December 19, 2010
-
book reviews
Here are some recently read books with a short blurb/synopsis, in case you might be interested in reading them too. My previous set of reviews was September 12, 2009 if you want to read more (use the "Posting Calendar" link at the lower left side of this page).
- Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 1, by Michael Brown - great book... addresses a lot of "I couldn't possibly consider Jesus my Messiah, because I'm Jewish, my whole family is Jewish, etc" and "Didn't Christians persecute the Jews for thousands of years?" type questions. There are an amazing amount of carefully cited references... great resource! There are three more volumes... I look forward to reading them...
- Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by John Sanford - Excellent book. Thanks to Rich for giving it to me! The gist is that random mutations are slowly destroying the human genome, little by little, inexorably, and neodarwinian evolution (natural selection + random mutation) is not only unable to create new genetic information, but unable even to maintain our current genome. This implies that our genome was originally created essentially perfect by an Intelligent Designer, some thousands of years ago. The book needs some editing to make it a little less redundant, and the pictures are a little corny (sometimes he seems to be aiming for a lay audience, and sometimes for a scientific audience), but overall the points he makes are excellent.
- The Future of Justification, a response to N.T.Wright - by John Piper - great book... closely written theological rebuttal to NT Wright's New Perspective on Paul. Piper does a good job of showing why justification is God's "forensic"/legal "writing us down NOW as if we're innocent", and how this individual forgiveness-of-sins is the heart of the gospel. (as opposed to the NPP heresy, which teaches (similar to the RCC) that justification is God's eschatological pronouncement at the end of time that we are "in the covenant community", based on the good works that we've done during our lives through His enabling(/"infusing") power).
- Overcoming Sin and Temptation - by John Owen (new edition by Kelly Kapic/Justin Taylor) - Excellent book! Deep reading, difficult old english, but great thoughts on putting to death sin by the power of the Holy Spirit. Overall summary: (1) It is extremely important to be putting sin to death in our lives... "be killing sin or it will be killing you". (2) the ONLY way to kill it is by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by accountability partners, or more Bible reading, or setting rules for oneself, or telling oneself "I'm better than that", or self denial or self-flagellation, or any other type of human-power-based approach to attempting to make oneself more righteous.
- Evolution: greatest hoax on earth - by Jonathan Safarti - All of Safarti's books are worth reading. This one dissects Richard Dawkins' latest book "Evolution: the greatest show on earth" which claims to present the most powerful and up-to-date evidence in favor of evolution. Safarti's book carefully goes through Dawkins' claims and dispassionately blows each one out of the water. It is a "polemical" book, but a rational, evenhanded polemic overall.
- Head, Heart, and Hands - by Dennis Hollinger - Thanks to Tom for lending me this book. Hollinger makes the point that some Christians are wired to be more "head" (intellectual)-oriented, others "heart" (emotional)-oriented, and others "hands" (practical, gift of helps, social-justice/soup-kitchens/etc)-oriented. He makes the point that all aspects are necessary, and we need to understand our own selves and be willing to grow in the other two areas.
- The Edge of Evolution - by Michael Behe (a RCC biology prof who believes in common-descent of man and apes, and in an old earth, but not that darwinian evolution can explain all of it) - fascinating in-depth look at what (darwinian) evolution can and can't do, using the specific examples of malaria and sickle-cell anemia resistance to malaria. Pro: Behe is an expert on this subject, and also tries to make it accessible... he well demonstrates his point that evolution can make small destructive changes to genetic information that sometimes confer "resistance" to a particular disease, but it cannot cross the multiple-improbable-step gap to create new biological features and innovations and genetic information. It's a little difficult to get through all the biology - I made it about halfway and then stopped for a while.
- Signature in the Cell, by Stephen Meyer - great book! It's basically about how evolution has no plausible way to create novel genetic information (in our DNA). Meyer reviews all the theories and shows how they don't work (and contradict each other). The only reasonable explanation is intelligent design... The only downside to this book is that it's so long! If it could be shortened, it would be better.
What interesting books have you been reading lately?
