Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Theory of evolution » Dissidents of Darwinism

Dissidents of Darwinism

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Dissidents of Darwinism on Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:53 am

Admin


Admin
Dissidents of Darwinism

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1456-dissidents-of-darwinism

Its a commonly false assumption held by many, that science equals and is on the side of adherents and proponents of evolution and naturalism, and that intelligent design proposals are not scientific. First of all, there is no dispute between science and faith, or religion, since they are not related, but categorically distinct.  There is a dispute between world views. Between the view that all physical things have natural , non-sentient , conscient origins, and on the other side the view held by adherents of deism, theism, creationism and intelligent design, that the physical world is due to a  intelligent cause, that brought the physical world into being through  power, will, and intelligence. It is also a err in category to equal science with naturalism, because science relies on methodological naturalism. When it comes to questions as to how something operates, its more than adequate to restrict possible explanations to natural mechanisms. When it comes to questions about historical events, in regard of trying to elucidate what CAUSED something into being de novo, modern science makes a unjustified restriction, only permitting natural causes as explanations. In that case hower, ALL possible mechanisms should be considered. A priori exclusion of a intelligent designer has brought forward a entire faculty of historical science disciplines, that rationalize  based on the limitating assumption, that non intelligent mechanisms must and shall explain the origin of natural phenomenas. It has been showns this assumption leads  to dead ends, the provided explanations are mostly vague, superficial, without going into details, full of perhaps, we suppose, we think of, maybe, we imagine, etc., or a admittance of complete ignorance. So its perfectly fine to assume that the natural world came to be by intelligence, and be a scientist. Its not exclusive.  

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

http://web.archive.org/web/20120719184609/http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

http://creation.com/creation-scientists

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism- about 800 PhD-level signers:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/seven-nobel-laureates-in-science-who-either-supported-intelligent-design-or-attacked-darwinian-evolution/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

http://evolution.idscience.ca/2013/05/31/misconception-most-biologists-have-rejected-darwinism/

According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005), a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Prize Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prizes). Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace,[6] 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics,[6] 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics[6] and 49.5% of all Literature awards. The three primary divisions of Christianity are Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. Between 1901 and 2000 it was revealed that among 654 Laureates 31.8% have identified Protestant in its various forms (208 prize) 20.3% were Christians (no information about their denominations; 133 prize),11.6% have identified as Catholic and 1.6% have identified as Eastern Orthodox. Christians make up over 33.2% of the worlds population and have earned 65.4% of Nobel prizes.

https://books.google.com/books/about/100_Years_of_Nobel_Prizes.html?id=3jrbmL-DgZQC

http://www.pssiinternational.com/docs/pssi-members-list-07232011.pdf

University of Bonn cell biologist František Balušk
Neo-Darwinism has gotten too powerful in its dominance of this field. Neo-Darwinian gene-centered science is wrong. The situation is now out of control. Science should be free. It is not free at the moment.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/frantiek-baluka-evolution_b_7043592.html



Last edited by Admin on Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:09 pm; edited 12 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

2 Re: Dissidents of Darwinism on Sat Apr 26, 2014 7:21 pm

Admin


Admin
In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose
to Believe in Creation-- Dr. Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry...

Professor Boudreaux is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of New Orleans, Louisiana. He holds a B.S. in chemistry from Loyola University, an M.S. in chemistry and a Ph.D. in chemistry from Tulane University. Professor Boudreaux has spent 29 years in graduate education and research in the area of theoretical and inorganic chemistry and chemical physics, and is the author or coauthor of four technical books in the area of inorganic chemistry, as well as numerous scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals and textbooks.

Certainly it must be agreed among rational individuals that for anyone bold enough to admit it, the origins issue is strictly a matter of history. Having been initiated and completed prior to the genesis of man at some time in the past, the events of this origins process are nonrepeatable. It matters not whether one believes the mechanism of the process to be via de fiat actions of a supernatural intelligence, some naturalistic evolutionary process, or a mixture of the two; the fact remains that the material universe is in a stable state of static equilibrium.

The initial processes responsible for this stasis are not amenable to the methods of scientific testing, because they were unobservable events. Yet, in spite of this, evolutionists claim that a trail of evidences have been imprinted in the fossil record over long periods of geologic time. Furthermore, it is suggested that biological similarities among various levels of living organisms all imply a common ancestral origin. Similarly, cosmologists maintain that some sort of big-bang scenario, initiated from a unique physical singularity undergoing a quantum fluctuation in some 10-43 seconds, is the process by which the origin of the entire universe was initiated.

Hence, the geological, biological and cosmological sciences have been established as ivory towers, from which so-called proofs of evolution emanate, while the scientist practitioners within these disciplines are the gurus who promote, preach and publish what is regarded as scientific data supporting evolution. But there is not one single instance whereby all the tests essential to the establishment of the scientific validity of evolution have been satisfied. There are hypotheses, grandiose models, suppositions and inferences, all of which are formulated and reinforced within the collective and self-serving collaborations of the evolutionist gurus. However, none of this amounts to true scientific evidence for evolution.

It was in the 1970s that, to my great surprise, bewilderment, and disgust, I became enlightened to all of what has been stated above. Up until that time I had not given the evolution matter very much thought. On the contrary, I presumed that researchers committed to the study of evolution possessed the same integrity as that expected of any credible scientist. While it is true that I may not have been as thoroughly schooled in those ivory tower disciplines of evolution as are the so-called “experts,” I was, nonetheless, more than adequately informed as a scientist to be able to read and comprehend various technical publications on evolution. Subsequently, the greatest embarrassment of all was for me to find that there simply was no valid science whatever, in any of these numerous publications touting evolution.

A number of evolutionists openly admit that the coveted fossil record is devastating to the entire scheme of organic evolution, be it neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium or whatever. It has also been clearly demonstrated that observed similarities between organisms, fossil or living, have absolutely nothing to do with proving evolution per se. Similarly, there is neither a single model nor combination thereof, regarding the evolution of the cosmos, that provides an adequate explanation of all observed cosmological data. In fact, the actual data is frequently in disagreement with the various proposed models.

My own fields of specialization are in the areas of theoretical inorganic chemistry and chemical physics. Both of these areas are reasonably immune to the contaminations of evolution. But, once my interest had been aroused sufficiently to study the evolution literature, I also became aware of unique features among chemical properties of specific elements. These characteristics are clearly a reflection of created design.

Consider the element carbon (C). This is the most unique of all the chemical elements in the periodic table. It is a nonmetal, having unlimited capacity to participate in every known type of covalent chemical bonding (i.e., pairs of electrons shared between atoms), which unites atoms of the same kind to each other and to other kinds of atoms as well. This feature, called catenation, is virtually unlimited for the element carbon alone.

Other elements, such as silicon (Si), nitrogen (N), sulphur (S), phosphorus (P), etc., display some very limited capacities for catenation, which do not even come close to rivalling the catenation ability of C. Without this unique feature, the formation of such essential biomolecules as proteins, DNA, RNA, cellulose, etc., would be impossible. Ironically, in spite of its crucial importance, carbon comprises only 9 to 10 percent by weight of the composition of all living things and only 0.017 percent of the earth’s composition. Nonetheless, there is no other element that can replace even one or two C atoms in biomolecules, without destroying the biological integrity of these systems.

Elements such as carbon (C), nitrogen (N), sulphur (S), phosphorus (P), and other nonmetals are called representative or main group elements. With the exception of oxygen, atoms of these elements are stable only when even numbers of their electrons unite in pairs; otherwise the presence of “unpaired” electrons imparts chemical instability. On the other hand, metallic elements such as chromium (Cr), Iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), etc., called transition metals, are among the subgroup elements and do contain unpaired electrons, but surprisingly are chemically very stable.

The element oxygen (O) exists freely in nature as the gaseous diatomic molecule O2. There are other representative elements which also occur as free diatomic molecules, e.g., hydrogen (H2), nitrogen (N2), fluorine (F2), and chlorine (Cl2). However, O2 is the only molecule of this type possessing two unpaired electrons; the others all have paired electrons. In spite of this, O2 is still chemically stable. This singular notable exception to the electron-pair rule of stability for representative elements has no known explanation. The only other molecule with an electron arrangement exactly that of O2 is S2. However, S2 is a highly unstable molecule, which is the reason that sulphur does not exist in this form. Furthermore, if it were not for the two unpaired electrons in O2, it would not be capable of binding to the iron (Fe) atoms in hemogloblin, with precisely the amount of energy needed to carry the O2 into the bloodstream and then release it. Some other molecules such as CO and NO can replace O2 in binding to hemogloblin, but they completely destroy the hemoglobin function.

Similarly, there are several other transition metals comparable to iron which can replace it in hemoglobin and also bind O2, but this binding is either too strong or too weak. Thus, there are no noniron analogues of hemoglobin having the required properties of normal hemoglobin for transporting O2 in blood metabolism.

The structured portion of hemoglobin which binds iron is called a porphrin ring. If this porphrin is translated into another biomolecular environment and the iron atom replaced by magnesium (Mg), chlorophyll, a key component essential to plant metabolism, is the most efficient photoelectric cell known. It is some 80 percent more efficient than any photocells fabricated by man. While calcium (Ca) and some other metals can replace Mg in chlorophyll, the products do not at all duplicate the photoelectric efficiency of true chlorophyll.

Proteins are composed of amino acid molecules chemically bound together by what are called polypeptide bonds. The amino acids themselves are carbon hydrogen compounds containing an amine group, i.e, -NH2, -NHR or -NR2 (where R represents one or more carbon hydrogen groups) bonded to a C atom, plus an acid group (-COOH) bonded to the same C atom. Although there are thousands of varieties of amino acids, only 20 are involved in all protein structures.

Furthermore, amino acids exist in two structural forms, D and L, which are nonsuperimposable mirror images of each other. In the absence of any imposed controls, both D and L forms will naturally occur in essentially equal amounts; however, all proteins are made of only the L form. By way of contrast, sugars (saccharides), which are carbon-hydrogen-oxygen compounds, have closed ring structures and also exist in both D and L isomeric forms. While there are numerous varieties of sugars, it is only the simplest, 5-membered ring structure called ribose, in only its D form, that is present as one of the three fundamental molecular components in the structures of DNA and RNA.

