Natwerk Designs - Can creationists be scientists?

Can creationists be scientists?

Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all. In fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton, who speaks at many conferences, has stated, “The fact is that, though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.' It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible. How can a belief in evolution (a belief that complex biological machines do not require an intelligent designer) aid in the development of complex machines which are clearly intelligently designed? Technology has shown us that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers—not random chance. Science and technology are perfectly consistent with the Bible. Consider Isaac Newton, who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics. Consider Johannes Kepler, who discovered the three laws of planetary motion, or James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. These great scientists believed the Bible. so, back to the question, can creationists be scientists? Today , there are many Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and instead believe that God created in six days as recorded in Scripture. Consider Dr. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. nuclear physicist who has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields4 which was able to predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? No. God created our minds and gave us the ability and curiosity to study the universe. we can trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent. This is why science is possible. On the other hand, if the universe is just an accidental product of a big bang, why should it be orderly? Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver? If our brains are the by-products of random chance, why should we trust that their conclusions are accurate? But if our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by the Lord as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature. science is possible because the Bible is true. Dr Raymond V. Damadian would probably be too humble to accept the title ‘super-scientist’ but the many people whose lives have been saved by the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanning technology he developed might think otherwise. one of the greatest diagnostic breakthroughs ever, this technique, using advanced principles of physics and computing, lets doctors visualize many organs and their diseased parts without the risks of exploratory surgery or the radiation associated with traditional scanning methods. A Bible-believing Christian, this great inventor is convinced of the scientific truth of Genesis creation and its foundational importance to church and society. Faith, I know but I'm trying . God bless you sister. yes Leviah I agree. and thank you sis. lab girl, you have insulted a lot of people who are close to my heart. to bad all you could come up with is a childish insult,I would have expected better of you.(or maybe not)

Public Comments

yes they can. they are pseudo-scientists.
Yes, they can. Creationism is based more on emotional hooks than reason. No matter how intelligent a scientist is, they can still fall for such emotional hooks. Humans have the curious ability of being able to hold, as true, to contradictory ideas at the same time. Humans have been emotional animals for far longer than rational ones, so what we want to believe often trumps even vast amounts of evidence. As for the contribution of evolution to science, there's not a whole lot of science that hasn't contributed to our understanding of evolution or benefitted from it. The quotes of a few hold-outs who are still hooked on old superstitions really doesn't take away from that.
they can be, but in my personal opinion they shouldn't. christian scientists are walking contradictions
I'm no scientist, but even I can see the fallacious statement that Dr. Menton has so ignorantly put forth. The world is not orderly. You're appealing to intelligent design, which unfortunately for you has no place in fact, or reality.
james clerk maxwell is outdated. if they were born in the 20th century i think they will not be creationists. "Being a Christian, I'm eager to introduce people to Jesus. I just don't think I should do it in the science classroom." Kenneth Miller
It looks like you're trying to answer your own question.
"how planets orbit the sun" Creationists would take us back to the days when the Sun orbited the Earth. Since you brought up Issac Newton... He kept his discoveries about gravity and his theories about the solar system quiet until he was near DEATH because he feared what the church would do. If those great scientists you mention were alive today, they would be atheists.
In my opinion, "Creation Science" is an oxymoron.
Creationists deny the scientific method itself. Although it's technically possible for a creationist to be a scientist in a field totally unrelated to biology, it's very difficult. PS: You can buy PhD's over the web. Nobody recognises them of course but the letters don't necessarily mean anything.
I dare you to put this question in the Biology section or Anthropology section. Creationisms is not science. Creationists are deluded liars with no morals. They twist things around. The bible is completely opposite if science. Replace the word "Bible" in your argument with any other religious text. I have a B.A. in Anthropology. Evolution is a scientific theory and a fact. It is not a belief. Your Bible is full of absurdities and contradictions.
