Creation Science is True Science

[Paul G. Humber]

What, exactly, have been the contributions of creationism to the advancement of science?

Okay, I’ll give another response to that. After I do, then it will be your turn to answer this: “What, exactly, have been the contributions of evolutionism to the advancement of science?”

Dr. John Baumgardner, a creation scientist with whom I have had the privilege of corresponding, received an M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Princeton University, an M.S. in Geophysics and Space Physics from the University of California, and his Ph.D. in Geophysics and Space Physics from the University of California in 1983. U.S. News and World Report wrote about him in the 6/16/97 issue (p.55ff); the article was entitled, "The geophysics of God." It sescribed hom as "the world's pre eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection, the process by which the Earth creates volcanoes, earthquakes, and the movement of the continental plates."

Some time ago, I had asked him if he had any insights about the Green River Varves. Here are some words he shared with me: “One needs to consider the geological record as a whole and ask what does it tell us, and similarly with the Bible. I claim the geological record is literally screaming out: global water catastrophe! And the Bible likewise indicates the primary geological event since the creation of life on the planet is a global Flood. One then needs to approach the Green River Formation with this context in view. In terms of the Genesis Flood, the Eocene in my assessment falls within the time of regression of the Flood waters from the continents. The varve like laminae would then have to be produced by rapid sedimentation with rapid oscillations/wavelike conditions modulating the sedimentation process. A period of several seconds is sufficiently short to generate the number of laminae in the time available. One thing I can guarantee is that the evolutionary sedimentation rate of 10 microns per year will bury and fossilize not a single one of the billions to trillions of beautifully preserved fish to be found today in the Green River sediments. I hope these brief remarks are helpful.”

There are many, many other contributions, but now it’s your turn, DP: “What, exactly, have been the contributions of evolutionism to the advancement of science?”

[OldCityTans]

How is one man's opinion on one aspect of one river a contribution to the advancement of science by creationism?

Did Humber not understand the question?

[Bob_Head]

....but now it’s your turn, DP.....

Um, Paul. Why should anyone answer you anything, since you still haven't supplied any scientific evidence to support creation?

[devilspocket]

Sorry, Humber, but you don't control this discussion.

Your offering is NOT a contribution to the advancement of science; contrary to U.S. News's article of over 10 years ago, Baumgardner's theory has not been been accepted by scientists. I can propose any crackpot hypothesis I'm enamoured of, but unless it stands up to peer review and verification, it is worthless in the scientific realm.

As the person who claims that creationism is science, the burden of proof is on you. There is no such thing as 'evolutionism' except in the minds of creationists, but evolutionary theory is an accepted scientific theory; creationism is not.

What is your proof that creationism is science?

[Digthepast]

Okay, I’ll give another response to that. After I do, then it will be your turn to answer this: “What, exactly, have been the contributions of evolutionism to the advancement of science?”

I'll leave others to answer this one. I would much rather read what devilspocket has to say on the subject than my own ramblings.

Dr. John Baumgardner, a creation scientist with whom I have had the privilege of corresponding,

As we have established on this forum already, Baumgardner's crackpot theory, based on a computer simulation, would require a series of geological events that would have destroyed all life on earth. Period. Including Noah and the ark. His "work" is not taken seriously by geophysicists. It is based entirely on speculation, and has been thoroughly falsified.

Since in your case, being "born again" effectively means conveniently forgetting the past, let me refresh your memory by quoting from the September posts:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul G. Humber View Post
Dr. John Baumgardner’s catastrophic plate tectonics theory was reported in Nature magazine.

Actually it doesn't appear to be "his" theory. Baumgardner was the junior author of the following paper.

Bunge HP, Richards MA, Baumgardner JR. "Effect of depth-dependent viscosity on the planform of mantle convection" Nature 379 (6564): 436-438 (Feb 1 1996).

It is hardly the creationist "smoking gun" that Humber implies. Geologist Wilfred Elders says of Bamgardner's work:

However, none of his papers gave even a hint of applicability to a creationist paradigm, whether YEC or any other sort. So it is difficult to see how the results he presented could produce the changes in the values of physical parameters necessary to make plate tectonics happen in 6000 years.

Baumgardner appears to be a walking catastrophe in his own right. Elders gives a hilarious description of Baumgardner throwing a tantrum at a conference in 2000.

