Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many — if not most — Americans think of the creation and evolution controversy as a dichotomy with "creationists" on one side, and "evolutionists" on the other. This assumption all too often leads to the unfortunate conclusion that because creationists are believers in God, that evolutionists must be atheists. The true situation is much more complicated: creationism comes in many forms, and not all of them reject evolution.
Early
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method.
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’ and The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
John Wilkins (1614–1672)
Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany The Age of Newton
Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas68(1):57–80, 1997)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)
Just Before Darwin
The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson
Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer Just After Darwin
Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archaeologist
James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archaeologist
John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve The Modern Period
Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist (1919–2005)
George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
Dr Frank Marsh, Biology (1899–1992)
Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archaeologist
William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
Dr Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (1928–1998)
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
My 33+ year career as a public educator began as an elementary teacher>>community college teacher>>university teacher>>university professor>>assistant dean. I talked to countless STEM educators along the way about the creation v evolution debate in education. Most, not all, regardless of personal conviction, had no objection to teaching some form of creation alongside evolution. As can be seen in the above Gallup Poll chart the majority of Americans believe God had something to do with our creation and development. The other chart shows that creation and evolution are on a continuum. I propose a workable solution to the creation v evolution debate in education exists if the polarizing fringes on both sides quiet themselves long enough.
I'm a creationist, but this argument about teaching creation alongside of evolution doesn't make sense et all. (I purposely wrote et all :-) What is there to teach about creation? That is what theories concerning creation have been proven, to teach on? The only thing you will be able to teach concerning creation, is the belief on the Biblical God. That of course, is simply teaching someone's faith to people who aren't of the faith. God doesn't want that, He doesn't want to force people to trust His word. If He was going to do that, there would be no need for any preacher or anything we Christians do. God would simply make us trust Him. (Thus eliminating free will)
So unless we actually have tested theories concerning creation, there is nothing to teach. For Christians out there who honestly argue creation should be taught, let's honestly ask ourselves what we are arguing. When you argue that creation should be taught in school, you are arguing for people to be forced fed Christianity. God doesn't want that number one. Number two, you open up the doors for Christians to be forced fed other beliefs. If you see being forced fed the beliefs of Buddhism as wrong, why are you trying to force feed your beliefs on Buddhists? We are called to be examples of God's love for the world. When people see us, through reason, they can make their own choice if what we say is the truth. So far however, it's reasonable for people to doubt us, but that will change. All in all, don't force feed your beliefs.
My 33+ year career as a public educator began as an elementary teacher>>community college teacher>>university teacher>>university professor>>assistant dean. I talked to countless STEM educators along the way about the creation v evolution debate in education. Most, not all, regardless of personal conviction, had no objection to teaching some form of creation alongside evolution. As can be seen in the above Gallup Poll chart the majority of Americans believe God had something to do with our creation and development. The other chart shows that creation and evolution are on a continuum. I propose a workable solution to the creation v evolution debate in education exists if the polarizing fringes on both sides quiet themselves long enough.
What other form of "teach the controversy" do you espouse? Are you also advocating for teaching as a credible historical interpretation the nonexistance of the Holocaust? Will your civics classes the teach the truth about the freemasonic/Illuminati/Bilderberger conspiracy to control the world for centuries? Will we finally see geocentrism put in its proper place in the classroom? What about exposing the hoax that is the moon landing?
Lots of people believe very firmly in all of these ideas. That doesn't make them correct, nor does it imply that the underlying facts supporting the theories are in anyway equivalent. Special creation is just plainly not science at all. It makes no predictions, offers no falsifiable hypotheses, and offers no explanation of the natural world around us. The evidence is very solidly on the side of evolutionary theory here. We should teach the most correct information we have.
I am all for classes in comparative religions, or using religious literature in a literature class. But teaching an unsubstantiated, unscientific religious account of creation as science should be unacceptable to everyone, believer and unbeliever alike.
have any of you creationists notice that this nonsense ONLY exist in the U.S.A? the rest of the world are laughing at you
Not true! Our fundies have infected South Korea, and even made small inroads in the Europe. In addition Islam is also heavily anti-evolution, so much of the Islamic world, and areas in Europe with large muslim populations, are having similar issues. It is surprisingly widespread, unfortunately...
I'm a creationist, but this argument about teaching creation alongside of evolution doesn't make sense et all. (I purposely wrote et all :-) What is there to teach about creation? That is what theories concerning creation have been proven, to teach on? The only thing you will be able to teach concerning creation, is the belief on the Biblical God. That of course, is simply teaching someone's faith to people who aren't of the faith. God doesn't want that, He doesn't want to force people to trust His word. If He was going to do that, there would be no need for any preacher or anything we Christians do. God would simply make us trust Him. (Thus eliminating free will)
So unless we actually have tested theories concerning creation, there is nothing to teach. For Christians out there who honestly argue creation should be taught, let's honestly ask ourselves what we are arguing. When you argue that creation should be taught in school, you are arguing for people to be forced fed Christianity. God doesn't want that number one. Number two, you open up the doors for Christians to be forced fed other beliefs. If you see being forced fed the beliefs of Buddhism as wrong, why are you trying to force feed your beliefs on Buddhists? We are called to be examples of God's love for the world. When people see us, through reason, they can make their own choice if what we say is the truth. So far however, it's reasonable for people to doubt us, but that will change. All in all, don't force feed your beliefs.
I say teach neither. Belief in the original of life is a personal matter that requires faith. Yes, it does require faith to believe that we evolved via abiogenesis. Evolution can only be tested and observed on a small scale. That's fine to teach that, but you are taking a leap to broad stroke it and claim that we absolutely evolved from a primate ancestor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
