Atheists & agnostics how would you explain that all these scientists are Creationists?

It is often presented by atheists and agnostics that one can't be "intelligent" and be a Christian or a Creationist.

All of the scientists on this list have declared that they believe in the biblical account for Creationism so it is disingenuous to try to make people think that they can't be scientists and believers? ( and I have MANY more names if you would like them. Yahoo only allows so much space on their questions ).

And please refrain from schoolyard rebuttles such as, "well we have more scientists than you do who don't believe so there!"

I'm genuinely wanting legitimate answers from you guys on this.

Here is the "partial" list:

Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry

Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist

Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics

Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist

Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist

Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist

Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist

Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist

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. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology

Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry

Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer

Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics

Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology

Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology

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

Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education

Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering

Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist

Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist

Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist

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

Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience

Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div

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

Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology

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. Stephen Grocott, Chemist

Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV

Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher

Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics

Dr. John Hartnett, Physics

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. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology

Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics

George T. Javor, Biochemistry

Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology

Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology

Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology

Dr. William F. Kane, (Civil) Geotechnical Engineering

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

Update:

note* Dr.Dean Kenyon stated what he did under oath not as someone who "opposed biblical creationism" but as someone who was authoring a text book regarding creationism and he was stating to the court that it was not imperative for him to teach, within scientific creationism, those biblical aspects within the text book. In other words he was merely making a case to the courts as to why scientific creationism should be and could be taught in schools and why it would not violate the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Update 2:

note *

The "Appeal to Authority" fallacy is committed when the authority in question is not "not an expert." So if I told you my pastor told me that evolution was false I "might" agree that I was using an appeal to authority fallacy. As you inspect the list that I posted, however, I think you can see clearly that the credentials listed are wonderfully suited to back up that the biblical account of Creationism is not only plausible....but even MORE plausible than evolutionary theory.

Note #3 * I am very grateful for the responses anyone has given but I have noted several personal attacks and one should know that merely name calling doesn't bid well for your argument. Look at the facts and look at both sides and you will quickly see that evolutionary theory is quickly losing ground even among atheists who aren't about the business of agenda.

*

30 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    See The Idiotic Low Brno Responses you got from Haters abd Mocker who do not have the mental capacity to understand?

    The evidence for evolution is and has been interpreted from a Philosophical and ideological Bias, THAT alone destroys it, They employ a False Dichotomy, meaning the evidence HAS to be this or that But IT cannot be God,

    In The series of Below Listed Videos, Lee Stroble a FORMER ATHEIST Honestly and Objectively did his own research without the influence of a pre-set world view and Contaminated by a Hostile anti christian Philosophy and ideology.

    I suggest watching them from an Unemotional Objective point of view and consider the Possibility of the fact that Evolution teachers have lied to you for More Philosophical reasons than for Pure truth of Science, Ohh I know, some people will answer with all these Long winded answers trying to sound all smart with walls of texts and links and think if they sound intelligent it has Validity, Fact is it doesn't, Don't be fooled by high-sounding words from Fools,

    Eternity is a Long Time to be wrong about this

    The Case for the Creator

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6881114962...

    The Privileged Planet

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6308516608...

    Darwin's Deadly Legacy (1 of 7)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mxXICZ9mXo

    Youtube thumbnail

    Darwin's Deadly Legacy (2 of 7

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMWGgY6wT30

    Youtube thumbnail

    &feature=related

    Darwin's Deadly Legacy (3 of 7)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFKbgIr6ngE

    Youtube thumbnail

    &feature=related

    Darwin's Deadly Legacy (4 of 7)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haDsxjsGP0A

    Youtube thumbnail

    &feature=related

    Darwin's Deadly Legacy (5 of 7)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmlLjs2rHpI

    Youtube thumbnail

    &feature=related

    Darwin's Deadly Legacy (6 of 7)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCqRcMXVC5o

    Youtube thumbnail

    &feature=related

    Darwin's Deadly Legacy (7 of 7)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWdA6-m4ZxQ

    Youtube thumbnail

    &feature=related

    What Hath Darwin Wrought?

    http://www.whathathdarwinwrought.com/

  • Bob B
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    There are several flaws with that argument:

    1- First off, I have no idea how reliable this source is. I only have your word that these scientists are creationists. For all I know, you've just come up with a bunch of names. I will assume that your list is legitimate, but it would be nice if you could explain the source of this information.

    2- I also don't have any information as to to what extent they believe it, if they are current or former believers, the legitimacy of their qualifications, or lots of other information. There are plenty of dodgy universities that sell dubious qualifications, and it's possible that a lot of these "creationist" scientists have very different interpretations of creationism- some might believe that the story of Genesis is literal and true, whereas others might just be generally religious and view it as more metaphorical. Again, more information would be good.

    But let's get on to the actual argument, even if they were all creationists who believe the bible was literally true:

    3- This argument is nothing more than an appeal to authority. The fact that a bunch of scientists happen to believe in creationism says absolutely nothing about the validity of creationism or anything else. The fact that you are a scientist does not exempt you from having to show evidence that your beliefs are correct.

    4- I note that very few of these scientists specialise in anything even remotely related to evolutionary biology. I see several engineers, chemists, physicists, and the like. None of the biologists are specifically linked to evolutionary biology either. Science is a highly specialised field, and most scientists do not know a great deal more about other fields than a layperson would. Even at the undergraduate level, I knew very little about the work my fellow students were doing, just as they didn't know a great deal about mine.

    5- Although you dismiss it as a "schoolyard rebuttal", the fact that the vast majority of scientists are not creationists is not something you can ignore. Given that there are tens of thousands of scientists in the world, getting a minority of them that have a certain viewpoint is not difficult- it doesn't dismiss the majority that believes otherwise.

    So even if the argument "scientists agree with me" had any weight, that argument is not even one you can employ.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    "It is often presented by atheists and agnostics that one can't be "intelligent" and be a Christian or a Creationist."

    I disagree, it is quite possibly often presented by SOME atheists and agnostics, but SOME hardly counts as ALL, does it. A sensible person would recognise that most people, however gifted they are in certain academic aspects, are likely to be less so in other regards, in short: everyone has failings.

    If you want we could draw up a list of the most moronic, vapid celebrities who happen to be theists, and I'm pretty sure we could find more than any number of scientists you could find, but it doesn't mean anything. Essentially your argument boils down to 'these people agree with me, so I must be right', which you must realise is a ridiculous claim to make.

    I would certainly question the credentials of any biologist who believes the creation story, indeed accepting an account without testing the methodology for ones self or it being the result of actual scientific enquiry seems like a rather large lapse in the validity of their scientific mindset. However, there is no bar to becoming a scientist if one holds beliefs and research practises which aren't shared by their peers, it's just uncommon.

  • MGD
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    Hi Boo Ya,

    It must be terribly frustrating that people just don't believe what you believe...aye?

    Why can't they see things like you do?

    The problem I have with Christians is that many (especially those in Yahoo fraternity) don't believe their own Bible - many have to take the matter into their own hands. The Bible says that the war for the hearts of mankind is a spiritual one and that only with the intervention of the Holy Spirit will those who do not believe be given the capacity to believe. Yet these Bible bashers (in almost literal terms) harangue Non-believers with their often feeble arguments thinking that somehow some might believe the gospel story etc, etc, etc. and some can be quite abusive hardly acting as Christ would want them to.

    I would dearly like to believe that the Bible is the word of god and inspired by him BUT having read some critiques of the Bible I no longer can believe it and that put doubts on my whole faith and as far as I am concerned I am now an agnostic.

    As regards the fact that you can quote 50 or 100 or a 1,000 'scientists' who you say believe in the Biblical account of creation - I doubt that very much - I know only one high profile scientist who has been a christian and still is and i respect him very much BUT he does not believe in the literal interpretation of a creation brought about in 7 days as per the Bible account. He believes God used Evolution and when developed to a certain stage mankind developed a God consciousness.

    Moses is supposedly the author of the Pentateuch (however you spell it) but the account of creation and the great flood were around before Moses penned the books -

    To be a christian you don;t have to be a person who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible - you have to believe that there is a God and Jesus was his son and he died for our sins and he wants you to surrender you life to him - that's it in a nut shell - you just have to have Faith in something you can't see and can't prove and live accordingly.

    Some of us want more than having to live a life based on something you cannot prove - that is the crux of the matter - NOT how many scientists believe or do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible account of creation.

    I wonder what Jesus meant when he told his followers 'not to cast pearls before swine' - terrible choice of example but I was always told it meant to make sure your listeners were ready to hear the message.

    regards Mike D

    agnostic.

    030711

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Though I am an agnostic, I do believe that one can be smart and a Christian. In fact, my doctoral adviser serves as a deacon for the Episcopal Church, and he is one of the most brilliant chemical engineers I've ever met.

    Those scientists you mentioned believe in Creationism, and I see no problem with that. What I do have a problem with though, is that they believe in Creationism without a scientific basis. I don't doubt that they may be great experts in their respective fields, but how well can they scientifically defend their view on Creationism?

    What about scientists such as:

    Francis Collins

    Joan Roughgarden

    Kenneth R. Miller

    Francisco J Ayala

    John Polkinghorne

    All the scientists above are devout Christians who see no problem with the scientific community's view on evolution (and the Big Bang). Honestly though, if you want to learn about them for yourself: http://www.biologos.org/

  • 9 years ago

    Dr. Steve Austin, geologist is a known scientific fraud over dacites from Mount Saint Helens.

    Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist His scientific career ended in the mid 1960s and since then he has become known as a persistent and deliberate liar about his career at Cornell University, the bombardier beetle, the presence of any fossils in the Earth's crust and the fossil "Lucy" to mention just a few topics.

    As for the rest, I could not be bothered to find out if they even exist or whether their doctorates came in a plain brown wrapper for $100. Of maybe they are honorary, awarded by "Liberty University" or "Bob Jones University".

    In any case, appeal to authority and if Magpie is correct - lies.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    "All of the scientists on this list have declared that they believe in the biblical account for Creationism ..."

    That's an outright lie.

    Here's what Dr. Dean Kenyon said--under oath no less:

    "Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts."

    See, this is why it's a bad idea to parrot creationism propaganda.

  • 9 years ago

    Appeal to authority does not cut it. And it may be a matter of cultural norms that to NOT be a creationist in some environments does not help to further their careers so they sign on to the program publicly but may not actually believe it. They may not literally burn "heretics" at the stake, but the peer review process can be a bytch if you are not in tune with the "conventional wisdom".

    Blessings on your Journey!

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    First of all, thank you for this excellent list. I think you can see the

    serpent in a lot of answers here, can't you? 'Daily they wrest my words'.

    Now, we see people saying that these very intelligent scientists

    just biased, and basically with big problems so they can't see or

    understand THEIR superior point of view. Of course, they could

    never take the time to READ anything ANY of them would say.

    As Jesus said 'hearing they do not hear'.

    Basically I have found Creationists full of wonder and interesting,

    while the other side very boring, mundane, and far too simplistic

    in their presentations. After all, it is a nothing kind of thing.

  • 7
    Lv 4
    9 years ago

    Ignorance among the scientific community. It happens all the time. Besides, that's nothing compared to the list of scientists who believe in evolution.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.