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.
Lists of Creation scientists are not for the purpose of Argument from Authority, they are a direct response to the old evolutionist canard that there are no Creation scientists, are you yourself say.
You're sarcastic response doesn't apply. This isn't the first time you've taken something out of context. My list of scientists was not at all to try to prove Creationism as valid. It was a direct response to your farcical conjecture that there are no Creation Scientists who actually do science or publish research papers. If the mere existence of Creationists validated Creation then by my own logic I would have to believe in Evolution even more so.
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.
You're either lying or lazy because if you had tried so hard to find a creation scientist, you would have your own list by now.
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.
Perhaps you would object to my mentioning Dr Raymond Damadian, inventor of magnetic resonance imaging.
Or maybe you have a problem with Dr David Menton, a PhD biologist, who has published numerous articles in scientific journals dealing with bone, wound healing, and the epidermal barrier function and biomechanics of skin.
Perhaps you take issue with Dr Dudley Erich, molecular biologist who has published expensively in the professional literature and who has won several research awards and holds a number of patents. He has a wide range of experience in industrial genetics research.
Dr John Baumgardener who holds his PhD in geophysics and space physics and currently does technical work at Los Alamos includes development of a new global ocean model for investigating climate change.
Or maybe you take issue with Dr Russell Humphreys, a physicist: does research for Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. he has published approx. 20 papers in secular science journals, as well as creationist technical papers and is author of 'Starlight and Time."
I don't really think it's necessary to go on. These are all scientists with PhDs who practise science, publish papers, etc, as well as being Bible believing Creationists. Am I wrong?
But creationists often claim that there are many real scientists out in the real world who are creationists.
That really depends on how you define "many." Obviously the vast majority, probably over 90% of scientists are evolutionists with ID and Creationists being a small minority. But majority vote doesn't decide truth. And again, the very reason Creationists need to point out that there are Creation scientists (thousands as opposed to me estimate of millions of evolutionists) is that evolutionists are constantly claiming that ALL scientists believe in evolution, which is simply untrue.
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.
This is a point I myself was about to make, so I'm glad you brought it up. It's the difference I have been referring to between operational science and origins science. While your beliefs about the history of the cosmos and the earth play a vital role in how you interpret evidence, they sometimes have little or nothing to do with your research. That is very true of evolution, as Creation scientists often point out that although their colleagues are usually all evolutionists, evolution has NOTHING whatever to do with their work. It has no practical application and is not needed to do REAL science.
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).
Finally I understand the block in your capacity to comprehend the existence of creation Scientists. It is your confused definition of what a Creation Scientist is. But first, let me respond to your comment on Dr. Bosanquet. First, Creationists do not report only on Creation/Evolution. They are scientists and thus they publish papers in both creationist and evolutionist peer-reviewed journals. They do research alongside other scientists, who are mostly evolutionists. As for the aquisition of resistance to cancer treatments, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution as opposed to creation. Developed resistance is not an evolutionary topic. It goes to show how little you even know about Creation theory.
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.
The reason you generally come to the same result is because you make it so in your mind. You take a quick glance, make excuses as to why this case isn't valid and say "I told you so." As for evolutionists, they tend to not be "evolutionists" in terms of their actual work either. As for Creation theory, Dr Humphreys developed a biblically consistent cosmology of the creation of the universe (BAD, a few years after Dr Humphreys developed his "white hole cosmology" secular scientists started catching up to his research and developed their own version of it). Dr Walt Brown has formulated the hydroplate theory, explaining the geologic events that took place prior to, during and after the flood to explain the evidence we see today. But a Creationist doesn't need to develope theories about creation in order to BE a creation scientist. He merely interprets the data according to the biblical framework, just as evolutionist do with their evolutionary framework. I have given you a few others that should be very easy to look up, as well as given you a little info about each of them.
But he fails, completely, in terms of being a "creation scientist".
In closing I would like to ask that you please define what a creation scientist is. If a scientist has a Pht, does research, publishes in secular journals, and believes firmly in creation, is he still not a creationist? If that is so, then no matter what any evolutionist beliefs, he can't qualify as an evolutionist unless he meets your unsaid requirements.
Cathar1950 wrote:
That is the nature of science but creationist science advocates don't have to question their work or ideas. They belive in Geneses. I have never met a creationist scientist myself. I know people that belive in it and are scientists.
This is a very common but confused view of Creationism. And again, it comes from the inability to differentiate between operation and origins science. Scientists, all of them, should question their theories. Most do. Creationists accept genesis as true. not because it is proven, but because it is their belief system and they see no reason why they should abandon it and every reason why they should believe it. Evolutionists are exactly the same, and this is the part that goes right over the heads of most evolutionists. NO evolutionist that i have ever spoken to or met has EVER questioned EVOLUTION. They may question the mechanism by which evolution occurs, some believe the Big bang is outdated, etc. but they don't doubt Evolution itself. There are some evolutionists who have become creationists, but other than that, I don't know of an evolutionist who doubts evolution. So how are they different?