A creationist can be a scientist, and he/she would not have to be a pseudo-scientist. Science is experimenting with things we don't know or are unsure about and trying to get answers. A scientist can classify animals and discover new species, or they could do tests on atoms and cell research. They could also acknowledge that God made everything at the same time. Trying to explain the natural world doesn't have anything to do with trying to pin-point who created it. So, yes, a scientist can be a creationist because the two don't have to overlap.
Science works perfectly well without magic. I'm not sure your point is even coherent. **“The fact is that, though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.'"** I guess not if you're a creationist. I have a sister who is a biologist who would probably disagree strongly. Evolution is the unifying theory of modern biological sciences. If you can produce some peer-reviewed material supporting your position, not just a quote from one creationist, maybe we can get somewhere. As it is, I'm not familiar with any viable information in favor of what you have claimed here. Your appeals to authority in the latter paragraphs are meaningless. So what if they believed the Bible? Newton and Kepler both predated Darwin by centuries. You can't even get the time-line right. Can creationists be scientists? Of course, if they can put their religion aside on the job.
Most of the world's scientists, myself included, are employed by people who can do the bulk of the thinking and theorizing for them. There are people who do my job (well, my job title) who are dumber than a box of rocks. (Their labs also don't get the kinds of grants we do, or get post-docs knocking down the door and other labs begging us to train their personnel.) It is completely possible to be a scientist and be dumber than a box of rocks. It is not possible to be a creationist in today's world and be smarter than a box of rocks. Edit: Feel as insulted as you like. Creationism is not a religious belief, it is a political one, a political one based in either lying about evolution or buying the lies of others. I believe that most Creationists are stupid because the only other choice is that they are just outright evil. For nearly 1800 years Christianity got along quite fine with the understanding that except where the Bible says "and god said" it is the FLAWED words of MEN about a PERFECT GOD. I can't figure out what creationists are more interested in killing-evolution or Christianity.
I think we need people from all different types of beliefs to be scientist to get their difference in opinions. Who cares who thinks who is wrong or right. There is no need to prove a theory if there is no opposition. Then again, I'm just like that. When I watch bible documentaries or anything like that I want there to be Christians and skeptics alike or I feel like it was one sided and not really fair. I don't think I can come away with anything from it.
Sure, a creationist could be involved in a field of science that doesn't relate to evolution. In the same way, someone who believes 2+2=5 wouldn't necessarily make a bad English teacher.
Technology has shown that man-made machines required a man to make them. If you are going to try the silly "watchmaker" argument, keep in mind it can only go to demonstrate an infinite regression of Gods, or polytheism. In response to the more direct question: only in fields where adult belief in fairy tales won't interfere.
Don't be silly. Of course not. They publish nothing in scientific journals and make absolutely no discoveries. They ignore things like MtDNA, The Cosmic Background Radiation, and Fossil Succession. They ignore evidence like radiological dating, direct observation of evolution, and the obvious nature of geology. No they aren't scientists at all.
1. A scientist should know what a scientific theory is. 2. Evolution fulfills the definition of a scientific theory. 3. A scientist would observe the facts without religious prejudice 4. There is evidence for evolution, it's not contradictory and has not been proven wrong 5. Creation or ID don't fulfill the criteria to be science. Therefore a scientist can only accept evolution as scientific fact. One can still believe in creation, but the difference should be clear!
Of course they can, once they realise that creationism isn't science.
Great scientists like Johannes KEPLER saw God's magnificance and constantly gave praise to God Almighty for his wonderful laws built into nature. He was a creationist. So was Isaac NEWTON.......and he wrote 1 million words about his LITERAL belief in the Scripture. He was a creationist. " I have a fundamental belief in the Word of God....I study the Bible daily". - Isaac Newton The electromagnetic equations of James Clerk Maxwell attest to the Magnificant mathematical inginuity of the Creator. He was a Creationist. Louis Pasteur...was a avid Christian and Fundamental Bible believer.... Thousands of other scientists freely admit it was their faith in God and Jesus Christ that led them to great discoveries...