Comments (11)
These books (the anti-evolution ones) are very dishonest. The claim that genetic mutations are never positive and that genetic mutations only remove DNA etc are literally just lies that any biologist worth his salt knows aren't true. Genetic mutations (gene copying errors) add, remove and modify DNA, and often effect non-coding DNA, or random "junk" DNA that doesn't do anything, of which we have a lot. While it is true that our genome is accumulating genetic defects, that is only something happening in OUR genome. It does not happen in nature. The reason is that humans are to a large degree exempt from natural selection because we care for our sickest and weakest members, while in nature the chronic conditions humans live with easily would never survive. Things like diabetes occur in other animals, but are pretty much universally found in domesticated animals, because a diabetic cheetah would never survive. It would start chasing an animal, it's blood sugar level would drop and it would get woozy, the animal would get away and the cheetah would starve, removing the defect from the population.
Here is a good video about this "all genetic mutations are harmful" nonsense, only it's debunking a muslim creationist making the same claim. is a blog I wrote about micheal behe's fraudulent argument of irreducible complexity, which was debunked a long time ago.
The reason behe and one or two other people are the only biologists you ever see promoting this stuff is that there are only a handful of biologists that are willing to. There are hundreds of historians that maintain that the holocaust never happened.
And if you examine these peoples' credentials, meyers has a fake degree not even related to biology that he got from his church, not from any university. The ICR (his organization) just tried to print it's own master of science degrees and hand them out to creationists, an they got shut down by accreditation officials for printing illegitimate credentials, then they sued them in response and lost. This is the organization you're getting your science from. One which acts like an authority when they're really promoting things known not to be true. Like the muslim creationist chick wearing a white lab coat and acting like an expert, while saying things which are patently false. The DI and IRC claim things to be impossible that have been known to be a common everyday fact of biology for decades.
A biologist claiming there's no way genetic mutations can add new genetic information (google gene duplication) is like a physicist claiming there's no way gravity can make you fall in the shower. It's absolutely insane.
I'm not attacking you, but these guys are sleazy and dishonest and you should know this.
That being said, evolution does not and has never meant that there is no god. It doesn't even touch on the subject. If life was created, then evolution is part of that creation, because it's a part of life. Just as if we were created, then allergies are a part of creation because we have them.
Feel free to throw anti-evolution arguments and claims at me. I will try to correct any bad science you've been exposed to, but please actually be willing to listen.
@agnophilo - Hi Mark,
Actually, none of these books claim that "genetic mutations are never positive" or that "genetic mutations only remove DNA". And after watching the first minute of your youtube video it started debunking a straw-main claim that "mutations are rare", after which I didn't bother to watch any more. All of the books I cited delve into the actual details of genetics and mutations. In fact, that is precisely what Sanford's and Behe's books are about. They cite the latest in peer-reviewed biological research. Before dismissing biology professors at Cornell and Lehigh as liars "not worth their salt" and their books as "dishonest", you should read them first.
@tim223 -
"Hi Mark,
Actually, none of these books claim that "genetic mutations are never positive" or that "genetic mutations only remove DNA"."
Um, yeah they do. To quote you:
"Pro: Behe is an expert on this subject, and also tries to make it accessible... he well demonstrates his point that evolution can make small destructive changes to genetic information that sometimes confer "resistance" to a particular disease, but it cannot cross the multiple-improbable-step gap to create new biological features and innovations and genetic information."
"It's basically about how evolution has no plausible way to create novel genetic information (in our DNA)."
"The gist is that random mutations are slowly destroying the human genome, little by little, inexorably, and neodarwinian evolution (natural selection + random mutation) is not only unable to create new genetic information, but unable even to maintain our current genome. This implies that our genome was originally created essentially perfect by an Intelligent Designer, some thousands of years ago."
Mutations only remove DNA or destroy function and cannot add new features. These are many of the false claims on which anti-evolution arguments are made.
"And after watching the first minute of your youtube video it started debunking a straw-main claim that "mutations are rare", after which I didn't bother to watch any more."
Plugging up your ears and refusing to listen to the evidence is not a counter-argument. You read half a dozen anti-evolution books, then won't even listen to 1/10th of a short video debunking this nonsense. And the less than a minute you did listen to was mostly the creationist video it was responding to. So in actuality you're willing to read half a dozen anti-science books and listen to less than thirty seconds of actual science information that contradicts your views.
Not very impressive.
"All of the books I cited delve into the actual details of genetics and mutations."
They have to in order to misrepresent them. You didn't bother actually checking out the authors, did you? Genetics is one of the most complex subjects in science, I think it takes something like 6-8 years to get a PhD in genetics. But it takes much less effort to get a PhD in Near Eastern Languages in Literature like your first author, a pastoral degree in "Religion and Personality" like your second author, A PhD in chemestry, like your next author who attacks science, and a degree in physics and earth science like your last author. Behe is the only person on your list actually qualified to talk about biology and his ideas have been debunked as pseudoscience for years.
"In fact, that is precisely what Sanford's and Behe's books are about. They cite the latest in peer-reviewed biological research. Before dismissing biology professors at Cornell and Lehigh as liars "not worth their salt" and their books as "dishonest", you should read them first."
Um, you dismiss... basically every other biologist on the planet.
Look, I actually dealt with the content of these peoples' books. You are arguing from authority and "I refuse to watch your video therefore it's wrong".
And by the way here:
http://agnophilo.xanga.com/728670894/evolution-and-irreducible-complexity/
is a blog I did ages ago which debunks Irreducible Complexity step by step (the only argument from anyone on your list qualified to challenge the actual science). Feel free to click the link, object to the wording of a fragment of one sentence, and use it as an excuse to ignore the rest of the blog. You probably will anyway.
@agnophilo - thanks Mark. I read Matzke's article and Dembski's response ( http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.11.Matzke_Response.htm ) and some of the other internet responses on both sides, and it's quite interesting. I don't think your/Matzke's post "debunks" Behe's arguments, but it is definitely a step in the right direction toward postulating a plausible neodarwinian sequence.
I am interested in how you personally detect intelligent design in everyday life. For example, if you find a note written on a scrap of paper or a face carved in a mountainside (Mt Rushmore) or a set of large stones arranged in a circle (Stonehenge), presumably you would attribute the artifacts to intelligent design rather than continuously searching for a random or deterministic non-ID explanation. But what, I wonder, would be the process that you would use to rule out randomness or necessity, to infer design? Is it not possible that chance processes COULD HAVE created such artifacts? Is not an ID inference thus a "intelligent-designer-of-the-gaps" hypothesis?
@tim223 -
"thanks Mark. I read Matzke's article and Dembski's response ( http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.11.Matzke_Response.htm ) and some of the other internet responses on both sides, and it's quite interesting."
Dembski has no scientific credentials or education to speak of and is not even qualified to understand, let alone refute that article. Which is why he doesn't even really bother, he fills his rebuttal up with nonsense like this:
"For starters, let's do some simple bookkeeping. My print-out of Matzke's essay weighs in at 58 pages single-spaced. Of these, 13 pages are devoted to references. Another 14 pages are devoted to figures. That leaves 32 pages for his actual argument. Of these, 3 pages are devoted to concluding remarks reviewing and plugging his model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. In addition, the first 10 pages of the essay are stage-setting, describing past research that attempts to get a handle on the flagellum and its origin. Thus only 20 pages of the article are in fact devoted to Matzke's actual model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum."
Dembski's rebuttal is less than two pages long, by the way, and he's saying that the article he's attacking is not legitimate because it's 15 times the length of his rebuttal and focuses only on the science. He actually criticizes matzke's article for having too many sources, while dembski's rebuttal doesn't cite a single source for any claim. I mean you have to cite sources for your claims in highschool.
Dembski also makes various things up, like assuming the existence of homologous structures, when many if not most of the transitional forms are actual structures in cells. Dembski skipped over most of the article, didn't understand the rest, and is just fabricating evidence.
"I don't think your/Matzke's post "debunks" Behe's arguments, but it is definitely a step in the right direction toward postulating a plausible neodarwinian sequence."
You don't understand, the claim of irreducible complexity is that certain mechanisms cannot have possibly evolved because if you take one part away the whole thing stops working. Behe gave the flagellum as an example of this, but didn't bother to even try to deconstruct it before writing a book and making a lot of money off of creationists. In other words he didn't actually do any science, he just made something up and skipped the steps of making predictions, performing experiments to test them, submitting your results for peer review. He (very dishonestly) skipped straight from "have an idea" to "publish it as fact for laymen who don't know enough about biology to refute it". Remember the claim of irreducible complexity is that you can't take even one part away from the flagellum and it still work. You can take almost ALL of the parts away and it still works, it's function has just been modified. Irreducible complexity is false, and disproven. And if you read my blog you also know that something being irreducibly complex would not even logically mean it didn't evolve.
"I am interested in how you personally detect intelligent design in everyday life. For example, if you find a note written on a scrap of paper or a face carved in a mountainside (Mt Rushmore) or a set of large stones arranged in a circle (Stonehenge), presumably you would attribute the artifacts to intelligent design rather than continuously searching for a random or deterministic non-ID explanation."
I would attribute these things to human activity because I know through firshand experience that humans make paper, write on it, carve faces out of stone etc. And stonehenge I would look for a naturalistic explanation for, and if I couldn't find one I would yes, conclude that it was built by intelligent people (again human in that case). If you think some things in life or physics indicate intelligence you're welcome to that opinion. What is repugnant about the ID/creationism movement is not that they think there is a god, they're welcome to believe whatever they want. It's that they lie and claim that this view is scientific, when you can't test for god. Irreducible complexity isn't even an argument that there is a god, it's an argument that evolution is false with a silent "therefore our religion is correct" tacked onto the end. Which if you know anything about logic is called an argument from ignorance. A man who doesn't understand how lightning works believes in zeus or thor, a man who doesn't understand how cell biology, evolution or quantum physics works believes in yahweh or allah. Not understanding how something happened does not mean your preferred assumption is therefore proven.
You can believe god created life all you want, but until you can experimentally verify it in a way that has the potential to falsify the hypothesis, it isn't science. It's pseudoscience.
"But what, I wonder, would be the process that you would use to rule out randomness or necessity, to infer design? Is it not possible that chance processes COULD HAVE created such artifacts? Is not an ID inference thus a "intelligent-designer-of-the-gaps" hypothesis?"
It's worth mentioning that "randomness" is a mischaracterization of evolution creationists love to use. Selection is by definition non-random. Random would be if polar bears evolved in the desert and birds evolved under water etc. And that would be ridiculous. Which is why creationists try to give people that false impression (and many others).
And as I said in my blog, the "science" arguments in the ID arsenal are just re-stating the watchmaker theological argument as if it were science. That argument, if you didn't know, was refuted a long time ago, by pointing out that we know by experience that watches are built by people, but we do not know by experience that universes or life is created by god. If we could tour god's life factory or universe factory everyone would accept it. The fact is we can tour watch factories and soda can factories and watch buildings be constructed and watch paintings be painted, so the "if a watch needs a watchmaker and a bulding needs a builder, painting/painter" etc arguments are bogus. They try to prove things we do not know to be true by comparing them to things we know to be true, in ways not available when it comes to what they are trying to prove.
Here is a lecture by ken miller, a christian cell biologist and author of "finding darwin's god". The lecture begins with a prayer by a priest who also happens to be a physicist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
If you want to know the take from the big boys with the actual PhDs.
Mark, thanks for your thoughts in reply.
@tim223 -
You're welcome.
And so you know I'm not trying to "convert" you or anything. I don't believe in any deity, but not because of science - whether there is a god is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
I just hate dishonesty, and creationist websites lie worse than any politician I've ever seen when it comes to science.
You should really watch that video, you would get a lot out of it I think. It's long, but if you're willing to read half a dozen anti-evolution books, you might want to watch at least one anti-ID video (and from a christian scientist).
@agnophilo -
Thanks Mark. I also hate dishonesty.
If I spend an hour and a half to watch the Ken Miller video, would you be willing to spend an hour and a half to watch some intelligent-design or creationist video that I could find for you, or reading some articles that rebut Ken Miller's points?
@tim223 -
I've researched the ID side very well. And would this refutation of ken miller's points be from an actual biologist? To give you an idea of how sparce "creation scientists" are, here's a list of them from AiG:
* Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
* Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
* Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
* Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. William F. Kane, (Civil) Geotechnical Engineering
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Physical Chemistry
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geology
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Dr. Stephen J. Vinay III, Chemical Engineering
* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
* Dr. Tas Walker, Geology/Engineering
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Carl Wieland, Medicine/Surgery
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
This is all they could come up with out of almost half a million scientists in the US.
Newsweek did a poll some years back asking earth and life scientists if they gave any credence to "creation science", and 99.85% said none whatsoever. Gallup did another poll asking how many scientists (of all fields, not just those which study life) believe that god created humans as-is and it had nothing to do with evolution - and 5% said they did. Compared with about 45% of the general population.
The idea that these beliefs have some kind of growing scientific consensus is just not the case.
Comments are closed.