Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Religion, Faith, and Spirituality
Tas-1010 — 9 years ago(December 25, 2016 08:48 PM)
Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
One of the self-serving arguments of modern evolutionists is their rather arrogant claim that creationist scientists are not real scientists. No matter that a large number of creationists have earned authentic Ph.D. degrees in science, hold responsible scientific positions and have published numerous scientific articles and booksif they are creationists, they are not true scientists! In a Letter-to-the-Editor, Steven Schafersman, of Rice University's Department of Geology, says, for example: "I dispute Henry Morris's claim that thousands of scientists are creationists. No scientist today questions the past and present occurrence of evolution in the organic world. Those thousands of creationists' with legitimate post-graduate degrees and other appropriate credentials are not scientists, precisely because they have abandoned the scientific method and the scientific attitude, criteria far more crucial to the definition of scientist than the location or duration of one's training or the identity of one's employer" (Geotimes, August 1981, P. 11).
Thus modern creationists are conveniently excluded as scientists merely by definition! Science does not mean "knowledge" or "truth," or "facts," as we used to think, but "naturalism" or "materialism," according to this new definition. The very possibility of a Creator is prohibited by majority vote of the scientific fraternity, and one who still wishes to believe in God must forfeit his membership.
Well, no matter. At least we creationist scientists can take comfort in the fact that many of the greatest scientists of the past were creationists and for that matter, were also Bible-believing Christians, men who believed in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, as well as in the deity and saving work of Jesus Christ. They believed that God had supernaturally created all things, each with its own complex structure for its own unique purpose. They believed that, as scientists, they were "thinking God's thoughts after Him," learning to understand and control the laws and processes of nature for God's glory and man's good. They believed and practiced science in exactly the same way that modern creationist scientists do.
And somehow this attitude
did not
hinder them in their commitment to the "scientific method."
In fact one of them,
Sir Francis Bacon, is credited with formulating and establishing the scientific method!
They seem also to have been
able to maintain
a proper "scientific attitude," for it was these men (Newton, Pasteur, Linnaeus, Faraday, Pascal, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Kepler, etc.) whose researches and analyses led to the very laws and concepts of science which brought about our modern scientific age. The mechanistic scientists of the present are dwarfed in comparison to these intellectual giants of the past. Even the achievements of an Einstein (not to mention Darwin!) are trivial in comparison.
The real breakthroughs, the new fields, the most beneficial discoveries of science were certainly not delayed (in fact probably were hastened) by the creationist motivations of these great founders of modern science.
TABLE I
SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHEDBY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS
DISCIPLINE, then
SCIENTIST:
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY
JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY
LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS
ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS
JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY
ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY
GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE
CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS
ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS
JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS
JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS
MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS
LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
-ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS
HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY
MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS
GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY
WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS
ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS
GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY
LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY
JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS
LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY
MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS
BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY
LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY
WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS
LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY
JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY
BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY
MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY
DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
-PALEONTOLOGY
JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY
RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY
JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS
JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS
JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY
NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY
CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS
LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS
HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY
GE -
VomisaaCaasi — 9 years ago(December 25, 2016 09:23 PM)
Them being scientists is not the issue. It is being a scientist in a field that has no relation to the topic.
Having a degree in one field doe not mean they know anything about another.
Hells a world renowned brain surgeon believes the pyramids at Giza are grain storage silos
This should be interesting. -
jw-tutor — 9 years ago(December 25, 2016 09:37 PM)
All those smart guys, and not a single one is a Jehovah's Witness. I guess, by your weak standards, that proves that the Witnesses are a fake religion.
-jw
I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One! -
OldSamVimes — 9 years ago(December 25, 2016 09:50 PM)
What other people believe shouldn't affect you negatively or positively, unless they're torturing you because of what they believe.
'Anti-god arrogance' seems a tad melodramatic.
What do you plan to do with your life once everyone on Earth is a Jehovah's Witness? -
senseibushido — 9 years ago(December 25, 2016 10:09 PM)
https://ncse.com/project-steve
lol
Thus modern creationists are conveniently excluded as scientists merely by definition! Science does not mean "knowledge" or "truth," or "facts," as we used to think, but "naturalism" or "materialism," according to this new definition.
