that won't really work in your favor.

Im not looking for favor...and why would it be bad to google Walt Brown?

because most of the links that come up discredit him.

Mmmkay...

This is what I was talking about...

"Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired full colonel (Air Force), West Point graduate, and former Army ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years in the military included: Director of Benet Research, Development, and Engineering Laboratories in Albany, New York; tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College."

None of which demonstrates that he has any such expertise in geology.
Which honestly is typical of most creationists and their propaganda. Take this video for example. The "expert scientist" they source in that production is a dentist. No credentials whatsoever in any biological science.

Wow, you sound eerily familiar with a few anti-Christian atheists I know.

What does the cited "dentist" have to do with Dr. Walt Brown? Its his theory...not propaganda. lol.

Calm down.

Uhh... I'm not aggravated?
I use it as another example of creationists spreading their own version of science when it's clear they haven't studied in the field they're commenting on. They have nothing to demonstrate that anyone should take their claims seriously, since they have nothing to show in terms of expertise in the subject. Like I said, it's common among creation scientists. If these anti-Christian atheists are respectful of the scientific method and don't fabricate extravagant theories that suit only their own personal-religious world view (which would never survive any peer review scientific scrutiny), then guess which person I have respect for?
Which person is more respectful of the truth? Apparently not the one with the moral authority from on high!

Of course this isn't to say that I necessarily have a beef with Christianity, as there are plenty of Christian denominations that accept theistic evolution. The largest branch of Christianity, the Catholic Church, wisely decided that matters such as the age of the earth and the fossil record are not subjects of their expertise. They don't argue with science, nor do they suppose that the entire evolutionary theory is a fallacy. They will agree that God used evolution to bring about life, and that He is the source of spirituality and the soul.

Granted it is a more difficult position to take, trying to resolve one's faith in the narrative of a seven day creation vs. what we know from well-established science. But at least then you're not making absurd suppositions with zero scientific backing.

arcman, I know you would like a response to your post that is---responsive.
So here it is. You are correct in that if one wants the best information concerning geology or evolution, one should rely on the experts. Not someone who starts out with an agenda to convince others of their religious beliefs or selling books and tapes.
I was going to write about the guy who tries to fit the formation of the Grand Canyon into a 3,000 year time frame, but his explanation is so preposterous that I want bother.

Well, I digress. Since you wouldn't even bother reading the theory because the person doesn't have a degree in geology, yet you have no idea whether or not he has studied it. Apparently you do have a degree and have debunked his theory.

Please tell me that you know that there have been several fabricated lies coming from the "scientific community". Evolution cannot be observed, never has, and never will be.

Thanks buddy for labeling my response not a response. Apparently its only a response if it fits your criteria.

Of course this isn't to say that I necessarily have a beef with Christianity, as there are plenty of Christian denominations that accept theistic evolution. The largest branch of Christianity, the Catholic Church, wisely decided that matters such as the age of the earth and the fossil record are not subjects of their expertise. They don't argue with science, nor do they suppose that the entire evolutionary theory is a fallacy. They will agree that God used evolution to bring about life, and that He is the source of spirituality and the soul. While this may be somewhat true, it is not true for all Catholics. I'm not catholic and don't follow what their "leaders" say.

Granted it is a more difficult position to take, trying to resolve one's faith in the narrative of a seven day creation vs. what we know from well-established science. Thats great...."what we know from well-established science." "Its true because I said so!"

You are correct in that if one wants the best information concerning geology or evolution, one should rely on the experts. Not someone who starts out with an agenda to convince others of their religious beliefs or selling books and tapes. So you two are experts in the field of geology correct? Please enlighten us. I'm sure there has never been scientists in the humanist/naturalist world that didn't have agendas and tried to fabricate science to agree with their presuppositions. Riiight.

Instead of trying to teach me why you believe a certain way, you vehemently bash creationism, call it propaganda, claim that an educated man is not qualified to develop a theory of his own because his degree paper doesn't say "geology" on it. You're both coming in loud and clear.


LMAO...by the way....