So we effectively put this "creation scientist" in the trashcan back in September. But you come back and describe him as a scientist with no attempt at addressing the serious problems with his crackpot theory.

I know, I know, you love the guy because he once sent you an email. We'll get into that email in Part 2

But tell me. How can we believe anything that you say when you behave like this?

[Bob_Head]

contrary to U.S. News's article of over 10 years ago, Baumgardner's theory has not been been accepted by scientists. I can propose any crackpot hypothesis I'm enamoured of, but unless it stands up to peer review and verification, it is worthless in the scientific realm.

More importantly, Baumgardner's own computer program, TERRA (which he produced to support the idea of a young Earth and global flood), predicts the Earth's age at 4.6 Billion years. The difference is the numbers you plug into it. It should come as no surprise TERRA spits out a model that supports a global flood, because that's what it was designed to do....the deck is stacked from the beginning. Far more surprising is that the model supports the traditional scientific view of the age of the Earth and how it formed. The difference? To get a 4.6 Billion year old Earth the program uses real scientific data, to get a young Earth and flood, you have to start with the assumption that they actually happened, and that the physical world worked differently at the time.

Ironically, Hubmer is, for perhaps the first time ever, correct. Baumgardner's work to prove Creation has advanced science. His work does support the notion that the Earth is billions of years old, and was formed in a manner consistent with what geologists have believed for quite some time.

Humber is also right that Baumgardner is a great computer scientist. His program conforms to the first rule of computing: Garbage In, Garbage Out. If you start with the assumption of a great flood, sure enough, the program supports a great flood. There's your garbage.

The Geophysics of God - US News and World Report
HPCC Insights - Rebuilding the world

[Paul G. Humber]

Dr. Mortimer Adler was an outspoken opponent-of-Darwinism. In http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j...17_2_80-82.pdf, Dr. Jerry Bergman wrote a paper, published in 2003, entitled, “Dr Mortimer Adler’s life-long ‘crusade against evolution.” Near the beginning, he wrote: “Dr Mortimer Adler (1902–2001) was considered by many leading intellectuals one of the greatest thinkers of all time, and according to a 1987 Time magazine article, he was the ‘last great Aristotelian’. Adler has written or coauthored over 45 books (all of them very successful) and 200 articles. He was also chairman of the board of editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica for many years. His 54-volume Great Books of the Western World has sold over a quarter of a million copies since 1952.

Further down, Bergman added: “Adler was also an active and outspoken opponent of Darwinism for almost a half-century. … Adler has concluded the theory of evolution ‘is not a theory in the sense of a systematic organization of scientific facts and laws, in the sense in which Newton’s Principia is a theory’ but is only a theory … Adler adds that evolution as a theory is ‘wild speculation’ and that ‘Darwin himself is partly responsible for much of this speculation. The Origin of Species is full of guesses which are clearly unsupported by the evidence. (To the extent that The Origin of Species contains scientifically established facts, these facts are not organized into any coherent system.) Furthermore, these guesses, which constitute the theory of evolution, are not in the field of scientific knowledge anyway. They are historical. This conjectural history, begun by Darwin, was even more fancifully elaborated by the 19th century evolutionary “philosophers”.’”

[devilspocket]

The definition of evolution is, in broad terms, heritable changes in a population over time. I think what Humber wants, although it's difficult to discern because of his use of the undefined term, 'evolutionism', is to know what scientific advancements have been fostered by evolutionary theory. This involves evolutionary genetics, molecular biology, microbiology, plant genetics, environmental science, and population biology, to name just a few of the fields dependent on evolutionary theory. I was trained as a historian, not a research scientist, but I'll give it a go. Sorry if it's disjointed; I don't have time today for a polished essay so this is somewhat stream-of-consciousness.

Research in genetics has led to improvements in crop yields, livestock productivity and longevity, and improved farming methods. The green revolution was fostered in the U.S., not in Russia which made Lysenkoism its official agricultural policy. Lysenko's lack of understanding of heredity and natural selection resulted in near-starvation for many in the Soviet Union for many years. There are practical risks in ignoring evolutionary biology in favor of dogma.

An understanding of natural selection helps to understand how agricultural pests (insects and diseases) adapt to and develop resistance to the methods we use to control them. Understanding their adaptations helps us to develop new controls to combat them.
It informs our research into antibiotic-resistant organisms as well.

We have developed bacteria to help clean up polluted environments, such as those contaminated by oil spills. Studying the adaptations of populations to changing environments may help us to avoid the extinction of some species.

