Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Are Fossils Proof Of Evolution?

Forum Quick Jump

104 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 1/7/2003 4:08 PM (GMT -6)

Interesting quotes Sean. Of course, most would argue that death and destruction in the animal kingdom is not "evil." Its just "nature." Yet, I'm inclined to agree that it seems incompatible with an omnibenevolent omnipotent creator. I have trouble accepting that the grotesque violence that permeates the animal kingdom was the best God could do.

But there IS another explanation that CAN accept an old earth. C.S.Lewis supposed that the pre-huminoid creation was already corrupted by being caught in the cosmic war. This view can easily be combined with the "gap" interpretation of Genesis 3. IN God at War and Satan and the Problem of Evil I defend a version of the "gap" view, primarily on literary grounds.

I wouldn't DIE for this belief. But one possible advantage is that it allows us to say BOTH that a) the violence in creation is not part of God's original design yet b) the earth is billions of years old. ("b" is a distinct advantage for all who have trouble accepting that the vast majority of scientific specialists in this area are grotesquely mistaken).

For what its worth

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 1/8/2003 12:48 AM (GMT -6)

Thank you starkman for the humility you have shown towards me in respect to my negative attitude towards your post; I am glad you weren't condescending or a smart aleck about it: equating me to a tycoon or anything like that.

I respect that you have your own personal views of evolution, and you are concerned that it is misleading, but I still find evolution more scientifically and, in my opinion, theologically sound. I have considered the so-called alternative Creationism, but if one were to want to hold a scientiffic view, this would not be it. I view it as a theology, more-or-less that doesn't coincide with my theology at all. So I reject it on both scientiffic and theological grounds.

I have found plenty of Theist's who support the theory of evolution, and have shown it to glorify God more than any creation account that rests on the presupposition that Genesis set out to give an accurate account of how God created things. (I recently found some interesting information in a book entitled, Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis)

I recently found a link I would like to contribute to this board; it seems to answer a lot of the objections to evolution tha have been raised (?) on this thread:

www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4264/cr2.html

I am going to go now, because I am tired and it is late (early?).

Blessings,
Paul

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

Edited by - A_Theist on 01/08/2003 05:51:03 AM

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/8/2003 3:05 AM (GMT -6)

Hey A_Theist,

Gads, dude, 5:50am? Late? Early? Yeah, I know that feeling well!

Read the articals. I do, obviously, disagree with the information, but that's okay!

The Starkman

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/8/2003 8:32 AM (GMT -6)

A_Theist, way to dodge a discussion on evidence. By the by, I just finished reading Neil Broom’s book, How Blind is the Watchmaker? A wonderful book that destroys the evolutionary model. Since you connected to it via a link in your last post, you should consider reading it. Per the other book mentioned in the link – Hayward’s Creation and Evolution – I read that around 96’, it was a decent read, but not as good as Dr. Broom’s book. How about talking about if the appendix is vestigial or not? Just a thought… if evolution were true and the long time periods are demanded; this would be a safe assumption for you to defend, right? If you “still find evolution more scientifically… sound,” then by all means A_Theist, defend this proposition.

Dr. Boyd, I am currently studying the process / open view of God. I am not done yet with this study, as I am in a debate with a RN (a friends mother) about the health care crisis and why we shouldn’t follow the Canadian model (socialize medicine in other words). I am a political conservative and defend those values almost as often as defending Biblical principles (mind you I wouldn't argue that conservatism is true for everyone everywhere, like I would some Biblical ideals). Anyway, I have not read your newer book as of yet, however, do you tackle the arguments found in the best critique on the gap theory to date? That is, Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gape Theory, by Weston W. Fields? This issue is a good one to discuss within this post here if you have the time to. Also, not having read your book yet, do you tackle the two chapters on divergent views in John Morris’ The Young Earth? or Van Bebber and Taylor’s book Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross? mind you that in that last book mentioned, the sentiments of all the other authors above are represented well, let me quote:

“We believe that Dr. Hugh Ross is saved, and that his expressed desire to live for Christ is genuine. His desire to evangelize is laudable. It is also good to publicize scientific evidences supporting the existence and power of our Creator. This, and his effort to show people that life could not have been produced by natural processes, in fact, closely parallels our own ministry. We applaud these efforts….”

Are you familiar with the work of Dr. Humphreys’? He, using Einstein’s work, shows that in fact the Big Bang has all the galaxies on the outer skin of an expanding balloon, consistent with the naturalist view of the universe. Consistent still with Einstein’s relativity, a spaceman, on board a capsule falling into a black hole, looking back to earth to a clock on the wall (if this were possible) wouldn’t see it move at all – time on earth from his viewpoint would be moving extremely slow. If we were to look from earth to the clock on the capsule’s wall (again, if this were possible), the hands of the clock – time – would be moving so quickly that it would look like helicopter blades in motion.

Analogously, if the earth were in or near the center of a dimple on the skin of the universe, time would be distorted. So something on the upper and outer ridges of this warp in gravity would appear very old as compared to the center of this dimple. In fact, there is some, I repeat, some evidence towards this view. Humphrey’s bio can be found at:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/r_humphreys.asp Please let me know if you would be up for a discussion on this matter, no rush… also, let me know if you included the above mentioned books in your critique or discussion of the gap theory in your book.

Love in Christ brother.

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

Edited by - SeanG on 01/08/2003 1:40:12 PM

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 1/8/2003 10:03 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Creation and Evolution – I read that around 96’, it was a decent read, but not as good as Dr. Broom’s book. How about talking about if the appendix is vestigial or not? Just a thought… if evolution were true and the long time periods are demanded; this would be a safe assumption for you to defend, right? If you “still find evolution more scientifically… sound,” then by all means A_Theist, defend this proposition.

I don't think I am going to read any of your recommended books, or defend this proposition. I am sure there are compotent scientists out there who have done just that, and they are the better for it. It is like my friend Thayne keeps telling me "There are only so many days in a persons life to read things of importance"; creationism is not of that much importance to me. So feel secure in your world of creationism and all of the books you read on the subject, and that horrible site, answersingenesis.

For what it is worth,
Paul

P.S. I know how bad you want to be right, but does it matter if the other party doesn't reciprocate?

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

Edited by - A_Theist on 01/08/2003 3:05:44 PM

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 1/8/2003 1:44 PM (GMT -6)

Well, I know I said I wasn't going to get involved any more in this, but darn it, I just can't seem to help myself :-(

I write this just to say to other readers of this thread that every single one of the challenges against mainstream science that Sean has posted has been taken up thoroughly elsewhere. Every one of those challenges has been answered, and those answers rebutted, and those rebuttals counter-rebutted, and so on - not by mere dilettantes like Sean and myself, but by real live Professional Creationists and Mainstream Scientists (for the scientific issues), Philosophers (for the philosophical ones), and Theologians (for the theological ones) - yes, including Christians that even the Evangelical Theological Society might, at least occasionally, find tolerable :-)

The challenge is finding all that dialogue, if you're interested. On the Web, for what I consider the best (most voluminous, broad-and-deep) young-earth coverage, the Answers in Genesis web site is excellent. For equally voluminous coverage of scientific issues, the talk.origins newsgroup and web archive contains excellent information too (plus 100 times more chaff, unfortunately - be patient). Want to know how Christian scientists deal with their theology given their acceptance of evolution? The American Scientific Affiliation is the place to check. And so on. With www.google.com, www.deja.com, and a few hours, I guarantee you can find excellent discussion (plus 10 times more chaff, to be sure, but hey) on any of the challenges Sean has raised. And that's just the Web - not mentioning books and periodicals.

For example, I just randomly happened to pick Sean's mention of Guy Berthault and his work, ostensibly showing how stratification due to fluid flow can look like billions-of-years of deposition, thus ostensibly showing how all those mainstream geologists could be fooled into thinking billions-of-years while all along it was just the Flood. I'm not picking on Berthault here - the only reason that particular challenge of Sean's leapt out at me was Berthault's French name (when you've been at this game for long enough, you come to realize that creationism, like conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism for that matter, are mostly American affairs).

Anyway, Andrew MacRae - a professional geologist participating frequently at talk.origins within recent memory, if not currently - deals at length with Berthault in talk.origins newsgroup posts archived at www.deja.com. Here's one: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=85p0v6%24qnn%241%40darwin.ediacara.org Now, my point is not that MacRae's comments are necessarily the end of the matter. Rather, my point is that none of Sean's arguments, such as this one, are devastating (ie unanswered), all have been addressed before by more informed people than us, and all can be researched elsewhere to one's heart's content, if one is willing to do the homework, including acquiring sufficient background in the disciplines (geology in this case - MacRae uses some slightly technical language) to not be totally incompetent at evaluating claims.

In such investigation, intellectual humility is of the highest order. Just because one thinks of oneself as a smart person does not mean that one is qualified to make judgements on disciplines like geology taking years of study. Indeed, one of the main reasons I settled on evolution after all my years of informal research (the other being my impartial judgements in favor of evolution, in those cases where I did feel qualified) was out of acknowledgement to the vast accumulation of brainpower in the relevant professional communities which has collectively and painstakingly reached such conclusions, by consensus, over 100, 200, or - in some cases - even more years. How arrogant it would be to think that me and a relative few other American creationists - many of us not practicing professionals in the relevant fields - are right; and literally tens or even hundreds of thousands of professionals in those fields, of all races, faiths, nationalities, political ideologies, and so forth, over the last x-many-hundred years, were, and are, all wrong! Especially when the creationist scientific arguments were exhaustively considered by those folks over that course, and rejected! This is not an "argument from authority", but an argument from common sense.

So, bear in mind that just because a challenge may go inadequately answered, or unanswered, here, that says nothing about the actual state of affairs.

Thanks for listening,

Scott

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 1/8/2003 2:02 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks for listening

YOU ARE VERY WELCOME!

Blessings

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

Edited by - A_Theist on 01/08/2003 7:02:53 PM

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/8/2003 8:17 PM (GMT -6)

scott_jorgenson said:

“How arrogant it would be to think that me and a relative few other American creationists - many of us not practicing professionals in the relevant fields - are right; and literally tens or even hundreds of thousands of professionals in those fields, of all races, faiths, nationalities, political ideologies, and so forth, over the last x-many-hundred years, were, and are, all wrong! Especially when the creationist scientific arguments were exhaustively considered by those folks over that course, and rejected! This is not an ‘argument from authority,’ but an argument from common sense.”

Nature

A_Theist

“I am sure there are competent scientists out there who have done just that, and they are the better for it.”

scott_jorgenson

“Because of the sterility of its concepts, historical geology, which includes paleontology and stratigraphy, has become static and unproductive. Current methods of delimiting intervals of time, which are the fundamental units of historical geology, and of establishing chronology are of dubious validity. Worse than that, the criteria of correlation—the attempt to equate in time, or synchronize, the geological history of one area with that of another—are logically vulnerable. The findings of historical geology are suspect because the principles upon which they are based are either inadequate, in which case they should be reformulated, or false, in which case they should be discarded. Most of us refuse to discard or reformulate, and the result is the present deplorable state of our discipline.”