"In 1985, Brown decided to move to Phoenix to study geology at Arizona State University under Robert S. Dietz." You guys are great.

Do you have a degree in geology? And how much time have you spent in the Grand Canyon studying it? Maybe you should ask Mr. Brown how much time he spent there. lol.

Take it easy, gentlemen, and take a deep breadth. Some of the posts seem to be getting too personal, which contributes neither to either an understanding of the subject matter discussed, or to an understanding of one another's position.
Thanks,
John

If I have given anyone the idea that I am an expert in anything, let it be known that I do not consider myself one.
As to the the explanation that you cited for how the Grand Canyon came to be, did you read it? Understand it? Do you think the earth's crust 3,000 years ago--give or take a week or two--floated on a sea of water?
Of course, there have been hoaxes and unscrupulous scientists that have claimed to have discovered a miracle cure or found a relic that later was found untrue or a hoax. Did a preacher/priest prove them wrong or was it science? See the difference?

I'm still trying to work my way through sources - yup scientific sources.

As long as the arguments for or against something such as the age of the Grand Canyon are made by a person with darn good degrees from at least one recognised educational institute they are worth reading, at least to me.

Doesn't matter a darn to me if the scientist is a person with Faith or without - but without that degree, I'm apt to assume he or she doesn't know much more than I do about it - not a good thing.

MaraM -

Not necessarily referencing anything specific in this thread,

but I would like to point out that throughout history

there have been some extremely well educated "quacks".


Just an observation.

The Bible says God created all the animals not that he created some and then they evolved into more or something else...

Since 1984 publications like Scientific American, Newsweek, and Natural History have had headline topics about pathogens that are resistant to antibiotics. The point of this is that those pathogens have evolved, long live evolution!

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/439

No they became immune to antibiotics.

How did they become immune to antibiotics? There insides evolved to the change.


It's like what happened back during the days of our constitution. Are the things the constitution doesn't mention illegal or legal? How do you know God didn't create animals and let them evolve?

Just because it doesn't say it specifically doesn't mean it is wrong.

Um....
Becoming immune to a vaccine does not mean evolution.

A wise member kindly sent me the following link with ' State v. John Scopes ("The Monkey Trial") ...

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...opes/evolut.htm

Great food for thought.

I wanted to both weep and laugh while reading it - not that the words are funny (well, except for a few which were worthy of a coffee choking attack!) but because mankind seems to be 'stuck'.


PM to member who gave me the link ...
Thanks again and since I forgot to ask permission to add your name here, hope you do - it's a great read.

So what happened? Did the immune system just happened to instantly know what how to fight off the vaccine? It just doesn't happen. Your immune system works through complex problems (trial and error) until it figures out how to fight something off. Once it discovers how to fight something off it has changed from the first time. All on it's own, it evolved slightly.

evolution - A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

I'm glad you used it. The article is a little dismaying in how if reflects the lack of change on some levels today. It also raised more questions than it answered sending me on quest for more information. The article touches too briefly on the significance of the trial and how it could effect the nation by it's out come. Fortunately the courts prevailed with better judgment not to set a precedent with their actions.

Bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics are an example of Natural Selection, not Evolution. Studies done are indicating that most antibiotic resistant bacteria developed the resistance because a mistake in the DNA replication process caused certain genes to stop working. If anything the resistance should be called Devolution not evolution.

Read this: Antibiotic resistance of bacteria

Here is a page containing her credentials. The article also contains them. She is a Phd in molecular genetics. About the authors


Seafox14

Thanks for the link Seafox, that is a good read. (Be careful though, people on here don't like anything to do with AnswersInGenesis.)


Once it discovers how to fight something off it has changed from the first time. All on it's own, it evolved slightly.

Has the above been observed in a lab? Is that why you made the claim?

Isn't natural selection somewhat a part of the evolutionary process?


Does it really matter exactly what causes an organism to change? The fact that they do, and we can see it in a variety of situations, provides the basis for the Theory.

To assume the Theory is baseless, because one's religion doesn't specifically support it and somewhat implies something different, amazes me.

