Objective moral foundations in atheism don’t exist

This is not to say that atheists have no moral values. Most do. Sometimes very good ones too. But they are borrowed values. Values usually taken from Judeo/Christian roots, or from simple conscience or some assumed value in collective cultural agreements.

The question is not, however, whether atheists have morals. The question is what is the foundation of those morals. Upon what grounds of logic or reason have these morals been founded?

In the end, they have none. At least, nothing objective. Nothing truly, solidly or binding. And of course they have, in their own heads, no one to whom they are ultimately accountable.

There are a great many atheists who attempt to find grounds for their moral values without reference to any absolute Moral Law. This is normal. They want to have moral values but, not believing in God or absolutes, they are forced to find their grounds in something else. Invariably this something ends up being untenable and sometimes very illogical.

Some invent “objective” values based on materialist evaluations of the material consequences of actions. Others become relativists who, of course, can’t really practice what they claim to believe.

Relativism is self-contradictory by nature.

In my experience in debating moral foundations with atheists I’ve found that people who persist in attempting to demonstrate that there are no objective moral values, invariably dig in further to proving there are.

Obviously these types of people believe they are objectively “right”. But then , if what they say is true, they cannot be “right” or “wrong” about anything if what they state is true!

Relativism cuts its own throat.

They will often try to debunk objective moral values by pointing, as usual, at religions and the differences between them as being being immense. They tend to completely ignore the universality of morals and the universality of belief in a higher authority throughout all ages and in all peoples tribes and nations. Instead, they will focus on generally insignificant details in differences between one religion’s set of morals and anothers. Almost always centering attention on the outward workings of the underlying principles instead of the underlying principles themselves.

They will say something like the following I heard recently, “And where it [religion based morality] differs, all claims to objective morality vanish, because the claims are dependent upon a subjective opinion as to which deity is correct.”

Bad logic of course. This assumes that every specific religions deity is fundamentally different and opposite to every other. Another falsehood. They are in fact very similar in all fundamentals.
Moral values - their very existence - can easily lead us to conclude there must of necessity be some over-governing power to moral law. Atheists, of course, must deny this or become theists.
One of them said to me, “Like it or not, consensus response to material consequences is the way societies decide right from wrong.”

Frankly this is very off the mark. The way humans judge of morality is not according to material consequence but according to reason and then every consequence, material of other. But material consequence alone can never be the rule of judgment. It also requires some objective rule of evaluation for determining what consequences or more important than others.

Now one thing that has always both bothered me and amused me is this - atheists will often invade Internet debate forums on the subject and squeal and whine like little pigs, profanities and insults included, trying to tell you that there are no objective values. And the funny thing about this is that they are all objectively sure! They claim there are no absolutes and they are at once absolutely sure!

Do they think they’re doing some objective “good” in the universe by attending forums and debates to denounce objective morals, absolute values and/or God? Of course they do otherwise why do they bother?!

But how strange is this since, according to their own dogma, they really cannot because they also claim that there is no fundamental right or wrong! No fundamental truth or moral standard external to man. Thus what possible real “good” can debating the matter accomplish? None. All views are relative and the universe has no meaning. (Of course they all believe their own life has some inherent meaning which they invent out nothingness for themselves regardless of the universe being meaningless)

So what’s the point? It’s all useless in the end, in their view, and all views will perish in short time.

So their very presence is indication enough that they do indeed perceive a real objective absolute “truth” to exist. Otherwise they would know they are wasting time trying to objectively prove there is none.

And worse is that, like I said before, they focus on external details - (usually minor; polygamy, sanctions, how women are treated amongst various religions and etc.) - in the actual out-workings of law, to find their arguments against objectivity.

But even in this they must assume an underlying rule over-riding all. Thus any persistence in focusing on outward details is clearly a wrong approach.

Why don’t they focus on child rape? Find me a religion that has approved of this besides satanism or its cousins! There is none and never has been - except of course certain atheistic or demon sex cults who believe there are no objective morals and so they need not answer to anyone - like the NAMBLA member who was so insulted in a TV interview when the host asked him about the moral legitimacy of men in “love” (ie sexual) relations with very young boys.

Atheists assume underlying values which they are use to argue against objective values! Very strange indeed.

One said to me, “It is the human response to results that is the basis of what we consider ‘right’ and ‘wrong’“.

But again, Reason is what brings the moral considerations, not human response to material consequences. And upon what basis would the mere human response be sufficient for establishing an objective rule? Is this the way they live every day? I don’t think so, nor could they - they’d end up in the cell block of the asylum.

The atheist claims that we are the results of billions of unlikely concurrent, conjunctive
accidents - random mutations + selection. (Darwinism is it’s science.) So where do they get off inventing objective morals for themselves, or any morals at all? Or, where can they find a solid rule of moral action since they themselves are nothing like “solid” or meaningful? It never adds up.

We are, in the materialist view, without soul, spirit, heart (let all the artists in the world weep). Without free will (see Dawkins or Provine). Without anything but bio-chem processes in our brains and nervous systems that dictate what we are and even what we believe (Dawkins’ memes), yet they boldly state the contrary — when it serves their own purpose of course.

Again I was told, “All such claims [to a real objective morality] are comprehensively dismantled by studying the basis for any specific set of claims, the irreconcilable contradictions between competing claims, and the fluidity of claims over time. Every religion has its own ‘objective’ morality, and they are, to significant extents, mutually exclusive. “

First, their own proofs of being objectively right, are thus dismantled by the same rule of logic!
But no, their moral values are nothing like significantly different. Rather significantly similar!!

