Jump to content


Photo

Famous Scientists - Creationists


  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

#1 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 22 February 2005 - 11:36 AM

Great Scientists Who Were Also Creationists
http://www.innercite.../cs/pog_a.shtml

by Timothy R. Stout

Abstract: Many major fields of science were founded by Bible-believing Christians. A number of these are listed and discussed. Newton, Faraday, Kelvin, and Maxwell, who are among the greatest physicists in history, were all Bible-believing Christians.

This is Appendix A of a book. For the complete Index: Enter Revised March 17, 1997

Many of the major fields of science were founded by Christians. This information was taken from the book Men of Science, Men of God by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

1. Johann Kepler (1571-1630) was the founder of physical astronomy. Kepler wrote "Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.

2. Robert Boyle (1627-1691) is credited with being the father of modern chemistry. He also was active in financially supporting the spread of Christianity through missions and Bible translations.

3. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was one of the greatest early mathematicians, laid the foundations for hydrostatics, hydrodynamics, differential calculus, and the theory of probability. To him is attributed the famous Wager of Pascal, paraphrased as follows: "How can anyone lose who chooses to be a Christian? If, when he dies, there turns out to be no God and his faith was in vain, he has lost nothing--in fact, has been happier in life than his nonbelieving friends. If, however, there is a God and a heaven and hell, then he has gained heaven and his skeptical friends will have lost everything in hell!"

4. John Ray (1627-1705) was the father of English natural history, considered the greatest zoologist and botanist of his day. He also wrote a book, "The wisdom of God Manifested In The Works of Creation."

5. Nicolaus Steno (1631-1686) was the father of Stratigraphy. He believed that fossils were laid down in the strata as a result of the flood of Noah. He also wrote many theological works and late in his life took up religious orders.

6. William Petty (1623-1687) helped found the science of statistics and the modern study of economics. He was an active defender of the Christian faith and wrote many papers sharing evidence of God's design in nature.

7. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) invented calculus, discovered the law of gravity and the three laws of motion, anticipated the law of energy conservation, developed the particle theory of light propagation, and invented the reflecting telescope. He firmly believed in Jesus Christ as his Savior and the Bible as God's word, and wrote many books on these topics.

8. Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) was the father of biological taxonomy. His system of classification is still in use today. One of his main goals in systematizing the varieties of living creatures was an attempt to delineate the original Genesis "kinds." He firmly believed in the Genesis account as literal history.

9. Michael Faraday (1791-1867) was one of the greatest physicists of all time, developed foundational concepts in electricity and magnetism, invented the electrical generator, and made many contributions to the field of chemistry. He was active in the various ministries of his church, both private and public, and had an abiding faith in the Bible and in prayer.

10. Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) was the founder of the science of comparative anatomy and one of the chief architects of paleontology as a separate scientific discipline. He was a firm creationist, participating in some of the important creation/evolution debates of his time.

11. Charles Babbage (1792-1871) was the founder of computer science. He developed information storage and retrieval systems, and used punched cards for instruction sets and data sets in automated industrial controls. He was also a Christian with strong convictions and wrote an important book defending the Bible and miracles.

12. John Dalton (1766-1844) was the father of atomic theory, which revolutionized chemistry. He was an orthodox, Bible-believing Christian.

13. Matthew Maury (1806-1873) was the founder of oceanography. He believed that when Psalm 8:8 in the Bible talked about "paths in the seas," that there must therefore be paths in the seas. He dedicated his life to charting the winds and currents of the Atlantic and was able to confirm that the sea did indeed have paths, just as spoken of in the Bible.

14. James Simpson (1811-1879) discovered chloroform and laid the foundation for anesthesiology. He said his motivation to perform the research leading to this discovery was a fascination in the book of Genesis with Adam's deep sleep during the time in which Eve was fashioned from his side. He said his biggest discovery was finding Jesus Christ as Savior.

15. James Joule (1818-1889) discovered the mechanical equivalent of heat, laying the foundation for the field of thermodynamics. Joule also had a strong Christian faith.

16. Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) was the father of glacial geology and a great paleontologist. He believed in God and in His special creation of every kind of organism. When Darwin's Origin began to gain favor, Agassiz spoke out strongly against it.

17. Gregory Mendel (1822-1884) was the father of genetics. He had strong religious convictions and chose the life of a monk. He was a creationist and rejected Darwins's ideas, even though he was familiar with them.

18. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was the father of bacteriology. He established the germ theory of disease. His persistent objections to the theory of spontaneous generation and to Darwinism made him unpopular with the scientific establishment of his day. He was a Christian with extremely strong religious convictions.

19. William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) is considered one of the all-time great physicists. He established thermodynamics on a formal scientific basis, providing a precise statement of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Lord Kelvin was a strong Christian, opposing both Lyellian uniformitarianism and Darwinian evolution. In 1903, shortly before his death, he made the unequivocal statement that, "With regard to the origin of life, science...positively affirms creative power."

20. Joseph Lister (1827-1912) founded antiseptic surgical methods. Lister's contributions have probably led to more lives being saved through modern medicine than the contributions of any one else except Pasteur. Like Pasteur, Lister was also a Christian and wrote, "I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity."

21. Joseph Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) developed a comprehensive theoretical and mathematical framework for electromagnetic field theory. Einstein called Maxwell's contributions "the most profound and most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton." Maxwell rejected the theory of evolution and wrote that God's command to man to subdue the earth, found in the first chapter of the book of Genesis in the Bible, provided the personal motivation to him for pursuing his scientific work. He acknowledged a personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

22. Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) developed the concept of non-Euclidian geometry, which was used by Einstein in his development of the theory of relativity. Riemann was also a Christian and had hoped to go into the ministry until he got sidetracked by his interest in mathematics. He apparently made several efforts to prove the validity of the book of Genesis using mathematical principles.

23. Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817-1901) was a chemist who developed the use of nitrogen and superphosphate fertilizers for farm crops and co-developed the world's first agricultural experimental station. He thus laid the foundations for the advances in agricultural science which have provided the means for farmers to feed the large populations in the world today. Gilbert is yet another scientist with a strong faith and demonstrated this by signing the Scientist's Declaration, in which he affirmed his faith in the Bible as the Word of God and expressed his disbelief in and opposition to Darwin's theories.

24. Thomas Anderson (1819-1874) was one of the initial workers in the field of organic chemistry, discovering pyridine and other organic bases. Like Gilbert, he also signed the Scientist's Declaration, in which he affirmed his faith in the scientific accuracy of the Bible and the validity of the Christian faith.

25. William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939) was among the greatest of all archeologists. He acquired "liberal" theological beliefs during his days as a university student. However, as he began to make various archaeological discoveries in Asia Minor, he began to see that archaeology confirmed the accuracy of the Bible and as a result he became converted to Christianity.

26. John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945) was the inventor of the Fleming valve which provided the foundation for subsequent advances in electronics. He studied under Maxwell, was a consultant to Thomas Edison, and also for Marconi. He also had very strong Christian beliefs and acted on those beliefs by helping found an organization called the "Evolution Protest Movement." He wrote a major book against the theory of evolution.

27. Werner Von Braun (1912-1977) was the father of space science. He wrote, ."..the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

28. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), formulator of the theory of relativity, which is one of the single greatest intellectual accomplishments in the history of man. Einstein was Jewish and thus did not follow in the Christian tradition of Newton or Faraday. He did not believe in a personal God, such as is revealed even in the Jewish Bible. Yet, he was overwhelmed by the order and organization of the universe and believed this demonstrated that there was a Creator.
------------------------------------------------------------

So, many if not most of the major branches of science were founded by Bible-believing Christians. As a physicist I also find it intriguing that the five greatest physicists in history--Newton, Faraday, Thompson, Maxwell, and Einstein--were each outspoken in their belief that the universe was placed here by a Creator. Furthermore, four of the five were staunch Christians with firm convictions that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God.