“Geological Correlation and Paleoecology,”

Bulletin, Geological Society of America

“Does our time-scale then partake of natural law? No…. I wonder how many of us realize that the time scale was frozen in essentially its present form by 1840? … How much world geology was known in 1840? A bit of western Europe, none too well, and a lesser fringe of eastern North America. All of Asia, Africa, South America, and most of North America were virtually unknown. How dared the pioneers assume that their scale would fit the rocks in these vast areas, by far most of the world. Only in dogmatic assumption—a mere extension of the kind of reasoning developed by Werner from the facts in his little district of Saxony. And in many parts of the world, notably India and South America, it does not fit. But even there it is applied! The followers of the founding fathers went forth across the earth and in Procrustean fashion made it fit the sections they found, even in places where the actual evidence literally proclaimed denial. So flexible and accommodating are the ‘facts’ of geology.”

“Mountain-Building Chronology and Nature of Geologic Time Scale,” Bulletin, American Association of Petroleum Geologists

“Further, how many geologists have pondered the fact that lying on the crystalline basement are found from place to place not merely Cambrian, but rocks of all ages?”

a priori

“It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.”

“Geology,” Encyclopedia Britannica

i>"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen." ~ An adaptation of Hebrews 11:1

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/9/2003 4:51 AM (GMT -6)

Hey Scott,

Gotta address some of the things you said, Scott.

SCOTT
. . . every single one of the challenges against mainstream science that Sean has posted has been taken up thoroughly elsewhere. Every one of those challenges has been answered, and those answers rebutted, and those rebuttals counter-rebutted, and so on

KEITH
Very true.

SCOTT
. . . my point is that none of Sean's arguments . . . are devastating (ie unanswered)

KEITH
One of Seans arguments--if not the most important--is his declaration (as I also hold) that there are simply no fossil records to substantiate the evolution of mankind, and this said by evolutionists themselves. Not just "evidence"--anyone can say "Here it is, this is evidence"--but cold, hard fact. Where are the fossils? As a matter of fact, after the kind of foolishness (with even evidence of conspiracy) promoted in the from-ape-to-men concept (amazingly still found in school text books), I myself, were I an evolutionist, would be horribly embarrassed to not have even semi-substantial fossil evidence to support my position

Where are the fossils? Where? The answer's simple. There are none. Sean's argument is, in solid fact, devasting. Not because he argues for it, but because the very evolutionists themselves who admit it. And the rest of the alleged biological evidence is suspect based on what you yourself said: . . . every single one of the challenges against mainstream science that Sean has posted has been taken up thoroughly elsewhere. Every one of those challenges has been answered, and those answers rebutted, and those rebuttals counter-rebutted, and so on It's one thing to rebuttle, it's another, however, to produce the physical facts in such a manner that the discussion comes to a screaching halt. In other words, where's the body of Jesus?

SCOTT
In such investigation, intellectual humility is of the highest order. Just because one thinks of oneself as a smart person does not mean that one is qualified to make judgements on disciplines like geology taking years of study. Indeed, one of the main reasons I settled on evolution after all my years of informal research (the other being my impartial judgements in favor of evolution, in those cases where I did feel qualified) was out of acknowledgement to the vast accumulation of brainpower in the relevant professional communities which has collectively and painstakingly reached such conclusions, by consensus, over 100, 200, or - in some cases - even more years.

KEITH
If by this you were infering that one is not qualified as a geologist to speak to fellow academes on the subject, I would agree. But this not what you must mean, because after all your years of informal research, you yourself have made the judgement on the evidence and have become settled on evolution. And this is exactly what is expected of us: garner information, assess it, and make a decision.

SCOTT
How arrogant it would be to think that me and a relative few other American creationists - many of us not practicing professionals in the relevant fields - are right; and literally tens or even hundreds of thousands of professionals in those fields, of all races, faiths, nationalities, political ideologies, and so forth, over the last x-many-hundred years, were, and are, all wrong! Especially when the creationist scientific arguments were exhaustively considered by those folks over that course, and rejected! This is not an "argument from authority", but an argument from common sense.

KEITH
First, based on the logic of questioning those supposedly in a better postion to assess evidence, I guess, then, it was wrong for the Jews of Hitler's time (to use an old but still highly effective analogy) to have questioned Hitler's assessment; that the Jews--for that matter, any race outside of the white race--was unfit to exist. How about issues of our own days: because it has been "exhaustively considered" by those in better authority than you or I that God does not exist, that there are no morals--everything is relative--and that Jesus really was just a good teacher--that
'their' assessment should not be questioned.

A Ph.D doesn't give one common sense or prohibit an unbiased presupp. It doesn't make one's judgments or assessments correct. Sean has, however, thoroughly demonstrated competency to garner, assess, and render a decision of the information available. His documentation and command of knowlege in the subject is quite strong. This does not mean he is without pressuppositions, it does mean, however, that he is capable within his limited approach to consider both sides of the coin without having to be a numismatic expert.

Second, there's just too many sitings (Answers in Genesis is filled with them) of scholars with authorities established more by evolutionary a priori perspectives rather than exhaustive research of the opposing side's view. Agan, I'm not saying this flawed approach is not committed by the creationist side; it often is. But we, as non-professionals in the field, are hardly considered unqualified to consider this issue and judge the information at hand merely because we are not 'experts' in the field. Ken Ham is not a Ph.D.. (I can't even remember if he holds a Masters in this area.) Is he therefore not qualified to oppose the evolution view?

Finally, in view of the above, should we not then go back to the simple, plain and easy-to-understand language of Genesis? In seven days the Lord created the earth; the evening and the morning were the first (second, third, etc.,) day; the Lord finished (ceased) his work and rested on the seventh day. The man and woman were created, not evolved. I know this sounds so simplified, but I'm not saying it is. There are questions, of course, as to the 'how' it all happened. But that's not the point; respect for God being quite capable of saying what He means is the point.

For some more input,

Starkman

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 1/9/2003 9:30 AM (GMT -6)

To Sean and Keith,

First, an argument from authority is an argument hinged upon certain specific persons who are offered as experts (whose actual credentials may or may not be relevant). The fewer the people relied upon, both in absolute number and in proportion to their field, and/or the more unrelated their credentials to the issue, the weaker the argument. Conversely, the greater the number of people relied upon and the greater the proportion of their field they represent, and the more related their credentials to the issue, the stronger the argument - until the advective "argument from authority" really no longer applies. This is just common sense, based on statistics.

For example, the vast majority of medical professionals accept the germ theory of disease; thus without doing any research myself, it is reasonable to say that, in great likelihood, and in the main, they are correct. The vast majority of investigators agree that Islamist terrorists were behind 9/11; thus without doing any research myself, it is reasonable to conclude (tentatively as always) they are probably correct. And on and on, for every single one of the thousands or millions of things we accept as, at least provisionally, true in our lives that we ourselves have not personally experienced or studied until proven to our satisfaction. And note this is true regardless of the existence of controversy; the Arab world may counter with claims that Israel orchestrated 9/11, but I am reasonably justified in provisionally discounting those claims in light of the vast majority opinion among investigators who've thoroughly studied the event.

Now, of course such reliance can turn out to be misplaced when the vast community of experts turns out to be, in fact, wrong. But this is comparatively rare. In fact, I can't think of any examples at the moment where a vast, global, relevant professional community turns out to be completely wrong in its empirical field, after having spent decades, or centuries, deriving a conclusion through investigation and then integrating it successfully throughout the field and related ones. Newton doesn't count, because in all domains known up to Einstein's overthrow, Newton was (and remains today) approximately right, not completely wrong; whereas for creationism to be right, at least the young-earth variety, mainstream science would have to be RADICALLY wrong in almost every domain of prehistory it has investigated up 'til now. Other examples that Keith raised of Nazi Germany and "God is dead" and "everything is relative" don't apply at all, since the values under attack there are not empirical ones, and/or not global, and/or not withstanding the test of time, and/or not professional/technical, etc.

Thus it is reasonable to go with what a relevant professional community concludes by time-tested consensus within its field. Science has concluded what mainstream science has concluded - Big Bang, billions of years, geological comings and goings, the successive rise and fall of species, evolutionary mechanisms behind that, no global Flood, etc - as the result of tens of thousands of individuals loosely collaborating over generations with no common allegiance to one another. Using the same methods of empirical investigation and theorizing that we use in almost every aspect of modern life, including historical ones (think forensic science, for example), they have studied pre-historical events and processes and come to these conclusions painstakingly over time. This consensus has been reached by people with the right training using the right tools, in technical fields which demand it, as demonstrated by science's overwhelming success in modern life in general. It has been reached by people with no reason to collude - in fact sometimes being bitterly competitive - with one another. It has been reached by people coming from all backgrounds, including all religious beliefs as Sean pointed out, and thus having no common presuppositions other than the ones we all share as moderns (for example, that the world really exists, is regular, and is knowable).

It is, in my opinion, preposterous to think it is likely they are radically wrong, in the absence of many proven similar incidents.

Now, as I said, this rule of thumb alone means creationism has a long row to hoe to get anywhere, and so this rule of thumb is reasonable basis alone for laymen and dilettantes such as ourselves to provisionally reject creationism. In my case though, as I've said, I've studied certain specific creation-evolution issues and in some of them felt that I'd gathered enough information to render an informed judgement after delving into all the claims I was able to discover on those issues by all sides. In these cases, I've never found creationism to be sufficiently convincing to be comfortable with overturning the verdict of the professionals. In some cases, I've felt that creationism wasn't even close. I grant that in some cases one's mileage may vary; certainly not all creation-evolution issues are as open-and-shut as others. But in balance I feel that, after 17 or 18 years off-and-on, I've looked into enough to have sufficient confidence in the judgement, already backed by the aforementioned rule-of-thumb, that there really isn't any point in my further spending time on it.

Thus, to specifically answer one of Sean's questions: no, I do not go searching on the Web or elsewhere just for rebuttals of things I am predisposed to disagree with. For that matter, I do not (note present-tense) go searching on this issue anymore at all. As I said, I didn't offer MacRae's comments on Berthault as the end of the matter; rather I used them to illustrate what counters are out there and how to find them. For example, to Keith's question about the fossil record and particularly the record for mankind: I would say, go research what the evolutionists say and why, then how that is countered by creationists, then how those counters are answered by evolutionists, and so on, as I illustrated starting to do with Berthault. Kenneth Miller has a section in "Finding Darwin's God" which would be a good place to start (a popular treatment defending the fossil record of human evolution), or you can start on the Web as I illustrated.