Thankfully there are virtually no “irreconcilable contradictions” nor is there any significant “fluidity over time”. All the most basic, fundamental Moral values remain unchanged over millennia.

It’s rather surprising they can’t see how obvious this is.

CS Lewis gives a quick list of fundamental values amongst very different religions through the ages in his book, “The Abolition of Man” now on-line here :

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htm#1

and the comparative list is here : http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition4.htm

a few short quotes :
“I have not slain men” - ancient Egyptian - confession of a righteous soul - book of the dead

“in Nastrond I saw murderers” - Old Norse - Volospa 38,39 (nastrond=hell)
“do no murder” - Hebrew -exodus 20

“Slander not” - ancient Babylonian - Hymn to Samas
“do not bring a false witness against your neighbour” - Hebrew exodus 20
“utter not a word by which anyone could be wounded” - Hindu
“never do to others what you would not like them to do to you” - ancient Chinese - Analects of Confucius

“speak kindness…show good will” - Hymn to Samas
“men were brought into existence for the sake of men that they might do one another good” - roman Cicero De Off.
“man is mans delight” - Old Norse Havamal 47
“what good man regards any misfortune as no concern of his?” - roman Juvenal15, 140

“love your wife studiously. gladden her heart all your life” - ancient Egyptian - ere
“has he appraoched his neighbour’s wife?” - babylonian - List of Sins
“you shall not commit adultery” - Hebrew
“In Nastrond I saw beguilers of others’ wives” - Old Norse Volospa

“take no vengeance though they do you wrong” - Old Norse Sigdrifumal, 22
“do not avenge yourselves” - christian Paul

“I have not stolen” - Egyptian - confessions… ibid.
“do not steal” - Hebrew
“to wrong, to rob, to cause to be robbed” - Babylonian List of Sins

It simply isn’t true that there are so many contradictions in the base principles of morality. There is always and universally an underlying belief in justice, goodness, mercy, truth, faithfulness, loyalty, kindness, patience, love, humility, candor, honesty, fair play, benevolence…..

No exceptions outside of satanism and it’s relatives. And even the “values” of satanism prove atheists wrong!

In summary, the atheist ought to re-think his life. Perhaps : “Oh God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul.” would be an adequate prayer for him.

You don’t have a soul, you ARE a soul, you have a body.

The Euthyphro dilemma?

This is, and has been for centuries, considered by atheists and anti-moralists as the ultimate refutation of God. Specifically of Divine Command theory.

This dilemma basically goes as follows:

In Plato’s dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, Socrates is attempting to understand the essence of piety and holiness:

Socrates: And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro? Is not piety, according to your definition, loved by all the gods?

Euthyphro: Certainly.

Socrates: Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason?

Euthyphro: No, that is the reason.

Socrates: It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved?

The dilemma Euthyphro faced is this: Is a thing good simply because the gods say it is? Or do the gods say a thing is good because of some other quality it has? If so, what is that quality? The problem stumped Euthyphro.

Russel put it this way:

If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God

First, I refer interested parties to the following sites: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5236
and : http://www.charlesgfinney.com/1840skeletons/sk_lecture23.htm

These 2 sites offer or some good responses to this issue and teh Moral Law of in general. I will quote from one or the other in some small measure here.

Basically, no being can make law. But no law can exist without sanctions. And no sanctions can exist without a Ruling, conscious Magistrate to adiminster them…reason it farther - the ultimate conclusions are obvious enough - God’s existence is necessary to the existence of ultimates moral values.

However, nothing is easier than defining this *dilemma* out of existence. Why? Because there is no dilemma in the 1st place!

The pretended dilemma argues what it does not understand and founds it’s argument on a falsity, an incorrect presumption - that the moral Law and God are two separate things.

So, in one phrase it may be undone - “God is the Law and the Law is God.”

God is the inspirited, incarnate, Living Law - they are one. Not independant entities.

What is said of God is exactly what may be said of the Moral Law “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature”. Every thing that one can discern of all true objective moral realities can also be said of God himself.

And of course, this is the view of the bible and Christianity. “Anyone who does not love does not know God, because *God is love*.”

Love is good willing. It is benevolence. It is seeking the highest good. “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

The Law is One. An indivisible unit all summed up in one word “love” - agape - disinterested, unselfish good willing. And that so describes who and what God is, that the two are inseparable, immutable, unchangeable and eternally, mutually existent - one in the other.

Thus no God = no law and no law = no God. And thus the existence of God = existence of Law vice versa. So the very existence of a real, objective Moral Law running everywhere where there are sentient, self-deteminingbeings, is evidence of the existence of God.

Just as both philosophers (check Kant on this) and theologians and simple everyday people have been saying from times immemorial.

“Do as you would be done by” is the worlds oldest, most universal command. It describes love which describes the Moral Law which describes who God is and what he is like.

As for the so-called tautologies and contradictions involved with the infamous “dilemma”, they are the very well documented territory of Darwinism and atheism as any one know if they’d really done any proper homework on the issue.

Is there purpose in Darwinian life or not?

This is partly from an article on the uncommondecent site, which I made comments on. Only my own comments are here.
The article quotes from various school biology text books.