#2 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2005 - 12:53 PM

Naming scientists is again irrelevent, some find reconfort by thinking that there are scientists having their position. But in this domain, everyones word is as worthy, because it is a personal matter.

Again I repeat, it is not important what others believe in, but what you believe in. You believe that a god exist, fine, but don't expect supporting your points by naming scientists. And besides, Einstein was a Pantheist, not a theist.

There are enough universes to satify anyone.

#3 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 22 February 2005 - 01:11 PM

QB, I posted it for reference. And I don't see why are you calling it irrelevant. If you want it to be irrelevant, you may disregard it. If I were to use it as a supporting argument I would have posted it long ago.

Hope you don't find it discomforting. Also, I find it strange that a person like you undermines an important and irraplaceable scientific tool and method as "the reference".

I didn't see the article mentioning that Einstain was a Theist. So, your correction is irrelevant.

#4 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 22 February 2005 - 01:17 PM

QUOTE (QueBeceR @ Feb 22 2005, 12:53 PM)
There are enough universes to satify anyone.


But essecially, they make one big universe anyway.

#5 Arvestaked

Arvestaked

    Aspiring Memetic Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Location:Cacapoopoopeepeeshire

Posted 22 February 2005 - 01:32 PM

Pascal was a genius but "The Wager" was absolute trash. I was fooled for about two minutes at the age of sixteen.

#6 Sip

Sip

    Buffet Connoisseur

  • Moderator
  • 8,365 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Online

Posted 22 February 2005 - 03:56 PM

Is there a greater oxymoron than a god believing scientist?

#7 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 22 February 2005 - 04:00 PM

I think that it is time for the Nobel Prize commitee to declare that all these people were not scientists.

#8 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2005 - 04:17 PM

QUOTE (Armen @ Feb 22 2005, 02:11 PM)
QB, I posted it for reference. And I don't see why are you calling it irrelevant. If you want it to be irrelevant, you may disregard it.  If I were to use it as a supporting argument I would have posted it long ago.

Hope you don't find it discomforting. Also, I find it strange that a person like you undermines an important and irraplaceable scientific tool and method as "the reference".

I didn't see the article mentioning that Einstain was a Theist. So, your correction is irrelevant.


Armen, when someone writes a historic paper, witnesses are references, other historians are references, when one writes a scientific paper, other scientists are references.

In what concerns a god, a lay man word is as worthy as a scientist word, Mr. Bob is as right as Mr. Einstein.

Edited by QueBeceR, 22 February 2005 - 04:19 PM.


#9 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2005 - 04:18 PM

QUOTE (Sip @ Feb 22 2005, 04:56 PM)
Is there a greater oxymoron than a god believing scientist?


I guess you're refering to my "true scientist" meaning.

I think a real scientist is either an agnostic or a Fadixist smile.gif

Theism and atheism have no place in science, pantheism can be OK though.

#10 Sasun

Sasun

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ, USA
  • Interests:Art, Yoga, Spirituality

Posted 22 February 2005 - 04:35 PM

QUOTE (Sip @ Feb 22 2005, 04:56 PM)
Is there a greater oxymoron than a god believing scientist?

Thus you trashed the whole list of scientists provided by Armen. Nobel prize would not be sufficient to reward such a fit wink.gif

#11 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 22 February 2005 - 04:36 PM

QUOTE (QueBeceR @ Feb 22 2005, 04:17 PM)
Armen, when someone writes a historic paper, witnesses are references, other historians are references, when one writes a scientific paper, other scientists are references.

In what concerns a god, a lay man word is as worthy as a scientist word, Mr. Bob is as right as Mr. Einstein.


QB, that's a folk wisdom. You have the right to appreciate what Einstein said about science and undermine what he said about faith. For me that shows that you sellect whatever suits your goals.

Maybe people realy thought that lay man's words about God are worthy, that's is why there is the institution of Church there.

