Talk:List of natural scientists who became creationists after obtaining their PhD

Load
My first thought was "why is this page taking so long to load?" Then I scrolled to the bottom. Nice. DickTurpis 10:44, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Maybe shorten slightly then, to end such misapprehension? If you asked that, then others will too... Totnesmartin 10:47, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Nah. The pause as the truth slowly dawns is part of the humor. DickTurpis 10:49, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Fit perfectly at the bottom of my window. Nice one, had me staring blankly for a second there XD --Sid 13:01, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

I have a little bowl of pot pourri (sp?) at the bottom of my window. It makes the room smell nice. Crickets might give a similar rural ambience. Keepthem coming. 11:22, 4 August 2007 (CDT)


 * Perhaps we should offer a prize for anyone who can bring more to this page (properly cited of course) than the sound of insects...XD Hexspecimen It's an X 13:03, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't like to be the one to make this point but ... well .... there are scientists who claim they are creationists. Behe springs to mind but there are others. Now, we would claim that they can't really be scientists because creationism doesn't follow the scientific method. But obviously their supporters would claim otherwise. We may come down to defining "scientist". Anyway, if educated creationists (is that an oxymoron?) come across this page it could well become a battle line.--Bob_M (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

Although I do not believe in creationism, intelligent design, or even god, I do feel an obligation to mention Antony Flew. In 2007, Flew published his book, "There is a God: How the World's Most Prominent Atheist Changed His Mind" and the title does not mislead. He is honest in his belief, has made little money from it, and is almost certainly not senile. He just doesn't see that tying yourself down to only one religion like that, if you believe in god, means you're risking one heaven of eternal bliss to 999,999 other eternal hells.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 76.204.97.52 / talk / contribs 20:36, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Sounds as if we need to use the not a true scotsman defence... They aint true scientists.KeepOUT 11:37, 4 August 2007 (CDT)


 * The issue is not that there are scientists who are creationist, but scientist who came so after studying the "Evidence." The religious conversion comes first and then the fitting of the evidence post hoc to their conversion. They don't arrive at a creationist perspective because of the evidence but because of their faith despite the evidence. 11:43, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

Article naming
There is presently a discussion about the naming of challenge articles in general taking place at Talk:Disproving Creationism. Anybody watching this page may wish to contribute.--Bob_M (talk) 05:26, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Does those ID proponents...
that are actual scientists count (like Michael Behe)? Behe's Dover case transcript/interview indicated that he converted to ID after reading some book (if that could be classified as "evidence") from some wingnut or something. 12:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) This is a joke. 2) Behe claims he saw a flagellum and was convinced it couldn't evolve. Note it says studying the evidence, if he had actually studied the flagellum he may have over come his own incredulity. 13:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Shall we add the word "throughly" on the title?  16:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait! I Can Name One!
Gotcha!!! I hope you enjoyed the joke, though. Laughter is essential to life.The Goonie 1 07:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting a hint
You know, I think this article is trying to tell me something...hmmmmmm...now what could it be? That other guy (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientific method
Maybe we should add a note to the effect that we're thinking of "evidence" as it's used in therms of the modern scientific method. People who lived a couple of hundred years ago might have had a different understanding.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, although one could argue that people like Kepler, Pascal, Newton et al were raised in a creationist environment, as there were no real alternative theories at that point. It's more a case of them being creationist (if not religious) than becoming creationist later on in life. -- Ψ Gremlin  11:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You could argue the exact same thing about people today. We are being raised to believe in the theory of evolution. The fact is that they were scientists and they were still creationists after studying the evidence that they had at that time.--God  11:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article says: "became creationists after studying the evidence" - that doesn't count those who were born or absorbed the creationist ethos.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody begins life as a scientists. They still believed in the theory of creationism after they had studied to become a scientist. Under your logic, I could make the page "list of scientists who became evolutionists after studying the evidence" and show the exact same page as this because people today are born into or absorbed the evolutionists ethos.--God  11:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) As I pointed out in an edit comment the word "became" is also important. This is a list of scientists who changed their ideas and became creationists - implicitly after first being real scientists.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlike people like Behe, who corrupt science to suit their own world view. -- Ψ Gremlin  11:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"Nobody begins life as a scientist[]" This chick would beg to differ. Take a survey (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