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”

(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”

(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”

(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”

(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed.. D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any ‘goals.’ The idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”

(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. Natural selection is totally blind to the future. … Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains … Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”

(Richard Dawkins quoted in Biology by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has ‘chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors—little by little, generation after generation—merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces …. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. … [J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.”

(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. … The real difficulty in accepting Darwin’s theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”

(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

“The advent of Darwinism posted even greater threats to religion by suggesting that biological relationship, including the origin of humans and of all species, could be explained by natural selection without the intervention of a god. Many felt that evolutionary randomness and uncertainty had replaced a deity having conscious, purposeful, human characteristics. The Darwinian view that evolution is a historical process and present-type organisms were not created spontaneously but formed in a succession of selective events that occurred in the past, contradicted the common religious view that there could be no design, biological or otherwise, without an intelligent designer. … The variability by which selection depends may be random, but adaptions are not; they arise because selection chooses and perfects only what is adaptive. In this scheme a god of design and purpose is not necessary. Neither religion nor science has irrevocably conquered. Religion has been bolstered by paternalistic social systems in which individuals depend on the beneficiences of those more powerful than they are, as well as the comforting idea that humanity was created in the image of a god to rule over the world and its creatures. Religion provided emotional solace … Nevertheless, faith in religious dogma has been eroded by natural explanations of its mysteries, by a deep understanding of the sources of human emotional needs, and by the recognition that ethics and morality can change among different societies and that acceptance of such values need not depend on religion.”

(Evolution by Monroe, W. Strickberger (3rd ed., Jones & Bartlett, 2000), pg. 70-71)

“Nothing consciously chooses what is selected. Nature is not a conscious agent who chooses what will be selected. … There is no long term goal, for nothing is involved that could conceive of a goal.”

(Evolution: An Introduction by Stephen C. Stearns & Rolf F. Hoeckstra, pg. 30 (2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2005).)

“[A]s E.O. Wilson puts it, a chicken is really the chicken genes’ way of making more copies of themselves. … [A]s an evolutionary biologist I believe that in some sense we exist solely to propagate the genes within us.”
(Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach, by John Alcock, pgs 16, 609 (Sinauer Associates, Inc, 1998).)
--------------------

“I believe that in some sense we exist solely to propagate the genes within us.”

This, of course, brings back to the table the underlying implications of such nonsense - rape, for example, is a biological adaptation to this end - so is every thing else including murder.

Darwinists may try, as some still erringly and vainly do, to get out of it but there is no way out. Not using reason. Of course the atheistDarwinist may attempt to "invent" purpose for himself, but that purpose is vain, unilateral and ultimately no pourpose at all since, by necessity, it exists within the overall meaninglessness of the universe.

Now if this “gene propagation as sole purpose” is true then a pertinent question forces it’s way to the front - WHY?

Why should we exist in the 1st place? Why should we “propagate the genes”? To what end? Why should humans, or anything else for that matter, *survive* at all?

According to all the above quotes, to no end whatsoever. Survival for survival’s sake! What a bore!

Again, as CS Lewis so aptly said, “Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning…”
and :
“If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes…it cuts its own throat.”

This is self-evident.

Unfortunately, the atheistic Darwinist camp is incapable of seeing this. They have been brainwashed by years of Darwinist propaganda - everywhere - and thus are in serious need of de-programming!

Ex: I once asked a Darwinist/atheist that if there were no absolutes, no ultimate truths, no real purpose then “2+2 does not always necessarily = 4?”. He replied, “exactly”.

And he was “absolutely” sure!

A strange form of intellectualized insanity follows.

This man is an IT pro who necessarily relies on math to accomplish his day to day job! But in his mind 2+2 may equal something other than 4 somehow, somewhere over the rainbow.

Thankfully he lives in a happy contradiction between reality and his own ideas - applying math *as though it were true* inspite of himself!

This is the postmodern dilema/contradiction and it leads the society that adheres to this sophism, to intellectualized, virtual insanity. “If it’s true, then it can’t be true”.

In this sorry view, there is no answer and we should not be seeking one.

Reason itself slowly dies and is replaced by any idiocy you please - such as the above inane citations from the bio-text authors (based on this bizarre relativist metaphysic).

I’ve been noting the decline of true reason in the public for a while now.
It’s frightening to see the erroneous, faulty logic that more and more people use in public.

Like the pedophile who was interviewed on a major US TV network who was working hard to get sexual relations between men and little boys legalized. He spoke easily and without the slightest inclination to shame and when challenged on the morality of it, began whining about the purposeless universe where there are no absolutes etc… and thus there was no right or wrong involved!

“Who are you to claim this is wrong?!” From the atheistic stance there was no contradicting him! For as Provine displayed, “There are no ultimate foundations for ethics”, no free will and all is biologically pre-programmed by our genes!!

All is thus purely subjective and no objective values can exist - not under these anserine schemes wherein Darwinism plays a major role and gene propagation is the sole ulimatum!

I fear that a major “outbreak” of mental illness will ensue as a result of the flight from absolutes. A flight into chaos - moral and mental.

When you see sophists defending the bio-origins of rape - like Thornhill - it’s time to wake up and smell the poison. But Thornhill and cie, are merely taking Darwinism to it’s logical ends!

F. Shaeffer’s “death of reason” is at our doorsteps and becoming more visible each passing year.

And Darwinism is this new follys’ “science” - it doesn’t matter how ludicrous the explanations are - it must be thus because the postmodern, anti-absolute mindset requires it. To say the contrary threatens the whole relativist/darwinist edifice.