I don't think the words of people who reference Big Bang theory are worth anything.

#12 Arvestaked

Arvestaked

    Aspiring Memetic Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Location:Cacapoopoopeepeeshire

Posted 22 February 2005 - 04:54 PM

QUOTE (Armen @ Feb 22 2005, 02:36 PM)
QB, that's a folk wisdom. You have the right to appreciate what Einstein said about science and undermine what he said about faith. For me that shows that you sellect whatever suits your goals.



That is nonsense. This suggests that everything is black and white. It suggests that all people are either entirely good or entirely bad. It suggests that a person is either perfect or completely flawed. How can you say such a thing? Because he received a Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect I have to accept everything Einstein? Not a chance. That is absurd.

#13 Sasun

Sasun

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ, USA
  • Interests:Art, Yoga, Spirituality

Posted 22 February 2005 - 05:31 PM

QUOTE (Arvestaked @ Feb 22 2005, 05:54 PM)
That is nonsense. This suggests that everything is black and white. It suggests that all people are either entirely good or entirely bad. It suggests that a person is either perfect or completely flawed. How can you say such a thing? Because he received a Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect I have to accept everything Einstein? Not a chance. That is absurd.

If a scientist does not find a scientific contradiction between a certain notion of God and the laws of the physical universe, a layman like you can't use the name "science" as an argument against God's existence or whatever nonsense you and other "scientific" types in the forum have been talking about. Of course you don't have to accept anything that Einstein and those other misguided scienists were thinking of God. This right of yours is guaranteed by the constitution. But in my eyes a scientist's thoughts bear much more weight than a dogmatic arvestaket's empty talk.

#14 Arvestaked

Arvestaked

    Aspiring Memetic Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Location:Cacapoopoopeepeeshire

Posted 22 February 2005 - 05:53 PM

QUOTE (Sasun @ Feb 22 2005, 03:31 PM)
If a scientist does not find a scientific contradiction between a certain notion of God and the laws of the physical universe, a layman like you can't use the name "science" as an argument against God's existence or whatever nonsense you and other "scientific" types in the forum have been talking about. Of course you don't have to accept anything that Einstein and those other misguided scienists were thinking of God. This right of yours is guaranteed by the constitution. But in my eyes a scientist's thoughts bear much more weight than a dogmatic arvestaket's empty talk.



First of all I defy you to find an example of my using science as opposed to logic to illustrate the lack of worth in religion. You are making stuff up and it is very annoying.

Secondly, the opinion of all of those scientists are more important to you because you believe the same thing. But what about the countless scientists who did or do not believe in a god? What of them? Are their opinions less important? Less credible? The thoughts of some 19th century oceanographer about the nature of the universe are not more credible than my own. Logic is logic. Anyone can use it and anyone can ignore it. The fact is that a god can always be attributed to what is not known and what constitutes a god is relative. For that reason, regardless of one's scientific background, if he wants to call something a god nothing can stop him, especially if he sees no value in Occam's Razor or logic in general, when it comes to that subject.

None of my talk has been empty or dogmatic.

Seriously, go away.

Edited by Arvestaked, 22 February 2005 - 05:55 PM.


#15 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2005 - 06:09 PM

QUOTE (Armen @ Feb 22 2005, 05:36 PM)
QB, that's a folk wisdom. You have the right to appreciate what Einstein said about science and undermine what he said about faith. For me that shows that you sellect whatever suits your goals.

Maybe people realy thought that lay man's words about God are worthy, that's is why there is the institution of Church there.

I don't think the words of people who reference Big Bang theory are worth anything.


First of all, as I have stated, Einstein was more a Pantheist, the only times he used the term god, it was to refer to the laws of nature... his position about a god was the one of Spinoza as he himself wrote... so the claim that Einstein believed a classic god is simply untrue.

And I repeat again, god is something personal for everyone, it is not Quantum mechanic, it is not thermodynamic... naming scientists doesn't support or "disprove" the existance of a god. You believe in a god, it exist in your universe, Solaris does not believe in a god, god des not exist in her universe, there is a universe for everyone, your universe is not the same as Einsteins universe, in his a god may or may have not existed, this doesn't mean in yours it does not.

#16 Sasun

Sasun

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ, USA
  • Interests:Art, Yoga, Spirituality

Posted 22 February 2005 - 06:34 PM

QUOTE (Arvestaked @ Feb 22 2005, 06:53 PM)
First of all I defy you to find an example of my using science as opposed to logic to illustrate the lack of worth in religion. You are making stuff up and it is very annoying.

Your attitude to religion is based on your misguided emotions about what seems to be negative about religions. And you use words like "science", "logic" while you only have a superficial understanding of those. You cannot think outside of the box of your own creation. Your answers are often "no, you are wrong" type, cynical and without substantiation. Well, if hearing such things annoys you then you are free not to answer to me, as simple as that.
QUOTE
Secondly, the opinion of all of those scientists are more important to you because you believe the same thing. But what about the countless scientists who did or do not believe in a god? What of them? Are their opinions less important? Less credible? The thoughts of some 19th century oceanographer about the nature of the universe are not more credible than my own. Logic is logic. Anyone can use it and anyone can ignore it. The fact is that a god can always be attributed to what is not known and what constitutes a god is relative. For that reason, regardless of one's scientific background, if he wants to call something a god nothing can stop him, especially if he sees no value in Occam's Razor or logic in general, when it comes to that subject.

Your argument does not support your earlier view. You were saying that Einstein and others could be right on some things and wrong on matters concerning God. It only shows your superficial understanding of God.
Your idea that creationism cannot be a valid explanation shows an "intellectual" bigotry and lack of depth. Einstein, for instance, did not find flaws with the idea that this universe with its intelligent and perfect laws probably has an intelligent designer. However, a certain unknown individual such as you without any sort of scientific credibility makes loud statements that creationism is an entirely flawed idea. This is ignorance and bigotry.

And as far as other scientists are concerned who didn't believe in God, they nevertheless did not have any scientific works proving that their disbelief is substantiated with any research. If you are going to say "no, you are wrong" you can save it for a proper audience. Here you will have to actually substantiate in order to be right.

The fact remains that neither God's existence nor its non-existence have been proven scientifically, and both positions can be held by scientists. Science and moreover logic cannot be used against the existence of God.
QUOTE
None of my talk has been empty or dogmatic.

Hmm... saying it does not mean anything. You have proved to be lacking knowledge and dogmatic.
QUOTE
Seriously, go away.

Oh, really? Are you serious? ohmy.gif

#17 Arvestaked

Arvestaked

    Aspiring Memetic Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Location:Cacapoopoopeepeeshire

Posted 22 February 2005 - 06:46 PM

Wow. Worst post ever. To reply would be a waste of time. Go away.

#18 Sasun

Sasun

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ, USA
  • Interests:Art, Yoga, Spirituality

Posted 22 February 2005 - 06:52 PM

QUOTE (Arvestaked @ Feb 22 2005, 07:46 PM)
Wow. Worst post ever. To reply would be a waste of time. Go away.

It would be good to have some integrity and modesty to acknowledge your limits. What is the point of telling me to "go away". Do you really think I will go away? Ridiculous.

#19 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2005 - 07:12 PM

I do agree that it is the worst post ever.

Sasun, your arguments are even not arguments to even try to answer them.

Oh and, from when on in science somethings non-existance should be demonstrated? This sort of falacy I only expected from mouse and Dan, stop shouting the word knowledge when it does not apply.

#20 armjan

armjan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 22 February 2005 - 09:05 PM

"I do agree that it is the worst post ever."
-why?

"Sasun, your arguments are even not arguments to even try to answer them."
-have you noticed consistency/coherence/sound arguments in great abundance elsewhere. where? the man works with what he's dealt with. if ur dealt a bad hand, what more can u do to change it?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users