show_no_mercy

I always wanted to know if there are any scientists who reject evolution... especially if there are ones that Creationists like to name-drop.

Prince Vegita

Depends what you mean by "credibility". For starters, there aren't many creation scientists, period. Most creationists tout scientific credentials but don't actually do science, or did the bare bones to get the degree and have ceased any scientific activity since. This becomes more accurate the closer you get to biology (e.g. you might find more creationist scientists who are physicists or chemists, or maybe engineers, but when you get to the actual field of biology you've got like 3 people to work with).

This will be fun. Michael Behe, IMO, could be considered a credible scientist. Not to suggest that he's a good scientist, or a smart one, but a credible one (albeit barely). I justify that by saying 1. he has maintained a lab 2. he still publishes in peer reviewed journals (although his track record is less than impressive for a biochemist) and 3. he is able to admit he's wrong on scientific points (although this takes more effort than rowing a boat from the UK to China). He just happens to be very, very wrong about one very big theory (hence those good/smart scientist comments), but I have hopes that eventually he'll let go of his dogma and embrace the evidence.

Albion

Well, Fred Hoyle was a credible scientist who rejected evolution, but his scientific credibility was in a quite different area; astrophysics isn't quite the same thing as evolutionary biology.

I don't think Michael Behe rejects evolution in the same way as YECs do. Far as I know, he accepts common descent.

Duane Gish used to be a credible scientist, but I don't think his credible science career and his career as a creationist apologist overlapped by much, if anything.

mirage

[unfair comment]And he didn't exactly jump the right way on the "Big Bang theory" either. How many cornerstone theories can you be wrong on in one illustrious career?[/unfair comment]

Dean Anderson

I was under the impression that he was okay with evolution - it was just abiogenesis that he had a problem with.

After all, he didn't suggest that his Panspermia involved Giraffes and Penguins hitching rides on comets...

mirage

:rolling:
Good point. Yes of course his notorious analogy of a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747 refers to abiogenesis. At least he showed that Godditit isn't the only alternative to.<ahem> conventional naturalism.

show_no_mercy

Wouldn't naming anyone outside the field of biology be an appeal to authority? Kinda like asking a math teacher a question about art history.

On a totally unrelated note, I'm right in the middle of writing a final paper for my Asian studies course and I happen to be including some references to DBZ

Albion

Far as I remember, he wheeled out quite a few bog-standard creationist objections to evolution as well as abiogenesis in "The Intelligent Universe." Been a while since I read it, though.

Killer Mike

You hit the nail on the head. There really are so few if any credible scientists that reject evolution. Behe accepts descent with modification but introduces irriducible complexity to argue it could not have happened by the laws of nature so a "god" must be postulated (its simply a fancy version of the god of the gaps). You go to any major university including the top ones in the world like Harvard, Yale, Oxford evolution is accepted and taught as basic as atoms are taught in chemistry. The overwhelming reaction by scientists to creationism is not positive. Even the "new creationism" of Intelligent Design which trys to project a more sophisticated approach has been rejected.

But biology is not the only discipline with a few "oddballs". In dentistry for example 99% of all dentists accept fluoridation as a good health preventative measure for dental care. It is accepted by the American Dental Association, American Medical Association and has been part of the public health recommendations for 30 years. But there are a few "oddballs" and there is even a dentistry professor at the University of Toronto (I cant remember his name of hand) who opposes fluoridation (even though other professors at this university support fluoridation).

I think the fact evolution is accepted by 99% of all scientists in the biological sciences speaks for itself. The creationists might have a better argument if the split was say 50/50.

mirage

I suppose it's as good a time as any to mention Project Steve in case you haven't heard of it.
Up to 519 now.