Both DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and RNA (ribonucleic acid) are in some respects more complex than proteins, because they contain a greater variety of molecular units forming nucleosides (nucleotide bases, ribose, and phosphate). These nucleosides are all joined together in very specific patterns so as to perform unique and crucial functions. The ribose and phosphate (-PO4) units are bonded together in a regularly alternating sequence, thus producing long chains coiled in a right-handed helix. Each nucleotide is bound to one specific C atom on each ribose unit. In the case of RNA, the structure is a single-stranded right-handed helix containing four different nucleotides (adenine, cytosine, guanine, uracil) arranged in very specific repeating sequences throughout the length of the chain. Each type of RNA has a different pattern in the sequencing of the four nucleotides. The DNA structure consists of a right-handed double helix, also containing four nucleotides. Three of these are the same as in RNA, but one is different: thymine replaces uracil.

The nucleotides themselves belong to two classes of molecules called purines and pyrimidines. Adenine and guanine are purines, while cytosine, thymine and uracil are pyrimidines. There are many hundreds of varieties of purines and pyrimidines, but only these select five determine the structures and functions of DNA and RNA.

Similarly, ribose is only one of a large number of molecules called saccharides. Why only ribose and its D isomer, but not one or more other saccharides in DNA and RNA? Likewise, why only phosphate and not sulfate or silicate, etc? Only phosphate works.

These few examples contain clear evidence of complex design imparting tailor-made functions. Such characteristics defy the probability that any random evolutionary process could account for such unique specificity in design.

Admittedly, it may require some general comprehension of chemistry to fully appreciate these chemical evidences of creative design which have been presented. But it is this evidence provided not only from chemistry, but from all other areas of science as well, that convinces me to accept creation by God as the only viable and scientifically reasonable explanation of origins. Of course, science cannot prove either creation or evolution, but it certainly is in agreement with the former and not the latter. Consequently, it should take considerably more faith to believe in evolution rather than divine creation.

Hence, having concluded that creation by the power of an omnipotent God is the only acceptable explanation for the origin of life, I was convinced that the only reliable source of this account must be from the Creator alone. Now the Bible claims to be the written word of God to man. While this documentation was by the hand of man, the information is directly from God. If God actually is who He reveals himself to be, He is perfectly capable of preserving the complete accuracy and integrity of His own word.

God begins the Bible with the revelation of himself as the Creator. The Book of Genesis relates specific details of God’s own account of His creation, details which are, for the most part, in complete contradiction to the evolution scenarios. One major contradiction is the length of time for the entire creation process to be completed. All popular evolution models maintain billions of years from the origin of the cosmos, to hundreds of millions of years involving death, destruction and survival of the fittest for the total completion of macroscopic biological evolution. But the Bible says that all of creation was completed in just 6 days.

There has been much controversy regarding the interpretation of six biblical days for creation. Many believe that these days could be indefinite long periods of time, thus accommodating requirements for the evolution process. However, the most complete and reliable exegesis of the Hebrew word yom (day), as it is used in Genesis, is that it can only mean a literal 24-hour period. In fact, the complete context of the Genesis creation account does not even allow for yom to be translated as an indefinite length of time.

Finally, I am forced to conclude, as reason dictates, that if the Bible is truly the Word of God (as I am convinced that it is), then it must be accurate in every detail, including the account of creation in 6 literal days. Science tells me that evolution is certainly not scientific, while creation is not in disagreement with what is truly scientific. Hence, creation is the more acceptable account of origins. Since creation requires a supernatural, omnipotent Creator, and the Bible is the only convincing source of who this creator God actually is, then the biblical account of creation must be accurate in every detail, including six 24-hour days for completion from beginning to end.

http://creation.com/edward-a-boudreaux-theoretical-chemistry-in-six-days

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

3 Re: Dissidents of Darwinism on Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:50 pm

Admin


Admin
2014 List of Scholars Doubting Darwin

http://kgov.com/scientists-doubting-darwin

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

4 Re: Dissidents of Darwinism on Fri Oct 16, 2015 4:54 pm

Admin


Admin
Blinded by Darwinian brainwashing--5 scientists share their experience with suppression of facts & evidence in secular academia
By Bryan Bissell on Tuesday, November 11, 2014 at 2:42am
Below are 5 of myriads of scientists who have realized that they were duped by a priori fallacies which assume that some version of Darwinism must be true no matter what. They were not informed of any of the massive problems with Darwinism at any time in their Ph.D. courses (which means their education was quite fraudulent and anti-objective in this area). The problem with this is that if you are only told of the good points of communism and none of its bad points..you can't make an informed or fair judgement. You also can't be a critical thinker.  Even Darwin said:

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question" Charles Darwin, 1859, Introduction to Origin of Species, p. 2

But, his descendants could not be more opposed to this fair and objective standard and I've never seen even ONE Darwinian textbook or teacher who follows this principle. NOT ONE (and I went to public high school and studied biology textbooks there..NONE included any of the vast majority of facts that prove creation science has far more evidence than Darwinism by all reasonable standards). Even leading Darwinians have agreed that most Ph.D. scientists are woefully uninformed of very serious problems with Darwinism. This makes them unable to think critically about it..and of course their careers, salaries, reputations, promotions, tenure are very strongly tied to toeing the Darwinian party line...as many who have questioned Darwinism based on science have found out, many being punished, demoted, relocated, censored/muzzled and fired for dissenting as Dr. Jerry Bergman documents at great length in his large book "Slaughter of the Dissidents".



-----------------------------------------------
SCIENTIST #1) Dr. Walter Veith was a former hardcore militant atheist professor with a Ph.D. in zoology. He chaired a department of zoology and was one of the top 5 scientists in South Africa and has dozens of peer reviewed publications. But, he converted to creation science after realizing that much of the actual scientific data falsified Darwinism and conflicted with what was being taught in the textbooks to gullible students.

For many years Dr. Veith was a militant atheist/Darwinian and he and other professors would ridicule the creationists (~16:00), never even contemplating that Darwinism had any possibility of being wrong...Sure there might be some problems and one version of Darwinism might give way to another...but Darwinism was the only option considered. He would take creationist ideas back to the classroom and using what he had learned in textbooks, ridicule it so that creation science looked like a fringe, flat earth type concept and those who doubted Darwinism looked lie dunces.

But, then he was challenged to go beyond what the textbooks said to look at the physical data much more in detail. He found things that shocked him and were completely against what he had been taught and what he had been teaching. When he began to ask questions about this and question whether Darwinism was true he was met with seething anger that anyone could question Darwinism. The Darwinian establishment lashed back and his colleagues ostracized him and punished him, eventually firing him because he didn't toe the propaganda line that is being sold in textbooks that conflicts with objective science.


Quoting Dr. Veith,
"I'll go further. When I actually started questions what I was believing, when I got to that point, all I did, was write down the questions that didn't have a ready answer. In my first public lecture at this particular thinktank forum I didn't raise any counter argument to evolutionary theory. I just wrote on the board the unanswerable questions from an evolutionary standpoint and there were a number of them. Just writing them down created such an such a furor, such an explosion, such anger, even violence, that I was stunned...and that's when I realized, woah..this is not just a scientific debate. Here you're touching a religious core, a nerve. And the anger that it generated was unbelievable. I'll never forget that day."
One lady student who had been a Christian, but then left because of Darwinism said:
"All my life I was a Christian and believed in creation. Those questions there are unanswerable. Therefore there is no such thing as evolution, there must be creation." She looked at the staff members and said,
"You have all robbed me of my faith. And now I see, I need not have been robbed of my faith." And pandemonium broke loose. Unbelievable. It was very, very, very eye opening.
amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/629/951-interview-with-walter-veith-1/

He has a series of videos, simplified some for laymen, explaining some reasons why he became a creation scientist here:
http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/c/10/The_Genesis_Conflict_-_English/

---------------------
SCIENTIST #2) Behe tells how he was never informed of any major problems with Darwinism. His first exposure to that was Michael Denton's seminal work: "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis".  He was amazed by the profound science that goes against Darwinism, studied and then found much more that goes against it, such as irreducible complexity, which now has much more scientific validation. ~15~20:00 Behe talks of how almost even all beneficial mutations are by loss of genetic information and summarizes Dr. Gauger's work showing that for Darwinism to be correct would take many, many billions of years longer than the entire history of the planet to be true..and that's giving Darwinism all it's must outlandish assumptions. At the end end talks of many scientists who are being silenced and make ID off limits because of methodological naturalism while Behe like many IDers and creationists want to follow evidence wherever it leads.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reRTAD_6R84&index=5&list=PLk7gMGOsK0fXN1puEUHwS3uocm4SdK9D2


---------------------
SCIENTIST #3)  Blinded by evolutionary brainwashing
Warren Nunn and David Catchpoole chat with retired Ph.D. biochemist and medical researcher Dr Ainsley Chalmers
http://creation.com/ainsley-chalmers-interview
Dr Ainsley Chalmers has a B.Sc. from the University of Adelaide, South Australia majoring in two chemistries and a Masters qualifying exam and Ph.D. from Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia. For the Ph.D., he studied the mechanism of action of thiopurine immunosuppressants used in human transplantation. He conducted cancer research at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia and later returned to Adelaide where he became Principal Hospital Scientist at Flinders Medical Centre. His research has been widely published in secular peer-reviewed publications.

Dr Chalmers feared the speaker would be tarred and feathered as he presented evidence contradicting evolution to a hostile audience.

Apart from a few listeners, the overwhelming majority were committed evolutionists, entrenched in their understanding of all things scientific and how that played out in their field; the whole creation idea was just a myth.
As Dr Chalmers settled in to listen to the creation speaker1 at Flinders Medical Centre that day, he was sympathetic to the message but not prepared for the impact it would have on his life.