Evolutionary medicine is an important specialty as it furthers our understanding of how pathogens mutate, and it helps us to develop treatments for the illnesses they cause.

Researchers use the evolutionary relationships among species to determine appropriate research avenues for studying diseases and developing treatments for them.

Biochemical medical researchers use computer-based evolutionary models as well as gene splicing and dna recombination to develop diagnostic tests and treatments for diseases.

Medical researchers have also investigated the hereditary nature of diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Huntington's Disease so that people at risk for these maladies can make informed reproductive choices.

Engineers use computer-based simulations based on evolutionary theory to determine the best designs for things like bridges.

As Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

I'm sure there are others on this forum with more and better examples to offer; I do not know of any practical applications of creationism.

Again, Humber, where is your proof that creationism is science?

[Litter Box]

Dr. John Baumgardner, a creation scientist with whom I have had the privilege of corresponding, received an M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Princeton University, an M.S. in Geophysics and Space Physics from the University of California, and his Ph.D. in Geophysics and Space Physics from the University of California in 1983. U.S. News and World Report wrote about him in the 6/16/97 issue (p.55ff); the article was entitled, "The geophysics of God." It sescribed hom as "the world's pre eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection, the process by which the Earth creates volcanoes, earthquakes, and the movement of the continental plates."

Just one question, how can Dr.Baumgardner be a creation scientist when you have failed to prove that creationism is a science ?

[Paul G. Humber]

Ernst Boris Chain is the founder-of-the-field-of-antibiotics. Dr. Bergman has an article about this man at Ernst Chain: Antibiotics Pioneer. It’s entitled, “Ernst Chain: Antibiotics Pioneer.” This is how it begins: “Ernst Chain and his colleague Howard Florey are credited with "one of the greatest discoveries in medical science ever made." Together with Sir Alexander Fleming, they were awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. What is less well known, however, is that this preeminent biochemist openly opposed Darwinism on the basis of his scientific research.”

Dr. Bergman then goes on to tell about this man’s “Brilliant Career.” I’m skipping some of it here, but it is well worth looking at. Then he wrote: “In 1938, Chain stumbled across Alexander Fleming's 1929 paper on penicillin in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology, which he brought to the attention of his colleague Florey.” Continuing with Bergman’s article, he wrote: “During their research, Chain isolated and purified penicillin. It was largely this work that earned him his numerous honors and awards, including a fellow of the Royal Society and numerous honorary degrees, the Pasteur Medal, the Paul Ehrlich Centenary Prize, the Berzelius Medal, and a knighthood.”

If you have received penicillin, then you are probably a beneficiary of this creation scientist. Skipping down, Bergman wrote: “An internationally respected scientist, Chain is widely regarded as one of the major founders of the whole field of antibiotics. Aside from sanitation, the discovery of antibiotics was arguably the single most important revolution in medicine in terms of saving lives.”

What about Chain’s views about evolution? Bergman wrote (you can check his article for footnote-documentation): “One of Chain's lifelong professional concerns was the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution, which he concluded was a ‘very feeble attempt’ to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy, ‘mainly of morphological and anatomical nature,’ that ‘it can hardly be called a theory.’"

Skipping further, bergman wrote: “A major reason why he rejected evolution was because he concluded that the postulate that biological development and survival of the fittest was ‘entirely a consequence of chance mutations’ was a ‘hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.’"

Bergman wrote: “Chain concluded that he ‘would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation’ as Darwinism. Chain's eldest son, Benjamin, added: ‘There was no doubt that he did not like the theory of evolution by natural selection--he disliked theories...especially when they assumed the form of dogma. He also felt that evolution was not really a part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation--and he was, and is, by no means alone in this view.’"

Bergman concluded his article with these words: “Sir Derek Barton wrote that there are ‘few scientists who, by the application of their science, have made a greater contribution to human welfare than Sir Ernst Chain.’ His work founded the field of antibiotics, which has saved the lives of multimillions of persons. Chain is only one of many modern scientists who have concluded that modern neo-Darwinism is not only scientifically bankrupt, but also harmful to society.”

