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]

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.

Touche. A great response, for which I commend you.

I will humbly suggest that while science cannot define absolute proof of a theory, it can define falsification. With respect to "all" of those anti-evolution arguments that have been debunked, this has been done by proving them to be false.

But, let's do it this way. Rather than throw barbs at each other, let's look at a few of them. Suggest a couple of anti-evolution arguments, and let's see if they are really valid. If not, let's see when they were first shown to be invalid.

There's no attempt here to pretend that science is your ascending god. There's simply an attempt to figure out how things work, based on actual data. Unfortunately for those who would prefer otherwise, science has the constraint that explanations must fit all of the data, not just a subset of it.

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.

Science very frequently leads to discoveries that old ideas were inaccurate. Regrettably, ideas are often presented as, or interpreted as if they were presented as fact. So, when new data tell us to reformulate that idea, sometimes people think science is shifting the goal posts, throwing out it's Truth and replacing it with Different Truth. It's not. It's replacing its previous current-best-explanation with a new current-best-explanation.

But, that's in the Search for Truth. As we said, it's hard to know what the answer is, if you don't already know it. However, it is easy to tell when an idea is flat-out contradicted by the data. Once it's wrong, it's wrong. It's been debunked. No one bothers to work on it any more once it's been shown to be wrong.

Your example is one that was thought to be right, and eventually shown to be inadequate. We're talking about things that have been shown to be wrong.

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.

You have made an unwarranted assumption, which is that the so-called Scientific Method is how science is done. It turns out to be a caricature that does not match most of science--but is followed in some fields for some purposes.

Nonetheless, your point is a good one. We do, indeed, search for truth. But we don't already know that truth, so we don't know when we've arrived at it. Therefore, we merely say that our explanation is the current theory. We don't expect to have a final answer very often.

Needless to say, there are some theories that seem to be pretty darned close to truth. The cell theory is one. The germ theory of disease is another. The heliocentric theory of the solar system is another. As it turns out, the theory of evolution is another.

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.

Indeed. But again, this is updates of what we think might be true. We don't bother with stuff that has been shown to be untrue.

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.

No, science is not asking you to believe it to be infallible. It merely asks that you understand what it is. It is not religion, which does claim to be infallible. It is, as you say, fallible people doing fallible science. Because of the fallibility, there are "rules" that we say "the data suggest" an explanation, rather than "the data prove" the explanation. It is regrettable that the public so frequently assumes that the current-best explanations are being presented as "truth" when they are not.

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.

You make a logical inference here that is unwarranted. Even as you say here, "science is based on...data." It is based on all of the data that we know of at the current time. 2000 years ago, that was very little data. Now, it is much more. When juliod says science is based on evidence, he means the same thing as science being based on data. Your unwarranted logical inference is that it is necessary to have ALL of the data to reach a valid conclusion.

I am reminded of a "mental puzzle" in Highlights magazine when I was at the doctor's office with my mom decades ago. It was something like this: "John goes outside in the morning, and says, 'It rained last night!' What would have caused him to say this?" Let's rephrase it: how much evidence do you need to reach this conclusion, and have it be reasonably valid? Do you need all of the data? Do you need to know the rainfall rate, the windspeed, the cloud height, the barometric pressure, etc? Or can you reach a good conclusion by looking at everything being wet? You have no problem reaching inferences based on only a subset of the data--even inferences about things that happened in the past (last night), and for which you have no firsthand evidence (you were asleep).

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.

Again, a couple of logical mis-steps. There are hundreds, if not thousands of scientists worldwide who are studying various aspects of evolution. They publish routinely in the scientific journals. However, there are extremely few--perhaps zero--scientists who study creation and publish in the scientific journals. Second, it is not at all necessary to observe an event to be able to figure out what happened. John concluding that it rained last night is a very simple example. Nor can John repeat last night's rain.

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

There is a distinction, which juliod may also point out. Many true scientists accept creation--but their field of investigation has no overlap with creation/evolution. They study something entirely different. These are not "creation scientists." They are "scientists who are creationists." A "creation scientist" is someone whose science is the investigation of creation. Of these, there are vanishingly few.

