Is the statement that no true scientist is a creationist considered a no true Scotsman?
Mikey: No scientist is a creationist.
Cindy: Wrong, Charles Hard Townes was a Nobel prize winning physicist and a creationist-Christian.
Mikey: Well, Charles Hard Townes wasn't a true scientist since he was a creationist.
- CRRLv 72 years ago
Care to tell me a few things they've published?
skankhunt42 · 21 hours ago
Nobody I ever heard of.
oikoσ · 20 hours ago
Ignorance and laziness do not make for good counter arguments. It's not hard to do a quick search and find information. e.g.
Dr John G. Hartnett received both his B.Sc. (hons) and his Ph.D. from the University of Western Australia. He has now retired but remains an adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Adelaide, developing ultra-stable clocks. He has published more than 100 papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Dr Hartnett was announced as the winner of the 2010 W.G. Cady award by IEEE Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control Society.
Ground-breaking cosmological papers for secular journals
Hartnett, J.G., The distance modulus determined from Carmeli’s cosmology fits the accelerating universe data of the high-redshift type Ia supernovae without dark matter, Found. Phys. 36(6):839–861, June 2006.
Hartnett, J.G., Spiral galaxy rotation curves determined from Carmelian general relativity, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 45(11):2118–2136, November 2006.
Hartnett, J.G., Tobar, M.E., Properties of gravitational waves in Cosmological general relativity, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 45(11):2181–2190, November 2006.
Oliveira, F.J., Hartnett, J.G., Carmeli’s cosmology fits data for an accelerating and decelerating universe without dark matter or dark energy, Found. Phys. Lett. 19(6):519–535, November 2006.
Hartnett, J.G., Oliveira,F.J., Luminosity distance, angular size and surface brightness in Cosmological General Relativity, Found. Phys. 37(3):446–454, 2007.
Hartnett, J.G., Spheroidal and elliptical galaxy radial velocity dispersion determined from Cosmological General Relativity, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 47(5): 1252–1260, 2008.
Hartnett, J.G., Extending the redshift-distance relation in Cosmological General Relativity to higher redshifts, Found. Phys. 38(3): 201–215, 2008.
J.G. Hartnett, K. Hirano, Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N(z) using SDSS and 2dF GRS galaxy surveys, Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 318, No. 1 & 2, pp. 13-24, 2008.
J.G. Hartnett, A valid finite bounded expanding Carmelian universe without dark matter, Int. J. Theoretical Physics, 52(12): 4360–4366, 2013.
- MARKLv 72 years ago
A person who is a creationist cannot be a true scientist. A scientist must do the following: he/she must follow the evidence and remain sceptical that new evidence could always change what we currently know. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Whilst scientists leave proofs to the abstracts of mathematics, evolution is one of those scientific facts where the body of evidence is so large that scientists consider it as good as proven. Whilst retaining their scepticism no credible, rational scientist seriously thinks evolution will be falsified.
If you are going to talk about creation it is first useful to narrow it down to the creation story you favour. If you say it is the Christian one (shared with Judaism) you must still narrow it down to the version in Genesis 1 or that in Genesis 2. It really does not matter, however, which creation story you pick. They all labour under the same problem: they have no evidence.
Therefore, if you are a creationist you have to believe something that has no evidence (creation) and reject something that is supported by a large corpus of evidence (evolution). If you do that you cannot be a real scientist. It would be like me confirming that I believe in no gods, do not believe in Jesus Christ, and reject the existence of angels, the devil and demons but insisted I was a Christian.
- SmegheadLv 72 years ago
And who, precisely, has made the claim that no scientist has ever been a creationist?
Oddly, your Scotsman argument appears to be refuting a big ol' strawman. Battle of the fallacies.
- oikoσLv 72 years ago
That depends on your definition of a true scientist. The ones most removed from the study of Biology are most likely to have been brainwashed into being creationists. However, there is even a university (Liberty) that teaches creationism. It should not surprise you that it has no academic accreditation, just "accreditation" from a religious group. Are there "true scientists" working there? My guess would be that there are none in the Biology Department and that the opinions of those in other departments don't matter in this instance.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 2 years ago
Hmmmm.... I'm sure there are a lot of scientists that have their beliefs, some may be creationists - but, their work never ventures in the area where the origin of the universe comes into question.
If you substitute the word physicist or may be astronomer with 'scientist' in that sentence - you may find the case that creationists are either a very small minority - or non-existent.
- Anonymous2 years ago
It is true that some scientists, with strong religious beliefs, are intelligent enough to compartmentalize their religion and their science.
None of them will cite the bible as a source.
- Punkin eaterLv 72 years ago
I think the true test is how many have read the hitchhikers guide to the universe ( my bad, edit: hitchhikers guide to the galaxy)
- Anonymous2 years ago
U should be more worried about getting raped by a kangaroo now that gay marriage is legal in Australia