Who is your favorite non-creationist scientist?

[QED]

I will only post a few of my favorites, but to make things more fun, I'm going to include designations as follows:

+ - Christian to the best of my own knowledge
* - works or worked in a field closely related to evolution or the "creationism" debate

I hope others who post their favs will include the same designations:

Richard P. Feynman
Charles Darwin *
Ernst Mayer *
Douglas Fukuyama *
Francis Collins +*
Albert Einstein
Neils Bohr
Max Planck
Jane Goodall +*
Murray Gell-man
Stephen Hawking*
Keith Miller +*
Kenneth Miller +*
D. Lamoureux +*

Well, that's a decent start. Or maybe we should just list the ones named Steve ;)

[NeilUnreal]

Of well-known, living scientists, I would have to say Jane Goodall. She seems like such a complete person.

-Neil

[Socrates]

I'm pretty sure it should be Max Planck+, but "Christian" is a fairly meaningless term anyway. E.g. that Goodall woman overtly rejects (not "reinterprets", the usual euphemism) good portions of even the New Testament.

:idea: Of course, with the thread title of "non-creationist scientist", I'll have to leave out many of my favorite scientists, e.g. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur, Faraday, Linnaeus ... :shy:

And to stick to the ones named Steve, there was a lot to like about the late Stephen Jay Gould even if he was a fanatical anti-creationist. He's a creationist now, but too late alas :bawl:.

[WinAce]

And the "Tasteless Comment of the Month" award goes too...

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105119#post105119)
Socrates:
And to stick to the ones named Steve, there was a lot to like about the late Stephen Jay Gould even if he was a fanatical anti-creationist. He's a creationist now, but too late alas :bawl:. I wasn't aware that it was your choice as to who was offered grace by Christ. You know not if Gould is in heaven or not, that you think you can actually presuppose the knowledge of which only God can have is really arrogent.

[QED]

Today @ 02:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105119#post105119)
Socrates:

I'm pretty sure it should be Max Planck+,

I don't know whether Planck professes Christ or not. The + just indicates what I'm personally aware of.


but "Christian" is a fairly meaningless term anyway.

I'm applying it by its standard usage: those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as savior are Christians. Why this has no meaning to you is beyond me.


E.g. that Goodall woman overtly rejects (not "reinterprets", the usual euphemism) good portions of even the New Testament.

It is unusual for a believer in Jesus Christ to reject parts of the Bible outright, but it isn't a contradiction in terms. Some Christians believe their faith in Christ is based on the Bible, others feel their faith in and relationship with Christ is primary, and that the Bible is secondary.

There is usually respect between those two groups. There are a few in the first group who are so certain in their belief that the Bible is primary and that it is the only means of coming to know Christ that they profess that no honest Christian can see it otherwise. Therefore, they pretend to conclude that such people are not Christians, despite their profession of faith.

On the other hand, I only have the word of a habitual liar that Goodall rejects any part of the Bible. I don't suppose you have proof?


:idea: Of course, with the thread title of "non-creationist scientist", I'll have to leave out many of my favorite scientists, e.g. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur, Faraday, Linnaeus ... :shy:

Actually no. The thread is about creationist in the modern sense: those who deny the findings of science in favor of a particular interpretation of scripture, and who use pseudoscientific propaganda to leave the impression that their objections are (even in part) scientific. To the best of my knowledge not a single one of the names on your list are guilty. So let's just post them right here in this thread:

Copernicus+
Galileo+
Kepler+
Newton+
Boyle+
Pasteur+
Faraday+
Linnaeus+*
Oh! Linnaeus. He's the one who said

I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. ~Carl Linnaeus, 1788
http://www.quotegarden.com/human.html


And to stick to the ones named Steve, there was a lot to like about the late Stephen Jay Gould even if he was a fanatical anti-creationist. He's a creationist now, but too late alas :bawl:.

My preacher used to talk about how there was nothing wrong with being a religious "fanatic". He said that "fanatic" was a word which was used to put down people with a zeal for the Lord, but that it was really a compliment. I don't guess it would be such a nice compliment when it was applied to a zeal for combatting a single virulent form of ignorance, but I do think he would wear your intended insult as a badge of honor nonetheless.

Anyway, since a list of non-creationist scientists named "Steve" has already been done, (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp) (and named in Gould's honor if I'm not mistaken), I guess we can leave that be...

[James]

I like Hawking. Intelligence and perseverance in the face of adversity.