No prupose but gene propagation? What a boring, feckless mindset! No wonder the “Darwinist culture” states are all off the wall endlessly seeking sexual satisfaction!

It’s all over the TV’s, movies etc. and the racks of porn mags in every store just keep growing and getting more explicit and perverse each year!

Time for a radical change!
“Unless we return to the crude and nursery-like belief in objective values, we perish.” - CS Lewis

It also seems rather confusing that here we have this article showing what’s in the bio-books stating that there is no purpose but self propagation (i.e. selfishness) and no goals or direction in life, and at the same time we have another book just out called “Darwin Loves you” wherein the author attempts to banish all these ideas and give Darwinism some “purposeful” credibility.

See the book's description here -> Darwin loves you

And this just happens to coincide with creationist/ID camp’s having been exposing the clear metaphysics involved over the past few years! Coincidince? I don’t think so.

They’ve been exposed. So the high priests of Darwinian fundamentalism and are now rushing to save the precious theory, once again, from inevitable public disaster seeking to reconcile it again to reason and common sense.

Glaring contradictions abound in the postmodern mindset indeed. When will these people awaken from their dream?

Sometimes I fear it will take another world war before the consequences of this atheistic Darwinian intellectual suicide are realized.

The Pope & Islam

A lot of fury and verbiage is flying around since the pope's comments concerning Islam these days.

In my view he merely spoke the historical truth, as we know it, about the “prophet” and should never have made any apology for his words. And once again mulsims have proven it to be still true!!

Again political correctness rules - even in the Vatican!

Islam has shown itself over and over again to be a dangerous, bloodthirsty religion of conversion by the sword. Convert or die is practically all we hear these days. And yet the idiotic politically correct agenda still insists that all religions are equal and Islam is not all bad - just a minority group of radical fundamentalists within it.

Minority? On the contrary! All we see in the world today are muslim demonstrations, threats, riots, and threats of slaughter, terrorism, war, abuse of women and children, cruelty, torture…..

When will the inane media makers wake up and smell the blood? Only when it becomes their own I fear.

History clearly tells us that the “prophet” was a desert bandit who pillaged, murdered, raped and tortured. Then he made a religion out of it to justify his crimes and build up a huge army of fanatics who wished to profit from the same.

That’s what history tells us whether we like it or not.

Jesus Christ receives more verbal abuse, ridicule, hatred and mockery in the world than any other “religious” leader ever. But do we see great crowds of christians out on the streets breating forth threatings and slaughter for it all? For even one small Christ abasing cartoon or comments by muslims or even the abasing words of the Quaran concerning Him? No.

Jesus, on the contrary, tells us to love our enemies, bless them that curse us and pray for them that persecute us. He says, “do as you would be done by” - the golden rule.

Which do you refer? The sword hanging over your head requiring conversion to Allah on pains of death or a free will choice - with future consequences yes - but still free? Christ offers reconciliation and peace with God on a free choice basis.

Do you want to see what the Quaran teaches? Look at these short refs:

Koran: Husbands may beat their wives. (Surah 4:34)

“Do not take the Jews and Christians for friends”
(Surah 5:51)

“fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness”
(Surah 9:123)

“fight those who do not believe in Allah”
(Surah 9:29)

“and fight them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah”
(Surah 8:39)

“fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace”
(Surah 9:14)

“Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them”
(Surah 9:30)

Just a small sample but you ought to get the idea. But the worst part is that as soon as anyone steps outside the politically correct boundaries and speaks the truth, inevitably a majority of muslims will step out and prove it!

Steve Centanni, the Fox News reporter freed overrecently by his captors in Gaza said, “We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint…”

Yet still the mass media refuses to speak the truth - all in the name of tolerance - right to the idiotic extremes of our post-modern world wherein if the truth hurts it must be squashed and it’s proponents persecuted. We must not “hurt feelings” or some other such brutally foolish notions are now more important than truth - even in the once “all powerful, infallible” Vatican!

I ask, when did one ever witness Christ apologizing for speaking the truth? Never. And yes we crucified Him for it and I have no doubts would do so again if we could! Many are still doing so verbally with no qualms or reasoning at all.

Forced religion is no religion at all.

The pope should feel no shame in having spoken the historical truth and no apologies should have been made. No apology for telling the truth, under such circumstances, should ever be made by anyone anywhere. Including any truth spoken by a muslim.

We may be mistaken sometimes when we think we are speaking the truth but are in fact unwittingly uttering false information. But no shame is ever to accepted for speaking the truth. And no apology should be made for reciting history and recognizing it’s message.

I am no fan of popery, but this kind of situation is an outrage against both freedom of expression and indeed against truth itself.

Intelligent Reasoning

Intelligent Reasoning

More on Intelligent Design

New and intersting articles at ID The Future

http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/09/you_read_that_right.html

http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/09/coyne_versus_erwin_davidson_yo.html

http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/09/design_science.html

Q: Does it matter what anyone says is the truth in this matter?

A: Not to the average Darwinian fundamentalist.

They will find a way to squirm out of the evidence as usual - now matter how many principles of logic must be broken or bypassed to do so.

The universal answer to all Darwinism’s serious problems is “selection” - the evolutionist’s magic wand.

