Lists of creationist scientists

{{crenav}}
The following is a compilation (taken from various lists created by [[Creationism|creationists]]) of '''lists of [[Oxymoron|creationist scientists]]'''; which is to say, scientists who either:
#Accept [[Young Earth creationism]] (YEC) to some degree
#Accept [[intelligent design]] (ID) to some degree. ID advocates usually accept or have no problem with deep time.
#Reject [[evolution]] to some degree

The [[Proof_by_Verbosity|purpose of lists such as these]] is the attempt to [[Logical_fallacy|fallaciously]] establish Creationism and/or ID as a [[teach the controversy|plausible alternative to evolution]], in this case via [[Argument_from_authority|the arbitrary accumulation of as many fancy titles as possible]] for [[Confirmation_bias|their lists]], in order to [[Argumentum_ad_populum|abrasively petition their way]] into classrooms and universities, regardless of the [[Branches_of_science_you_have_to_ignore_to_believe_in_young_Earth_creationism|many scientific obstacles to this]].

==Which lists?==
Said lists include: 

*'''AIG:''' [[Answers in Genesis]]'s '''Creation Scientists'''<ref>https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/</ref> (as of 08 November 2015<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20151108051115/https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/</ref>), '''Modern Creation Scientists'''<ref>https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/modern/</ref> (as of 25 November 2015<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20151125141744/https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/modern/</ref>), and '''Scientist Inclusion Procedure'''<ref>https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/scientist-inclusion-procedure/</ref> (as of 06 September 2015<ref name=SIP>http://web.archive.org/web/20150906072236/https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/scientist-inclusion-procedure/</ref>). Criteria for inclusion:<ref name=SIP />

{{quotebox|We prefer to list scientists holding doctorates, though in some cases, we will accept those with master’s degrees (and, in some rare cases, bachelor’s degrees) who have "proven" themselves in research. (After all, Isaac Newton earned only a bachelor’s degree and an honorary master’s degree.) [Scientists are then asked to submit a document with an [1] signed copy of AIG's [[Statements of faith|Statement of Faith]], [2] their resume, [3] a brief "Christian testimony", and [4] two-three references preferably from "biblical Christians or scientists we also know" and "one from a current pastor".]}}

*'''CMI:''' [[Creation Ministries International]]'s '''list of scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation'''<ref>http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation</ref> (as of 29 October 2014<ref name=SATWATBAOC>http://web.archive.org/web/20141020170523/http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation</ref>). Criteria for inclusion:<ref name=SATWATBAOC />

{{quotebox|Individuals on this list possess an earned doctorate in a field of science, or (for the rare person lacking a Ph.D.) high-level research achievements or academic status.}}

*'''DI:''' [[Discovery Institute]]'s '''''[[A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism]]''''' (ASDFD)<ref name=DI>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660</ref> (as of 23 June 2012<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20120623224116/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660</ref>). Criteria for inclusion:<ref name=DI />

{{quotebox|[Signatories (supposedly) agreed with the statement that:] We are [[Pseudoscepticism|skeptical]] of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.}}

*'''ICR:''' the [[Institute for Creation Research]]'s '''Creation Scientists''', (as of 02 June 2002<ref name=ICRCS>http://web.archive.org/web/20020602112210/http://www.icr.org/creationscientists.html</ref>) '''Creation Scientists in the Biological Sciences''' (as of 01 June 2002<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20020601213333/http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html</ref>), and '''Creation Scientists in the Physical Sciences''' (as of 10 August 2002<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20020810185627/http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/physicalscientists.html</ref>). Criteria for inclusion:<ref name=ICRCS />

{{quotebox|Today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists and who repudiate any form of molecules-to-man evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. Creation scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science, and their numbers are increasing rapidly. Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is "science" and creation science is "religion". When news media personnel and others make such statements today, they merely reveal their own liberal social philosophies—not their awareness of scientific facts.}}

==Problems==
These lists have numerous problems.

===Sowing "controversy"===
{{main|Teach the controversy}}[[File:A Scientific Dissent from Darwin.jpg|thumb|right|DI states that "[t]here is scientific dissent to Darwinism", which is misleadingly true -- especially because the modern evolutionary theory has added much to Darwinian ideas. DI then plays the persecution card, stating that this dissent [[Teach the controversy|"deserves to be heard"]].]]
These lists "manufacture dissent" to explain the absence of scientific debate on creationist and ID claims. Robert Pennock points out:<ref>Pennock, Robert T. (2001). Intelligent design creationism and its critics: philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, pp. 322</ref>

{{quotebox|The "scientific" claims of such neo-creationists as Johnson, Denton, and Behe rely, in part, on the notion that these issues surrounding evolution are the subject of suppressed debate among biologists. [...] according to neo-creationists, the apparent absence of this discussion and the nearly universal rejection of neo-creationist claims must be due to the conspiracy among professional biologists instead of a lack of scientific merit.}}

The Discovery Institute in particular uses its list to promote the idea that evolution is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community (despite the minuscule percentage of actual scientists that have signed up for it).<ref>Bruce Chapman, [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/opinion/l10design.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin Letter to the Editor], New York Times, December 12, 2005</ref> It has, for instance, been used to support their [[Teach the Controversy]] campaigns and their relatives ("Critical Analysis of Evolution", "Free Speech on Evolution", "Stand Up For Science").<ref>The Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, [http://www.discovery.org/a/2112 Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members]</ref> DI has claimed "evolution is a theory in crisis" that is disputed widely within the scientific community, citing ASDFD as evidence or a resource, and hence also that this information is being withheld from students in public high school science classes along with "alternatives" to evolution such as ID.<ref>Bruce Chapman, Center for Science and Culture [http://www.discovery.org/a/1574 article], originally posted in 2003</ref>

In 2002 Stephen Meyer presented ''A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism'' to the [[Ohio]] Board of Education to promote Teach the Controversy, citing it as demonstrating the existence of genuine controversy over Darwinian evolution;<ref> Eldredge, Niles & Scott, Eugenie C. (2005). Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Berkeley: University of California Press, p. 215</ref> in the 2005 [[Kansas]] evolution hearings he similarly cited the petition in support of there being "significant scientific dissent from Darwinism" that students should be informed about.<ref>TalkOrigins Archive on the Kansas evolution hearings, [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo8.html part 8]</ref>

===Popularity as scientific evidence===
{{main|Argumentum ad populum}}
Scientific principles are built on publications in [[peer-reviewed]] journals, discussion in open forums, and finally consensus. A petition or list of supporters should be considered the last resort of a [[pseudoscience]] rather than a legitimate scientific dissent from the current consensus. Instead of saying, "the best publications support my position" or even "most publications support my position", these lists say "some scientists happen to support my position". At best, this is a flawed [[appeal to authority]]; at worst, this is essentially an [[appeal to the minority]].

===(Lack of) length===
Presumably, these lists are meant to be inclusive; if so, then they are miserably inadequate and bely the relatively small size of the pool of creationist scientists. Several facts make this clear:

*Many scientists are listed by multiple creationist organizations; some are listed by all 4.
*Many scientists are listed on the same list: the AIG list double-dips 8 times.
*It's questionable whether some of the people listed actually exist beyond creationist copy-pasting, given that they have left no trace of their scientific (or other) work.
*Deceased scientists are not consistently removed from the lists (or not removed at all), and not consistently kept track of, something that further contributes to inflating the number of listees.

The roughly 700 signatories who originally signed DI's list would have represented about 0.063% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999.<ref name=NYT>[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html?_r=2&oref=slogin Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition] New York Times article, February 21, 2006</ref><ref>John Lynch did some work on the 2008 version of the list, finding that only about 2% of the signatories had any training in evolutionary biology, [http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/01/08/dissenting-from-darwinism/ Post from January 8, 2008].</ref> (The roughly 150 biologists Darwin Dissenters would represent about 0.013% of the US biologists that existed in 1999.) As of 2006, the list was expanded to include non-US scientists. However, the list nonetheless represents less than 0.03% of all research scientists in the world.<ref> Alexander, Denis; Numbers, Ronald L. (2010). Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-60841-7.</ref> Despite the increase in the absolute number of scientists willing to sign the dissent form, the figures indicate the support from scientists for creationism and ID is steadily decreasing.

As a tongue-in-cheek response, the [[National Center for Science Education]] started "[[Project Steve]]", a list of living scientists with the first name "Steve" (or non-English variants of the name) who support evolution, and who gave consent to the use of their name. As of 09 February 2012, the list contained 1187 signatures, of which two-thirds are qualified biologists. The signatories to Project Steve are overall far more consistently active scientists and researchers with real credentials. By comparison, in 2012, ''A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism'' had only 12 signatories whose names would have qualified them for the Steve list 2012. The twelve constitute a motley crew that contains two non-scientists (Meyer, Cheesman), certified crackpots (Gift), and one single biologist named C. Steven Murphree, who, to add insult to injury, later repudiated his involvement with DI and signed Project Steve instead.

Most damning of all, the petition ''{{wpl|A Scientific Support for Darwinism|A Scientific Support for Darwinism (And For Public Schools Not To Teach "Intelligent Design" As Science)}}'', which was spread ''only'' by word of mouth and was only open for four days, received 7,733 signatures , out of which a whopping 4,066 of the signatories had PhDs (as compared to ASDFD's then 400 signatures over ''four years''). To make matters worse still for the Creationists, as far as the (admittedly fallacious) strategy of gathering signatures goes:<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Support_for_Darwinism#Results</ref>

{{quotebox|
Among the signatories were 21 U.S. National Academy of Science members, nine MacArthur Fellowship awardees, and a Nobel laureate. According to [petition starter R. Joe Brandon's] analysis, of those who signed his petition, there were:

*3,385 with biology in their title
*850 with anthropology/archaeology
*680 with evolutionary & ecology
*394 from the field of genetics
*270 from geology and related fields
*234 from the fields of physics, astronomy, or space sciences
*111 chemists
*110 psychologists
*75 computer scientists
*50 engineers}}

===(Lack of) qualifications===
[[File:NSCE vs DI.png|thumb|right|As of October 2012, the [[NCSE]]'s list of Steves was 189% more qualified than DI's list. Core fields: Anatomy, Anthropology, Bacteriology, Biochemistry, Biology, Biophysics, Botany, Ecology, Entomology, Epidemiology, Genetics, Geology, Geophysics, Molecular Biology, Microbiology, Neurophysiology, Paleontology, Physiology, Taxonomy, Virology or Zoology.<ref>http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/scientists-evolution.php</ref>]]
Although one might think that being a biologist or geologist or astronomer is required to prove a [[YEC|recent creation]] or [[intelligent design]], creationists apparently disagree, as the list includes numerous of the following:

*mathematicians and statisticians — fields consisting almost entirely of ''[[a priori]]'' reasoning rather than scientific observation
*assorted medical professionals, including dentists, veterinarians, and plastic surgeons<ref group=note>"If my plastic surgeon said it, I believe it, his word cannot lie."</ref>
*[[engineers and woo|engineers]]
*and even a couple of philosophers and theologians.

A large percentage of those signatories who do have a research record is retired.

Three-quarters of the signatories had no academic background in biology. The number of biologists actively researching biological issues even remotely related to evolution can be counted on one hand.

Some of the listed scientists are academics, almost all at [[evangelical Christian]] universities.

Even the actual scientists frequently work in fields completely unrelated to the subject at hand. But, but, SCIENCE! In fact, relatively quick searches reveal that a very large percentage of those listed have no academic affiliation at all. Further, many of those listed are currently employed by AIG, CMI, DI, or ICR themselves &mdash; making them ''less'' than unbiased.

===Misinterpretations===
Larry Moran puts it:<ref>Sandwalk, [http://sandwalk.blogspot.no/2007/01/im-not-darwinist-but-i-aint-signing.html post from January 2007]</ref>

{{quotebox|I am skeptical of claims that natural selection accounts for '''all''' of the complexity of life. There are lots of other things going on during evolution.

But I will not sign [''A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism''] because [[William Dembski|Dembski]] and the IDiots will deliberately misinterpret my intentions. They have no idea what dissent from classical Darwinism really means. They have no idea that someone like me could (mostly) agree with the statement while, at the same time, referring to all Intelligent Design Creationists as IDiots. I suspect that some of those who signed the petition would feel the same way about Intelligent Design.}}

When the [[National Center for Science Education]] contacted several of the signatories of ''A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism'', many of them admitted that they had no problem with [[common descent]] or evolution at all; one of them said that his "dissent mainly concerns the [[abiogenesis|origin of life]]," but the theory of evolution is, of course, not a theory about the origin of life at all (though if the statement is read literally, such concerns would in fact be a reason to assent to it).<ref>Skip Evans, [http://ncse.com/creationism/general/doubting-darwinism-creative-license post] at the NCSE website, April 8, 2002.</ref>

However, the language of the statement is misleading. It frames the argument in a way that anyone could agree with it. Anyone who is open to the idea of scientific inquiry would agree that they should be skeptical of﻿ everything, including evolution. Many signatories &mdash; including quite a few who have real, respectable research records &mdash; have explicitly denied that they have any problems with [[evolution]] but signed the list for other reasons (e.g. Patricia Reiff, Phillip Savage, Ronald Larson).

===Overrepresented or creationist institutions===
*Texas A&M University (28 of those listed either studied or work(ed) at A&M.)
*Georgia Institute of Technology (16 of those listed either studied or work(ed) at GIT.)
*Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico (10 of those listed work(ed) at AUG.)
*[[Liberty University]] (9 of those listed either studied or work(ed) at LU.)
*[[Oral Roberts University]] (9 of those listed either studied or work(ed) at ORU.)
*[[Bob Jones University]] (3 of those listed either studied or work(ed) at BJU.)
*[[Cedarville University]] (14 of those listed either studied or work(ed) at CU.)
*[[California Baptist University]] (2 of those listed either studied or work(ed) at CBU.)
*[[Institute for Creation Research Graduate School]] (3 of those listed either studied or work(ed) at ICRGS (now ICR's School of Biblical Apologetics).)

==Explanation==

===Fields of the table===
*'''Name:''' [Last Name], [First Name] [Middle Initial].
*'''Lists:''' Which lists the person is a part of. Includes AIG, CMI, DI, ICR.
*'''Broad field:''' The broad field of science in which the person studied. Includes Anthropology, Biology, Business, Chemistry, Earth Science, Education, Engineering, Forensics, History, Linguistics, Mathematics, Medicine, Philosophy, Physics, Theology, and Zoology. Only certain fields are considered qualified to be on the creationists' lists.
*'''Education and qualifications:''' An overview of the person's qualifications, occupation, statements about the issue, etc.
*'''Last published:''' [Year] ([{{CURRENTYEAR}} - Year] YA). "YA" means "years ago". If the person published more than 20 YA, then they're not considered qualified to be on the creationists' lists. Creationist publications are not counted, because creationist journals often qualify as [[pseudojournals]].
*'''Viewpoint:''' Whether the person is a young-earth creationist (YEC), intelligent design proponent (ID), evolution supporter,<ref group=note>This includes people critical of the modern synthesis of evolution who nonetheless do not invoke a higher power to fill the gaps.</ref> or unknown. If they aren't YEC or ID, they aren't considered qualified to be on the creationists' lists.
*'''Qualified?''' Whether the person is qualified to speak on creationism. To be qualified, a person must have [1] studied Anthropology, Biology, Chemistry (Biochemistry, Organic Chemistry only), Earth Science (Geology, Geophysics only), Medicine (Anatomy, Bacteriology only), or Physics (Astronomy, Geophysics only) to at least the M.S. level, [2] have published in the last 20 years (since 2001), and [3] must actually support creationism and/or intelligent design. When one or more of these fields cannot be verified, the creationist gets the benefit of the doubt and is reported as qualified.

===Colors of the table===
{|class="wikitable sortable" style="width:100%;"
|-
!style="width:10%"|Color
!style="width:10%"|Abbreviation
!style="width:80%"|Meaning
|-style="background:#D4F7D4;"
|Green
|Yes
|Person is qualified
|-style="background:#FFCCCC;"
|Red
|No (Field)
|Person is not qualified because their field of study is not relevant.
|-style="background:#FFFFFF;"
|White
|No (Edu)
|Person is not qualified because they did not study the relevant field until at least the M.S. level.
|-style="background:#CCCCFF;"
|Blue
|No (View)
|Person does not actually oppose evolution, support intelligent design, or support creationism.
|-style="background:#CCCCCC;"
|Grey
|No (LP)
|Person is not qualified because they have no publications or last published 20+ years ago.
|-style="background:#FFEB99"
|Orange
|No (X)
|Person is not qualified for multiple reasons, which replace "X".
|}

==List==
Note: [[A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism]] is being updated and ported to this page. Not all ASDFD listees are present.

{|class="wikitable sortable" style="width:100%;"
!style="width:8%"|Name
!style="width:8%"|Lists
!style="width:8%"|Broad field
!style="width:45%"|Education & qualifications
!style="width:15%"|Last published
!style="width:8%"|Viewpoint
!style="width:8%"|Qualified?
===A===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/A}}
===B===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/B}}
===C===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/C}}
===D===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/D}}
===E===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/E}}
===F===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/F}}
===G===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/G}}
===H===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/H}}
===I===
<!--{{:Lists of creationist scientists/I}}-->
===J===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/J}}
===K===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/K}}
===L===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/L}}
===M===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/M}}
===N===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/N}}
===O===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/O}}
===P===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/P}}
===Q===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/Q}}
===R===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/R}}
===S===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/S}}
===T===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/T}}
===U===
<!--{{:Lists of creationist scientists/U}}-->
===V===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/V}}
===W===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/W}}
===X===
<!--{{:Lists of creationist scientists/X}}-->
===Y===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/Y}}
===Z===
{{:Lists of creationist scientists/Z}}
|-
|}

==Related==
The Discovery Institute-related organization Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity manages "Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism", a similar list for medical professionals. The institute has also compiled and distributed other misleading lists of local scientists during controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas.<ref>Steven Schafersman of the Texas Citizens for Science (the real pro-science organization, not to be confused with denialist organizations with deceptively similar names) (2003): [http://www.texscience.org/files/discovery-signers.htm Texas Citizens for Science Responds to Latest Discovery Institute Challenge].</ref>

==See also==
*[[Oregon Petition]]
*[[Project Steve]]
*[[A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism]]

==External links==
*[https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/ Scientists at Answers in Genesis] at [[AIG]]
:*[https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/modern/ Modern Creation Scientists] at [[AIG]]
:*[https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/historical/ Historical Creation Scientists] at [[AIG]]
*[http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation List of scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation] at [[CMI]]
*[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660 ''A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism''] at [[DI]]
:*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution- Do they really?] DonExodus2

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|4|80%}}

{{crebox}}

[[Category:Answers in Genesis]]
[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Creation Ministries International]]
[[Category:Discovery Institute]]
[[Category:Institute for Creation Research]]
[[Category:Lists]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Scientists]]

Categories: Answers in Genesis, Creationism, Creation Ministries International, Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research, Lists, Living people, Scientists