Are you thankful to creationists ?

If it were not for creationists trying to prove evolution and multiple other sciences wrong, would you have even studied them with such an intensity as you have? Did they challenge your knowledge of science, and force you to research the facts.

If anything, I think that creationists are unknowingly promoting people to understand science. What do you think?

22 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

    Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry

    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

    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/Rep

    PS Wow! did you not read what these men wrote? And you say we are not open-mindedhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0301lette...

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes, you are quite correct. Several years ago I thought that creationists were just innocently wrong. If I had seen a really good argument I might have admitted that they had a point.

    But then someone gave me a book produced by the Watchtower Society which purported to 'prove' that evolution was wrong. By the time I had got half way down the second page I was thinking 'That isn't quite right.'

    So I did something that cultists of any kind hate, I checked the 'facts' they claimed as evidence. It took 20 minutes with a very small encyclopedia, hardly more than a dictionary to find their facts were distorted or irrelevant.

    That taught me quite about evolution and also about how fraudulent creationism really is.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • JAT
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    At some level I suppose they motivate lay people with scientific inclinations to brush up on the basics. In general though, they serve no purpose at all for the sciences themselves and can act as a banal distraction.

    For example, above my answer there are a list of names of scientists that, according to a Mr. Alleycat, "support the biblical account of creation." Looking at the names I immediately came across a name I know, Dr. Thomas Barnes, noted in the list as a "physicist."

    First, his doctorate is from the Christian Hardin-Simmons University. Second, his great "contribution" to the field was a young-earth thesis based on the characteristics of the decay of the earth's magnetic fields, a theory so fraught with holes it's embarrassing to think of it as physics at all. (A fair rendering is in the link below.)

    It is a shame that science itself, and the teaching of it, get side-tracked by these non-controversies.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    To be fair though, I think that MANY of us would also have studied christianity and creationism more deeply too. Know thine enemy, and all that.

    I have a greater understanding of BOTH because of that.

    Let's be honest, just as there is nothing worse than a 'creationist' spouting scripture as 'proof', or as an answer to a question, there is ALSO nothing more damning that some knuckle dragging neanderthal just slating people because of a belief structure that has been around for more years than they have brain cells...

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You make a valid point.

    Darwin developed his Theory of Evolution, because he had an inquiring mind and he wanted to trace how species developed.

    People with inquiring minds have created all the things that we now take for granted in our lives.

    Would we have electricity, cars, planes, refrigerators, televisions, telephones, the list goes on and on, if scientists and often ordinary people, did not use their brain to find solutions to everyday problems and needs.

    This is the exact opposite to Creationists, who blindly accept the fables handed down to them.

    They question nothing, therefore learn nothing

    • Login to reply the answers
  • I think you have made an excellent point. I probably know 100 times more about evolution and big bang theory than I did before I started coming here to Yahoo! Answers.

    Before coming here I would've said "We're all entitled to our opinion." But by hanging here, I've realized that if your opinion is based on absolute nonsense over mounds of scientific evidence, then your opinion isn't worth squat.

    Also, I agree with the first answerer. Creationists crack me up.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Jimbo
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    I don't think so. One of the really beautiful things about evolution by natural selection is that, provided you don't try to investigate it on molecular level, it is pretty straightforward and easy to understand. It requires the acquisition of vast amounts of data and a great deal of work from a great many scientists, but the basic terms of the premise are pretty simple. This results in it being so fascinating - something so simple and so beautiful captures the imagination - and this fascination is what makes me keen to study it on a molecular level. Sadly, I have devoted myself to chemistry/physics and only get to flirt with DNA processes occasionally and superficially.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    There's truth in that. I have always been curious about science and therefore also in evolution.

    But I realize that the more christians I read here trying to convince people, the more I feel happy that I overcame that brainwash.

    The more people trying to "prove" their religion to me the more I feel promoted to atheism..

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I agree. I probably wouldn't have paid much attention to evolution if it weren't for all the creationists making such a fuss about it.

    Source(s): Atheist.
    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Not really. I never felt threatened by the idea that science was wrong, or to study hard to check if creationism was right. I mean, I've heard their point of view and it doesn't have any proof so why believe it right?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago

    of direction. technological information has made our lives extra advantageous. maximum Christians are no longer damaging to real technological information. the difficulty arises while scientists attempt to return up with hypothesis to describe issues that are out of the area of technological information. easily, they're unfastened to take a position, yet to no longer call their hypothesis technological information. all of us comprehend concerning to the medical approach. hypothesis no longer related to the medical approach, and contradicting wide-spread and mentioned medical suggestions isn't technological information. Evolution isn't technological information. it truly is a metaphysical concept, no longer consistent with fact, it is an evidence for the assumption of creation without a author (it truly is an assumption). how are you able to call that technological information?

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.