The answer had been staring at me in the face for years but evolutionary brainwashing had somehow blinded me.
He considered himself already a believer in Christ but had set aside too-hard questions as the decades rolled by and his career blossomed. He had buried himself in research, taken up prestigious jobs and achieved much.
It was 1991 and the audience of more than 400 was at the so-called Hospital Grand Round, full of both junior and senior medical staff, lecturers, professors and more. As the presentation went on, it was as if the creation speaker was talking directly to him and reading his mind, particularly when he explained that Adam and Eve were created mutation-free and lived hundreds of years.

As the implication of that set in, he was shell-shocked. “The answer [to the Cain’s wife ‘dilemma’] had been staring at me in the face for years but evolutionary brainwashing had somehow blinded me,” Dr Chalmers said.
“I had known for years that mutations cause ageing/diseases and intermarrying close relatives would result in alleles mutated at the same site and problems arising there from.”

He began to realize also that the fact that humans are still here, with such a high rate of mutational degeneration, is actually powerful evidence for the Bible’s 6,000-year timeline of human history. There have been only about 200 or so generations since our ancestors Adam and Eve were created with their “very good” physical bodies (Genesis 1:31). And the genomic decline is also consistent with the decrease in longevity after the catastrophic population bottleneck at the Flood.

But Dr Chalmers had to wrestle with deeper questions regarding evolution. He had long accepted the ‘reality’ of molecules turning into microbes; then mice, monkeys, and man under the direction of mutation and natural selection.

His mind raced through the implications of natural selection. He pondered the likelihood of a huge gain (1,000-fold) of genetic material from a microbe (4 million base pairs) to man (3 billion) and concluded biology just doesn’t work that way.
“Genes tend to mutate/degrade with time, not get better,” he said. “Mutations, even small ones, are very rarely, if ever, really beneficial and even when they are, they generally either involve loss of function and/or are in some way a corruption of information. For example, a mutation that breaks down the efficiency of molecular pumps for a bacterium to draw nutrients from its environment means that it will better survive certain antibiotics. But it is a damaged bacterium, so when the antibiotic is removed, it will be less able to cope than its non-resistant fellows. Sure, one can put an insulin gene into a microbe and get it making lots of insulin but it will still be a microbe. No amount of detailed genetic manipulation in the laboratory will turn a microbe into a worm or a fly. So it certainly won’t happen spontaneously even over millions of years. And natural selection won’t change that. We can see it happening, but the effects are trivial compared to this downhill tendency in our DNA. So, to me, evolution or Darwinism just can’t happen.”
One professor just called me a Jesus freak. I am proud of that title.

The creation presentation came at a pivotal time in Dr Chalmers’ life, a few years after his much-loved wife Denise died of a malignant melanoma. Denise was a devout believer and it was her beautiful relationship with Christ that Dr Chalmers said held their marriage together as they raised their three daughters.

Dr Chalmers tends to gloss over his influence on the Australian scientific community, but his lifetime of achievements includes teaching medical biochemistry to years 1–2 medical students; senior lecturer status in the School of Medicine; research in biochemical mechanisms of disease processes, genetic testing for inherited cancers and analytical method development. He was a NATA2 assessor and a member of the Australasian Association of Clinical Biochemistry and Australasian Free Radical Society. And both at Flinders University and Griffith University, several of his students successfully completed both Honours and Masters degree programs under his supervision. In retirement, he continues to co-supervise (pro bono).

After gaining his Ph.D. in 1971, there followed a post-doctoral fellowship at the University of Queensland for two years and, in 1973, it was back to Adelaide as a Hospital Scientist at the Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science. Dr Chalmers helped run a Chemical Pathology lab and did research into the cause of toxicity associated with parenteral3 xylitol4 administration.

In 1975, he was offered a Senior Hospital Scientist position in the then new Flinders Medical Centre where he was involved in setting up and running a Chemical Pathology Lab, doing research as well as helping teach the first batch of medical students.

All the time, as Dr Chalmers was focused on his daily high-level responsibilities and research tasks at hand, he steadfastly professed Christ, yet at the same time admits to being a theistic evolutionist.
“Looking back now, I can see my thinking was absolutely divided. But, at the time, I was comfortable with the notion that ‘God [somehow] used evolution’.”
In hindsight, it was inevitable that Dr Chalmers would embrace Young Earth (biblical) Creationism but that did not happen overnight.5

From the moment in the early 1990s when the creation presentation set Dr Chalmers on a different kind of research endeavour, several years elapsed, retirement came along and Ainsley the man—not just the esteemed scientist filled with decades of human knowledge—finally accepted the truth of Genesis.

The evidence of God screamed out from the work he did as he looked at the incredible biochemical harmony in a single cell, 1/100 mm in diameter.
“There are about 25,000 genes and about 50,000 proteins in this tiny cell working in incredible biochemical harmony to keep us alive,” Dr Chalmers said.
“When one considers that we were once a fertilized ovum 1/10 mm in diameter (the size of a talcum powder particle) and this cell gave rise to 20–30 trillion other cells like liver, brain, bone, skin, spleen, eye, etc. to make us, it boggles the mind.
“Comparing one of our cells to a 747 jet is like comparing the world’s largest super computer with a safety pin. The 747 has an army of designers so isn’t it logical for cells to have a designer called God? The Bible calls our creator Jesus Christ. The whole of creation from the huge universe to our tiny cells cries out the existence of our creator God.”
It was the case, as he discovered others had observed,6,7 that accumulating mutations mean that genetically we’re going downhill with every passing generation.8,9

Another clinching thought was the importance of all people being related10 because, without it, how could Jesus Christ be our kinsman-redeemer?11

Dr Chalmers says his interaction with committed evolutionists brings challenging discussions as well as opportunities to share the reality of Genesis.
“People get sucked in by science because of the success they see with experimental science. Historical science is, however, completely different and not something you can hang your hat on.
“The atheistic Ph.D. scientists I worked with challenged me to show them God. I told them to look in the mirror and ask who made your eyes to see, ears to hear, mouth to talk, brain to reason. Their response—evolution. One professor just called me a Jesus freak. I am proud of that title.”
These days Dr Chalmers also goes to churches to share his creation testimony. “I really feel that I am doing God’s work despite my lack of knowledge in certain areas. Most folk seem to be quite receptive and are surprised to hear a research scientist speak against evolution,’’ he said.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

5 Re: Dissidents of Darwinism on Fri Oct 16, 2015 4:57 pm

Admin


Admin
Bryan Bissell You seem unable to deal with reality Brian Cohen. MANY people and scientists became creationists first, then Christian. And should we reject Darwinism because almost all atheists believe in it(a small percentage don't). You've got the loony tunes double standards again.

This is one of the top 10 lectures on the creation science vs. Darwinism issue that I am aware of at present (Evolution's Achille's Heels that just came out may be even better..highly recommended).

It's by a NASA scientist, Spike Psarris, who was an atheist and then became a creationist due to scientific evidence...and only later became a Christian. There are a LOT like him who know that they were duped and lied to by the secular establishment due to materialist fallacies that deny the majority of scientific and historical evidence.

DEFEATING ATHEISM (and Darwinism) WITH SCIENCE



He basically talks about scientific facts such as:
1) Kinesins and numerous aspects of cell biology have incredible complexity that rivals and surpasses our best technology. ALL known scientific inferences require that these must have designers/Creators. Darwinism has no mechanism or scientific explanation for how these might arise without intelligence. It only has fairy tale assertions and denying the majority of scientific evidence/inferences.

2) There are over 100 methods of dating the earth that point to a young earth (only 40 unstable ones disagree). Diamond ages and soft tissue in dinosaur fossils are 2 examples that contradict an old earth (and now plate tectonics does too).

3) He explains the difference between repeatable and historical science which is like the difference between the boiling point of water and forensic/CSI science.

4) He demonstrates how all materialist theories of moon origin have been falsified and the creationist one vindicated.

5) He demonstrates how several planets should not even exist with materialism, and only creation science can explain their existence.

6) He has a brilliant section on how the idea of phlogistan ruled science for ~100 years and did better than all competitors, but was then found to be wrong (esp. from ~35:00). Man's ideas about science are always HIGHLY imperfect and filled with errors. New false concepts keep popping up, but all versions of materialism keep getting falsified with time.

7) He finishes with a brilliant section on 7 ways that atheism can't fit with science, especially objective science:
He has a website here: http://www.creationastronomy.com/
csf.cccm.com/archives.html (some articles are listed here)

Bryan Bissell Elaine Howard Ecklund is a sociologist at Rice University and the author of the book entitled "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think". Chris Mooney writes:
"In the course of her research, Ecklund surveyed nearly 1,700 scientists and interviewed 275 of them. She finds that most of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong. Nearly 50 percent of them are religious. Many others are what she calls “spiritual entrepreneurs,” seeking creative ways to work with the tensions between science and faith outside the constraints of traditional religion…..only a small minority are actively hostile to religion. Ecklund reveals how scientists–believers and skeptics alike–are struggling to engage the increasing number of religious students in their classrooms and argues that many scientists are searching for “boundary pioneers” to cross the picket lines separating science and religion." ://blogs.discovermagazine.com/.../are-top-scientists.../...

Dr. Ecklund's research found that while some scientists certainly are godless, significant numbers of scientists are part of a faith tradition(48 percent) and an even larger percentage are interested in spirituality(about 68 percent). More importantly, a large portion of the scientists who are godless are "religiously illiterate" and have no real understanding of the claims of religions, let alone the evidence.
religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund.pdf

An interesting finding is that many atheist scientists she interviewed rejected religion for personal reasons prior to becoming scientists. This is an emotional choice, not one based on a fair and objective survey of the evidence.

Cosmologist Martin Rees says this about Hawkings:

"Stephen Hawking is a remarkable person whom I've known for 40 years and for that reason any oracular statement he makes gets exaggerated publicity. I know Stephen Hawking well enough to know that he has read very little philosophy and even less theology, so I don't think we should attach any weight to his views on this topic," he said. ://www.independent.co.uk/.../martin-rees-we-shouldnt...

https://fascinatingtales.wordpress.com/.../richard.../

Another interesting thing is that the fields where scientists say they don't believe are also often the same fields which are most highly indoctrinated with Darwinism and methodological naturalism, both of which are against objective science.