Now, Sean: when I was searching (note past tense), I would drill through books and periodicals and (when they became available) the Web and UseNet, looking honestly for all sides - just as I grant you have done, Sean, from your testimony (it would be nice to have the same charitable courtesty extended to me). I've read more articles than I can remember on the Answers in Genesis web site, and also the ICR's. I've read young-earth works by Henry Morris and Duane Gish, old-earth/progressive books by Hugh Ross (including articles on his Reasons to Believe web site), and all of Philip Johnson's ID works of the 1990's ("Darwin on Trial" and "Reason in the Balance" come to mind). I've read works by theistic evolutionists (what I would now consider myself, by the way) such as Howard Van Till, Kenneth Miller and Davis Young; atheists/agnostics like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, and Arthur Strahler (whose encyclopedic opus on the scientific issues is impressive); and pro-mainstream-science works without any allegiance I could detect, such as "Tower of Babble" by Roger Pennock. I've read Christian-press "debate format" books containing multiple authors and opposing views, like the creation-evolution and science-christianity titles put out by Intervarsity as part of their Counterpoints series. I've read more talk.origins than I care to remember, and occasionally participated; I regularly would check with the National Center for Science Education and American Scientific Affiliation for their take. I have been around, you know.

As for quoting from authorities, I don't give it much credence since a quote means nothing without the broad context (I don't necessarily mean just the surrounding paragraphs, but the whole venue and flavor in which the quoted person was speaking or writing). When Richard Lewontin writes what he does (about not letting God in the door and what-not), it is not as a scientist but a philosopher, it is not speaking scientifically but philosophically, and it is in a venue where lively opinion and comment is expected ("The New York Review of Books", a semi-popular periodical, not a professional journal). And so too for Sagan, Dawkins, and all the others. They frustrate me as much as you, by the way. But they are entitled to voice their opinions. As we've all noted, scientists have no common allegiance, so their ranks are populated by proselytizing philosophical atheists and agnostics as much as theists, and they are free to speak their minds and integrate their "theology" with science just as we are. But it is not the science that is doing the speaking.

Finally, I must give fair notice that I do not intend to carry this conversation on endlessly. On a controversy like this, its all too easy for the dialogue to go on forever, and I have neither the time nor the inclination after all these years to do so. I do wish to respond to questions directly asked of me, and not give the appearance of ignoring anyone. But I wish and need to be focused on concluding my participation in this thread. So I will continue to respond for another round or two, if anyone wishes, but I'm giving notice now that I will drop out after that.

Thanks and best regards,

Scott

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 1/9/2003 3:20 PM (GMT -6)

Well put. I see your voice on this issue a God send.

Thanks for replying

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/9/2003 4:14 PM (GMT -6)

Well, I certainly meant no adversity, guys. Really didn't.
YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG! YOU'RE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
I'm kidding ya'll.

Hey, we've said what we've had to say, we have. Now, let's get on with loving God and loving each other!

For the conversation,

Starkman

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/9/2003 4:15 PM (GMT -6)

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/9/2003 5:33 PM (GMT -6)

An argument or appeal to authority is only fallacious when it does not meet a standard criteria. Here are a couple:

What A_Theist and you, Scott, did, were to generally refer - in a large part of your responses - to the question as being settled by “scientists.” This is and argument from authority when the person’s credentials aren’t specific to the topic at hand (if specialists are being mentioned as authoritative), or if the specialist quoted as authoritative isn’t named. And one of the main reasons I use quotes from evolutionists is that they don’t have a creationist axe to grind. Now it is my opinion, and it can be decisively shown to be true, that creati0onists are closer to the truth of the facts than are the evolutionist!

Again, Starkman, great post boss.

When Scott says,

“For example, the vast majority of medical professionals accept the germ theory of disease; thus without doing any research myself, it is reasonable to say that, in great likelihood, and in the main, they are correct.”

All he means is that when the popular belief sways towards creationism, he will become a creationist. And until then he wishes to merely use an appeal to authority as his basis for accepting truth. So, Nature may say that 40% of American scientists are now creationists of some sort or another, but when that reaches 51%, Scott may change his mind. 80% of Germany said that the Gypsies and Jews were not evolved nearly as much as the Aryan race, and hence, according to natural law (notice that I didn’t say Natural Law), the survival of the fittest gave the Germans the moral authority to treat them as such, animals.

As for examples of scientific evidences once thought as true and are now being thrown out, there are many. In fact, many of these had prominent positions in our biology textbooks for many years, and still do, even after being thrown out over 125 years ago as hoaxes. Haeckel’s Embryos come to mind. He was convicted of fraud at the university of Jena for doctoring and changing his drawings of comparative fetuses that grace high school and college textbooks to this day. Prentice Hall’s Biology textbook (200 edition: p. 283) was the first to remove the fallacious drawings and put in the ones that are now anatomically correct. you will see from a portion of a paper I did a few years ago that the modern “discoverers” of this fraud seem shocked. However, as you read, the scientific community knew this for over 125 years, and bias is shown to be the overriding factor of this “law” – Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny – being taught as true in one form or another this entire time. In other words, it served its purpose of convincing people (many generations) evolution was a provable fact:

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Revisionism
In Ontogeny and Phylogeny Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould points out that German scientist Wilhelm His exposed such “shocking dishonesty” on the part of Ernst Haeckel that it rendered him unworthy “to be counted as a peer in the company of earnest researchers.” tragically, despite acknowledging that the recapitulation theory has been discredited, Gould proceeded to write an entire book to demonstrate that it is still “one of the great themes of evolutionary biology.”

Sir Gavin de Beer of the British Natural History Museum was more circumspect. He was quoted as saying, “Seldom has an assertion like that of Haeckel’s ‘theory of recapitulation,’ facile, tidy, and plausible, widely accepted without critical examination, done so much harm to science.” Haeckel not only utilized deceptive data but also used doctored drawings to delude his devotees. His dishonesty was so blatant that he was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by the university court at the University of Jena in 1874. An article from New Scientist magazine (Sept. 6, 1997) said this:

“A set of 19th century drawings that still appear in reference books… are badly misdrawn, says an embryologist in Britain. Although Haeckel confessed to drawing from memory and was convicted of fraud at the University of Jena, the drawings persist, ‘that’s the real mystery,’ says Richardson [of St. George’s Hospital of London]"

Haeckel’s forgeries were subsequently made public with the 1911 publication of Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries, by Assmusth and Hull. Nigel Hawkes interviewed Richardson for The Times (London). In an article describing Haeckel as “an embryonic liar,” he quotes Richardson:

“This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry … What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t … These are fakes.”

Haeckel not only changed the drawings by adding, omitting, and changing features but, according to Richardson and his team, “he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals.” Ernst Haeckel’s drawings were declared fraudulent by Professor His in 1874 and were included in Haeckel's quasi confession, but according to Richardson, “Haeckel’s confession got lost after his drawings were subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and reproduced widely in English language biology texts.”

Where did all this erroneous idea get its start? It began with Evolutionist and German zoologist Ernst Haeckel in his 1876 book General Morphology of Organisms. With supreme audacity it was called the "Biogenetic Law." It was a fraud from the beginning. Haeckel fraudulently presented altered, misleading and misinterpreted evidence. Some of the key details of his embryo drawings were wrong - purposely altered to make a case for Evolution where none existed. Yet, how many people still know this? Of Haeckel, Richard Milton says, “No errant scientist has been more thoroughly disowned by his colleagues. ...The biogenetic law is no longer taken seriously by embryologists.” (Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, p. 188.)

A 1994 biology textbook used at universities still had the fraudulent pictures in them, that’s over 120 years after they were found to be faked (Glenco Biology, 1994, p. 312). But I want to praise the textbook Biology, by Miller and Levine (Prentice Hall, 2000 Edition, p. 283) for fixing the problem.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The fossil horse series has the same history, as does the peppered moth, the Miller-Urey experiment, vestigial organs, missing links, etc., etc., ad infinitum. This is why I urge people to read books by atheists and agnostics that show evolution and Darwinism, as currently understood and taught, to be largely argument of circularity, tautologies, constructed evidence, and the like. These atheists and agnostics don’t have a creationist axe to grind.

Peace.

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

Edited by - SeanG on 01/10/2003 1:29:32 PM

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 1/10/2003 9:37 AM (GMT -6)

Keith,

No offense taken on my part, and I am glad to have you and Sean as fellow Christians. If ever I have sounded snippy, I apologize; I have been hurt in the past by fellow Christians, more conservative than I, questioning my legitimacy on account of their disagreeing with some opinion I take in an area I consider non-essential to the faith (such as creation) but which area they consider essential.

In fact, one of the things that drew me to start lurking, and I guess now I'd have to say participating :-), at the Christus Victor forum, is Greg Boyd's association with post-conservative theology like the open view. I figured any community of Christians in which the open view was tolerated, even accepted, would be tolerant of my post-conservative "aberrations" too!

Scott

PS. For the record, and bearing in mind these are of course only generalizations:

On creation, I'm obviously a theistic evolutionist;
On inerrancy, I'm an infallibilist;
On salvation, I'm an inclusivist;
On eschatology I'm an amillenialist and idealist;
On hell I'm both an annihilationist and a traditionalist (thinking that in the timeless eternity outside of this world, those views really collapse together to be almost the same thing);
On God's sovereignty I'm Arminian;
And on his foreknowledge I'm unresolved but tend toward traditionalism.

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 1/10/2003 9:48 AM (GMT -6)

I'm obviously a theistic evolutionist

what is your definition of a theistic evolutionist? I noticed you consiered Kenneth R. Miller a theistic evolutionist, but from what I've heard, I think he would call himself a neo-darwinist. I could be wrong though. I would appreciate if you shed some light on to this question.

Blessings,
Paul

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 1/10/2003 10:24 AM (GMT -6)

Sean,

Responding to what you specifically directed to me:

You wrote:

"All he [Scott] means is that when the popular belief sways towards creationism, he will become a creationist. And until then he wishes to merely use an appeal to authority as his basis for accepting truth. So, Nature may say that 40% of American scientists are now creationists of some sort or another, but when that reaches 51%, Scott may change his mind."

Well, instead of "popular belief", how about "consensus of the experts in the field". Otherwise, yes to your first sentence. When the global consensus of experts in the relevant scientific disciplines shifts to abandon some or all of what is now mainstream science, and adopt creationism instead, I will *very*probably* become a creationist. Why? Because they are the experts, and not I, and when jillions of non-colluding experts say the same thing within their field, it is reasonable for a layman to assent.

