PDA

View Full Version : Support for Intelligent Design in scientific journals?



Fighting Instinct
Jan 19th 2008, 11:00 PM
Is there any support for Intellignet Design or creation in any scientific journals or any other scientific source? Not proof, just support.

punk
Jan 19th 2008, 11:16 PM
Is there any support for Intellignet Design or creation in any scientific journals or any other scientific source? Not proof, just support.

None.

.....must make post longer....

Brother Mark
Jan 20th 2008, 12:05 AM
Is there any support for Intellignet Design or creation in any scientific journals or any other scientific source? Not proof, just support.

Not that I am aware of. But you can find scientist that believe there is a lot of evidence for creation.

RevLogos
Jan 20th 2008, 05:29 PM
The reason the answer is No is not because scientists are all atheists who believe us Christians are delusional and irrational.

The reason is because of the limits of science and the scientific method. Science is constrained to look at cause-and-effect. For every effect, say the existence of something, there is always a cause. Say a mutant gene. For which there is another verifiable cause, and so on.

Intelligent Design says at some point, God did it. This may in fact be true but it is never a scientific theory. Science never goes back to creation. Explaining an observation by "God did it" would be a very dangerous slope for science to slip down. If, when we get to something we don't understand, we raise our hands and say God did it, could just stop scientific investigation.

What I would like to see taught in schools is not the dogmatic acceptance of evolution, but instead teach what evolution explains, and what is still not explained. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. And many concepts of evolution are not backed up by the fossil evidence. Teaching people the gaps in evolutionary theory might motivate them to take an interest in science, and also would leave room for the possibility of a God.

Brother Mark
Jan 20th 2008, 06:08 PM
The reason the answer is No is not because scientists are all atheists who believe us Christians are delusional and irrational.

There are some scientist that believe the data supports creation.

punk
Jan 20th 2008, 06:56 PM
There are some scientist that believe the data supports creation.

I keep hearing this, but the thing is I never hear who they are, where they are doing their research and what their research is in.

losthorizon
Jan 20th 2008, 06:58 PM
Science is dominated by the practitioners of metaphysical naturalism (aka methodological naturalism)- a philosophy that vehemently prohibits God-talk – therefore ID is lobbied against and prohibited by the atheistic elite who reside in “ivory towers”.

Brother Mark
Jan 20th 2008, 07:03 PM
I keep hearing this, but the thing is I never hear who they are, where they are doing their research and what their research is in.

Dr. Henry Morris is one. I am sure a google search will turn up some of his work and that of his associates. He works more on the world wide flood, I think, than he does on creation. But others that work with him are creation scientist.

punk
Jan 20th 2008, 07:14 PM
Dr. Henry Morris is one. I am sure a google search will turn up some of his work and that of his associates. He works more on the world wide flood, I think, than he does on creation. But others that work with him are creation scientist.

Okay, you have a hydraulic engineer.

Anyone else?

losthorizon
Jan 20th 2008, 07:16 PM
Okay, you have a hydraulic engineer.

Anyone else?
I think there are now more than 700 PhD scientists who are signatories of the Dissent from Darwinism statement who have expressed skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution and recommend a critical examination of the supporting evidence for that theory.
"We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. " ~ Scientific Dissent From Darwinism Statement

punk
Jan 20th 2008, 07:16 PM
Science is dominated by the practitioners of metaphysical naturalism (aka methodological naturalism)- a philosophy that vehemently prohibits God-talk – therefore ID is lobbied against and prohibited by the atheistic elite who reside in “ivory towers”.

There is a notion in science that the conclusions ought to be commensurate with the evidence considered.

God, being an awfully big conclusion would require an awful lot of evidence.

Types that try to bring God into scientific papers often run afoul of this.

The guy who tried to argue the creation of the universe in an instant from some radioactive residues in some rocks comes to mind.

punk
Jan 20th 2008, 07:23 PM
I think there are now more than 700 PhD scientists who are signatories of the Dissent from Darwinism statement who have expressed skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution and recommend a critical examination of the supporting evidence for that theory.
"We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. " ~ Scientific Dissent From Darwinism Statement

My first question would be "PhD's in what?" Because the opinions of some English majors and philosophers wouldnt' persuade me.

On the other hand there are people that disagree with Darwinism in particulars, have scientific credentials and do not believe in God or creationism or any sort of ID.

You can't assume that just because they are criticising Darwin that they might agree with you.

losthorizon
Jan 20th 2008, 07:28 PM
There is a notion in science that the conclusions ought to be commensurate with the evidence considered.

God, being an awfully big conclusion would require an awful lot of evidence.

Types that try to bring God into scientific papers often run afoul of this.

The guy who tried to argue the creation of the universe in an instant from some radioactive residues in some rocks comes to mind.
Isaac Newton had no problem bringing “God into scientific papers”. In Principia he wrote,
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." And Lord Kelvin (one of the founders of modern physics) was an avowed biblical creationist. Would these two great men of science be drummed out of the Oxford science department today? How sad.

losthorizon
Jan 20th 2008, 07:35 PM
My first question would be "PhD's in what?" Because the opinions of some English majors and philosophers wouldnt' persuade me.

On the other hand there are people that disagree with Darwinism in particulars, have scientific credentials and do not believe in God or creationism or any sort of ID.

You can't assume that just because they are criticising Darwin that they might agree with you.
I think most have doctorates in the sciences and I think many of them (both Christian and non-Christian) would agree we me that “in the beginning God created…” Are you somehow trying to float the idea that there are not many scientists who also believe that God created? Do you find a conflict between science and the belief in a Supernatural Being?

Brother Mark
Jan 20th 2008, 08:06 PM
Okay, you have a hydraulic engineer.

Anyone else?

He has a PhD in hydrolics, and that from a secular university. And there are a lot of others. The information is out there Punk. Take some time to look.

From Wiki

...in the 1920s and 1930s. He graduated from Rice University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_University) with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_engineering) in 1939. Shortly afterwards he became a Christian, affirming the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy). He married Mary Louise on January 24, 1940, and they later had six children. After his graduation in 1939, and through 1942, he was a hydraulic engineer working with the International Boundary and Water Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Boundary_and_Water_Commission). He returned to Rice, teaching civil engineering from 1942 until 1946. In 1946 he wrote a short book entitled That You Might Believe (1946), in which he made an effort to answer the challenges of evolutionists.
From 1946 through 1951, he worked at the University of Minnesota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Minnesota), where he was awarded a master's degree in hydraulics (1948) and a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering (1950).

