MrDarwin

Does anybody know if all of the scientists listed on <a href="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html" target="_blank">this page</a> and on
<a href="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/physicalscientists.html" target="_blank">this page</a> are really all YEC's who believe the earth is only 6,000 years or so old?

[ April 01, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

tgamble

If you mean the junk he publishes in some ICR rag, that doesn't count.

Gish is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science? Didn't they publish some kind of position statement on evolution? Do they know an idiot like Gish is a member?

[ April 01, 2002: Message edited to add]

yup, they do.

<a href="http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/voices/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/voices/index.html</a>

"Therefore be it resolved that because "Creationist Science" has no scientific validity it should not be taught as science, and further, that the AAAS views legislation requiring "Creationist Science" to be taught in public schools as a real and present threat to the integrity of education and the teaching of science, and

Be it further resolved that the AAAS urges citizens, educational authorities, and legislators to oppose the compulsory inclusion in science education curricula of beliefs that are not amenable to the process of scrutiny, testing, and revision that is indispensable to science."

And Gish is a member? I wonder if he has any clue....

From 1923 statement:

"4) The council of the association is convinced that any legislation attempting to limit the teaching of any scientific doctrine so well established and so widely accepted by specialists as is the doctrine of evolution would be a profound mistake, which could not fail to injure and retard the advancement of knowledge and of human welfare by denying the freedom of teaching and inquiry which is essential to all progress."

[ April 01, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

[ April 01, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

tgamble

They must. It looks like they are members of the ICR so they have no choice. Sad isn't it?

ex-robot

No, the page says they don't work for ICR unless indicated.

xr

ex-robot

His vitae doesn't list any creationist publications. Pub med is a free search engine for Medline.
I count at least 7 of scientists listed at ICR to be a member or former member of the AAAS.

xr

ex-robot

It is more like 10,000 years Mr. D. I think it is AIG who says around 6000 years. If you look at the FAQ about the lists, #2 says real scientists who believe in a "literal" creation.

xr

Aethernaut

Not to get too far off-topic but would it be acceptable to teach creation in a philosophy or religion class at a publicly funded school? I'm just interested in opinions.

-SK

ex-robot

BUMP

Quetzal

tgamble: AAAS membership don't mean nuttin'. Hell, I was a member for a number of years (just let my subscription lapse once when I was short of cash and never renewed it). All you have to do is send in your membership dues once a year. Gish is a member? So? Now if he was on the council...

Kevin

I turned up precisely two references when searching for Gish in PubMed, and both of those are over thirty years old.

Membership in the American Assocation for the Advancement of Science indicates nothing. I (as an unpublished undergrad) have a membership form sitting on my desk right now, and anyone here could probably request one. (I probably got one because I'm an online subscriber to The Scientist.) Now, if he were a member of the National Academy of Sciences, that might be an indication that his work is esteemed by experts in the field. So far what I've found doesn't speak to me of his relevance to biochemistry past or present. No wonder he found it more lucrative to go into the creationist biz, where he can peddle his non-existent "expertise".