[Bob_Head]

Ernst Boris Chain is the founder-of-the-field-of-antibiotics. Dr. Bergman has an article about this man at Ernst Chain: Antibiotics Pioneer. It’s entitled, “Ernst Chain: Antibiotics Pioneer.” This is how it begins: “Ernst Chain and his colleague Howard Florey are credited with "one of the greatest discoveries in medical science ever made." Together with Sir Alexander Fleming, they were awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. What is less well known, however, is that this preeminent biochemist openly opposed Darwinism on the basis of his scientific research.”

The question was, "What, exactly, have been the contributions of creationism to the advancement of science?" You understand the difference between a scientist and science, don't you? Do you also contend a pianist is a piano? Chain's work was not a product of, or dependent on his views of creation.

[devilspocket]

I knew this would unleash a torrent of cut-and-pastes from Humber's creation sources.

Here's a response to the Chain argument from a response on pandasthumb

2) You do realize that his work was done rather early in the the life of Modern Evolutionary Theory, right? MET has come a long way, particularly with regard to molecular bio and genomics–given these areas were primitive when he was working, his alleged doubts about them would have little bearing on todays state of the art.

3) Science is not done by argument from authority; any authority could be wrong. The ultimate arbiter of scientific truth is nature itself; poor models get weeded out. No matter how prestigeous EBC may seem, if he holds an incorrect opinion about science, then the science doesn’t even need to respond–much less change to conform to the misguided opinion of some arbitrary ‘authority’ figure.

4) To discard or modify a scientific theory requires a better model to replace it with. Such a model has to be able to independantly explain all the results explained by the old theory; it also has to make testable predictions about new results which the old theory could not explain; and it needs to serve as a guide for further research and expanded investigation of nature. If MET is wrong, how do you explain its’ success? What alternative model do you propose to replace it with? Where are the research articles, the predictions, the tests?

(emphasis added)

And, as Bob-Head said, Chain's creationist ideas had nothing to do with his research. My religious views have nothing to do with any scientific work I do.

Quote 500 more 'authorities' who seem to agree with you, Humber. You are still not providing proof that creationism is science. It does not meet the criteria for being scientific, and it is not a fruitful line of research for investigation. It is closed-ended dogma.

I began reading Adler's "What Man Has Made of Man". The introduction was written by Franz Alexander, who had profound disagreements with Adler. Alexander said,

"During these discussions it became evident that our disagreement represents two diametrically opposite points of view, and illustrates the insurmountable gap between what could be called a scientific Weltanschauuung and the dogmatic attitude of a Thirteenth Century scholastic. As Mr. Adler himself very correctly put it, his lectures represent something which might have been the attitude of a contemporary pupil of Thomas Aquinas....Mr. Adler's lectures may have the interest and value of a curiousity."

Alexander goes on to say,

"It became obvious that according to Mr. Adler since the times of Aristotle and his belated scholastic pupil, Thomas Aquinas, man really did not contribute anything much of value to the inventory of his knowledge about the surrounding world and himself. Such radical new accomplishments as the fact of biological evolution, the technical achievements of physics, chemistry and medicine, the better understanding of mental diseases which have resulted in an ever-growing capacity of modern psychopathological processes, are of no great importance to him...Mr. Adler does not evaluate scientific concepts according to the degree to which they increase the ability to control and influence natural phenomena but according to their ability to be fitted into some preconceived rigid and abstract logical construction. The gap between these two attitudes cannot be bridged."

I think this illustrates the foundation of our disagreement on this forum. You are arguing from dogma and the rest of us are arguing on the basis of science. Unless your dogma can be shown to be scientific, the gap between us cannot be bridged. Fortunately for all of us, your extremist religious views are rightly rejected by science. I do not wish to live in a society restricted by a narrow religious viewpoint.

[devilspocket]

Humber, if you want to be educated, you might want to take a look at this site, Answers in Creation. It's testimony from people who've given up yec. Baby steps.

[Digthepast]

Dr. Mortimer Adler was an outspoken opponent-of-Darwinism.

Ernst Boris Chain is the founder-of-the-field-of-antibiotics.

Easy there, Pinocchio. we're not done with your hero Baumgardner yet!

Continuing,

Some time ago, I had asked [Baumgardner] if he had any insights about the Green River Varves. Here are some words he shared with me: “One needs to consider the geological record as a whole and ask what does it tell us, and similarly with the Bible. I claim the geological record is literally screaming out: global water catastrophe!

Apparently someone needs to buy a dictionary and look up the word "literally." Continuing,

"And the Bible likewise indicates the primary geological event since the creation of life on the planet is a global Flood. One then needs to approach the Green River Formation with this context in view.

