REAL Scientists Who Believe in Creationism: Do They Exist?

There go them country bumpkins again!

One of the biggest fallacies promoted by devoted Darwinian evolutionists is that Intelligent Design is not real science, and that those who promote it are not real scientists. Creationists are portrayed as uneducated country bumpkins committed to taking the world back to horse and buggy days. Technology has fought God, and technology won. Man does not need God, because he controls his own destiny, so say Darwin’s disciples. Need further proof? Google Intelligent Design and click on the images link. The first three pages are primarily funny cartoons devoted to the ridicule of Intelligent Design and its followers. Powerfully funny, except also very false.
There are many scientists today that reject Darwinian evolution and embrace Intelligent Design. Additionally, there is a rich history of scientists who believed in a Creator. As a matter of fact, every major branch of science that we have today can trace its history back to founders that embraced the notion of a Creator. Indeed, history demonstrates that science has flourished the most in societies that believed in a Creator.
The following list contains many creationist scientists, but it is in no way exhaustive. You may notice the presence of many famous ones who were founders:

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) [more info]

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)

For more information, click here:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

For even more extensive lists, click here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

That’s a lot of impressive credentials in my book.

Advertisements

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://bassethound.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/real-scientists-who-believe-in-creationism-do-they-exist/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

17 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. You’re correct, there are scientists who favour ID over evolution:

    According to Newsweek in 1987, “By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science…”

    Outside the US there are far fewer.

    Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/

  2. That a scientist supports intelligent design doesn’t mean that intelligent design is science. I’m sure some scientists collect stamps, too. Does that make stamp collecting science?

  3. …Compared to nearly 800 scientists by the name of “Steve” who support evolution.

  4. …Compared to nearly 800 scientists by the name of “Steve” who support evolution.

    Dear Stephen (may I call you “Steve” also?),
    I’m glad you posted about the “National Center for Science Education”, one of my favorite poster-child organizations that represent a great example of how Darwinians are just as religious if not more so than many creationists. The whole organization is a front to hide what is their true cause, converting people to materialism, humanism, and atheism–isms that have nothing to do with science. Darwinists love to hide behind the word science with evey sacred opinion they hold, pretending that they are above public debate and hiring the ACLU to censor opposition and legally dominate public discussion. More details can be found at this link
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/189.asp
    Thanks for the post, Stephen. I would like to invite
    you to check back in the future when I present actual scientific problems reguarding Darwinian evolution. I would like to know if there are legitimate answers out there. Come to think of it, you can bring those 800 other Steves with you if you like.
    Bassethound

  5. Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention:
    1) The list was not exhaustive
    2) Truth is not subject to a popularity poll–either it is or it isn’t.
    Bassethound

  6. That a scientist supports intelligent design doesn’t mean that intelligent design is science. I’m sure some scientists collect stamps, too. Does that make stamp collecting science?–Simen

    I believe an intelligent being created the incredibly complex universe we live in. Most Darwinist believe something was created out of nothing, that the something was the size of a period and exploded (big bang) and rearranged itself undirected into the universe we have today; that life came from a soup by processes that can’t be observed today or duplicated in a laboratory; that man evolved from ape-like creatures even though the few transitional forms like Lucy and neandrathal man have been thoroughly discredited.
    And they say Creationists have unsubstantiated faith and Darwinians have science? GET REAL!!!
    By the way–that stamp collection would not exist if it were not for some intelligent designers. Why is it such a reach to think that would be true of the rest of the universe?
    Maybe it’s because people are running from the implication–if someone designed and made me, maybe I’m accountable to that Someone . . .

    Bassethound

  7. Bassethound, you didn’t answer my question. I pointed out that a scientist’s endorsement of a subject does not make that subject science. I then asked if, given a scientist’s endorsement of stamp collecting, you would be prepared to accept stamp collecting as science.

    As for the rest of your comment, you are making a fine example of argument from personal ignorance. You cannot imagine anything other than creation, so you believe that creation is the only possible way the current state of affairs could’ve come about.

    You make a load of assertions about evolution being discredited. Now back up your claims. Prove it. Evidence please. Scientific evidence, not theology.

    If you’d like to see the scientific evidence for evolution, have a look at talk.origins.

  8. “Bassethound, you didn’t answer my question. I pointed out that a scientist’s endorsement of a subject does not make that subject science. I then asked if, given a scientist’s endorsement of stamp collecting, you would be prepared to accept stamp collecting as science.”

    Okay, I’ll answer your question with a question:
    That a scientist supports evolution doesn’t mean that evolution is science. I’m sure some scientists collect stamps, too. Does that make stamp collecting science?