It is totally possible. Just because someone is uneducated in one area of study, doesn't mean they are incapable of understanding in another. Creationists do become scientists all the time, however, they rarely become geologists, Biologists or Geneticists, simply because studying those fields almost always brings one to the conclusion that biblical expression of events is impossible as written.
Many historians (of many different religious persuasions—including atheistic) have shown that modern science started to flourish only in largely Christian Europe. These historians point out that the basis of modern science depends on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational creator. An orderly universe makes perfect sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator. But if there is no creator, or if Zeus and his gang were in charge, why should there be any order at all? So, not only is a strong Christian belief not an obstacle to science, such a belief was its very foundation. Here are just a few: Colin W. Mitchell, Geography Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical Engineer and Dentist Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist Dr John D. Morris, Geologist Dr Len Morris, Physiologist Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher Prof. John Oller, Linguistics Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology) Scientists coming up with no other explanation other than there must be a divine being, the more they study/research... ‘Expelled’ movie trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE
Doesn't Dr. David Menton, as a cell biologist, believe that bacteria is becoming resistant to antibiotics? This is the only evolution that we can see as fact - at the bacteria and virus level because the generation of these is so short and it takes many generations for evolution to occur. Outside of these findings, I agree with Dr. Menton that evolution doesn't affect our every day lives. Beyond that, evolution is a theory - it cannot be proven as an absolute fact and can only be surmised from the fossils we find and taking what we learn from bacteria and assuming that higher living creatures have followed the same pattern. Creationists can be scientists and can contribute to science - as they always have over the generations. However, they cannot teach creationism as science because there is only philosophical and logical and biblical arguments for creationism - not scientific arguments. Thomas Aquinas made the same arguments about the presence of God that you are making now. And, He made them in the 13th century. That the universe had to be set into motion by something, and that something must be God, because everything is set into motion by something.
Well said! Yes, scientists are and can be creationists, and I think they are doing so in record numbers as more and more realize that evolution theory makes no sense and has no scientific foundation, especially since Darwin himself said that if it could be proven that life develops from other than simple to complex, then his theory would not stand up. We now know after mapping the human genetic code that in fact we are and were complex organisms from the beginning. No other theory makes any sense at all except intelligent design. Atheists and other non-believers will not go to this belief because to do so is to admit the depravity of man and to shed the light of God on their lives.
Yes, and they are
They can't function as a biologist. Evolution pervades the entire science and is needed to understand it and to conduct research. Menton is a known liar and he is dead wrong. He claimed knowledge of Tiktaalik's hip bones when no such bones were found. (His claim is still on AiG) He's also not a real research scientist. A search of Pubmed turned up zero articles associated with his name. He has apparently never done real research in his entire life and so cannot call himself a scientist. You cannot do genomics without common descent. It won't work. Using Newton or Kepler as examples makes no sense since both lived before we understood geology, evolution or genetics. And no. 99.9% of biologist accept evolution. No other field matters.
Actually "empirical science" is exactly that, a process of trial and error... what it works in certain circumstances is kept, what it doesn't work is rejected. In my view the whole process of "learning" is a reflex of evolution. One thing is the "scientific production" another is the person's beliefs. You can find scientists that are "creationists" (and many don't see incompatibility between evolution and existance of God - they just had to surrender to the evidences) but none that has published a scientific article (in a serious peer-reviewd journal) saying that "God created the earth in 6 days".
Yes they can. Science is the handmaid of religion.
YES, and there are many. Man and his arrogance, so pathetic..... To deny Creation, frees them all from guilt, but we all have an appointment with OUR Creator one day, God Bless, and thank God for His Salvation, Mercy, Grace, and Love :) EDIT: They will never see, because they refuse to seek the Living God. I was once blind and now I see, Praises to God for His Mercy, Grace, & Love.
Scientists who are not in the field of biology are not competant to speak about the field of biology, and few scientists of any sort reject evolution. That you could NOT provide evidence of your claim is telling to that truth. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory by Laurence Moran When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981 Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms. - Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983 ---- "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64) ---- Any scientists who deny scientific facts just to avoid criticism of their emotional religious beliefs are NOT good scientists, and can be counted on to reject any other data that conflicts with their emotions.
The main reason for any discernible differential between Science and Religion is firstly an elitist view that Science is somehow greater than Religion is its ability to unravel the complexities of the universe, and secondly a need to distance and foundling institution from the bigotry and dogmatism of the religious. These are the primary divisive indicators. Allegorical religions whereupon upon incidents and witness accounts and given greater precedence than rational e and reason are a better example of what religion is and its task and role in man’s life. The fabled accounts of scriptures expose much data relating to evidence for the existence of extreme polarities in human genetics and form. It is largely for political and social reasons of self interest these theories are not investigated further in detail. Scientist have disclosed and kept concealed a mass of essential data for the purpose of protection of certain groups. Substantiated claims regarding human evolution and genetics are evidenced about us in the world for those of higher conscious and impartial pursuit of truth. All further conjecture is purely to serve the interest of the powers at large than the long term greater good and peace of mankind.
Yes they can because God will allow whatever man wants to do. You see it is free will that God created man with. He made man to make his own decisions. It is man's decision to pray to the Father which art in heaven or not, but I strongly suggest we all as humanity do Praise His "Jesus' Holy Name!
Good question ~ Well done ..It is a shame that every proof that is not to their liking is shot down ..How sad ..and yet they insist we adhere to their science without God ..Right ~ Hardened hearts are a very tough thing Sis , Did Pharaoh ever get it and just think of what he witnessed.. These people have labels for everything ..lol..A scientist who is a believer is labeled , I wonder what they call the Majority of Doctor's and Surgeons who are believers ...lol... They are prideful and prejudice and have been conditioned by the world .. Good job girly =) Star 4 u ~
Yes, Of course. True science never contradicts the bible. There is a lot of so called science out there that takes a whole lot of Faith to believe. And what peopel deemed to be scientific truth in times past has been proven to be false. Science use to teach that the sun revoved around the earth. That leeches used for bleeding as well as cutting the patient and blood-letting them would cure disease. And both Einstein and Newton believed in God. Athiests are in their own little self made boxes and many christians are also in their own little boxes. But true science has an open mind and dosen't presume to know the answers without true scientific proof.
Yes, I fully agree, science and the Bible go hand in hand, as Science keeps proving the Bible to be correct in History and Archeology also. As you mentioned above, Isaac Newton and a host of his peers, fellow scientist's of his day also believed in the Bible. Science once taught that earth was flat, only to discover 100's of years later that the earth was in fact round as the the prophet 'Isaiah' wrote under the inspiration of God. Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. It is rather sad that to say that since Darwinism came along and cast doubt about the Biblical account of Creation and took God out of the equation, we have plunged back into the dark ages. "I don't believe God plays dice" Albert Einstein Although Einstein never advocated a belief in God, he was honest enough to admit that something from nothing can become something theory, does not equate.
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.
Consider this Mysteries In Science http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zTXxpXOoe0 The Young Age of the Earth http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1272542059740401469 The Origin of Man by Dr. Duane Gish http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3FZDysZKFQ The Origins of Life http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3181822797567477581 Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record - Part 1 of 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NkO6fQvydM Skull Fossils - As Empty as the Evolutionary Theory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yu5jN897kM Neanderthals - Smarter Then We Thought http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxL636n3w2o Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVvGByvp13Q Atheist's NightMare: Evolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udqoCGPnVmE Our Solar System: Evidence For Creation http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2535369046252590943&ei=_aqlSOe3MYOm4QLPkeki&q=creation+evidence&hl=en