Now, I just wrote "very probably", because as I have said in previous postings, the expert consensus is only the baseline reason why I break in favor of evolution - the other reason being that when and where I have checked it out in some depth, I've been satisfied that the experts really are onto something. So if the expert consensus shifted, my first reaction would be, "That's funny - the mainstream view checked out before and creationism didn't - and now the consensus has changed its mind - what happened?" I would check out the new consensus all over again, to the extent demands on my time allow, and in the *very*rare*likelihood* that the new consensus didn't check out to my satisfaction - I would withhold judgement (but not reject the consensus, because who is an amateur like me to disregard that consensus just based on my own analysis). But I say "very rare likelihood" because in all probability, statistically speaking, that new consensus would check out with me. (After all, if it didn't check out with a layman like me, then statistically-speaking, it probably wouldn't have checked-out with the experts and become the new consensus in the first place!)

So, putting it all together and generalizing, I think its safe to say "Yes, I would become a creationist." Its only reasonable and is thoroughly consistent with the basic principle I've been giving all along.

By the way, the study of American scientists you refer to did not reveal that 40-some percent of American scientists are creationists of some sort. It revealed that 40-some percent of American scientists are personal-theists of some sort - ie, 40-some percent of American scientists surveyed sometime in the 1990's responded "yes" when asked if they believed in a personal God, defined as one to which one could pray and expect some form of answer. If I were a scientist, I would of course answer "yes" to that question and be counted in the 40-some percent - but I would not be a creationist. The real hallmarks of creationism in America aren't theism or prayer, but (a) rejection of at least most mainstream scientific conclusions on biological origins (and for the young-earthers, all other natural origins too), and (b) endorsement of alternate conclusions which are more easily made concordant with the Bible interpreted per the doctrine of total factual inerrancy. Adherence to such views among American scientists is far less than 40-some percent.

By the way, some more interesting factoids about that "40-some-percent-are-personal-theists" result:

- The 1990's survey behind that result was constructed to be identical (same questions, same methodology) with earlier survey(s), the earliest being from the 1930's. Interestingly, comparison of the 1990's results with earlier results shows they are practically unchanged. Over one, two, or (at the extremes) even three generations of American scientists, and despite all the work done since the 1930's (eg genetics, plate tectonics, astronomy, radiodating) further reinforcing evolution, an ancient earth, and an ancient universe, and despite even the general societal liberalization over the course of the 20th century, there wasn't any erosion of belief in that area. My interpretation? Science and religious faith are indeed mostly separate, at least among the people most exposed to science; with science being generally unpolluted by apriori religious/irreligious commitments, and conversely faith being generally unthreatened by scientific developments. Interesting, and favorable to my view.

- A separate survey winnowed American scientists down just to those within the National Academy of Sciences - a body of American scientists who must be mutually nominated and voted-upon for membership. The NAS considers itself the most elite general scientific body in the country, and so its membership therefore may safely be regarded to include only those scientists who are considered the creme-de-la-creme by their peers. That survey of NAS members found atheism and agnosticism rampant, with belief in some kind of personal theism being around, or even under, 10%.

- Atheists and agnostics, of course, like to interpret these surveys as showing that the smarter people are, the more they realize religion is bunk: after all, 90% of Americans believe in a personal God of some kind, but only 40-some percent of American scientists do(who presumably are smarter than the average American), and only 10% or less of the best American scientists do (who presumably are the smartest of all). For my part, though I do think that scientists are generally above-average in intelligence, I also think that - like all people - they are not necessarily well-rounded or philosophically sophisticated. Being most trained in their own highly-respected profession, they are perhaps tempted to misapply the tools of that profession outside their proper natural domain, into the supernatural, and conclude "no God" based on the failure of those tools to plainly detect him. I also think that - like all smart people, and like all people in positions of power and respect - NAS members in particular are perhaps vulnerable to a certain personal hubris, leading them to over-confidently make conclusions on things outside their expertise.

Scott

JET
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397

Posted 1/10/2003 11:22 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
And on his foreknowledge I'm unresolved but tend toward traditionalism.

Scott, I hope you stick around. I'd be interested in seeing you engage with Doc, TGB and the others in the open view section.

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 1/10/2003 11:39 AM (GMT -6)

Paul,

Kenneth Miller would consider himself both a neo-Darwinist and a theistic evolutionist, without contradiction, because the terms refer to different things.

The former, "neo-Darwinism", is a label for a package of scientific conclusions (ie, a theory) about the mechanism of biological evolution - ie, how biological evolution happens, whether we're talking about large-scale "fish to Gish" (as famous young-earther Duane Gish likes to say) or merely from one kind of bird to another. Namely: mutation as the ultimate source of variation, plus natural selection; informed by insights, mostly from genetics, on the stuff that fundamentally determines phenotype (ie, genes), what causes mutations in that stuff, how that stuff is inherited, and how natural selection eventually can operate on it.

Since Darwin's original theory of evolution was likewise about a mechanism, involving variation and natural selection, neo-Darwinism is clearly descended from his (and Wallace's) theory. However, living in the 19th century, Darwin and Wallace had no idea of the insights and refinements to their theory that genetics would provide - for example, they had no idea how inheritance works, or what causes mutations in the first place. Thus neo-Darwinism - which addresses and fills-out those issues - is, strictly speaking, different than original Darwinism - hence the fancy name.

Almost all biologists (the relevant experts here) accept that evolution has, in broad-sketch form, happened over the billions of years of life on Earth. What natural mechanism drove it, though, has been subject to more disagreement (though not nearly as much as creationists sometimes play-up). Today, neo-Darwinism is by far the majority opinion among biologists as to that question.

The latter term, "theistic evolution", is not a label for a scientific position at all (no more than "conservatism", "socialism", and "theism" are). It describes a religious/philosophical conviction that assumes theism and ascribes God to be, in some sense, the author of evolution (meaning both biological evolution and, more broadly, all the geological and cosmological change-over-time processes). Thus theistic evolution is basically the philosophical position that "evolution is real and God did it".

There are disagreements among theistic evolutionists as to how directly God was involved, but those disagreements are really over the exact doctrine of providence. All theistic evolutionists basically say that God's involvement with the physical formation of the universe is providential (ie, outworked through nature) rather than directly miraculous (ie, outworked against nature). In the same way that I can say, at the same time, both "God made me" and "Physics, as outworked through chemistry, genetics and biology, made me, beginning when my father's sperm met my mother's egg" - in that same way, theistic evolutionists affirm both God and nature in prehistory, seeing the latter as the providential tool of the former for creation. Since you're familiar with Kenneth Miller, you'll find he dwells on this quite a bit in the final chapters of "Finding Darwin's God". Howard Van Till is another well-thought-out theistic evolutionist (though he dislikes that term, I think for political reasons, since the loaded word "evolution" has negative connotations among the evangelicals to whom his writing is addressed) - see "The Fourth Day".

Thus there is no contradiction between theistic evolution and neo-Darwinism, but neither are they the same. That isn't to say they're completely unrelated - theistic evolutionists accept mainstream science almost by definition, and so - when it comes to their opinions about the mechanism in nature God uses to drive biological evolution - they frequently are also neo-Darwinists. But they are unrelated enough that you'd never find theistic evolution being discussed at a biology convention, or neo-Darwinism being worked on in religion and philosophy departments.

Hope this helps,

Scott

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 1/10/2003 12:04 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks, Scott! *goes to read last chapter of "FDG."

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 1/10/2003 5:06 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

Thanks, Scott! *goes to read last chapter of "FDG."

Well, last few chapters. In his book, Miller starts by overviewing the debate, and evolution in particular (first couple of chapters I think). Then he proceeds to take young-earthers, old-earthers, and ID'ers to task in that order (middle chapters). He takes on those who say evolution is incompatible with theism (a point on which creationists and atheists are strange bedfellows) in the last few chapters. Its throughout those chapters that he defends what is theistic evolution (though he never uses the term).

Note as a scientist his argument is primarily philosophical - not Biblical - that being outside his zone of expertise. If you want a Biblical defense of theistic evolution, I can suggest alternate titles.

Note also that neither Miller's defense of theistic evolution, nor any other I've read (Biblically based or not), seeks to show either that evolution is positive evidence for God, or that God or the Bible is positive evidence for evolution (I suppose process theists might be tempted to make that latter argument, but I'm not familiar with their stuff). Rather theistic evolutionists' argument is just that the two are not incompatible - in the same way, for example, that theism and modern cosmology (earth is a planet, etc) are compatible, though neither provides positive evidence for the other.

Scott

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 1/10/2003 5:12 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

Scott, I hope you stick around. I'd be interested in seeing you engage with Doc, TGB and the others in the open view section.

Oh, I doubt I'd speak up, just ask questions! I'm cautious and don't like to open my big mouth until I feel I'm on solid ground. I've never read either a full-length (eg, book) treatment defending or criticizing the open view, just rather read many short articles and papers here and there (as much having to do with the controversy around the view, as having to do with the view itself).

Thanks for wading through my posts :-)

Scott

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/10/2003 8:16 PM (GMT -6)

Creation Research Society has a voting body of over 700 scientists, the list below is from ICR

The list is meant as an example of me digressing and simply stating – like Scott – that I believe in creation because these folks do.

“When the global consensus of experts in the relevant scientific disciplines shifts to abandon some or all of what is now mainstream science, and adopt creationism instead, I will *very*probably* become a creationist. Why? Because they are the experts, and not I, and when jillions of non-colluding experts say the same thing within their field, it is reasonable for a layman to assent.”

Scott

Its funny, Christianity would still be true even if not a single person on earth believed it to be true. And, a consensus of specialists in the field, as well as the larger part of the world population would reject Jesus’ claims and works. Walla! Christianity must not be true. So my list is an example of why I believe creationism to be true…

…

…however, if any of the “evolutionists” would like to give me just one proof of evolution, and then defend this evidence, I will by all means leave my “argument from authority” and actually deal with the tangible evidence, which apparently, none here like to do. Yes, take note, I have offered many examples of evidences that are used to prove evolution in the textbooks from K-5 thru K-12, and college and universities. The large majority of the scientific community would accept these examples as proof as well. The original paper I posted on fossils shows two predictions made (theories), and where the evidence lay. I lay that challenge down to any evolutionist here… deal with the evidence, not abstract thought on the majority… which, by the way was the defense of the Nazi's at the Nuremberg Trials.

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

Edited by - SeanG on 01/11/2003 01:20:05 AM

Edited by - SeanG on 01/11/2003 01:35:47 AM

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/10/2003 8:17 PM (GMT -6)

Biological Sciences
Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry (ICR)
He has a B.S. in Chemistry from UCLA and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of California (Berkeley). He spent a total of 18 years in biochemical research; with Cornell University Medical College (NYC), with the Virus Laboratory, U of Cal-Berkley and and on the research staff of the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company (Michigan). He has published approximately 40 articles in scientific journals.

Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology (ICR)
He has a B.S. in Biology/Chemistry with honors from Tufts University, a Masters in Biology from Harvard, and the Ph.D. in Biology with a major in Ecology and a minor in Biochemistry from Harvard University. He has been on the faculties at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), the University of Wisconsin at La Crosse, and Western Wisconsin Technological Institute at La Crosse. Dr. Cumming is presently preparing a video which he made on a recent visit to the Galapagos Islands which discusses the diversity of species in relation to the traditional interpretation of speciation.

David Dewitt, Ph.D. Neuroscience (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
He has a B.S. in Biochemistry from Michigan State University and a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine. His professional memberships include the Society for Neuroscience and the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine.

Frank Sherwin, M.A. Zoology (Parasitology) (ICR)
He has a B.A. in Biology from Western State College in Colorado and an M.A. in Zoology from the University of Northern Colorado. Frank's specialty is parasitology. He discovered a new species of parasite, a nematode of the family Acuariidae. He published his research in the peer-reviewed Journal of Parasitology with the late Dr. G.D. Schmidt. Before coming to work for ICR, Frank taught Human Physiology & Anatomy, Medical Microbiology, Parasitology, General Biology I & II and Cell Biology for 9 years at Pensecola Christian College. He is a member of the American Society of Parasitologists and the Helminthological Society of Washington.

Todd C. Wood, Ph.D. Biochemistry/Genomics
He has a B.S. in Biology (highest honors) from Liberty University, a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Virginia, and a Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship in Genomics from Clemson University. He served as Research Assistant Professor and Director of Bioinformatics from the year 1999 to 2000 and Adjunct Professor, Departments of Crop & Soil Sciences and Genetics from the year 2000 to 2001 at the Clemson University Genomics Institute. Dr. Wood is currently Adjunct Professor of Natural Sciences at Bryan College, Tennessee. He has published articles in secular journals like The American Journal of Human Genetics, Science, and Genome Research on biochemistry and genomics.

Robert Franks, M.D. (Adjunct Faculty/Board Member)
He has a B.A. in Zoology (Magna Cum Laude) from San Diego State University, and a M.D. from UCLA. Dr. Franks has practiced medicine (general practice) for over forty years in San Diego. He currently teaches Introduction to Clinical Medicine at UCSD. He teaches Human Anatomy and Pathology here at the ICR graduate school. Dr. Franks has published research on Scalene Node Biopsy and Pulmonary Embolism.

Robert H. Eckel, M.D. (Technical Advisory Board)
He has a B.S. in Bacteriology from the University of Cincinnati and a M.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. Dr. Eckel has authored over 80 papers and over 17 book chapters. He has received over 20 research awards and has been a reviewer for fifty journals including the American Journal of Medicine. Dr. Eckel is also chairman of the nutritional committee of the American Heart Association.

Gary Parker, Ed.D. Biology (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
He has a B.A. in Biology/Chemistry(high honors) from Wabash College, Crawfordville, IN, a M.S. in Biology/Physiology, and an Ed.D. in Biology with a cognate in Paleontology from Ball State University. Dr. Parker earned several academic awards, including admission to Phi Beta Kappa (the national scholastic honorary), election to the American Society of Zoologists (for his research on tadpoles), and a fifteen-month fellowship award from the National Science Foundation. He also wrote five secular books including: The Structure and Function of the Cell, DNA: The Key to Life, Mitosis and Meiosis, Heredity, and Life's Basis: Biomolecules. Dr. Parker's masters thesis concerning amphibian endocrinology was published in Copeia and a summary of his doctoral dissertation on programmed instruction was published in the Journal of College Science Teaching. He has taught biology at Eastern Baptist College, Dordt College, Clearwater Christian College, Christian Heritage College, and ICR's Graduate School.

Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Microbiology
He has a B.S. in Biology from Abilene Christian University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Microbiology from Texas A&M. Dr. Thompson is a former professor in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M, where he also served as Coordinator of the Cooperative Education Program in Biomedical Science. He is also a member of the American Society of Microbiology.

David Menton, Ph.D. Cell Biology (Technical Advisory Board)
He has a B.A. in Biology from Mankato State University and a Ph.D. in Cell Biology from Brown University. Dr. Menton is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington U. School of Medicine. He was Associate Professor of Anatomy for over 30 years. He received the "Distinguished Service Teaching Award" in 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, named "Teacher of the Year" 1979 and was elected "Professor of the Year" in 1998 by the Class of 2000. He has also been Profiled in 'American Men and Women of Science - A Biographical Directory of Today's Leaders in Physical, Biological and Related Sciences' for almost two decades.

Raymond V. Damadian, M.D. (Technical Advisory Board)
He has a B.S. in Mathematics from the University of Wisconsin (entered as 16 yr old freshman) and a M.D. from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. He served as a Fellow in Nephrology at Washington University School of Medicine and as a Fellow in Biophysics at Harvard University. He studied Physiological Chemistry at the School of Aerospace Medicine in San Antonio, Texas. Dr. Damadian later joined the faculty of the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center. His training in medicine and physics led him to develop a new theory of the living cell, his Ion Exchanger Resin Theory. He later invented the MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). He published his findings in the Journal of Science. He has been granted over 40 patents and has published over fifty papers. Dr. Damadian received the United States' National Medal of Technology, the Lemelson-MIT Lifetime Achievement Award for invention and innovation, and was elected to the National Inventors Hall of Fame. Dr. Damadian has been president of the FONAR corporation since 1978. Links of Interest include: Scientific American Profile, Inventor of the Week, and the Lifetime Achievement Award.

Joseph A. Mastropaolo, Ph.D. Kinesiology/Physiology (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
He has a B.S. in Kinesiology from Brooklyn College, a M.S. in Kinesiology from the University of Illinois, a Ph.D. in Kinesiology from the University of Iowa, and a Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship in Human Physiology from the National Institutes of Health. He also studied Electrocardiography and Biophysics of the Circulation at the University of Chicago, Medical School. Dr. Mastropaolo is a Fellow of the American Heart Association, the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, the American College of Sports Medicine, and holds a patent in crew conditioning for extended manned space missions. His research interest has been physiology and kinesiology theory for terrestrial, sea, air and space environments. He has been published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, European Journal of Applied Physiology, and Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise among others.

Carl B. Fliermans, Ph.D. Microbiology (Technical Advisory Board)
He has a B.S. in Biology from Asbury College, a M.S. in Soil Microbiology from the University of Kentucky, a Ph.D. in Microbiology (Microbiology, Limnology, Ecology) from Indiana University, and a Post-Doctoral Fellowship at the National Institutes of Health, University of Minnesota. Dr. Fliermans is a microbial ecologist with the Westinghouse Savannah River Company, E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. in South Carolina. He has published over sixty publications including papers in Protozoology and the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. Dr. Fliermans is a Legionella bacterium (Legionnaires Disease) expert and has served as an expert witness in many litigations. His lab was the first to isolate the bacterium in the natural environment, and he has twenty publications on Legionella as well. He has been part of grants and contracts totaling over twenty-two million dollars. Some of this work has included using microbes to detect land mines for the U.S. Department of Defense and being program technical director of the U.S. Department of Energy's "Microbiology of the Deep Subsurface" program. Dr. Fliermans has also served as a consultant to over ninety universities, companies, and organizations including Harvard Medical School, EPA, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation.

Ian G. Macreadie, Ph.D. Molecular Biology
He received a B.Sc.(Hons.) and a Ph.D. from Monash University in Australia. His fields were genetics, biochemistry and molecular biology. He completed his Post Doc training at Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas. Dr. Macreadie is a Principal Research Scientist of CSIRO Health Sciences and Nutrition and an Adjunct Professor of RMIT University. He has played key roles in identifying the structure and function of several mitochondrial genes. After joining Bimolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), he developed a novel yeast expression system that led to the production of an IBDV vaccine. He used yeast systems to produce biologically relevant proteins of human AIDS and major infectious cellular pathogens such as malaria and P. carini. These systems are being used to rapidly screen for new classes of drugs. Major links have been established with key international groups with similar objectives. He is author of over 70 research publications and five patents. His awards include a 1990 Fulbright Senior Scholar Award, 1996 Frank Fenner Research Award. Dr. Macreadie was also a co-recipient of the 1997 CSIRO Chairman's Medal for their outstanding contributions to our knowledge of the structure and biology of the Birnaviridae family of double-stranded RNA viruses, leading to the development of a prototype recombinant vaccine against infectious bursal disease of poultry. He was also Honorary Secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from 1997-2000.

Andre Eggen, Ph.D. Animal/Molecular Genetics
Dr. Eggen received a B.Sc. in Agronomy and Animal Production and a Ph.D. in Animal and Molecular Genetics from the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland. Since 1992, he has been working for the INRA (Institute Nationale de la Agrinominque of France). From July 1995 to July 1997, he worked at ABS Global, an artificial insemination company in DeForest, WI, in their DNA Research Lab. Dr. Eggen has published over 60 papers in journals including Genetics Selection Evolution and continues to work with the INRA in bovine genomics.

Lyubka P. Tantcheva, Ph.D. Biochemical Toxicology
Dr. Tantcheva received a M.Sc. in Pharmacy and a Ph.D. in Biochemical Toxicology from the Medical Academy, Sofia. Dr. Tantcheva is a research fellow in the Institute of Physiology at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in the field of experimental drug toxicology and pharmacology, and is a member of the Bulgarian Society of Pharmacology, Section of Toxicology and Union of Bulgarian Scientists, Section of Chemistry and Pharmacy.

Walter J. Veith, Ph.D. Zoology
He has a B.Sc. from the University of Stellenbosch with major subjects Zoology and Chemistry, a B.Sc.and M.Sc. in Zoology from the University of Stellenbosch and a Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of Cape Town. Dr. Veith is currently professor and chair of the Zoology Department, University of the Western Cape. He has been teaching at the under and post-graduate level for over 28 years.

John K.G. Kramer, Ph.D. Biochemistry
He has a B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Biochemistry from the University of Manatoba and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry with a minor in Organic Chemistry from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Kramer was a Hormel Fellow at the Hormel Institute, Austin, MN (1968-70) and an NRC Fellow (1970-71) at the University of Ottawa, before joining Agriculture Canada in Ottawa as a Research Scientist (1970-present). He was on sabbatical for over a year at the US Food and Drug Administration in Washington, DC and the USDA in Wyndmoor, PA. He received the Government of Canada Merit Award (1983), the CSP Canola Research Award (1984), and the Dutton Research Award (1999). He is and has served as Associate Editor of the journal LIPIDS since 1988. From 1979-85 he was a core member of Agriculture Canada's group to successfully obtain GRAS status for canola oil. Dr. Kramer has published over 147 refereed papers, 40 miscellaneous papers, 55 abstracts, 2 books and 11 chapters.

