RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2951Goal: $5000

Talk:Lists of creationist scientists

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

More[edit]

Hey Fuzzycatpotato, don't forget to add Bernard d'Abrera. There might be more to add from the "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" page. Bongolian (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that the original plan! 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
There's also Leonard R. BrandWikipedia's W.svg, a Seventh Day Adventist based at Loma Linda University, and frequent contributor to the Geoscience Research Institute's faux journal, Origins. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Other lists to do[edit]

Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Critiques?[edit]

Are there plans for critiques of the people on this list? How are we going to do them if so? Queexchthonic murmurings 10:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep! "Qualifications (or lack thereof)" does fine. Many people have stuff already. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 16:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I'd seen no commentary in the first line and assumed that the others were similarly devoid. Maybe we could splash some colour around, could make for a pretty analysis of the quality of the various lists. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd love that, if you're willing to put in the time. Once I'm done merging in ASDFD, my fingers are gonna need a rest <_< FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Proper creation scientists[edit]

... study the big bang/its multiverse equivalents. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Improvements[edit]

This article is becoming very useful as a research aid. The list itself is getting quite large, though. I was thinking that it could be split alphabetically into smaller tables separated by the A-Z template as a navigation aid. However to avoid a huge table of contents we'd have to suppress the generation of the TOC. Also, we don't want to bork the table layout by suddenly having to make 26 changes instead of one. What do you think? --Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it's getting long. (My web browser has trouble typing when editting the list proper.) Ultimately, after the DI list is merged in, it would contain 1200-1500 persons (currently about 300), which would be insane.
I chose the table format because it made it easier to sort based on which list(s) people are in, based on profession, and based on (lack of) qualification. If we had 26 tables, this would be 26x harder for readers to do. Would adding rows to the list for each letter be sufficient? FuzzyCatPotato of the Coruscating Driptrays (talk/stalk) 23:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmm.. this is an interesting problem. If you're going to be adding a thousand entries to the table, it's probably best to leave it as is for now to avoid the "26 tables" issue. Semantic MediaWiki would be good for selectively rendering the data, but we don't have it here, and besides, I can see nothing but pure chaos if it were to be installed on RationalWiki without planning and forethought. There may be some other wiki magic out there to help us out; I'll look around and see if there's anything that might help. In the mean time, this is a valuable addition to the wiki and I will try and contribute as I find the time. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Chetta[edit]

I would like to point out that one of the creation "scientists" named Marc Chetta is a faculty member of Bob Jones University. I know it is not uncommon for an MD to be a Biology teacher but it is worth pointing out. Here is the link- http://www.bju.edu/academics/faculty/facultymember.php?id=mchetta. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Done! Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 05:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Rename[edit]

To "lists of creationists". Thoughts? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 19:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It's explicitly a list of creationists who work within the sciences. So no. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The issue is that many of the people on the lists aren't scientists. "Purported scientists" would be truer, but mouthier. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 20:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
And why so many redlinks? Did you copy-paste this from somewhere? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
No. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't "creation scientist" normally refer to, specifically, a (supposed) scientist who conducts research with the intent to find/provide evidence in support of creationism? Maybe add that little -ist in there to avoid confusion? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:48, 19 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
"Lists of creationist scientists" would probably be most accurate, tho it's even uglier. No? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 05:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Eh, maybe very slightly. Also, style over substance? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
True. Sounds like a project... for tomorrow FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 06:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Done. FuzzyCatPotato of the Alarming Guns (talk/stalk) 19:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hurray! :) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Anthropology?[edit]

Why is the whole of anthropology considered a qualification, when only some parts of other fields are considered a qualification (chemistry, physics)? I would think that only biological anthropology and possibly archaeology (as it merges into paleontology) would be qualifying. Cultural anthropology linguistic anthropology: not really. Bongolian (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I only did it to mirror Don't many scientists question evolution?. Your points absolutely make sense -- the current "standards" are ad hoc as I try and deal with 307 entries. FuzzyCatPotato of the Moist Staplers (talk/stalk) 05:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
To add to that, how tightly-coupled are earth sciences to evolutionary science? My gut feeling is that they should be red, because although the changing biology of the planet probably factors into the field of study it would only offer corroborating evidence in either direction. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Geology is related to earth formation, earth formation is related to age of earth. Same for Astronomy. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Active scientist[edit]

How long ago can one have published to be considered "active"? Is 20 years too long, too short? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably should be judged individually for each person on the list. I came across a creationist bureaucrat a while back while researching one of the fundie school articles. The organization he is associated with (might be the ICR, I forget) touted his publications and held them like a big badge. He had a flurry of publications in reputable journals in the past but at some point became a bureaucrat for a creationist organization and stopped writing legitimate academic papers completely. That person is not what I'd call an active scientist. Likewise, anyone whose recent resume is full of writing credits for, say, the Geoscience Research Institute's pseudojournal, can't be considered an active scientist. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, pseudojournals should of course be excluded. Just wondering if there's a quantifiable cutoff point for "active". Do any scientific bodies or journals have standards for this? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 19:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Mathematicians[edit]

/u/bertcox:

:1. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution. skeptic list they invaladate people on the list because they are mathematicians, yet in other circles they say mathematics proves evolution.

Do we? Should we? FuzzyCatPotato of the Pornographic Boats (talk/stalk) 21:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Jerry Bergman[edit]

I'm having a hard time finding his most recent non-creationist publication or a CV. Any help? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's one from around ten years ago... then, there's apparently a tenure-related lawsuit and related background. He doesn't seem to have published anything in a reputable journal. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hm. Interesting, I'll look through that.
reputable journal Well, that's what it seemed like to me -- but the Bay of Fundie link on the Jerry Bergman page said that Wikipedia said "He now has over 700 publications in a variety of scientific and popular journals". Surely some of them must be legit? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 02:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Environmental science[edit]

As a field, is it qualified or not? (Currently classed as "Not qualified"). FuzzyCatPotato of the Beloved Flans (talk/stalk) 22:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Werner Gitt[edit]

Werner Gitt is not a doctor of mathematics. He is a doctor of engineering. See: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Gitt#Lebenslauf Besides, saying he was working in information science is misleading. His work in PTB was not research in information science, he was "Direktor des Fachbereichs Informationstechnologie der Abteilung für Wissenschaftlich-Technische Querschnittsaufgaben innerhalb der Physikalisch-Technischen Bundesanstalt in Braunschweig" <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Gitt>, which basically means he was the leader of the data center of PTB. 89.204.130.29 (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. He was only listed as such because he was described that way by AIG. Fixing! 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Silver or higher?[edit]

This article looks silver or higher to me. Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge?[edit]

Has the content of this list already been merged? If so, it's time we delete that article and make it a redirect to here, so it's all in one place. If some things from it aren't added, they should be added here instead (and then it should be made a redirect). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

No, they haven't. It's B/C ASDFD is about 1400 names and converting it and putting everything in alphabetical order is a pain in the ass. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, why is ASDFD's markup fucked up at the moment?--JorisEnter (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

B/C I was porting it over but got called away. The regexes I used are: from

\*([^ ;]*) ([^,;]*), (.*)

to

|-style="background:#FFCCCC;"
|[[$1 $2|$2, $1]]
|DI
|
|$3
|
|
|No (Field)

Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The Truth About PhD Creationists[edit]

Worthwhile. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)