RightWingGirl said:
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
Very few of these count. Notice that I said the
modern synthesis of evolutionary theory. The modern synthesis was compiled in the 1930s. It is also notable that it takes some time before a theory is widely accepted. Certainly, by now, we have reached that time. Over 99% of scientists in relevant fields accept evolutionary theory as the best explanation we have.
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
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Again, the ones who died prior to the 30's or 40's don't count because the modern synthesis didn't exist back then. You basically have a list of about a dozen noteworthy scientists who believed in YEC. Since evolution has
thousands of noteworthy scientists on its side, bringing this argument does little other than clarifying for the observer exactly how small the support base for YEC actually is in the scientific community.
I have a list of a few hundered other modern YEC scientists, but they aren't as famous as the ones listed here. If you want I can post them too, however.
There is also a list of scientists out there
named Steve who support evolutionary theory. The list of Steves alone outnumbers all the creationist scientists the world can muster. Again, your argument is doing nothing but throwing into sharp relief how little support creationism has in the scientific community.
EDIT: Heh, let's take a look at who you actually supported YEC over the modern synthesis of evolution on that list you gave us. I'll bold the ones that support your position.
From the Just After Darwin era, we have a single person who lived to see the modern synthesis: John Ambrose Fleming, an electronics specialist. I can hardly think of a scientific field with
less to do with biological evolution. In fact, it doesn't have anything to do with
any field that shows the earth to be older than 6,000 years. I wonder if he even read the modern synthesis.
From the "Modern Period" era, we have the following:
George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
- I don't really think inventing has a whole lot to do with biological evolution. Besides, he died in the early 40s. He was probably out of the science community when the modern synthesis came out. Either way, his support is meaningless.
L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology - This one counts, sure.
Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist - This one, too.
Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology - You're kidding, right? A gynecologist? I don't care how noteworthy he is in his field. The oldest specimen he's going to uncover is nine months old.
Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology - Almost certainly retired before the modern synthesis was accepted.
Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy - Sorry, died too early.
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist - Again, was probably retired before the modern synthesis was developed.
William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation - Dead twenty years too early.
Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist - Sure, this one works.
Dr Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon - Surgery isn't really a relevant field to evolutionary biology. An immunologist might work.
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon - Another surgeon. See above.Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997) - In other words, an arthritis physician. That's on par with a surgeon, at best.
I left out the ones lacking dates or disciplines for context. Counting up the total, you have
three noteworthy scientists with relevant knowledge supporting your position, out of the thousands of noteworthy scientists that have existed. I wouldn't call that a promising support base.