I've said before, in this thread, that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. At least, they aren't when one doesn't restrict either unnecessarily.

We mentioned in another thread that there have been multiple interpretations/translations of the bible over the years. Which one, in what language, is most correct and should be taken most literally, and/or should any parts of it be taken literally at all? If so, which parts? Can't be all, simply because of the variations in the translations.

And that's assuming that the only religion "getting it right" is the Judao-Christion one.


I say stay calm here - as long as it is called the "Theory of Evolution", it should not, theoretically, be a problem, in my opinion.

Its the whole thread topic though John...it is presented in virtually every media as fact. If you watch a program on Discovery, maybe about sea life...constant remarks like..."they evolved (attribute) at (such a time)." All they would need to do is throw the word(S) "alleged, some scientists believe, it is theorized that" etc. etc. etc.

Natural Selection is included in the theory of evolution, but Natural Selection (separate from evolutionary theory) is observable. The current theory of evolution is NOT observable.


We mentioned in another thread that there have been multiple interpretations/translations of the bible over the years. Which one, in what language, is most correct and should be taken most literally, and/or should any parts of it be taken literally at all? If so, which parts? Can't be all, simply because of the variations in the translations.

That's not a good example, because the translations have become "LESS" complex. Evolution says more complex. Not to mention, biblical translation is a controlled thing, done by humans. Evolution is...well just random events caused by.....well....nothing.

the majority of (earth-related) scientists consider it fact. whether it is a fact, i don't know or care, nor do i have the facilities to prove or disprove it. but the idea of being aghast that scientists don't parse their discussions with 'its been theorized' is silly because many, if not the vast majority, of earth scientists do regard evolution as a fact.

Then with your opinion, you basically prove the point being made. It is taught as fact even though it is only a theory. You can make the claim that you have, but some of these "earth scientists" will claim that they are not presenting it as fact. I guess you disagree?

As an aside...I don't think the "earth scientists" are always, if ever, the ones editing the videos/books, or narrating. Could be wrong.

All in all her description of how bacteria come to resist antibiotics lines up with what I've read about the subject from other sources. However, her conclusion here is where she departs from the rest of the scientific community, The majority of the time mutations are neutral, neither harmful nor beneficial. But there are mutations that do introduce new information beneficial to the species, as in the case of the bacteria that evolved via mutation which gained the ability to digest nylon.

Acknowledging natural selection while claiming evolution does not occur is rather problematic, since it's one evolution's fundamental processes (whether you're talking about macro or microevolution, it doesn't matter since the processes are exactly the same). It's a completely observable process, as we have many examples of speciation (new species resulting from evolution). And it's regarded as scientific fact in the same way that other theories such as relativity is, because it passes the test of falsifiability when it accurately predicts the results of new observations, such as in the case of the Tiktaalik. Paleontologists used evolutionary theory to predict the most likely rock layer and environment to find this missing precursor, and then started digging. They found exactly what they were looking for exactly where they thought it would be.

When creationism and ID passes that test of falsifiability and begins predicting new events like that, let me know.

I believe that it is understood by many that the Theory of Evolution hasn't been proved, but it is the dominant theory regarding how life has evolved on Earth, and as such many accept it as fact. However, the Discovery Channel or some other program isn't the same as our educational system, which, I agree, should be using the word theory.



If you mean we can not observe the entire millions of years process, well, duh! But, we can observe some facets of it, including, as you mentioned, the Natural Selection portion.




The translations have become "less" complex? Please explain. They have, perhaps, become different as we learn more about the language and the times when they were first written. Which translation do you think is the most perfect "words of God"? The New American Standard? The English Standard Version? The New International Version? King James? One of the others? Maybe one that isn't an English language at all?

I am not saying that the Bible has "evolved". Just that our ability to relate the early, or original transcripts, has certainly changed over the years.




Let me see - "random events caused by...nothing." Would they be random if they were caused by something?

Perhaps some of those seemingly random events were orchestrated by an intelligent designer?

