Modern Creationist Scientists/Heroes.

[KerrMetric]

Fighting the 'good' fight against the Evil Atheist Conspiracy/Theistic Evolutionist Cabal we have:



http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...physci_hmorris
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...physci_jmorris
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...hysci_vardiman
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...ci_baumgardner
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...ysci_humphreys
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...hysci_snelling
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...hysci_faulkner
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...ch_physci_wile
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...physci_lalomov
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...ch_physci_wise
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=..._physci_wanser
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...physci_hermann
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...ch_physci_berg
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...h_physci_young
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...h_physci_samec
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...hysci_reynolds
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...ch_biosci_gish
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...biosci_cumming
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...osci_dcriswell
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...ch_biosci_wood
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...osci_fliermans
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...osci_macreadie
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...h_biosci_eggen
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...osci_tantcheva
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...h_biosci_veith
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=..._biosci_kramer
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=..._biosci_brewer
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...biosci_sanders
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...biosci_wolfrom
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...iosci_armitage
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...biosci_lumsden




Now lets examine these beacons of the Creation Science firmanent shall we - paying special regard to their academic/research resumes versus the key disciplines of biology, geology, astronomy and physics that have direct relevance to the evolution/creation debate.



#1 Henry Morris (recently deceased) - PhD Hydraulic Engineering - basically a professional Creationist since 1970. No research or applicable academic work in any key discipline.

#2 John Morris (son of the above?) - PhD Geological Engineering - seems that since graduate school he has been a professional Creationist as well (nepotism?) - No research or academic work in any key discipline. Geological engineering is not geology.

#3 Larry Vardiman - PhD Atmospheric Science - basically a profesional Creationist since 1986. Worked as a meteorologist prior - no research or applicable academic work in any key discipline.

#4 John Baumgardner - PhD Geophysics and Space Science - works at Los Alamos writing code for geophysical models - the work is in a key area though the work is more programming support than direct geophysical theory. Noted for the fact he puts his name on research papers that use old Earth ages and he signs his name to them. (Hypocrite?) - Also known for his department at Los Alamos distancing themselves from him by publicly stating his Creationist work is NOT endorsed or supported by them and that he does NOT perform geophysical studies by them but writes numerical codes. (So far the best of the bunch though.)

#5 Russel Humphreys - PhD Physics - now a professional Creationist formerly at Sandia National Labs. Worked primarily in the engineering group making equipment for physics experiments. None of this work was theoretical nuclear physics as ICR wants you to think. He has no research in a key discipline until he became a professional Creationist. He has produced a lot of infamous cosmology papers since but is woefully out of his depth as highlighted by the basic errors in general relativity in his work for which Christian groups have even taken him to task for. He seems to be ICR Physicist du jour for anything physics related. Certainly he has education in the key discipline if not the research. (Best of the bunch so far though his actual peer reviewed publishing record is not applicable)

#6 Andrew Snelling - PhD Geology - worked on mineral prospecting and now is a professional Creationist for the last 14 years it seems - Education in a key discipline though no research/publishing record as such.

#7 Danny Faulkner - PhD Astronomy - works as an astronomer of variable stars at the obscure U. South Carolina Lancaster campus - Education in a key discipline. Seems troubled by other Creationists if you read his papers for them. He is much more careful in his wordings. Probably their best scientist from reading his writings - is famous for signing his name off on research papers that mention and use old Universe ages (Hypocrite?)

#8 Jay Wile - PhD Nuclear Chemistry - seems to now be a professional Creationist since his academic career came to a halt when he failed to get tenure at Ball State University. Education and even research seem good though now over a decade ago.

#9 Alexander Lalmov - PhD Geology - Professional Creationist I believe but with education in a key discipline. Very spotty publishing record though. Creation ex Nihilo is NOT a reputable journal.

#10 Kurt Wise - PhD Paleontology - Excellent academic backgound (was a student of Stephen Jay Goulds.) - Research since student days non-existent however. Works at a Bible College and as far as I know does no research. Again, like Faulkner, when I read his writings I get the impression he is somewhat disillusioned with other Creationists. Why do they not use this guy more? His education is first class from the heart of the evolution stronghold itself Harvard's biology department

#11 Keith Wanser - PhD Physics - Excellent education background. Works at a nornal university though it isn't CalTech level. Work is really not applicable to the Creation/Evolution arena but he has the requisite background to be taken seriously. Is he even a Creationist? I have never seen anything of that ilk from him. Again - why not use guys like this more? He is tenured so he can't be afraid of repercussions.

#12 Robert Herrman - PhD Mathematics - Education not a key discipline and he works at the Naval academy as a Math professor. All I have ever seen from him was a criticism of Humphreys (see above) crank cosmology.

#13 Otto Berg - BA Physics & Chemistry - Seems to have worked on dust in the solar system. Not much else I can see.

#14 Patrick Young - PhD Chemistry - education good but works for Dupont on research nothing to do with anything creation/evolution related. To be honest (and I follow the C/E debate closely I have never heard of him.

#15 Ron Samec - PhD Physics - education decent. Works however at the infamous Bob Jones University a place where the word University is an oxymoron (can you say educational backwater.) Also famous for co-authoring papers with Danny Faulker that use old Universe ages (Hypocrite?)

#16 Daniel Reynolds - PhD Chemistry - education good. Work not in a key area.

#17 Duane Gish (THE GRANDAD of them all) - PhD Bochemistry - excellent education no doubt about it. Hasn't worked as a scientist for over 35 years!!! His early work was in an applicable area too. Infamous for lying in lectures, getting caught, promising not to repeat it and then the next night repeating it. Rumours that he is as old as Methuselah are unfounded.

#18 Ken Cumming - PhD Biology - excellent Harvard education the bastion of evolutionary biology itself. His work record is in the fishery arena not evolutionary biology. I assume he is retired now since his work record ends 27 years ago. Again, why don't we here from this guy more? His education is unimpeachable.

#19 Daniel Criswell - PhD Molecular Biology - good education in a key discipline. His work at college was extremely applicable as well. Now works for ICR. Why I wonder? Would do them more good if he didn't.

#20 Todd Wood - PhD Biochemistry - excellent eduation in a key discipline. Papers all seem to be in Creationist journals - Oh dear! Works at a Bible College so I guess his research career has ended. Pity, maybe he could have had something to say.

#21 Carl Fliermans - PhD Microbiology - fine education in a key discipline though his long publishig record is not particularly relevant. Again, where is this guy. He has something to bring to the table education wise but we don't hear from him. I sense a pattern here.

#22 Ian Macreadie - PhD Molecular Biology - fine education in a key discipline. Not familar with his Creationist ideas but certainly has the background to be listened to. Again, why don't we hear much of him?

#23 Andre Eggen - PhD Animal & Molecular Genetics - not sure on the education quality but souds a key discipline. The papers he has worked on seem applicable. Don't know of him Creationist wise.

#24 Luyubka Tantcheva - PhD Pharmacology - education not applicable and Eastern Europe is not usually a great place to get one. Research seems a little off the beaten track. Is she even a Creationist?

#25 Walter Veith - PhD Zoology - seems applicable as does the research. Don't know much else. Works at an obscure university.

#26 John Kramer - PhD Biochemistry - fine education in a relvant dsicpline though his work is not applicable at all. Again, is he a Creationist and what has he produced in that area?

#27 Gregory Brewer - PhD Biology - fine education and a Professor at Southern Illinois (its not Harvard but it is a real school). Early work was applicable though now works in imaging. Where is ths guy? He has credibility. Why do they not use him. Is he really a Creationist? ****** EDIT - He is a Creationist *******

#28 Roger Sanders - PhD Botany -fine education sort of applicable in a stretch - research though looks like typical stamp collecting botany is famous for though some earlier work was perhaps evolution related. Again where is he? Is he a Creationist in the YEC sense?

#29 Glen Wolfrom - PhD Animal Husbandry - irrelevant education & research, might as well be a plumber. Works for a Veterinary connected company.

#30 Mark Armitage - MS Biology - limited education in fact is doing a PhD in Education at Falwells place (Liberty U.). And is a Junior High Science Teacher (frightening) - Seems to only produce Creationist articles in geology/physics something he has no expertise in. Seems to have spent years as a salesman before going into school teaching. Why is this guy active but some of the earlier people with actual credibility are silent? Mmmm!

#31 Richard Lumsden (deceased) - PhD Biology - fine edcuation but worked on the muscle structure of nematodes, not reallt C/E related. Professional Creationist for years with ICR.

Whew!



So what do we have when we compare this list to the tens of thousands of researchers at major universities worldwide? Well the list above seems a strange mixture. We have the active Creationists are professional Creationists. They don't do any research and it usually was years earlier in unrelated areas even if they did. We have the typical totally unqualified people who are active in the Creationist magazines. The highest qualified people seem strangely silent? Are they really Creationists or just embarrassed by the Young Earth crowd? Some of these guys have excellent backgrounds though their research seems lacking.

Where are the people working directly on origins related issues? Where are the real academic/research heavyweights? Where are the chairs of departments of major research universities? Where are the Nobel laureates? Where are the Professors at Oxford or Harvard or Stanford? In that entire list there are perhaps a couple of people who could even get hired at a prestigious institution and even those guys don't seem active Creationists and their work is not directly applicable. I'll put the Project Steve list up against the list above any day of the week.

 

[random_guy]

Awesome post, but it must've taken forever to compile that information. I'd rep you if I could. I think it would've been easier to just ask, what peer reviewed papers have those scientists published that supports YECism. However, your method also works.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I'd rep you if I could.
metoo.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to KerrMetric again.

sincere thanks for the time you spent on this.
you ought to be able to google the issue somewhere and have this list added to an essay somewhere as an informative footnote.
this issue comes up all the time and this is careful research.

 

[shernren]

Awesome post, but it must've taken forever to compile that information. I'd rep you if I could. I think it would've been easier to just ask, what peer reviewed papers have those scientists published that supports YECism. However, your method also works.

Then you'd come up against the classic "The evilutionist conspiratories don't allow any creationist articles to be published in peer-reviewed journals!" Well, that's their problem.

Snelling also signs his name to old-earth papers: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/realsnelling.htm

 

[chaoschristian]

The record speaks for itself.

Thank you KerrMetric for the work you put into that post.

 

[KerrMetric]

Actually I've had this on my hard drive for a while. I forgot to post it but was reminded when nolidad posted the list on another thread today saying I was being unfair on these guys by calling them clowns. Most of them couldn't get into clown college anyway.

 

[KerrMetric]

Then you'd come up against the classic "The evilutionist conspiratories don't allow any creationist articles to be published in peer-reviewed journals!" Well, that's their problem.

Snelling also signs his name to old-earth papers: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/realsnelling.htm

Yep, hypocrites. Faulker, Samec (together on papers) and Baumgardner do the same thing.

 

[Willtor]

Seriously, thanks Kerr. Good list and thorough analysis.

 

[shernren]

I like the fact that Australian-Skeptics was able to dig up old-earth quotes from Andrew Snelling. How about we go do some digging for some other old-earth quotes from the other scientists mentioned? I'm willing to put a bounty in blessings for whoever can find old-earth quotes from "young earth" scientists.

 

[KerrMetric]

I like the fact that Australian-Skeptics was able to dig up old-earth quotes from Andrew Snelling. How about we go do some digging for some other old-earth quotes from the other scientists mentioned? I'm willing to put a bounty in blessings for whoever can find old-earth quotes from "young earth" scientists.

Here is one from Astronomical Journal I found in 30 seconds for Faulkner and Samec.

Note the sentence I bold typed.

Abstract

We solve new UBV light curves of the eclipsing binary CN Andromedae simultaneously with radial velocities by the method of differential corrections. We find it semidetached with the more massive star filling its limiting lobe and the less massive star very close to lobe-filling. Our solutions of earlier light curves have the same configuration. Within the uncertainties, the system may be in a broken or a marginal contact stage as it undergoes thermal relaxation oscillations. The light curves are strongly affected by a large dark spot at high latitude on the more massive star and by a bright substellar spot on the companion. Spot locations and temperatures do not differ significantly from epoch to epoch. Based on single star evolutionary models, the primary's mass (1.299+/-0.045 Msolar) and radius (1.425+/-0.016 Rsolar) are consistent with those of a star of age 2.9×10^9 yr that will leave the main sequence in another 2.0×10^9 yr. The orbital period has decreased during the past 50 yr according to traditional eclipse timings and also according to our generalized light and velocity solutions that include a reference epoch T0 and a rate of period change dP/dt. We find dP/dt=-0.01951+/-0.00054 s yr-1, which is consistent with mass transfer from the more to the less massive star of 1.4×10-7 Msolar yr-1, assuming no mass is lost from the system. Reliable absolute dimensions are determined.

 

[mark kennedy]

That was some interesting links and looks at creationist scientists. I was particularly interested in how you dismissed Gish because he didn't do enough research for you. Morris is highly accomplished, but he is a creationist so that does not get a lot of recognition.

Have you ever heard of Dr Raymond Damadian, he invented the MRI. He did not recieve the Noble Prize as he should have but that was probably because he was a creationist. Check this out and we can talk some more.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/nobel.asp

 

[shernren]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110001844

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/20/opinion/20JUDS.html?ex=1143090000&en=65b74fc8020fe1cb&ei=5070
(free access, use bugmenot)

While we're at it, although this site is taboo to those who disagree:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA320_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jan04.html#f017

 

[KerrMetric]

That was some interesting links and looks at creationist scientists. I was particularly interested in how you dismissed Gish because he didn't do enough research for you. Morris is highly accomplished, but he is a creationist so that does not get a lot of recognition.

What I actually said about Gish:

excellent education no doubt about it. Hasn't worked as a scientist for over 35 years!!! His early work was in an applicable area too.

How did I dismiss Gish? Did you actually read this Mark? I said an excellent education and his research was in an applicable area. But he hasn't actually researched for 35 years also correct. I think I was complimentary about him in this regard. How you summarise as you do is beyond me.

How is Morris highly accomplished? The senior one was a hydraulic engineer who didn't do anything except Creationism for basically 50 years!!!!! The junior Morris has pretty much been a Creationist since grad school. Brief work on coal reserves in strip mining then nothing else. How are these guys highly accomplished? Do you think the USGS or Harvard or CalTech would hire anyone with these qualifications or work even if they were die hard Old Earthers? I think not. These are backgrounds a community college might hire but no one else. Is the Creationist community that desperate they'll trot out anyone as an expert? Do't answer that because the answer is yes.

Have you ever heard of Dr Raymond Damadian, he invented the MRI. He did not recieve the Noble Prize as he should have but that was probably because he was a creationist. Check this out and we can talk some more.http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/nobel.asp

So you believe he should have got he prize based upon what? I have heard of this before and to be honest I am not that familar with it. The couple of things I have read came to the conclusion he didn't deserve it though he certainly deserved some recognition. I have a question for you. Do you think the Nobel committee even knew of his Creationist stance? I doubt it. I also doubt the people who got the prize even knew it until the furor after the award. Damadian certainly isn't an active Creationist a la ICR. I think this is a red herring but we all know how the Creationist community loves to martyr itself and poison the well with conspiracy stories.

 

[Willtor]

Yeah, I think the appeal to conspiracy is a bit of a stretch. This is especially weak in light of the sheer number of people in the scientific community. Even in small numbers of conspirators, secrets are hard to keep.

We talk about ID and such. When I read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box," I found it fairly convincing. He never argued that the evolutionist community was conspiratorial in any way. He had been one of them. In fact, as far as I know, he still thinks evolution has occurred, and is still occurring. Instead, he pointed to certain complex forms that he argued could not have arisen naturally. He attributed the lack of research, not to a conspiracy, but to a general uncertainty. People knew about these complex forms but had no idea as to how they had arisen.

Whether he was right or wrong in his attribution of uncertainty, or whether these were particular topics that had simply not yet been addressed, his writings caused research in those very areas. I think his weakness was in speculating, rather than venting frustration at the lack of attention paid to certain topics. At any rate, at least in its infancy, I think ID was an honest effort, even if it was mistaken.

 

[KerrMetric]

shameless bump for my thread so we can see the ICR guys in all their ineptitude, oops glory.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Fighting the 'good' fight against the Evil Atheist Conspiracy/Theistic Evolutionist Cabal we have:
[]
Whew!
[]
Where are the people working directly on origins related issues?

Read Origins and the other creationist outlets...
Or were you referring to peer reviewed research?

As for the rest... either there is an evilutionist conspiracy or they aren't publishing enough good stuff to get anywhere in the academic world.
<cough>

[]
I'll put the Project Steve list up against the list above any day of the week.

<heh>

 

[KerrMetric]

Read Origins and the other creationist outlets...
Or were you referring to peer reviewed research?

Yes I meant research not useless pontification and polemics.

 

[random_guy]

Decided to bump this in light of new threads with Creationists saying that both sides have scientists working in relevant fields on their team.

 

[Willtor]

I endorse this bump.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110001844

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/20/opinion/20JUDS.html?ex=1143090000&en=65b74fc8020fe1cb&ei=5070
(free access, use bugmenot)

While we're at it, although this site is taboo to those who disagree:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA320_2.html

I'm surprised they don't mention the Watson/Crick Nobel prize for discovering DNA among the contraversies.

I suspect that as with Galileo, Damadian's personality was a major factor both in the NAS paper and the Nobel committee's decision. OTOH it wouldn't surprise me if his creationism was a significant contributing factor.