What is a creation scientist?

[juliod]

We often get into debates about the existance of creation scientists. Often we see creationist web pages offereing the Argument from Authority with lists of supposed scientists that are creationists. In another thread, a member posted this list in response to my use of the phrase "creation 'scientists'".

• Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
• Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist
• Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
• Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
• Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
• Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
• Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
• Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
• Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
• Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
• Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
• Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
• Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
• Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
• Dr David Menton, Anatomist
• Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
• Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
• Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
• Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
• Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
• Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
• Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist

Aside from the fact that it is wrong to list people like this as proof of anything, it is subject to sarcastic responses like this:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articl ... 6_2003.asp

But I've been through lists like this before, on other forums, looking for actual scientists or actual creationists. I haven't found someone who is both. That's what lies behind my repeated claim that 100% (all of them) of research biologists accept evolution.

The only qualification put on this is that we are talking about active scientists, not just someone with a degree. It's very easy to get a degree in a subject, and then turn your back on the knowledge you (should have) gained.

So if we are talking about creation scientists we are talking about people doing science. There is no reason that people at creationist institutes can't "do" science. But creationists often claim that there are many real scientists out in the real world who are creationists.

The question is, can we find them? We are looking for active researchers, and that means in their own field. I don't care that an electrical engineer thinks evolution is wrong. Or that a microbiologist may think the earth is 6000 years old. It's not information they use in their professional activities.

So, for the above list, I decided to look of the first biologist and see if he (Dr. Andrew Bosanquet) is in fact 1) an active scientist, and 2) a creationist.

There is a Dr. Andrew Bosanquet at an institute called Bath Cancer Research, associated with Royal United Hospital in Bath in the UK. I can not be sure this is the same person as in the list. This person has published over 80 papers in the scientific literature.

I have looked at the titles of all the papers, and read the abstracts of the ones that might possibly be evolution-related. None of them seem to indicate a creationist outlook. At least one paper reports on an evolutionary topic (the aquisition of resistance to cancer treatments via mutation-inducing drugs).

This is the usual result, as I have found it. This person does not appear to be a creationist in terms of his actual scientific work. I don't know how he came to be on that list. I don't know if he knows he's on the list, or whether he approves of it. I don't know what his personal beliefs may be when he is not acting as a scientist.

But he fails, completely, in terms of being a "creation scientist".

DanZ

[juliod]

I'm a little disappointed that no one caught the major mistake I made right at the beginning of this thread. Honesty requires me to bring it up myself (I'm an atheist, after all...).

I said that I picked the first biologist ("Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology") but that was in error.

By reading too rapidly I missed "Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist" who I should have recognized as a biologist.

I only noticed after I had already posted the article. So, to prepare to defend myself against the deluge of criticism for that terrible oversight, I looked up Batten too.

Now, He's an interesting case. He's a publisahing scientist. And unlike Bosanquet he also apparently openly claims to be a creationist. Well!

But wait, what do I find? This guy isn't a creationist. He's some sort of lying, evil, decieving, evolutionist! It's true.

Here's one of his papers: "Intergeneric hybridization between Litchi (Litchi Chinensis Sonn.) and Longan (Dimocarpus longan Lour.)" published in the Annals of Botany, Volume 74, pages 111-118 in 1994.

Here's a quote from the Discussion section that uses the dreded E-word:

"It has been proposed by Hogenboom (1975, 1984) that incongruity controls a species' breeding limits. In this theory co-ordination between pollen and pistil is progressively lost as the relationship between species decreases through evolutionary divergence. This had led to the suggestion that study of the pollen-pistil interactions can be used to assess evolutionary relationships between taxonomic groups (Ellis, Sedgley and Gardner, 1991). In crosses between litchi and longan all stages of the reproductive process were inhibited compared to self-pollination supporting the theory of Hogenboom (1975, 1984) that incongruity operates at several levels."

OK, that's a bit thick, if you are not used to reading scientific journals, and in particular if you haven't read this paper.

What they've done is take two plant species, which are different enough to be in different genera, and show hydridization of them. Their data show that the plants "mate" very poorly, and that the pollen-pistil interaction is compromised.

This paper is a very good example of evolution. These two species are right at the end of speciation, and define the border between two genera. They've done a very difficult and complete study of the issue (it took years) and have analysed their data based on someone else's evolutionary theory. This is science at it's best.

But what it most definitely is not is creationism.

What do we make of Batten? He claims to be a creationist. But he uses evolution in his professional scientific work. Obviosuly he is able to compartmentalize his mind to an extraordinary degree. He believes one thing at one time, and another during working days. I don't see how he does it.

But down goes another example of a "creation scientist".

DanZ

[Cathar1950]

Jose wrote:

Maybe that's the eventual outcome of putting creationism into public school curricula. We can use these kinds of "proofs that evolution can't have happened" as examples of unfinished science. It seems kind of sad, though, to bring religion into the science classroom, whether outright creationism or ID, and have to show why it's either not science or why it's outright wrong.

This might be an Idea Jose. Creationism could be taught as example of bad science. It could be a learning tool.
Then the could go to social studies and find out why these people think like this. The Psychology to fix them. I think that might be a little behaviorist so maybe we could use psy. to fix society.
Which leads me to my next thought.
juliod wrote:

What do we make of Batten? He claims to be a creationist. But he uses evolution in his professional scientific work. Obviosuly he is able to compartmentalize his mind to an extraordinary degree. He believes one thing at one time, and another during working days. I don't see how he does it.

He has made a comitment that is so much of himself to turn back, dispite the evidence. It could be Creationist peer presure.
People have split or multiple personalities. They do this because of some kind of mental or emotional inconguence.
any way maybe crationism as belived by bible belivers might make it in the schools after all, with out breaking the seperation of church/state rules. It is an idea.

[Swatchmaker]

Hey Juliod,

I want to first make a comment before I go on to illuminate the very depth of your ignorance about Creationism, what it is, and what it teaches.

Secondly, Don Batten is not a closet evolutionist and is one of my preferred Creationists. I have a video where he says "You can breed dogs for thousands of millions of years but if their's no source source of new genetic information, they'll still be dogs." All Creationists (except some Old-Earthers like Hugh Ross...) believe in Natural Selection, mutation, and speciation.

"It has been proposed by Hogenboom (1975, 1984) that incongruity controls a species' breeding limits. In this theory co-ordination between pollen and pistil is progressively lost as the relationship between species decreases through evolutionary divergence. This had led to the suggestion that study of the pollen-pistil interactions can be used to assess evolutionary relationships between taxonomic groups (Ellis, Sedgley and Gardner, 1991). In crosses between litchi and longan all stages of the reproductive process were inhibited compared to self-pollination supporting the theory of Hogenboom (1975, 1984) that incongruity operates at several levels."

This is not a teaching of Darwinian "Evolution" and if you had ever once read a single paper on Speciation or Natural Selection written by a Creationist, you would have known that. But you don't even look up your opponent's views before you try to ridicule them, which leaves you in the position of doing next to nothing other than knocking over straw men. Anyway, on to make my case. I've decided that since you refuse to do your research, I'll just provide you with a few quotes from books that I myself own from YEC and ID sources. Then I'll provide you with a list of articles you can read that reflect the views of "100% (ALL of them)" YECs., unless you can fulfill the burden of proof and demonstrate otherwise.

Creationist sources:

"The pressures of the environment and the necessities of life tend to eliminate from the population those mutations which lower the ability of the organism to reproduce itself. This effect is called "natural selection."

- 1977, The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, Robert E Kofahl, PhD (yes, I know the name of the book is silly).

"Each biblical kind would therefore have originally been a distinct biological species. But creationists point out that the biblical "kind" is often larger than one of todays "species."

Each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of genetic information. God made sure that the original creatures had enough variety in their genetic information so that their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments."

He goes on to say (you listening Juli?): "...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the practise of equivocation; that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, "bait and switch," is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this "evolution," then imply that the GTE (General Theory of Evolution) is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved."

- 2004, Refuting Compromise, Jonathan Sarfati, PhD

You'll like this one: "Almost unlimited variation is admitted, but unless the types of life are definitely changed, transformation is absolutely impossible."

- Arthur I. Brown, Was Darwin Right?

The great thing about this one is, as far as I can find, this book was published in 1923.

Numerous YEC articles on Natural Selection and Speciation:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... ection.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... iation.asp

ID source:

"The question is not whether natural selection occurs. Of course it does, and it has an effect on maintaining the genetic fitness of a population."

-1991, Darwin on Trial, Phillip E. Johnson

Can you provide me with a single Young Earth Creationist or ID scientist quote that teaches fixity of species? If you can't do that one little thing then I don't see any reason to take you seriously. I don't mean that in an insulting way but you can't even verify the beliefs of your debate opponents (in fact you don't even believe them when they tell you what they believe!) so how can you propose to refute their beliefs?