Benjamin L. Aaron, M.D. (Board Member)
He did his Pre-Med at the University of Missouri and received his M.D. from the University of Texas. Dr. Aaron did his internship and residency at the Naval Hospital, Oakland, CA in Rotating/General Surgery and at the Naval Hospital, New York in Thoracic Surgery. Dr. Aaron was Chief of Surgery, Naval Hospital, Guam, M.I., Chief of Thoracic & Vascular Surgery, Naval Hospital, Portsmouth, VA., Chairman, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Naval Regional Medical Center, San Diego, CA, and former Director, Cardiothoracic Surgery, George Washington University Medical Center, Washington D.C. He also had the privilege of being head of the surgical team who operated on former President Ronald Reagan when he was shot. You can read a little about this here. Dr. Aaron also performed current Vice President Dick Cheney's bypass operation in 1988.

Sharon K. Bullock, Ph.D. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
She has a B.S. in Zoology (summa cum laude) from North Carolina State University and a Ph.D. in Pathology and Laboratory Medicine from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Bullock presented research at the 85th, 89th, and 92nd annual American Association for Cancer Research meetings. She is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Association for Cancer Research, and Women in Cancer Research. Dr. Bullock is a member of the biology faculty of Virginia Commonwealth University.

John R. Meyer, Ph.D. Zoology (Technical Advisory Board)
He has a B.A. in Biology/Chemistry from Kearney State College and a Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of Iowa, and a Post-Doctoral Fellowship from the University of Colorado. Dr. Meyer previously taught physiology and biophysics at Louisville University. He is current director of the CRS Van Andel Creation Research Center.

Lane P. Lester, Ph.D. Genetics (Technical Advisory Board)
He has a B.S.E. in Biology from the University of Florida, a M.S. in Ecology and a Ph.D. in Genetics from Purdue University. Dr. Lester has spent over 30 years teaching in the biological sciences including the University of Tennessee. He is a member of the National Association of Biology Teachers and has written materials published by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Center at the University of Colorado.

Alan Gillen, Ed.D. Science Education
He has a B.A. in Biology from Washington & Jefferson College in Washington, PA, a M.S. in Zoology from Ohio State University, a certification in Allied Health Sciences from the Baylor College of Medicine and an Ed.D. in Science Education from the University of Houston. Dr. Gillen teaches Anatomy & Physiology, General Biology, Microbiology, Parasitology, and Survey of Biology at Pensecola Christian College in Florida. He is a member of the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT), the Human Anatomy & Physiology Society (HAPS) and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA).

Gregory J. Brewer, Ph.D. Biology
He has a B.S. in Biology from the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. and a Ph.D. in Biology from the University of California San Diego (UCSD). He did postdoctoral work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on membrane-mediated macro-regulatory effects of colicin K on E. coli under nobel laureate, Professor Salvador E. Luria. Dr. Brewer is current Professor of Neurology and Medical Microbiology at Southern Illinois University. He has published over 60 papers in refereed journals, over 70 presentations and abstracts at professional meetings, and is currently an ad hoc reviewer for the National Science Foundation.

Arthur J. Jones, Ph.D. Biology
He has a B.Sc.(Hons) in Biology from the University of Birmingham, a M.Ed. in Education from Bristol University, and a Ph.D. in Biology(Developmental Biology, Fish Systematics, History and Philosophy of Biology) from the University of Birmingham, UK. His thesis was Developmental Studies and Speciation in Cichlid Fish, Department of Zoology and Comparative Physiology. Part of Dr. Jones' thesis research was published in the Journal of Morphology. His teaching career has spanned almost thirty years. His science and religion courses have won two Templeton Foundation awards. Dr. Jones is a Chartered Biologist and has been a member of the Institute of Biology, London, since 1976.

Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D. Mollecular and Cellular Pharmacology
She has a B.S. in Biology and Math from New College of Florida and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology from the University of Miami. Not only is Dr. Hollowell a highly-qualified scientist, but she is also an attorney. Dr. Hollowell has worked as a Research Assistant, Assistant Director of Technical Analysis, Forensic Toxicologist and Science Consultant for different laboratories and companies. Her expertise is in DNA technology and cloning, and she has been published in the Journal of Neurobiology.

Donna O'Daniel, M.A. Biological Sciences
She has a B.A. in Education from Faith Baptist Bible College and a M.A. in Biological Sciences with a minor in Botany from the University of Texas at Austin. She has been a Wildlife Biologist for over thirteen years now. Field research for her M.A. degree was done in Corcovado National Park, Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica (avian seed dispersal in two species of Calathea). She is currently Wildlife Biologist for the Johnston Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, southwest of Hawaii, and her specialty is seabirds. She has conducted the only breeding biology study of the little known Bulwer's Petrel in the Pacific (1992 and 1993). Her work as a biologist has taken her to many remote places, including the Falkland Islands, Aleutian Islands, Midway Atoll, Laysan Island and French Frigate Shoals (Northwest Hawaiian Islands), the Northern Marianas, and Madagascar, and has included work on passerines, raptors, seabirds, shorebirds, and sea turtles. She has also received six awards from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Glen W. Wolfrom, Ph.D. Animal Husbandry
He has a B.S. in Animal Science with a Zoology minor from Western Illinois University, a M.S. in Animal Industries from Southern Illinois University, and a Ph.D. in Animal Husbandry/Ruminant Nutrition with a Statistics minor from the University of Missouri. Dr. Wolfrom is currently Senior Clinical Research Scientist and Project Manager for Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. where he has worked since 1995. He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Society of Animal Science (ASAS), and the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST).

Mark H. Armitage, M.S. Biology
He completed 164 undergraduate hours in Biology from the University of Florida, received a B.S. in Education from Liberty University, and a M.S. in Biology with an emphasis in electron microscopy, parasitology and microtechnique from the Institute of Creation Research Graduate School. His advisor was the late, Richard D. Lumsden, Ph.D. Biology. Their research led to the discovery of a new parasite species and a new parasite host. Mr. Armitage is currently enrolled in Liberty University's distance program for a Doctoral Program in Science Educational Leadership. He was formerly Adjunct Professor of Biology and EM Laboratory Manager for Azusa Pacific University in their Departments of Biology and Physical Therapy.

In Memory of Richard D. Lumsden, Ph.D. Biology (Former Chair of ICR's Grad School Biology Dept. 1990-1996 - Went Home to be with the Lord 1997)
He had a B.S. and M.S. in Zoology from Tulane University, a traineeship in Cell Biology at Harvard (non-degree), a Ph.D. in Biology from Rice University, and a Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship in Medical Pathology from the Tulane University School of Medicine. Dr. Lumsden was former Professor of Parasitology and Cell Biology and Dean of the Tulane University Graduate School. He received over 21 Research Grants and Contracts from such organizations at the National Institutes of Health, The National Science Foundation, and the FDA. He published some 90 peer-reviewed papers, mostly in parasitological journals often describing new species, and presented over 100 program abstracts. An issue of the Journal of Parasitology [87(3), June 2001], featured a study by a group of workers at UCLA on human brain tapeworm parasites (pages 510-521), and it references work by Dr. Lumsden done over 21 years ago on electron microscopy of the tapeworm. He won the Henry Baldwin Ward medal, the highest award in parasitology. Dr. Lumsden was a member of the American Society of Parasitologists, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Society of Zoologists, the Society for Cell Biology, the Helminthological Society of Washington, and the New York Academy of Sciences.

David A. Demick, M.D.
He has a B.S. in Chemistry from Huntington College, Huntington, IN and his M.D. from University of Illinois College of Medicine at Urbana-Champaign and at Peoria. He completed his residency in Pathology at the Michael Reese Medical Center, Chicago, IL and at Methodist Medical Center, Peoria, IL. Dr. Demick has been a practicing pathologist for over seventeen years, and he is a member of the American Society of Clinical Pathologists. He is also published in the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology.

Randy Guliuzza, M.D.
He has a B.S. in Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology and an M.D. from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Guliuzza served nine years in the Navy Civil Engineer Corps and is a registerd professional engineer. He is presently a flight surgeon at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas.

Keith Swenson, M.D.
He has a B.S. in Zoology and Pre-medical Studies from the University of Idaho and an M.D. from Washington University School of Medicine (St. Louis, MO). He completed residency training at Michael Reese Hospital (Chicago, IL), Oregon Health Sciences University, and Providence Medical Center (both in Portland, OR). He is a diplomate of the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Dermatology. Dr. Swenson has served as a Clinical Assistant Professor of Dermatology (University of Illinois) and has practiced clinical medicine for over twenty years.

George F. Howe, Ph.D. Botany
He has a B.S. in Botany from Wheaton College, and the M.Sc., and Ph.D. in Botany from Ohio State University. His thesis research covered several facets of photosynthesis. He completed Post-Doctoral studies in Radiation Biology at Cornell University. He completed Post-Doctoral studies in Botany at Washington State University which was sponsored by the Botanical Society of America and the National Science Foundation. He also completed Post-Doctoral studies in Desert Biology at Arizona State University which was sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Dr. Howe was an instructor of Botany and a Charles F. Keterring Fellow at Ohio State University. He has had papers published in the Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences and the Ohio Journal of Science among others covering topics like photosynthesis, chaparral regrowth after fire, pollination of the camphor weed, ring muhley grass, and lichens. Dr. Howe was previously a member of the Society of the Sigma Xi, the Southern California Academy of Sciences, and the Southern California Botanists. He was also listed in American Men and Women of Science.

David A. Kaufmann, Ph.D. Anatomy
He has a B.S. in Mathematics/Physical Education from Slippery Rock University, a M.A. in Physical Education, and a Ph.D. in Anatomy from the University of Iowa. He completed Post-Doctoral research in Biomechanics of Sports Skills at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich and Exercise Physiology at Wingate Institute, Netanya, Israel. He is retired Professor of Exercise Science at the University of Florida where he taught for 27 years.

Jonathan B. Scripture, Ph.D. Biochemistry
He has a B.A. in Zoology from the University of California, Berkley and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Notre Dame. Dr. Scripture's research at Notre Dame included structure/function studies on ribosomal RNA using chemical and mutational analyses. He spent five years at Case Western Reserve Medical School where he did comparative protein and DNA analysis of carbohyrdrate binding proteins in bacteria. His research has been published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry and the Journal of Molecular Biology.

Richard Oliver , Ph.D. Biology
He has a B.S. in Biology from the University of California, Fullerton and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Biology from the University of California, Irvine. He is a member of the American Federation of Herpetoculturalists, the California Science Teachers Association, and the New York Academy of Science.

