Could somebody provide me with a detailed list of (real) scientists who support biblical creation theory ?

Question

So many christians claim that scientists are "en masse" rejecting evolution as false and are now accepting the biblical account of things.

The problem is that they never actually name any of these scientists.

I would be grateful if somebody would provide me with a detailed list of these pro - creationism scientists along with their qualifications, papers etc.

And NO, tax dodger Kent Hovind does not count ! Only real scientists please .

Answer 1

Partial list of Creationist scientists
(past and present)

600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).

150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)


Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]

Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]

Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]

Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]

Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]

Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]

Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

John Grebe (chemist) [more info]

Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]

D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]

James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]

Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]

Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]

William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]

Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]

A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]

John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.



Creationists holding DOCTORATES IN SCIENCE
(partial list, in alphabetical order):

Agard, E. Theo
Allan, James
Anderson, Kevin
Armstrong, Harold
Arndt, Alexander
Austin, Steven
Barnes, Thomas
Batten, Don
Baumgardner, John
Bergman, Jerry
Boudreaux, Edward
Byl, John
Catchpoole, David
Chadwick, Arthur
Chaffin, Eugene
Chittick, Donald
Cimbala, John
Clausen, Ben
Cole, Sid
Cook, Melvin
Cumming, Ken
Cuozzo, Jack
Darrall, Nancy
Dewitt, David
DeYoung, Donald
Downes, Geoff
Eckel, Robert
Faulkner, Danny
Ford, Dwain
Frair, Wayne
Gentry, Robert
Giem, Paul
Gillen, Alan
Gish, Duane
Gitt, Werner
Gower, D.B.
Grebe, John
Grocott, Stephen
Harrub, Brad
Hawke, George
Hollowell, Kelly
Holroyd, Edmond
Hosken, Bob
Howe, George
Humphreys, D. Russell
Javor, George
Jones, Arthur
Kaufmann, David
Kennedy, Elaine
Klotz, John
Koop, C. Everett
Korochkin, Leonid
Kramer, John
Lammerts, Walter
Lester, Lane
Livingston, David
Lopez, Raul
Marcus, John
Marsh, Frank
Mastropaolo, Joseph
McCombs, Charles
McIntosh, Andrew
McMullen, Tom
Meyer, Angela
Meyer, John
Mitchell, Colin
Morris, Henry
Morris, John
Mumma, Stanley
Parker, Gary
Peet, J. H. John
Rankin, John
Rosevear, David
Roth, Ariel
Rusch, Wilbert
Sarfati, Jonathan
Snelling, Andrew
Standish, Timothy
Taylor, Stephen
Thaxton, Charles
Thompson, Bert
Thomson, Ker
Vardiman, Larry
Veith, Walter
Walter, Jeremy
Wanser, Keith
Whitcomb, John
White, A.J.(Monty)
Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest
Wile, Jay
Williams, Emmett
Wise, Kurt
Wolfrom, Glen
Zuill, Henry


In Six Days:Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-sixdays.html

Answer 2

In this "information age", YOU can certainly do the research and then almost certainly come back with a NEW question saying something to the effect of "only x% of REAL scientists support biblical creation theory".

Of course, you'd have to clearly define what you mean by "biblical creation theory" so there's no confusion in your question.

Sounds like you just want someone else to do what you should be capable of doing. Just to provide YOU with the opportunity to reject the list for whatever reason you pull out of the air.

Do R&S a favor and provide US with a detailed list of these pro-creationism scientists along with their qualifications, papers, etc.

Eagerly awaiting your research results.

Short answer: I'd prefer YOU doing the work.

Answer 3

Be careful what you ask for. There really are many scientists who are also creationists. However, they are almost all in fields that are totally unrelated to biology or anthropology.

Does a chemist really have more insight into evolution/creation than you do? Creationists promote anyone with "PhD" in their title as a "scientist who denounces evolution", regardless of whether that PhD has anything to do with a field of study relevant to evolution. I work with a couple of creationist PhDs, but their credentials give them no further insight than any other layman, as the PhDs are in electrical engineering.

Answer 4

Those who have listed the scientist creationists do not match the sheer number of scientists who have proven the evolution is fact.

Answer 5

These lists have been posted many times, but you evolutionists are too closed minded to absorb them.

Evolution is unproven voodoo science. Life can't evolve from non-life, so your theory is disproven by the fact that the very first life form couldn't evolve, it had to be created.

Answer 6

See the list in the context of the fact that there are tens of thousands of biologists worldwide who don't express any doubts about evolution. That biologists express doubt about the fact of evolution is a creationist falsehood.

Answer 7

The Biblical Creation story is not science, it does not have backing from the scientific community.

Answer 8

Hi,
This is for starters.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
Godbless you as you seek the truth!-live4truth=]
http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=150

Answer 9

Here's the link:
www.thereaintany.com

Answer 10

ZERO.ZERO ZERO
Zilch,Nada

Answer 11

The Bible indicates the Creation of the earth were in reality periods amounting to many thousands of years. (2 Peter 3:8.)

A few decades ago, Professor J. D. Bernal offered some insight in the book The Origin of Life: “By applying the strict canons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how life could not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small.” He added: “Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments have to be bent round to support its existence.” And the picture has not improved.

Interviewed in a documentary film, Professor Maciej Giertych, a noted geneticist from the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, answered:
“We have become aware of the massive information contained in the genes. There is no known way to science how that information can arise spontaneously. It requires an intelligence; it cannot arise from chance events. Just mixing letters does not produce words.” He added: “For example, the very complex DNA, RNA, protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start. If not, life systems could not exist. The only logical explanation is that this vast quantity of information came from an intelligence.”

British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle has spent decades studying the universe and life in it, even espousing that life on earth arrived from outer space. Lecturing at the California Institute of Technology, he discussed the order of amino acids in proteins.

“The big problem in biology,” Hoyle said, “isn’t so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrangements that would be useless in serving the purposes of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link, it’s easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be?”

Hoyle added: “Rather than accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act.”

Albert Einstein was convinced that the universe had a beginning, and he expressed his desire “to know how God created the world.” Yet Einstein did not admit to belief in a personal God; he spoke of a cosmic “religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man’s image.” Einstein believed that his cosmic religious feeling was well expressed in Buddhism. Buddha held that it was not important whether a Creator had a hand in bringing forth the universe and humans. Similarly, Nobel laureate chemist Kenichi Fukui expressed belief in a great framework in the universe. He said that “this great link and framework may be expressed in words such as ‘Absolute’ or ‘God.’ ” But he called it an “idiosyncrasy of nature.”

Professor Michael J. Behe stated: “To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity; rather, they were planned. . . . Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.”

The Encyclopedia Americana noted “the extraordinary degree of complexity and of organization in living creatures” and stated: “A close examination of flowers, insects, or mammals shows an almost incredibly precise arrangement of parts.” British astronomer Sir Bernard Lovell, referring to the chemical composition of living organisms, wrote: “The probability of a chance occurrence leading to the formation of one of the smallest protein molecules is unimaginably small. . . . It is effectively zero.”

Similarly, astronomer Fred Hoyle said: “The entire structure of orthodox biology still holds that life arose at random. Yet as biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that the chances of it originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life cannot have arisen by chance.”

5 Molecular biology, one of the more recent fields of science, is the study of living things at the level of genes, molecules, and atoms. Molecular biologist Michael Denton comments on what has been found: “The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event.” “But it is not just the complexity of living systems which is so profoundly challenging, there is also the incredible ingenuity that is so often manifest in their design.” “It is at a molecular level where . . . the genius of biological design and the perfection of the goals achieved are most pronounced.”

6 Denton further states: “Everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?” He also states: “Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.” And a professor of physics, Chet Raymo, states: “I am dazzled . . . Every molecule seems miraculously contrived for its task.”

7 Molecular biologist Denton concludes that “those who still dogmatically advocate that all this new reality is the result of pure chance” are believing in a myth. In fact, he calls the Darwinian belief regarding living things arising by chance “the great cosmogenic myth of the 20th century.”

Scientists Expressing Belief in Creation:

Alberts, Louw (physicist):

Artist, Russell Charles (biologist):

Barton, D.H.R. (professor of chemistry):

Baumgardner, John R. (geophysicist):

Behe, Michael J. (biochemist):

Block, David (astronomer):

Collins, Francis (molecular biologist):

Compton, Arthur H. (Nobel prize winner):

Davies, Paul (physicist):

Dembski, William A. (mathematician):

Dirac, P. (mathematician):

Dyson, Freeman (physicist):

Einstein, Albert (physicist):

Faraday, Michael (physicist):

Galileo Galilei (mathematician, physicist):

Giertych, Maciej (geneticist):

Gish, Duane T. (biochemist):

Hernández, Enrique (professor):

Hooker, Worthington, M.D.:

Hoyle, Fred (astrophysicist):

Hutton, Dr. James H. (past president of medical societies):

Jastrow, Robert (astronomer):

Kelvin, Lord (physicist):

Klopsteg, Dr. Paul E. (past president of science association):

Knobloch, Irving (natural scientist):

Kreider, Marlin (physiologist):

Krogdahl, Wasley (astronomer, physicist):

Lipson, H. S. (Fellow of the Royal Society):

Newton, Sir Isaac (physicist):

O’Keefe, Dr. John A.:

Pasteur, Louis (biochemist):

Polkinghorne, John (physicist): professor in physics and chemistry:

Rubbia, Carlo (physicist):

Sandage, Allan (astronomer):

Schroeder, Dr. Gerald (nuclear physicist):

Tanaka, Kenneth (planetary geologist):

von Braun, Wernher (physicist):

Weinberg, Steven (physicist):

White, Robert (brain surgeon):

If you would like further information or a free home Bible study, please contact Jehovah's Witnesses at the local Kingdom Hall. Or visit http://www.watchtower.org