People often claim that ~99% of scientist support Darwinism. That's simply not true and hasn't ever been true. At present, even with massive indoctrination for Darwinism that is directly against the majority of available scientific evidence all over society, research below shows that up to 16% of scientists reject Darwinism and find that creation science or ID have solid scientific support. That's up to 1,600,000 scientists in the USA alone.

NEVER should any person say that because we have a lot of scientists who believe in creation science or in Darwinism that either are correct. This is why project Steve is worse than worthless to bring up in response to the fact that there are many creation scientists based on evidence. But, when you do have many scientists who dissent from the establishment view, and esp. if the establishment is using a priori fallacies (methodological naturalism) or censoring evidence, that is a very big red flag that the establishment is wrong at best or indoctrinating people with propaganda at worst. It's a very good reason to take time to listen to the evidence on the other side and see what the evidence is and consider challenging the establishment yourself if that's where the evidence points.

In 1997, a Gallup poll found that ~5% of scientists in the US believed in creation science.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publia.htm

Another study was done by Neil Gross (Harvard); Solon Simmons (George Mason University) in 2007. They did a survey on professors across America and asked them to agree or disagree with this statement:
“The theory of intelligent design IS a serious scientific alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution.”

Their findings were that, "Overall, 84.1 percent of professors surveyed disagreed with the statement, with 75.3 percent registering strong disagreement. Agreement was strongest at community colleges, where 30.6 percent of professors see intelligent design as a serious scientific alternative, and weakest at elite doctoral universities, where just 5.6 percent of professors do."
"How Religious are America’s College and University Professors?" (Published on: Feb 06, 2007) http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Gross_Simmons.pdf

Brian Alters (now president of NCSE’s board of directors) was quoted as saying, “99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution." But when asked he didn't remember saying it and said that if he did say it, it was just a rhetorical flourish with no basis in a scientific study.
ncse.com/blog/2013/08/how-many-creationists-science-0014996

There are a few small studies on this topic now though in the above link. It's 3 options for origins are not worded very well since I could answer yes to all three. The creationist option makes it look as if creationists think all life forms have experienced no change since creation, which isn't true of any creationist I know of.

But even with these badly worded questions, it finds that only ~87% of scientists believe in Darwinism by natural processes (natural processes that God created causing limited change have been a part of creation science for most of history), ~8% say God guided evolution (which includes many types of creationists and theistic evolutionists and ~2% say all life was created in its present form (a view most creationists would reject..unless form is taken to be in the same phyla or something like that).
Scientific Achievements Less Prominent Than a Decade Ago p. 39
www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/528.pdf

So that's ~5% to ~16% of scientists that support some form of creation science or ID.

There are between 2-10 million scientists and engineers (both fields relate to creaiton science claims and so must be included) working in the USA (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf02325/)

If we exclude graduate teaching assistants, Bureau of Labor Statistics show that there are about 1.54 million college or university professors. h ttp://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos066.htm

So based on the surveys above, simple math shows that between 100,000-1,600,000 scientists/engineers in the USA alone are creationists or IDers or believe there is solid scientific support for them (and it may be more since many do not want to reveal their real views for fear of punishment, losing grants, jobs, prestige, etc.).

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

6 Re: Dissidents of Darwinism on Fri Oct 16, 2015 5:05 pm

Admin


Admin
Dr. John Ashton has two doctorates, the first in chemistry and the second in epistemology (the theory of knowledge) and has written countless papers, contributed significant findings to the scientific community and penned multiple books. He also worked in the research division of the world’s pre-eminent mining and petroleum company, BHP Billiton. His most recent book is "Evolution Impossible".

------
The Faith of a Scientist
"Science was flourishing and amid its youngest and brightest, one student in particular consistently topped physics and chemistry courses, took its academic prizes and was courted with offers of scholarships by prestigious universities. His trajectory was toward the heights of the scientific world.

In our age of enlightenment and postmodern reasoning, scientist Dr John Ashton’s journey stands as an exception, demonstrating the fact that studying science doesn’t always destroy one’s faith. Sometimes it creates it.

Finding faith
During his university years, Ashton worked in the research division of the world’s pre-eminent mining and petroleum company, BHP Billiton.

“I was struck by the emptiness in the lives of some of the scientists there,” he says. “My boss stood out, though. There was something different about his approach to work and to life.”

The difference being that his boss was a Christian.

“So I started thinking about my purpose in life,” Ashton recalls.

“Having grown up in a nominally Christian home, I asked my mother, ‘How do you learn about God?’ She suggested I start by going to church.”

And so he did. Yet, Ashton didn’t even own a Bible of his own.

“At the time I was applying for the most prestigious chemistry scholarship in the country and so it was that I prayed my first prayer. I basically said, ‘God, if I win this scholarship, I’ll buy a Bible.’ ”

He won it, which got him working under world-renowned chemist Harry Bloom. The first book he bought on arrival? A Bible.

Fighting to be heard
Over the years, Ashton has accumulated two doctorates, the first in chemistry and the second in epistemology (the theory of knowledge). He’s also written countless papers, contributed significant findings to the scientific community and penned multiple books. His most recent is Evolution Impossible. Nevertheless, despite all the accolades and accomplishments, being heard as a creationist among the growing chorus of evolutionary evangelists is to be in the midst of a constant battle.

Ashton says that while most of the scientists he works with are quite civil about their differences, agreeing to disagree, behind the closed doors of research centres and publishers—metaphorically and literally—things are different.

“I had a book about to be released and was working on advertising with one of the largest and globally most popular science magazines,” he says. “I told them about the book and its scientific support of creation, and suddenly they became disinterested. In spite of the fact that I had the money to pay for it, they simply weren’t interested in giving it space in their journal.”

Similar walls have been erected against Ashton’s applications for research grants at various institutions. He says that the science is sound, but nobody wants to touch it.

In 2006, Ashton prepared a DVD giving evidence for intelligent design, but backlash from the scientific community was scathing and most unscientific. He says “one journal article lumped the idea in with nonsense like ‘spoon-herding and alien abduction,’ ” which, ironically, he points out, is hardly a scientific argument.

“A year later, a response article I wrote was published. The feedback was even more stinging.”

Ashton has received countless aggressive, and at times derogat-ory, emails and comments. “Among them,” he says, “the most telling comment came from a fellow scientist who said, ‘We haven’t discovered the evidence that you’re wrong yet. But we will discover it.’ ” It was a comment that confirms his greatest worry about his work and his faith.

“I fear there is no debate left in this [creation versus evolution] issue,” he says. “It hasn’t been lost on evidence but on what people want to believe.”

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED

“There is no evidence anywhere in the scientific world that demonstrates the creation of new genetic information,” Ashton says. “Small pieces of genetic code have been transferred or removed, but nothing is new. Without these new pieces of information, there are no scientific answers for creation’s arguments.”

Another of the most confounding issues for an evolutionary explanation of life is that of synergy—the interaction of two or more elements that, when combined, produce an effect that is greater than any one of them can produce alone. Ashton believes that this concept lies at the root of “a lot of mistakes, particularly in environmental and health sciences.” He explains it’s a little bit like two men being able to carry more than twice the load that either of them could carry alone.

“Nature seems to be able to create synergies within systems that defy simple logic,” Ashton says. “This causes significant issues for scientific research.”

Beyond his scientific discoveries, Ashton has found two significant issues that pose challenges to those presenting a case for creation. “First, there is a profound lack of knowledge about the Bible in the scientific community,” he says. “Many scientists operate and make judgements on assumptions that are completely wrong.”

Another is the pervading notion that all scientists believe in evolution. “It’s pretty safe to say that there are many leading scientists across multiple fields who prove this is wrong. But the attitude is again evidence that the debate has been taken off the table.”

Ashton admits that it would be a lot easier if he just gave up the fight. But if he’s learned anything as a scientist and as a Christian, it’s that truth must be brought to light.

“There are a lot of theories and a lot of conjecture about a lot of things. What I’m interested in is what we can know and what we can reproduce.

“We have to ask ourselves, What is the best historical evidence? What is the best scientific knowledge? What is the best biblical knowledge? And then we have to use it.”
http://www.hopechannel.com/read/the-faith-of-a-scientist

Attached is a graphic that shows a back breaking problem for Darwinism that it cannot answer no matter what. The fossil record is exactly the reverse of what Darwinism excepts..esp. since we have many MORE phyla existing at the bottom than exist now. This conclusively falsifies Darwinism and confirms what creationists expected and predicted.


http://www.creationists.org/former-evoltionists-who-became-young-earth-creation-scientists.html

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

7 Re: Dissidents of Darwinism on Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:10 am

Admin


Admin
No Creationist Scientists with Real Credentials? 1

I’ve been told that there are no creationist scientists with real credentials so many times I wish I had a buck for every one.

The truth is quite the contrary and atheist TV evangelist shills preaching, proselytizing and indoctrinating others with this kind of spurious codswallop ought to be severely reprimanded and fired.

The truth about this is presented briefly here. It would take days and a load of space here to list every creationist scientist with earned degrees from reputable universities so this is a small sample.

Creationists developed and established the scientific method – not atheists. No atheists were even involved. Historical fact. Indeed, atheists, under atheist assumptions about the universe, could never have developed the method. Why? Because atheists have no reason at all for believing in an ordered and comprehensible universe. Under atheism, the universe should be chaotic and incomprehensible. It is neither.

Bishop Robert Grosseteste, a reform-minded cleric of the 13th century, is the first man known to have explicitly spelled out the scientific method. His methodology was made world-famous by his pupil, the friar Roger Bacon. Both predicted that application of their methods would result in the systematic acquisition of knowledge–a result which followed. Bacon especially enumerated the results, which included submarines and flying machines.

So the greatest scientists in past history, all creationists of some sort, did not believe the materialist definition of science! How then can the atheists claim, as they ubiquitously do, that creationism or even mere intelligent design (which leaves the question of God and holy books out of the issues) will lead to the ruin of science when in fact all the great scientists that led us to where we are today were themselves creationists? Utterly ridiculous and in fact a downright evil lie.

