What is a creation scientist?

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:35 pm

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

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 5:32 pm

juliod wrote:

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

You mean there are other varieties?
I agree with your assessment.
I do think that many who belive in creation science do it because the are
inerrantists. Why go thru all the hassel if they didn't take Geneses literally? They don't belive that anywhere in "God's Word" is science contradicted or does science contradict the Bible, and if it does then it is The science that is wrong.
It all leads back to their view of God if it is ID or Creationism.
Scientist argue among them selves as do Theologians.
Even if they proved God it would not mean the God of the Bible.
It is the heart of the matter. The science is a ruse.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 5:40 pm

micatala wrote: 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.

I guess my main problem is that you are imposing a definition on 'the field' from outside of the field. It seems to me that most scientific fields are defined, at least partially, by those within the field. Evolutionary biology is defined by those in the field, not by physicists. Obviously there is a general agreement on usage that has developed over time among scientists of various fields, but I don't know that you could say there is always consensus. There is not even consensus among all scientists on exactly what 'science' is.

The attitude you are taking seems a little bit like the attitude creationists sometimes take when they try to redefine, misdefine, or mischaracterize evolutionary biology, claiming for example that it is not a 'real science' because it does not create 'reproducible results in the present.'

The particulars of your definition are not unreasonable per se. However, if the actual predominant usage of the term 'creation scientist' does not follow your definition, then I am not sure why we would want to take your definition as the 'right' definition.

Having said all this, I would say that the most salient point is whether anything that could actually be called 'science' or 'quality science' is being done in support of creationism.

I would also agree that, to cite an engineer as a 'creation scientist', especially when their work has nothing to do with creationism is a little silly at best. There is a difference, as you say, between a person who is a 'creationist' in terms of belief and a 'creation scientist' whatever definition we adopt for the latter.

Similarly, I think most of us who are not creationists would say there is a difference between an 'evolutionist' and an 'evolutionary biologist.' I think some of our debaters on the forum use these somewhat interchangeably, and while others may not even agree that the former term has any meaning. I always take it to mean 'someone that accepts evolution as a fact and/or the Theory of Evolution as a very well-supported scientific theory.' As such, I could be called an 'evolutionist' I suppose, even though I am very far from having much expertise in evolutionary biology.

The problem with 'evolutionist' is that it is often used, sometimes disparagingly, to mean a person who 'believes evolution on faith', equating the manner of belief in evolution with the manner people belief in creationism. That is why I prefer not to use it too often.

The Happy Humanist · Post by **The Happy Humanist** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:56 pm

If you believe that evolution happens, that "macroevolution" happens, and that speciation happens, then you are an "evolutionist".

I disagree, Dan. There is still "Common Descent." However, if the trend holds (first they acknowledge micro-evolution, then speciation, then fast macroevolution, natural selection, and mutation) they will probably arrive at Common Descent sooner or later. Maybe even argue themselves into an Old Earth.

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:55 pm

they will probably arrive at Common Descent sooner or later.

Sooner, probably, if they keep on this way. That's why creationists traditionally deny everything about science.

I'm not particularly concerned about common descent. That's a consequence of evolutionionary theory, rather than a part of it. If they acknowledge the mechanisms and processes of evolution that is good enough for me.

But we'll see. I think Swatch will pull back once he realizes where he is heading....

DanZ

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:09 pm

Obviously there is a general agreement on usage that has developed over time among scientists of various fields, but I don't know that you could say there is always consensus. There is not even consensus among all scientists on exactly what 'science' is.

I'm not trying to define a science field to this degree. And I'd be happy to let creation scientists define their own field. But what I'm saying is that I can't find any actual creation scientists.

And that "creation scientist" should be more than just creationist and scientist.

The attitude you are taking seems a little bit like the attitude creationists sometimes take when they try to redefine, misdefine, or mischaracterize evolutionary biology

Not at all. I'm only demanding that if you call someone a "scientist" that they be a scientist in some real way. And I think that means that we limit it to people actually carrying out science in some way related to the context in which you characterize them as a scientist.

However, if the actual predominant usage of the term 'creation scientist' does not follow your definition, then I am not sure why we would want to take your definition as the 'right' definition.

That would be fine. I am not insisting that my view is the only one.

But I think creationists use these lists of "creation scientists" to decieve the ignorant. They want thier audience to think that these "scientists" are studying the Creation, or the Flood, and finding real data to support the religion. It's a false implication.