Like Dawkins, the recipe is tyically - take the data, add a cup of quaint just-so stories, mix with a pint of poorly thought out double talk, add a billion years or 2 and Presto chango we have entirely new, fundamentally different (morphologically), species with previously unfound traits and complex, concurrent, synchronized functionalities! Mutational Concurrency is the chief problem in virtually all Darwinian path way scenarios.

Just like the faery-taled frog to prince, this molecule to human morphing is easy with time and random mutations! Only in Darwinian thought of course since no empirical evidence or proof of this ever having occurred is available. Darwinists use circular reasoning to get around this though: "It must have occurred since there is no other materialist explanation".

Forget that most mutations are negative or neutral and that negative mutations are always detrimental and often lethal. Forget that randomness never ever produces ordered functionality in anything at all. Forget that there are known limitations to any species’ ability to adapt or morph. Forget that all the time available is still vastly insufficient for the standard macro-evo model to produce anything like a hundred million different complex life forms. Forget the fact that recent studies suggest that at current estimates of mutation rates the human race could never have evolved to our current state from molecule, given the level of bad mutations (bugs in the genetic code). Forget the fact that NO macro-evo mutational pathway from molecule to complex, reproductive life form has ever been rationally, much less empircally, demonstrated.

None of this matters. Darwinism must be true because we simply cannot allow a possible Intelligent Agent in the door. Why? Because it has deep metaphysical implications. For the adamant evolutionist neo-Darwinism must be true - no matter how much the evidence points to some super intelligence behind life - because they want it to be true - because metaphysical explanations (except the more subtle Darwinian kind) are to be ruled out from the start all the way to the finish.

This is why we now have “designoids”. A quaint invention of Dawkins to deny any possibility of intelligent design in nature. It is in reality an irrational substitute for any empirical evidence against design. Designoids - things that supposedly only “look like” real designs! Incredibly foolish when you stop to reflect on the implications of this - “appearance of deisgn but no real deisgn”?!

Proof? No. Just more “explaning away” to avoid the obvious and most simple explanation. Occams razor come to mind?

All the evidence points to design. Otherwise why does the great Darwinist high preist have to invent designoids in the 1st place?! Isn't it perfectly clear? If it looks designed, and fills all the criteria of deisgn detection methods, then it most likely is designed!

Humans have the ability to instinctively recognize things that stand out as design versus natural random patterns. So Dawkins' designoids are in fact an irrational response to what we intuitively see as design by abductive reasoning.

Darwinism says, “If it looks designed it is a mere illusion since we cannot allow it to actually be designed because we don't permit any metaphysical implications (except our own) in our materialist science.”

As the apostle Paul wrote “science falsely so-called” - applies well here.

All too obvious for an unbiased observer.

See also my articles on SETI and ID, Information in DNA etc.

Should science allow supernatural explanations?

This is a standard question underlying the whole creation vs evolution debate.

The most obvious and honest answer is that science should and MUST allow truth.

It must allow whatever explanation best explains the evidence to the highest degree possible no matter whether we like or do not like that explanation. It must agree to look where the evidence points.

Intelligence is the certainly the best explanation of the existence of the millions of life forms we find on earth. Especially since that life is always highly adapted and complex. More especially since that life has all the well known, well documented , well tested earmarks of design.

Language and coded information can only arise from intelligence. DNA contains a clear organized syntaxed language, if they are no languages themselves in chemical form. DNA is an instruction book.

Moreover, the very fact that macro-evo theory is incapable of showing the genetic, mutational pathways by which the speculated evolution is supposed to have occurred -even for the smallest of life forms, not to mention DNA and RNA - is ample reason for rejecting Darwinism as empirically demonstrable truth.

However, I want to point out the truth about this question based on another well know scientific theorem.

Godel’s incompleteness theorem is probably a reasonable answer to the question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del’s_incompleteness_theorem#
First_incompleteness_theorem

It’s implications basically say that first-truths, or axioms, (truths that need no proof and cannot be proven but are true) do indeed exist.

Simply put - it is one thing to be provable, and a different thing to be true. Truth outruns provability.

It is possible to be wrong yet without being provably so. There are statements which cannot be proven or disproven, but which can still be true or still be false.

So the answer to the topic question is YES. As creationists and IDers have always known long centuries before Godel

quote:
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” Robert Jastrow

Science does and always has assumed certain metaphysical concepts and assumptions and they cannot be avoided without also avoiding answers to questions about nature.

Let’s put it this way : If the life forms on earth were in fact specially designed and created by some super intelligence would methodological naturalism (which is what Darwinism is) be able to detect this? The obvious answer is no since all supernatural explanations are ruled out by default under that inadequate world view.

Methodological naturalism (MN) is the philosophical tenet that, within scientific inquiry, one can only use natural explanations - i.e. one’s explanations must not make reference to the existence of supernatural forces and entities. Note that methodological naturalism does not hold that such entities or forces do not exist, but merely that one cannot use them within a scientific explanation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

Walter ReMine discusses this in his book “The Biotic Message”. I haven’t read it yet and I don’t claim to be any kind of expert on Godel’s theorems but it sounds very useful for Intelligent Design proponents, as ReMine states.

Check it out…there’s a gazillion sites out there on Gode’s theorem.

Modern naturalism cannot account for anything that actually would be of supernatural cause because it does not in fact accept the idea that evidence CAN be shown for it - why? Because the underlying dogma of it's high priests is usually atheism. So as one scientists admitted, "God must not be allowed in the door".