[Socrates]

Socrates:


And to stick to the ones named Steve, there was a lot to like about the late Stephen Jay Gould even if he was a fanatical anti-creationist. He's a creationist now, but too late alas. :bawl:

Higgins hurled:I wasn't aware that it was your choice as to who was offered grace by Christ. You know not if Gould is in heaven or not, that you think you can actually presuppose the knowledge of which only God can have is really arrogent.Hah, a village atheist trying to lecture me on God :poke: But in fact, God has already revealed in His written Word, the Bible, the only basis for true Christianity, that there is a judgment after death, and those who reject Christ in this life face an eternity apart from Him. What is "arrogant" is to deny His Word :whack:

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105141#post105141)
QED:

I'm applying it by its standard usage: those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as savior are Christians. Why this has no meaning to you is beyond me.


Simple -- WHICH Christ? There are plenty of false christs apart from the true Christ of the Bible.

[More pathetic lectures by an anti-Christian on Christianity deleted -- as bad as misotheist Higgings lecturing me on God]


On the other hand, I only have the word of a habitual liar that Goodall rejects any part of the Bible.

:tongue:No, you also have my word, and it was in an article by Ben Clausen in Origins



Actually no. The thread is about creationist in the modern sense:

No, the thread is what you called it -- "Who is your favorite non-creationist scientist?" I am taking it at its normal meaning. While the thread starter is entitled to keep the thread on topic AS WRITTEN, he is NOT entitled to completely distort the meanings of the words he used to state the topic. The fact remains, the people below were creationists, and mostly YECs.


... those who deny the findings of science ...


Oh really? WHAT findings of science? I'm not aware that any creationist denies physics or chemistry, for example. Neither do they deny mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, the founder effect, allopatric speciation ... Oh, I get it, by "the findings of science", the dilettante QED really means "the paradigm of materialism" :poke:


... in favor of a particular interpretation of scripture,


Just the interpretation held almost universally throughout most of Church history, and backed up by sound historical-grammatical hermeneutics.


... and who use pseudoscientific propaganda


By "pseudoscientific propaganda" perhaps QED means Piltdown Man, Archaeoraptor, staged pics of peppered moths, Haeckel's forged embryo drawings ...?


...
to leave the impression that their objections are (even in part) scientific.

Creationist objections to evolution are scientific as is amply shown in their literature; evolutionary objections to creation are metaphysical, because of their dogmatic adherence to the materialist paradigm.


To the best of my knowledge not a single one of the names on your list are guilty.

And neither are modern creationists such as Raymond Damadian, Ian Macreadie, John Mann, Raymond Jones ... or the AiG and ICR scientists.


So let's just post them right here in this thread:

Copernicus+
Galileo+
Kepler+
Newton+
Boyle+
Pasteur+
Faraday+
Linnaeus+*

No you should NOT -- the thread title specifically says NON-creationist, and it's simply not true of those scientists, despite your weaselly attempt to redefine the term.

And once more, they show that evolution is not necessary for real science, while creation provides a fruitful basis for scientific research.

And the new book Where Darwin Meets the Bible -- by anti-creationist Larry Witham (Oxford University Press, 2002) has some interesting material. For example, he quotes the atheistic anticreationist Eugenie Scott:


In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.

Ain't that interesting -- a leading anticreationist bigot admitting that if students were taught to think critically, they might reject evolution (which is obviously what she means by "one of the major themes in science" although see below :whack:). No wonder she is so strong on censoring information that might cause students to doubt. Conversely, creationists want the students to learn MORE about evolution than the establishment wants them to learn!

Witham also cites a BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000, which should put evolution in persective even among its believers:


"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 superflous 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 Noarth American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word "evolution" in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organised 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focuses on evolution--as it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families.

See, if evolution were not taught dogmatically, even most of biology would still produce fruitful research. So Scott was being ridiculous to think that without evolution, we'd return to a scientific dark age.

[Duvenoy]

Favorite non-creationist scientist:

My younger brother, who is a Professor of Biology at a major university. He's the smart one of the family, but even so, I'm not stupid enough to publish his name on a public forum, particularly one like this. He gets enough weird mail as it is.

So, next in line is Jack Horner, closely followed by Gould. I wish I could have attended at least one of Gould's lectures.

doov

[Joe Meert]

My younger brother, who is a Professor of Biology at a major university. He's the smart one of the family, but even so, I'm not stupid enough to publish his name on a public forum, particularly one like this. He gets enough weird mail as it is.

So, next in line is Jack Horner, closely followed by Gould. I wish I could have attended at least one of Gould's lectures.

doov


JM: I would have to say my advisor, Rob Van der Voo who gave me the freedom to pursue my own ideas and taught me to examine every idea both critically and with an open mind. Second, would be Neil Opdyke, who has an office next to mine, is a member of the NAtional Academy of Science and has a 'nose' for significant problems. Neil was one of the major players in the plate tectonic revolution and stays active in publishing, teaching and research at 70 years of age. I know neither of these are 'popularizers' of science, but they are perhaps two of the best in their fields.

