List of Creation Scientists

Incognito
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-04-15
User is offlineOffline
List of Creation Scientists

 

 1. All the founders of the major branches of science, were creationists.

2. Every paleontologist of significant note today, affirms the fact that the fossil record is lacking in evidence.

3. 600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).

150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)


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) [more info]

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) 

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) [more info]

A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) 

John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
If you bothered to count,

If you bothered to count, you would realize that (a) only 8 of those are biologists of any form and (b) More than half came before evolution was actually discovered. Some aren't actually scientists at all, they're mathematicians (Riemann was a mathematician whose opinion on the formation of biological life has no relevance, nor would Stokes, for example). Some of the examples are just bizarre. There is no point listing anyone from the 17th century to support your opinion (Pascal) or the 18th (Linnaeus) and certainly not the 16th (Bacon). Many of the people in the list had no concept of evolution, you just listed them (well, not "you" since this is copied and pasted, but you get the idea) because they didn't believe in evolution (some of these people hadn't ever heard of it). Most of them are completely irrelevant (Yes, Faraday was brilliant, but unfortunately his discoveries of magnetic induction do not lend themselves to support of his religious beliefs).

PS: If you get to list Wehrner von Braun (because, you know, having a firm understanding of rocket science is a very important aspect of grasping biology), does that mean you have to stop playing the Hitler card?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Excellent research.

Incognito wrote:

 1. All the founders of the major branches of science, were creationists.

Please identify each "major branch of science", as well as its founder, please. 

Incognito wrote:

2. Every paleontologist of significant note today, affirms the fact that the fossil record is lacking in evidence.

Of course.  The only way it could not be lacking in evidence is a fossil existed for every organism that ever lived.  Pity for you that the fossil record, incomplete as it is, more than suffices to render creationism invalid.

Incognito wrote:

3. 600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).

150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

Polytechnic...high-tech alloys.  We all know that metallurgists are the authorities on disproving evolution.

As far as your list:

» Excellent research.

 

[EDIT:  error on submit]

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
So, if I put together a list

So, if I put together a list of scientists who don't think you're real, Incog, does that make you unreal?

If I find someone who is degreed in, say, geology who insists the theory of gravity is not valid, should we abandon that theory despite its usefulness and predictive functions? (I really do know a geologist who thinks the theory of gravity is total bunk.)

Aren't you creationists tired of repeating the same tired old arguments that have been beaten to stinky pulp?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Wow, fallacy of appeal to

Wow, fallacy of appeal to authority (authority that is typically not relevent) and fallacy of appeal to great people. Yeah, so what?

 

Here's a whole bunch of scientists named Steve who support the theroy of evolution:

 

http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Incognito wrote: 3. 600+

Incognito wrote:

 3. 600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).

150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)

Wow. Out of the millions of people with masters or greater in science, only "600+" plus 150 plus 300 (about 1100, more or less) believe in creationism enough to join a group dedicated to creationism?

I figured it'd be much greater than that. I mean, under 0.12% is kinda pathetic, isn't it? (And that's only assuming 1M people with masters or greater.)

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Oh, no! He has proven that

Oh, no! He has proven that evolution is broked'ed! 


Megatron
Superfan
Posts: 35
Joined: 2008-11-10
User is offlineOffline
 I'm sorry, but you used

 I'm sorry, but you used the term "creationist scientists".


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Have you heard about

Have you heard about ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve ?

They have been building a list of all the scientists who affirm evolution, who also happen to be named 'Steve', just to keep the list at a manageable size. It is estimated that this would be only about 1% of the total

So far they are over 1000, representing maybe 100,000 in total....

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Just goes to show that

Just goes to show that really smart people can still believe in superstition. Personally I think dissent within the scientific community is a necessity. Scientists, like all other professionals, are always looking for ways to become more known within their fields. The disagreement of a minority of scientists can help to further challenge theories even more than the peer review process.

The ToE is still the most widely evidenced scientific theory today, and challenging the idea is a must for scientific progress. You must also understand that creation science is just plain nutty. If a creationist has a valid scientific arguement for testing the existence of god I would love to hear it. Intelligent design is also scientifically vacuous as there is no test available to measure the "god design" factor.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


FriendofGod (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
You seem so sure of

You seem so sure of yourself.

 

The Bible says "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"

 

There is a Creationist named Kent Hovind. He has debated many professors of evolution and to my knowledge he has not lost. It has come to the point that they refuse to debate him. He has offered $250,000 to anyone who can present just a single piece of evidence in favor of evolution. I'm betting you can't do it.

You just believe whatever your told and you call it science.

Good luck with that.


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
"Dr." Kent Hovind: Never lost?

FriendofGod wrote:
There is a Creationist named Kent Hovind. He has debated many professors of evolution and to my knowledge he has not lost.

REALLY? HAHAHAHAHAH! Anyone who thinks "Dr." (forever in quotes) Kent Hovind has proven anything besides the ignorance of religious literalists must be lacking in the gray matter. At no time has he won a debate against any real scientists except in the eyes of uneducated, ignorant people.

FriendofGod wrote:
It has come to the point that they refuse to debate him.

Would you debate an adult who believed in Santa Claus against all the available evidence, and when pointed to the evidence, would just discount it off hand? Well you have as much evidence for your deity as a 5 year old has for Santa. Deal with the fact that people won't take you seriously and that they will treat you like an intellectually stunted individual, because until you get some evidence for your positions this treatment will not change.

So, I have to ask FriendofGod, do you agree with Kent that "one molecule of water can cover the whole world, if you spread it real thin "? Or do you agree with his statement about there being either a layer of ice or water around the atmosphere in ancient times? Because if you do, you are just as much of a tin foil hat wearing loon as he is.

 

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
FriendofGod wrote:You seem

FriendofGod wrote:

You seem so sure of yourself.

 

The Bible says "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"

 

There is a Creationist named Kent Hovind. He has debated many professors of evolution and to my knowledge he has not lost. It has come to the point that they refuse to debate him. He has offered $250,000 to anyone who can present just a single piece of evidence in favor of evolution. I'm betting you can't do it.

You just believe whatever your told and you call it science.

Good luck with that.

 

WWWWHHHHAAAATTTT?  Is this a joke or are you just dead retarded?  Did you seriously just say that.  Well you've just committed intellectual suicide, good luck with that.

 

Ps:  I just watch a Kent Hovind debate last week, he's a laughing stock, a cartoon-like poster child for moronic creationsism.  You had so many better creationists to use as an example, why did you choose this bafoon.  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FriendofGod wrote:You seem

FriendofGod wrote:

You seem so sure of yourself.

 

The Bible says "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"

 

There is a Creationist named Kent Hovind. He has debated many professors of evolution and to my knowledge he has not lost. It has come to the point that they refuse to debate him. He has offered $250,000 to anyone who can present just a single piece of evidence in favor of evolution. I'm betting you can't do it.

You just believe whatever your told and you call it science.

Good luck with that.

I rather think the government has made that challenge null and void. Not that it wasn't rigged so that no one could win also...

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3688
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
FriendofGod wrote: There is

FriendofGod wrote:

There is a Creationist named Kent Hovind. He has debated many professors of evolution and to my knowledge he has not lost. It has come to the point that they refuse to debate him. He has offered $250,000 to anyone who can present just a single piece of evidence in favor of evolution. I'm betting you can't do it.

Kent Hovind's "offer" is a complete joke. He wrote:

"* NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.

3. Matter created life by itself.

4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.

5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals)."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html 

To satisfy Hovind's requirement of "evidence for evolution," you would not only have to 1) Reproduce the origin of the universe, of time, space, and matter, 2) Create planets and stars from "space dust," 3) Observe the formation of life, to the 4) evolution of life, to the 5) evolution from fish to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, reptiles changed to birds or mammals, all in a laboratory, you would have to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that "God," who, by definition, is undetectable by science, was not involved in any of these processes.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the terms of his "offer" are intentionally designed to be impossible to attain.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ContemptableWitness
ContemptableWitness's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2010-04-06
User is offlineOffline
 Project SteveYou say you

 Project Steve

You say you have 600 educated people who support evolution. Fine. The above is a link to Project Steve, and in it you will find a list of over 1,100 biologists named Steve who accept it.  If you're going to play a numbers game against evolution, you will lose.  Heck, the NCSE didn't even have to pad their list like you did (including scientists who lived before Darwin, for example).

The fact is that in the relevant field of study (biology in case you weren't listening. No, mathematicians, engineers and physicists are not authorities on evolution, and their overreaching into fields they really don't understand does not count as real dissent) only 0.15% of the scientists support a creationist view.  If you have a scientific theory that 99.85% of the scientists in that field accept, there is no dissent significant enough to recognize.  Imagine if 0.15% of the earth's population believed the earth is flat. Is that enough of a controversy to teach that idea in a geography class?

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
There must be more than one

There must be more than one of this thread kicking around, which is hardly surprising given the material. However, I know for a fact that I posted a list in at least one other showing how all of the supposed creation believing scientists lived in a time when it was pretty much standard that everyone believed in religion.

 

Heck, but my version even lists the religious affiliations of some rather more recent scientists. People who were instrumental in developing quantum mechanics, held to build nuclear weapons and even the director of the human genome project.

 

Honestly, it is hardly earth shaking news that some scientists, both then and today have a religion thing going on. Really, the put pants on in the morning just like the rest of us.

 

I think that I should hunt up that list again and add it to this thread.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Got it.     1627- 1691

Got it.

 

 

1627- 1691 Robert Boyle (the father of modern chemistry)

 

1623 -1687 Iona William Petty (known for his studies on statistics and modern economy)

 

1791 – 1867 Michael Faraday (one of the greatest physicists of all times)

 

1822 – 1884 Gregory Mendel (the father of genetics; he invalidated Darwinism with his discoveries in the science of genetics)

 

1822 – 1895 Louis Pasteur (the greatest name in bacteriology; he declared war on Darwinism)

 

1766 – 1844 John Dalton (the father of atomic theory)

 

1623 – 1662 Blaise Pascal (one of the most important mathematicians)

 

1627 -1705 John Ray (the most important name in British natural history)

 

1638 – 1686 Nicolaus Steno (a famous stratiographer who investigated earth layers)

 

1707 – 1778 Carolus Linnaeus (the father of biological classification)

 

1769 – 1832 Georges Cuvier (the founder of comparative anatomy)

 

1806 – 1873 Matthew Maury (the founder of oceanography)

 

1819 – 1874 Thomas Anderson (one the pioneers in the field of organic chemistry)

 

 

 

If there is a point to this list, it can only be to prove that whomever made it was so morally bereft that they simply did not bother to check and see how many theists there are in modern science. Some of my favorites:

 

 

 

1894 – 1966 Georges Lemaître. Priest who developed the Big Bang Theory. Catholic priest

 

1848 – 1957 Max Planck. Founder of Quantum Mechanics. Lutheran elder

 

1892 – 1962 Arthur Compton. Nobel laureate in physics. Helped to develop nuclear weapons. Baptist Deacon

 

1901 – 1981 Henry Eyring. Just missed a Nobel Prize in chemistry by dying before being nominated. Mormon district president.

 

 

 

Alive:

 

 

 

1931 - Sir John Theodore Houghton FRS CBE. Co chair of the IPCC. Presbyterian.

 

1950 - Francis Sellers Collins Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland.

 

1938 - Donald Ervin Knuth Pioneer in computer science.

 

 

 

Now see, was that so hard?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=