You and I both know you don't get a PhD in engineering by writing what someone else wrote. He qualifies as a scientist. A lot of his work is on the flood and the hydraulics involved in that amount of water.

losthorizon
Jan 20th 2008, 08:13 PM
My first question would be "PhD's in what?"...
A small sampling of those who think “a critical re-evaluation of Darwinism is necessary…”

ANDREW BOCARSLY, Ph. D.
Chemistry
Princeton University

HENRY F. SCHAEFER III, Ph. D.
Quantum Computational Chemistry
University of Georgia

ROBERT TINNIN, Ph.D
Biology
Portland State University

BENJAMIN VOWELS, M.D.
Dermatology
University of Pennsyluania

STEPHEN MEYER, Ph.D
Philosophy of Science
Whitworth College

MICHAEL BEHE, Ph.D.
Biochemistry
Lehigh University

DAVID IVES, Ph.D
Biochemistry
Ohio State University

WILLIAM DEMBSKI, Ph.D.
Philosophy of Science
Northwestern University

ROBERT KAITA, Ph.D.
Plasma Physics
Princeton University

FRED SIGWORTH, Ph.D.
Physiology
Yale Medical School

LEO ZACHARSKI, M.D.
Medicine
Dartmouth Medical School

DAVID VAN DYKE, Ph. D.
Chemistry
University of Pennsylvania

ROBERT JENKINS, Ph.D.
Biology
Ithaca College

GORDON C. MILLS, Ph.D.
Biochemistry Emeritus
UT Medical Center, Galveston

DONALD D. HOFFMAN, Ph.D.
Cognitive Science
University of California, Irvine

ROBERT PRUD'HOMME, Ph. D.
Chemical Engineering
Princeton University

ALVIN PLANTINGA, Ph.D.
Philosophy
University of Notre Dame

GEORGE LEBO, Ph.D.
Astronomy
University of Florida

JOHN FANTUZZO, Ph.D.
Psychology in Education
University of Pennsylvania

WALTER BRADLEY, Ph.D.
Chairman, Mechanical Engineering
Texas A & M University

DONALD L. EWERT, Ph.D.
Molecular Biology
Wistar Institute

DOUGLAS LAUFFENBERGER, Ph.D.
Cell & Structural Biology
University of Illinois

JACK OMDAHL, Ph.D.
Biochemistry
University of New Mexico

KIRK LARSEN, Ph.D.
Zoology
Miami University (Ohio)

PAUL CHIEN, Ph.D.
Biology
University of San Francisco

WILLIAM SANDINE, Ph.D.
Microbiology
Oregon State University

H. C. HlNRICHS, Ph. D.
Physics
Linfield College

CHRIS LITTLER, Ph.D.
Physics
N.Texas State University

DAVID WILCOX, Ph.D.
Biology
Eastern College

STEPHEN FAWL, Ph.D.
Chemistry
Napa Valley College

J. GARY EDEN, Ph. D.
Elect. & Computer Engineering
University of Illinois

H. KEITH MILLER, Ph.D.
Biology
Capital University

JOHN COGDELL, Ph.D.
Elect. & Computer Engineering
University of Texas, Austin

punk
Jan 20th 2008, 09:56 PM
Isaac Newton had no problem bringing “God into scientific papers”. In Principia he wrote,
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." And Lord Kelvin (one of the founders of modern physics) was an avowed biblical creationist. Would these two great men of science be drummed out of the Oxford science department today? How sad.

That wasn't a paper.

That was a multi-volume book.

Different animals entirely.

I can point to many books where scientists wax philosophical about this or that (including God).

punk
Jan 20th 2008, 09:58 PM
I think most have doctorates in the sciences and I think many of them (both Christian and non-Christian) would agree we me that “in the beginning God created…” Are you somehow trying to float the idea that there are not many scientists who also believe that God created? Do you find a conflict between science and the belief in a Supernatural Being?

I'm saying I know there is a lot of criticism of this or that scientific theory (including Darwinism) in scientific circles, and that some types have a habit of making it sound like a welling spring of creationist sentiment.

Much of the criticism comes from committed atheists, and it is wrong of Christians to word things vaguely enough to imply that all criticisms of Darwinism means the person doing the criticism is amenable to a more creationist or ID stance.

If you say 700 scientists are critical of Darwinism that doesn't imply that 700 scientists are in favor of ID, but to read some accounts it distinctly is implied.

punk
Jan 20th 2008, 09:59 PM
He has a PhD in hydrolics, and that from a secular university. And there are a lot of others. The information is out there Punk. Take some time to look.

From Wiki

...in the 1920s and 1930s. He graduated from Rice University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_University) with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_engineering) in 1939. Shortly afterwards he became a Christian, affirming the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy). He married Mary Louise on January 24, 1940, and they later had six children. After his graduation in 1939, and through 1942, he was a hydraulic engineer working with the International Boundary and Water Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Boundary_and_Water_Commission). He returned to Rice, teaching civil engineering from 1942 until 1946. In 1946 he wrote a short book entitled That You Might Believe (1946), in which he made an effort to answer the challenges of evolutionists.
From 1946 through 1951, he worked at the University of Minnesota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Minnesota), where he was awarded a master's degree in hydraulics (1948) and a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering (1950).

You and I both know you don't get a PhD in engineering by writing what someone else wrote. He qualifies as a scientist. A lot of his work is on the flood and the hydraulics involved in that amount of water.

Yes, I got the hydraulic engineer remark from the same source.

Okay so you have one engineer that knows something about water.

Any actual trainged geologists?

punk
Jan 20th 2008, 10:06 PM
A small sampling of those who think “a critical re-evaluation of Darwinism is necessary…”

ANDREW BOCARSLY, Ph. D.
Chemistry
Princeton University

HENRY F. SCHAEFER III, Ph. D.
Quantum Computational Chemistry
University of Georgia

ROBERT TINNIN, Ph.D
Biology
Portland State University

BENJAMIN VOWELS, M.D.
Dermatology
University of Pennsyluania

STEPHEN MEYER, Ph.D
Philosophy of Science
Whitworth College

MICHAEL BEHE, Ph.D.
Biochemistry
Lehigh University

DAVID IVES, Ph.D
Biochemistry
Ohio State University

WILLIAM DEMBSKI, Ph.D.
Philosophy of Science
Northwestern University

ROBERT KAITA, Ph.D.
Plasma Physics
Princeton University

FRED SIGWORTH, Ph.D.
Physiology
Yale Medical School

LEO ZACHARSKI, M.D.
Medicine
Dartmouth Medical School

DAVID VAN DYKE, Ph. D.
Chemistry
University of Pennsylvania

ROBERT JENKINS, Ph.D.
Biology
Ithaca College

GORDON C. MILLS, Ph.D.
Biochemistry Emeritus
UT Medical Center, Galveston

DONALD D. HOFFMAN, Ph.D.
Cognitive Science
University of California, Irvine

ROBERT PRUD'HOMME, Ph. D.
Chemical Engineering
Princeton University

ALVIN PLANTINGA, Ph.D.
Philosophy
University of Notre Dame

GEORGE LEBO, Ph.D.
Astronomy
University of Florida

JOHN FANTUZZO, Ph.D.
Psychology in Education
University of Pennsylvania

WALTER BRADLEY, Ph.D.
Chairman, Mechanical Engineering
Texas A & M University

DONALD L. EWERT, Ph.D.
Molecular Biology
Wistar Institute

DOUGLAS LAUFFENBERGER, Ph.D.
Cell & Structural Biology
University of Illinois

JACK OMDAHL, Ph.D.
Biochemistry
University of New Mexico

KIRK LARSEN, Ph.D.
Zoology
Miami University (Ohio)

