Creation scientists - do they exist?

[Not_By_Chance]

It is often stated on these forums that people who believe in creation can't be real scientists or if they are, they are failed scientists.

Here is a man that seems to be not only a scientist, but an excellent one at that:-
http://creationwiki.org/David_Menton

Yet, this man is a strong believer in creation by the Lord Jesus and totally against evolution. As you can see by the wiki article, he's also been involved in research and received awards, including being voted "Professor of the Year." Note also that Brown University states on its website, "With its talented and motivated student body and accomplished faculty, Brown is a leading research university that maintains a particular commitment to exceptional undergraduate instruction." It goes on, "Brown is a research university that regards the creation of knowledge as one of its fundamental missions. Our faculty and students work at the cutting edge of research in their fields and collaborate with colleagues across disciplines and around the world to address society’s biggest challenges."

In view of all this, it is clear that people of exceptional talent and intellect can and do reject the idea of molecules to man evolution. After watching one of Dr Menton's videos on the human eye, I can understand why he feels like he does. If creation as the most likely explanation for life is good enough for him, with all his expert knowledge, then it's certainly good enough for me.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Great thread, great post! I have been considering one just like this, because I too continually encounter rhetoric from evolutionary-minded posters that somehow, if one is a creationist (s)he cannot be a scientist.

CMI has a pretty good list:

http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation

Also, many of the famous scientists of the past were creationists, and YEC at that:

http://creation.com/scientists-of-the-past-who-believed-in-a-creator

With such a hall of fame, it really would be somewhat of a surprise to find someone disputing this fact.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is often stated on these forums that people who believe in creation can't be real scientists or if they are, they are failed scientists.

The Human Genome Project (HGP) is an international scientific research project with the goal of determining the sequence of chemical base pairs which make up human DNA, and of identifying and mapping all of the genes of the human genome from both a physical and functional standpoint.[1] It remains the world's largest collaborative biological project.[2] The project was proposed and funded by the US government; planning started in 1984, got underway in 1990, and was declared complete in 2003. A parallel project was conducted outside of government by the Celera Corporation, or Celera Genomics, which was formally launched in 1998. Most of the government-sponsored sequencing was performed in twenty universities and research centers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Germany, and China.[3]
The Human Genome Project originally aimed to map the nucleotides contained in a human haploid reference genome (more than three billion). The "genome" of any given individual is unique; mapping "the human genome" involves sequencing multiple variations of each gene.[4]

In 1993, Aristides Patrinos succeeded Galas and
Francis Collins
succeeded James Watson, assuming the role of overall Project Head as Director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Center for Human Genome Research (which would later become the National Human Genome Research Institute). A working draft of the genome was announced in 2000 and the papers describing it were published in February 2001.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html?eref=rss_tops

 

[Chris B]

After watching one of Dr Menton's videos on the human eye, I can understand why he feels like he does. If creation as the most likely explanation for life is good enough for him, with all his expert knowledge, then it's certainly good enough for me.

I haven't encountered that name or person before: thank you..
I've just located a youtube video on the eye, and will view it sometime in the next day or so.
As a former optometrist the eye was my career for 28 years, so I'll be interested to see his arguments.
Currently I consider the human eye as a case *against* creation/design, it having sufficient quirks and flaws, and an adequately traced evolutionary history.
But I could be wrong.
That comes simply from being human, before any specific details of absent or mistaken knowledge might come into play.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I haven't encountered that name or person before: thank you..
I've just located a youtube video on the eye, and will view it sometime in the next day or so.
As a former optometrist the eye was my career for 28 years, so I'll be interested to see his arguments.
Currently I consider the human eye as a case *against* creation/design, it having sufficient quirks and flaws, and an adequately traced evolutionary history.
But I could be wrong.
That comes simply from being human, before any specific details of absent or mistaken knowledge might come into play.