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.

Let me re-ask the same question. Why do you assume that science would come to a crashing halt if there is a god? Science has no information about gods of any kind, either for or against. Until one or another god provides some evidence of her or his existence, science must remain silent about gods. It is not that science refuses to consider gods, or that the presence of gods would make science implode. It is merely that science starts with evidence and goes from there.

[McCulloch]

I think I may have found one. Michael J. Oard has B.S. Atmospheric Science, 1969, University of Washington and a M.S. Atmospheric Science, 1973, University of Washington. He is not a leader in the field of Meteorology, but he does have a bona fide post-graduate degree in the science of Meteorology. He has authored in recognized meteorological journals between 1969 and 1993. None of these articles seem to have anything to do with creationism but they do establish him as a practicing scientist in the field of meteorology. He has been published in creationist journals many times.

• Oard, M.J., 1979. A rapid post-Flood ice age. Creation Research Society Quarterly 16(1):29–37,58.
• Oard, M.J., 1984a. Ice ages: the mystery solved? Part I: the inadequacy of the uniformitarian ice ages. Creation Research Society Quarterly 21(2):66–76.
• Oard, M.J., 1984b. Ice ages: the mystery solved? Part II: the manipulation of deep-sea cores. Creation Research Society Quarterly 21(3):125–137.
• Oard, M.J., 1985. Ice ages: the mystery solved? Part III: paleomagnetic stratigraphy and data manipulation. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 21(3):170–181.
• Oard, M.J., 1987. An ice age within the Biblical time frame. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, volume II, R.E. Walsh, C.L. Brooks, and R.S. Crowell, eds. Creation Science Fellowship. Pittsburgh. pp. 157–166.
• Oard, M.J., 1990a. A post-Flood ice age model can account for Quaternary features. Origins 17(1):8–26.
• Oard, M.J., 1990b. The evidence for only one ice age. in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, volume II, R.E. Walsh and C.L. Brooks, eds. Creation Science Fellowship. Pittsburgh. pp. 191–200.
• Oard, M.J., 1992a. Varves — the first ‘absolute’ chronology part I — historical development and the question of annual deposition. Creation Research Society Quarterly 29:72–80.
• Oard, M.J., 1992b. Varves — the first ‘absolute’ chronology part II — varve correlation and the post-glacial time scale. Creation Research Socity Quarterly 29:120–125.
• Oard, M.J., 1993. Comments on the breached dam theory for the formation of the Grand Canyon. Creation Research Society Quarterly 30:39–46.
• Oard, M.J., 1994. Submarine mass flow deposition of pre-Pleistocene ‘ice age’ deposits. in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Technical Symposium Sessions, R.E. Walsh, ed. Creation Science Fellowship. Pittsburgh. pp. 407–418.
• Oard, M.J., 1995. Astronomical Problems. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 9(1):5–6.
• Oard, M.J., 1995a. Where are all the pre-Pleistocene giant landslide deposits. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 9:69–70.
• Oard, M.J., 1995b. Polar dinosaurs and the Genesis Flood. Creation Research Society Quarterly 32:47–56.
• Oard, M.J., 1995c. Mid and high latitude flora deposited in the Genesis Flood — part I: uniformitarian paradox. Creation Research Society Quarterly 32:107–115.
• Oard, M.J., 1995d. Mid and high latitude flora deposited in the Genesis Flood — part II: a creationist hypothesis. Creation Research Society Quarterly 32:138–141.
• Holroyd, III, E.W., Oard, M.J. and D. Petersen, 1996. Opportunities for creationist studies at the Hanson Ranch, Roxson, Wyoming. Creation Research Society Quarterly 33:136–140.
• Reed, J.K., Bennett, C.B., Froede, Jr., C.R., Oard, M.J. and J. Woodmorappe, 1996. An introduction to modern uniformitarian and catastrophic plate tectonics concepts. Creation Research Society Quarterly 33:202–210.
• Oard, M.J., 1996. Where is the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the rock record? Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10(2):258–278.
• Oard, M.J., 1996. Review of Sea-Floor Sediment and the Age of the Earth by Larry Vardiman. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10(3):328–329.
