The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[doubtingmerle]

[God] Perhaps, its the only logical cause that never had a cause itself.

No, there are many other logical things that would have had no cause: eternally existing inflating universe with quantum effects, eternally existing matter/energy, eternally existing laws of physics with quantum affects that create matter, eternally existing force causing minor variations in a multiverse, etc.

Who or what caused this "inflating background universe to exist? Could it be possible that a God could have created it to create this universe?

Same answer.

Who or what caused this "previous universe" to exist that "crunched"?

Same answer.

And so on throughout your post.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Yes.

Are you just saying this?

In standard set theory you can't have sets that are members of themselves, as this leads to problems.

If the set of "whatever begins to exist" ⊆ "things that have causes," but the set of "things that have causes" itself began to exist, then either the set is a member of itself, and Russell's Paradox isn't far behind, or there are things that begin to exist but don't have a cause (one of which would be the set of things that have a cause) and so premise (1) of Kalam is false.

Maybe another option could to be deny that the set of all things that have causes itself began to exist. In this case you would have a strange scenario where things have causes but never begin to exist. This might go toward undermining the causal principle in premise (1) too.

I suppose there would be one more alternative route in proposing some sort of non-standard set theory, but that would seem to disqualify Kalam's premise (1) as being obviously true or taken as a given.

In any case, it seems difficult to be able to evaluate premise 1 of Kalaam as being true or just taken at face value as a given.

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~sellerme/sfehtml/classes/math4381/sets.pdf

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

No, there are many other logical things that would have had no cause: eternally existing inflating universe with quantum effects, eternally existing matter/energy, eternally existing laws of physics with quantum affects that create matter, eternally existing force causing minor variations in a multiverse, etc.

So did these things just magically pop up out of thin air from nothing by nothing for absolutely no reason?

 

[Athée]

So did these things just magically pop up out of thin air from nothing by nothing for absolutely no reason?

This seems to be one of the premises of your own argument. God just magically poped out of thin air for no reason so why is it a problem if other things do the same?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

This seems to be one of the premises of your own argument. God just magically poped out of thin air for no reason so why is it a problem if other things do the same?

Because, as I stated earlier, the only thing that can exist without a cause is something that is eternal and thus never had been created...like God. So God never "poped out of thin air"....He just always existed. To say that anything else has no cause to exist would either say it was eternal or caused by "magic". Even magic seems more logical despite its absurdity because at least "magic" would be the cause. But even then, what caused the magic?

 

[Moral Orel]

So did these things just magically pop up out of thin air from nothing by nothing for absolutely no reason?

No, like he said, these hypothetical causes would be "eternal". And by saying such, he already told you that they didn't need to "pop up", as you put it.

I'll add bolding so that you notice it this time:

No, there are many other logical things that would have had no cause: eternally existing inflating universe with quantum effects, eternally existing matter/energy, eternally existing laws of physics with quantum affects that create matter, eternally existing force causing minor variations in a multiverse, etc.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

No, like he said, these hypothetical causes would be "eternal". And by saying such, he already told you that they didn't need to "pop up", as you put it.

I'll add bolding so that you notice it this time:

And as stephen hawking explained in his article to the scientific journal, all those possibilities were false. Unless you disagree with stephen hawking?

 

[Athée]

And as stephen hawking explained in his article to the scientific journal, all those possibilities were false. Unless you disagree with stephen hawking?

This seems like special pleading but maybe I am misunderstanding you. When causes x,y,z are described as eternal they are impossible and you cit Hawking, but when it comes to your preference hypothesis, God , it is not a problem that this cause is eternal. Again that seems like special pleading so perhaps you could explain where I am getting you wrong.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

This seems like special pleading but maybe I am misunderstanding you. When causes x,y,z are described as eternal they are impossible and you cit Hawking, but when it comes to your preference hypothesis, God , it is not a problem that this cause is eternal. Again that seems like special pleading so perhaps you could explain where I am getting you wrong.

I understand why it sounds like "special pleading" and I don't blame you for thinking so. So let me explain.

eternally existing inflating universe with quantum effects,

Stephen hawking's article claims that this is false. To reject it is to reject his work.

eternally existing matter/energy,

Same as above.

eternally existing laws of physics with quantum affects that create matter,

Laws of Physics are impossible without matter to be subject to the laws. So how can the laws of physics "create" matter if matter is required for physics to exist. Also, this violates the laws of conservation of matter and energy.

eternally existing force causing minor variations in a multiverse, etc.