PAUL CHIEN, Ph.D.
Biology
University of San Francisco

WILLIAM SANDINE, Ph.D.
Microbiology
Oregon State University

H. C. HlNRICHS, Ph. D.
Physics
Linfield College

CHRIS LITTLER, Ph.D.
Physics
N.Texas State University

DAVID WILCOX, Ph.D.
Biology
Eastern College

STEPHEN FAWL, Ph.D.
Chemistry
Napa Valley College

J. GARY EDEN, Ph. D.
Elect. & Computer Engineering
University of Illinois

H. KEITH MILLER, Ph.D.
Biology
Capital University

JOHN COGDELL, Ph.D.
Elect. & Computer Engineering
University of Texas, Austin

And "critically reexamined" means what exactly?

I happen to think it should be "critically reexamined" in details, but I'm nevertheless in favor of Darwinian evolution as a working paradigm.

I can tell you now, I'm pretty indifferent to Dembski or Plantinga.

losthorizon
Jan 20th 2008, 10:48 PM
And "critically reexamined" means what exactly?

I happen to think it should be "critically reexamined" in details, but I'm nevertheless in favor of Darwinian evolution as a working paradigm.

I would think from comments from the likes of antitheists/anti-Christians, Richard Dawkins et al that Darwinists find the “Descent” list to be a pain in the old rear-end if you know what I mean. I mean when you have first-class scientists attacking the sacred cow of atheism-materialism you have a big problem controlling the masses.

Are you now prepared to agree that there are many scientists that question the “facts” of Darwinian “science” and reject many of those "facts"? Are you a Darwinist and can you scientifically defend Darwinism with verifiable evidence without resorting to Darwinian lore and fables? I have yet to find anyone who can. What do you think - are you up to the job?


I can tell you now, I'm pretty indifferent to Dembski or Plantinga
Do you disagree with them professionally, intellectually or just because they reject certain Darwinian lore that you hold near and dear?;)

losthorizon
Jan 20th 2008, 10:53 PM
That wasn't a paper.

That was a multi-volume book.

Different animals entirely.

I can point to many books where scientists wax philosophical about this or that (including God).
Do you really think Newton was simply "waxing"? Have you even read his theological works? He was a scientist who had no problem acknowledging his deep faith in a Creator-God. And he was not alone – almost all of the “fathers” of modern science were practicing Christians. Does that fact bother you?

Brother Mark
Jan 20th 2008, 10:53 PM
Yes, I got the hydraulic engineer remark from the same source.

Okay so you have one engineer that knows something about water.

Any actual trainged geologists?


Steven Austin, PhD. Geology.

Here's a link with more information if you are interested.

ICR (http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci/)

There are scientist out there that believe in ID or creationism. I think you probably know a few names yourself.

Athanasius
Jan 20th 2008, 10:59 PM
Don't be fooled by the declarations of Dawkins; even Hawkins believes in a 'God' or sorts--even if not the Christian one. It's a foolish thing to think all scientists as atheists, simply because Dawkins says they are.
What again did Gould say about stones? ;)

losthorizon
Jan 20th 2008, 11:01 PM
I'm saying I know there is a lot of criticism of this or that scientific theory (including Darwinism) in scientific circles, and that some types have a habit of making it sound like a welling spring of creationist sentiment.

Do you know of a list of hundreds of PhD scientists who descent from the Theory of Gravity? Why Darwinism? Isn’t it because the rug has been lifted and much of the theory exposed is only supported by mythology and not science?

Studyin'2Show
Jan 21st 2008, 12:48 AM
I actually was just listening to a podcast today that had a PhD in microbiology (ID proponent) that is doing some interesting research with bacteria.

http://www.idthefuture.com/2008/01/micro_or_macro_microbiologist.html

punk
Jan 21st 2008, 12:53 AM
I would think from comments from the likes of antitheists/anti-Christians, Richard Dawkins et al that Darwinists find the “Descent” list to be a pain in the old rear-end if you know what I mean. I mean when you have first-class scientists attacking the sacred cow of atheism-materialism you have a big problem controlling the masses.

Are you now prepared to agree that there are many scientists that question the “facts” of Darwinian “science” and reject many of those "facts"? Are you a Darwinist and can you scientifically defend Darwinism with verifiable evidence without resorting to Darwinian lore and fables? I have yet to find anyone who can. What do you think - are you up to the job?

I was never in doubt that there were issues with Darwinism.

But note, what is being criticized is something very specific: the operation of natural selection in biology.

I'll say it again: most of the scientists are nevertheless advocating atheistic materialism.

They merely believed the mechanism of natural selection needs a deeper examination, and perhaps a replacement by other methods.

Of course some on the list might be creationists. But don't make the assertion that you have 700 scientists in the ID or creationist camp by any stretch.


Do you disagree with them professionally, intellectually or just because they reject certain Darwinian lore that you hold near and dear?;)

I've read both Plantinga and Dembski.

I don't think Plantinga is qualified to have an opinion on this, and I think Dembski is doing what he is doing because he doesn't have enough creativity to do real mathematics and knows it.

punk
Jan 21st 2008, 12:55 AM
Do you really think Newton was simply "waxing"? Have you even read his theological works? He was a scientist who had no problem acknowledging his deep faith in a Creator-God. And he was not alone – almost all of the “fathers” of modern science were practicing Christians. Does that fact bother you?

As the notion of God plays no role in either the calculus or his physics, yes he was waxing.

punk
Jan 21st 2008, 12:57 AM
Steven Austin, PhD. Geology.

Here's a link with more information if you are interested.

ICR (http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci/)

There are scientist out there that believe in ID or creationism. I think you probably know a few names yourself.

Actually per your link, he is not a geologist.

His PhD is in engineering hydraulics/hydrology, and he minored in geology.

I've noted a trend in the past that the "scientists" on the creationist side tend to be engineers.

punk
Jan 21st 2008, 12:59 AM
Don't be fooled by the declarations of Dawkins; even Hawkins believes in a 'God' or sorts--even if not the Christian one. It's a foolish thing to think all scientists as atheists, simply because Dawkins says they are.
What again did Gould say about stones? ;)

Einstein believed in Spinoza's god.

Although it is questionable whether that qualifies as a "god" in the more conventional sense.

Quite a few scientists agree with Einstein.

punk
Jan 21st 2008, 01:00 AM
Do you know of a list of hundreds of PhD scientists who descent from the Theory of Gravity? Why Darwinism? Isn’t it because the rug has been lifted and much of the theory exposed is only supported by mythology and not science?

Most theoretical physicists dissent with the Theory of Gravity (i.e. General Relativity).

Everybody knows it is wrong.

That is why there is all this work on Quantum Gravity, String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, and so on.

punk
Jan 21st 2008, 01:01 AM
I actually was just listening to a podcast today that had a PhD in microbiology (ID proponent) that is doing some interesting research with bacteria.

http://www.idthefuture.com/2008/01/micro_or_macro_microbiologist.html

At least we're finally talking about someone qualified to discuss the matter.

losthorizon
Jan 21st 2008, 02:51 AM
...I'll say it again: most of the scientists are nevertheless advocating atheistic materialism.

And you will be wrong again. Do you have proof that “most of the scientists are nevertheless advocating atheistic materialism”? Are you a Darwinist who advocates atheistic materialism (2nd request)?


Of course some on the list might be creationists. But don't make the assertion that you have 700 scientists in the ID or creationist camp by any stretch.
Many on the dissent list identify themselves as Christians who believe that God created in the beginning as opposed to those in the antitheist camp.


I don't think Plantinga is qualified to have an opinion on this, and I think Dembski is doing what he is doing because he doesn't have enough creativity to do real mathematics and knows it.
Are you not just rejecting everyone on the list because they disagree with Darwinism? I think Plantinga’s works on evolution and naturalism qualifies him as a debater on this subject, and likewise Dembski’s work with evolutionary theory makes him a legitimate player. Just because there are hundreds PhD scientists in many different fields who reject Darwinian lore does not mean you can write them off as unqualified in their respective fields of study on a whim. It only weakens your position even further.

punk
Jan 21st 2008, 03:42 AM
And you will be wrong again. Do you have proof that “most of the scientists are nevertheless advocating atheistic materialism”? Are you a Darwinist who advocates atheistic materialism (2nd request)?

I know there are criticisms of consensus Darwinism within the scientific community coming from people with particular technical issues who would not agree with a creationist or ID standpoint.

I believe some form of evolutionary theory is probably correct.


Many on the dissent list identify themselves as Christians who believe that God created in the beginning as opposed to those in the antitheist camp.

I'll wager most do not.

This is the problem: there are atheist-materialist scientists who think there are problems with consensus Darwinism, and they signed the list. Just criticising consensus Darwinism doesn't make one an advocate of ID.


Are you not just rejecting everyone on the list because they disagree with Darwinism? I think Plantinga’s works on evolution and naturalism qualifies him as a debater on this subject, and likewise Dembski’s work with evolutionary theory makes him a legitimate player. Just because there are hundreds PhD scientists in many different fields who reject Darwinian lore does not mean you can write them off as unqualified in their respective fields of study on a whim. It only weakens your position even further.

What most of these people are rejecting is a particular take on natural selection. Quite a bit of the push is coming from people expert in the most recent developments in molecular biology and genetics, who think the mechanism of evolution has to be reexamined.


What we see here is the basic problem:

Christians are assuming there are only two options: Darwinism or Creationism (of some variety), therefore any rejection of Darwinism must be an affirmation of Creationism. That just isn't the case.

Brother Mark
Jan 21st 2008, 03:43 AM
Actually per your link, he is not a geologist.

His PhD is in engineering hydraulics/hydrology, and he minored in geology.

I've noted a trend in the past that the "scientists" on the creationist side tend to be engineers.

Wrong again Punk. Here's the info from the link.


Steven Austin, PhD Geology...
He has the B.S. from the University of Washington, M.S. from San Jose State University and Ph.D. from the Pennsylvania State University, all in geology. His professional memberships include the Geological Society of America, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, the Society for Sedimentary Geology, the International Association of Sedimentologists. He has had professional, peer-reviewed projects at Mt. St. Helens and within the Grand Canyon. Current research is being conducted on mass kill of nautiloids within the Redwall limestone of the Grand Canyon, radioisotopes of Grand Canyon rocks, and earthquake destruction of archaeological sites in the Kingdom of Jordan. In 1999, Dr. Austin published research in the prestigious, peer-reviewed journal International Geology Review.

Overcoming our preconceived ideas can be difficult. If we believe creationist are engineers, sometimes we don't even notice otherwise even if the evidence is given to us. Scientist make the same mistake at times on other issues as well. ;)

Studyin'2Show
Jan 21st 2008, 03:47 AM
Christians are assuming there are only two options: Darwinism or Creationism (of some variety), therefore any rejection of Darwinism must be an affirmation of Creationism. That just isn't the case.Just curious, why do you speak of Christians in the third person; as if you're speaking from the outside looking in? We may not agree but I would not speak of you as if you were the enemy or something. We are still brothers and sisters in Christ, right?

punk
Jan 21st 2008, 03:54 AM
Wrong again Punk. Here's the info from the link.


Steven Austin, PhD Geology...
He has the B.S. from the University of Washington, M.S. from San Jose State University and Ph.D. from the Pennsylvania State University, all in geology. His professional memberships include the Geological Society of America, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, the Society for Sedimentary Geology, the International Association of Sedimentologists. He has had professional, peer-reviewed projects at Mt. St. Helens and within the Grand Canyon. Current research is being conducted on mass kill of nautiloids within the Redwall limestone of the Grand Canyon, radioisotopes of Grand Canyon rocks, and earthquake destruction of archaeological sites in the Kingdom of Jordan. In 1999, Dr. Austin published research in the prestigious, peer-reviewed journal International Geology Review.

Overcoming our preconceived ideas can be difficult. If we believe creationist are engineers, sometimes we don't even notice otherwise even if the evidence if it is given to us. Scientist make the same mistake at times on other issues as well. ;)

My bad, I read the in memoriam of Henry Morris part and didn't note the title.

punk
Jan 21st 2008, 03:55 AM
Just curious, why do you speak of Christians in the third person; as if you're speaking from the outside looking in? We may not agree but I would not speak of you as if you were the enemy or something. We are still brothers and sisters in Christ, right?

The term has been usurped by people I have disagreements with.

Unfortunately if you call yourself a "christian" it is assumed you are a creationist conservative yokel.

And since I've had some of those types tell me I'm not a "christian" based on being a liberal who doesn't espouse creationism, well...

losthorizon
Jan 21st 2008, 04:07 AM
...I believe some form of evolutionary theory is probably correct.

