Monday, September 25, 2006

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.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

More on Intelligent Design

New and intersting articles at ID The Future

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.

Friday, September 08, 2006

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.’s_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 ;-)

“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.

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”

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.


“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


“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


“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


“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!


“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


“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 !!


“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.


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!


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
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
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.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

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 :

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.


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.