Cheers

JOe Meert

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 01:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105269#post105269)
Socrates:
Hah, a village atheist trying to lecture me on God :poke: But in fact, God has already revealed in His written Word, the Bible, the only basis for true Christianity, that there is a judgment after death, and those who reject Christ in this life face an eternity apart from Him. What is "arrogant" is to deny His Word :whack: I thought the Jewish were to be saved as well and they reject Christ. So I think you may be wrong. If you are wrong about that, then you can be wrong on Gould. Like I said, isn't it Christ's decision, not yours?

[Vorkosigan]

Joseph Needham, who was not only a great chemist, but also one of the greatest scholars of the last century (strange to say that about the 20th century.....).

[QED]

Today @ 07:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105303#post105303)
Socrates:



Simple -- WHICH Christ? There are plenty of false christs apart from the true Christ of the Bible.

I was very specific, though that it was Jesus Christ in which these people professed faith. You say that's meaningless. Why?


[More pathetic lectures by an anti-Christian on Christianity deleted -- as bad as misotheist Higgings lecturing me on God]

Put your fingers in your ears and shout "Nah nah! I can't hear you." It would be more dignified.




:tongue:No, you also have my word,

Like I said.


and it was in an article by Ben Clausen in Origins

Sounds like a trustworthy source. (Not) I don't suppose you have a reference for ummmmm, Jane Goodall remarking that she rejects parts of the NT?


No, the thread is what you called it -- "Who is your favorite non-creationist scientist" I am taking it at its normal meaning.

What is it's normal meaning? Someone who believes in Creation? Well then lets strike these "creationists" from the list:
Francis Collins +*
Jane Goodall +*
Keith Miller +*
Kenneth Miller +*
D. Lamoureux +*

What's the normal meaning? Someone who denies evolution? Then the new additions belong as well.

What's the normal meaning? People who share your interpretation of Genesis, regardless of how they stand on issues of modern science? Then no we don't add these to the list.

There's a very good point here: "creationist" means a lot of things.

Nowadays, the meaning is related to the pseudoscience of "creationism". Some are propagators of this pseudoscience, and some are merely duped by it. Do you only count the snake-oil salesmen, or do you count the buyers, too?


While the thread starter is entitled to keep the thread on topic AS WRITTEN, he is NOT entitled to completely distort the meanings of the words he used to state the topic. The fact remains, the people below were creationists, and mostly YECs.

The term itself is has a spectrum of meanings - from simply "believers that God created" to "propagators of pseudoscience". The people listed were the former, but were not the latter.


Oh really? WHAT findings of science? I'm not aware that any creationist denies physics or chemistry, for example.

Physics and chemistry are not findings of science. They are disciplines of science. You should know that, since you are trained in one of those disciplines. Most or all creationists accept some findings of science, but most have in common that they reject these findings of science, on the grounds that they do not match the view they have derived from interpretation of scripture:

The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. (all YECers)
All humans, and the other great apes share a common ancestor.
Birds share a common ancestor with some reptiles.
Mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians share a common ancestor that was a fish.

In addition, there are numerous more specific scientific findings that are rejected, ignored, or distorted by some creationist or another in order to avoid the conclusions toward which they point.


Neither do they deny mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, the founder effect, allopatric speciation ...

No, they do not. However, they decry any inference derived from these observed phenomenon, the fossil record, molecular evidence, and the observed laws of nature about how life might have come about its present unity and diversity.


Oh, I get it, by "the findings of science", the dilettante QED really means "the paradigm of materialism" :poke:

Nope, I meant the findings of science, as discussed above.

It does seem, however, that some of them cannot distinguish the methods of science from a philosophical position, and don't understand exactly how either relates to the current scientific paradigm. This speaks poorly for these individuals' ability to practice science, since a basic understanding of the methods is sometimes needed.


Just the interpretation held almost universally throughout most of Church history, and backed up by sound historical-grammatical hermeneutics.

Church history (humans), hermeneutics (human wisdom). Infallible? I think not!


Creationist objections to evolution are scientific as is amply shown in their literature; evolutionary objections to creation are metaphysical, because of their dogmatic adherence to the materialist paradigm.

You now owe me two irony meters!


And neither are modern creationists such as Raymond Damadian, Ian Macreadie, John Mann, Raymond Jones ... or the AiG and ICR scientists.

