I don't understand all the fuss on the Evolution side. The fact that there are a few dissenters shouldn't bother them. Isn't common descent as valuable and supportable as the law of gravity?

Methinks they doth protest too much.

That Steve site comes across as a little desperate. I didn't know ridicule was a part of the scientific method.

Is there any bias against Creationist/ID scientists in major universities?

[dangerdan]

If your accusation is that we can only cite contemporary scientists, here is a list of people in the biological sciences:

Err, yes. I was asking about recent world leading biologist, paleontologists, etc that thought evolution is less credible than creationism. Perhaps not any scientist, in any field, at any point in history, that has believed in some vague kind of spiritual supernatural origin thing. So yes, maybe Francis Bacon, Michael Faraday, Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, are not quite relevant to my question.

Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry (ICR)
Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology (ICR)
Patricia Lynnea Gathman Nason, Ph.D. (ICR)
David Dewitt, Ph.D. Neuroscience (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
Frank Sherwin, M.A. Zoology (Parasitology) (ICR)

Ahhh, ICR, what a well respected scientific establishment that one is.

Hmmm, this is why I’m not the greatest fan of Evolution/Creation debates…you have to do heeeeaps of research and get into tedious authority checks to see if the person is objective or not…anyway, I’ll start my way through this list and just type their name into –

A – Google to see what i can see.
B - www.sciencedaily.com search directory to see if they have done any papers recently.
C – BBC search engine to see what I can see.

Does this sound like a reasonable method?

Ok, first off the ranks is Duane Gish…

Ok he seems to be the big dude at ICR…so far, it’s not boding too well…answersingenesis like him –

www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_gish.asp

and this person tears him to shreds

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html

actually that last one he writes to the author and then the authors responds again. Interesting reading.

Ok, he hasn’t published anything noteworthy by sciencedaily, in fact the only thing they had from my search “Duane Gish” was a link to a website where he’s written an article. That’s not a good sign if your not showing up on the sciencedaily radar…

And last was the BBC check. He had one search result from the BBC. His views where presented in a program by the BBC, here is the link to the transcript.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... ript.shtml

in the article, he’s not really portrayed as too much of a mover and shaker in the science world. More almost an oddity that was frustratingly still correct in saying there was rare transitions between fish and a tetrapods.

Ok, one down…This is pretty tedious. Can I just use a sciencedaily as my science barometer?

[jwu]

Nullifies any objectivity? Are only those who disbelieve in the Bible objective?

No. There is a significant difference between considering everything in the Bible automatically to be wrong just because it's there (which would not be objective either, just in the opposite direction) and being willing to consider that the Bible might be inaccurate or simply wrong about science related issues. Those ICR people admit that they won't change their mind no matter what. How can this be considered objective?

To put this list in perspective, please consider Project Steve.

Perspective? How does it put things into perspective?

YECs often post a list and then argue that "many" scientists support creation. Project steve puts this into perspective by demonstrating that even though there might be like 50 entries on that list, these are still only a tiny number compared to the number of scientists who support evolution.
Of course, it's not a logical proof in any way, on neither side - but it effectively cancels out the YEC argument that "many scientists", which otherwise can be interpreted as "a significant percentage" of the scientific community support young earth creationism.

Since you however did not attempt to make it appear like this but simply demonstrated that "not all" scientists are evolutionists, the project steve list indeed kinda missed your point here.

jwu

[Lotan]

As a note, I'm not presenting the list of scientists as evidence to support creationism. I am simply responding to the initial inquiry, "Perhaps you could cite some examples of world leading biologists / paleontologists / etc that think “creationism” is a credible theory?"

Hi otseng

Since you opened a new thread for the purpose of discussing this issue, rather than simply posting a link, or these lists in reply to dangerdan, I don't think that a discussion of these lists, or the reason they were created is out of order. If there are scientists on those lists that you feel meet the required criteria, then please say so and then we can discuss them. What is the point of listing individuals whose opinions are irrelevant, one way or the other, simply because they can be labelled 'scientists'? I think that the issue should be whether or not anyone on those lists can be considered 'credible' as you have described them.