Can creationists be "real" scientists?

Some evolutionists have stated that those who believe in creation cannot be real scientists. Any use of science to support the biblical view of creation they call “pseudoscience.” But what is the truth?

Are there scientists who believe in creation and do real science? I believe there are. Some of the greatest men and women of science, past and present, are real scientists, and believe the Bible’s account of origins. True operational science has nothing to do with evolution. Science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution.

Is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? Not at all.

Dr. David Melton Ph.D. cell biologist and creationist said, “The fact is that though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”

Computers, cell phones, DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics, which God created not evolution. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible.

Technology has shown us that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers—not random chance. Science and technology are perfectly consistent with the Bible, but not with evolution.

Well yes they can be real scientists, they simply will not work in any fields that deal with evolution... Nothing stops them from working in other fields...

"Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? Not at all. "

You really need to do your homework before you write things like this. Years of research in antibiotics, medical treatment and genetics has been possible because of our understanding of evolution and mutation.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1852567

" It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible."

Actually, the Big Bang explains more about astrophysics and the current state of the universe than the Genesis account ever does. Our understanding of quantum physics, a very revolutionary field, is confirming more about the Big Bang than we ever thought possible. The Genesis account, on the other hand, leaves us scratching our heads wondering how God could create the Earth and tides before creating the sun, moon, stars, galaxies, and the rest of the universe.

"Technology has shown us that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers—not random chance. Science and technology are perfectly consistent with the Bible, but not with evolution."

Sounds like you're making more of a statement than a question, but you're also way off. Natural selection does not involve "random chance" to the extent that you think it does. If the world was created by an intelligent designer, why do we have mutations, which are basically copying errors during chromosome duplication? It's these copying errors that produce new traits in species, and how those traits cause a species to interact with its environment is the basis for evolution. Nothing illogical about it.

You really covered a lot of ground here, but I will do my best to address your points.

Firstly, there are people who believe in creation yet are involved in the scientific field. They have managed to achieve a wondrous feat and not actually applied their rational minds to their own beliefs. It is quite possible for someone to spend the entire week studying evolutionary biology, then go to church on Sunday and worship their god of creation. They manage this by redefining the literal interpretations of the bible into symbolic or allegorical stories. Six days is NOT ACTUALLY six days, it REALLY MEANS 6 billion years. Man was made from dirt and magic breath really means he evolved. etc.

Many great scientists in history were devout believers. Even Darwin himself believed in God - he just wanted to understand how God did it. Strangely, at the time of publication that argument was not if evolution was true or not, but if it was the method god used or not.

It is true to say that most science does not require evolution to work, but that is like saying we do not require germ theory to understand the stars. However, exactly the same principles that lead to detailed and non-conflicting understanding in the fields of planetary orbits, telescopes, biology, chemistry, and medicine also lead you to conclude evolution is valid. The same standards of evidence apply to all fields and they all share common understandings of our universe and how it works. To dismiss one endeavour because it conflicts with an ancient book is disingenuous. Would you dismiss astronomy in favour astrology, or chemistry for alchemy if you book said so?

I have not heard of Dr. David Melton, but to say evolution has no place is biomedical research is a gross error. Evolutionary theory (including genetics) allow the medical fraternity to examine living organisms and how they work. We can determine the genetic codes that cause a virus to behave the way it does and alter it. This is just one application of evolutionary theory in action.

Evolution is not contrary to the laws of physics. It follows all known laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. If it stood alone in stark contrast to the rest of science it would be written off and a crazy idea by scientists themselves. As it is, only creationist write it off, and some scientists manage to warp their beliefs enough to accommodate it, or just ignore it completely because their book written by ignorant goat herders in another country 2,000 years ago says so.

Order does not require design. We can see numerous examples of order arising from apparent chaos, yet there is no one there to design it. Your assertion that there is some intelligence behind this apparent design only begs the question - who designed your designer? Surely your designer is far more complex than the designs we see, and by the same logic MUST also require a designer?