Modern science was born and raised in theistic world views and would have never been born in atheism. Modern science was cradled in Christianity and it is the environment of Christianity and theism that fueled and nurtured its birth and maturing. Not atheism. http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5343749

Atheism has never brought any good to humanity whatsoever. In fact, quite the contrary with more than 170 millions murders perpetrated by atheists under officially atheist governments in the 20th century alone.

“The founders of modern science were all bunched into a particular geographical location dominated by a Judeo-Christian world view. I’m thinking of men like Louis Aggasiz (founder of glacial science and perhaps paleontology); Charles Babbage (often said to be the creator of the computer); Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method); Sir Charles Bell (first to extensively map the brain and nervous system); Robert Boyle (father of modern chemistry); Georges Cuvier (founder of comparative anatomy and perhaps paleontology); John Dalton (father of modern atomic theory); Jean Henri Fabre (chief founder of modern entomology); John Ambrose Fleming (some call him the founder of modern electronics/inventor of the diode); James Joule (discoverer of the first law of thermodynamics); William Thomson Kelvin (perhaps the first to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics); Johannes Kepler (discoverer of the laws of planetary motion); Carolus Linnaeus (father of modern taxonomy); James Clerk Maxwell (formulator of the electromagnetic theory of light); Gregor Mendel (father of genetics); Isaac Newton (discoverer of the universal laws of gravitation); Blaise Pascal (major contributor to probability studies and hydrostatics); Louis Pasteur (formulator of the germ theory).” … Gregor Mendel (genetics), Sir William Herschel (galactic astronomy), John Woodward (paleantology), Sir Humphrey Davy (thermokinetics), Lord John Rayleigh (dimensional analysis)….

The great christian (ex-atheist) philosopher and author C.S. Lewis said,

“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator.” – C. S. Lewis on Mere Science 1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998): 16-18.

Atheism would never have given birth to modern science at all. It is perfectly at home with all kinds of idiocy, superstition and irrational nonsense like “a universe from nothing”.

All the people in the above list were creationists and all scientists and responsible for virtually every convenience and health benefit you enjoy today including internet, cell phones, television, radio, flight, space flight, calculus, and on and on it goes.

And yet atheist fanatics are all running around slandering and whining like perfect imbeciles against them and their followers and successors.

How about if we denied them access to everything that was invented or founded upon creationist science and inventions? No cell phones, no airplanes, no television, no radio, no computers, no penicillin, no flights to the moon, no lasers, masers or anything built on laser technology – and on and on the list goes.

The ironic thing is that all these irrational ignorant atheists these days, that think they’re so smart and highly educated, are virtually all educated in schools, colleges and universities founded by creationists : Yale, Princeton, Oberlin College, Harvard, Dartmouth, McGill, Laval, Oxford, Cambridge, Cornell, and almost all the great universities of Europe and the West. Not to mention hundreds in Africa, South America and Indonesia where it is Christian missionaries that started the school systems there as well as the hospitals!

“According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005) a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prize). Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics[8] and 49.5% of all Literature awards.

The three primary divisions of Christianity are Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 654 Laureates 32% have identified Protestant in its various forms (210 prize),[9] 20.3% were Christians (no information about their denominations) (133 prize),[9] (11.6%) have identified as Catholic[9] and (1.6%) have identified as Eastern Orthodox.

According to study that was done by University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998 found that 60% of Nobel prize laureates in physics from 1901 to 1990 had a Christian background.

Alfred Nobel who established the prizes in 1895, through baptism and confirmation Alfred Nobel was Lutheran and he frequented regularly the Church of Sweden Abroad.

Christians make up over 33.2% of the worlds population and have earned 65.4% of Nobel prizes.”

References
Davis & Falconer, J.J. Thomson and the Discovery of the Electron
“The Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine 1904 Ivan Pavlov”. Nobelmedia. Retrieved 2 February 2012.
“Gov’t Rejects Newspaper Story”. The News 2014-05-07. Accessed 2014-05-09.
Martin 2008, p. 30
“Nobel Prize” (2007), in Encyclopædia Britannica, accessed 14 November 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online:
“All Nobel Laureates”. Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2010-03-01.
Baruch A. Shalev‏, 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (2003),Atlantic Publishers & Distributors , p.57: between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 654 Laureates belong to 28 different religion Most 65.4% have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.
“Alfred Nobel, hans far och hans bröder”. March 2013. Retrieved 9 December 2013. “(swe: Genom dop och konfirmation var Alfred Nobel lutheran -en: Alfred Nobel was through baptism and confirmation a Lutheran)”
33.2% of 6.7 billion world population (under the section ‘People’) “World”. CIA world facts.
“The List: The World’s Fastest-Growing Religions”. foreignpolicy.com. March 2007. Retrieved 2010-01-04.
“Major Religions Ranked by Size”. Adherents.com. Retrieved 2009-05-05.
ANALYSIS (2011-12-19). “Global Christianity”. Pewforum.org. Retrieved 2012-08-17.

Take Dr. AE Wilder Smith for example – a young earth creationist – with 3 earned PhDs :

AEWilder-Smith# Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941)

# Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich

# D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964)

# F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry) Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 “Golden Apple” awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc.

# Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company

# Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford

# Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages

# NATO three-star general

How’s that for real credentials?

The list of theist and creationist scientists with real earned degrees is extremely long. The atheists, once again, are lying to you, and to themselves. All because of their own fanatical religious beliefs that impede them from acknowledging the facts.

“Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.” – Larry Hatfield, “Educators Against Darwin”. Science Digest Special, Winter, pp. 94-96

And what of Copernicus, Galileo, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Kelvin, Faraday, Pasteur, Townes, Godel, Marconi, von Braun, … these were all men of strong religious beliefs. They were all theists and mostly full fledged creationists!

Next time you here another ignorant atheist tell you that there are no creationist scientists, or that religion makes people dumb or that Christianity is anti-science, point them to the historical FACTS, the schools, hospitals, charities, inventions, and the scientific method itself and tell them to get informed and get a proper education in the history of science.

The atheists have done nothing but cripple the scientific method with their groundless, a priori insistence that only the natural can explain the natural. And how exactly, do they know this? They don’t. That claim is a metaphysical, materialist presumption, and total bollocks. For if you cannot see outside of the material world how in the world can you predicate, with embarrassing certitude as atheists do, that there is nothing outside the material world?

Excluded ANY possibility from science is idiocy. Excluding metaphysical existences from science is nothing but a religious prejudice. We should always seek material explanations, but not where no such explanations suffice and design is the only Occam’s Razor answer possible! The beginning of the universe is precisely one such case.

Creationists number among the greatest scientific minds in all history. And today’s creationist scientists are very well educated in their scientific domains in major universities. Don’t swallow the atheist propaganda, its pure bull.

1) https://borne.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/no-creationist-scientists-with-real-credentials/

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

8 Re: Dissidents of Darwinism on Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:37 am

Admin


Admin
Creationist scientist short-list

Darwinists tend to be very poor logicians and poor losers.
Evolutionists in general, especially laymen but also many pro scientists I’ve debated with, tend to reason poorly and to be ignorant of a lot of facts.
This is my observation after more than 30 years of debate and research. I’m always surprised at just how much the average darwinist is able to swallow of evo propaganda without even an ounce of reflection. In my experience I’d say something like 3 out 10 have actually reasoned things through in a exhaustive manner. Most don’t bother thinking through the logical implications of some of that theories standard postulations. They just take it for granted. (Like a lot of christians do as well on many things.)
One of the points in question is just how readily evolutionists debunk creationists as being ignorant, uneducated, religious bigots or idiots – and of course the new buzz word – “fundamentalists”.
If one listens to the evo propaganda one is clearly under the impression that no professional scientist of any worth or repute is a creationist of ID proponent.
That is simply not true – at all. So, I’ve compiled a creationist scientist “short list”, just to make things clearer.



“It is widely accepted on all sides that, far from undermining it, science is deeply indebted to Christianity and has been so from at least the scientific revolution. Recent historical research has uncovered many unexpected links between scientific enterprise and Biblical theology” (Russell, 777).

See also : http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/082542724X/102-5220721-9372113?v=glance&n=283155
I find that is becoming necessary to remind people of the creationist scientists who changed the world throughout the centuries. They brought us the first theory of gravity, calculus, several nobels and 1000’s of other works? Do we need mention Newton, Copernicus, … well how ’bout this little list :


Louis Agassiz (1807-1873; glacial geology)
Charles Babbage (1792-1871; computer science)
Francis Bacon (1561-1626; scientific method)
Robert Boyle (1627-1691; gas dynamics)
David Brewster (1781-1868; optical mineralogy)
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832; comparative anatomy)
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519; hydraulics)
Humphrey Davy (1778-1829; thermokinetics)
Henri Fabre (1823-1915; entomology of living insects)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867; electromagnetics)
John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945; electronics)
Joseph Henry (1797-1878; inventor)
William Herschel (1738-1822; galactic astronomy)
James Joule (1818-1889; reversible thermodynamics)
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907; energetics)
Johann Kepler (1571-1630; celestial mechanics)
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778; systematic biology)
Joseph Lister (1827-1912; antiseptic surgery)
Matthew Maury (1806-1873; oceanography)
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879; electrodynamics)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884; genetics)
Samuel F. B. Morse (1791-1872; telegraph inventor)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727; calculus)
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662; hydrostatics)
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895; bacteriology)
William Ramsay (1852-1916; isotopic chemistry)
John Ray (1627-1705; natural history)
Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919; dimensional analysis)
Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866; non-Euclidean geometry)
James Simpson (1811-1870; gynecology)
Nicholas Steno (1631-1686; stratigraphy)
George Stokes (1819-1903; fluid mechanics)
Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902; pathology)
John Woodward (1665-1728; paleontology)