Having said all this, I would say that the most salient point is whether anything that could actually be called 'science' or 'quality science' is being done in support of creationism.

I would say "no", obviously. It's impossible at those institutions where they must sign a loyalty pledge. No science can go on there. You must follow where your data leads.

Similarly, I think most of us who are not creationists would say there is a difference between an 'evolutionist' and an 'evolutionary biologist.'

You should never ever use the word "evolutionist". It implies that evolution is just another social or political viewpoint that might or might not be useful. At this stage evolution is not a matter of opinion, viewpoint, or political discussion. It's merely part of a full science curriculum. You wouldn't call someone a gravitationist or an atomist.

DanZ

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:25 pm

But I think creationists use these lists of "creation scientists" to decieve the ignorant. They want thier audience to think that these "scientists" are studying the Creation, or the Flood, and finding real data to support the religion. It's a false implication.

Yes, I think you are right here. It is essentially an effort at 'increasing credibility' so that 'arguments from authority' can later be made, or at least so that one can pretend that the authority on the side of creationism is at least in the ballpark of what is on the side of evolution.

You should never ever use the word "evolutionist". It implies that evolution is just another social or political viewpoint that might or might not be useful. At this stage evolution is not a matter of opinion, viewpoint, or political discussion. It's merely part of a full science curriculum. You wouldn't call someone a gravitationist or an atomist.

Yes, you are saying better what I was getting at in relating my uncomfortableness with the term.

phoenixfire · Post by **phoenixfire** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:38 am

Not at all. I'm only demanding that if you call someone a "scientist" that they be a scientist in some real way. And I think that means that we limit it to people actually carrying out science in some way related to the context in which you characterize them as a scientist.

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

Biography, first paragraph reads:

Dr Jonathan Sarfati was born in Ararat, Australia in 1964. He moved to New Zealand as a child and later studied science at Victoria University of Wellington. He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled ‘A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules’. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. He also had a co-authored paper on high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22...

I can't believe anyone can actually do this:

...Dr Sarfati regularly accepts challenges from multiple players where he plays ‘blindfold’, i.e. from memory without sight or any physical contact with the board, so moves are communicated via a recognized chess notation (12 is the most played simultaneously to date—see photo, above right).

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 7:07 pm

Dr Jonathan Sarfati ...

This guy is typical of creation "scientists". He's never wroked in any field related to evolution. Certainly not biology. But neither geology, astronomy, astrophysics, or any similar fields. He was a spectroscopist.

We wouldn't expect him to (and he hasn't) actually done any science in support of creationism.

DanZ

youngborean · Post by **youngborean** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:15 pm

What field isn't spectroscopy used in? I would say being an expert in spectroscopy makes your assessment of certain data very relavent.

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:42 pm

A spectroscopist could doi work relevant to creation, but this guy didn't. His list of papers is in that web page:

Mawdsley, H.J. Trodahl, J. Tallon, J.D. Sarfati and A.B. Kaiser: ‘Thermoelectric power and electron-phonon enhancement in YBa2Cu3O7-?’ Nature 328(6127):233–234, 16 July 1987.

G.R. Burns and J.D. Sarfati: ‘Raman spectra of tetraphosphorus triselenide doped in tetraphosphorus trisulfide’ Solid State Communications 66:347–49, 1988.

G.R. Burns, J.R. Rollo, and J.D. Sarfati: ‘Raman spectra of the tetraphosphorus trichalcogenide cage molecules P4S2Se and P4SSe2’ Inorganica Chimica Acta 161:35–38, 1989.

G.R. Burns, J.R. Rollo, J.D. Sarfati and K.R. Morgan: ‘Phases of tetraphosphorus triselenide analysed by magic angle spinning 31P NMR and Raman spectroscopy, and the Raman Spectrum of tetraphosphorus tetraselenide’ Spectrochimica Acta 47A:811–8, 1991.

J.D. Sarfati and G.R. Burns: ‘The pressure, temperature and excitation frequency dependent Raman spectra; and infrared spectra of CuBrSe3 and CuISe3’ Spectrochimica Acta 50A: 2125–2136, 1994.

J.D. Sarfati, G.R. Burns, and K.R. Morgan: ‘Crystalline and amorphous phases of tetraphosphorus tetraselenide’ Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 188:93–97, 1995.

Look at the titles. Nothing about creation there. He's just another "creation scientist" who has never done any scientific work on creationism. Just another person who got training in science at decided to turn away from it in favor of irrationalism and supernaturalism.

DanZ