list for checking
http://geodetective.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/obvious-lie-on-rationalwiki/ Scream!! (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So, why aren't these mentioned in the article yet? It's not named "list of smart scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence", or something to that effect. Don't get me wrong, I like creationist-bashing (almost) as much as the next guy, but this is a challenge-article after all. --Norman (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to research the names. I checked a few. Some were not scientists. Some were scientists but I could find no indication that they became creationists based on the evidence. Becoming a Biblical literalist and then deciding that creationism is true doesn't count.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If the list is so unreliable it doesn't even list actual scientists, I consider the challenge still open. --Norman (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, it has a guy who looks like an actual chemist. Might need to check his contributions to the field of chemistry, as well as whether or not his degree is all that legit. Of course, little problem: Chemist. 16:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I may start working down that list. Feel free to add or comment.

ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric Blevernicht - BSc Engineering Arts (MSU). Contract engineer and church deacon. Also contributed to AIG.
 * David A. Bradbury - Story outlined in, where I suspect a number of these were lifted. Basically, couldn't find evidence for it in 1969, so Christian creationism must be right!!
 * Dr. David A DeWitt - BS Biochem, PhD Neuroscience. Associate director of the Center for Creation Studies at Liberty University.
 * Dr. Jerry Bergman - Psychologist and community college professor (note: come back to this one to check colleges)
 * Doug Sharp - BS Physical science (MSU), lists career as software developer. Host of a Creationist TV series. Possibly Christian first, previously mentioned book says that he saw a peer win a high school science fair by recreating the Miller-Urey experiment and thought "surely all we had to do was to zonk them a little bit more and we could create some proteins". It didn't work (duh) and during that time he heard a radio preacher talk about airplanes in junkyards, and poof, creationist.
 * Richard Geer - Award-winning Hollywood actor B.F.A from MSU (common university so far). Staff artist for the Michigan Historical Museum and self-proclaimed expert in Biblical chronology.
 * Wayne Spencer actually has an M.S. in Physics from a legit uni (Wichita State). Yeah! ScepticWombat (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Carl Kerby is a... former air traffic controller?!?!? ScepticWombat (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * John Woodmorappe's (in)famous "study", he's a geologist with a B.S. in Biology, but he's pretty crap at science. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Daniel Schobert is apparently dead... and was not a scientist, but had a degree in communications.ScepticWombat (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Chard Berth has a legit B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University Boulder, Colorado (who said something about engineers and woo?), but his M.S. in "Science Education" is from the Institute for Creation Research. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Curt Sewell is apparently a pseudohistorian/pseudoarchaeologist of uncertain qualifications, who claims to have "some 20 years of working in science laboratories, beginning in the World-War-2 Manhattan Project," in his review of his own book on Amazon. He's also presented as a "radiation expert" (but again without any specifics about his qualifications). ScepticWombat (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Henny Mouton is (yet) an(other) engineer, but exotic - he's South African. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jeffrey Stueber has written loads of reviews, but I can't see anything about his education or qualifications, unless he's teaching Business Management at Moraine Park Technical College. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jyoti P. Chakravartty apparently has a Bachelor of Christian Studies from Serampore College in Calcutta, and in Persuaded by the Evidence (see post after the bullets) he claims to have studied for (but not finished?) a B.S. in "biological science" at the same college (p. 97). ScepticWombat (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Peter Line has a degree (Ph.D. and Master's) in neuroscience from (Melbourne, Australia). He's also a signatory to both A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism and the CMI list of scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I recognised Walt Brown, he's an engineer, cue the Salem Hypothesis (again). ScepticWombat (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jean Lightner is a vet with a B.S. in Agriculture.
 * Walter Veith, oh goody, we already have an article on him. At least he's a zoologists, buuut unfortunately also a conspiracy theorist of the Popedidit-variety. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It would seem that the names are mostly (wholly?) taken from this creationist anthology, entitled Persuaded by the Evidence. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of striking through the entries that seem to be confirmed non-scientists. Should make it easier to see which entries are still outstanding. Hell, maybe we should move the investigation to a sub-page? I'm astounded that there isn't already a specific debunking if it's taken wholesale from published tract. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not publish this list - it's far more telling than tumbleweeds. Include the strikeouts and explain why they're struck off the list. Hey guys, the only scientists who became creationist after studying the evidence is this list of nobodies and/or those who were persuaded beforehand. That would make our point more forcefully and silence the critics. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd keep the tumbleweeds as this page, and make a new one for the debunked list, naming its source, linked from here. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Kill this article
The challenge article is painfully named, probably wrong, and not useful. Why not combine A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, CMI's list of scientists and other lists of creationist scientists into one big list, to show the redundant names and painfully small support (often from nonscientists) YEC gets? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 21:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because RW liked its tumbleweed jokes-- Mie kal  23:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was done as a joke back in the day. Before the tumbleweeds it was just a blank page. Bicycle  wheel silverbrain.png 07:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was joke then, but it's just baaaaad now. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 11:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