It's good to hear that your mind is not totally closed to alternative ideas. I've just had a look on this link and I see that Dr Menton has produced a large volume of videos. The two I have are "The Eyes Have It" and "Evolution: Not a Chance." It doesn't appear that the first video is still available, but it looks like it has been superseded by similar material.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

The Human Genome Project (HGP) is an international scientific research project with the goal of determining the sequence of chemical base pairs which make up human DNA, and of identifying and mapping all of the genes of the human genome from both a physical and functional standpoint.[1] It remains the world's largest collaborative biological project.[2] The project was proposed and funded by the US government; planning started in 1984, got underway in 1990, and was declared complete in 2003. A parallel project was conducted outside of government by the Celera Corporation, or Celera Genomics, which was formally launched in 1998. Most of the government-sponsored sequencing was performed in twenty universities and research centers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Germany, and China.[3]
The Human Genome Project originally aimed to map the nucleotides contained in a human haploid reference genome (more than three billion). The "genome" of any given individual is unique; mapping "the human genome" involves sequencing multiple variations of each gene.[4]

In 1993, Aristides Patrinos succeeded Galas and
Francis Collins
succeeded James Watson, assuming the role of overall Project Head as Director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Center for Human Genome Research (which would later become the National Human Genome Research Institute). A working draft of the genome was announced in 2000 and the papers describing it were published in February 2001.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html?eref=rss_tops

Dr. Francis Collins is one of a multitude of Christians who unequivocally accepts evolution as scientific fact. He's a scientist who believes that God is the creator of the universe and all life within it, but most would not describe him as a creation scientist. He founded the BioLogos Foundation, which has the mission statement of inviting "the church and the world
to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God's creation."
You can read about the foundation's core commitments and beliefs here: http://biologos.org/about-us/

One of my favorite quotes by him:

“In this modern era of cosmology, evolution, and the human genome, is there still the possibility of a richly satisfying harmony between the scientific and spiritual worldviews? I answer with a resounding yes! In my view, there is no conflict in being a rigorous scientist and a person who believes in a God who takes a personal interest in each one of us. Science’s domain is to explore nature. God’s domain is in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science. It must be examined with the heart, the mind, and the soul—and the mind must find a way to embrace both realms.”
― Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

 

[SkyWriting]

Dr. Francis Collins is one of a multitude of Christians who unequivocally accepts evolution as scientific fact.

Sure. 99% of evolutionary theory is testable.
That's what allows something to be considered
scientific. But there is no such thing as scientific history.
No - such - thing. You might thinks it just a fluke
that nobody has tried to put those words together.
It's not.

 

[Shemjaza]

It is often stated on these forums that people who believe in creation can't be real scientists or if they are, they are failed scientists.

Here is a man that seems to be not only a scientist, but an excellent one at that:-
http://creationwiki.org/David_Menton

Yet, this man is a strong believer in creation by the Lord Jesus and totally against evolution. As you can see by the wiki article, he's also been involved in research and received awards, including being voted "Professor of the Year." Note also that Brown University states on its website, "With its talented and motivated student body and accomplished faculty, Brown is a leading research university that maintains a particular commitment to exceptional undergraduate instruction." It goes on, "Brown is a research university that regards the creation of knowledge as one of its fundamental missions. Our faculty and students work at the cutting edge of research in their fields and collaborate with colleagues across disciplines and around the world to address society’s biggest challenges."

In view of all this, it is clear that people of exceptional talent and intellect can and do reject the idea of molecules to man evolution. After watching one of Dr Menton's videos on the human eye, I can understand why he feels like he does. If creation as the most likely explanation for life is good enough for him, with all his expert knowledge, then it's certainly good enough for me.

Why is this scientist in particular convincing? Are you aware that the majority of scientists typically accept evolution?

Dr. Francis Collins is another brilliant scientist and also a devout Christian who SkyWriting helpfully brought up. He studied human genetics, and accepts evolution.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, NotbyChance, there have been legit scientists who are credited with supporting creation science. What you need to look at, however, is how much of their published research was actually on the topic of creation science. In most cases, none. When someone is arguing for creation-science on the basis of the great complexity of nature, that is technically a matter for theology and philosophy, not science. My position is that God works in and through evolution. Hence, I can take the same scientific data, but arrive at a different conclusion. The reason I can do so is that I have a very different picture of God than what Menton has. The real reason Menton and others reject evolution is that they hold with the notion that God cannot and does not change. God doesn't change and so neither can we or the universe. However, that assumption about God comes from the import of Hellenic philosophy, not the Bible. And it can and has been seriously questioned by many theologians, including myself.

