Modern Creationist Scientists/Heroes.

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Yes I meant research not useless pontification and polemics.

<heh>
Although they rarely rise to the level of creationist diatribes, letters and even the occasional research article in scientific journals have been known to include polemics and even a bit of pontification.

The work Creationists do is generally flawed <cough>, but none-the-less they are not exclusively sitting on their self-righteous bottoms doing literature searches.

I agree with the thrust of your point, I just think you oversell it.

It took 40+ years of hard work for biologists to get to the point where mapping the human genome was something they could reasonably do.

Creationists seem unwilling to put in that kind of sustained effort, they seem to work around edges.

I would suggest the primary reason for this is that the vast majority (99.999%) are not scientists, they really don't have a clue how to go about doing science.

They do have a plethora of hypotheses for testing, which may point to another reason they don't pursue science, as long as they don't rigorously test those hypotheses, they can say "what if?" with a minimum of self-deception.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

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.

No, Gish is dismissed because he stopped doing research and because his honesty is seriously in doubt.

Morris is highly accomplished, but he is a creationist so that does not get a lot of recognition.

Accomplished at what?

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.

It possibly was, but I'm not sure what the relevance is.

 

[KerrMetric]

With all the yacking about peer review and ICR I figured I would shamelessly bump my own thread.