One does not need to approach the geological record with the Bible in hand to interpret it. as others have pointed out, the Bible is inadequate as a science text. This alone calls Baumgardner's statements--and his qualifications as a scientist-- into question. Scientists take the work of those who have preceded them in researching and experimentation on the relevant questions as their starting point. They do NOT limit their sources to 4,000-1,600 year-old religious texts. Continuing,

"In terms of the Genesis Flood, the Eocene in my assessment falls within the time of regression of the Flood waters from the continents. The varve like laminae would then have to be produced by rapid sedimentation with rapid oscillations/wavelike conditions modulating the sedimentation process. A period of several seconds is sufficiently short to generate the number of laminae in the time available. One thing I can guarantee is that the evolutionary sedimentation rate of 10 microns per year will bury and fossilize not a single one of the billions to trillions of beautifully preserved fish to be found today in the Green River sediments. I hope these brief remarks are helpful.”

(emphasis added by Pinocchio; additional emphasis added by digthepast)

I suspect that geologists would bust their guts laughing if they read this. The Green River Formation contains large hydrocarbon deposits, specifically oil shale, so it has been extensively studied by scientists. Real scientists. Not Baumgardners. Here's what Terry S. Maley had to say in his book, Field Geology Illustrated:

The Green River Formation of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah covers more than 38,000 square miles (100,000 sq km) and has a maximum thickness of almost two miles (3 km) which accumulated over a period of 10 million years. This formation, which has the world's richest deposits of oil shale, was deposited in four separate basins , including the Piceance basin in Colorado, the Uinta Basin in Utah, and the Green River and Washakie basins in Wyoming. The oil shale contains kerogen layers interlaminated with the marlstone which is believed to have accumulated with algal blooms. Early workers such as Bradley (1929 and 1948) suggested that couplets (an organic or kerogen layer and a marlstone layer) of the laminae can represent true varves. If this is correct, then each one of the couplets would represent one year's deposition. Based on the measurement of the varves, Bradley estimated that the Green River Epoch lasted 5,000,000 years.

This environment of deposition would require tranquil water between 16 and 100 feet (5 and 30 m) in depth (Ryder et al., 1976). Eocene Lake Uintah filled the Wyoming basins and Lake Goshiute filled the other basins. The Green River Formation of Lake Uinta contains exceptionally well preserved fossil fish. The deeper portions of the lake were anoxic, allowing the deposition of oil shale and preventing scavengers from disturbing the carcasses on the bottom. Algal stromatolites flourished on the margin of Lake Goshiute. The highly restrictive environment necessary to deposit the Green River Formation include: (1) stagnant water necessary for producing oil shale; (2) warm clastic-free water needed to deposit the carbonate layers; (3) the algal blooms; (4) the shallow water to deposit the stromatolites; and (5) the deposition of finely laminated sediments up to 9843 feet (3 km) thick.... Evidence of a lacustrine environment include freshwater fossils, especially plant material in fine-grained laminated sediments, oscillation ripples instead of current ripples, and a lack of tidal structures.

(Maley 2005:263)

Baumgardner talks about "the evolutionary sedimentation rate of 10 microns per year."

As we have seen, the varves are interpreted by geologists as annual. According to Bradley (1929), cited in Wikipedia, the minimum varve thickness is 0.014 mm, the mean is 0.18 mm, and the maximum varve thickness is 9.8 mm. There are 100 microns in a millimeter. Therefore, the figures are a minimum of 14 microns, a mean of 180 microns, and a maximum of 9,800 microns,

Baumgardner‘s numbers do not even fall within the documented range for varve thickness. They are lower than the average by a factor of 18! In any event, Baumgardner is arguing from personal incredulity.

Humber “published” (on the web) a masterpiece on the Green River Formation., It contains some pretty ludicrous statements.

Here’s one…

17) Finally, I end with some questions for you. Exactly how many GRF "varves" are there? If the earth is 4.5 billion years old (your view), why are there so many missing "varves"? 8 9 million "varves" is a far cry from 4.5 billion!

Ummm…is that a trick question? Obviously, it’s because 10 million years is also a far cry from 4.5 billion years. The Green River Formation was deposited in a system of lakes that existed for about 10 million years during the Eocene. A lake that exists for 10 million years is not expected to leave 4.5 billion annual varves.

