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?
- alleycatLv 41 decade agoFavorite 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...
- Anonymous1 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.
- JATLv 61 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.
- 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...
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 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
- 1 decade ago
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.
- JimboLv 61 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.
- CheGuevaraLv 61 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..
- Anonymous1 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.
- Anonymous1 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?
- gaudetteLv 43 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?