ID, in contrast to creationism, does not claim the designs to be of supernatural origin. A common misconception amongst Darwinists.

Darwinian Censorship - the sick reality of modern “science”

http://www.rsternberg.net/

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2842&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage

Dr. Sternberg has 2 Phd.s in evolutionary biology. He was severely ostracised for merely having published a paper by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

The scientific/religious persecution he underwent and still undergoes is abhorrent to say the least.

Dr. M. Behe and hundreds of others that have dared do the unthinkable — criticise the theory of evolution — have lived through the same treatment - have seen there careers underminded, their papers refused publication not matter what they say and have been through the worst darwinist humiliations possible short of being burned at the stake for heresy.

Free country? Not where science is concerned. Not where darwinism is concerned.

In China you can criticise Darwin but not the government.
In America you can criticise the government but not Darwinian evolution…. not if you value your job and your reputation.

Now I ask, what is the difference between the religious abuses wrought by the arrogant and power mad roman catholic church against men like Galileo and what is being done to any legitimate degreed working scientist daring to question Darwinism?

Then to add insult to injury, with all the honesty of a pathological liar, professional darwinists perpetually refer their dupes to the supposed “fact” that creationist/intelligent design proponents do not publish peer-reviewed material in any respected journals!! No kidding! They do everything they can to make sure it never happens!!!

Disgusting to say the least. These evil Darwinian fundamentalist fanatics ought to be ousted in the most public way possible. And we are talking about the highly respected Smithsonian Institute ! They ought to be publicly exposed and tarred and feathered for their hypocrisy and persecution.
Another example : “At George Mason University in Virginia, biology professor Caroline Crocker was banned earlier this year from teaching about intelligent design in her classes.
…
The same burn-them-at-the-stake approach is being applied to scientists who criticize Darwin without raising the issue of intelligent design. At the Mississippi University for Women, chemistry professor Nancy Bryson was removed as head of the division of natural sciences in 2003 after merely presenting scientific criticisms of biological and chemical evolution to a seminar of honors students.

Biology professor P.Z. Myers at the University of Minnesota has even demanded “the public firing and humiliation of some teachers” who express doubts about Darwin.

Defenders of Darwin’s theory typically justify their efforts to silence dissenting scientists by equating any criticism of Darwin’s theory to believing in a flat Earth or denying that the Earth revolves around the sun. Yet such comparisons are specious.”

A comment by a working biologist: “Yes, open discussion is not to be found among the the evolutionary establishment, much as the scientific establishment of Galileo’s day squelched his work. “

Creationists/IDers - and virtually anything that even suggests that Darwinism is not true, whether they be evolutionists themselves or not - is immediately relagated to the garbage can and the writer humiliated and black-listed - the way Behe has been blck-listed. And amazing measures to silence them are undertaken as in the Sternberg case.

Behe has many times given intelligent rebuttals for the vast and vehement criticism he received for his anti-gradualist views. Those rebuttals almost universally never get published. Which explains why there are so many pseudo-intellectual, nerd evos that still say he is ignorant and way off base.
Here is a copy of a conversation with a molecular biologist that confirms these facts as a real everyday threat.

One of the best aspects of my wife JoAnne’s Bed and Breakfast is the chance for a great conversation with an interesting guest. People fascinate me, and the laid-back atmosphere of the bed and breakfast allows me to get to know our guests well. I was with a congressman the moment the Monica Lewinsky story broke, and discussed the possible impeachment. I enjoyed visiting with a Russian attorney who wrote the post-communism Russian Constitution. But all our guests have good stories, and I like to hear them all. I ‘replay’ them later, and I have the ability to remember conversations nearly word for word. That memory skill comes from either thirty years as a financial planner, or six years as a touring musician.

One of the most interesting, and disturbing conversations, was with a molecular biologist working in genetic research. Jeff and his wife were in from New York to celebrate the 2000 New Year. I think they just wanted out of New York City, and Lynchburg is about as “out” as he could get! Jeff described himself as a “secular Jew,” which meant that he was not into practicing his religion. (There seems to be a lot of secular Jews and secular Christians around these days.) I asked Jeff about his profession and he told me that he was a molecular biologist, specializing in genetic research. He and his team were scientific “detectives” tracking down the cause of disease.

Our conversation went something like this:

G: “Sounds like pretty complicated work.”

J: “You can’t imagine how complicated!”

G: “Try me.”

J: “I’m a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britanica. One hundred volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words.”

G: “With the computer, you can just use ‘spell check’!”

J: “There is no ‘spell check’ because we don’t know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We don’t even know for sure which language. And it’s not just the ‘spelling error’ we’re looking for. If any of the punctuation is out of place, or a space out of place, or a grammatical error, we have a mutation that will cause a disease.”

G: “So how do you do it?”

J: “We are learning as we go. We have already ‘read’ about two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some ‘typo’s’. It should get easier as time goes by.” G: “How did all that genetic information get there?” J: “Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve?”

G: “Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?”

J: “George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius,’ and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise.”

G: “Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?”

J: “No. It just evolved.”

G: “What? You just told me —?”

J: “Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don’t believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures - everything would stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn’t earn a decent living.”

G: “I hate to say it, Jeff, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.”

J: “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind’s worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the ‘elephant in the living room’.”

G: “What elephant?”

J: “Creation design. It’s like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn’t there!”