If god does not require a designer (because he was always there or whatever), then surely we could argue that something even less complex could have always been here and not require a designer either. This is the position of most rational people.

Do you really want an answer to the question or did you just want to preach creationism? If you wanted to preach, you didn't do a very good job of getting your facts right (as has been shown above).

Of course creationists can make valuable scientific contributions in fields other than life origins. However, they are totally wrong about evolution.

Google the "cambrian period" to see how valid evolution is.

Not that I want to turn this into a debate about evolution, but this can't be left unchallenged.

The Cambrian explosion is explained by the appearance of oxygen in the atmosphere, which is extremely advantageous to life. The life that was there are the time suddenly had the chemical means to rapidly expand and evolve to fill every niche. As resources are limited, organisms had to compete. Those that were better suited to the environment, and/or had better mechanisms for survival (including capturing food, or killing competition) survived. This is natural selection in action.

The geological record is highly compressed and things that happen over millions of years can be represented in small layers of rock. Add to that the extremely small chance of fossilisation and it is highly probable that we will see exactly what we do see - a quick transition from microbes to abundant life. Proponents of punctuated equilibrium (such as yourself) miss the finer details for geology, chemistry, biology, and evolution.

wow...I believed nothing of everything you just said.
I dodt think you should be saying things like that.
"god" did not create the law of physics by the way. or anything else. all your saying is that evolution dosnt help us because god created all the things we now have. which is just ridiculouse.

Evolution states that life evolved from simple to more complex. The cambrian fossils show fully formed organisms with fully functioning organs and absolutely no fossil evidence leading up to it. It supports creationism, puff!! it is there.

"The cambrian fossils show fully formed organisms with fully functioning organs and absolutely no fossil evidence leading up to it"

1) You could argue that ALL fossils have fully formed organs.

2) The Cambrian is not called an explosion for nothing. It happened so quickly there was very little time for the most unlikely process of fossilisation to occur. It's a matter of probabilities. It has been estimated that if the entire population of the USA died were subject to possible fossilisation, we would probably get half a skeleton. When evolution occurs so rapidly as it did in the Cambrian, the number of fossils will be very low.

3) There probably are a few fossils from this period, but given the expected rarity of these items, we have not found them yet. It is not feasible to dig up the entire Earth's surface and retrieve every fossil specimen, and even if we did creationists would still point to all the tiny gaps between the forms and say "look! there's a gap!".

4) You are stating that creation occurred, then SUPER evolution happened to account for the number of species we see today. Yet, you denounce evolution entirely? Which is it?

Immediately under these fully formed complex organisms are fossils of single cell organisms, nothing intermediary. The fits perfectly with the concept of creation and appears to rule out evolution as a mechanism of their development

*** "Are there scientists who believe in creation and do real science?"

Yes, but only a handful in fields relevant to evolutionary theory.

toadaly, Im am not sure if that is totally true. From what I have been reading on the web, there are quite a few, the problem is that the evolutionist dogma has control and they cannot get their papers published.

They can't get their papers published because they have not come up with one single successful hypothesis that is testable, observable or repeatable. Creationism is pseudoscience and, as I've said before, if you don't accept the fact of evolution, you are welcome to stop benefitting from vaccinations and all the medicines we've developed because of it. In fact, I'd think one would have more confidence in prayers to this alleged Creator than in pills put out by the atheistic conspiracy of scientists that you imply exists.

eleni:
Evolution is "pseudoscience". The only evidence to support it is 'intimidation' and loss of a job. There are many qualified scientists out there with valid views but they cannot get their papers published because the journals are controlled by knuckle draggers. If that wasnt the case, publish the "pseudoscientific" journal and discredit it publicly. It isnt being done because the only evidence against it is intimidation and financial pressure and if the truth of this came out the "scientific community" would be seen for the wh*res that they are.

" The only evidence to support it is 'intimidation' and loss of a job."

Wow, how wrong can you be?

The fact you look much like your parents if proof of evolution (heredity), We know enough about genetics to alter the genomes and affect the phenotypes you exhibit (like you eye colour).

The fact you don't look exactly like your parent is more proof (variation). Variations occur due to inaccurate processes in DNA splicing, migrations within populations (gene flow), and sexual reproduction (gene shuffling).

Mutations in DNA are an observed event and do not always lead to gruesome freaks (as many creationists will try and point out). Most mutations are now benign (as many of the beneficial mutations have already occurred), yet there are still some improvements to be made - especially when the environment changes. We can trace genetic alterations across the population of the planet. We can see where we humans came from (Africa) using this genetic information.

We have observed speciation both in the natural world and under laboratory conditions. The huge number of different finch species in the Galapagos Islands is what sparked Darwin to investigate it in the first place. Why is it that there seems to be a species of finch to take advantage of every aspect of life there? Why do they share a very large percentage of DNA information? Why do they only occur in one place of the world? Why to other birds share significant DNA, yet are not finches at all? Why do kangaroos only exist in Australia? Why is the Tasmanian Devil restricted to Tasmania? Don't these questions keep you awake at night, or do you just write them off with "god did it - ain't that grand"?

There is SO much evidence for evolution available for anyone who cares to look at it. It is astonding there are people in this world who refuse to research a topic because it conflicts with their superstitious beliefs.

Perhaps you should actually read a book on the subject apart from the bible (which was written by people who had any idea about these things) before posting again and displaying your ignorance for all to see.

elone, you're more than welcome to list scientists with reputable credentials who practice within relevant fields, who are also Creationists. I'm aware of only a few.

Elone,

So you admit that it is some type of atheistic conspiracy. Thanks for making that clear even though a simple "yes" would have sufficed. It is not the scientific community's job to publish any kind of trash and waste time showing everyone why it's wrong. Reputable journals only publish work that conforms to the scientific method. Creationism does not and cannot conform. Michael Behe, when he was a witness in the Dover trial, had to twist science in order to defend his creationist viewpoints and then got nailed for it when he had to admit that, by his definition, astrology would be a science too.

You seem like a highly intelligent person in all other respects but you're dead wrong on this. It's a shame too because evolution doesn't necessary rule out of a god and so there is no need to deny it so vehemently. Nevertheless, I must challenge you again on two points:

1. If evolution is pseudoscience, stop using medicines and start using prayer only. Will you do that?

2. Please show us your scientific degree/credentials and any research you've done to prove your point. It will certainly help lend some kind of credibility to your case.

If you can't or won't address these points, we're done. I'm here to learn and educate, not to fight.

Eleni:
I. I do not use medicines (with the exception of aspirin for sunburn). I have asthma and I use local honey, there are no side effects.
For the high blood pressure that I used to have: I eliminate salt in my diet and use spices. I cook all of my own food using whole foods whenever possible.
For my bi-polar disorder I use sunshine and a tanning bed. I havent had an episode in a year. And again, no lasting side effects.

I dont believe there any real doctors any more. They are legalized drug dealers. There is a huge conflict of interest in the medical profession that needs to be addressed but probably never will. That is the fact that doctors invest their retirement income in Pharmaceutical companies and knowingly dispense medication that destroys their patients liver and sometime kidneys. Dont believe me? Just listen to the television commercials. More than half are for drugs. Listen to the side effects.
There are sleep studies out there that show a lack of restful sleep from stress causes a pre-diabetic condition, high blood pressure and an uncontrollable urge to eat, causing obesity. The automatic response from doctors for these symptoms is... here take this pill!. Oh! you have these side effects? Here, take another pill? And another and another. I read an article where the typical person who takes medication for a condition takes on the average two more medications to counteract the side effects of the medications.

For decades, chiropractors were considered quacks! Why! Because they didnt dispense medication or push for surgery! My sister had a rib removed because chiropractics was considered pseudo-science.

You want credentials? How about these!
Colin Patterson, who was Senior Principle Scientific Officer in the Paleontology Department of British Museum (Natural History), London (1962-1993) and studied the Cambrian Period fossils for 20 years, out of frustration said that evolution is an anti-theory that produces anti-knowledge and creates terms that explain nothing. Another famous quote of his is, "Can you tell me anything about evolution, any one thing, that is true?" He was an evolutionist and had a Phd.
How many people have heard of him or his statements?

Everything about evolution is based on lies. Science holds every other opposing view, except the “scientific” one to the highest degree of scrutiny based on the “laws of physics”. In order for any idea to be considered it must pass this “scientific scrutiny”. Yet, the one that they use and base all of their “proof” on is exempt from this scrutiny. Why? Because it is a lie and it fails inspection at every step along the way. And the perpetuation of this lie is done in the only way it could ever be done. By cramming it down the throats of our students in school who are naïve and who will “fail” if they don’t accept it. Every time there is an attempt to bring another view into the schools it is vehemently opposed, out of fear of being exposed!

*** "Everything about evolution is based on lies."

That's only true if you limit your information about evolution to Creationist sources. Speciation is directly observed in the lab and in nature.

Do you know why people get a flu shot every year?

First, I have heard of Colin Patterson. He has been misquoted by creationists such as yourself for many years and has written extensively to try to correct those misquotes. Unfortunately, misquoting is nothing new for creationists.

Second, you seem to have surrendered all logical thought and bought into quackery. I sincerely hope it doesn't kill you before you figure out you're wrong. But, since you seem to really buy into herbology, chiropractic, and suntanning, most likely you will suffer for your mistakes. I'm truly sorry.

Eleni and toadaly:

"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
-Sir Ernst B. Chain, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1945). ___

"Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.'"

-Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, leading cladistic taxonomist), Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981. ___
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."
-Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher), Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

"Modern Apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making big-brained humans - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
-Dr. Lyall Watson, "The Water People," Science Digest, Vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44.
___-

"For example, no scientist could logically dispute the proposition that man, without having been involved in any act of divine creation, evolved from some ape-like creature in a very short space of time - speaking in geological terms - without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation. As I have already implied, students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for caution when working within the logical constraints of their subject. The record is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all."
-Lord Solly Zuckerman, M.D., D.Sc., Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger, 1970), p. 64 ___

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research. (Quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.) ___

And here is a quote from Patterson to a colleague who wanted him to “make up” misinformation and he refused to do so.
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"
-Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89. ___

"The fossil record of man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools... Clearly, some people refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence... I have gone to some trouble to show that there are formidable objections to all the subhuman and near-human species that have been proposed as ancestors."
-Fix, William R., The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 150-153. (Note: Fix is not a creationist.) ___

"The gaps are gone, but the links remain -- missing."
-Douglas Dewar ___

"To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis. Improving life by random mutations has the probability of zero."
-Albert Szent-Gyorgi, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1937). ___

*** And here is the real reason all of these lies are being perpetrated on the trusting and gullible public. THERE IS MONEY IN IT! Lots of it!! ***

"It's such a deeply ingrained faith, such a strong dogma on which we are all raised from an early age. Interestingly, I've read a number of biographies of scientists who are leaders in both creationist and evolutionary thought. The overwhelming trend is that the leaders of evolutionary thought all make their living purely from evolutionary theory. They are 'specialists in evolution' and there is no way that you could see how someone whose entire life and reputation and livelihood were bound up with the theory could turn against it. On the other hand, the leaders of the creationist movement usually have made a name for themselves in some area of fundamental and applied science -- real science -- before moving into creation science."
-Kouznetsov, in Dr. Carl Wieland, "Interview with Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov," Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 36.

I edited this to put a space between each quote.