From your fave evo site – talkorigins!
Of course the above are some of the older ones.
A slightly more complete list:
ANESTHESIOLOGY. *Crawford Long,* one of the three Americans who discovered anesthesia became a Christian. *James Young Simpson,* who championed its use in Britain. Asked by a reporter what was his greatest discovery, he replied, “When I learned Jesus Christ had died for my sins.”
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY. First championed by the Quaker doctor *Joseph Lister* against tremendous opposition, antiseptic surgery was based directly on the theories of *Louis Pasteur.* Antiseptic surgery sought to kill germs, primarily by the use of carbolic acid.
ASSOCIATIONS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE. *David Brewster*, who gave optics several of its laws, *James Dwight Dana* He was a leader in the American Association for the Advancement of Science as was *Josiah Willard Gibbs,*
ASTRONOMY, MODERN. Because of the Galileo affair, it is popularily supposed that astronomy made its advances over the protests of a closed-minded, dug-in church. A closer look at the facts shows a mixed picture. This is only to be expected. Within any organization there are always some people who oppose new ideas as well as some who welcome them. Although many churchmen did oppose Galileo’s ideas, many others supported them. In fact, many of those who supported and created the new learning were men of faith.
Truth to tell, the picture we now have of the universe is largely the product of Christendom. It is a fact that the names of astronomers who professed Christ read like a Who’s Who of the field. Here is an alphabetical listing of some of the Christian makers of modern astronomy who have come to my attention.
*John Couch Adams* (1819-1892) shares the honor of being the first to calculate where Neptune could be found. A Wesleyan, he won college prizes for Bible studies.
*George Biddle Airy* (1801-1892), a Christ-professing churchgoer, became one of the first Astronomers Royal of Britain.
*Jean Baptiste Biot* (1774-1862) established beyond dispute the stony nature of meteorites. Late in life he returned to his childhood Roman Catholic faith.
*James Bradley* (1693-1762) trained as a Protestant chaplain but won recognition not in the field of religion but for discovering the aberration of starlight and nutation of the earth.
Whatever his actual relationship to Christ–he was an odd man– *Nicolas Copernicus* (1473-1543), author of modern heliocentric theory, was a canon in the Catholic church.
It was another Catholic, a Jesuit, *Johann Baptist Cysat* (1586-1657) who became the first man to earn the distinction of discovering a comet through a telescope.
*Eugenio Danti* (1536-1586), a priest, made minor contributions to astronomy by inventing astronomical apparatus and assisting with reform of the Gregorian calendar.
The Quaker *Sir Arthur Eddington* (1882-1944), was an early champion of relativity theory and stayed on the cutting edge of stellar theory throughout his entire life.
Irrascible *John Flamsteed* (1646-1719) trained for the church, but made fame as first Astronomer Royal, establishing Greenwich observatory and providing Newton with essential data for his calculations. Poorly paid, he nonetheless poured his own money into new tools for the observatory. It was he who brought Greenwich to world-wide fame.
*Augustin Jean Fresnel* (1788-1827) contributed to astronomy through his studies of polarized light. He was a gentle Protestant.
Not so *Galileo Galilei* (1564-1642). His abrasive personality antagonized everyone. For all his difficulties with the church, he claimed to be a son of the faith and wrote a book showing that science and faith were not incompatible.
Francesco *Maria Grimaldi* (1618-1663), priest and scientist, in addition to systematically testing Galileo’s theories, described the flattening of Saturn and discovered the diffraction of light.
*John Herschel* (1792-1871) surveyed the Southern skies as his father *William Herschel*(1738-1822) had surveyed the Northern before him. Both were at least nominally Christian although John’s faith eventually ran deeper.
*William Huggins* (1824-1912) was a Christian of no specific denomination who did spectroscopic studies of stars and differentiated between gaseous nebulae and galaxies.
The faith of *Johannes Kepler* (1571-1630), first to discover the laws of planetary motion, has often been remarked. Unfortunately, he felt compelled to make a living casting horoscopes.
Not nearly so well known is the faith of *Johann Von Lamont* (1805-1879) who cataloged 12,000 previously unrecorded stars of the 7th through 10th magnitudes.
*Urbain LeVerrier* (1811-1871) who co-discovered Neptune was likewise a practicing Catholic.
*Nevil Maskelyne* (1732-1811) published an influential nautical almanac and measured the density of the earth to within 20%. He was a Protestant curate.
Work on double stars was pioneered by a Jesuit, *Christian Mayer* (1719-1783).
*Sir Isaac Newton* (1642-1727) wrote a million words of theology. Arian in outlook, his science was nonetheless motivated by his Christian thought.
One of the giants on whose shoulders Newton stood was the theologian *John Philoponus* (fl. 6th cent AD). Philoponus suggested (on creationist grounds) that the stars are made of the same essential matter as the earth and emit light because they burn. The different colors of stars are owing to differences of composition, he said, drawing his analogy from the differences in colors we see when we burn various substances on earth. He attributed to impetus the movement of celestial bodies (Aristotle said angels moved the planets) and argued for void (vacuum) between the stars. He was the first to suggest dropping balls of unequal weight from a tower. Galileo read and praised Philoponus.
It was a priest, *Giuseppe Piazzi* (1746-1826) who discovered the asteroid Ceres.
*Alexandre Gui Pingré* (1711-1796) made arduous voyages to observe the passages of Mercury and Venus on the sun. He became canon of Paris.
Cardinal *Johannes Regiomontanus* (1436-1476) revived the study of astronomy and mathematics in the Renaissance, preparing the way for the revolution in astronomical knowledge which began in the sixteenth century.
Other cardinals, priests, canons and monks of the Catholic church shine among astronomy’s greats.
ASTROPHYSICS. The name which dominates the first scientific study of the interior working of stars was the Quaker *Sir Arthur Eddington*. He PREDICTED the enormous interior temperatures of stars which have since been confirmed.
ATOMIC THEORY. The Quaker *John Dalton* was the first to put atomic theory on a scientific basis. However, note that Dalton interest in atomic theory derived at second and third hand from the renewed interest of the French priest *Pierre Gassendi*.
BACTERIOLOGY. Bacteria were first observed by the Reformed Dutchman *Anton von Leeuwenhoek* and were received with considerable skepticism.
BIG BANG THEORY. *Georges Lemaitre*, a Belgian priest, PREDICTED from his reworking of Einstein’s theories, that space would be found to be expanding. Einstein himself at first resisted the implications but later applauded them. The expansion of space was soon confirmed. An IMPLICATION of Lemaitre’s theories was background radiation. He was notified of the discovery of this radiation as he lay dying. A note found in Lemaitre’s manuscripts said “It all had to have begun with light.” His was the first scientific-mathematical creation theory, soon supplanted by better models. It is interesting to note that *Bishop Robert Grosseteste*, studying light, advocated (on philosophical-theological grounds) a primitive Big Bang expansionist theory in the thirteenth century.
BINARY MATHEMATICS. Binary arithmetic, so important to modern computer science, was the brainchild of *Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz.* Leibniz, also invented a binary calculator which was a forerunner of modern computational machines.
BINOMIAL NOMENCLATURE. Binomial nomenclature in the biological sciences was not invented by *Carl Linnaeus*, but he was its major champion and the first man to systematically apply it to a vast range of life. Linnaeus was strongly creationist and wrote many exclamations of praise to the Creator.
CALCULUS. Calculus was co-invented by two philosophers *Sir Isaac Newton* wrote a million words of theology. *Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz*
CELESTIAL MECHANICS. *Johannes Kepler* made no bones about his faith. He was the first person to calculate that planets travel in ellipses around the sun.
CHEMISTRY. *Robert Boyle* is called by some the Father of Chemistry. His science sprang directly from his faith. All of his writings show the imprint of Christianity. As a young man, newly converted to Christ, he struggled with faith because the science of the day contained so much which was contrary to his belief. He therefore determined that every fact must be clearly established and tested, in which case he felt certain that it would prove compatible with scripture since both had the same author. *John Dalton,* a Quaker, gave us the atomic theory behind chemistry. *Josiah Willard Gibbs* was a creator of statistical mechanics (a specialized branch of chemistry) and in France, the ardent Roman Catholic *Pierre Duhem* also constributed to the emerging science of statistical mechanics. *Sir Humphrey Davy* claimed faith and is noted for his chemical researches as was his protege *Michael Faraday* who first liquified chlorine. The isolater of inert gases, *Sir William Ramsay,* also was a man of Christian faith.
CHEMURGY. *George Washington Carver,* with his work on peanuts and sweet potatoes was a great pioneer in this field.
CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY. *Johnannes Weyer* did studies on hysteria and witchcraft which mark him as the father of Clinical Psychiatry.
COLOR THEORY. A priest, and science facilitator, *Nicholas de Malebranche,* founded modern color theory.
COMPOUND MICROSCOPE. *Joseph Lister, Sr.* and *Thomas Hodgkins* were both sincere Quakers who united their efforts in developing a microscope which used laminated lenses to correct for the aberrations which are always caused by a single substance.
COMPUTER SCIENCE. Several Christians had important roles in the development of the computer. *Blaise Pascal* built the first workable computing machine.
*Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz* advanced the state of computation with a calculator much superior to Pascal’s and also invented binary mathematics and attempted an early form of symbolic logic. His Lutheran faith was integral to his life. Charles Babbage, the true theorist of thinking machines, held Christian beliefs but also accepted such nonsense as reincarnation which is clearly unbiblical.
CRYOLOGY. *Lord Kelvin,* a professor who opened each class with prayer and an apologist for creationist ideas, did fundamental work which led to ice-making machines.
CURVATURE OF SPACE. *Nicholas Cusa,* Catholic cardinal, PREDICTED that space must be curved if God were to be equally present at every point. One of the mathematicians who “invented” curved space was *Bernhard Riemann* a devout Christian.
DIFFRACTION OF LIGHT. Jesuit *Francesco Maria Grimaldi* discovered the diffraction of light.
ELASTICITY THEORY. *Saint Venant* was a key contributor to elasticity theory, which was first investigated scientifically by *Sir Christopher Wren* and other men of his circle.
ELECTRONICS. *John Ambrose Fleming,* who leaned to the evangelical wing of the Church of England, was not only a Christian, but a first-rate pioneer in electronics, inventor of various items, including a “bridge” and electron tubes which were essential to the development of the field.
ELECTRO-MAGNETISM. *Ewald von Kleist* a Pomeranian bishop, discovered the Leyden jar which first made electricity available in amounts which could be studied. *Joseph Henry* discovered inductance. He actually beat Faraday to many discoveries, sometimes by mere months, but did not publish, wanting to refine his researches, thereby losing the immortality which might have been his. He is said to have been a Christian. *Ampere’s* biographers note that he undertook some of his electrical researches to answer questions which he thought had a bearing on the truth of the Christian faith. He gave us the amp. Alessandro Volta for whom the volt and voltage are named, did not live a Christian life, but wrote an apologetic for Christianity, perhaps along the lines of “Do as I say, not as I do.”
ENCYCLOPEDIA, SCIENTIFIC. The first scientific encyclopedia featuring the characteristics we accept–contributed articles, pictures, alphabetical entries–was prepared by a minister, *John Harris.” Earlier encyclopedias with scientific and medical content had been compiled by Christians, including *Cassiodorus,* *Hildegarde,* *Isidore of Seville,* *Rhabanus Maurus,* the Dominican *Vincent of Beauvois,* *Bartholomew de Glanville,* *Johann Heinrich Alsted,* whom Cotton Mather called “the doorway to the sciences,” but who is more famous as the mentor of Jan Amos Comenius. A French priest, *Louis Moreri,* also compiled an encyclopedia.
ENTOMOLOGY. *Jean Henri Fabre* is a name almost synonomous with the study of insects. Always opposed to atheism, he converted to Christ late in life.
EXPANDING UNIVERSE. The Belgian priest *Georges Lemaitre* first gave us a viable mathematics for an expanding universe. His PREDICTION that the universe could not be stable was soon proven by Hubble and others. *Sir Arthur Eddington* championed Lemaitre’s theories in a book called The Expanding Universe. Eddington was a Quaker who said that the believer found arguments for the non-existence of God to be quaint.
