Search This Blog

Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Just in case you didn't know? Scientists past and present who were/are creationists

Remember the previous post about careless and apparently useless secular peer review methods in light of various mistakes and frauds?

credit
I had to take a vacation day from work and spent a good part of the day sleeping.   I needed to rest up after family gatherings and parties and other factors.  So it would be a great time to simply publish a list of creationist scientists (not one of whom has simply declared himself an astrobiologist to my knowledge *wink*) from the AIG website.  Many of the men listed below are linked to websites with biographical information.  However, Blogger is not allowing those links to be accessed from this blog, so if you are interested in any scientist or link you can go to the applicable source and find everything in working order/

So for those of you who do not know, there are right now large numbers of scientists who have and are willing to face the loss of income and status and position to declare themselves to be creationists and most of the great scientists of the past are included here:

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

Is there evidence of discrimination against creation scientists?

Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?

As far as we know, the scientists of the past listed here believed in a literal Genesis unless indicated with an asterisk. The ones who did not are nevertheless included in the list below because of their general belief in the creator God of the Bible and opposition to evolution. But because the idea that the earth is ‘millions of years’ old has been disastrous in the long run, no present day ‘long-agers’ are included intentionally, because we submit that they should know better.
Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.

Early

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

Is there a list of those who are against the biblical view of creation?

Other biographies and interviews of interest

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have mentioned in my past blogs other modern-day scientists who are not on this list.   Part of the reason is that modern scientists must proactively contact AIG to add themselves and plenty of them are not even aware AIG is compiling such a list.   Scientists tend to focus on their work and not everyone peruses AIG regularly.   

The Creation Safaris staff publishes the online Creation-Evolution Headlines which I cannot recommend highly enough!   You will find up-to-the-minute news you can use, plus biographies of scientists, quotes, and other features.  You will find that the I do think that David Coppedges webpage with biographies of early great creation scientists adds a few (Roger Bacon and Grossteste, for instance) so you would also want to check out his very informative site as well:



by David F. Coppedge
c. 2000 David F. Coppedge, Master Plan Productions
I will list the Table of Contents page and then it is up to you!   You have to go there to access the JPG and PDF features.
Table of Contents
“O Lord, how manifold are Thy works! In wisdom hast Thou made them all: the earth is full of Thy riches.” – Psalm 104:24
“The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein.” – Psalm 111:2

    THE RESURRECTION OF CREATION SCIENCE
  • A. E. Wilder-SmithTriple-PhD chemist pioneers intelligent design reasoning
  • Raymond V. DamadianCreationist revolutionizes diagnostic medicine
  • Henry M. MorrisFather of the modern scientific creationism movement
  • Duane Gish: The man the Darwinist debaters feared most
  • Stephen A. Austin: Bringing Genesis back to the real world
  • Richard D. LumsdenScientism can’t save the scientist’s soul
  • A proliferation of Creation science organizations and individuals
  • Intelligent Design: the wedge of truth
  • No need for compromise
  • Science, the child prodigy of the church gone prodigal; will it come home to the Father?
EPILOGUE: Science in the Third Millennium
APPENDIX: Outline 

10 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

Definitely a contender for Longest Known Example of a Logical Fallacy. Have you contacted Guinness?

sadia said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

So Radar, if this is meant to be a logical argument, isn't it immediately trumped by the fact that there are many, many more scientists that do accept evolution?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

radar said...

Gee, an actual spammer got through! Sorry, Sadia.

Yes, I know all about the Steves. Here is the premise: First, the scientific method was designed by creationists who were obviously NOT methodological naturalists and would not have added an artificial requirement for the religion of naturalism to be imposed on science.

Second, that there are many who are top scientists who are NOT naturalists and are creationists, so naturalism is not synonymous with science.

Third, the majority opinion tends to hang on to what is proved wrong for a long time before yielding ground to the truth. For instance in the 16th Century spontaneous generation was considered to be true. Redi was successful in proving that the concept did not apply to large and complex animals such as mice. Pasteur and others finally succeeded in convincing all but the fringiest of scientists that even a microorganism cannot appear spontaneously.

By the way, you naturalists do not fool me. Renaming spontaneous generation as chemical evolution and pretending to not be challenging the Law of Biogenesis may work for you, but I know better. It astounds me that so many smart people are so easily fooled thereby.

Back to our movie. Whenever a new idea challenges the accepted norm, few scientists are ready to "jump" to the other side. Now that Intelligent Design is making inroads into the myth of Darwinism the rulers of the Darwinist Paradigm are made nervous. Newtonians did not easily accept Relativity. Geocentrists did not easily accept the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun. It will take some time before Darwinists begin to take their hands off of their eyes and actually look into the organism and admit that it is designed.

radar said...

I forgot to list myself as an astrobiologist. Because, after all, I decided to be one!

Anonymous whatsit said...

Radar, all your pronouncements on naturalists and naturalism are utterly meaningless until you grasp the distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism and construct your sentences accordingly. At the moment you skip back and forth between the two meanings apparently at random. This isn't even a creationist/"Darwinist" issue.

For example: "the scientific method was designed by creationists who were obviously NOT methodological naturalists" is completely wrong, but would be correct if you had replaced methodological with philosophical.

In the rest of your comments, if you specified whether you mean methodological or philosophical naturalism whenever you just say "naturalism", the incoherence of your argument might become more apparent to you and certainly will to others.

AmericanVet said...

Whatsit, there is no incoherence at all. Naturalism is a philosophy. If you apply it to science and call it methodological naturalism then you have applied your worldview to the scientific method and also limited it to the set of conclusions your philosophy will accept.

The founders of modern science did not apply naturalism to their work at all. Sir Francis Bacon would shrug aside such an artificial constraint. To limit your conclusions before you begin your research and testing is illogical and yet that is what methodological naturalism does. You can do it if you like, just don't pretend it is synonymous with the actual scientific method.

Anonymous said...

Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains why "goddidit" is so useless in science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5dSyT50Cs8&sns=fb

-Canucklehead.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Whatsit, there is no incoherence at all. Naturalism is a philosophy. If you apply it to science and call it methodological naturalism then you have applied your worldview to the scientific method and also limited it to the set of conclusions your philosophy will accept."

See above: "all your pronouncements on naturalists and naturalism are utterly meaningless until you grasp the distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism and construct your sentences accordingly."

"The founders of modern science did not apply naturalism to their work at all. Sir Francis Bacon would shrug aside such an artificial constraint."

Correct if by naturalism you mean philosophical naturalism, completely wrong if by naturalism you mean methodological naturalism. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

"To limit your conclusions before you begin your research and testing is illogical and yet that is what methodological naturalism does."

Completely wrong with the word methodological in place, yet correct if you replace methodological with philosophical. Again.

"You can do it if you like, just don't pretend it is synonymous with the actual scientific method."

I challenge you to name anything - anything at all - that is part of the scientific method that doesn't fall under methodological naturalism.

Every regular commenter here knows you will either not reply or that you will once again point to philosophical naturalism, not methodological naturalism.

And since you're so hung up lately on creationists having invented the scientific method (methodological naturalism) - here's another mindbender for you: Christians invented humanism.

Oh and: what would be gained if science cast aside methodological naturalism? Anything?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Yes, I know all about the Steves"

So why bother with a post like this one? Even if you accept the logic of the argument (leaving aside for the moment that it's based on a logical fallacy), it still doesn't support your side.