I didn’t use Jeff’s family name, although I doubt many New Yorkers read the “Ledger.” After all, Jeff is a good man who deserves to earn a good living. I am just a bit angry that we allow him to be bullied by evolutionists. It makes me yearn for the day when all molecular biologists will be able to say: “Hey, there’s an elephant in our living room! Maybe we can make friends with it!”

The prejudice is so deep that many evos minds are blinded to even the simplest logic.

The examples of clear, unjust and even illegal persecution against ID scientists - and even those evos who even just begin to question the adequacy of darwinism publicly or privately - are vast.

Free country? Nope. Not where “science” is concerned.

quote:

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX ever.” - Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Physiologist. Atomic Energy Commission. As quoted in: Evolution and the Emperor’s New Clothes, 3D Enterprises Limited, title page

quote:

“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” - Prof. Louis Bounoure,
President Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research. The Advocate, p. 17

quote:

“I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity.” - George Gallup, Famous statistician

quote:

“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” - Stephen Jay Gould, ‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128

I Love Lucy!

quote:

“The evidence given above makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pygmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal).
The ‘evidence’ for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing.”
Albert W. Mehlert, Former Evolutionist & paleoanthropology researcher. “Lucy - Evolution’s Solitary Claim for Ape/Man”. CRS Quarterly, Vol 22, No. 3, p. 145

quote:

“Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. … The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these ‘experts’ have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say.” - Wolfgang Smith, Mathematician and Physicist. Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University. Former math instructor at MIT. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of de Chardin. Tan Books & Publishers, pp. 1-2

ALL YOU LADIES - check this one out !!

quote:

“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence - in whatever he takes up - than woman can attain-whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.” - Charles Darwin,
‘The Descent of Man’, vol. II, p. 327.)

Ok, mesdames, repeat after me : “Darwin was a sexist monkey” - at least 7 times.

Upadate:

According to ‘The Amateur Scientist’ section of Scientific American, May 1997:

Haze is a vital indicator of our atmosphere’s health … but little is known about how the amount of haze is changing globally because no-one is coordinating haze observations from widely dispersed areas. That may change with the latest design from Forrest M. Mims III … . He has invented an atmospheric haze sensor that costs less than $20 and is so simple that even the most hardened technophobe can put it together in under an hour. Mims’s instrument could revolutionize this important area of study by opening the field to all-comers, that is, to amateur scientists.¹

The article failed to mention that Scientific American refused to hire him when they found out that he was a creationist. No matter what one’s scientific abilities, denying the modern-day religion of macro-evolution is heretical enough to justify discrimination and ill treatment. Even the journal Science, itself known to refuse to publish creationist views, wrote:

Even today, some members of the scientific establishment have seemed nearly as illiberal toward religion as the church once was to science. In 1990, for instance, Scientific American declined to hire a columnist, Forrest Mims, after learning that he had religious doubts about evolution.

Thus, many creationists write under pseudonyms or otherwise hide their beliefs from the establishment.

Ironically, the founding editor of the magazine, Rufus Porter, would probably not get a job today, as he was a creationist! He wrote:

… without prejudice … let us, as rational creatures, be ever ready to acknowledge God as our Creator and Preserver.

The list of cases involving censorship, prejudice, witch-hunting and good old fashion religious persecuation in this field is a shame on the whole scientific community and revealing of it’s generalized sickness in the post modern world.

Do Intelligent Design scientists publish in peer reviewed journals?

This post is in response to many evolutionists who write saying there are only 2 articles published by creationist scientists in peer reviewed science journals. They claim there is no discrimination against creationist scientists in the journals - it's just that creationist scientists have nothing to say, no real research etc etc.

All a lot of pure BS of course - as usual from the dupes of Darwinian fundamentalist propaganda.

This post answers with David Buckna’s article (2006) on the subject and shows just how blind Darwinian fundamentalist believers can be - again!

From http://www.trueorigin.org/creatpub.asp

The article:

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?

© David Buckna. All Rights Reserved. [Last Modified: 09 March 2006]

In his book The Monkey Business (1982) paleontologist Niles Eldredge wrote that no author who published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly “has contributed a single article to any reputable scientific journal” (p.83). Apparently Eldredge couldn’t be bothered to glance at the Science Citation Index or any other major science bibliographic source.

Developmental biologist Willem J. Ouweneel, a Dutch creationist and CRSQ contributor, published a classic and widely cited paper on developmental anomalies in fruit flies (“Developmental genetics of homoeosis,” Advances in Genetics, 16 [1976], 179-248). Herpetologist Wayne Frair, a frequent CRSQ contributor, publishes his work on turtle systematics and serology in such journals as Journal of Herpetology, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, and Herpetologica.

In their study of creationist publishing practices (“The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation ‘Science’,” Quarterly Review of Biology 60 (1985): 21-30), Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole surveyed the editors of 68 journals for the period from 1980-1983, looking for creationist submissions. Out of an estimated 135,000 submitted papers, Scott and Cole found only 18 that could be described “as advocating scientific creationism” (p.26).

Scott and Cole were not looking for papers like the following: In 1983, the German creationist and microbiologist Siegfried Scherer published a critique of evolutionary theories of the origin of photosynthesis entitled “Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 104 [1983]: 289-299, one of the journals Scott and Cole surveyed. Only an editor who had a complete roster of European creationists, and the insight to follow the implications of Scherer’s argument would have flagged the paper as “creationist.”

