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

[Jose]

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

You are right, of course. The relevant point is not that a spectroscopist can be extremely bright and capable, but whether their particular expertise can be achieved without ever encountering data that are relevant to evolutionary biology. Judging from the titles of the publications (thanks, juliod!), I'd say that Sarfati fits well within this category. He is a scientist, certainly. He does not study creation. Nor does he study problems that are relevant to the evolution/creation issue.

This makes it uncertain whether he is sufficiently knowledgeable about the details to be considered an "expert" in evolutionary biology. It is possible that he reads the evolution literature in his spare time, but he certainly doesn't do research on evolution or creation.

The point has been made before that it's no big deal if someone holds a particular religious belief, and works in a field that can be seen as entirely independent of that belief. Creation and spectroscopy are relatively independent.

However, creationists often like to imply that there are a great many scientists actually studying creation by scientific methods. If so, who are they, and what do they really do?

Well, here's a hint. To save us all from reading the entire research article, here are the first and last sentences:

Because evolutionists cannot show how pterosaurs might have evolved from bats or birds, they must fall back on "convergent evolution" that says similar structures developed more than once, in pterosaurs and in the birds, which are only distantly related.
...
Creation scientists maintain the studies [CT scans of pterosaur skulls, published in Nature by others] show that these animals were designed by God for powered flight from the start, and that they had not "adapted to life in the air."

Ah. Because scientists cannot show that ancient pterosaurs are the descendents of modern bats or birds, evolution must be wrong and creation must be true. Is this a compelling argument?

[juliod]

To save us all from reading the entire research article

Of course, that articvle isn't scientific at all. It's just an amalgum of a creationist book, a misunderstood book on evolution, and a web page. Nothing to see here, move along please...

DanZ

[youngborean]

Nor does he study problems that are relevant to the evolution/creation issue.

I would disagree with this statement. His papers reflect a knoweldge of spectroscopic process. This would make him quite relevant assessing data that uses spectroscopy as a method for any justifying their point (whether for creation or evolution). Although he is definitely not studying the problem directly. His insight would be invaluable (provided he really is an expert) in looking at data that is relavent to the evolution/creation issue. I would certainly rather him be talking about spectroscopic data and creation/evolution than his own interpretation on creation, but I would be slow to diminish his input into debate altogether.

[juliod]

This would make him quite relevant assessing data that uses spectroscopy as a method for any justifying their point (whether for creation or evolution).

Yes, to a degree. A spectroscopist really studies the science and technology of spectroscopy, but not the applications of it. He might be an expert on uses of spectroscopy but his list of publications doesn't suggest that. (Edited to add: for example, an electron microscopist is not expected to be an expert in cell biology.)

The point is, though, that he is definitely not a creation scientist. He never did any research on creationism.

He could have, for example, have studied the various techniques real scientists use for dating artifacts. He could show how these techniques fail, and demonstrate that by experiment. Surely it's right to wonder why he hasn't done that, if he were a "creation scientist".

DanZ

[phoenixfire]

so what are the objections to this guy?

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

Dr Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist. For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company, designing and inventing equipment and researching high-voltage phenomena. While there, he received a U.S. patent and one of Industrial Research Magazine’s IR-100 awards.

Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. In 1985, he began working with Sandia’s ‘Particle Beam Fusion Project’, and was co-inventor of special laser-triggered ‘Rimfire’ high-voltage switches, now coming into wider use.....

who did research into starlight and time in a 6 day creation and referenced here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

[Jose]

Nor does he study problems that are relevant to the evolution/creation issue.

I would disagree with this statement. His papers reflect a knoweldge of spectroscopic process. This would make him quite relevant assessing data that uses spectroscopy as a method for any justifying their point (whether for creation or evolution). Although he is definitely not studying the problem directly. His insight would be invaluable (provided he really is an expert) in looking at data that is relavent to the evolution/creation issue. I would certainly rather him be talking about spectroscopic data and creation/evolution than his own interpretation on creation, but I would be slow to diminish his input into debate altogether.

I don't say his input is irrelevant--you're right to call me on this. I merely say that his expertise is not in the areas upon which evolutionary theory rests, and that the particular compounds that he studies have no direct relevance to genetic inheritance. He can work in his chosen field without a conflict between the data and his fundamental beliefs. My point is that he is a scientist, all right, but not one who seeks to understand creation.

Is he someone to pay attention to in issues concerning evolution and creation? Sure--with the same respect that we listen to anyone. Where spectroscopy comes in, I'd listen closely. But--and this is where my training comes in--I would not accept his conclusion without making sure that I reach the same conclusion from the data. Needless to say, I can't always do that, because I can't always understand the data...but I'd try. If I can't make sense of it, I'll check what other spectroscopists say of the same data.

I'd do the same thing in my own field, and in evolutionary biology, so I'm not singling out a creationist for special treatment. I also expect others to treat me the same way. Don't expect me to be right. Check the data, and draw your own conclusions.

All of this gibberish aside, is there anywhere that spectroscopic data is relevant to creation/evolution? Evolution is the change of life through time, as a result of genetic mechanisms that have been fully measured and verified. I think that spectroscopy is fairly peripheral.

But then, the issue isn't whether this one person is suitably expert to have a valid voice in the discussion, but whether the research of any scientist who is a creationist addresses creation itself. We will note that juliod didn't think much of the ICR link that I provided to illustrate one of the recent breakthroughs of creationist research...

[juliod]

so what are the objections to this guy?

Specifically I have been looking at the biologists, since I am qualified to judge whether their work is relevant and of high quality.

This guy doesn't seem to have done any creation work either.

who did research into starlight and time in a 6 day creation and referenced here

He never actually did research into this. He merely wrote a trivial unscientific rationalization of biblical myth. And the variable speed of light has been conclusively falsified.

I would ask, did he use a variable c in his electromagnetic work when he was an active scientist. Why not?

DanZ

[Chimp]

He doesn't suggest that lightspeed has changed...he suggests time was
slowed at the time of the big bang.

While he may be a physicist, he is not a General Relativity specialist.
One of the papers refuting his equations is written by two Ph.d's who
are GR physicists. From what I could follow (lots of greek symbols )
he is presenting a flawed big bang model.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... shtml?main

[juliod]

He doesn't suggest that lightspeed has changed...he suggests time was
slowed at the time of the big bang.

Means the same thing AFAIAC.

But your point is well made. This guy never researched astrophysics or other areas, and his suggestion is merely wrong, according to scientists who actually do research these area.

DanZ

[phoenixfire]

He doesn't suggest that lightspeed has changed...he suggests time was
slowed at the time of the big bang.

While he may be a physicist, he is not a General Relativity specialist.
One of the papers refuting his equations is written by two Ph.d's who
are GR physicists. From what I could follow (lots of greek symbols )
he is presenting a flawed big bang model.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... shtml?main

Apparently there has been an ongoing debate about this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4 ... 0-2000.asp

And more answers to various critiques:

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

Humphreys rebuttal to Hugh Ross:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/543.asp


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. But the point is that this particular scientist is proposing theories to explain scientific observations in a creationist context. It's causing healthy debate, and is causing people to think. If his theory holds up, then knowledge is advanced. If he's wrong then knowledge is advanced and creationists know to try a different path of explanation.

As Humphreys says, "Bill seems worried that the enemies of young-earth creation science may eventually find something wrong with my paper. Some of my other creationist friends have the same worry. But what would be so bad about that? Do I, like the Bible, have to be inspired and inerrant? No. I’m proposing a scientific theory, not writing new Scripture!"