(Seriously...read Pinocchio's treatise. It's a riot!)

A 2003 web article by Glenn R. Morton (Green River Formation and the Global Flood) refutes much of the creationist smokescreen on the Green River Formation, but it seems that poor Humber did not appear on his radar.

Returning to Baumgadner. The idea that 3 km--almost two miles--of delicately laminated sediment could form in "several seconds" is ridiculous. I'm more inclined to trust Maley. He's a geologist. Baumgardner sounds more like a lunatic. (And yes, that's an argument from incredulity!)


References:

Bradley, Wilmot H.,
1929 "Varves and Climate of the Green River Epoch," in USGS Professional Paper 158, p. 87-110

Maley,Terry S.
2005 Field Geology Illustrated. Second edition. Mineral Land Publications, Boise, ID.

Wikipedia: Green River Formation.

.

[Bob_Head]

I suspect that geologists would bust their guts laughing if they read this.

Let's forget geology, and consider genealogy. Depending on who's timeline you look at the flood happened between 4500 and 2000 years ago. There were eight people on the ark. Eight. Take a minute to really consider that. Noah, his wife, 3 sons, and 3 daughters-in-law. That's it. Not a lot of genetic diversity there. But, in a mere 4000 years we are supposed to believe that the world population not only jumped from 8 to almost 7 Billion. Not only that, but all the different peoples and genetic diversity of those billions came to be. It is the pinnacle of hypocrisy that anyone can believe such genetic diversity can happen over the course of a mere few thousand years, but claim the same is not possible over the course of hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

[Paul G. Humber]

Raymond Damadian, like creation scientists Chains, Pasteur, and Lister before him, has contributed vitally toward modern-day health. According to Who We Are, “The Lemelson-MIT Program is dedicated to honoring the acclaimed and unsung heroes who have helped improve our lives through invention. We inspire and encourage great inventors through various outreach programs such as Lemelson-MIT InvenTeams, a non-competitive, team-based national grants initiative for high school students. The cornerstone of the Lemelson-MIT Program is a prestigious awards program that includes the $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize. The Program was established in 1994 at the nation's premier technological university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, by one of the world's most prolific inventors, Jerome Lemelson (1923-1997), and his wife, Dorothy."

This is what it says about Raymond V. Damadian (cf. http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/damadian.html): “Raymond V. Damadian, inventor of the Magnetic Resonance (MR) scanning machine, … (earned) an MD in 1960 from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine (Bronx, NY). After his internship, residency, and Fellowships at Washington University and Harvard, Dr. Damadian served for some time in the Air Force, then joined the faculty of SUNY Downstate Medical Center. There, his research into sodium and potassium in living cells led him to his first experiments with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) which caused him to first propose the MR body scanner in 1969. … Damadian invented an apparatus and method to use NMR safely and accurately to scan the human body, a method now well known as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). … Finally, in 1977, Damadian's team produced the first MRI scan of the human body, using a prototype device he called ‘Indomitable’ (now installed in the Smithsonian Institution). The first MRI scan provided a clear image of the heart, lungs and chest wall with no side effects. Today, MRI scanners can instantly map and analyze any part of the human body in minute detail, allowing visual diagnosis of virtually any medical condition, from strained muscles to tumors. They can also provide the chemical composition of the tissue being scanned. … Damadian continues to direct FONAR's scientific and financial progress, as Chairman and President. He has earned over 40 patents, as well as the 2001 Lemelson-MIT Program's Lifetime Achievement Award, a National Medal of Technology (1988), and induction into the National Inventors Hall of Fame (1989).”

According to the evolutionary publication Prize Fight | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine, we read these words: “But it is difficult not to at least consider another explanation: that scientists on the assembly or in other positions of influence could not abide Damadian’s staunch support for ‘creationist science.’ Damadian is a firm believer in a literal translation of the Bible: he has no doubt that the earth was created by God during a six-day stretch about 6,000 years ago. … ‘The non-biblical account would have us believe that all life originated from a single common ancestor—a slime mold—and give or take a billion years, we’re expected to believe that the descendants of this slime mold climbed out of the ocean and stood up and started giving lectures,’ Damadian says. ‘Do the math on that. The sheer statistics of that violate any sense of reality.’ Asked if he thinks that his beliefs, which take aim at what is arguably the core guiding principle of modern biology, may explain his fate in the Nobel race, Damadian shrugs. ‘I have no way of knowing,’ he says. ‘Nobody has ever raised it. Maybe they’re too polite.’"