FIELD THEORY. *Michael Faraday* first envisioned field theory. Having little mathematics, he was forced to rely on imagination to describe what he saw. He belonged to a small Baptist group. Faith, humility and love governed his life.
FLUID MECHANICS. *George Gabriel Stokes* was a pioneer in this field. He was a member of an apologetics society. A profound mathematician, he was commonly sought out for advice. He rejected Darwin’s theory of evolution, saying it was based on inadequate evidence.
FLUORESCENCE. *George Gabriel Stokes* was a pioneer in the study and explanation of fluorescent effects.
GAS DYNAMICS. *Van Helmont* gave us the word gas (Dutch chaos=gaas). Believing, on Biblical grounds, that God had breathed life into man, he thought the spirit was to be found in a study of invisible gases and this led him to some profound observations. He might have been disappointed to learn that gases are just matter, after all. *Robert Boyle* also studied gas and gave us Boyle’s Law of Gases in refutation of an atheistic opponent. *James Clerk Maxwell* studied heated gases and discovered principles of gaseous behavior. His statistical approach quickly led to quantum theory.
GENETICS. *Gregor Mendel,* a Roman Catholic priest and abbott, first discovered the laws of genetics with his now famous studies of the garden pea. Mendel did not accept Darwin’s theory, because his own discoveries in genetics showed that creatures tend to revert to kind.
GEOLOGY. *Nels Steno,* who became a Roman Catholic bishop (and preached to people in their own language rather than Latin so they could understand the gospel) drew up the first, simple laws of geological study. He is usually named the father of Geology. Many other Christians made major contributions to the science of geology. The minister *Adam Sedgewick* discovered and named the Cambrian. Another minister, *William Buckland* refuted Wernerism which said all deposits were laid down by water, showing definitively that volcanism played a major role. He worked closely with the *Reverend Daniel Conybeare* in a study of Irish volcanism. Lyell became interested in geology as a result of Buckland’s teaching. Another minister, *John Playfair,* converted Lyell’s theories into readable form. *William Smith* drew the world’s first substantive geological maps. Smith’s work was championed by two clergymen, the Reverends Benjamin Richardson and Joseph Townsend. *James Dwight Dana* wrote the first systematic geology of North America. *Hugh Miller* was an ardent apologist and geologist.
GRAPHING. *Nicole Oresme* is the first person known to have prepared a scientific graphing. Galileo borrowed one of Oresme’s graphs in his own work.
GYNECOLOGY. *James Young Simpson* is but one of several Christian doctors who made significant advances in gynecology.
MASS-LUMINANCE LAW. Quaker scientist *Sir Arthur Eddington* did work on stellar masses which led directly to the mass-luminance law. He PREDICTED the existence of variable stars, of a certain threshold mass. These stars, called Cepheids, were soon discovered. Because their mass is known from the work of Eddington and others, they serve as markers for the measurement of distances in space.
MINERALOGY. *Gerogias Agricola* is considered the father of Mineralogy. In more recent times, James Dwight Dana* created a massive, scientific systematization of mineralolgy which long remained the standard, difinitive text on the subject. He was closely allied with *Dr. Benjamin Silliman,* one of America’s premier science teachers and helped give Dana his start. Silliman was strongly Protestant. *David Brewster,* whose Christianity almost led him to become a minister, used optics to study minerals, especially polarization. *Augustin-Jean Fresnel was involved in studies of crystal polarization also, and he, too, chose Christ.
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY. *Bernhard Riemann* a major branch of non-euclidean geometry
OPTICS. *George Berkeley,* idealist philosopher and Christian bishop, showed how images form upside down in the eye. The French protestant *Augustin-Jean Fresnel* invented the Fresnel lens used in lighthouses. *David Brewster,* who gave his name to several laws of light, was devoutly Christian. *Sir Isaac Newton* theorized on the nature of light. Some of his findings were useful, but others erroneous. */Deitrich of Frieberg,* *Witelo,* and others made contributions.
PALEONTOLOGY. *Geroges Cuvier* created the science of paleontology, using bones dug from beneath Paris. He was brilliantly able to deduce function from bones.
PHOTOGRAPHY. *Sir John Herschel,* coined the terms POSITIVE and NEGATIVE. He discovered hypo as a fixative agent.
PHYSICS. A short list would include *Philoponus,* *Bradwardine,* possibly *Buridan,* *Galileo,* and *Newton,* the Mertonians, *Grosseteste,* *Faraday,* *Maxwell,* *Thompson (Kelvin),* *Tait,* and more.
POLARIZATION OF LIGHT. We have already mentioned *David Brewster* and *Augustin-Jean Fresnel* in connection with polarization.
RELATIVITY THEORY. Einstein built his theory of relativity on the work of three men, two of whom were Christians. The first of these Christians was *Bernhard Riemann* who had developed the mathematics of Riemannian Space, which Einstein found could explain the curvature of space. The other was *James Clerk Maxwell* whose equations and work with pre-quantum physics led directly to modern physics. Einstein’s work was to some measure forced by the famous Michelson-Morely measurements of the speed of light which showed that the speed of light is an absolute. Einstein sought and found the explanation. *Edward William Morley* was the Christian half of that experimental duo.
ROYAL SOCIETY. The premiere scientific organization of England was founded by Christians and had an initial membership almost entirely Christian. Among the charter members were the Protestants *Robert Boyle,* *Sir Christopher Wren,* preacher *John Wilkins,* and *John Wallis.*
SCIENTIFIC METHOD. *Bishop Robert Grosseteste,* a reform-minded cleric of the 13th century, is the first man known to have explicitly spelled out the scientific method. His methodology was made world-famous by his pupil, the friar *Roger Bacon.* Both PREDICTED that application of their methods would result in the systematic acquisition of knowledge–a result which followed. Bacon especially ennumerated the results, which included submarines and flying machines.
SPECTROSCOPY, STELLAR. *Pietro Angelo Secchi* and *William Huggins.*
STATISTICAL MECHANICS. *Josiah Willard Gibbs* and *Pierre Duhem* thermodynamics of and equilibrium in chemical systems.
STELLAR MAPPING. Many Christians were engaged in stellar mapping. Some made contributions of the highest calibre. Among them were *William and John Herschel,* *John Flamsteed* (founder of Greenwich Observatory), and the curate *Nevil Maskelyne* who became director of Greenwich.
SYMBOLIC LOGIC. Even the great Lutheran *Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz,* co-inventor of calculus, was unable to invent a workable symbolic logic although he took key steps in that direction. Success awaited the efforts of Irish- born *George Boole,*
TOPOLOGY. *Leonhard Euler,* famed as a mathematician and the butt of Voltaire’s ridicule for his apologetics, created the science of topology with his study of the seven bridges puzzle.
TRANSFINITE MATHEMATICS. The Catholic Czech theologian *Bernhard Bolzano* was one of the first to attempt a significant infinity theory. However, other Christian mathematicians such as *Weierstrass* and *Cauchy* also made contributions. It was, however, the brilliant mathematician and Protestant *Georg Cantor* who finally set the subject on a scientific basis.
VACCINATION. The most famous champion of vaccination was a Christian doctor, *Edward Jenner,* who did his work against fierce opposition and in the teeth of threats against himself.
WAVE THEORY OF LIGHT. *Thomas Young,*
NATURAL SELECTION. *Edward Blythe* – A creationist naturalist of Darwins day. Darwin stole his ideas, changed them to the new version we all know, used them and never gave Blythe any credit.
Just a few. What of the late A.E. Wilder smith (3 Phd’s), William Dembski (2 Phd’s), Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, Guillermo Gonzalez, Chrales Thaxton…….. the list is very, very long…
But still there is another problem darwinists continually overlook and deny – the fact that many non-creationist scientists are not evolutionists – they seriously doubt the threory.
That would require yet another long list. But the main point is just how prevelant this “no serious, worthwhile scientist is a creationist or ID proponent” – it’s just pure codswallop and good old fashion BS.
Here are some more modern ones – including some who while not being creationists or IDists per se have stated doubts about Darwinism:
* James Keener, Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering, U. of Utah
* Robert J. Marks, Prof. of Signal & Image Processing, U. of Washington
* Carl Poppe, Senior Fellow, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories
* Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universitôt München
* Gregory Shearer, Postdoc. Researcher Internal Medicine, U. C. Davis
* Joseph Atkinson, William P. Purcell, PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton
* Wesley Allen, Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry, U. of Georgia
* Jeanne Drisko, Asst. Prof.,Kansas Medical Center, U. of Kansas
* Chris Grace, Assoc. Prof. of Psychology, Biola U.
* Wolfgang Smith, Prof. Emeritus of Mathematics-Oregon State
* Rosalind Picard, Assoc. Prof. Computer Science, M.I.T.
* Garrick Little, Senior Scientist, Li-Cor
* John L. Omdahl, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of New Mexico
* Martin Poenie, Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology, U. of Texas, Austin
* Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia
* Hugh Nutley, Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering, Seattle Pacific U.
* David Berlinski, PhD Philosophy-Princeton, Mathematician, Author
* Neil Broom, Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineering, U. of Auckland
* John Bloom, Assoc. Prof., Physics, Biola U.
* James Graham, Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager, National Environmental Consulting Firm
* John Baumgardner, Technical Staff, Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory
* Fred Skiff, Prof. of Physics, U. of Iowa
* Paul Kuld, Assoc. Prof., Biological Science,Biola U.
* Yongsoon Park, Senior Research Scientist,St. LukeÒs Hospital, Kansas City
* Moorad Alexanian, Prof. of Physics, U. of North Carolina, Wilmington
* Donald Ewert, Director of Research Administration, Wistar Institute
* Joseph W. Francis, Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Cedarville U.
* Thomas Saleska, Prof. of Biology, Concordia U.
* Ralph W. Seelke, Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences, U. of Wisconsin, Superior
* James G. Harman, Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Texas Tech U.
* Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm
* Raymond G. Bohlin, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas
* Fazale R. Rana, PhD Chemistry-Ohio U.
* Michael Atchison, Prof. of Biochemistry, U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School
* William S. Harris, Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences, U. of Missouri
* Rebecca W. Keller, Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, U. of New Mexico
* Terry Morrison, PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U.
* Robert F. DeHaan, PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago
* Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology
* Bruce Evans, Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Huntington College
* Jim Gibson, PhD Biology-Loma Linda U.
* David Ness, PhD Anthropology-Temple U.
* Bijan Nemati, PhD Physics, Senior Engineer, Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA)
* Edward T. Peltzer, Senior Research Specialist, Monterey Bay Research Institute
* Stan E. Lennard, Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery, U. of Washington
* Rafe Payne, Prof. & Chair, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Biola U.
* Phillip Savage, Prof. of Chemical Engineering, U. of Michigan
* Pattle Pun, Prof. of Biology, Wheaton College
* Jed Macosko, Postdoc. Researcher Molecular Biology, U.C. Berkeley
* Daniel Dix, Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics, U. of South Carolina
* Ed Karlow, Chair, Dept. of Physics, LaSierra U.
* James Harbrecht, Clinical Assoc. Prof., U. of Kansas Medical Center
* Robert W. Smith, Prof. of Chemistry, U. of Nebraska
* Robert DiSilvestro, PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M
* David Prentice, Prof.,Dept. of Life Sciences, Indiana State U.
* Walt Stangl, Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics, Biola U.
* Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley
* James Tour, Chao Prof. of Chemistry, Rice U.
* Todd Watson, Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry, Texas A & M
* Robert Waltzer, Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Belhaven College
* Vincente Villa, Prof. of Biology, Southwestern U.
* James Tumlin, Assoc. Prof. of Medicine, Emory U.
* Charles Thaxton, PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.
* Stephen C. Meyer, PhD Philosophy of Science-Cambridge
* Paul Nelson, PhD Philosophy of Biology-U. of Chicago
Some have estimated, in part by counting memberships in creationist or ID societies, that the number of creationist or ID scienitists in the US alone is somewhere around 10,000.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