As with most things creationists say, this is yet another lie. If a person wants to abandon the scientific method because it conflicts with their beliefs in this one area, they cannot claim that their beliefs are scientific. It has nothing to do with naturalism or materialism.
A prime example of someone who is unwilling to compromise her scientific integrity in favor of her faith is Mary Schweitzer. The person whose discoveries creationists try to point to when they say, "Blood was found in dinosaur bones, so they can't be as old as the
evil
utionists claim!"
One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. Theyre looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesnt do anybody any favors. Still, its not surprising theyve reacted this waythe bone that I first studied I got from Jack, and when I gave him our initial results he was rather angryI called him a few times and by my third call he said, Dammit Mary the creationists are just going to love you. But I said, This is just what the data say Im not making it up.
I dont think my being a Christian has anything to do with the fact that the data Im proposing is challenging. Ive only had one or two people say they dont trust my science because of my faith. So if Im doing science according to the rules, which Im doing to honor God, and Im aware that anything and everything I do could be proven wrong tomorrow, then my job is to be as careful and cautious as I can and not overstate my data. All I can do is the best that I can do.
[]
How has your research influenced your faith, and your relationships with other Christians?
I think probably you better ask other Christians! I really dont know. But, I do go to pretty conservative churches. One time I was visiting a church and the pastor got up and started preaching a sermon about people not being related to apes, and he started talking about this scientist in Montana who discovered red blood cells in dinosaur boneshe didnt know I was in the audienceand it was my research he was talking about! Unfortunately, he got everything wrong. I just got up and left. I dont feel that Im discrediting God with the work Im doing, I think I am honoring him with the abilities hes given me.
http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/not-so-dry-bones-an-interview-with-mary-schweitzer -
graham-167 — 9 years ago(December 26, 2016 03:25 AM)
Its perfectly possible to be a creationist and do science.
And certainly if you were born in an era when our knowledge of science was far weaker than it is now, it is even understandable why a scientist might be a creationist; they were ignorant and didn't know any better.
And yes, when Darwin published his famous theory, it was possible to oppose it on a scientific basis. This only really changed as the evidence began to pile up and it became necessary to remain ignorant of it or lie about it in order to remain a creationist.
However, it remains true that today, if you claim that creationism itself is scientific then you have stopped doing science in that particular subject and ceased to be a scientist where that subject is concerned.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god. -
Tas-1010 — 9 years ago(December 26, 2016 03:28 PM)
.the evidence began to pile up
Please list some
specific
evidences that began to "pile up", please. Three will do. (Or as much as you'd like.)
www.jw.org
or
https://tv.jw.org/#en/home -
graham-167 — 9 years ago(December 26, 2016 07:11 PM)
The discovery of DNA, which behaved exactly as it needed to in order to allow evolution to happen. Scientists were predicting DNA or something functionally identical had to exist to explain how evolution worked, long before it was discovered and analysed.
Observations of evolution in action in the fossil record.
Observation of evolution, including speciation events, in living species.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god. -
Melanie000 — 9 years ago(December 26, 2016 08:12 PM)
Observation of evolution, including speciation events, in living species.
More detail please and links would be nice! Because afaik, change within species has been observed, but that's not evolution, it's mutation.
Laws are silent in times of War - Cicero -
senseibushido — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 01:59 AM)
And in doing so you acknowledged that changes
have
been observed. No one's all that impressed by the "mutations aren't evolution" line, considering mutations are one of the major components of evolution. -
senseibushido — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 02:41 AM)
That goal post has to be in constant motion. The alternative is acknowledging that speciation isn't all that special. If humans can breed something like a pomeranian from something like a wolf in a few thousand years, the leap from something like a four-legged sea lion to something like a whale in a few million years isn't all that extreme. (which is, of course, why they need to deny that things have been around that long as well)
-
jmarkoff2 — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 02:44 AM)
Paleontologist Donald Prothero compared the constantly moving baramin goal post to Lewis Carroll's version of Humpty Dumpty, who said that when he used a word, it only meant what he wanted it to mean for as long as he was saying it.
-
Melanie000 — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 03:49 AM)
No kidding. They are still cats, and breeding a house cat with a lion is theoretically possible. So where are those details?
Evolution happens at far too slow a rate to be observed so your claim to know otherwise deserves ridicule. I am not a creationist but your defence of evolution actually harms it.