[Bob_Head]

Raymond Damadian, like creation scientists Chains, Pasteur, and Lister before him, has contributed vitally toward modern-day health. According to Who We Are, “The Lemelson-MIT Program is dedicated to honoring the acclaimed and unsung heroes who have helped improve our lives through invention. We inspire and encourage great inventors through various outreach programs such as Lemelson-MIT InvenTeams, a non-competitive, team-based national grants initiative for high school students. The cornerstone of the Lemelson-MIT Program is a prestigious awards program that includes the $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize. The Program was established in 1994 at the nation's premier technological university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, by one of the world's most prolific inventors, Jerome Lemelson (1923-1997), and his wife, Dorothy."

This is what it says about Raymond V. Damadian (cf. http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/damadian.html): “Raymond V. Damadian, inventor of the Magnetic Resonance (MR) scanning machine, … (earned) an MD in 1960 from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine (Bronx, NY). After his internship, residency, and Fellowships at Washington University and Harvard, Dr. Damadian served for some time in the Air Force, then joined the faculty of SUNY Downstate Medical Center. There, his research into sodium and potassium in living cells led him to his first experiments with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) which caused him to first propose the MR body scanner in 1969. … Damadian invented an apparatus and method to use NMR safely and accurately to scan the human body, a method now well known as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). … Finally, in 1977, Damadian's team produced the first MRI scan of the human body, using a prototype device he called ‘Indomitable’ (now installed in the Smithsonian Institution). The first MRI scan provided a clear image of the heart, lungs and chest wall with no side effects. Today, MRI scanners can instantly map and analyze any part of the human body in minute detail, allowing visual diagnosis of virtually any medical condition, from strained muscles to tumors. They can also provide the chemical composition of the tissue being scanned. … Damadian continues to direct FONAR's scientific and financial progress, as Chairman and President. He has earned over 40 patents, as well as the 2001 Lemelson-MIT Program's Lifetime Achievement Award, a National Medal of Technology (1988), and induction into the National Inventors Hall of Fame (1989).”

According to the evolutionary publication Prize Fight | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine, we read these words: “But it is difficult not to at least consider another explanation: that scientists on the assembly or in other positions of influence could not abide Damadian’s staunch support for ‘creationist science.’ Damadian is a firm believer in a literal translation of the Bible: he has no doubt that the earth was created by God during a six-day stretch about 6,000 years ago. … ‘The non-biblical account would have us believe that all life originated from a single common ancestor—a slime mold—and give or take a billion years, we’re expected to believe that the descendants of this slime mold climbed out of the ocean and stood up and started giving lectures,’ Damadian says. ‘Do the math on that. The sheer statistics of that violate any sense of reality.’ Asked if he thinks that his beliefs, which take aim at what is arguably the core guiding principle of modern biology, may explain his fate in the Nobel race, Damadian shrugs. ‘I have no way of knowing,’ he says. ‘Nobody has ever raised it. Maybe they’re too polite.’"

Who cares?

[devilspocket]

It's difficult to have a discussion with someone who does not address the point being discussed.

Damadian's may be a creationist in his beliefs, but he did not do creation-based research. He is not 'doing' creation science. As Bob_Head pointed out, there is a difference between science and scientists. If I were to name scientists who are atheists, that does not mean they are doing 'atheistic' science.

Where are the creation science research and contributions? Not non-creation-science work done by creationists, but what is the actual work of creation science? How has creationism added to our understanding of the natural world and its processes?

[OldCityTans]

Raymond Damadian, like creation scientists Chains, Pasteur, and Lister before him, ...

Does Humber not get that there is a difference between scientists that hold a creation viewpoint, and actual scientific advancements made from the theory of creation?

Humber, can you think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer but for which now the best answer is a religious one?

[Bob_Head]

Where are the creation science research and contributions? Not non-creation-science work done by creationists, but what is the actual work of creation science? How has creationism added to our understanding of the natural world and its processes?

I find it telling that some people choose to self identify as "Creation Scientists." If what they're doing has scientific validity, why don't they simply identify themselves as Scientists, and their work as Science? Let it stand on it's own merits. Why choose to ghettoize research and work that is scientifically valid?

It's as if they're admitting it's second-tier work--that it can't compete in an open marketplace of scientific ideas. If it could, then why the separate label?