Why Creationism matters and benefits Science. One man's example...John C. Sanford.
Darwinists will slander the best of scientists when the scientist does not agree with their religion of naturalism.
I can give you numerous examples. One would be the man who was the team lead on the Cassini project at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, David Coppedge, an IT and System Administrator and science history expert who was a spokesman for JPL and the Cassini project until JPL found out he was also a creationist when he began to freely offer copies of a DVD he had worked on along with Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, The Privileged Planet, at which point he was arbitrarily demoted and then fired. Eventually the JPL will wind up paying Coppedge a large settlement for violation of his First Amendment rights. [EDIT: No, they got away with it.]
Jonathan Sarfati is another who comes to mind, a brilliant Chess Grandmaster and scientist who published several papers that were peer-reviewed by secular organizations and also has multiple degrees. When he found that secular organizations were not so interested in his work once it was known he was a Creationist, he chose to join forces with a Creationist scientific organization and is now at CMI aka Creation.com where he is free to both research and give presentations and also author books.
Available at Amazon
Michael Behe made sure he had enough tenure and backing to get away with poking Darwinism in the stick with his books that revealed the innumerable and inexplicable (by Darwinism) irreducibly complex systems in organisms and also the practical barrier to multiple mutations being passed on at once.
But for today, the example given with be John C. Sanford, a former Atheist who changed his mind during the course of his work in studying the genome of various living things. Sanford is arguably among the most accomplished if not THE MOST accomplished plant geneticist in the world. But he doesn't believe in Darwinism anymore.
Wikipedia at least for now gives him a relatively fair treatment, surprisingly. They describe his journey from Atheist to YEC as of today. That could change, so I have recorded the current description of his worldview journey found there as of today:
source
Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome
Sanford has argued for devolution in his book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (2005)[4] he claims that the genome is deteriorating and therefore could not have evolved in the way specified by the modern evolutionary synthesis. Sanford has published two peer reviewed papers obliquely dealing with genetic entropy, although on both occasions publishing in computing journals concerned with methodology and not his claims on genetics.[5][6]Origins
Formerly an atheist[7] since the mid-1980s, Sanford has looked into theistic evolution (1985–late 1990s), old Earth creation (late 1990s), and young Earth creation (2000–present). According to his own words, he did not fully reject Darwinian evolution until the year 2000. An advocate of intelligent design, in 2005 Sanford testified in the Kansas evolution hearings on behalf of intelligent design, during which he denied the principle of common descent and "humbly offered... that we were created by a special creation, by God."He stated that he believed the age of the Earth was "Between 5,000 and 100,000" years.[8] An analogy Sanford uses to illustrate evidence of design is that of a car versus a junkyard: "A car is complex, but so is a junkyard. However, a car is complex in a way that is very specific — which is why it works. It requires a host of very intelligent engineers to specify its complexity, so it is a functional whole."[9] Intelligent design advocate William Dembski touts the accomplishments of Sanford as evidence of the scientific status of intelligent design, although Sanford is an Associate Professor in Horticulture and his views remain almost universally dismissed by Geneticists and Biologists [10][11] and has endorsed Sanford's book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.[12]
Although he is "an Associate Professor in Horticulture and his views remain almost universally dismissed by Geneticists and Biologists?" The attempt to minimize his impact on science and his standing amongst Geneticists is unfair, since Sanford is semi-retired and has nothing left to prove.
So, how do Darwinists describe him?
JREF - James Randi Education Foundation?
"John C. Sanford: Young Earth Creationist Loon"
Right. One of the most accomplished scientists of the 20th Century is a "loon" because he is a YEC?
John C. Sanford
[EDIT: The link immediately above has expired.]
- Isn't it remarkable that the Primary Axiom of biological evolution essentially claims that typographical errors plus some selective copying can transform a wagon into a spaceship, in the absence of any intelligence, purpose, or design? - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, pg.9
- Yet I am still not convinced there is a single, crystal-clear example of a known mutation which unambiguously created information. There are certainly many mutations which have been described as "beneficial", but most of these beneficial mutations have not created information, but rather have destroyed it. - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, pg.17
- Population genetics is a field that is extremely theoretical and mathematical. Theoretical mathematicians are constrained (completely) by their axioms (assumptions), upon which they choose to build their work. The entire field of population genetics was developed by a small, tightly knit group of people who were utterly and radically committed to the Primary Axiom. Today, it is still a very small field, still exclusively populated by "true believers" in the Primary Axiom. These people are extremely intelligent, but are totally and unconditionally bound to the Primary Axiom. For the most part, other biologists do not even understand their work - but accept their conclusions "by faith". Yet it is these same population geneticists themselves who have exposed some of the most profound limitations of natural selection. - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, pg.46
- Human genes never exist in "pools", they only exist in massive clusters, within zeal people. - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, pg.54
- Selection works on the genetic level, but fails at the genomic level. - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, pg.64
- Every single beneficial mutation would always be inseparably tied to a large number of deleterious mutations. - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, pg.82
- What is the mystery of the genome? Its very existence is its mystery. Information and complexity which surpass human understanding are programmed into a space smaller than an invisible speck of dust. Mutation/selection cannot even begin to explain this. It should be very clear that our genome could not have arisen spontaneously. The only reasonable alternative to a spontaneous genome is a genome which arose by design. - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, pg.151
- A car is complex, but so is a junkyard. However, a car is complex in a way that is very specific — which is why it works. It requires a host of very intelligent engineers to specify its complexity, so it is a functional whole. - Intelligent Design: Professors discuss Teaching the Controversial Subject Xiaowei Cathy Tang. Cornell Daily Sun (November 15, 2005)
- Minnesota-St. Paul BS 1976 Horticulture
- Wisconsin-Madison MS 1978 Plant Breeding/Plant Genetics
- Wisconsin-Madison Ph.D. 1980 Plant Breeding/Plant Genetics
My central research objectives have involved:
Links to Recent and Current Projects |
- 2010-present Courtesy Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticulture
- 1998-2010 Courtesy Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticultural Sciences
- 1994-1998 Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticultural Sciences, Cornell University. Percent effort reduced first to 80%, then to 40%.
- 1986-1994 Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticultural Sciences, Cornell University. Responsibilities - 100% research.
- 1980-1986 Assistant Professor (as above).
The following is so long I am not even editing it. Sanford's accomplishments are legendary. But becoming a YEC makes him a loon? LOL! What I have found in the academic and scientific circles is that people start with Darwinist presumptions which are implanted into young brains not only in school but in magazines and books and television and movies - our entire culture is soaked in Darwin. But the John C. Sanfords of the world look at the evidence and follow it logically to where it takes you, refusing to resort to ridicule or ignorance, and wind up realizing that God indeed created and the evidence is clearly on His side!