Behe Jumps the Shark [response to Michael Behe's NYTimes op-ed, "Design for Living"]

Butterflies and Wheels (reprinted from pharyngula.org) ^ | February 7, 2005 | P. Z. Myers

[snarks_when_bored]

Behe Jumps the Shark

By P Z Myers

Nick Matzke has also commented on this, but the op-ed is so bad I can't resist piling on. From the very first sentence, Michael Behe's op-ed in today's NY Times is an exercise in unwarranted hubris.

In the wake of the recent lawsuits over the teaching of Darwinian evolution, there has been a rush to debate the merits of the rival theory of intelligent design.

And it's all downhill from there.

Intelligent Design creationism is not a "rival theory." It is an ad hoc pile of mush, and once again we catch a creationist using the term "theory" as if it means "wild-ass guess." I think a theory is an idea that integrates and explains a large body of observation, and is well supported by the evidence, not a random idea about untestable mechanisms which have not been seen. I suspect Behe knows this, too, and what he is doing is a conscious bait-and-switch. See here, where he asserts that there is evidence for ID:

Rather, the contemporary argument for intelligent design is based on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic. The argument for it consists of four linked claims.

This is where he first pulls the rug over the reader's eyes. He claims the Intelligent Design guess is based on physical evidence, and that he has four lines of argument; you'd expect him to then succinctly list the evidence, as was done in the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ on the talkorigins site. He doesn't. Not once in the entire op-ed does he give a single piece of this "physical evidence." Instead, we get four bald assertions, every one false.

The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature.

He then tells us that Mt Rushmore is designed, and the Rocky Mountains aren't. How is this an argument for anything? Nobody is denying that human beings design things, and that Mt Rushmore was carved with intelligent planning. Saying that Rushmore was designed does not help us resolve whether the frond of a fern is designed.

Which leads to the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. This is uncontroversial, too.

No, this is controversial, in the sense that Behe is claiming it while most biologists are denying it. Again, he does not present any evidence to back up his contention, but instead invokes two words: "Paley" and "machine."

The Reverend Paley, of course, is long dead and his argument equally deceased, thoroughly scuttled. I will give Behe credit that he only wants to turn the clock of science back to about 1850, rather than 1350, as his fellow creationists at the Discovery Institute seem to desire, but resurrecting Paley won't help him.

The rest of his argument consists of citing a number of instances of biologists using the word "machine" to refer to the workings of a cell. This is ludicrous; he's playing a game with words, assuming that everyone will automatically link the word "machine" to "design." But of course, Crick and Alberts and the other scientists who compared the mechanism of the cell to an intricate machine were making no presumption of design.

There is another sneaky bit of dishonesty here; Behe is trying to use the good names of Crick and Alberts to endorse his crackpot theory, when the creationists know full well that Crick did not believe in ID, and that Alberts has been vocal in his opposition.

So far, Behe's argument has been that "it's obvious!", accompanied by a little sleight of hand. It doesn't get any better.

The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence. Here is where thoughtful people part company. Darwinists assert that their theory can explain the appearance of design in life as the result of random mutation and natural selection acting over immense stretches of time. Some scientists, however, think the Darwinists' confidence is unjustified. They note that although natural selection can explain some aspects of biology, there are no research studies indicating that Darwinian processes can make molecular machines of the complexity we find in the cell.

Oh, so many creationists tropes in such a short paragraph.

Remember, this is supposed to be an outline of the evidence for Intelligent Design creationism. Declaring that evolutionary biology is "no good" is not evidence for his pet guess.

Similarly, declaring that some small minority of scientists, most of whom seem to be employed by creationist organizations like the Discovery Institute or the Creation Research Society or Answers in Genesis, does not make their ideas correct. Some small minority of historians also believe the Holocaust never happened; does that validate their denial? There are also people who call themselves physicists and engineers who promote perpetual motion machines. Credible historians, physicists, and engineers repudiate all of these people, just as credible biologists repudiate the fringe elements that babble about intelligent design.

The last bit of his claim is simply Behe's standard misrepresentation. For years, he's been going around telling people that he has analyzed the content of the Journal of Molecular Evolution and that they have never published anything on "detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures", and that the textbooks similarly lack any credible evidence for such processes. Both claims are false. A list of research studies that show exactly what he claims doesn't exist is easily found.

The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life. To evaluate this claim, it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization.

How does Behe get away with this?

How does this crap get published in the NY Times?

Look at what he is doing: he is simply declaring that there is no convincing explanation in biology that doesn't require intelligent design, therefore Intelligent Design creationism is true. But thousands of biologists think the large body of evidence in the scientific literature is convincing! Behe doesn't get to just wave his hands and have all the evidence for evolutionary biology magically disappear; he is trusting that his audience, lacking any knowledge of biology, will simply believe him.

After this resoundingly vacant series of non-explanations, Behe tops it all off with a cliche.

The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious.

Behe began this op-ed by telling us that he was going to give us the contemporary argument for Intelligent Design creationism, consisting of four linked claims. Here's a shorter Behe for you:

The evidence for Intelligent Design.

• It's obvious.
• It's obvious!
• Evolutionary explanations are no good.
• There aren't any good evolutionary explanations.

That's it.

That's pathetic.

And it's in the New York Times? Journalism has fallen on very hard times.

This article was first published on Pharyngula and appears here by permission.

[gobucks]

"But evolution is science by definition, because the process of deriving it was scientific."

I don't think the impact of Annie Darwin's death on Charles Darwin was part of the scientific process. I do think, however, that given Annie was 10 years old, and that Charles Darwin adored her at the time of her death, that Charles may have decided that hating God and writing him out of existence was easier than trying to make sense of the loss of a child.

[2ndreconmarine]

As I said, I don't expect to convince any die-hard Darwinists, so there's no point in being snide about it

What you "die-hard" creationists and IDists don't understand is that we can be anti ID and anti creationism without being "die hard" evolutionists.

At issue is that evolution is science and ID and creationism are not.

The reason is one of process, not of outcome. And the difference is understanding what science is and what it is not.

Unfortunately, you creationists do not have a working definition of science (see my earlier post). You incorrectly believe that because creationism and/or ID are plausible explanations, that makes them science.

Well, wrong.

And evolution isn't a "religion" for us either. (I happen to be Christian).

A more appropriate metaphor would be exasperation. It's as if we explained to someone that 2+2=4, and they come back and argue that 2+2=5. After arguing it a hundred times we simply get exasperated with ignorence.

[snarks_when_bored]

Ever notice that the astronomer's never have to celebrate 'Gravity Day' to get our attention? But, boy oh boy, these evo types... they are certainly animated about their beliefs.

A singularly ill-chosen example, my friend. I, myself, posted a FR thread celebrating the 100 year anniversary of Einstein's annus mirabilis of 1905:

Miraculous visions - 100 years of Einstein

It's not exactly 'Gravity Day', but it's close enough.

[2ndreconmarine]

that Charles may have decided that hating God and writing him out of existence was easier than trying to make sense of the loss of a child.

Oh, how silly.

One of the most ridiculous arguments is that evolution is anti-God.

In my opinion, ID and creationism are anti-God. Because:

Anything that diminishes God is anti-God. Creationism and ID dimish the true creation. They make it smaller and less wonderful.

My view of you and other creationists is, if you beg the presumption: When you go to Heaven (and I will stipulate that you are probably good people and will), God will say: "Welcome gobucks, you were a good person. However, that ID and creationism thing. Well, do you really think that was the best I could do???"

[gobucks]

Well, Feb 12th is almost over. Here's a tidbit for you:

"Can you believe it? Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were born on the exact same day, February 12, 1809, but their lives had completely different effects.

Lincoln is best known for freeing the slaves by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, affirming that all men are equal.

Darwin is best known for the theory of evolution, arguing that all men are not equal because some are more evolved.

Darwin's theory has been used by atheists to explain away belief in God, whereas the last act of Congress signed by Lincoln, before he was shot, was to place the phrase "In God We Trust" on all our national coin."

And, on NPR today, Scott Simon thoughtfully discussed with two historians the following: whether Lincoln was, really, Bisexual at the least, or not.

It really is 1984...and I'm going to go to sleep and wake up in 2005, and say over and over, it is NOT groundhog day...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[snarks_when_bored]

You're not taking a long enough view of things. I believe it was Richard Feynman who said that in 60,000 years, the only thing the 19th century will be remembered for are Maxwell's electromagnetism equations. Without incurring much additional risk of being mistaken, he could have added Darwin's theory of evolution by random variation and natural selection to his very short list.

[Cicero]

I'm not a creationist nor a fundamentalist. There is a distinct difference between creationism and intelligent design theory. I'm not really an intelligent design freak either, I just find their arguments interesting and probable. My problems with Darwin go back a good deal earlier.

I do certainly think the universe is billions of years old, and that geology demonstrates that the earth also is very old. I think there is such a thing as partial evolution, certainly intraspecies evolution. But general evolution just doesn't hold up.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Many computer programmers do commit irresponsible complexity.

[Doctor Stochastic]

And thats Frahnkensteen!

[LiteKeeper]

Thanks for the insight!

[LiteKeeper]

Isn't it interesting that the founders of "Modern Science" were, for the most part, creationists. You might want to check a little science history. And you also might want to research what ID scientists have really said, not what others to say about it. You might be surprised.

[2ndreconmarine]

Isn't it interesting that the founders of "Modern Science" were, for the most part, creationists. You might want to check a little science history. And you also might want to research what ID scientists have really said, not what others to say about it. You might be surprised

Really??

Einstein, Dirac, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Feynman, Weiskopf, Bethe, Bohr, Rutherford.... all creationists?

Well, goll...llly. I never knew that.

[jaime1959]

> Science isn't defined by outcome. It is defined by process. <

True, and part of that process is that your hypothesis has to be testable/repeatable. How do either Evolutionary Theory or ID (or the Big Bang Theory) meet that qualification? Seems to me they don't and we're talking about science-based conjecture and not science.

It also seems to me that we should distinguish between natural selection (which one can demonstrate by noting the development of anti-biotic resistant microbes) and the origen of species, which is unknowable and beyond the realm of science.

[Rudder]

...my problems with the current theories of evolution aren't that it conflicts with religion, but that it so often conflicts with good science.

Easy for you to say...but, if one reads carefully what you said...it makes no sense. How does evolution conflict with good science? How do trombones conflict with mollusks? We could go on...

[LiteKeeper]

Early

* Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method.
* Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
* Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
* John Wilkins (1614–1672)
* Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
* Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
* Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
* Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
* John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
* Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
* Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
* Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
* Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
* Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany

The Age of Newton

* Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997)
* Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
* John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
* William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
* Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
* John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
* John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
* William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
* John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
* Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
* Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
* Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
* Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
* William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
* James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
* John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
* John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)

Just Before Darwin

* The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson
* Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
* William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
* Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
* Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
* John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
* Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
* Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
* John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
* Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
* Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
* Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
* Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
* David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
* William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
* William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
* Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
* Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
* John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
* Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
* William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
* Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer

Just After Darwin

* Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
* Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
* Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
* James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
* Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
* Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist
* James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
* James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
* James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
* Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
* Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
* George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
* John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
* Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
* Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
* Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
* Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
* William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
* William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
* Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
* Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
* Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
* James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
* P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
* John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
* John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
* Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
* Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
* A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist
* John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve

The Modern Period

* Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist
* George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
* L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
* Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
* Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
* Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
* Dr Frank Marsh, Biology
* Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
* Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
* William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist
* William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
* Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
* Dr Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
* Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
* Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer

[LiteKeeper]

Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

* Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* 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 Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* 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 Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* 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 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
* Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* 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 Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
* 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 Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* 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
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Prof. John Lennox, Mathematics
* Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
* Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
* Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* 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 John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
* Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* 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 John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
* 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, Geologist/karstologist
* Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr Andrew Snelling , Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Prof. James Stark , Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* 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 Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* 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 Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
* 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

[Ichneumon]

Isn't it interesting that the founders of "Modern Science" were, for the most part, creationists.

Not really, no.

What *is* interesting, however, is that they made their contributions to science by laying aside whatever creationist views they may have had, and looking for how things could occur naturally. Kepler, for example, didn't try to "explain" planetary motion by saying, "the planets move as they do because God wants them to" -- he found the natural law by which they abide, and worked out the natural consequences of that law as it influences the natural motions of orbiting bodies.

It's also interesting to note that Newton, for example, was both a brilliant scientist and a zealously religious man. The work he did in science and math was without peer when he analyzed things based on their natural behavior and/or pure math aspects, and have greatly benefited mankind -- what is less well known is that he also devoted at least as many years of his time studying the Bible and writing his views of religion, and also dabbled in the mysticism of alchemy. And yet, despite his long efforts in these supernatural and mystical endeavors, he produced no breakthroughs of benefit to mankind, no "science of God", no "religious technology", or anything of lasting or even notable value.

Which of the areas of Newton's interest, then, was the one which was most fruitful, and how much greater would have been his contribution to mankind if he had spent *less* time frittering around on the others?

Was Newton a boon to science *because* he was a creationist -- or in spite of it?

[2ndreconmarine]

OK, let's just consider the modern period.

Your list:
The Modern Period

* Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist
* George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
* L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
* Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
* Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
* Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
* Dr Frank Marsh, Biology
* Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
* Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
* William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist
* William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
* Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
* Dr Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
* Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
* Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer

(Clearly, you have been spending some time putting this together).

Now, my list, off the top of my head:
Einstein
Dirac
Schroedinger
Heisenberg
Feynman
Weiskopf
Bethe
Bohr
Rutherford

See any difference??

OK, lets work through it.

First, If I spent some time, I could make a list much longer than yours.

Second, I don't recognize anyone on your list. They are not leading scientists. OTOH, I hope you recognize at least one or two from my list.

And yet, you seem to feel these are the poeple that created "modern science"??

You can pull lots of names with Ph.Ds. Well, there are hundreds of thousands of us. Of course, you can find a couple of hundred nut cases. But your notion that these people created "modern science" is a joke. Not one is a recognized leader. Or, at least I don't recognize any of them after reviewing your lists.

For all I know, they got their Ph.D.s from a mail order house.

BTW, where did you get your Ph.D???

[2ndreconmarine]

(or the Big Bang Theory) meet that qualification

Fair question.

A couple of points. There are other aspects to the definition of science. First, it must be an unbiased estimator. Second, the inference from a test must be an absolute minimum.

What is NOT an aspect of science is that it must be correct. The classical example is Newtons "laws" of motion; all of which are essentially untrue except in the limit of zero velocity.

The big bang theory clearly meets this standard. It is measurable from the Hubble law of expansion, which is consistent from simple geometry with an explosion. However, the stronger argument is the cosmic microwave background. That background is entirely consistent with the Hubble expansion, the Hubble expansion time, and all of quantum electrodynamics and quantum mechanics. The reason is that you have to use quantum theory to calculate the point at which the radiation background decoupled from the plasma of the early universe.

The point is, two entirely different measures give exactly the same answer, even though they are not related.