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

Wrong I can find out the volume, mass, chmical composition and electrical conductivity of the bible or any book and Im not even a scientist according to you.

I can show through fairly simple means that stories like Noahs Ark a pure fantasy.

Are you Hoo in disguise?

ahh, but there you're wrong. Scientific truth isn't some abstract idea - it has a very specific definition. It is truth which can be demonstrated repeatedly to everyone.

So sure, your silly little bible fables could be true - your silly little deity who runs around smiting people for reading could be true - but its defititely not *scientifically* true.

ps. "Once I was but the learner, now...I...am...the...Master!"

"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. "

But the percentage of scientists that are YECs *can* be measured. I've even suggested a way of doing it. It has nothing to do with 'worldview'; it just involves randomply selecting scientists and asking them.

blickybadger:

This is "Six Day Sam", not "Hoo". The only disguise Sam attempts is that of a Scientifically literate intellectual. Over on the Science boards, he claimed to be the most-qualified poster to discuss science. When it came to light that he had one Science GCSE, and is now on an Arts degree, he was swatted from the dizzy hights of academia.

Sam,

your knowledge of science is roughly equivalent to the square root of zero.

Your entire world view would be best summed up as equal to the square root of minus one.

'I can show through fairly simple means that stories like Noahs Ark a pure fantasy.'

blicky if you want a good laugh have a look at 'The Adequate Ark' by Kyle Butt, M.A. @ http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1649



alji

I would like to make it clear that the account styled "GrandSamDonald" is most emphatically NOT me doing a wind-up.

I can perfectly understand why some people (hi blicky! ) might have that possibility cross their mind when reading what has been posted from it. However, I must disappoint you on this occasion. GrandSamDonald is, to my knowledge, entirely for real... for a given value of "real".

SoRB.

Hello, GSD!

I am fascinated by your research here, and am always keen to open my mind to new knowledge. Certainly, the possibility that a fifth of scientists are YECs counts as "new knowledge" for me.

Let me take your original post point by point:

"Many evolutionists have suggested that virtually no reputable scientists are young earth creationists."

I'm not sure this is the case. Can you provide a reference for this assertion? A weblink or the title and page number of a book or two would do.

"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."

I'm very interested in your good reasons, and the methodology by which you reached your estimate.

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

I have a number of questions relating to this point:

1. Do you exclude scientists whose main work is teaching rather than research?

2. What do you define as "scientific discipline"?
For instance, which of the following would you describe as a "scientific discipline"?
- Chemistry
- Physics
- Mathematics
- Philosophy
- Sociology
- Geology
- History
- Theology
- Astrology
- Chemical engineering
- Media studies

3. Do you exclude scientists conducting research independently (as entrepreneurs, for example), for their government, or for private companies?

4. What level of educational attainment is required before you grant that someone is an "established" scientist - first degree? Masters? Doctorate? Tenure? Professorship? Fellow of an Institution? Do you require a particular frequency of publication?

I'm sure you can understand why I ask these questions and am interested in the answers.

"There are several strands to my methodology."

A small point here: my understanding of the word "several" is that it means "more than two". http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=several

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

At this point I note that you yourself are a Christian and a young earth creationist. I note also that you actively reject association with homosexuals, fornicators, Muslims, atheists and other people who do not agree with your beliefs.

I am therefore surprised that only 1/5 of the scientists you know are YECs. Given your own stated preferences for company, I would have expected that at least 4/5 of the scientists you know would be YECs, if not *all* of them. I'm surprised you associate yourself with so many of the devil's followers.

"(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."

Your methodology is, I might suggest, somewhat suspect here. A "quick review" of names appearing on websites would suggest that I am an animated film director from Los Angeles, a specialist in fire safety from South London, a computer networks expert from Wellington New Zealand and a family doctor in Hampshire. I am none of these things, but your method of searching would suggest that I am.

Finally, consider the following:

"A quick 'google' of their names reveals that many are in fact young earth creationists... they do not wish this fact to be widely known."

Does this not strike you as somewhat self-contradictory?

You are suggesting that these people (none of whom you have named), can be shown via a "quick 'google'" to be YECs, and yet they do not wish this fact to be known because it might affect their career.

I have a number of problems with this statement:

1. Scientific journals do not discriminate on the basis of an author's religious belief. They discriminate on the basis of the scientific validity of the work in the paper. If it is valid, it is published. Belief is irrelevant.

2. You suggest that the people you fail to list are YECs, and by implication, committed Christians. Yet you also imply that, unlike you, and unlike the majority of committed Christians I have known, they are ashamed of their beliefs and wish to hide them away instead of preaching God's Word to whomever will listen.

3. You suggest further that although these highly intelligent people - established scientists, remember - wish to keep their beliefs secret, you, a mere first year humanities undergraduate, can reveal the truth in a few minutes with a search engine.

I'm really quite confused. Can you explain what you mean by this please, and perhaps give some names of YEC scientists at mainstream UK universities?

Just to give you a start, I've searched for biology courses at universities in the UK, and there are 1824 of them, at the following establishments:

- University of Aberdeen
- University of Abertay, Dundee
- University of Wales, Aberystwyth
- Anglia Poly
- Aston
- Bangor
- Bath
- Bath Spa College
- Bell College
- Birmingham
...