I sincerely doubt your ability to judge. You have shown remarkable difficulty in understanding the most basic distinction between science and pseudoscience.



No you should NOT -- the thread title specifically says NON-creationist, and it's simply not true of those scientists, despite your weaselly attempt to redefine the term.

When I started the thread, I intended to leave out anyone who believed roughly the same things (about the manner in which Creation was carried out) as YEC's, even if they did not build a pseudoscience around that belief or ignore, reject, or distort scientific evidence to protect those beliefs. I do agree that for the purposes of this thread that was the most appropriate defintion.

On the other hand, these folks are not creationists under some very appropriate usages of the term, and I thought that would bear pointing out. I will stick to my original meaning, though.


And once more, they show that evolution is not necessary for real science, while creation provides a fruitful basis for scientific research.

Actually, they showed that observation provides a fruitful basis for scientific research. Creation is an event, not a method - it cannot, therefore, be a basis for scientific research at all.
:doh:
:duh:
:dunce:


And the new book Where Darwin Meets the Bible -- by anti-creationist Larry Witham (Oxford University Press, 2002) has some interesting material. For example, he quotes the atheistic anticreationist Eugenie Scott:

Ain't that interesting -- a leading anticreationist bigot admitting that if students were taught to think critically, they might reject evolution (which is obviously what she means by "one of the major themes in science" although see below :whack:). No wonder she is so strong on censoring information that might cause students to doubt. Conversely, creationists want the students to learn MORE about evolution than the establishment wants them to learn!

R.O.F.L.!!! Socrates takes concern that elementary aged children might be fooled by creationist tactics as some sort of damning admission that mainstream science cannot stand critical examination! :dufus:



Witham also cites a BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000, which should put evolution in persective even among its believers:

See, if evolution were not taught dogmatically, even most of biology would still produce fruitful research. So Scott was being ridiculous to think that without evolution, we'd return to a scientific dark age.

Wow, you almost have a point. The value of evolution to other areas of research may be currently overstated by some of its more vocal proponents. (Leaving out the hogwash about "teaching dogmatically", blah blah).

I guess that means we should start teaching astrology in science class too!

[QED]

Let's throw
Howard Van Till+
into the mix, sit back & watch the fireworks.

[NeilUnreal]

"We will have to evolve, all of us, from ordinary, everyday human beings -- into saints!...or at least mini-saints."

-Jane Goodall, Reason for Hope

[QED]

Lynn Margulis *
Gaylord Simpson *
Richard Leakey *
Don Johansen *
Roger Wiens+*
Davis Young +*

[Minnesota]

http://www.chemistry.mcmaster.ca/faculty/bader/aim/feynman.gif

Richard P. Feynman

[GrayPilgrim]

QED,

Would you mind combining posts 18 and 19?

[QED]

done.

[GrayPilgrim]

Thank you!

[Lobstrosity]

I think I'll have to second Feynman.

[QED]

I remember being a young teenager and reading Feynman's obituary in a magazine devoted to popular science. It was the first I heard of him. Thank goodness it wasn't the last! He died too young.

[John Boy]

Personally, I liked Gould's essays. They gave a historical perspective to persons within science and why they and their theories suceeded or failed. He was also pretty good at explaining how science worked.

Hawking's works are also pretty interesting, although I must admit I am only able to guesstimate understanding of what he is talking about, alas.

Richard Feynman is also a fascinating character, not just in science, either. I read his biography and found him to be a far more compelling character than his scientific career would lead you to believe.

There are just too many to list, once you start thinking about it, so I better just end the list here, for now... :smile:


Socrates: Of course, with the thread title of "non-creationist scientist", I'll have to leave out many of my favorite scientists, e.g. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur, Faraday, Linnaeus
Gee, I understand that they also didn't believe in Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, either. This is sure to concern modern physicists.

The fact you always have to go back more than a century-and-a-half, before Darwin even published his works, to find a Creationist (and I don't know how many, if any, of the list are of the Young-Earth variety) who contributed SOMETHING to science seems like a point you should avoid bringing up: it undercuts your argument that Creationism is a viable and vital source within science, today.

Take care. :smile:

[QED]

There are just too many to list,

That's the point. This is a counter note to the "favorite Creationist Scientist" thread. Thus saying:

Joseph Ford

(I throw him in because I met him personally, and had office privileges).

[John Boy]

Oh, and something Socrates wrote that I wanted to comment upon:

And to stick to the ones named Steve, there was a lot to like about the late Stephen Jay Gould even if he was a fanatical anti-creationist. He's a creationist now, but too late alas.
An afterlife full of Young-Earth Creationists? It must really be hell, after all... :ahem:

Take care. :smile:

[Socratism]

05-23-2003 @ 08:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=106008#post106008)
NeilUnreal:

"We will have to evolve, all of us, from ordinary, everyday human beings -- into saints!...or at least mini-saints."

-Jane Goodall, Reason for Hope

This is a surprising comment coming from a Christian, for all Christians are already saints according to scripture.

[Lobstrosity]

Today @ 09:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107260#post107260)
John Boy:

The fact you always have to go back more than a century-and-a-half, before Darwin even published his works, to find a Creationist (and I don't know how many, if any, of the list are of the Young-Earth variety) who contributed SOMETHING to science seems like a point you should avoid bringing up: it undercuts your argument that Creationism is a viable and vital source within science, today.
Boy have you hit the nail on the head. Science did not stop with Darwin yet seemingly support of Creationism by great scientists did. Interesting, isn't it? Now, if they could show that a decline in scientific advancement correlated with this shift of beliefs away from Creationism, maybe Creationists would have something to gloat over. As it stands now, however, all this does is indicate that past scientists were Creationists simply by default (you know, for lack of any alternatives), not because it was the truth. Newton was an intelligent man who was clearly willing to reject preconceptions. He rejected that the planets' motions were controlled by angels, and thus I do not feel it is unreasonable to assume he would have also rejected that all life was magically poofed into existence if given the evidence we have today. The poor man didn't know about DNA, population dynamics, the fossil record, heredity, mutations, etc...it's hardly his fault he defaulted to the supernatural to fill in the massive gaps.

[Socratism]

. Newton was an intelligent man who was clearly willing to reject preconceptions. He rejected that the planets' motions were controlled by angels, and thus I do not feel it is unreasonable to assume he would have also rejected that all life was magically poofed into existence if given the evidence we have today. The poor man didn't know about DNA, population dynamics, the fossil record, heredity, mutations, etc...it's hardly his fault he defaulted to the supernatural to fill in the massive gaps.

I find it remarkable that a person who has no significant scientific accomplishments in his life can have the audacity and egotism to refer to Sir Isaac Newton as a "poor man".

[Socratism]

Now, if they could show that a decline in scientific advancement correlated with this shift of beliefs away from Creationism, maybe Creationists would have something to gloat over.

Both evolutionary biology and creationism deal with origins.

Evolutionary biology has made zero contribution to scientific advancement, although it pretends to have done so by attempting to wrap the mantle of the rest of science (where the real progress has occurred) about itself.

Scientific advancement would have greatly benefited if the theory of evolution had never been advanced, because the truth is that it has been an impediment to scientific progress.

[QED]

Growing the list:

Dennis R. Alexander +
A.B. Heckert *
Derek Burke +*
B. Strotmann *

[QED]

Today @ 01:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107626#post107626)
Socratism:



This is a surprising comment coming from a Christian, for all Christians are already saints according to scripture.

Jane has been accused of rejecting scripture (according to Socrates there was an article in a creationist magazine that said so - proof enough for me! - not...) If that's the case, then that would answer the suprise.

On the other hand, she may have been using the term "saint" in the more prosaic sense as borrowed from the Catholics and used in popular language - as someone whose works are especially worthy.

Sort of takes the air out of the suprise.

[Minnesota]

Today @ 02:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107666#post107666)
Socratism:



I find it remarkable that a person who has no significant scientific accomplishments in his life can have the audacity and egotism to refer to Sir Isaac Newton as a "poor man".

Normally, I would ask if one was serious about such a wacky interpretation, but . . . .

It's obvious that Lobstrosity has great respect for Newton--why wouldn't anyone?--so to go off the deep end and interpret "poor man" as some kind of denigrating characterization of the man can be nothing more than a cheap and lightly veiled attempt to disparage Lobstrosity. If you SERIOUSLY believe what you wrote, then I suggest you carefully reread what was written, and try to put "poor" into its proper context here.

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 09:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107673#post107673)
Socratism:

Evolutionary biology has made zero contribution to scientific advancement, although it pretends to have done so by attempting to wrap the mantle of the rest of science (where the real progress has occurred) about itself.

Zero contribution to scientific advancement! ROFL that's a mighty whopper. I guess that the contribution was no non-existant that the devout Christian and geneticist, Theodosius Dobzhansky, felt fit to proclaim "Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evoluion." Oh wait, he didn't state that. No he stated.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."


Scientific advancement would have greatly benefited if the theory of evolution had never been advanced, because the truth is that it has been an impediment to scientific progress.

Ever hear of genetic programming? Biotechnology? Bioinformatics? Game Theory?

[QED]

Rufus, speaking of which:

Theodosius Dobzhansky +*