Are There Really Creationist Scientists?

For the average person on the street, with little access to information outside that which is spoon-fed to them by government schools and traditional media, the idea of scientists believing in God seems incongruous. Sure, some may still hold on to a belief in God, but this is in spite of and not because of their scientific training, right? And surely they are only a handful compared to the great majority of secular scientists? We've proven the universe runs by laws, therefore there is no lawgiver! (???)

Guess again.

[Update 4/10/97: Many secularists have predicted that belief in God would progress as science and technology developed. This is not happening. A recent Reuters news report (April 2, 1997 "U.S. Scientists Static in Religious Beliefs - Study") cited a survey performed in 1996, one which was identical to a 1916 survey. Both used 1000 particularly prominent scientists, drawn from the reference book American Men of Science (now American Men and Women of Science). In both cases 40% of these scientists did believe in a personal God.]

Consider the following quote, from Dr. Walter Brown's Center for Scientific Creation website:

Some will incorrectly claim that almost all scientists believe in evolution. In this regard, the only survey of scientists of which this author is aware, involved chemists. Less than half (48.3%) said that "it was possible that humans evolved in a continuous chain of development from simple elements in a primordial soup." A slight majority (51.7%) said that "supernatural intervention played a role." Murray Saffran, "Why Scientists Shouldn't Cast Stones," The Scientist , 5 September 1988, p. 11.

So, ignoring margins of error, we can say that slightly fewer than half of chemists even believe the "conventional dogma" in government schools and media that life and man spontaneously arose by natural processes. More than half simply disagreed with the dogma that life arose apart from God and disagreed that it was even "possible" that humans appeared without supernatural intervention.

This doesn't mean a majority of the scientists polled were full-blown young-earth Bible-believing Christian scientists, but it does mean a raw majority of chemists surveyed were in fact, creationists. Note a few other implications:

1. The question asked dealt directly with the field from which these scientists were drawn; that is, chemistry is the field most relevant to the origin of life, particularly biochemistry. So the pro-creationary results were not obtained by relying on people's ignorance, such as asking zoologists a question about astrophysics or geologists a question about invertebrate anatomy, for example.

2. These scientists have been bombarded with the same dogmatic textbook evolutionism as the rest of us, undoubtedly even more intensely than most of us. If more than half of them reject full-blown evolutionism, what does that say about the competence of the evolutionary model? How many more would adopt a creationist stance if they had equal and just access to other ideas and different paradigms and were free to speak their opinion without fear of persecution and harassment?

[4/10/97: Why the difference between the 1916-96 survey and the chemistry survey? I suggest the following: 1. They are not asking the same question. Some scientists may not believe in a personal God, but may still realize that an intelligent directing force is required to create life and may believe in an impersonal God. 2. The 1916-96 survey apparently leaned more towards "elite" scientists, compared with the survey of chemists. In an environment where belief in God leads to harassment and prejudice it is hard for Christian scientists to be recognized for their work; also, my experience is that they tend to be much more humble, while many of the prominent secular scientists are among the most egotistical, self-promotional people I'm aware of. Names like Plimer, Dawkins, Scott, Gould, Eldredge and Sagan come to mind.]

The founders of science for several centuries were overwhelmingly strong Christian creationists. Examples of this "Hall of Fame" can be found here. It is too simple to say that was because Christianity was their only choice for the following reasons:

1. If Christianity/creationism was really incompatible with science, modern science could have arisen somewhere else in pagan lands where belief systems were more amenable to a scientific worldview. It didn't.

2. Atheists and early evolutionists were prominent centuries ago in Europe, as exemplified by philosophers like Voltaire and Erasmus Darwin in the 18th century. And of course there were the writings of the ancient Greeks, many of which reflect an evolutionary and/or atheistic worldview. Their arguments and beliefs were well known to most educated people.

In any case the evidence shows many great scientists were not just passively accepting Christianity but were active believers. Examples abound, and can be found in books like Dr. Henry Morris's Men of Science/Men of God, Ann Lamont's 21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible, and many of Mott Media's biographical series of great men like Michael Faraday, George Washington Carver and Isaac Newton.

To reiterate, creationists founded science and gave us the technological base for the world we have today. They include men like Leonardo da Vinci, Blaise Pascal, Charles Babbage, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Carolus Linneaus, John Dalton, Georges Cuvier, Humphrey Davy, Michael Faraday, Samuel Morse, and many more. Real scientists, who made real scientific progress and gave us more than just unsubstantiated ideas and theories.

OK, you say, but that was then, BEFORE Darwin. Why can't you name anyone since Darwin issued his tour de force? But I can. In spades. In terms of real objective scientific achievements many Christian creationist scientists can be cited. They include names like:

Louis Pasteur, the great biologist who not only rejected evolution but actively debunked it in France, using his famous experiment demonstrating that life comes only from life to push home the fact that evolution starting from non-living matter was founded on a mistaken postulate.

Richard Owen, one of the greatest English zoologists and paleontologists of the day, and a direct and strong foe of Darwin.

James Joule, the famous physicist.

George Stokes, the fluid mechanics pioneer.

Gregor Mendel, the founder of genetics.

Rudolph Virchow, the founder of pathology.

Lord Kelvin, among the greatest of physicists and an outspoken foe of evolution.

Bernhard Riemann, the mathematician.

Joseph Lister, who gave us antiseptic surgery and along with Pasteur's work saved innumerable millions of lives.

J.C. Maxwell, the electrodynamics pioneer.

In fact, several years after Darwin published his bombshell on origins, over seven hundred English scientists alone signed a statement affirming their beliefs as creationists, including over eighty fellows of the Royal Society. (c.f. Morris, Men of Science/Men of God)

Wait a minute!!! But these are all names from the 19th century, albeit the latter half. Surely at some point real scientists knuckled under and became evolutionists? Not at all. Many of this century's greatest scientists, in terms of real, objective scientific advancement, have been creationists. Names like:

Lord Rayleigh, the great physicist.

John Ambrose Fleming, who developed the electron tube that made the electronics industry possible; not only opposed evolution but flat out fought it and was the founder of the Evolution Protest Movement, the world's first anti-evolutionary organization.

William Ramsay, the isotopic chemist.

George Washington Carver, the great biologist/inventor.

Douglas Dewar, the ornithologist who joined Fleming in espousing creation.

Great surgeons like Arthur Rendle-Short, his son John Rendle Short, and Sir Cecil Wakeley.

Not to mention names like Wernher von Braun, without whom we might still be teaching that rockets can't work in space because they have nothing to push against Or Raymond Damadian, inventor of the MRI scanner. Other prominent names could also be mentioned.

Here would be an interesting school assignment: research the lives of a half-dozen or so prominent outspoken advocates for creation and evolution, each, from the latter half of the twentieth century. Look at the real, demonstrable, objective scientific achievements of each, in terms of patents, discoveries, verified hypotheses, research papers, etc. Many people might be astonished.

I'd suggest the following names to work with (all have at least one earned science doctorate, except evolutionary paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey):

Always keep in mind the religious need for evolution; if people are forced to accept the truths of science and reject evolution, dozens of religious systems fall. Atheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Animism, Satanism, Communism, Secular Humanism, all the New Age variants, Liberation theology and other forms of compromised "Christianity," Confucianism, Taoism, etc....

Return to Creation Science/Issues

(Created: 8 April 1997 - Last Update: 10 April 1997)