    “As for the rest of your comment, you are making a fine example of argument from personal ignorance. You cannot imagine anything other than creation, so you believe that creation is the only possible way the current state of affairs could’ve come about.”

    Personal ignorance, you say? You know absolutely nothing about my background, and assume the rest. Maybe you feel this way because You cannot imagine anything other than evolution, so you believe that evolution is the only possible way the current state of affairs could’ve come about.
    Whoops, I better not make that same mistake. I can not read your mind, and neither can you read my mind. Labeling someone who diagrees with you as just simply ignorant is pretty arrogant.

    “You make a load of assertions about evolution being discredited. Now back up your claims. Prove it. Evidence please. Scientific evidence, not theology.”

    It’s coming in future blog entries. That’s not a dodge, it’s just a need for nore time. I want to be thorough when I do put the information out. I am also going to shift the burden of proof back to the Darwinian side, though, because this blog is about examining the claims of Darwinian theory just as much as promoting Intelligent Design.

    Bassethound

  9. I’ve never claimed that the support of scientists is what makes evolution science. Evolution is based on empirical observations, makes testable predictions and many tests have been done that comfirm those predictions. That makes it science. ID is unfalsifiable mumbo jumbo.

    Personal ignorance, you say? You know absolutely nothing about my background, and assume the rest. Maybe you feel this way because You cannot imagine anything other than evolution, so you believe that evolution is the only possible way the current state of affairs could’ve come about.
    Whoops, I better not make that same mistake. I can not read your mind, and neither can you read my mind. Labeling someone who diagrees with you as just simply ignorant is pretty arrogant.

    You’re right, I’m no mind reader. That doesn’t mean I can’t make some observations regarding your thought patterns from what you write. You are ignorant of science if you think that

    Most Darwinist believe something was created out of nothing, that the something was the size of a period and exploded (big bang) and rearranged itself undirected into the universe we have today; that life came from a soup by processes that can’t be observed today or duplicated in a laboratory; that man evolved from ape-like creatures even though the few transitional forms like Lucy and neandrathal man have been thoroughly discredited.

    This isn’t true. I’d like you to produce the evidence that supports these claims. You should know that:

    Nobody says something came out of nothing. “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is just as much of a problem for theists as for atheists, if it is a problem. “Why is there a god rather than nothing?”
    The observable universe was smaller than a period at the time of the Big Bang.
    The Big Bang wasn’t an explosion, not in the way we imagine it. “Big Bang” as a term was used to mock the theory.
    The processes that created life may very well be going strong today in areas where the conditions are right; that we don’t have access to such places is unsurprising.
    “Transitional forms” are a human concept. Evolution says that every species is in constant transition. Neanderthals and such have not been scientifically discredited.

  10. You’re correct, there are scientists who favour ID over evolution:

    According to Newsweek in 1987, “By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science…”

    Outside the US there are far fewer.

    Hey Juke,
    That’s an interesting link you have there. I checked it out and found it on many places on the internet, but I can not find the original article so that I can view it in context and analyze the methodology behind it. I’m sure it will not surprise you to hear that I think the numbers are skewed in favor of evolution, but I admit evolutionists do outnumber ID proponents. This should not be surprising though, considering how one-sided they are in teaching about this in our institutions of higher learning.
    Not every scientist believes in the accuracy of this poll, however. Dr D. Russell Humphreys, a nuclear physicist who works at Sandia National Laboratories, claims that through simple statistical analysis he can demonstrate that there are 10,000 young earth creationist scientists in America alone. That of course, would be just a subset of the total number who reject Darwinian evolution. See link:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/question.asp
    One other reason that would make it important to analyze the methodology of that survey is because you could get widely different results depending on what definition of evolution you used. By one definition, even I would label myself an evolutionist because I believe in changes within species, although it is limited by the genetic information already there. For a deeper explanation, click on this:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp

  11. “I’ve never claimed that the support of scientists is what makes evolution science. Evolution is based on empirical observations, makes testable predictions and many tests have been done that comfirm those predictions. That makes it science. ID is unfalsifiable mumbo jumbo.”

    The point of the article was not to propose that the support of scientists is what makes ID science either, but to rebut the assertion that all true scientists are evolutionists. Evolution is not based on just the scientific method, but also on a hard nosed prior commitment to naturalism that effectively limits conclusions. That is philosophy, not science, and can not be subjected to the rigors of the scientific method.

    “Most Darwinist believe something was created out of nothing, that the something was the size of a period and exploded (big bang) and rearranged itself undirected into the universe we have today; that life came from a soup by processes that can’t be observed today or duplicated in a laboratory; that man evolved from ape-like creatures even though the few transitional forms like Lucy and neandrathal man have been thoroughly discredited.

    This isn’t true. I’d like you to produce the evidence that supports these claims. You should know that:

    1) Nobody says something came out of nothing. “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is just as much of a problem for theists as for atheists, if it is a problem. “Why is there a god rather than nothing?”
    2) The observable universe was smaller than a period at the time of the Big Bang.
    3) The Big Bang wasn’t an explosion, not in the way we imagine it. “Big Bang” as a term was used to mock the theory.
    4) The processes that created life may very well be going strong today in areas where the conditions are right; that we don’t have access to such places is unsurprising.
    5) “Transitional forms” are a human concept. Evolution says that every species is in constant transition. Neanderthals and such have not been scientifically discredited.”

    1) There is some truth in that statement. The big bang theory evolved (forgive the pun) at least in part after many scientists began rejecting the notion of matter being eternal because of the discovery of these two scientific laws:
    1) First Law of Thermodynamics–matter can be neither created or destroyed (which seems to suggest the idea of eternal matter, until it meets the second law).
    2) Second Law of Thermodynamics–the universe is slowing down, moving towards disorder and decay.
    Combine these laws with the red shift, the observation that every thing in the universe is moving away from a center point, and it appears that matter is not eternal, and the further back in time you go, the closer you get to a starting point. You elude to this problem at this point ““Why is there something rather than nothing?” is just as much of a problem for theists as for atheists, if it is a problem. “Why is there a god rather than nothing?”
    Either there was God, or something from nothing. There are no alternatives, and it is not a question that can be answered in a lab. At this point it is not science at all but religion or philosophy, or more specifically, God or naturalism. Most scientists at this point reveal their devotion to naturalism.

    2) OK, the size of a period vs. smaller than the size of a period. I will surrender without a fight.

    3) I read on another site that it wasn’t an explosion, but rather like a cake expanding in the oven. Sounds like advocating orderly design to me.

    4) Point #4 sounds like you are breaking your own rule (and the First Law of Thermodynamics). Scientific evidence, please.

    5) I am going to pass on this one. You can see how long winded these comment entries are getting. I would rather give my opinion in a complete blog entry.

    Bassethound

  12. Matter is not moving away from a center point in space. There is no center in the universe.

    Either there was God, or something from nothing. There are no alternatives, and it is not a question that can be answered in a lab.

    Special pleading. You will allow God to exist of itself, but you won’t allow the universe to exist of itself. That’s unsound logic.

    I read on another site that it wasn’t an explosion, but rather like a cake expanding in the oven. Sounds like advocating orderly design to me.

    You’re reading into this anything that will support your view. It is an analogy, an like all analogies it’s imperfect.

    4) Point #4 sounds like you are breaking your own rule (and the First Law of Thermodynamics). Scientific evidence, please.

    The second law of thermodynamics: “The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.” The universe as a whole is an isolated system. The earth is not an isolated system, because it gets energy from the Sun.

  13. Red Shift–expansion of the universe

    http://www.arachnoid.com/sky/redshift.html

    I don’t believe I claimed the earth was an isolated system–What is your point exactly?

    Granted, this is untestable–you can’t summon God and test Him to see if He’s eternal and transcends natural laws. But we can test and see the universe and see if it is eternal, assuming natural laws stay the same–that is where my arguments on the laws of thermodynamics were heading. The implication is clear–A universe that is not eternal had to have a beginning. If it began, it must have had something or someone to kick it off. A self-starting universe can not be something scientifically measured, and is as much an example of special pleading as any.
    For anyone else who may read this and need a clear definition, click here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
    Take note of third bullet point.
    My “reading into things” is not different than someone forcing naturalistic assumptions in their explanations to the exclusion of all other possibilities. Once again, naturalism is philosophy, not science. Pick your bias, please, don’t claim that you don’t have one.

  14. You implied that life couldn’t arise because the second law of thermodynamics says that the universe moves towards a less “orderly” (note quotes; orderly is not the wording of the second law of thermodynamics) state, thus rendering evolution impossible. This is a common creationist argument that is wrong, because the law is about isolated systems, and the Earth is not an isolated system.

    My point is that you have failed to answer the question “why is there a god rather than nothing?”. That is to say, since there is something rather than nothing we must assume either that something once came out of nothing or that something has always been. Now, that something could be a god or it could be completely natural. To claim that the cause of the universe can be a god but not a natural cause is special pleading.

  15. Very Intersesting Stuff here!

  16. Evolutionists are either crazy or deceived beyond belief.

    The following is just a minute list of reasons why evolution is impossible :

    Not one single organ in the human body can be shown to have evolved from something lesser,

    Not one system.

    Cardiovascular, for example :

    The heart is a muscle, which must be fed by blood flow just like every other muscle.

    This is a reiterative process, The heart pumps blood, which feeds the heart muscle, so that the heart can pump blood, etc,
    The is an eternal loop, as long as the creature is alive.
    That is why the unborn baby needs to be fed in the uterus from the mother’s blood.
    This process goes back generation before generation before generation, etc.
    There had to be a start somewhere, and it is totally logical to imagine that the original mother had to have been kick-started, or “booted”, just as a computer must be loaded via a “bootstrap loaded” when the computer is IPL’d or booted.
    The creation idea is perfectly logical as a model, and is therefore in and of itself perfectly “scientific”

    And the same goes for every other part of every other creature or plant which has ever existed on this planet.

    How did the heart exist and function while blood was evolving? Evolutionists have no answer.
    They just lie and obfuscate. People who have no answers must lie their way through the process, because they have no valid arguments for answering the questions.

    How did the creature exist while lungs were evolving, while the brain was evolving, while the pancreas and liver, and spleen, intestines, skeletal structure, endocrine system, digestive system, lymphatic system, the senses, eyesight, hearing, thought, feeling, taste, smell, memory, were developing?

    These systems are so complex that the idea that these systems all evolved is stunningly absurd, Evolutionists have absolutely no answer to any of this.

    Bees cannot exist without flowers, and flowers cannot exist without bees. Millions of such symbiotic relationships exists on earth. Interlinking systems and subsystems and sub-subsystems which all depend on each other. Darwin knew absolutely nothing about 99.99% of these systems, many of which were unknown prior to the development of the electron microscope.

    Queen ants, termites, and bees cannot live without the very workers to which they give birth via the queen’s eggs,

    Something had to have kick-started the process with the social insects.

    Instinct. How does a robin know to fly north/south, where to fly, how far, how to build a nest, how to mate.

    The monarch butterfly flies north, lays eggs in Kansas, and the next generation flies back south from Canada to Mexico where the parents started. How does that tiny butterfly brain know where to go and what to do?

    Metamorphosis is a 3-step process. To believe that this process evolved over period of time is utterly absurd and frankly utterly stupid.

    While the process was evolving, how could the evolving creature have survived to the next generation so that the evolutionary process could continue?

    There is absolutely no proof that metamorphosis evolved. This is strictly a figment of people’s imagination.
    I could go on endlessly. There is no end to the arguments against evolution. The number of arguments against evolution is probably easily in the billions or trillions. Nobody has ever compiled the complete list, which would be voluminous.

    Evolutionists lie and describe these arguments as religious arguments. They are NOT. These are common-sense, scientific arguments by the smartest, best-educated people on earth.

    My background is in electrical engineering, biology, mathematics, computer science for the last 40 years.

    Evolutionists are pathetic, and are just as wrong as people 150 years ago who fervently believed that people from Africa were subhuman and should be kept as slaves.

    Those racists are looked back upon today as fools. Evoltionists are fools of no less magnitude.

    I will stop here in the interest of time and length of text. I could continue with these proofs against evolution from now until the moment of my death, even if I were to live another 100 years. There is no end to it.

    Feel free to email me. I would love to discuss this in a friendly way with anyone.

    clairmerlewilson@yahoo.com

    From Chemung, NY

  17. The entire evolution vs creation debate could be settled very simply and ended forever.
    All evolutionists need to do is show how life came from nothing and evolved.
    If this is really what happened, why cannot this be demonstrated? Just put the ingredients together in a test tube, heat it, chill it, shock it, add chemicals, or whatever.
    Surely if “nothingness” could create life, the entire combination of experience and intelligence on earth today can create life, right?
    But guess what? Nobody has done it yet, after generations of trying. This would be the greatest scientific breakthrough and discovery in history. The guy who figures out how to create life from non-living material would be more famous than Einstein, Newton, and all the other scientists combined. Just think what that ability would do for the world (both good and bad).
    But nobody can do it. Nobody can even come close to creating one single living, reproducing cell, let alone all the creatures and intelligence which currently exist and have existed on earth.
    So how are we supposed to believe that evolution did it?
    Only a fool would believe this myth. Evolutionists keeps calling believers in creation as stupid. But the real stupid ones are the ones who believe that nothingness (zero intelligence) did what all the world’s combined intelligence and experience cannot do.

    Now who is really the stupid one?

    Clair Wilson

    Chemung, NY


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: