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 don't think this particular theory is clearly right or wrong as there is a lot of complex math, other facts and theories, etc. to consider.

You have to take this as a limitation on yourself. Real scientists for whom this is their field of study do understand the math and the theories. The conclusion is not only is this creationist argument wrong, it's not even a serious consideration.

But the point is that this particular scientist is proposing theories to explain scientific observations in a creationist context.

No, he's not actually doing that. He's making up ad hoc crticisms of science that are unsupported by evidence and in conflict with much of the well-established theory.

The goal of this is to convince the ignorant that conservative christianity has not already been falsified by science. In reality, it has.

If he's wrong then knowledge is advanced and creationists know to try a different path of explanation.

One of the most significant aspects of creationism is the fact that they repeatedly use the same discredited arguments even when they have been soundly and conclusively falsified.

Think again of the purpose. To convince the ignorant. The typical creationist audience doesn't know that these arguments have been rejected.

DanZ

[youngborean]

One of the most significant aspects of creationism is the fact that they repeatedly use the same discredited arguments even when they have been soundly and conclusively falsified.

But Humprey is claiming that they have not been directly addressed and or falsified. He is claiming in that article that there has been nothing in print or personal correspondance to deal with the data directly. They may have been soundly and conclusively falsified, but shouldn't it be made apparent to him if he is open to correction as he claims. Sound and conclusive falsification would have to come in some sort of study, not just conjecture or an internet site? I am not claiming his theory in any way, I am saying his desire for an official explanation has it's merits. I don't know if they're honest, but if it is it should be addressed point for point and not as a general polemic. I realize your overall point is that it doesn't merit a response. But if they want people to abandon a supposedly debunked theory then they should disprove it. If they don't care, then they shouldn't be writing polemics against it in public forums.

[juliod]

Sound and conclusive falsification would have to come in some sort of study, not just conjecture or an internet site?

There are two answers to this. First, since his "theory" is not real science, the professionals feel no obligation to refute it. It won't help their careers, and is likely to drag them down to "his level". This goes to the point that this guy isn't a creation scientist. He's not actually done any work in the relevant field. There's formally nothing there for a professional scientist to deal with.

Secondly, there isn't enough time in the universe to deal with all the cranks and loonies with their obsessions. The only scientists who deal with this sort of thing are those who find it amusing quite apart from (and perhaps at the expense of) their professional careers.

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with internet sites that discuss science. It may be hard for the non-specialist to tell the difference between a good one and a bad, but the truth (or at least the better theory) is there to be read.

DanZ

[Jose]

One of the most significant aspects of creationism is the fact that they repeatedly use the same discredited arguments even when they have been soundly and conclusively falsified.

But Humprey is claiming that they have not been directly addressed and or falsified. He is claiming in that article that there has been nothing in print or personal correspondance to deal with the data directly. They may have been soundly and conclusively falsified, but shouldn't it be made apparent to him if he is open to correction as he claims. Sound and conclusive falsification would have to come in some sort of study, not just conjecture or an internet site? I am not claiming his theory in any way, I am saying his desire for an official explanation has it's merits. I don't know if they're honest, but if it is it should be addressed point for point and not as a general polemic. I realize your overall point is that it doesn't merit a response. But if they want people to abandon a supposedly debunked theory then they should disprove it. If they don't care, then they shouldn't be writing polemics against it in public forums.

A good point. In this particular instance, I have no clue what the math or the science actually are. In this field, I am woefully ignorant.

However, if I may digress, I'd like to apply the same logic to the "arguments against evolution," about which I do know something. They have been repeatedly debunked, yet creationists continue to use them over and over. This is, in fact, the entire basis of the creation/evolution controversy. There is no controversy. All of the anti-evolution arguments have been debunked. However, there remain those who bring them up, in order to convince the general public that these are "unsolved problems" with evolution.

So here's the question. Once an idea has been debunked, what do we do next?

In science, we go on. We assume that everyone knows the idea has been debunked, and if they don't know, then we expect them to look up the papers in the library. We most certainly don't keep doing experiments to see if maybe the previously-debunked idea might have had a resurrection, and undergone spontaneous un-debunkment.

Most scientists think that the general public, and certainly the schools, should use the same logic. If an idea has been debunked, we shouldn't teach that idea as if it's true. People should be able to recognize that it's been debunked, and go on to new things--even if they haven't personally done the research to debunk the idea.

For most things, everyone proceeds happily as I've just described. We don't do a lot of leeching anymore, and we wash our hands before surgery. We don't cure our diseases by hanging pyramids over our heads. But somehow, with evolution, the most strongly-supported theory in all of biology, we say, "naah," and then trot out all manner of weird mental concoctions and wholly ignore the fact that they've been debunked. This is probably what gets the scientists so annoyed in debates about this--the sense is that we've already dealt with it.

[Icarus]

This is probably what gets the scientists so annoyed in debates about this--the sense is that we've already dealt with it.

Just because it has been "dealt with" does not mean we got it right.

All of the anti-evolution arguments have been debunked.

Lets see if we can't be a little more grand in our statements. All?! To which all do you really infer to?

Even still if "all" these arguments have been debunked. Hey lets just take science as a self acending god in whom history only started just today. And tomorrow, history will start from scratch again. Forget about the stuff we said yesterday. We now know different. But we weren't wrong. We just didn't know what we know now. Its a difference without a distinction with this self acending god. Each day it wants our brains to be set to zero and just accept. Who asks for blind faith more, religion or science?

We most certainly don't keep doing experiments to see if maybe the previously-debunked idea might have had a resurrection, and undergone spontaneous un-debunkment.

Oh, but yes we do. Not only do we keep doing experiments to see if an idea is really debunked. BUT we also keep doing experiments on theories that we already know how it works. Lets look at lightning for example. Everyone "knows" how it works what with the positive/negative charge in the cloud... but wait, why are scientists now telling us that there isn't a big enough charge in that cloud to start a lightning bolt?? Has science now debunked an already taught as truth phenom.

Lord help us if we ever get so arrogant as to say we "know". Any of us.

So here's the question. Once an idea has been debunked, what do we do next?

In science, we go on.

Here's the problem with the scientific method. It uses Deductive Logic. Which means it doesn't look for the actual undeniable truth. It looks for an inference to a possibility of the truth. Even though numerically the data gathered could be an anomoly to which we derive our conclusion. Now if the scientific method used Inductive Logic. It would have to the final answer. Not an inference.

And no science doesn't just "go on". It is repleat with scientists changing what we know. Science used to state as truth that electricity only traveled in a "tube". Then another guy tests that truth statement, which he gets laughed at for "going against" the great minds of the time and finds out, electricity travels in waves. Yadda Yadda Yadda. Now we have Electromagnetism. And more.

Overall, we have fallable people doing fallable science asking us to believe it to be infallable.

The outright objection to creationist questions is not very scientific.

[juliod]

Lets see if we can't be a little more grand in our statements. All?! To which all do you really infer to?

All as in all. It's not a hard concept to understand. There are no existing unfalsified "anti-evolution" arguments. There are not even any anti-evolution research biologists. Not one.

Who asks for blind faith more, religion or science?

Science is based on evidence, there's no faith involved. All the evidence supports evolution and all the evidence conflicts with creationism. That's why there are no actual creationist scientists.

BUT we also keep doing experiments on theories that we already know how it works.

Who's this "we" you refer to? I get the feeling that you are not a research scientist.

The outright objection to creationist questions is not very scientific.

There aren't any scientific creationist questions. Or theories. Only politico-religious ones.

DanZ

[Icarus]

Juliod,
Creation Research Institute, Discovery Institute, Answers In Genesis and more none media grabbing agencies have all the "ologists" on staff, associated, or contributing. those are three that come to mind. But either way, you missed the point about "all", the "all" was not in reference to individuals but to Jose's statement that "all" the arguments for evolution have been debunked. I haven't talked with you yet but, read a little closer please.

Science is not based on evidence. Science is based on Deductive assumption of known data. In other words, unless it has literally ALL the data available, it is faith to assume its data assumptions are correct.

If there are no creation scientists, then there are no evolution scientists either, because the major part of evolution has to observe and be repeatable to science. To which hasn't happened yet.

Now are there scientists who believe evolution to be true? Yes. Are the scientists who believe evolution not to be true? Yes. Both are scientists regardless of intellectual belief.

"We" is in reference to mankind. I don't like to argue that this particular debate is you vs. me. Or us vs. them.

There aren't any scientific creationist questions. Or theories. Only politico-religious ones.

I'll assume you have no proper philosophical debate training. Otherwise you'd have not made such an all knowing statement. It sounds more like the stuff some angry scientist writes in refuting creationism in some media outlet. Who is upset that the door has been opened and light has been shown that what they believed to be true could and can be questioned. They close their ears and talk loudly hoping not to have to hear about the utlimate conclusion of a creator. Judgement and ultimate responsibility. I'll ignore the statement out of hand, but point out that you have no way to back any of it up.


Here is a question for you Juliod or Jose: Why must science come to a crashing halt if there is a Creator God? I don't buy the "well why try to figure it out if we know who/what did it?" Just because we know who did it does not mean we automatically have to not try and figure out how he did it. The Bible itself commands man to go and figure out this world and to explore.

[Scrotum]

Here is a question for you Juliod or Jose: Why must science come to a crashing halt if there is a Creator God? I don't buy the "well why try to figure it out if we know who/what did it?" Just because we know who did it does not mean we automatically have to not try and figure out how he did it. The Bible itself commands man to go and figure out this world and to explore.

Do you know the funny thing with this quote? I´ll tell you.

You see, Creationist, THEY dont want to continue. Lets say they are right. The Bible is correct, and God made it. Thats it in Creationist eyes. Its OVER. No more talk, no more research, goddidit.

Thats why your quote above is so amusing. But heck, i guess your talking about Ordinary Christians? Are we accepting the Christian God of the Bible (then Terra is 6000 years old), or perhaps GAP THEORY instead, to be able to handle the "millions of years" concept you cant escape from...

Just wondering.

[juliod]

Creation Research Institute, Discovery Institute, Answers In Genesis and more none media grabbing agencies have all the "ologists" on staff, associated, or contributing.

I don't understand this sentance.

But either way, you missed the point about "all", the "all" was not in reference to individuals but to Jose's statement that "all" the arguments for evolution have been debunked.

I think you meant to write "arguments against evolution". In that case, I understand what you meant exactly (and Jose too). There are no existing arguments against evolution that have not already been debunked.

Science is not based on evidence.

All active research scientists disagree with that statement.

In other words, unless it has literally ALL the data available, it is faith to assume its data assumptions are correct.

All active research scientists disagree with that statement.

Are you seriously claiming that it takes "faith" to accept the theory of gravity? Or the heliocentric solar system? Or the atomic nature of matter?

Have you ever heard of the concept of "necessary and sufficient conditions"? No, I didn't think so...

Are the scientists who believe evolution not to be true? Yes. Both are scientists regardless of intellectual belief.

No, there are no actual active research scientists in a relevant field that do not agree with the theory of evolution. None. Not one. Believe me, I've tried to find this mythical person.

What you have is some people with advanced degrees who choose to ignore what they were supposed to have learned. None of them actually do any scientific work. Also, among creation "scientists" are those who deny evolution, but only in some field other than their own. It means nothing that a professional geologist doesn't understand biology. Of that a biochemist doesn't understand astrophysics.

If you want to say there are creation scientists then you should show how and where they do actual, and actually relevant, scientific work.

Here is a question for you Juliod or Jose: Why must science come to a crashing halt if there is a Creator God?

Only creationists make such claims. Most scientists in the US, including most biologists (who all accept evolution) are christians.

DanZ

[micatala]

Here's the problem with the scientific method. It uses Deductive Logic. Which means it doesn't look for the actual undeniable truth. It looks for an inference to a possibility of the truth. Even though numerically the data gathered could be an anomoly to which we derive our conclusion. Now if the scientific method used Inductive Logic. It would have to the final answer. Not an inference.

I agree with some of this. In my view, and I think many professional scientists would share this view, science does not seek to find nor can it find absolute, undeniable, never-changing truth. The nature of science is to provide the best explanation for all the available data.

In modern science, the nature of the explanation is typically restricted to the realm of 'methodolocial naturalism.' In other words, we give natural explanations for natural phenomenon. Contrary to what some say, this is not necessarily denying that 'non-natural' phenomenon or causes might exist, nor is it saying that all that exists is the natural, it is only saying that we will not consider such causes or phenomenon in our explanation. THre reason for this is mostly pragmatic. If we allowed supernatural causes as part of the explanation, we would not be able to make predictions or test our explanations (unless we could bring God Himself into the realm of scientific inquiry).

I'm not sure your discussion of deductive versus inductive follows my understanding of those terms. Science uses both inductive and deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning can produce absolute truth, IF (and its a big if) one knows that the axioms or premises are absolutely true. Unfortunately, we usually do not have this absolute truth knowledge, and our axioms are usually based on our best known knowledge or (as in mathematics) simply assumed.

Inductive reasoning is always subject to error, since it is inherently based on inferring that conclusions from a finite number of cases will be true for all cases, even if there are infinitely many.

And no science doesn't just "go on". It is repleat with scientists changing what we know. Science used to state as truth that electricity only traveled in a "tube". Then another guy tests that truth statement, which he gets laughed at for "going against" the great minds of the time and finds out, electricity travels in waves. Yadda Yadda Yadda. Now we have Electromagnetism. And more.

Overall, we have fallable people doing fallable science asking us to believe it to be infallable.

WE do have fallible people doing fallible science, and yes, a few of them believe it to be infallible, but I think that most scientists are under no illusions that what they provide is 'infallible proof.'

I think the attitude that says 'science knows best' is based on the fact that the track record of science overall, although far from perfect, is in general very good. Obviously, we have a much higher degree of confidence in some areas than in others. WE are confident enough in our knowledge of the properties of mass and motion that we can get space vehicles to Mars, Jupiter, and beyond with incredible accuracy. We are confident enough in our models of geological history that we can use them to find oil, coal, and other minerals with a good deal of skill.

I think the reason we get 'the attitude of infallibility' sometimes is that scientists get a little impatient responding to people who think they know better than the scientists, and in fact don't. Sort of like dad having to put up with the 10-year old who thinks she knows better than dad, when dad knows full well the kid is off-base and is either unwilling or unable to see why.

I think this is where juliod is coming from. He, along with many of us, have examined the creationist arguments in some detail. Now, even though science does not have the absolute truth, we know enough to know that the creationist arguments do not hold water, and are arguably out and out false. A 6000 year old universe is so inconsistent with the data that we have that it is essentially not possible, at least if you only consider scientific evidence. Our only out is to hypothesize that God created the universe in such a way as to purposefully deceive those who study it through natural means.

If there are no creation scientists, then there are no evolution scientists either, because the major part of evolution has to observe and be repeatable to science. To which hasn't happened yet.

This is a mischaracterization of science, in my view. We do not need to 'repeat' evolution in order to bring it into the realm of scientific inquiry, anymore than we have to repeat the formation of the earth or the sun in order to study their history. Yes, because of the time element, we must observe evolution indirectly, by looking at evidence that has come down to us from the distant past. In the same way, we study the sun, particularly the interior of the sun, indirectly, by observations we can make from the surface. Ditto with the earth. WE cannot repeatedly observe what happened over time, but we can make repeated observations of the data we do have. This is science, just as much as repeating chemistry experiment is science.

In addition, it is worth pointing out the evolution HAS been observed, at least with respect to some species, particurly those with a very short reproductive cycle. When the avian flu outbreak eventually occurs, we will be seeing evolution in action with a vengeance.