 

[Armoured]

It is often stated on these forums that people who believe in creation can't be real scientists or if they are, they are failed scientists.

Here is a man that seems to be not only a scientist, but an excellent one at that:-
http://creationwiki.org/David_Menton

Yet, this man is a strong believer in creation by the Lord Jesus and totally against evolution. As you can see by the wiki article, he's also been involved in research and received awards, including being voted "Professor of the Year." Note also that Brown University states on its website, "With its talented and motivated student body and accomplished faculty, Brown is a leading research university that maintains a particular commitment to exceptional undergraduate instruction." It goes on, "Brown is a research university that regards the creation of knowledge as one of its fundamental missions. Our faculty and students work at the cutting edge of research in their fields and collaborate with colleagues across disciplines and around the world to address society’s biggest challenges."

In view of all this, it is clear that people of exceptional talent and intellect can and do reject the idea of molecules to man evolution. After watching one of Dr Menton's videos on the human eye, I can understand why he feels like he does. If creation as the most likely explanation for life is good enough for him, with all his expert knowledge, then it's certainly good enough for me.

What sort of scientist is he? These types of people invariably tend to excel in fields quite unrelated to cosmology or evolution.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Why is this scientist in particular convincing? Are you aware that the majority of scientists typically accept evolution?

The point I was trying to make is that, despite what we often hear on these forums, creation-believing scientists can do real science and can achieve just as much as their evolution-believing counterparts. Also, just because the majority believe in evolution doesn't mean that those scientists are any better or their theories are any more likely to be true. Dr Menton clearly rejects the notion of molecules to man evolution, so if it's good enough for an expert like him, then it's good enough for me too and I find his arguments much more plausible than the alternative theories. Perhaps you should watch some of his videos - "Evolution: Not a Chance" is a good place to start.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

When someone is arguing for creation-science on the basis of the great complexity of nature, that is technically a matter for theology and philosophy, not science.

I don't think Dr Menton would agree with this. He's clearly making his arguments from the scientific standpoint as you would see if you watched any of his videos.

God doesn't change and so neither can we or the universe.

I don't think this is his viewpoint either. It certainly isn't the view taken by mainstream creationists who believe that God programmed a huge amount of potential for variation into the genes of living things but set limits on how far those changes could go. In other words, changes such as those that Darwin observed with his famous finches are fine, but trying to say that ape-like creatures evolved into man is a no no.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

What sort of scientist is he? These types of people invariably tend to excel in fields quite unrelated to cosmology or evolution.

Read the text below and you'll see that his background is entirely relevant...

Due to his love of science, Menton pursued the study of biology and chemistry in Minnesota State University, from where he graduated with a Bachelors degree in 1959. Dr. Menton served in the U.S. in a six month tour in the Army Reserves.

From 1960 to 1962 Menton worked as Biomedical Research Technician for two years in the Department of Dermatology at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota.

After that he did research concerning fatty acid deficiency and its effects on the epidermal barrier behavior of the skin and its structure at Brown University, from where he received a PhD in Biology in 1966.

After graduation from Brown University, Dr. Menton obtained a position in the Anatomy Department of the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis where he taught on histology and human anatomy as well as doing research concerning those subjects. He was also a course master of microscopic anatomy at the university. Menton was awarded "Professor of the Year" by his senior class along with receiving multiple awards for his teachings and research. Dr. Menton also taught histology at Standford University Medical School.

Dr. David Menton's professional activities include being guest lecturer in gross anatomy, which is basically about the human body and all it entails. Menton was also a consulting editor in Histology for Stedman's Medical Dictionary which is known as a medical reference work in the standard form.