Imagine that - the hand of God shaping some evolutionary events while allowing others to move on their own. A "very mysterious way", but, perhaps believable nonetheless.

i thought the question was 'why do so many scientists speak of evolution as a fact and not a theory.' because many scientists believe that its a fact. er... i don't really see your point.

It can be argued that there is no such thing as a fact if one makes the definition of fact so precise and so demanding that nothing can hope to achieve that elevated existential status. For example, cause and effect (Locke's constant conjunction and a inference of the mind), or the existence of the mind (Ryle's The Concept of Mind,1949, is the classic work). Even the statement "there is a large tree in my front yard" does not stand as a absolute fact. Yet we normally say it IS a fact.
What would happen to education if before every chemistry lab experiment, the teacher was required to recite by rote, physical "cause" is just one theory, and there other theories that account for the experiments you will perform." What would happen if teachers were required to teach medical students the theory of evil humours or phlogiston?

Scientific theory vs. fact is absolutely confused by the multiple definitions of both words that slip-slide through the arguments.

Regards,
John

The majority of the time mutations are neutral, neither harmful nor beneficial. But there are mutations that do introduce new information beneficial to the species, as in the case of the bacteria that evolved via mutation which gained the ability to digest nylon.

Because I don't completely understand the technical aspects of the page...would you like to maybe put it in simpler terms to understand?

I agree with people that say facts are facts, but we have different interpretations of the facts based upon presuppositions.

Certainly. Dr. Purdom's conclusion in her article argues that mutation couldn't possibly lead to the advancement of a species or the development of a new species because mutation "only lead[s] to a loss of functional systems." Clearly this is not the case with this particular bacterium which originally digested carbohydrates, and then gained the ability to digest a substance that didn't even exist on our planet until 1935. It isn't a common thing for such a major mutation to afford a species a brand new ability like that, but it does happen just like the evolutionary theory supposes it does.

But I have read in various places that it wasn't an addition, just a rearrangement...hence me not understanding the technical aspects. I understand what you describe above...the question is what information is added, where did the information come from, and what mechanism added the information.

If everything evolved...wouldn't this process be observable in more than just a few suspect cases...or in the one case that you cited?

I don't understand your question. It did evolve, and it was an observable process. A drastic evolution like that would be analogous to a water-breathing animal switching over to breathing air. As described on the page, the new information came from a "frame shift" mutation, and while I'm not an expert geneticist, the ASCII word example on that page explains it very well. Most frame-shift mutations will scramble the genetic code and not create anything useful, (IE the ASCII code "bed" to "q2r") but there are rare times when new information is created (IE "jib" to "spy"), which is clearly in contradiction to the statement that all mutations are useless or destructive.

The ASCII analogy doesn't make sense.

The word spy only means something because my brain comprehends the 3 letters and associates those 3 letters in that exact sequence to something I have learned. I don't think an English-language oriented analogy makes the case.

In fact, the author says just that...

"It's important to note that context really means something as regards interpretation of these words. For example, if the word "luz" was generated, that would mean nothing in English, but it means "light" in Spanish. Without a common language and culture, words won't mean anything! It's different with DNA,

Two un-relatable things.

It even says it was a mere frame shift of a gene already there. I don't get it.

Major victory for those who are trying to keep the the debate about evolution open.

European Legislators Withdraw Resolution

Very good read.


Seafox14

That is great new Seafox, thanks for passing it on.

-Steve

Not gonna get into the UK, though!

If you dig through the links....

You will find that the propagandized information will not be taught. This is not to suggest that they have "outlawed" the theory behind intelligent design. Teachers are still able to answer questions students ask about ID.

The government said in it's response to the petition:

We will be publishing guidance for schools, on the way creationism and intelligent design relate to science teaching. It will be possible to ensure that the weight of scientific opinion is properly presented. The guidance will be available on the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority website in due course.




Are you able to explain the link with the "nylon bug" to me? I have been reading a lot, but still need clarification on how a random mutation added information that was not already present. Also, there are many mutations that were not beneficial in its case. There wasn't only the one mutation.
Thanks.

True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.