So is the article going to stay in stasis as the monster it is, or change? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 00:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * High lulz-content. Keep it.--Arisboch (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Intelligent arguments against this page

 * Stahppppppp. PacWalker 23:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ^. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

More tumbleweeds!
Because why not? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Raymond Vahan Damadian
Raymond Vahan Damadian is the inventor of the first MR (Magnetic Resonance) Scanning Machine.

You laugh at creationists who use fossil fuel, and I laugh at you using MRI. This page is simply rubbish. Crap. Demonstrates your complete ignorance about creationists.

Best regards, schmucks 177.18.171.234 (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ScepticWombat (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Anywho, Damadian is not a scientist but an M.D., a profession which may need its own variant of the Salem Hypothesis in particular and engineers and woo in general. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Profound! He is not a scientist, but makes things scientists do...really??? He did research (if not, please clarify to me!) Damadian's early work on NMR concerned investigating potassium ions inside cells (investigating??? what the hell is this??? it would be research???). He and other researchers independently investigated the signals of 1H NMR in cells, and found that the relaxation times were much shorter than in distilled water (researchers????). According to Wikipedia: "A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science" He did not used a scientific method?? He did not made observations? formulate hypothesis? gathered data? Don´t make me laugh.

Also, he published articles in Nature (Cope, F. and Damadian, R., “Cell potassium by 39K spin echo nuclear magnetic resonance”, Nature 228(5266):76–77, 3 October 1970 | doi:10.1038/228076a0.) and Science magazines (Damadian, R. V. “Tumor Detection by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance”, Science 171(3976):1151–1153, 19 March 1971 | doi:10.1126/science.171.3976.1151.) Peace, 200.19.250.248 (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * An M.D. is not (necessarily) a scientist, nor does his research have diddly squat to do with the issue at hand here: Whether he became a creationist after having studied the evidence, or was one of those wearing Ken Ham's "bible-coloured glasses". And there seems to be a rather worrying tendency among M.D.s and similar medical professionals to be creationists or evolution deniers, just as with the Salem Hypothesis vis-a-vis engineers, e.g. Ben Carson, Michael Egnor, James Le Fanu, Ron Paul, and Geoffrey Simmons to name a few who already have pages here on RW (and M.D.s are also well-represented in other woo/denial fields). ScepticWombat (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking...
The scientists in the proposed lists that are actually scientists and not engineers/whatevers were creationists *before* getting into science, right? So the proposed lists are actually "creationists that didn't quit being creationists after getting degrees, science or otherwise." Also, shouldn't the page be a list of biologists, or are biologists a secret circle of evil satanists (unlike chemists and engineers)? It would really cut down on "look at this huge list of random people" syndrome. 06:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want more examples, please read the biography of Dr. Richard D. Lumsden. Dr. Richard D. Lumsden was fully grounded in Darwinian philosophy, and had no reason or desire to consider Christianity. Dr. Lumsden had the integrity to face his new doubts honestly.  He undertook a personal research project to check out the arguments for evolution, and over time, found them wanting.  Based on the scientific evidence alone, he decided he must reject Darwinism, and he became a creationist. (source: http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_5.htm) Peace, 200.19.250.248 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Darwinian philosophy", now we're just missing "evilution". Nice copy pasta, though. So, I guess we'd also better start re-writing all that Nobel disease-related crankery, 'cause it was by really real scientists (no, didn't think so).
 * Also, I'm extremely sceptical towards these "converted after researching the evidence"-testimonies (and they're always called testimonies and rarely refer to any verifiable external evidence), because it's a standard shtick in fundie apologetics, just as the converted sinner trope - for another example of both, see Lee Strobel. But I guess that's to be expected by people who insist on biblical inerrancy, because the same "'cause I say so, trust me"-logic liesPun not intended, but fitting behind all these narratives. See also nutpicking. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Not rational
