How can the scientifically literate opt for creationism?

This question has vexed me for many years, but I was reminded of it this morning while reading the following:

quote:

---

Lest all this should seem a ludicrous storm in a teacup among ignorant religious eccentrics, it may be useful to recount a personal experience. In the mid-1950s, as a research student in Cambridge, I lodged for two years with a chemistry lecturer and author, who was highly critical of Darwinism. He was an intelligent and open-minded man, with a wide knowledge of other sciences in addition to chemistry. He was convinced, however, that evolution could not possibly work as Darwin supposed, because to do so would violate the second law of thermodynamics, whereby order decays into disorder rather than vice versa. He was a conservative Evangelical, a commitment that undoubtedly motivated him, but the detailed arguments we frequently had were based on science rather than theology.

---

The creation of Creationism - John Habgood - TLS - July 23, 2008How can a Cambridge chemist come to this conclusion (alliteration unintentional!)Does he similarly think that the creation of stars, galaxies, the Giant's Causeway, and these: all defy 2LoT and implicitly reveal the need for a theistic act of creation?We can smile at the cognitive dissonance in the average "thinking" creationist, but how do we react to the published, practising scientist? I personally know a couple of senior med students who are creationists. Would I ever want them consulting/operating near me?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I have nothing to contribute, only questions.How could a chemistry professor and author not understand 2LOT? Which is the same question you asked.How could John Habgood, the author of the Times article, not provide his name? He's described as a "leading British Creationist", so his name must be public information.Since a chemist who doesn't understand 2LOT makes no sense, I have a feeling his name isn't mentioned on purpose, because if it were then we would know that he wasn't really a chemist.--Percy

One of my physics professor, a brilliant man I might add, was a YEC. I actually sat down and had a conversation with him once on it. He honestly believed in a version of last-thursdayism to explain the fossils and the apparent age of the universe. As to the mental process that led him to believe it I never really understood. But he really was a brilliant man.

Easy. Heinlein explained it this way:

Variants of Last-Thursdayism, as far as I am concerned, are the only possible reconciliation. My own idea (that I presented here a couple of years ago) was that original existence was not based upon "science", but the physical Universe was re-created "scientifically" by Satan, post-fall. It gets God off the hook from creating a universe where falling over hurts, and accidentally dropping a baby has a good chance of killing it. As a piece of fantasy, I still quite like it. As a serious contender to existence, well...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

I gotta go with percy on this one. This sounds a lot like the Kent Hovind story of "the scientist" he had a "debate" with on a plane.Maybe an undergrad chem student wouldn't know all the implications of the 2LoT, but any chemist would understand the difference between an open and closed system would include things like, oh, the sun.

My best guess is that in the case of the chemist, he just doesn't have a clue what he's blabbing on about. I have to admit though, ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics for a Cambridge professor is a bit odd. It's not hard for someone to come up with explanations like that when he's been thoroughly indoctrinated by a dogmatic belief system. Edited by Binary, : No reason given.

A few minutes digging reveals the following:Creationist chemist form Cambridge (from Creationists of the Past)

quote:

---

Clark, Robert E.D. (1907 - 1984) Clark was a citizen of Great Britian who was born in Pakistan (the India). He was educated at St. Lawrence College, Ramsgate, & St. John's College, Cambridge, graduating with first class honors in 1928. Clark received his Ph.D. in 1932 in Natural Science/Organic Chemistry from St. John's College, Cambridge University. From 1949 to 1971 he had been Lecturer & taught Chemistry at the Cambridgeshire College of Arts & Technology, Cambridge, retiring as senior lecturer. He was Vice President in charge of Research at Harding College in Searcy, Arkansas.

---

Checking back with the index of Habgood's book (viewable on Amazon) he is indeed mentioned on multiple pages.He is no 177 on the List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism where his entry states:

quote:

---

Robert E.D.Clark (Ph.D. organic Chemistry, Cambridge University). See his, "The Universe: Plan or Accident?" (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1972).

---

I don't have time to go googling that book yet, but there's quite a few hits.Note that he doesn't seem to have been a lecturer at Cantab - he just obtained his PhD there...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

In all fairness though, he was a lecturer in the 50s in Cambridge, though the Cambridge School of Art (today part of Anglia Ruskin University) does not have the most prestigious chemistry department in the UK as far as I am aware.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.