How many papers did Scott and Cole miss? Let’s look at 1984, one year past the end of their survey. Would Scott and Cole have turned up “Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer,” by the creationist biochemist Grant Lambert (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107 [1984]:387-403)? Lambert argues that without editing enzymes, primitive DNA replication, transcription, and translation would have been swamped by extremely high error rates. But the editing enzymes are themselves produced by DNA.

It’s a brilliant argument for design. Lambert understandably counts on some subtlety and insight from his readers, however. Lambert doesn’t “explicitly” wave his creationist banner, leaving the dilemma as a“n unresolved problem in theoretical biology” (p.401). By Scott and Cole’s criteria, such papers don’t really count. By any other reasonable criteria, however, they do.

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, a physicist working for the prestigious Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico (who is involved with the laboratory’s particle beam fusion project, concerning thermonuclear fusion energy research) is a board member of the Creation Research Society. He has about 30 published articles in mainstream technical journals from 1968 to the present. In the last eight years a lot of his work has been classified, so there has been less of it in the open literature.

His most recent unclassified publication is a multiple-author article in Review of Scientific Instruments, Vol. 63, Number 10, October 1992, pp. 5068-5071, “Comparison of experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFAII thermal source experiments.” I understand that a more recent unclassified article will be published in the near future.

Here is just a sampling of some of his earlier articles:

“Inertial confinement fusion with light ion beams,” (Multiple-author) International Atomic Energy Agency, 13th International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Washington D.C., 1-6 October 1990.

“Progress toward a superconducting opening switch,” (Principal author), Proceedings of 6th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 29 - July 1, 1987) pp. 279-282.

“Rimfire: a six megavolt laser-triggered gas-filled switch for PBFA II,” (Principal author),Proceedings of 5th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 10-12, 1985) pp. 262-2265.

“Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons,” (Principal author) International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, Vol. 34, Number 1, 1983, pp. 261-268.

“The 1/gamma velocity dependence of nucleon-nucleus optical potentials,” (Only author) Nuclear Physics, Vol. A182, 1972, pp. 580-592

Creationists such as Humphreys have extensive publications in mainstream journals on non-creationist topics. As mentioned previously, the article by Scott & Cole was a search for articles openly espousing creationism, which is a different matter altogether. Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.

In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had a “hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.” Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, “It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.” This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent “the range of opinions received” (e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions). Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.

Humphreys’ letter and Ms. Gilbert’s reply are reprinted in the book, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)

On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article *“Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps” to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn’t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn’t even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a “slight bias” exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.

The Institute for Creation Research published a laymanized version of Humphrey’s article in their Impact series [No. 233, “Bumps in the Big Bang,” November 1992]. Reference 5 of that article contains information about the Nature submission.

In the 70s and early 80s physicist Robert Gentry had several articles with very significant creationist data published in mainstream journals (Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.), but found he couldn’t publish openly creationist conclusions. Gentry had discovered that granites contain microscopic coloration halos produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium. According to evolutionary theory, polonium halos should not be there. Some believe that the existence of polonium halos is scientific evidence that the Earth was created instantaneously.

When Oak Ridge National Laboratories terminated Gentry’s connection with them as a visiting professor (shortly after it became nationally known he is a creationist) the number of his articles slowed down, but he continues to publish.

Russell Humphreys said in a 1993 interview: “I’m part of a fairly large scientific community in New Mexico, and a good number of these are creationists. Many don’t actively belong to any creationist organization. Based on those proportions and knowing the membership of the Creation Research Society, it’s probably a conservative estimate that there are in the US alone around 10,000 practicing scientists who are biblical creationists.” (“Creation in the Physics Lab”, Creation Ex Nihilo 15(3):20-23).

Additional information on Dr. D. Russell Humphreys:

Dr. Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist. For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company. Since 1979, he has worked for Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project. Dr. Humphreys is an adjunct professor of Geophysics and Astrophysics at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, a Board member of the Creation Research Society and is president of the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico. He is also the author of the book “Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe,” Master Books, 1994 (ISBN 0-89051-202-7) which details his white hole cosmology theory.
One other ICR Impact article by Humphreys can be viewed at: The Earth’s Magnetic Field is Young
NOTE: A companion video for Creation’s Tiny Mystery entitled “Fingerprints of Creation,” Video Cat. No. VFINCR (34 minutes) can be ordered at http://www.ior.com/~kjc/books/
Another prominent creationist who publishes in mainstream journals is Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, professor of mathematics at the U. S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

See also the biographies of Dr Don Batten, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Pierre Jerlström
NOTE: A companion video for Creation’s Tiny Mystery entitled “Fingerprints of Creation,” Video Cat. No. VFINCR (34 minutes) can be ordered at http://www.ior.com/~kjc/books/
Another prominent creationist who publishes in mainstream journals is Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, professor of mathematics at the U. S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

See also the biographies of Dr Don Batten, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Pierre Jerlström for examples of mainstream scientific publications by full-time Answers in Genesis Research Scientists.

David Buckna

A lot more could be said about this whole subject of course. I’ll post info as I’m able so stay tuned.

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)

Check out : 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 Blyth* - A creationist naturalist of Darwins day. Darwin stole his ideas, changed them to the new version we all know, used them and never gave Blyth 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.

A list of more modern ones - including some who are not creationist or IDist per se but have stated doubts of 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.