9 Re: Dissidents of Darwinism on Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:19 pm

Admin


Admin
Evolutionists who have problems with evolution
1. Biologists
Some leading biologists have problems with evolution. For example, the late Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at
the British Museum of Natural History:


"`Evolution' can mean anything from the uncontroversial statement that bacteria `evolve' resistance to antibiotics
to the grand metaphysical claim that the universe and mankind `evolved' entirely by purposeless, mechanical
forces. A word that elastic is likely to mislead, by implying that we know as much about the grand claim as we
do about the small one. That very point was the theme of a remarkable lecture given by Colin Patterson at the
American Museum of Natural History in 1981. Patterson is a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History
Museum and the author of that museum's general text on evolution. His lecture compared creationism (not
creation-science) with evolution, and characterized both as scientifically vacuous concepts which are held
primarily on the basis of faith. Many of the specific points in the lecture are technical, but two are of particular
importance for this introductory chapter. First, Patterson asked his audience of experts a question which
reflected his own doubts about much of what has been thought to be secure knowledge about evolution: `Can
you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing . . . that is true? I tried that question on the
geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the
members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of
evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said "I do know one
thing-it ought not to be taught in high school." Patterson suggested that both evolution and creation are forms of
pseudo-knowledge, concepts which seem to imply information but do not. One point of comparison was
particularly striking. A common objection to creationism in pre-Darwinian times was that no one could say
anything about the mechanism of creation. Creationists simply pointed to the `fact' of creation and conceded
ignorance of the means. But now, according to Patterson, Darwin's theory of natural selection is under fire and
scientists are no longer sure of its general validity. Evolutionists increasingly talk like creationists in that they
point to a fact but cannot provide an explanation of the means. Patterson was being deliberately provocative,
and I do not mean to imply that his skeptical views are widely supported in the scientific community. On the
contrary, Patterson came under heavy fire from Darwinists after somebody circulated a bootleg transcript of the
lecture, and he eventually disavowed the whole business. Whether or not he meant to speak for public
attribution, however, he was making an important point. We can point to a mystery and call it `evolution,' but
this is only a label. The important question is not whether scientists have agreed on a label, but how much they
know about how complex living beings like ourselves came into existence. ... Colin Patterson's 1981 lecture was
not published, but I have reviewed a transcript and Patterson restated his position, which I would label
"evolutionary nihilism," in an interview with the journalist Tom Bethell. (See Bethell, "Deducing from
Materialism," National Review, Aug. 29, 1986, p. 43.) I discussed evolution with Patterson for several hours in
London in 1988. He did not retract any of the specific skeptical statements he has made, but he did say that he
continues to accept `evolution' as the only conceivable explanation for certain features of the natural world."
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second edition, 1993, pp.9-
10, 173)
[top]

2. Other scientists
Non-biologist scientists are increasingly critical of evolution. For example, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Robert B.
Laughlin notes that "Evolution by natural selection ... has lately come to function more as an antitheory":


"Much of present-day biological knowledge is ideological. A key symptom of ideological thinking is the
explanation that has no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories
because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories: they stop thinking rather than stimulate
it. Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great
theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing
experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even
wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of
chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no
computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!" (Laughlin R.B., "A Different Universe," Basic Books:
New York NY, 2005, pp. 168-169)


"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come
into being? There is another theory, now quite out of favour, which is based upon the ideas of Lamarck: that
if an organism needs an improvement it will develop it, and transmit it to its progeny. I think, however, that
we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is
anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the
experimental evidence supports it. An animal particularly the human animal - is a beautiful example of a
carefully contrived and subtly engineered design. The word 'design' comes naturally even in evolutionist
books. The Designer must know infinitely more science than we shall ever know. He started off with a few
simple examples and, learning from them, introduced new and improved species. He gradually incorporated
new properties, imagination and free will being the latest ones. He is probably learning that these are not
enough, since they seem to cultivate a propensity to self-destruction. I find these ideas comforting, for if we
do destroy ourselves, a superior model will be created, whereas according to the theory of evolution we are
doomed. I should be happy to know what my fellow physicists think of these admittedly extraordinary ideas.
In putting them forward I can claim to be in good company. According to Darwin, when Newton put
forward his theory of gravitation, Leibnitz accused him of introducing 'occult qualities and miracles into
philosophy.' What was this gravitation? How could two inanimate bodies attract each other? Newton replied
laconically 'Hypotheses non fingo'. When I am asked describe my ideas of the Creator I also say
'Hypotheses non fingo'!" (Lipson H.S., "A physicist looks at evolution", Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 4,
May 1980, p.138)
[top]

5. Evolutionists fragmenting into warring camps
Evolutionists are fragmenting into publicly warring camps, e.g. "The Darwin Wars" (Brown, 1999) and "Dawkins
vs. Gould" (Sterelny, 2001). "Gould ... a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with"
(Maynard Smith, 1995). "Dennett, as Dawkins's publicist, manages to convert an already vitiated and improbable
account into an even more simplistic and uncompromising doctrine. ... if T.H. Huxley truly acted as `Darwin's
bulldog,' then it is hard to resist thinking of Dennett, in this book, as `Dawkins's lapdog.'(Gould, 1997)



http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe01intr.html#prblmsfvltn

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

11 Re: Dissidents of Darwinism on Tue Jul 19, 2016 4:33 am

Admin


Admin
SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

DISCIPLINE SCIENTIST
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

NOTABLE INVENTIONS, DISCOVERIES
OR DEVELOPMENTS BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

CONTRIBUTION SCIENTIST
ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE SCALE LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ACTUARIAL TABLES CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
BAROMETER BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
BIOGENESIS LAW LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULATING MACHINE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
CHLOROFORM JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
DOUBLE STARS WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
ELECTRIC GENERATOR MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ELECTRIC MOTOR JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
EPHEMERIS TABLES JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
FERMENTATION CONTROL LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
GALVANOMETER JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
GLOBAL STAR CATALOG JOHN HERSCHEL (1792-1871)
INERT GASES WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
KALEIDOSCOPE DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
LAW OF GRAVITY ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
MINE SAFETY LAMP HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
PASTEURIZATION LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
REFLECTING TELESCOPE ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
SCIENTIFIC METHOD FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626)
SELF-INDUCTION JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
TELEGRAPH SAMUEL F.B. MORSE (1791-1872)
THERMIONIC VALVE AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
TRANS-ATLANTIC CABLE LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
VACCINATION & IMMUNIZATION LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum