The question is not a matter of how many people we can find who are "scientists" who subscribe to one view or the other; the question is whether or not the scientists in question are arriving to their views scientifically.
When I looked at the list presented above I first clicked on Dr. James Alan, a geneticist. What I took note of was that Dr. Alan's change from embracing evolutionary theory to young earth creationism was not a result of scientific inquiry and the scientific method, but instead a result of rejecting those very things in favor of a particular dogma. Alan's "double conversion" was first to Christianity, and then a rejection of science and the scientific method.
That does not provide evidence of a scientist who accepts YEC, that provides evidence of a scientist who has rejected the science.
Now there very well may be credible scientists who reject evolutionary theory--I'll permit that as possible. But when "credible scientists" are offered and one reads about their why for rejecting evolutionary theory in favor of YEC, and the reason has not to do with any actual science but is with an emphatic rejection of science--such as in Dr. Alan's case--that doesn't bode well for an argument in favor of credible scientists being on both sides of the debate.
Consistently I have found that that "creation science" involves the same basic quackery that one also finds in other pseudoscientic fields, that is, there is at the core a rejection of valid scientific inquiry and the scientific method. Science is not the place for matters of faith, what is scientific is not what we hold to be true by faith, but rather what can be explained through the scientific method involving observation, hypothesis, experimentation, etc.
My belief--my faith--in the good Creator God who made all things and who has condescended to meet us in and as the person of Jesus Christ, who suffered and died for our sins and who rose from the dead and is coming again are matters of faith and dogma.
My belief in the roundness of the earth, in the gravitational pull of celestial bodies, in the existence of germs; these are not faith-based beliefs, but matters of accepting reasoned, substantiated, observed realities--empirical realities.
Science is science, and faith is faith. The two are not mutually exclusive, but neither are the the same thing. These are different ways of engaging with the world, one a matter of reason, logic, observation, and the empirical; the other a matter of faith, hope, and the unseen.
What I reject is a paradigm that would insist that they are the same sort of thing or should be perceived as such, resulting either in a rejection of science or else resulting in a rejection of religion. The fundamentalist does the former, the atheist the latter.
As a Christian I can be neither a fundamentalist nor an atheist.
-CryptoLutheran