Possibly. Wouldn't a God be an "eternally existing force"?

Remember, the argument is neither proving or disproving the existance of God edit typo: (only proving that God can be a reasonable explanation. Deism could be a reasonable explanation. Once we can all admit that God is possible (no matter how slim that possibility may be), I can begin my thread on the "ontological argument" to prove that God must exist.[emoji48]

 

[Athée]

Laws of Physics are impossible without matter to be subject to the laws. So how can the laws of physics "create" matter if matter is required for physics to exist. Also, this violates the laws of conservation of matter and energy.

So because physics are impossible without matter to operate on it is impossible that they are eternal (what about the laws themselves, like mathemstical laws, couldnt thwy be eternal necessary truths ) but it is OK to say god is a personal being even though personal beings also require matter and physics to exist?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

So because physics are impossible without matter to operate on it is impossible that they are eternal (what about the laws themselves, like mathemstical laws, couldnt thwy be eternal necessary truths ) but it is OK to say god is a personal being even though personal beings also require matter and physics to exist?

No, because the law of physics were "discovered" as a result of observation of existing matter and how it responds to other existing matter. Without the existance of matter, the laws cannot exist. Mathematical laws exist natually not contnengently therefore it does not need a cause to exist. It just exists.

 

[Athée]

No, because the law of physics were "discovered" as a result of observation of existing matter and how it responds to other existing matter. Without the existance of matter, the laws cannot exist. Mathematical laws exist natually not contnengently therefor it does not need a cause to exist. It just exists.

OK, so the laws of causation have been discovered through observation to require time and matter, the laws of personhood, of being, likewise have been observed to require time and matter. So why do we get to ascribe causal agency or being to something which had neither time nor space to work with?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

OK, so the laws of causation have been discovered through observation to require time and matter, the laws of personhood, of being, likewise have been observed to require time and matter. So why do we get to ascribe causal agency or being to something which had neither time nor space to work with?

Given that we are not trying to classify a fetus as a person, I dont understand how personhood laws apply.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis

If you think that is false, you have reasons why, surely.

What are they?

My reason for not accepting that, is not have any reasons to accept it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Visit my blog article over at:

http://www.mereapologetics.com

Or, make your argument right here.

 

[DogmaHunter]

With regards to the kalam, an a-theory of time is assumed throughout.[

In addition, in order for the kalam to be defended, one must first I think, attack the assumption that science will be able to, in principle, explain the existence of all matter, all energy, and the space-time manifold itself which is expanding, for if this is not done first, then the detractor of the kalam can always retreat to the position that science will one day be able to explain it all and we should exercise epistemic humility and wait for that day to come.

In order words, one can only make half-decent sense of it, if one starts with an argument from ignorance.

So I would be interested to hear from someone who thinks that the question can, in principle, be answered by science.

I'm rather interested why you apparantly think that "science not being able to explain it", lends any credence whatsoever to the mere words that make up this fallacious argument.

Anyone here hold that view?

It doesn't matter.

Your ideas don't become more credible just by pointing out that other ideas don't work.

 

[Moral Orel]

And as stephen hawking explained in his article to the scientific journal, all those possibilities were false. Unless you disagree with stephen hawking?

This article?

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Because that article says no such thing. It does say this though:

Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.​

So do you disagree with Stephen Hawking?
Here's another article from your source that talks about what you really want to talk about, the cause of the universe:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html
He says some very interesting things about time itself. Your article said some interesting things about imaginary time too.

ETA I double checked the thread, I didn't see any other articles linked, but please point out the post # to me if I got that wrong.

 

[DogmaHunter]

1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you’ve got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1'), you’ve got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.

1. you have never examined "nothing" to be able to make any kind of claim about what it can and cannot do

2. acknowledging the fact that this premise is unsupported, is not the same as saying that Eskimo villages can just pop into being

3. If you are just going to appeal to how it doesn't "sound" reasonable to you, then you're making an argument from ignorance/incredulity right out the gates.

2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don’t bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing?

In quantum physics, particles pop into being all the time.
But that doesn't translate into things in classical physics popping into being.

