How Are We Meant to Understand Genesis?
AiG would have us believe that there are a lot of Creation Scientists who are qualified scientists. OK, then, what has Creation Science itself contributed to the world’s scientific knowledge?
Ken Smith wrote (on May 9 8:56 am, but seems to have since deleted it): Herein is the crunch! Nothing of major importance!
Again, Ken if you knew as much as you claim about us, you would not leave yourself so vulnerable to refutation (maybe that’s why I can’t find it on the forum any more; but then it might be just that I can’t find it).
Firstly, as I have pointed out before, most of the founders of modern science were Christian creationists (Newton was much closer to our view than yours, Ken, and others were even more in concert), so in fact modern science came from those who accepted the history of Genesis and the rest of the Bible. Newton himself spent considerable effort in chronology, devising a history of mankind from the beginning-a history that Ken would not agree with, since he dogmatically accepts the current goo-to-you evolutionary view of history as the way it was (or at least I am assuming that he does; Ken seems to be rather coy about clearly stating just what he believes).
But there are plenty of modern scientists who are creationists who have contributed significantly to the scientific enterprise (here are some, from various disciplines):
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Damadian was passed over for a Nobel prize (2003) for the discovery and development of MRI. Even secularists have stated that Damadian should have been included. See the comments cited in ‘The not-so-Nobel decision’ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/nobel.asp and http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i3/science.asp When you have an MRI scan done, all you evolutionists can thank creationist Damadian for his pioneering research. 🙂
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, astrophysics, geophysics. An expert in supercomputer modelling of plate tectonics. His model is used by others in the field. Dr Baumgardner was motivated by his belief in the biblical account of creation and the flood to study geophysics, especially plate tectonics. His catastrophic plate tectonics model suggests how the global flood of Noah could have happened. It is difficult to get plate tectonics models to work with uniformitarian time-scales. See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_baumgardner.asp
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist. Aside from Dr Humphreys’ achievements in secular research, he has also used Biblical presuppositions to accurately predict the strengths of magnetic fields on Uranus and Neptune (predictions made on the basis of evolutionary presuppositions were way off the mark). See ‘Beyond Neptune: Voyager II supports creation’, http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-203.htm; and ‘The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields’, Creation Research Society Quarterly 21(3):140-149, 1984, http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist. Jones was responsible for finding out why cattle in Australia could not digest Leucaena, a legume valuable as an animal food in tropical countries, but found to be useless in Australia. Jones solved the problem, something that has already been worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Australia. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/firm.asp
John Mann, M.B.E. John Mann had no academic qualifications, but was elected a Fellow of the Royal Zoological Society and awarded an MBE for his research into the prickly pear (weed) problem that had rendered useless huge tracts of agricultural land in Queensland and NSW. It was one of the first and probably the most spectacularly successful ever examples of biological control. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v5/i2/scientists.asp
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry. Dr. Kramer is a research scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. He holds a B.S. (Hons) from the University of Manitoba, an M.S. in biochemistry from the University of Manitoba, a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Minnesota and completed three years of post-doctoral studies as a Hormel fellow at the Hormel Institute and as an NRC fellow at the University of Ottawa. Dr. Kramer has identified, characterized and synthesized the structure of numerous food, bacterial, and biological components and has published 128 refereed papers and numerous abstracts and book chapters. He was one of the core scientists who evaluated the toxicological, nutritional and biochemical properties of canola oil and demonstrated its safety. He presently serves as associate editor of the scientific journal LIPIDS. Dr Kramer is another scientist whose creationist presuppositions contributed to good science outcomes. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/kramer.asp
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist; top AIDS researcher. Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO’s top prize, the Chairman’s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/i_macreadie.asp
Dr George Marshall, ophthalmology. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/eye.asp In this article, Dr Marshall explains how the human eye is not ‘wired back-to-front’ and how hopelessly naïve are ‘models’ for the evolution of the vertebrate eye. For more of the same by another ophthalmologist, Dr Peter Gurney, see http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/retina.asp Hey Ken, while you’re at it, why not inform your God-hating heroes Plimer and Dawkins (who are crassly ignorant of optics and eye anatomy) to quit using this bogus anti-creationist argument, and tell them to heed real experts!
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist. Dr Matthews has an international reputation in the field of photocatalysis. He has authored or co-authored approximately 70 refereed research papers and book articles in the open scientific literature, and holds several patents. http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/r_matthews.asp
Prof. Andy McIntosh D.Sc., Combustion theory, aerodynamics (note that this is the British professorship, which means the highest academic rank). http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/a_mcintosh.asp
Dr Eric Norman, biomedical researcher. A pioneer of vitamin B12 research. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/evolution.asp
Prof. Richard Porter D.Sc. Spinal research. Dr Porter speaks about how an evolutionary approach to treating back problems actually made the problems worse and how his creationist approach paid dividends in productive research that actually fixed bad backs. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/upright.asp
Denis Burkitt, epidemiology. Found the cause of Burkitt’s lymphoma and was primarily responsible for the appreciation of the need for more fibre in western diets. See section in: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/upright.asp
Dr John Hartnett, physics, cosmology. Research: Frequency Standards and Metrology. The research, for the European Space Agency’s PHARAO atomic clock project, involves the development of an ultra-stable microwave oscillator based on a sapphire resonator cooled to 50 K with solid nitrogen. His research interests include ultra low-noise radar, ultra high stability microwave clocks, tests of fundamental theories of physics such as Special and General Relativity and measurement of drift in fundamental constants and their cosmological implications. He has a keen interest in cosmology and how it applies to the creationist world-view. He has published more than 40 papers in refereed scientific journals and holds 2 patents. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_hartnett.asp
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Leading paediatric surgeon (Prof. Rendle-Short was the founding chairman for the board of Answers in Genesis). http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1324.asp
Dr Andre Eggin. Genetics. Dr Eggin shares how evolution is irrelevant to his genetic research at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/french.asp
Dr Emil Silvestru. Geologist/karstologist, who was he was the head scientist at the world’s first speleological institute (Emil Racovitza Speleological Institute, founded in 1920) in Cluj, Romania. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/e_silvestru.asp
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist. Chair of Zoology, Uni of Western Cape, South Africa. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/professing_creation.asp
Anyway, I think that’s enough for now to silence this nonsensical denial of creationist contributions to science. Ken will definitely have to cease being so trusting of someone as ethically and scientifically discredited as the humanist Plimer http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/hot/plimer.asp (I assume that is the source of inspiration for the enthusiastic endorsement of this rhetorical ‘put-down’ question from Sean; Ken does not seem to be able to express his own thoughts on matters).
While we’re at it, let’s all realise that goo-to-you evolution has contributed nothing to real science. It’s most amusing to see evolutionists on the one hand claiming that evolution is essential for biology, but on the other hand lamenting the move away from evolution “to a more utilitarian science” which demands “more practical benefits from science” (David Booth, Australasian Science, Feb 98). In other words, evolution actually does not contribute anything practical to science.
Anti-creationist Larry Witham, in his book ‘Where Darwin Meets the Bible’ (Oxford University Press, 2002) cites the editorial in BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000, which shows how limited evolution really is as a practical scientific theory:
‘”While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,’ most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas”, the editor wrote. “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” The annual programs of science conventions also tell the story. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word “evolution” in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organized 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focused on evolution-as it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families.’
In other words, evolution is irrelevant to most of science. But most of day-to-day operational science can operate without specifically creationist thinking also. However, there are instances where it does have an effect and I have noted some of them above. There are examples of very counter-productive ideas (even with deadly consequences) that have arisen because of evolutionary theorising. Two examples: human vestigial organs and ‘junk DNA’.
And of course, an evolutionary world view could never provide the presuppositions needed for science to get going, because they are deductions from biblical principles – see http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/2004/1231.asp#science