• Oard, M.J., 1997. A Classic Tillite Reclassified as a Submarine Debris Flow, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 11(1):7.
• Oard, M.J., 1997. The extinction of the dinosaurs. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 11(2):137–154.
• Oard, M.J., 1998. Dinosaurs in the Flood: a response. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12(1):69–86.
• Oard, M.J., 1998. Rapid Cave Formation by Sulfuric Acid Dissolution. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12(3):279–280.
• Klevberg, P. and M. Oard, 1998. Paleohydrology of the Cypress Hills Formation and Flaxville Gravel. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Walsh, R.E. (ed.), pp. 361–378.
• Oard, M.J. and P. Klevberg, 1998. A diluvial interpretation of the Cypress Hills Formation, Flaxville gravel, and related deposits. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Walsh, R.E. (ed.), pp. 421–436.
• Oard, M.J. and Sarfati, J.D., 1999. No Dark Matter Found in the Milky Way Galaxy Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13(1):3–4.
• Oard, M.J., 2000. How Well Do Paleontologists Know Fossil Distributions? Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 14(1):7–8.
• Oard, M.J., 2000. The extinction of the woolly mammoth: was it a quick freeze? Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 14(3):24–34.
• Oard, M.J., 2000. Lack of evidence for subduction renders plate tectonics unlikely: Part I — Trench sediments and accretionary prisms. Creation Research Society Quarterly 37(3):142–152.
• Oard, M.J., 2001a Lack of evidence for subduction renders plate tectonics unlikely: Part II — Extension dominant at ‘convergent subduction zones’. Creation Research Society Quarterly 37(4):227–234.
• Oard, M.J., 2001b. Literature criticisms of plate tectonics. In Plate tectonics: a different view, Reed, J.K. (ed.). Creation Research Society Monograph No. 10, pp. 25–64.
• Oard, M.J., 2001c. Subduction unlikely — Plate tectonics improbable. In Plate tectonics: a different view, Reed, J.K. (ed.). Creation Research Society Monograph No. 10, pp. 93–145.
• Oard, M.J., 2001d. Vertical tectonics and the drainage of the Flood waters — A model of the middle and late Diluvian period — Part I. Creation Research Society Quarterly 38(1):3–17.
• Oard, M.J., 2001e. Vertical tectonics and the drainage of the Flood waters — A model of the middle and late Diluvian period — Part II. Creation Research Society Quarterly 38(2) (in press).
• Oard, M.J., 2001. End-mesozoic extinction of dinosaurs partly based on circular reasoning. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 15(2):6–7.
• Oard, M.J., 2001. Controversy over ‘early Paleolithic’ stone ‘tools’ in Canada continues
• Oard, M.J., 2001. The Supposed Consistency of Evolution’s Long Ages
• Oard, M.J., 2001. Review of Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, ed by Larry Vardiman, Andrew Snelling and Eugene Chaffin. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 15(2):31–32.
• Oard, M.J., 2001. Do Greenland ice cores show over one hundred thousand years of annual layers?. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 15(3):39–42.
• Oard, M.J., 2001. Aren’t 250 million year old live bacteria a bit much?
• Oard, M.J., 2001. Did Lucy walk upright? TJ15(2):9–10.
• Oard, M.J., 2003. Neandertal Man — the changing picture: An overview of how this alleged ‘subhuman’ is being progressively rehabilitated, despite the evolutionary bias resisting the trend
• Oard, M.J., 2003. Do genetic differences disprove that Neandertals and modern humans interbred?

I cannot fail to notice that many of his creationist papers are not related to his field of expertise, but I expect that the creationist journals have the same difficulty that we have locating and identifying real creation scientists. But you have to notice that some of his creationist papers are related to his field of expertise, meteorology and were written in the period of his career when he was actively publishing in recognized meteorological journals.
So, does he fit the qualifications of being a creation scientist?
Can we find another one? Preferably with a doctorate and one who is not retired.

[QED]

Nothing on the "Vapour Canopy" then?

[Grumpy]

All

I feel I must point out that according to my own understanding of what a scientist is there can be no creation scientists, it's an oxymoron.

A scientist studies the facts, creates, tests and submits for peer review his hypothesis explaining those facts and thus creates a theory which could in the future be falsified by one set of facts.

A creationist has a belief which he tries to get the evidence to fit and he ignores evidence which does not support his preconcieved story. He doesn't submit his hypothesis to scientific peer review and will not accept any falsifying evidence, so whatever the output of this process is, it is not science and in addition it is a basically dishonest process.

I don't put anyone down for their religious beliefs, but they(the beliefs) are not scientific evidence.

Science is a rigid, self correcting, rule bound discipline for dealing with the physical universe.

Religion is a belief system dealing with the supernatural and interhuman relationships.

The two should never be mixed because both are terrible tools to use in the other's realm.

So, bottom line, creation scientists are terrible scientists and dishonest rekigiously.

Grumpy 8)

[CJK]

I agree.

Creationist scientists profess in propagating pseudo-science to feed the masses.

[steen]

I think I may have found one.

I don't see him posting ANY creationsit themes in a scientific source.

[juliod]

I don't see him posting ANY creationsit themes in a scientific source.

Right. This guy doesn't qualify. None of his scientific papers actually have anything to do with creationism. And being an actual scientist, he would be in position to tell us if he had any actual evidence.

He's just one of those people with a hypercompartmentalized mind. He can believe on thing on Min-Fri, and something else on Sunday.

DanZ

[McCulloch]

I don't see him posting ANY creationsit themes in a scientific source.

Right. This guy doesn't qualify. None of his scientific papers actually have anything to do with creationism. And being an actual scientist, he would be in position to tell us if he had any actual evidence.
He's just one of those people with a hypercompartmentalized mind. He can believe on thing on Min-Fri, and something else on Sunday.

We do not know that for certain do we? What if he really did find scientific evidence of the creationist viewpoint? He would have posted them to scientific journals but those journals would have rejected them out-of-hand because of the well documented bias that scientists have against creationism. His only recourse would be to publish in creationist journals.
So, to be thorough, before we can reject him as a creation scientist we must show that the scientific journals do not automatically reject material that smells of creationism or that the stuff he published in the creationist journals in his field of expertise does not measure up to scientific standards.
He has obviously compromised himself by publishing in creationist journals in fields outside of his field of expertise. He seems to have been unable to convince any of his peers (experts in meteorology) or academic betters (those with doctorates in meteorology) of the correctness of his position. But it remains to be shown if that is because his arguments were scientifically weak (as I would like to believe the ideal scientific community works) or because they were creationist (as those who claim that there is an unfair bias against creationism would argue).
The fact remains that he was (he is retired now) a practicing published scientist (not first tier) who wrote and published papers which appear to be in his field of expertise which support the creationist viewpoint.

[Bart007]

[quote="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'".

[quote]

I know not of any creation scientists nor of any evolution scientists. There are scientists who also believe in Creation by an intelligent being and there are scientists who also believe in materialistic evolution, and there are scientists who also believe in theistic evolution, and there are scientists who believe neither in creation nor evolution. I believe most practicing scientists know little about either and couldn't care less.

[Grumpy]

Bart007

I know not of any creation scientists nor of any evolution scientists. There are scientists who also believe in Creation by an intelligent being and there are scientists who also believe in materialistic evolution, and there are scientists who also believe in theistic evolution, and there are scientists who believe neither in creation nor evolution. I believe most practicing scientists know little about either and couldn't care less.

I too do not know of any creation scientists since a scientist cannot study supernatural subjects and there is no evidence to support a supernatural creation.

There are many scientist involved in the study of evolutionary sciences, it is not a matter of belief, simply acceptance of reality. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution as a fact with several valid theories explaining some of the processes involved. Faith in the existance of something is not required if evidence is readily available validating that existence, such is the case with evolution.

And as a scientist I can tell you from experience you could not be more wrong about scientists not careing, they care very much indeed, more than your average person by a lot. After all nothing in biology makes any sense without evolution.

Grumpy 8)