h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Many evolutionists have suggested that virtually no reputable scientists are young earth creationists. This is sheer propaganda on their part. I have good reason to estimate that 1 in 5 (20%) of all established scientists are young earth creationists.

You may ask:

First - who do I count as a scientist? Answer - anyone conducting research within a scientific discipline within an established university.

Secondly - on what basis do I make my estimate that one in five of these scientists is a young earth creationist?

There are several strands to my methodology.

(a) I know several scientist. Around 1/5 of them are young earth creationists.

(b) A quick review of names appearing on university science faculties on the web tends to reveal that approx 1 in 5 are young earth creationists. A quick 'google' of their names reveals that many are in fact young earth creationists. Unfortunately, since many scientific journals discriminate against such scientists, they do not wish this fact to be widely known.

"(a) I know several scientist. Around 1/5 of them are young earth creationists."

I know several scientists, and have known several more. NONE of them are YECs. That's 0/5.

"(b) A quick review of names appearing on university science faculties on the web tends to reveal that approx 1 in 5 are young earth creationists."

Which faculties did you look at?

Your survey of university faculties should be quite testable. If we pick 100 members of university faculties at random, we can e-mail them and ask if they are a YEC (perhaps you can suggest a question they can be asked that will allow only a clear, unabiguous yes/no answer). If you are right then this random selection ought to net about 20 YECs. Indeed the chances are, if you are right, you may net 30. Or as few as 10.
I predict no more than 2.

Now, how can we randomly select a list of 100 names?

Welcome to h2g2, Sam.

I know or have known a lot of scientists (from all main disciplines plus a couple I can't pronounce) and religious individuals, including Catholics, CoE, Baptists, URC, Mormons, and Jews. The area I live at the moment is not very multi-cultural, so I only "know" one Muslim, but his poor English and my complete lack of Turkish limit our conversations to my choice of salad in my kebab.

Apart from the chap in the Kebab shop (whose opinion I have been unable to obtain), only one person I have met in the flesh has admitted to either YEC or OEC leanings, and I mean "leanings", because he only discussed it when drunk.

I can't calculate that as a pecentage, because I don't know how many people I have ever met, but it is a very, very, very small number.

I will make the maths easier, then, by sticking to your criteria, in which case the percentage is exactly "zero".

By the way, since h2g2's rules aren't so strict as the Science boards, I will expect you to post proper links to all your claims, so you can start by listing the URLs of the scientists you have checked.

Ya well that may very well be the case but I stand by my assertion, which I believe is entirely reasonable.

>>I stand by my assertion, which I believe is entirely reasonable.<<

One more for the long, long list of things you believe that aren't true.

"First - who do I count as a scientist? Answer - anyone conducting research within a scientific discipline within an established university."

Thus excluding all scientists working in museums, including all the palaeontological experts at the Natural History Museum. Also excludes unemployed scientists and amateurs. Nice try at fiddling the figures, but your 20% is still way too high.

Who exactly are these YEC scientists that you know, and what is their scientific research in?

Well, I've proposed a way to put your assertion to the test. It appears that you have no interest in doing it, which is strange behaviour for someone who claims that his social science course makes him a scientist.

"Thus excluding all scientists working in museums, including all the palaeontological experts at the Natural History Museum. Also excludes unemployed scientists and amateurs"

And the ones working in private/government research at my place of work.

Plus all the ones who work in private industry, but with a scientific basis eg mine geologists, industrial chemists!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA

You said;

"Ya well that may very well be the case but I stand by my assertion, which I believe is entirely reasonable."

So, what you /mean/ is;

"I don't care what the facts are, I'm sticking with my own version of reality"

Then you said;

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA"

Which is one of the classic signs of an operatic-scale lunatic. We've known for a long time that you have only the most tenuous link with reality. What finally severed them?

And your point is?

Hi, Alan,

You're right, of course.

I was in Norwich on Saturday, and for some inexplicable reason the buildings were laballed up as if they were the side of a swimming pool:

"Shallow End", "3.8m"

And then, when I came to the sign that said "Deep End", I immediately thought of Sam. I wonder why?

Actually my post was a response to Sam, but the board doesn't make that very plain. Still, your response makes more sense than anything our well-educated buddy will ever come up with, so I'm grateful for that.

You guys can hurl all the abuse you can muster at creationists, but it does not change the truth. The truth is revealed in God's Word, the Holy Bible. The truth is that He created the world in six days. Any scientist with any sense will accept the truth. It is a poor form of science that ignores truth, even if that truth cannot be measured by a scientific instrument. It is still truth.

"It is a poor form of science that ignores truth, "

You're getting good usage out of that Christmas cracker motto, aren't you.

Still, up to a point it is true; it certainly explains why 'creation science' is a poor form of science (and that's being generous to it).

Oddly enough it also excludes most of the leading lights of the 'creation science' movement. I wonder if that was Sam's intentions. After all, he regards at least one major group of them ('Answers in Genesis') as (quote) 'ecumenical heretics'.

"When Creationists Fight!"; coming to a TV channel near you soon!

I'm a scientist. I've worked at major universities, and a major company. I've spent all that time working exclusively working with other scientists. My friends are pretty much all scientists. Not one has ever claimed to be a Young Earth Creationist. A few did point out some scientific problems with the *origin* of life, but absolutely none went in for the 6 thousand year business.

My measurement then yields 0% as YEC, and ~1% as "questioning".

Well maybe that's because your master has deluded you. Scientists are determined not to accept any other worldview other than that which can be measured through a scientific instrument. Not all truth is measurable in such a way. The Bible is still the truth though. Just because your silly scientific theories and fallible instruments cannot measure it, does not mean that it is not true.