[juliod]

All Creationists (except some Old-Earthers like Hugh Ross...) believe in Natural Selection, mutation, and speciation.

If you accept the reality of natural selection and speciation, I don't think I have any problems with your beliefs. I do note, however, that most creationists do not accept these things.

I don't think you understand the meaning and implication of words like "natural selection", "speciation", and indeed "evolution". The quotes your posted don't give me any confidence. We know that the major publishing creationists don't understand them.

But, as I said, if you accept NS and speciatioon, there is no problem. If we are going to continue to debate you'll have to explain more clearly what it is you do believe and why you think it is incompatible with science.

DanZ

[harvey1]

We know that the major publishing creationists don't understand them.

I'm surprised that you would say that. YECs are the biggest proponents of fast macroevolution. They say that at the time of the flood, only "kinds" were brought on the ark. After the flood, these kinds evolved into all the millions of species on earth today. If that isn't a belief in the power of macroevolution, then I don't know what is.

[micatala]

I would agree with swatchmaker that we should respond to the actual arguments of our esteemed debating colleagues, and that, everything esle being equal, this means letting them explain in their own way what they mean.

If I am understanding swatch's argument, he is saying the original kinds were created with more genetic information within their populations than is present today, and this information has led the kinds to 'speciate' into larger numbers of species, in some cases, while obviously other 'kinds' (eg. trilobites) have gone extinct.

It is then a fair question to ask "what is the scientific or physical evidence for making these assumptions?"

This is off the topic of the thread, so we might want to start a new one.

On the topic of this thread, I will only say that I don't see much point in it. It doesn't seem that we have even reached a consensus on what the definition of 'creation scientist' is. I can't say I agree with juliod's characterization.

To me the point is whether the quality of science used to support creationism, whoever does it, meets the standards of good scientific scholarship. My opinion is that it does not in general. The main problem I see is that creation scientists are selective in what evidence they consider. Evidence that falsifies or calls into grave doubt creationist scenarios is either ignored, dismissed, explained as the result of a miracle, or is explained by a scenario that is orders of magnitude less plausible than the mainstream scientific explanation.

It is probably true that at least some of the shortcomings in the 'creation science' and ID literature are due to the lack of expertise, qualifications, experience, etc. of those doing the writing. However, whatever lack there is in this area is secondary to the problems with the works themselves.

[juliod]

YECs are the biggest proponents of fast macroevolution.

...while simultaneously denying the existance of macroevolution.

I'm aware of the issue of mass-evolution after the flood. They need to produce about 30 million species in, what, 1000 years?

Continue along this line and creationists will define themselves right out of existance.

If you believe that evolution happens, that "macroevolution" happens, and that speciation happens, then you are an "evolutionist". There are still plenty of creationists who deny those things.

DanZ

[juliod]

I can't say I agree with juliod's characterization.

Do you have a specific problem with my view? That's what this thread is for.

I've looked for creation scientists, and haven't found them.

I'm only asking that a creation scientist work in his or her field in the same way that ordinary scientists work in their own fields.

What I see is scientists whose professional work has nothing to do with creationism, or who posatively support evolution in actuality.

DanZ

[Cathar1950]

I still think my definition is better. That a creation scientist is some one who belives in the inerrant infallible Bible. They belive Genesis is literally true. Now not all of them seem to belive that but that doesn't stop the Bible believers from using their names.
It is not about science it is religion and only one kind. There have been many mass extinction when does the bible talk of them. Of course we were not here for most of them so I guess it is none of our business.
I just wonder who God was pissed at then when the astroid hit or when yellowstone exploded. Or when this star went nova.

[juliod]

I still think my definition is better. That a creation scientist is some one who belives in the inerrant infallible Bible.

First, you have not included the "science" part in your definition. You need to distinguish between a creationist and a creation scientist. You'll need to distiinguish between a scientist and a person who has a degree in a science field but does not practise. And you'll need to distinguish between a scientist and a crank or pseudo-scientist.

I can only think to do that by looking at the actual professional work of the scientist in question.

Remember also that "creation" is supposed to modify "scientist". It's not the same as saying "creationist and scientist".

I don't think your definition of the creation part is good either. Not all creationists are inerrantists.

DanZ