List of Achievements

• Member of the American Association of Anatomists
• Member of Sigma Xi
• Silver Award for Basic Research from the American Academy of Dermatology
• Given "Distinguished Service Teaching Award" from Washington University School of Medicine in 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997
• Named "Teacher of the Year" at Washington University School of Medicine in 1979
• Elected "Professor of the Year" in 1998 by the Washington University School of Medicine Class of 2000
• Profiled in 'American Men and Women of Science - A Biographical Directory of Today's Leaders in Physical, Biological and Related Sciences' for almost two decades

 

[MerlinJ]

Great thread, great post! I have been considering one just like this, because I too continually encounter rhetoric from evolutionary-minded posters that somehow, if one is a creationist (s)he cannot be a scientist.

CMI has a pretty good list:

http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation

Also, many of the famous scientists of the past were creationists, and YEC at that:

http://creation.com/scientists-of-the-past-who-believed-in-a-creator

With such a hall of fame, it really would be somewhat of a surprise to find someone disputing this fact.

This reminds me of Project Steve.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

What do you think happened? an unknown being spoke it all into existence?

Like it says, "In the beginning God..." I believe it happened that way. You don't, so you've got to try to find an alternative explanation, but I don't think you will, EVER.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

This reminds me of Project Steve.

This is typical - just because someone doesn't follow the sheep, they have to be ridiculed. Another Biblical prophesy coming true before our very eyes.

 

[MerlinJ]

This is typical - just because someone doesn't follow the sheep, they have to be ridiculed. Another Biblical prophesy coming true before our very eyes.

Not so much a prophecy as the obvious outcome of saying absurd things.

 

[The Cadet]

Hang on, is this the same David Menton who, in a 40-year academic tenure, published a whopping 27 papers, with an average number of citations per article of 24.5? That's what we call "dead wood"; someone who really should not have gotten tenure but somehow did anyways, and who has contributed almost nothing of value to the scientific process. He's certainly above average for creationists, I'll say that much, but it's hardly impressive when we set the bar that low.

 

[46AND2]

Hang on, is this the same David Menton who, in a 40-year academic tenure, published a whopping 27 papers, with an average number of citations per article of 24.5? That's what we call "dead wood"; someone who really should not have gotten tenure but somehow did anyways, and who has contributed almost nothing of value to the scientific process. He's certainly above average for creationists, I'll say that much, but it's hardly impressive when we set the bar that low.

Which pretty much means he saw better financial opportunity in apologetics.

 

[Astrophile]

It is often stated on these forums that people who believe in creation can't be real scientists or if they are, they are failed scientists.

Here is a man that seems to be not only a scientist, but an excellent one at that:-
http://creationwiki.org/David_Menton

Yet, this man is a strong believer in creation by the Lord Jesus and totally against evolution. As you can see by the wiki article, he's also been involved in research and received awards, including being voted "Professor of the Year." Note also that Brown University states on its website, "With its talented and motivated student body and accomplished faculty, Brown is a leading research university that maintains a particular commitment to exceptional undergraduate instruction." It goes on, "Brown is a research university that regards the creation of knowledge as one of its fundamental missions. Our faculty and students work at the cutting edge of research in their fields and collaborate with colleagues across disciplines and around the world to address society’s biggest challenges."

In view of all this, it is clear that people of exceptional talent and intellect can and do reject the idea of molecules to man evolution. After watching one of Dr Menton's videos on the human eye, I can understand why he feels like he does. If creation as the most likely explanation for life is good enough for him, with all his expert knowledge, then it's certainly good enough for me.

From your creationwiki link I see that Dr. Menton obtained his Ph.D. in 1966, and that he has written a great many creationist articles since 1996 (ten in 2010 alone). What did he publish in the 30 years after he obtained his PhD?

It is a good idea to look at both sides of the story; you would probably agree that conventional scientists ought to examine the evidence for creationism. On searching for 'Dr. David Menton', I found this interesting link by Martin Brazeau, reviewing Dr. Menton's article on Tiktaalik roseae: http://lancelet.blogspot.co.uk/2007/03/dr-david-menton-is-liar.html.

On the principle of looking at both sides of the story you ought to read this; it gives a rather different picture of the quality of Dr. Menton's science from the creationwiki link.