quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"What famous scientists who were creationists (POST darwin, if you please, preferably in the last 50 years or so)?"
--This is a good book on the subject: In Six Days - Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation - http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/10-2-117
TC, note that toff asked about FAMOUS scientists who believe in creationism. The 50 cited in John Aston's book are hardly famous, except some for being creationists. Here is an interesting review of Ashton's book by Colin Groves:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/cg_in_six_days.htm
He makes the following interesting and pertinent observations about the 50:
"There are 9 biologists, 13 others connected with the life sciences, and 28 working in other sciences. Of the "other life scientists" (not strict biologists), five were trained in biochemistry, two in medicine, two in horticultural/agricultural science, and one each in genetics, organic chemistry, forestry and orthodontics. Of the 28 - the majority - trained in some field other than the life sciences, we have six trained in chemistry (not organic), five in some form of engineering, five in some branch of physics, three in meteorology, three in geology, two in geophysics, and one each in mathematics, geography, hydrometallurgy and information science."
It appears that creationsists in fields directly related to evolutionary science are a bit thin on the ground.
"Put them in perspective a bit. Of those nine biologists, five were trained at least in part at religious foundation universities or colleges of one kind or another: one at Loma Linda, one at Pacific Union College, one at both Andrews University and George Mason University, two at Wheaton College (and one of them at Houghton College in addition); only four received their entire training at what I’d call "proper universities", and some of them specify that their classes in evolution were poor in some way - a hectoring or poorly prepared lecturer, for instance. Of the 12 (excluding Hosken) others connected with the life sciences, four were trained at religious institutions (Loma Linda and Andrews again, Dordt College, and Loyola University), and eight at "proper universities". Of the other 28, only three trained at religious institutions (Loyola again, Loma Linda yet again, and Phillips University), and all the rest went to mainline universities, polytechnics and so on. Could there be some significance here? Might it be that a biologist is much less inclined than others to be a creationist unless actually trained at an institution with a creationist tendency?"
"And how did they become creationists? ... Of those who do give their histories, no fewer than 17 were brought up as creationists; one was converted while he was in the U.S.Navy, before starting university; five were converted during their university careers; four were converted later in life (one of them by his wife). It is fair to say that, inasfar as one can tell from reading their own words, all of those who were converted were already devout, and simply waiting to be pushed... Let us note that not one of them purports to have become a creationist as a result of his or her own research."
Groves' analysis of why the 50 scientists are creationists is also revealing but I leave it to the interested reader to pursue for themselves. But one piece is worth repeating here:
"Less forthright, but still quite a cut above the usual dismal crowd, is Elaine Kennedy, who begins her chapter, "As a geologist, I do not find much evidence for the existence of a fiat creation. I just have not found any geologic data that convinces me that God spoke and 'it was'" (p.293). She then goes on to say how she struggled with radiometric dating and has finally concluded that such dates are interpretations, not data, but "Those of us who believe in a short chronology and a six-day creation do not have an adequate explanation for radiometric dates" (p.294)."
It appears that those creationists with good scientific training have to go into a state of denial to enable them to reconcile scientific evidence and 6 day creationism.
I suppose Ashton did the best he could with the material he had available to him. The end result is hardly a ringing endorsement of a convincing scientific basis for creationism and against evolution by probably some the the best scientifically qualified creationists alive today.
™ Version 4.2