That’s a very non-committal answer, punk. What exactly would be the difference between your "form of evolutionary theory" and the atheistic Darwinism preached by Richard Dawkins?

losthorizon
Jan 21st 2008, 04:14 AM
The term has been usurped by people I have disagreements with.

Unfortunately if you call yourself a "christian" it is assumed you are a creationist conservative yokel.

And since I've had some of those types tell me I'm not a "christian" based on being a liberal who doesn't espouse creationism, well...
Do you believe that God created in the beginning (Gen 1:1) or do you think life arose all by its lonesome in Darwin’s “warm little pond”? Was Isaac Newton, who considered himself a creationist a "conservative yokel"?

punk
Jan 21st 2008, 04:19 AM
That’s a very non-committal answer, punk. What exactly would be the difference between your "form of evolutionary theory" and the atheistic Darwinism preached by Richard Dawkins?

Actually it is quite committal in science-jargon.

That depends on the level you are talking about. I'm not committed to the mechanisms as currently proposed, but I think some sort of modified mechanism is probably right.

That is my criticisms are technical (as are the criticisms of most of the PhDs on your list I wager).

But to the layman it will all end up looking like what you are calling "Darwinism". Some sort of materialistic selection process leading to change and adaptation. The method of selection might be subject to change though.

So from the layman's point of view, nothing that will look too different from Dawkins.

And as I said, probably most of the people on your list aren't advocating anything terribly different from Dawkins from the layman's perspective.

Gulah Papyrus
Jan 21st 2008, 04:25 AM
'Coming to Peace With Science' by Darrel R Falk

losthorizon
Jan 21st 2008, 05:07 AM
...So from the layman's point of view, nothing that will look too different from Dawkins.

How does your point of view and the atheistic view of Dawkins differ scientifically or would it also not look too different? In your theological point of view where does God fit into the creation equation or do you not allow Him a role?

punk
Jan 21st 2008, 05:57 AM
How does your point of view and the atheistic view of Dawkins differ scientifically or would it also not look too different?

There is an Austrian named Anton Zeiliner who is doing experiments to show quantum physical effects in "large" (by particle physics standards) objects. He has succeeded for buckyballs. His goal is to exhibit quantum mechanical entanglement in objects as large as viruses and bacteria. If he succeeds then we can probably conclude that quantum mechanical effects play a substantial role in genetics, biochemistry, and cell biology.

That is, it will be a whole new ballgame.


In your theological point of view where does God fit into the creation equation or do you not allow Him a role?

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about science.

I'm not sure how to put theology into equations.

Athanasius
Jan 21st 2008, 06:57 AM
Einstein believed in Spinoza's god.

Although it is questionable whether that qualifies as a "god" in the more conventional sense.

Quite a few scientists agree with Einstein.

I would think a belief in a 'god' or 'higher power' is a better step than a belief in no such thing. Dawkins would rather we believe in 'no such thing' and tries to perpetuate the image that no self respecting, intellectually honest scientist would believe in such a silly notion as God.

That simply isn't the case. So while I may disagree with what they view their 'god' to be. It's more important to note that they believe there is 'something' as opposed to Dawkins 'nothing'.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 21st 2008, 01:43 PM
The term has been usurped by people I have disagreements with.

Unfortunately if you call yourself a "christian" it is assumed you are a creationist conservative yokel.

And since I've had some of those types tell me I'm not a "christian" based on being a liberal who doesn't espouse creationism, well...There are times where I will say things like 'some Christians' or 'other Christians' or 'many Christians'. BTW, whatever your political views (I know plenty of liberal Christians) the only way you're NOT a Christian is if you have not accepted Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ) as your Lord and Savior, and been born again of His Holy Spirit. ;) So, are we good?

losthorizon
Jan 21st 2008, 01:56 PM
...There is an Austrian named Anton Zeiliner who is doing experiments to show quantum physical effects in "large" (by particle physics standards) objects...

And wasn’t it also Anton Zeilinger who warned folks like you about the inherent dangers solipsism and isn’t that where your train of thought is really headed? Can we know the reality of God by His written revelation?


I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about science.

I'm not sure how to put theology into equations.
How do you put your Christian beliefs into words? You are a Christian as indicated by your affirmative board statement. Do you believe God created or do you take the atheistic-naturalistic approach to life on this planet? It’s not a hard question for you is it?

punk
Jan 21st 2008, 06:32 PM
I would think a belief in a 'god' or 'higher power' is a better step than a belief in no such thing. Dawkins would rather we believe in 'no such thing' and tries to perpetuate the image that no self respecting, intellectually honest scientist would believe in such a silly notion as God.

That simply isn't the case. So while I may disagree with what they view their 'god' to be. It's more important to note that they believe there is 'something' as opposed to Dawkins 'nothing'.

Arguably Spinoza's god is little more than a personification of the laws of nature.

punk
Jan 21st 2008, 06:35 PM
And wasn’t it also Anton Zeilinger who warned folks like you about the inherent dangers solipsism and isn’t that where your train of thought is really headed?

Anton Zeilinger is an experimental physicist. We are talking about real measureable physics here. Where does the solipism come in?


Can we know the reality of God by His written revelation?

Written revelation alone?

No.


How do you put your Christian beliefs into words? You are a Christian as indicated by your affirmative board statement. Do you believe God created or do you take the atheistic-naturalistic approach to life on this planet? It’s not a hard question for you is it?

There is no problem in asserting that God created everything and at the same time studying it in a naturalistic-materialistic fashion.

punk
Jan 21st 2008, 06:36 PM
There are times where I will say things like 'some Christians' or 'other Christians' or 'many Christians'. BTW, whatever your political views (I know plenty of liberal Christians) the only way you're NOT a Christian is if you have not accepted Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ) as your Lord and Savior, and been born again of His Holy Spirit. ;) So, are we good?

Well I've been around this board a while and while I've noted liberals being warned not to say things to offend the conservatives I don't recall coming across warnings of the conservatives not to offend the liberals.

A thread in this very subforum about "atheists, liberals, and teenagers" comes to mind.

I suppose it implies that I'm really an atheist.

There is definitely an assumption that a liberal isn't a genuine Christian.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 21st 2008, 07:07 PM
Well I've been around this board a while and while I've noted liberals being warned not to say things to offend the conservatives I don't recall coming across warnings of the conservatives not to offend the liberals.

A thread in this very subforum about "atheists, liberals, and teenagers" comes to mind.

I suppose it implies that I'm really an atheist.

There is definitely an assumption that a liberal isn't a genuine Christian.In all fairness, punk, you really don't have a clue. I can recall a 'conservative' poster getting reprimanded just recently concerning a comment that you probably never saw because it was removed and they were infracted. As a mod here I can assure you that many 'conservatives' are warned or rebuked. But really, we're not talking about the forum, my question was about you, but alas, if you wish not to answer that's your prerogative. ;)

Curiously, you stated that one can not know God through His written revelation. How was He revealed to you?

God Bless!

punk
Jan 21st 2008, 07:38 PM
In all fairness, punk, you really don't have a clue. I can recall a 'conservative' poster getting reprimanded just recently concerning a comment that you probably never saw because it was removed and they were infracted. As a mod here I can assure you that many 'conservatives' are warned or rebuked. But really, we're not talking about the forum, my question was about you, but alas, if you wish not to answer that's your prerogative. ;)

Curiously, you stated that one can not know God through His written revelation. How was He revealed to you?

God Bless!

A written text is something like a streetmap.

It is nice to have a streetmap, but it is nothing like walking through the city.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 21st 2008, 08:18 PM
A written text is something like a streetmap.

It is nice to have a streetmap, but it is nothing like walking through the city.So, you're saying that the Bible 'streetmap' led you to the city of God?

Athanasius
Jan 21st 2008, 09:35 PM
Arguably Spinoza's god is little more than a personification of the laws of nature.

The so-called 'mind of God'; agreed.

punk
Jan 21st 2008, 09:57 PM
So, you're saying that the Bible 'streetmap' led you to the city of God?

No, I'm saying you can write a 100 page paper on what chocolate tastes like, but it still isn't the same thing as eating some chocolate.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 21st 2008, 10:03 PM
No, I'm saying you can write a 100 page paper on what chocolate tastes like, but it still isn't the same thing as eating some chocolate.Revelations 12:11 - And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.

Do you have a testimony?

punk
Jan 21st 2008, 10:18 PM
Revelations 12:11 - And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.

Do you have a testimony?

Not in the typical American evangelical sense.

A "testimony" is a statement of what is true, not necessarily a blathering of one's personal trials and tribulations.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 21st 2008, 10:20 PM
Not in the typical American evangelical sense.

A "testimony" is a statement of what is true, not necessarily a blathering of one's personal trials and tribulations.Fair enough. Well, I apologize for the hijacking. :D Back to our regularly scheduled topic. :spin:

Fighting Instinct
Jan 21st 2008, 10:33 PM
Fair enough. Well, I apologize for the hijacking. :D Back to our regularly scheduled topic. :spin:
:lol: 4 pages later.:eek:

Studyin'2Show
Jan 21st 2008, 10:49 PM
:lol: 4 pages later.:eek:It's only two for me. You should put more posts on each page! :P:lol:

losthorizon
Jan 21st 2008, 11:53 PM
...Anton Zeilinger is an experimental physicist. We are talking about real measureable physics here. Where does the solipism come in?

Are you saying that experimental physicists do not philosophize? Isn’t there a fine line between a physicist and a metaphysicist just as there is a fine line between science (biological evolution) and metaphysics (Darwinism)? I believe it was Einstein who said, "Reality is an illusion; albeit a persistent one." Is that statement science or metaphysics?


Written revelation alone?

No.
Why are we not able to know the revealed reality of God through His written word? Can we not understand the concept that *God created* from what is written?


There is no problem in asserting that God created everything and at the same time studying it in a naturalistic-materialistic fashion.
But doesn’t the forced “metaphysical atheism” of Dawkins et al - by definition - eliminate a supernatural Being? My science professors always taught that science was “agnostic”. Were they misleading their students? And why would a Christian who professes faith in the Creator-God of the Universe choose to understand the world through the lenses of atheism? Isn’t Darwinism really a religion in the pretext of science? Michael Ruse (Darwinist/atheist) thinks that evolutionism (Darwinism) is a bona fide secular religion – what do you think,
What about Darwinism, evolution, and religion? In fact, those most ardent to turn evolution into a religion have tended not to be Darwinians. Herbert Spencer and Thomas Henry Huxley in the nineteenth century and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in the twentieth. But the simple fact of the matter is that, use language as you like or not, the fact remains that for many evolutionists – some Darwinian and some not – evolution does function as a secular religion. The creationists are right about this. The right move is to recognize this fact and to move forward, not to deny it. If he is correct (and he is) then your position is on the slippery slope of advocating two contrasting religions – the Christian faith and the faith of Darwinism.

RevLogos
Jan 22nd 2008, 01:46 AM
There is an Austrian named Anton Zeiliner who is doing experiments to show quantum physical effects in "large" (by particle physics standards) objects. He has succeeded for buckyballs. His goal is to exhibit quantum mechanical entanglement in objects as large as viruses and bacteria. If he succeeds then we can probably conclude that quantum mechanical effects play a substantial role in genetics, biochemistry, and cell biology.

That is, it will be a whole new ballgame.



What behavior is Zeillner looking for and how would this change the whole ball game? Sorry, I'm just a rocket scientist, not a particle physicist.

punk
Jan 23rd 2008, 08:23 PM
Are you saying that experimental physicists do not philosophize? Isn’t there a fine line between a physicist and a metaphysicist just as there is a fine line between science (biological evolution) and metaphysics (Darwinism)? I believe it was Einstein who said, "Reality is an illusion; albeit a persistent one." Is that statement science or metaphysics?

People can philosophize all they want, but they can't philosophize away real empirical data.


Why are we not able to know the revealed reality of God through His written word? Can we not understand the concept that *God created* from what is written?

Because language has a limit as to what it can convey.


But doesn’t the forced “metaphysical atheism” of Dawkins et al - by definition - eliminate a supernatural Being? My science professors always taught that science was “agnostic”. Were they misleading their students? And why would a Christian who professes faith in the Creator-God of the Universe choose to understand the world through the lenses of atheism? Isn’t Darwinism really a religion in the pretext of science? Michael Ruse (Darwinist/atheist) thinks that evolutionism (Darwinism) is a bona fide secular religion – what do you think,

What about Darwinism, evolution, and religion? In fact, those most ardent to turn evolution into a religion have tended not to be Darwinians. Herbert Spencer and Thomas Henry Huxley in the nineteenth century and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in the twentieth. But the simple fact of the matter is that, use language as you like or not, the fact remains that for many evolutionists – some Darwinian and some not – evolution does function as a secular religion. The creationists are right about this. The right move is to recognize this fact and to move forward, not to deny it. If he is correct (and he is) then your position is on the slippery slope of advocating two contrasting religions – the Christian faith and the faith of Darwinism.

Darwinism (in a sufficiently technical form) is an empirical and testable theory, and hence falsifiable and scientific.

It is also a theory which guides as to what research looks promising and what doesn't.

I've yet to see any theory with a god in it which was falsifiable.

What empirical evidence would cause you to reject your belief in God? If the answer is "none", then you aren't talking about anything scientific.

The methodology of science is sound, one must simply be clear about what it can and cannot say.

Again, language has its limits.

Studyin'2Show
Jan 23rd 2008, 09:14 PM
What empirical evidence would cause you to reject your belief in God? If the answer is "none", then you aren't talking about anything scientific.Is there some empirical evidence that would cause you to reject your belief in God?

punk
Jan 23rd 2008, 09:53 PM
Is there some empirical evidence that would cause you to reject your belief in God?

No, and this among the reasons I don't include propositions about God in what I term "scientific".

losthorizon
Jan 24th 2008, 12:56 AM
...People can philosophize all they want, but they can't philosophize away real empirical data.

But doesn’t language have limits to what it can convey? Aren’t those your words? Do Darwinists philosophize and mix science with metaphysics? Isn’t that exactly what Darwinism is – metaphysical lore packaged under the pretext of science?


Darwinism (in a sufficiently technical form) is an empirical and testable theory, and hence falsifiable and scientific.
Can you technically and empirically prove the Darwinian myth that a dead-end reptilian lung can morph into the flow-through ventilation required in the avian lung? I think not but it would be fun watching you try. ;) Are you up to the task? What naturalistic mechanism can work such a "miracle" in nature? How can life arise from non-life? Pasteur said it can’t - didn't he?


The methodology of science is sound, one must simply be clear about what it can and cannot say.
But the question goes begging – does "the methodology of science" support Darwinian lore? The answer of course is – no.

Are you a Darwinist?

punk
Jan 24th 2008, 01:11 AM
But doesn’t language have limits to what it can convey? Aren’t those your words?

Yes, and if do an experiment and measure 3 Hz, I'm making a very specific statement within the limits of language.


Do Darwinists philosophize and mix science with metaphysics? Isn’t that exactly what Darwinism is – metaphysical lore packaged under the pretext of science?

One can model (rudimentarily of course) Darwinian natural selection on a computer. It makes specific claims.

What philosophizing are you worrying about?


Can you technically and empirically prove the Darwinian myth that a dead-end reptilian lung can morph into the flow-through ventilation required in the avian lung? I think not but it would be fun watching you try. ;) Are you up to the task? What naturalistic mechanism can work such a "miracle" in nature? How can life arise from non-life? Pasteur said it can’t - didn't he?

I can use techniques of "survival of the fittest" to create computer algorithms that select the best solution. I can place healthy and crippled animals in a dangerous environment and note that the healthy ones survive with a greater likelihood.

You are concerned about the notion of the limit of a very large number of small effects. Asymptotic limits are always a bit dicey.


But the question goes begging – does "the methodology of science" support Darwinian lore? The answer of course is – no.

Are you a Darwinist?

What is a "Darwinist" in your view?

losthorizon
Jan 24th 2008, 01:41 AM
...Yes, and if do an experiment and measure 3 Hz, I'm making a very specific statement within the limits of language.

The question remains – don’t Darwinists simply inject “scientific data” into their mythology and pass it off as science. They use “data” to “prove” the morphing of the reptilian lung into the avian lung but the “data” doesn’t reflect the facts. They make very specific statements but the statements do not hold water when compared to reality. You didn’t answer my question - can you support Darwinian data or do you (like many people) just buy the bill of goods without critical evaluation?


One can model (rudimentarily of course) Darwinian natural selection on a computer. It makes specific claims.
Are you saying you can prove “molecules to man” evolution on a computer model? Show me on any computer that primitive life came from non-life in some “warm little pond” and became me and you.


I can use techniques of "survival of the fittest" to create computer algorithms that select the best solution. I can place healthy and crippled animals in a dangerous environment and note that the healthy ones survive with a greater likelihood.
Lol – and what in the world does that prove – that crippled iguanas morphed into small-beaked finches? Remember – we are discussing reality on this thread – right?


You are concerned about the notion of the limit of a very large number of small effects. Asymptotic limits are always a bit dicey.
"Asymptotic limits"?? are you referring to the Heisenberg model? Your assumptions are rather dicey – have you ever worked in a real laboratory environment (where you actually earn money)?


What is a "Darwinist" in your view?
The short answer - a Darwinist is a rather confused individual who blurs mythology and science into a faith-based belief system (religion).

Studyin'2Show
Jan 24th 2008, 12:47 PM
I can use techniques of "survival of the fittest" to create computer algorithms that select the best solution. I can place healthy and crippled animals in a dangerous environment and note that the healthy ones survive with a greater likelihood.So, can we see these computer algorithms that show the reptilian lung morphing into the avian lung with some methodology showing how, step by step via natural selection, one lung changed into the other? You see, natural selection is a concept but when we ask for even a simple paper showing step by step how it is possible for each change to be made via mutations and then natural selection keeping the mutation because it somehow makes the organism more likely to survive, nothing is available. I'd like to see more than a concept and an interesting animation with one morphing into another with no consideration of the internal organs and just HOW that would all occur. Just show me how the complexity of a reptilian scale changes into the extreme complexity of a feather using some sort of step by step progression. :rolleyes: If we are not allowed to implore the 'God did it' axiom and cal it science, why in the world are you allowed to 'scientifically' use the 'evolution did it' when you have neither proof nor methodology? :hmm:

renthead188
Jan 27th 2008, 11:46 PM
Punk

Not too long ago I became curious about the "facts" of evolution that were taught in college biology classes. Since middle school, I had been very skeptical of Darwinian Evolution. I began looking into it last summer and by November I had concluded that I did not support Darwinian Evolution and that our universe is just simply too grand and MUCH too organized to have "evolved" by means of "random chance and natural selection" as proposed in Darwin's "Origin of Species"

I would like to direct you to www.icr.org (http://www.icr.org) for some input from respected creation scientists. If you would like to see some of them demonstrate the error in modern Evolutionary Theory please watch one of the videos at http://www.theapologiaproject.org/video_library.htm specifically "A Question of Origins"

I would also like to include this list of modern day scientists. The first section includes those that have rejected Darwinian Evolution. The last section includes a list of those that hold degrees in the physical sciences. I recall that you requested a list of Geologists? I'm sure that you will find some.

Rememember to pray about this, ask The Spirit to show you the truth.

Peace in Christ, The Lord and King

Christopher

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

Modern Scientists that support Creation and reject Darwinian Evolution
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Metrologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Prof. John Lennox, Mathematics
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer: Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer , Physiologist
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris , Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr Andrew Snelling , Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Prof. James Stark , Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography

renthead188
Jan 27th 2008, 11:48 PM
Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?
Note: These scientsts are sorted by birth year.

Early
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Scientific method
Johann Kepler (1571-1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
Athanasius Kircher (1601-1680) Inventor
John Wilkins (1614-1672)
Walter Charleton (1619-1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623-1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
Sir William Petty (1623 -1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
Robert Boyle (1627-1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
John Ray (1627-1705) Natural history
Isaac Barrow (1630-1677) Professor of Mathematics
Nicolas Steno (1631-1686) Stratigraphy
Thomas Burnet (1635-1715) Geology
Increase Mather (1639-1723) Astronomy
Nehemiah Grew (1641-1712) Medical Doctor, Botany
The Age of Newton
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity-See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57-80, 1997)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646-1716) Mathematician
John Flamsteed (1646-1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
William Derham (1657-1735) Ecology
Cotton Mather (1662-1727) Physician
John Harris (1666-1719) Mathematician
John Woodward (1665-1728) Paleontology
William Whiston (1667-1752) Physics, Geology
John Hutchinson (1674-1737) Paleontology
Johathan Edwards (1703-1758) Physics, Meteorology
Carolus Linneaus (1707-1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
Jean Deluc (1727-1817) Geology
Richard Kirwan (1733-1812) Mineralogy
William Herschel (1738-1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
James Parkinson (1755-1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
John Dalton (1766-1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
John Kidd, M.D. (1775-1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)
Just Before Darwin
The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson
Timothy Dwight (1752-1817) Educator
William Kirby (1759-1850) Entomologist
Jedidiah Morse (1761-1826) Geographer
Benjamin Barton (1766-1815) Botanist; Zoologist
John Dalton (1766-1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Samuel Miller (1770-1840) Clergy
Charles Bell (1774-1842) Anatomist
John Kidd (1775-1851) Chemistry
Humphrey Davy (1778-1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
Benjamin Silliman (1779-1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
Peter Mark Roget (1779-1869) Physician; Physiologist
Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
David Brewster (1781-1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
William Buckland (1784-1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
William Prout (1785-1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
Samuel F. B. Morse (1791-1872) Telegraph
Charles Babbage (1792-1871) Operations research; Computer science; Ophthalmoscope (old-earth compromiser*)
John Herschel (1792-1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
Edward Hitchcock (1793-1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
William Whewell (1794-1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
Joseph Henry (1797-1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
Just After Darwin
Richard Owen (1804-1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Matthew Maury (1806-1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
Henry Rogers (1808-1866) Geology
John Murray (1808-1892) Publisher
James Glaisher (1809-1903) Meteorology
Philip H. Gosse (1810-1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810-1895) Archeologist
James Simpson (1811-1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
James Dana (1813-1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817-1901) Agricultural Chemist
James Joule (1818-1889) Thermodynamics
Thomas Anderson (1819-1874) Chemist
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819-1900) Astronomy
George Stokes (1819-1903) Fluid Mechanics
John William Dawson (1820-1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902) Pathology
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) (WOH) Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
Henri Fabre (1823-1915) Entomology of living insects
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
William Huggins (1824-1910) Astral spectrometry
Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
Joseph Lister (1827-1912) Antiseptic surgery
Balfour Stewart (1828-1887) Ionospheric electricity
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
P.G. Tait (1831-1901) Vector analysis
John Bell Pettigrew (1834-1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
Sir William Abney (1843-1920) Astronomy
Alexander MacAlister (1844-1919) Anatomy
A.H. Sayce (1845-1933) Archeologist
George Romanes (1848-1894) Biology; Physiology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
The Modern Period
Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist
George Washington Carver (1864-1943) Inventor
L. Merson Davies (1890-1960) Geology; Paleontology
Douglas Dewar (1875-1957) Ornithologist
Howard A. Kelly (1858-1943) Gynecology
Paul Lemoine (1878-1940) Geology
Dr Frank Marsh, Biology
Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
Edward H. Maunder (1851-1928) Astronomy
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939) Archeologist
William Ramsay (1852-1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
Charles Stine (1882-1954) Organic Chemist
A. Rendle-Short (1885-1955) Surgeon
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892-1979) Surgeon
Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915-1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer

renthead188
Jan 27th 2008, 11:48 PM
http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html

Creation Scientists in the Biological Sciences
Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry
Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology
David Dewitt, Ph.D. Neuroscience
Frank Sherwin, M.A. Zoology (Parasitology)
Todd C. Wood, Ph.D. Biochemistry/Genomics
Robert Franks, M.D.
Robert H. Eckel, M.D.
Gary Parker, Ed.D.
Biology Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Microbiology
David Menton, Ph.D. Cell Biology
Raymond V. Damadian, M.D.
Joseph A. Mastropaolo, Ph.D. Kinesiology/Physiology
Carl B. Fliermans, Ph.D.
MicrobiologyIan 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.
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. Mollecular and Cellular Pharmacology
Donna O'Daniel, M.A. Biological Sciences
Glen W. Wolfrom, Ph.D. Animal Husbandry
Mark H. Armitage, M.S. Biology
Richard D. Lumsden, Ph.D. 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. BiologyInis
J. Bardella, M.D.
Gary A. Eckhoff, D.V.M.

http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/physicalscientists.html

Creation Scientists in the Physical Sciences
Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. Hydraulic Engineering
John Morris, Ph.D. Geological Engineering
Steven Austin, Ph.D. Geology
Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science
John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics
Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics
Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. Geology
Bill Hoesch, M.S. Geology
David Phillips, M.A. Paleoanthropology
Danny Faulkner, Ph.D. Astronomy
Don DeYoung, Ph.D. Physics
Eugene Chaffin, Ph.D. Theoretical Nuclear Physics
John W. Oller, Jr., Ph.D. General Linguistics
Jay L. Wile, Ph.D. Nuclear Chemistry
Andrew C. McIntosh, Ph.D. Combustion Theory
Alexander V. Lalomov, Ph.D. Geology
Tom McMullen, Ph.D. History and Philosophy of Science
Kurt P. Wise, Ph.D. Geology (Paleontology)
David P. Livingston, Jr., Ph.D. Archaeology and Ancient History
Paul Ackerman, Ph.D. Psychology
Keith H. Wanser, Ph.D. Condensed Matter Physics
Edmond W. Holroyd, III Ph.D. Atmospheric Science
Donald E. Chittick, Ph.D. Chemistry
Raul E. Lopez, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science
Arlo Moehlenpah, D.Sc. Chemical Engineering
Robert Hermann, Ph.D. Mathematics
Otto E. Berg, B.A. Physics/Chemistry
Malcolm A. Cutchins, Ph.D. Engineering Mechanics
Patrick Young, Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry
Ron Samec, Ph.D. Physics
Daniel W. Reynolds , Ph.D. Physical Organic Chemistry
Gary Locklair, Ph.D. Computer Science
Michael Oard, M.S. Atmospheric Science
Jerry R. Bergman, Ph.D. Evaluation and Research
Emmett L. Williams, Ph.D. Materials Engineering
Edward A. Boudreaux, Ph.D. Chemistry
Jerry M. Simmons, Ph.D. Multicultural Teacher & Childhood Education
David R. McQueen, M.S. Geology
Les Bruce, Ph.D.