Inis J. Bardella, M.D.
She has a B.S. in Biology(high honors) from Washington and Jefferson College and M.D. from the Temple University School of Medicine. Dr. Bardella did her residency in Family Practice at Washington Hospital in in Washington, PA. She is currently Assistant Professor of Family Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology and Director of Community Faculty for the Department of Family Medicine, University of Pittsburgh. Dr. Bardella is also a physician for the East Liberty Family Health Care Center, Lincoln Lemington Office.

Gary A. Eckhoff, D.V.M.
He has a M.S. in Pharmacology with a Minor in Biochemistry from the University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine and a D.V.M from the Iowa State University, College of Veterinary Medicine. He was involved in university teaching and research for 16 years as well as four years of private practice. He has worked in the industrial field for the last twelve years for companies like Solvay Animal Health, Hazelton, Inc., and Geneva Laboratories, Inc. His current position is Director of Laboratory Animal Science and Animal Toxicology for Geneva Laboratories, Inc. Dr. Eckhoff is a member of the American College of Laboratory Animal Disease, American Veterinary Medical Association, Association of Primate Veterinarians, and the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science.

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

Edited by - SeanG on 01/11/2003 01:21:17 AM

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/10/2003 8:18 PM (GMT -6)

Physical Sciences
Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. Hydraulic Engineering (Founder and President Emeritus of ICR)
He has a B.S. from Rice University with honors in Civil Engineering and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Morris majored in engineering hydraulics/hydrology while minoring in Geology and Mathematics. He has served on the faculties of Rice University, the University of Minnesota, the University of Southwestern Louisiana, and Southern Illinois University. From 1957 to 1970 he was Head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). While at Virginia Tech, Dr. Morris was able to get approval for Ph.D. programs in Civil Engineering and Hydraulics. Dr. Morris authored Applied Hydraulics in Engineering, which has been used by over 100 colleges and universities at one time or another. It is still used today as a reference and even the main text in some university classes. As of 1993 and 30 years after the first edition was printed, there was no comparable textbook available.

John Morris, Ph.D. Geological Engineering (President of ICR)
He has the B.S. in Civil Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and the M.S. and Ph.D. in Geological Engineering from the University of Oklahoma. He was a research assistant from 1978-1980 and assistant professor of Geological Engineering from 1980-1984 at Oklahoma University as well.

Steven Austin, Ph.D. Geology (ICR)
He has the B.S. from the University of Washington, M.S. from San Jose State University and Ph.D. from the Pennsylvania State University, all in geology. His professional memberships include the Geological Society of America, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, the Society for Sedimentary Geology, the International Association of Sedimentologists. He has had professional, peer-reviewed projects at Mt. St. Helens and within the Grand Canyon. Current research is being conducted on mass kill of nautiloids within the Redwall limestone of the Grand Canyon, radioisotopes of Grand Canyon rocks, and earthquake destruction of archaeological sites in the Kingdom of Jordan. In 1999, Dr. Austin published research in the prestigious, peer-reviewed journal International Geology Review.

Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science (ICR)
He has a B.S. in Physics from the U. of Missouri at Rolla, a B.S. in Meteorology from St. Louis University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University. Dr. Vardiman is a member of the American Meteorological Society.

John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics
(Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
He has a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Texas Tech University, a M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Princeton University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Geophysics and Space Physics from UCLA. Dr. Baumgardner has served as staff scientist in the Fluid Dynamics Group of the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico since 1984. He is famous for his development of the TERRA program, a 3-D spherical finite element model for the earth's mantle. Beginning in 1995 Dr. Baumgardner assisted the German Weather Service in adapting methods from the TERRA code as the basis for a new operational global weather forecast model known as GME that is now used in Germany and ten other countries.

Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics (ICR)
He has a B.S. in Physics from Duke University and a Ph.D. in Physics from Louisiana State University. Dr. Humphreys then worked six years for the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric. While there, he received a US patent and one of Industrial Research Magazine's IR-100 awards. He has worked for Sandia National Laboratories since 1979 in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project. He was co-inventor of special laser-triggered "Rimfire" high-voltage switches. Dr. Humphreys has received another US patent and two awards from Sandia, including an Award for excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory.

Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. Geology (ICR)
He has a B.Sc. with first class honours in Applied Geology from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia and a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of Sydney. He worked for a number of years in the mining industry in locations throughout Australia undertaking mineral exploration surveys and field research. He has also been a consultant research geologist for more than a decade to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission for internationally-funded research on the geology and geochemistry of uranium ore deposits as analogues of nuclear waste disposal sites. His primary research interests include radioisotopic methods for the dating of rocks, formation of igneous and metamorphic rocks, and ore deposits.

Bill Hoesch, M.S. Geology (ICR)
He has a B.S. in Biology from the University of Colorado and a M.S. in Geology from the ICR Graduate School. For 7 years Bill was employed in petroleum exploration, including jobs as borehole logging engineer in Wyoming with Dresser-Atlas, wellsite geologist in Kenya, Congo and Angola with Cities Service International, and graduate research for Aminoil International (Houston) which led to a 279-page in-house publication on the petroleum potential of Kalimantan, Indonesia. While earning a Masters of Science degree in geology from the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School, Bill also worked for C.H. Wood & Associates evaluating damage in the aftermath of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco Bay area. This was followed by a one-year teaching position at Jianghan Petroleum Institute in the People's Republic of China, where he taught university students in English, Geology and petroleum exploration. Bill then returned to the U.S. where he took a position as Public Information Officer at ICR, and then Research Geologist, where he currently assists in mineral isolation of RATE project rocks, and field work in parts of Arizona, Nevada and Utah on a stratigraphic study of a nautiloid mass-kill deposit.

David Phillips, M.A. Paleoanthropology
He has a B.A. in Physical Anthropology with minors in Biology and Geology from the California State University of Northridge (CSUN) and a M.A. in Paleoanthropology with highest honors from CSUN as well. Professor Phillipps is pursuing his Ph.D. in Paleontology. He is professor of physical sciences at the Masters College and works at the Paleontology lab for the La Brea Tar Pits.

Danny Faulkner, Ph.D. Astronomy (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
He has a B.S. in Math from Bob Jones University, an M.S. in Physics from Clemson University and a M.A. and Ph.D. in Astronomy from Indiana University. Dr. Faulkner has been Professor of Astronomy and Physics at the University of South Carolina, Lancaster since 1986. His research interests include stellar astronomy, especially binary stars. He has been published in the Astrophysical Journal, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and the Information Bulletin on Variable Stars.

Don DeYoung, Ph.D. Physics (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
He has a B.S. and M.S. in Physics from Michigan Technological University and a Ph.D. in Physics from Iowa State University. Dr. DeYoung has published several articles in the areas of solid-state physics and nuclear science in The Journal of Chemistry and Physics of Solids, The Journal of Chemical Physics and several science teaching publications, Science Teacher and Crucible. He is a member of the American Physical Society, the Indiana Academy of Science, and the Association of Physics Teachers. Dr. DeYoung teaches Physics at Grace College in Indiana.

Eugene Chaffin, Ph.D. Theoretical Nuclear Physics (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
He has a B.S. and M.S. in Physics and a Ph.D. in Theoretical Nuclear Physics from Oklahoma State University. Dr. Chaffin did post-doctoral studies at the Institute for Applied Nuclear Physics in Karlsruhe, Germany. This involved two years of research on the theory of nuclear fission. Dr. Chaffin taught Physics for four years at the Naval Nuclear Power School. He was responsible for training Naval personnel for duty operating and maintaining nuclear reactors on board U.S. Navy submarines and surface ships. (More to come...)

John W. Oller, Jr., Ph.D. General Linguistics (Technical Advisory Board)
He has a B.A. in Spanish and French with a minor in Education from Fresno State University and a M.A. and Ph.D. in General Linguistics from the University of Rochester, New York. Dr. Oller's dissertation was on The Coding of Information in Natural Languages: A Psycholinguistic Theory. An elected member of the New York Academy of Sciences, Dr. Oller is an experimentalist and measurement specialist in language, literacy, communication, and intelligence. He has authored or co-authored thirteen professional books and more than two hundred professional articles. In 1984, he won the Modern Language Association Mildenberger Medal, an international prize for the best book on foreign language teaching. Dr. Oller is currently a Professor of Communicative Disorders, Head of the Department of Communicative Disorders and Director of the Doris B. Hawthorne Center for Special Education and Communicative Disorders at the University of Louisiana.

Jay L. Wile, Ph.D. Nuclear Chemistry
He has a B.S. in Chemistry and a Ph.D. in Nuclear Chemistry from the University of Rochester in New York. He was granted three research grants which were given in-part by the National Science Foundation. Dr. Wile was given the Westinghouse Science Talent Search Certificate of Honor for Science Service. He has memberships with the American Chemical Society, the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Andrew C. McIntosh, Ph.D. Combustion Theory
He has a D.Sc. in Applied Mathematics from the University of Wales with first class honours, a Ph.D. in the Theory of Combustion from the Cranefield Institute of Technology and a DSc in Mathematics from the University of Wales. Dr. McIntosh is a Reader (second-highest teaching/research rank in U.K. university hierarchy) in Combustion Theory at Leeds University, U.K. He has contributed chapters to 10 textbooks dealing with combustion theory and published over 80 research papers.

Alexander V. Lalomov, Ph.D. Geology
He has a M.S. in Geochemistry Leningrad State University and a Ph.D. in Submarine Geology from the USSR National Research Institute of Ocean Geology. Dr. Lalomov is a member of the Society of the Geological Society of USSR (Russia since 1992), the Geographical Society of Russia, and the Ecology Union of Russia.

Tom McMullen, Ph.D. History and Philosophy of Science
He has a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Washington State University, a M.S. in Engineering Administration from Southern Methodist University and a M.A. and Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Indiana University. Dr. McMullen is a member of the History of Science Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Kurt P. Wise, Ph.D. Geology (Paleontology)
He has a B.A. in Geophysical Sciences (majored in Geology while close to a second major in Biology) from the University of Chicago, and a M.A. and Ph.D. in Geology (Paleontology) from Harvard University where Stephen J. Gould was his principal advisor. Dr. Wise has published in the Journal of Paleobiology, received the Certificate of Distinction in Teaching two years in a row from the Harvard-Danforth Center for Teaching and Learning, Harvard University, and is a member of the National Center for Science Education and the Paleontological Society. He also taught Paleontology and Biosystematics at the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School and has assisted ICR in previous tours to Mt. St. Helens, the Grand Canyon, and Yellowstone. Dr. Wise is currently Director of Origins Research and Associate Professor of Science, Division of Mathematics and Natural Science, Bryan College, Dayton, TN.

David P. Livingston, Jr., Ph.D. Archaeology and Ancient History
He has a B.A. in General Science from Wheaton College, a M.A. with honors in Old Testament Studies from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and a Ph.D. in Archaeology and Ancient History from Andrews University. He also studied Archaeology and Hebrew for one year at the Institute for Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem and two years of graduate studies in Ancient History at Dropsie University in Philadelphia. Dr. Livingston has directed fifteen seasons of excavations in Khirbet Nisya, which is 11 miles north of Jerusalem. He has also participated in excavations in Jerusalem, Jericho, Jezreel, Bourgata and Gezer.

Paul Ackerman, Ph.D. Psychology
He has a B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Kansas. Dr. Ackerman is currently an assistant professor of Psychology and the Assistant Chairperson of the Psychology Department at Wichita State University.

Keith H. Wanser, Ph.D. Condensed Matter Physics
He has a B.A. in Physics from California State University, Fullerton, a M.A. in Physics, and a Ph.D. in Condensed Matter Physics both from the University of California, Irvine. Dr. Wanser is currently professor of Physics at California State University, Fullerton. He has received seven patents and over 1 million dollars in grant and contract awards. Before beginning his teaching career, Dr. Wanser worked for McDonnell Douglas Astronautics as a senior scientist and the Optical Sciences Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC. He received the School of NSM 1996 oustanding research award.

Edmond W. Holroyd, III Ph.D. Atmospheric Science
He has a B.S. in Astrophysics with a minor in Physics from the University of Rochester and a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science from the University of New York at Albany. Dr. Holroyd has been a meteorologist and research physical scientist since 1974 for the Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Office, Colorado, and field offices. He has also been Adjunct Professor since 1999 at the University College, University of Denver, GIS department. He is a member of the American Meteorological Society and the Weather Modification Association.

Donald E. Chittick, Ph.D. Chemistry
He has a B.S. in Chemistry from Willamette University and a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Oregon State University. His research interests include programmed instruction for which he was granted a U.S. patent and also alternate fuels in which he holds both U.S. and foreign patents. He was awarded recognition in Outstanding Educators in America, is listed in Who's Who in the West and in American Men and Women of Science. He is a member of the American Chemical Society. Dr. and Mrs. Chittick received the Bent Twig Award in 1986 from Citizens for Public Education.

Raul E. Lopez, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science
He has a B.S. in Physics and Math from the University of Puerto Rico and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University. His areas of experience are in Meteorology, Lightning, Convective Cloud Systems and much more. Dr. Lopez has published over forty-five papers in scientific and professional journals. He has also published over ninety conference papers and technical reports.

Arlo Moehlenpah, D.Sc. Chemical Engineering
He has a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Washington University, a M.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Minnesota, and a D.Sc. in Chemical Engineering from Washington University. He has served on the faculties of Macalester College, Wisconsin State University, and San Joaquin Delta College and has industrial experience with Shell Oil, Rohm & Haas, Monsanto and Hydro-Air Engineering. Dr. Moehlenpah has been a registered professional engineer since 1972.

Robert Hermann, Ph.D. Mathematics
He has a B.A.(with honors) in Mathematics with a minor in Physics from John Hopkins University, a M.A. and a Ph.D. in Mathematics from American University. He is current professor of Mathematics at the U.S. Naval Academy and has taught Mathematics for almost 40 years now. Dr. Hermann has published 62 articles in 28 different refereed journals from 13 countries and has written 5 books. He has presented 31 papers at meetings of scholarly societies and published 45 abstracts. He has presented over 2,000 scientific disclosures. His efforts have been directed towards popularizing nonstandard analysis.

Otto E. Berg, B.A. Physics/Chemistry
He has a B.A. in Physics and Chemistry from Concordia College, Moorhead, Minnesota. He was on the research staff and also a consultant for three years to the NASA Goddard Space Center at the University of Maryland. He has also been a consultant since 1991 to the NASA Goddard Space Center at the Calvert Institute, Maryland for nucleation and growth processes related to the formation of presolar grains and planets. Mr. Berg is also a retired member for the NASA Meteoroid Environment Panel and the International Committee on Space Research, Meteoroid Panel. He received an Honorary Doctorate-Honoris Causa in 1994 for major contributions in space research and received the 1977 NASA Exceptional Achievement Medal (only two conferred in 1977).

Malcolm A. Cutchins, Ph.D. Engineering Mechanics (Technical Advisory Board)
He has a B.S. in Civil Engineering (Structures) from Virginia Teach and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Engineering Mechanics from Virginia Tech. Dr. Cutchins is Professor Emeritus of Aerospace Engineering at Auburn University where he taught for over 33 years. He received the Birdsong Merit Teaching Award in 1997, the Outstanding Faculty Award(college-wide), College of Engineering twice in 1967 and 1976, the Outstanding Faculty Award, AE Department in 1981, the Engineer of the Year Award, ASPE in 1985, and the IR-100 Award in 1976. Dr. Cutchins is well-published and has performed research for NSF, the USAF, and NASA.

Patrick Young, Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry
He has a B.S. in Chemisty from the University of Rio Grande and a Ph.D. in Analytical Chemistry with Minors in Organic and Physical Chemistry from Ohio University. He received the Donald F. Clippinger award for superior research by a graduate student. After graduation he initiated an in-depth research program on the study of lyotropic liquid crystals where he received U. S. patent as co-inventor of a Kevlar® polymer and process modification improving critical properties in high performance composites. Kevlar® is used in space-age applications and bullet-proof vests. Dr. Young has been active in the research and development of Mylar® film products for capacitor and thermal transfer media applications. He has been technical service manager, research group leader, and chemist at Dupont Laboratories since 1984. Dr. Young was voted one of the outstanding young men of America in 1989 and voted one of the outstanding young men of science in 1993.

Ron Samec, Ph.D. Physics
He has a B.A. in Astronomy and a M.A. in Science Education, Physics concentration from the University of South Florida and a Ph.D. in Physics from Clemson University. Dr. Samec has taught physics and astronomy at Butler, Millkan, and Bob Jones Universities. He currently teaches at Bob Jones University. He is a member of the American Physical Society (APS), the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT), the American Astronomical Society (AAS), Full Member, the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (ASP), and the International Astronomical Union (IAU) among others. Dr. Samec has published over 100 papers.

Daniel W. Reynolds , Ph.D. Physical Organic Chemistry
He has a B.S. in Chemistry from the University of Texas, San Antonio, a M.A. in Synthetic Organic Chemistry from the University of Texas, Austin, and a Ph.D. in Physical Organic Chemistry from the University of Texas, Austin. He was a postdoctoral fellow at the Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos and published 8 papers. Dr. Reynolds was a developmental scientist for six years. He has been a research investigator for the past six years.

Gary Locklair, Ph.D. Computer Science
He has a B.A. in Chemistry and a B.S. in Computer Science from California State University, Sacramento, a M.S. in Computer Science from the University of Idaho, and a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Nova Southeastern University. He worked for nine years as software programmer and manager, analyst, software engineer, and various other positions for companies like LaserJet and Hewlett-Packard. Dr. Locklair is currently professor and chair of the computer science department at Concordia University, Wisconsin.

Michael Oard, M.S. Atmospheric Science
He has a B.S. and M.S. in Atmospheric Science from the University of Washington. He was a research assistant at the University of Washington for five years. He was a meteorologist with the National Weather Service, Great Falls, Montana for over 27 years and lead forecaster for 20 years. Mr. Oard was published in the Journal of Meteorology among others.

Jerry R. Bergman, Ph.D. Evaluation and Research
He received a B.S. with major areas of study in Education, Psychology, and Biology, a M.Ed. in Psychology and Counseling, and a Ph.D. in Evaluation and Research with a minor in Psychology from Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. He also received a M.A. in Social Psychology from Bowling Green State University and a M.S.B.S. in Biomedical Science from the Medical College of Ohio, Toledo. Dr. Bergman has published over 350 papers in secular journals as well as creation science publications.

Emmett L. Williams, Ph.D. Materials Engineering
He received a B.S. and M.S. in Metallurigical Engineering from Virginia Tech and a Ph.D. in Materials Engineering from Clemson University. He has seventeen years of both academic and industrial experience including research on thermodynamics of nitriding reaction in stainless steel, metallurgy and failure analysis of nuclear and air craft structures, surface studies of aircraft alloys, use of scanning electron microscopy, and much more.

Edward A. Boudreaux, Ph.D. Chemistry
He received a B.S. in Chemistry from Loyola University, a M.S. in Chemistry, and a Ph.D. in Chemistry both from Tulane University. Dr. Boudreaux has published 30 papers in peer-reviewed journals, made 18 contributions to chapters in scientific books and review articles, was author and/or co-author of 4 technical books, presented over 54 scientific research presentations at national and international conferences and symposia, and presented over 30 invited scientific lectures at national and international institutions. He is a member or has been a member of Sigma Xi, the Chemical Society of London, International Society of Quantum Biology, Southeastern Theoretical Chemistry Association, Louisiana Academy of Sciences, and the American Chemical Society(Board Member, Louisiana Section). Dr. Boudreaux has spent 29 years in graduate education and research at the University of New Orleans. He is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry.

Jerry M. Simmons, Ph.D. Multicultural Teacher & Childhood Education (Science Teaching Emphasis)
He received a B.S. in Chemistry and Technology from the New Mexico Institute of Mining, a M.S. in Teaching and Technology from the New Mexico Institute of Mining, and a Ph.D. in Multicultural Teacher & Childhood Education(Science Teaching Emphasis) from the University of New Mexico. He has been professor at Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute and Wayland Baptist University (Albuquerque), curriculum reviewer for the University of New Mexico, clinical supervisor and instructor, College of Education, University of New Mexico, and instructor, Department of Physics, University of New Mexico. Dr. Simmons received the Science Teacher of the Year Award, Northwest Regional Science and Engineering Fair and was listed in Who's Who Among American Teachers in 1994.

David R. McQueen, M.S. Geology
He received a B.A. in Geology from the University of Tennessee, a M.S. in Geology from the University of Michigan, and an Ed.S. in Curriculum and Instruction(Science Education) and a EPA Graduate Fellow in Toxicology from Northeast Louisiana University. He has 31 years experience as a teacher and scientist, having completed graduate work during this time in three academic areas: geology, science education, and environmental toxicology. The universities he has taught at include George Mason, Virginia State, Easte Tennessee State, and National University. He has been a Regulatory Hydrogeologist with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality since 1989. He received a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Graduate Fellowship in Toxicology from 1991-93, a U.S. Geological Survey "Unit Cash Award" for a mineral resources map, and received a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship in Geology from 1975-77.

Les Bruce, Ph.D. Linguistics
He received a B.A. in Biblical Studies from John Brown University, a M.A. in Biblical Education from Columbia Bible College, and a Ph.D. in Linguistics from The Australian National University. He has worked with the Summer Institute of Linguistics since 1968 and is currently associate professor of Linguistics at the Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics in Dallas, TX.

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

104 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:25 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual