DireStraits

It is often claimed - correctly - that there were hunders of creationist scientists who contributed mightily to humanity's scientific coffers.

Who are the great scientists who were also creationists of the past fifty years who actually used creation science in their research?

ex-robot

If you go to ICR's list of scientists, they have a faq that addresses the term "creation scientist". It is nothing more than a scientist who believes in creation. I can only assume that they just do science like everyone else when they invent the mri, use microbes to detect land mines, research aids and cancer, etc. The book, What is Creation Science, by Morris and Parker is said to contain no mention of the Bible, Genesis, etc. I can only assume this means that "creation science" doesn't always contain the bible, god, adam and eve, etc. The book, In Six Days, does however have a short bit how Dr. John Kramer used it for his research on canola oil that led to fda approval of some kind. If anyone is interested, I'll look up what he actually says about it.

xr

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: ex-robot ]</p>

DireStraits

I'm looking for a scientific discovry that has been made using creation science.

ex-robot

It has never happened and probably never will. Discoveries are made by creationist and evolutionist alike using science. Scientists who believe in creation don't say "Hmmmm. I think I'll use creation science instead of science to approach this problem/situation".

xr

GeoTheo

Hey Dire Straits: Here is what happens:
A REAL scientist working in academia or some other reseach center may try to publish an article in a journal that mentions creation. No body will touch it with a ten foot pole. They respond by saying somthing polite like" That is outside of the purpose and scope of our publication."
So they don't get published.
Then you get wise remarks like "why don't any of these Creationist have things published in legitimate Scientific journals?"
There are Scientists like this and I will dig some up. They may have other things published that don't mention creation.
So they could just keep plugging away at research in whatever area they work in and keep quiet about it. Or they could decide to go off and be a preacher for one of the Creation ministries, but not all people are called to be a preacher.
There is a Medical Doctor I know of that is a Scientist also because he did research in genetics that is a creationist and I don't see why their would not be several others in various fields. There are other areas in academia that are hostile to a Christian Worldview also but their are conservative Christians working there.

S2Focus

Then why don't we ever see any of these rejected articles? If "creation-scientists" want to make a convincing case against mainstream journals, then they need to publish those rejected articles (along with the reviewers' comments) on the web for all to see. Then we could all see for ourselves the kind of quality "creation-science" research that mainstream journals unfairly refuse to publish. It would cost the ICR and AIG next to nothing to provide a few megabytes of disk-space on their servers to archive copies of "creation-science" papers that were submitted to, and then rejected by, mainstream journals.

But creationists don't seem to be inclined to do so. They just love to whine about how their work is systematically excluded from mainstream journals, but they never produce examples of work that has been submitted to those journals .

By all means dig up a few of their rejected articles as well. Please produce the title of each rejected article, along with the name of the journal to which it was submitted. Links to copies of the rejected articles, along with the reviewers' comments, would be most helpful. Unless you can produce specific evidence of this nature, we will conclude that you, like other creationists, are simply blowing smoke with regard to this matter.

Well, that's where the easy money is. If you have what it takes to be a "preacher", then you can make an OK living selling snake-oil to the credulous. That's a heck of a lot easier than having your work scrutinized by people who actually understand the subject material. Just ask Ken Ham, Duane Gish, "Dr." Hovind, Carl Baugh, etc...; they'll agree with me.

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: S2Focus ]</p>

lpetrich

Many mainstream scientists working on the history of life on Earth had been before the publication of Charles Darwin's magnum opus in 1859. However, in the early nineteenth century, it had become very apparent that the Earth is much older than 6000 years, and all those creationists were Hugh-Ross-style old-earthers. This was even true of such post-Darwinian stragglers as Louis Agassiz, the last reputable creationist.

His beliefs were a big departure from Genesis literalism -- he believed in special creations over geological time, and that an entire population of a species would be created across its entire range. He also believed that each species was a separate special creation, meaning that there were an enormous number of such creations in the Earth's history.

Darwin had succeeded because he had made a very convincing case for evolution and how it would account for such features as biogeography. Present-day creationists are very weak on biogeography; maybe they are unconsciously aware that that is a serious weak spot in their theories.

scigirl

Heh, I don't care how smart or educated i am, if I tried to publish an article that refutes the existence of gravity, with nothing more than misquotes of newton or miscalculations of f=ma, it better get rejected! Gravity has abundant evidence, and it has worked to explain phenomena in the unverse for centuries.

Substitute gravity for "evolution" and maybe you'll see why these articles aren't published.

The creationists were proven wrong over 150 years ago, continue to be wrong, and they have no business even pretending to have "science" supporting their claims.

I do agree with ex-robot that many people can hold creationist, or more likely, intelligent design views, yet still be excellent scientists. Being a "real scientist" myself (that's for you theo), I do know several people who are both christians (or muslims) and scientists, and firmly believe that God (or Allah) created the universe and everything in it. However, most of them accept all, or part, of evolutionary theory. How does their religion affect their science? How does my atheism affect the way I do science? It probably doesn't make any difference in the day-to-day operations of a lab. I think personality differences affect people's scientific skills more than their beliefs - whether they are careful or forgetful, inventive or non-inventive, more likely to accept status quo or more willing to challenge it, etc. And there are theists and non-theists in all of those categories.

How anyone could be a literal 6-day young earth creationist and still be a scientist simply boggles my mind. The existence of these people, I think, illustrates the amazing capacity of the human brain to compartmentalize beliefs.

Think about what YECS are trying to do: They believe that an ancient story, that originated in a very primitive culture thousands of years ago, that was written before people knew about bacteria, viruses, or DNA, that hasn't changed much since its origination, is a more accurate description of the universe than science texts, which were compiled over the centuries by people who were studying the universe, re-written as new data surfaced, that include things like viruses and DNA and gravity.

I sympathise with ID'ers (having been one myself a while back) but I will never understand the mind of a YEC. If only they used the part of their brain that worked for real science, instead of trying to conform science to a mythological story that, frankly, isn't even that good.


scigirl

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

Bubba

This indeed is the most serious problem for YEC. There have been no new arguements for YEC in the 40 plus years since the Genesis flood was published, and most have been refuted over and over again...

Whereas evolution has gained a tremendous amount of evidence in the last 40 years, and continues to do so.

I'm with Scigirl, I can't understand why you would be a thinking person and want to reject the empirical evience of the earth's past.

Bubba

Starboy

Hi scigirl and bubba,

People like GeoTheo are stuck in a "Truth Trap". There is no such thing as disconfirming evidence for GeoTheo. The only way I know of to open the trap door is to get him by himself after he has experienced a compelling disconfirming event. Otherwise forget it. I am not an expert on cognitive dissonance, but I think that part of why GeoTheo is here is to strengthen his faith by trying to convert others. Either that or he is a perverse bastard Christrian who likes to pester atheists. You be the judge.

Starboy