This is propaganda, not rational - it isn't even remotely correct. http://www.creationists.org/former-evoltionists-who-became-young-earth-creation-scientists.html 19:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * CorruptUser (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Liebert & Gary Parker
How are these not valid examples? Why are those edits reverted? Wouldn't it be better for us to describe why they converted based on wrong evidence? Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then do it on the page about creationism or something, this is supposed to be a joke page, a giant middle finger to creationists.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh ... We're not here to "give the finger" Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This page is.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I can already point out for Charlie, just from the link that was provided (and some of his videos), that something is rather fishy with his story. He claims he was a "HARDCORE ATHEIST", then states he was taught that life evolved from pond scum. Then he gives his reason for becoming a young earth creationist/christian apologist/evangelist... because the evolution he was taught didn't match the Genesis account of creation. Nergali (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither of these were ever "scientists." I'd think the minimum you'd have to do to be a "scientist," is to either be published in a reputable journal multiple times and/or have a phD (which basically requires the first). Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Charlie Liebert: A BS in chemistry does not a scientist make. Unpublished, never worked as a researcher.
 * 2) Gary Parker: Again, a MS in Biology does not a scientist make. His biographies state he received an Ed.D in Biology from Ball State. Ball State does offer Ed.D degrees (a degree for advanced educational administration), but not in "biology." The closest offered is Doctor of Education (EdD) in Science Education, which is offered by the biology department. It, also, does not a scientist make. I find no publications.
 * So, if working as a researcher is a requirement for being a scientist, are theoretical scientists not actual scientists then? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Kenyon and Sanford
Does seem valid. Thoughts? 14:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_H._Kenyon
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford
 * My main thought is "what is wrong with these guys?"--JorisEnter (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But they do fit the specification. Should the page be renamed again (it's got the right idea but wrong words), or should it be deleted (it's wrong)? 15:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I support the latter. We already have a page on folks who became creationists after reviewing the evidence, which would make pretty much any attempt to rename this page useless.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah, that page is just a redirect to here. We do have Lists of creationist scientists, which is about lists championed by the creationists. Personally, I'd prefer reverting this page back to the original title (the current one commits the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy) and splitting it into qualified physicists who propose scientific arguments for a Young Earth, qualified biologists/geneticists who propose scientific arguments against evolution (or maybe only 'macroevolution') or in favour of guided evolution, and (optionally) thirdly scientists who openly support either of these positions but have nothing to back it up (most of whom are probably talking outside of their field of expertise). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:47, 23 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * Actually, perhaps the best approach would be listing the 'scientific' arguments proposed for a Young Earth/against evolution etc. instead of focusing on the names of the scientists making these arguments. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:19, 23 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * Another tumbleweeds page then.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

And again
Another counterexample. The page seems doomed to be wrong or to be vague. 14:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said before, Collins isn't a creationist. (his BioLogos Foundation thingy is actively opposing creationism IIRC) That said, though, this page is indeed kind of dumb. It seems that there are genuinely people who became creationists at a point in their lives at which they should have been smart enough to realise that it's stupid. I suggest we simply delete the page.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the page. Seemed useless.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ...without an AFD? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest? That we let it stand? Because it served no purpose but attracting cretards.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just saying, thought it was policy to have one prior to each deletion. There've been AFDs for less. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)