Also, whatever is the correct explanation for the origin of the universe, we may be sure of one thing: it will be something that is completely strange and most likely counter-intuitive to us. How can it be anything else? We are talking about a most likely quantum event that took place outside of time and where everything we know about physics isn't goint to apply, since traditional physics kind of assumes a space time continuum.

Whatever the explanation is, I expect something on the order of the discovery/development of quantum physics. Something where everybody but a handfull of quantum physicists will respond to with "....huh...?".

You seem to suggesting that exactly that counter-intuitive nature of such sciences are a reason not to accept it.

Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing?

Why can only a god be a "cause" of a universe?
Why it is only a god that can exist "eternally"?

Such questions work both ways, you know...

What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can’t be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn’t have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!

What makes you even think that "nothingness" was ever a state that actually existed?
Why are you seemingly insisting on this false dichotomy of "either complete nothingness, or a god"?

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'.

As previously said, there is not "nothingness" to examine and study. So there IS NO "common experience and scientific evidence" about that state one way or the other.

Surely you don't think it more plausible to say that things can just come into being without any causal conditions whatsoever?

You keep using this word "causal", but you completely ignore the fact that such a word might not even apply. As said, and ignored, "causality" requires temporal condidtions. The only temporal conditions we know of, exists IN the universe. So the word "cause" might not apply at all.

I'ld say that the universe has an explanation. And what that explanation is, is unknown at this time. Science is working on that problem. It might be the case that they never solve that puzzle. But at least they are trying.

This kalam argument, is the very opposite of trying. It's just giving up and arguing from ignorance that "god-dun-it".

I think your misgivings about the quantifier in the conclusion is just nitpicking. Regardless of how you word it, you have a conclusion that serves as a grounds for examining the worldviews available to see which one better accounts for the universe coming into being.

We don't know how the universe came into being. And fallacious arguments, aren't valid explanations. Or even valid candidate explanations.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Wow, now that was just an empty, meaningless, worthless and useless response.

No. It's bang on the money.

An explanation needs to actually explain things. Not just assert them, in unfalsifiable ways - of all things.

I can come up with a potentially infinite number of such "explanations", only limited by my own imagination.

That's why they are meaningless, worthless, useless,...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your tag is out of touch with reality:
1. Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" (1996).

2. Robert W. Faid, American Nuclear Society, Nuclear Scientist, author of A Scientific Approach to Christianity.

3. Michael Denton, medical doctor and molecular biologist, , "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" (1985).

4. Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong" (1982).

5. Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, "Beyond Neo-Darwinism" (1984).

6. Soren Lovtrup, "Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth" (1987).

7. Milton R., "The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism", Fourth Estate, London, 1992.

8. Rodney Stark, Professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University, see Fact, Fable, and Darwin.

9. Gordon Rattray Taylor, "The Great Evolution Mystery" (1983).

The following scientists (#'s 10-47) stated that "a critical re-evaluation of Darwinism is both necessary and possible" as found at "http://www.apologetics.org/news/adhoc.html":

10. ANDREW BOCARSLY, Ph.D. Chemistry, Princeton University

11. HENRY F. SCHAEFER III, Ph. D. Quantum Computational Chemistry, University of Georgia

12. ROBERT TINNIN, Ph.D Biology, Portland State University

13. Benjamin R. Vowels, Ph.D., Microbiology, UC Davis; formerly employed as Assistant Professor, Department of Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania

14. STEPHEN MEYER (Ph.D. in History & Philosophy of Science University of Cambridge), currently professor of philosophy at Whitworth College.

15. DAVID IVES, Ph.D, Biochemistry, Ohio State University

16. WILLIAM DEMBSKI, Ph.D. Philosophy (University of Illinois at Chicago), Ph.D. Mathematics (University of Chicago)

17. ROBERT KAITA, Ph.D. Plasma Physics, Princeton University

18. FRED SIGWORTH, Ph.D. Physiology, Yale Medical School

19. LEO ZACHARSKI, M.D. Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School

20. DAVID VAN DYKE, Ph. D. Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania

21. ROBERT JENKINS, Ph.D. Biology, Ithaca College

22. ROBERT C. KOONS, Ph.D. Philosophy, UT, Austin

23. GORDON C. MILLS, Ph.D., Biochemistry Emeritus, UT Medical Center, Galveston

24. ROBERT PRUD'HOMME, Ph. D. Chemical Engineering, Princeton University

25. ALVIN PLANTINGA, Ph.D. Philosophy, University of Notre Dame

26. GEORGE LEBO, Ph.D. Astronomy, University of Florida

27. JOHN FANTUZZO, Ph.D. Psychology in Education, University of Pennsylvania

28. WALTER BRADLEY, Ph.D. Chairman, Mechanical Engineering, Texas A & M University

29. DONALD L. EWERT, Ph.D. Molecular Biology, Director of Research Administration, Wistar Institute

30. DOUGLAS LAUFFENBERGER, Ph.D. Cell & Structural Biology, University of Illinois

32. JACK OMDAHL, Ph.D. Biochemistry, University of New Mexico

33. JOSEPH M. MELUCHAMP, Ph.D. Management Science, University of Alabama

34. KIRK LARSEN, Ph.D. Zoology, Miami University (Ohio)

35. PAUL CHIEN, Ph.D. Biology, University of San Francisco

36. WILLIAM SANDINE, Ph.D. Microbiology, Oregon State University

37. H. C. HlNRICHS, Ph. D. Physics, Linfield College

38. WILLIAM STUNTZ, J.D. Law Faculty, University of Virginia

39. CHRIS LITTLER, Ph.D. Physics, N.Texas State University

40. JOHN ANGUS CAMPBELL, Ph.D. Speech Communication, University of Washington

41. T. RICK IRVIN, Ph.D. Institute for Environmental Studies, Louisiana State University

42. DAVID WILCOX, Ph.D. Biology, Eastern College

43. STEPHEN FAWL, Ph.D. Chemistry, Napa Valley College

44. OTTO HELWEG, Ph.D. Civil Engineering, Memphis State University

45. J. GARY EDEN, Ph. D. Elect. & Computer Engineering, University of Illinois

46. H. KEITH MILLER, Ph.D. Biology (ret.), Capital University

47. JOHN COGDELL, Ph.D. Elect. & Computer Engineering, University of Texas, Austin

And others....

48. Brenda Peirson, Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Louisiana College, as seen in her testimony supporting academic freedom to challenge evolution.

49. Caroline Crocker, Ph.D. Immunopharmacology University of Southampton, as seen in Expelled.

50. Murray Eden, former professor of electrical engineering at MIT, sees chance evolution as "highly implausible" as seen in his article "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory" in "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation", pg. 109.

51. Marcel P. Schutzenberger, Mathematician, Professor at Univ. of Paris, in "Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution" from "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Intepretation")

52. Pierre P. Grasse in "The Evolution of Living Organisms" (see og, 3m 607m 104-7, 210-11, 244-246)


53. H. S. Lipson, British Physicist (see "A Physicist Looks at Evolution" 31 Physics Bulletin 138, 138 (1980)).

54. EJ Ambrose, "The Nature and Origin of the Biological World" (1982)

55. R. Fondi, Italian paleontologist, in Dopo Darwin: Critica all' Evoluzionismo (1980)

56. G. Sermonti, senior editor of Rivista di Biologia (Biology Forum), professor of genetics at University of Perugia, and former director of the Genetics Institute of the University of Palermo (Italy), see: Dopo Darwin: Critica all' Evoluzionismo (1980)

57. Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) as seen in his address to the American Museum of Natural History (Nov. 5, 1981).

58. Chris Mammoliti, chief of the Environmental Services Section of the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, publicly expressed doubts of evolution during the recent Kansas debates and member of the IDnet Board of Directors.

59. John Baumgardner, (Ph.D. in Geophysics & Space Physics, UCLA) geophysicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. See Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate.

60. Roland F. Hirsch, see his Distinguished Service Award Address for the American Chemical Society Division of Analytical Chemistry

61. Leith, B. in "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London (1982).

62. Bird, Wendell R., 1991. The Origin of Species Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and Abrupt Appearance. 2 vol. (NY: Philosophical Library). [original copyright 1988, renewed in 1989, 1991]

63. Cohen, I.L., 1984. Darwin was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities. (Greenvale, NY: New Research Publications)

64. Coppedge, James F., 1973. Evolution, Possible or Impossible? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan)

65. Davis, P. in Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, 2nd ed. (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co. 1993)

66. Dean H. Kenyon in Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, 2nd ed. (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co. 1993)

67. Kerkut, G. A. 1960. Implications of Evolution. (Elkins Park, PA: Franklin Book Co.)

68. MacBeth, Norman, 1971. Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason. (Boston: Gambit.)

69. McCann, Lester J., "Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism". (College of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN)

70. Moorhead, P.S. 1967. Mathematical Challenges to the Neo- Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution. (Philadelphia: Winstar Institute Press.)

71. M. Kaplan, Eds. 1967. Mathematical Challenges to the Neo- Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution. (Philadelphia: Winstar Institute Press.)

72. Spetner, Lee M., 1997. Not a Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. (Brooklyn, NY: Judaica Press.)

73. Sunderland, Luther D., 1988. Darwin's Enigma. (El Cajon, CA: Creation Life Publishers)

74. Wilder-Smith, A. E. (now deceased). Earned doctorates (The first in physical organic chemistry, Reading U. England), master of seven languages, positions included Full Professor of Pharmacology, U. of Bergen Medical School, Norway; Full Professor of Pharmacology, U. of Illinois Medical Center (received 3 Golden Apple awards). See his The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution. (San Diego, CA: Master Books, 1981).

75. Baum RF. Coming to grips with Darwin. Intercollegiate Review (Fall), p 13-23 (1975)

76. Bethell T. 1976. Darwin's mistake. Harper's Magazine (Feb.), p 70-75

77. Thompson WR. 1958. Introduction to the new centennial edition of The Origin of Species

78. Kurt Wise, Ph.D. Paleontology, Harvard (See The Origin of Life's Major Groups in The Creation Hypothesis)

79. Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. Theology (Yale), Ph.D. Molecular and Developmental biology (Berkeley). See Icons of Evolution.

80. Charles Thaxton, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry (Iowa State University), Department of Natural Sciences, Charles University. See The Mystery of Life's Origin

81. David K. DeWolf (Yale & Stanford), Professor of Law at Gonzaga School of Law in Spokane Washington.

82. Phillip Johnson, PhD., professor of Law at Berkeley. See, for instance, his book, Darwin on Trial.

83. Hugh Ross, (Ph.D. in Astronomy University of Toronto). Director of Reasons to Believe, see his, "Evidences for Design in the Universe".

84. Paul Nelson, Ph.D. Philosophy (University of Chicago), see his thesis On Common Descent

85. Mark E. Whalon, Ph.D., now at Michigan State University Center for Integrated Plant Systems, moderator of the Biological Evidence for Design session at the "Mere Creation conference.

86. Scott Minnich, Associate Professor of Microbiology at the University of Idaho, speaking at the "Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe conference at Yale University".

87. Siegfried Scherer, Ph.D Biology (Univ. of Konstanz, Germany) Professor of Microbial Ecology at Technical University of Munich. See his talk, "Basic Types of Life: Evidence for Design from Taxonomy" at the "Mere Creation conference.

88. David Berlinski, Ph.D. (Mathematics, Princeton University): see the abstract for his talk, "Radical Darwinism" at Mere Creation conference.

89. Wayne Frair, Ph.D. in biochemical taxonomy (Rutgers), Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. See his comments at "Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution? A Bridge to Nowhere?".

90. Don Batten, PhD (Agronomy and Horticultural Science, University of Sydney). See His biography.

91. Carl Wieland, MD. See his biography.

92. Andrew Snelling. PhD Geology University of Sydney. See his biography.

93. David Catchpoole, PhD. Plant physiologist. See his biogrpahy.

94. Donald Chittick, Ph.D physical chemistry. See his biography.

95. Jack Cuozzo, D.D.S. University of Pennsylvania. See his biography.

96. Henry de Roos, BS and MS - University of Guelph, Education degree - University of Western Ontario. See his biography.

97. Don DeYoung, Michigan Tech University (B.S., M.S., Physics), Iowa State University (Ph.D., Physics), Grace Seminary (M.Div.). See his biography.

98. Ted Driggers, Ph.D. in Operations Research (U.C. Berkeley). See his biography.

99. Alan Galbraith, Ph.D. in watershed science is from Colorado State University. See his interview.

100. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics, Louisiana State University. See his biography.

101. David Menton, Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University. See his biography.

102. Gary Parker, B.A. in Biology/Chemistry, M.S. in Biology/Physiology, Ed.D. in Biology/Geology (Ball State University). See his biography.

103. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D. in Spectroscopy (Physical Chemistry). See his biography.

104. Tasman Bruce Walker, Ph.D. mechanical engineering. See his biography.

105. A.J. Monty White, Ph.D. Chemistry (University of Wales). See his biography.

106. Steven Austin, PhD Geology (Pennsylvania State University). See his biography.

107. Ray Bohlin, PhD (University of Texas at Dallas, molecular biology). See his biography or his book, The Natural Limits to Biological Change

108. Linn E. Carothers, Ph.D., University of Southern California, University Park, 1987. See his info page.

109. Eugene F. Chaffin, PhD Physics. See his info page.

110. Paul Ackerman, PhD (psychology) as seen at the Answers in Genesis Creationist Scientist list page and his book, The Kansas Tornado.

111. Thomas Barnes, Physicist (deceased) as seen at the Answers in Genesis Creationist Scientist list page.

112. Aw Swee-Eng, PhD (biochemistry) as seen at his info page.

113. Jerry Bergman, PhD (biology) as seen in his article, Some Biological Problems With The Natural Selection Theory.

114. Kimberly Berrine, Phd Microbiology & Immunology. As seen at the Answers in Genesis Creationist Scientist list page.

115. Andrew Bosanquet, PhD Biology, Microbiology. As seen at the Answers in Genesis Creationist Scientist list page.

116. David R. Boylan, Ph.D Chemical Engineering (Iowa State University), as seen listed on the Institute for Creation Research Creation Scientists Page.

117. Larry Butler, PhD (biochemistry) as seen in the abstract for his talk, A Problem Of Missing Links At The Ultimate Primary Stage Of Evolution.

118. Harold G. Coffin (PhD, Zoology, USC). See his works, Fossils in Focus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977) or Origin by Design (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1983).

119. Brown, Robert H. (Ph.D. in Physics) University of Washington, Seattle. See, for one example, his article, Science Through the Eyes of Biblical Writers.

120. Lane P. Lester (PhD, Genetics, Professor of Biology at Emmanuel College). See his bio or his book, The Natural Limits to Biological Change

121. Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer, Ph.D. in physical anthropology. See the abstract from her talk at the Mere Creation conference.

122. Mark Armitage,

123. Forrest M. Mims, no science PhD but has published in leading scientific journals, books on electronics, and wrote for Scientific American. For a good understanding of him, read Defending Darwinism: How Far is Too Far? by Mark Hartwig.

124. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, United States Naval Academy (Ph. D., Mathematics, 1973, American University). See his My Intelligent Design Priority page describing some of his ID ideas and publications.

125. Art Chadwick, Ph.D. (Molecular Biology from University of Miami). See his Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis or A Creation/Flood Model

126. David A. DeWitt, (Dept. of Biology & Chemistry, Liberty University, Lynchburg). See his, Why Darwinism Is Incompatible With the Christian Faith.

127. William S. Harris, Ph.D. (nutritional biochemistry), Professor of Medicine at the University of Missouri at Kansas City. Member of the IDnet Board of Directors.

128. Jack Cashill, Ph.D., Executive Editor of Ingram's Magazine. Member of the IDnet Board of Directors.

129. Yongsoon Park, Ph.D. (Nutritional Biochemistry), a research scientist at the UMKC School of Medicine and member of the IDnet Board of Directors.

130. James E. Graham, licensed professional geologist, Senior Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm, member of the IDnet Board of Directors.

131. Henry Morris, Ph.D. Hydraulic Engineering (Founder and President Emeritus of ICR). See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

132. Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. (Biochemistry from UC Berkeley). Author of numerous books and widely known as a debater arguing for creationism. See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

133. John Morris, Ph.D. (Geological Engineering from Univ. of Oklahoma). President of ICR. See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists..

134. Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology (Harvard). Member of ICR, see his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

135. Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science (Colorado State University). Member of ICR, see his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

136. Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Microbiology (Texas A&M). See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

137. Jay L. Wile, Ph.D. Nuclear Chemistry (University of Rochester in New York). See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

138. Danny J. Faulkner, Ph.D. in Astronomy (Indiana University), Professor of Astronomy and Physics *University of South Carolina Lancaster). See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

139. Andrew C. McIntosh, Ph.D. Combustion Theory (Cranefield Institute of Technology). See his bio on ICR's page of creation scientists.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207

For crying out loud.....

Google Project Steve, and put that silly list to rest.