Science claims to have all these facts, when in fact, they have to improve their theories just to try make sure of that. Nevertheless we have come a long way with science and I'm grateful, but I don't like the "Aethiestic arrogance" that comes from Science and its theoretic followers.

I do agree that Religion shouldn't have a place in school, but with all the Anti-Religious things comimg from "The God Delusion", me being a Christian, I don't like the fact that we're called blind followers, and have blind faith.


Have you Science believers looked in the mirror lately???


Thats all I should say... (Pertube me enough, and I'd go on for ages...)

Oh dear -

I knew that!


Does that mean I knew something?

Oh, I know, I didn't mean to suggest that it had been banned completely. But I'm certainly glad to see that in their school system they're not going to teach something that is neither testable nor falsifiable and call it science (both of which evolution is).

Really, I'm not certain what to tell you further concerning the nylon bacterium. I find it completely self-explanatory, myself. Consider that DNA is a blueprint containing literally volumes of data. If that code is changed or read differently, then an abnormal mutation will occur. There are mutations that will be harmful such as birth defects, which generally the most harmful of mutations will be self-cleaning since something that's badly deformed won't have much of a chance to propagate within the species. There are mutations that are neither beneficial nor harmful to the organism, and there are a few which will afford the organism certain advantages. Whether the mutation is beneficial or not depends on the organism and the circumstances it lives in. This is what the ASCII example is referring to when it makes the English language parallel. Whether something is beneficial or not depends its context.

Do you have any other examples that I might be able to look at to compare and try to understand better?

I do apologize, but I do want to know more about it. After all, if this is the compelling evidence and argument for evolution, it should be put in terms that school kids can understand.

I still disagree that the language reference applies. too many other factors that have to go into the interpretation and arrangement. There has to be a flawlessly designed interpretation mechanism for the rearrangement, or "new" word to make any sense. This mechanism is absent in the documents example.

How do you know that you know that???

Why not? They do this with evolution all of the time. Evolution is untestable and unrepeatable so it fails 2 of the 3 requirements of scientific proof that are required. Yet it is taught in the schools as science, even though it is only belief/ opinion, just as much as creationism. Evolution is an attempt to explain how life might have begun in a "natural" way (i.e. no God). Creationism is taking God's record of how life began, and using science to verify it. the only difference is that one involves the bible, the other does not.

Here are some scientists that support creationism:

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
* Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
* Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
* Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

Is there evidence of discrimination against creation scientists?

* Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview
* Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?
* Do creationists publish in notable refereed journals?
* Bias in higher education
* Peer pressure and truth
* Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination
* Science magazine refuses to hire creationist
* The not-so-Nobel decision
* The tyranny of ‘tolerance’

* View scientists of the past who believed in a Creator

Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?

Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.
Early

*

Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However, see also
Culture Wars:
1. Part 1: Bacon vs Ham
2. Part 2: Ham vs Bacon
* Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’ and The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
* Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
* Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
* John Wilkins (1614–1672)
* Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
* Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
* Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
* Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
* John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
* Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
* Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
* Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
* Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
* Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany

The Age of Newton

* Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997)
* Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
* John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
* William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
* Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
* John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
* John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
* William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
* John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
* Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
* Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
* Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
* Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
* William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
* James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
* John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
* John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)

Just Before Darwin

* The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr. Terry Mortenson
* Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
* William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
* Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
* Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
* John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
* Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
* Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
* John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
* Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
* Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
* Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
* Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
* David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
* William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
* William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
* Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
* Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
* John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
* Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
* William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
* Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer

Just After Darwin

* Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
* Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
* Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
* James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
* Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
* Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist
* James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
* James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
* James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
* Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
* Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
* George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
* John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
* Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
* Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
* Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
* Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
* William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
* William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
* Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
* Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
* Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
* James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
* P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
* John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
* John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
* Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
* Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
* A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist
* John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve

Early Modern Period

* Dr. Clifford Burdick, Geologist
* George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
* L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
* Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
* Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
* Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
* Dr. Frank Marsh, Biology
* Dr. John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
* Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
* William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist
* William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
* Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
* Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
* Dr. Larry Butler, Biochemist

Seafox14

Now,

that I don't know.

This we can agree on. I've been saying that for years. Give Science and Mythology equal time.]All of that is just bull----.