Well, the list goes on and on. There are 112, in fact. You can see it here: http://search.ucas.co.uk/cgi-bin/hsrun/search/search/StateId/CtYgyw0sE4CQaLW4cRmUDTXtVbhHG-4Dzd/HAHTpage/search.HsKeywordSuggestion.whereNext?query=73&word=BIOLOGY&single=N

Let's take a very, very conservative estimate, that in each biology department there are only 5 "proper" scientists, by your criteria. (Most departments are of course much, much bigger, but let's err on the side of caution - I want to help you as much as I can.)

So, by your estimate, indeed, by your RESEARCH, you should, with a "quick google", be able to give me the names of over one hundred scientists working in mainstream UK universities who hold young-earth creationist beliefs.

But asking you to list over one hundred names would be unreasonable. So let's make it easier still for you.

Just list one in five of the one in five - that's a list of twenty names and establishments. As you say yourself, this is very, very easy and quick to do in google, so please - I'm truly interested. I'd like to speak to one or two of the people on the list you provide. I'm interested in how they tally their work with their beliefs and how they deal with any conflict.

Twenty names, please. I shall be fascinated to see your response.

SoRB.

We had the same trouble with Justin the Preacher, now we've got Son of Justin!

alji

"Many evolutionists have suggested that virtually no reputable scientists are young earth creationists."

No, many scientists do because we know from our ranks that there aren't any

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

Gald to be included in your definition, I know NONE, zero, zilch and am staff at York Uni before you ask...

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

No, you know some clueless people who attend the CU, your miniscule cross section is hardly representative...

"(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."

Dream on Sam, dream on....

"You suggest that the people you fail to list are YECs, and by implication, committed Christians"

They needn't be. They might be Muslim or Jewish, for example. And I know of one who thinks God is just humanity of the future super-evolved, so effectively doens't believe in God at all. So he's an atheist YEC I guess ...

However your post is excellent, and Sam will either ignore it or respond (badly) to a single line in it whilst ignoring the rest.

Just as Justin would do! Oh well, back to my crystal ball.

alji

First, if you go and visit the 'Origins' board you will see many statements assserting that YECists CANNOT be scientists, let alone good scientists.

By 'scientists' I am referring to those working in the broad frame of natural sciences - physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc. I don't exclude anyone in that definition, regardless of where or how they operate. Anyone engaged in scientific research is entitled to call themselves a scientist in my eyes.

I never claimed I had conducted a scientific study here. evolutionists are making way too much of this assertion. It could be as high as 1 in 3 or as low in 1 in 7. I am certainly not in the business of listing names here, although I have named many on the BBC Origins board in the past. But 1 in 5 seems a reasonable estimate given what I know about the current state of scientific research in the academic community and beyond.

"as low in 1 in 7. "

Or, as two different assessments have shown, as low as 1 in 1000. Or lower.

"I am certainly not in the business of listing names here, although I have named many on the BBC Origins board in the past."

Oh yes. We all remember *that* list. YECs who turned out not to be YEs or even Cs in some cases. You made a total arse of yourself with that one, didn't you.

" But 1 in 5 seems a reasonable estimate given what I know about the current state of scientific research in the academic community and beyond. "

Which would be, oh, sod all really.

Are you sure you are not a parody GSD?

Hello again GSD.

I must admit I'm a little flummoxed by your posting 34.

Allow me to deal with it point by point:

"First, if you go and visit the 'Origins' board"

You have failed to provide a link, or indeed any usable clue as to where I might find this "board" of which you speak. Can you help, please, as I have no idea what you're talking about?

"you will see many statements assserting that YECists CANNOT be scientists, let alone good scientists."

Statements made by you? I'm not clear on what you're getting at. Do you mean YECs can, or cannot, be scientists, or the vice versa, or the opposite, or what?

I trust you will forgive my incomprehension.

"By 'scientists' I am referring to those working in the broad frame of natural sciences - physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc."

Well, that's fine. I'm sure you can understand why I limited my "quick search" to biology alone, as that is the field closest to "evolutionist" thinking, and there are over 1800 courses under that title alone!

"I don't exclude anyone in that definition, regardless of where or how they operate."

But your original definition required them to work in a university. However, widening your definition only makes it much, much easier for you to provide names and links to information about these people, doesn't it?

"Anyone engaged in scientific research is entitled to call themselves a scientist in my eyes."

Really? Anyone? Anyone at all? Don't you apply ANY criteria? And isn't that a little, well, credulous? By that I mean pretty much any yahoo who can type can claim to be engaged in scientific research. Most people would require some evidence of education and achievement before believing someone to be a scientist - a degree, usually a doctorate in fact, and from a reputable academic institution. Do you not apply such criteria? And if not, why not?

"I never claimed I had conducted a scientific study here."

I'm sorry, I must disagree with you there, but whether you realised it or not, that is precisely what you claimed, clearly and distinctly.

You stated a hypothesis - that 1 in 5 scientists are YECs. You described a methodology for investigating that hypothesis - your google search. And you reported the result - your hypothesis was confirmed. The ONLY thing you failed to do was report your results in enough detail that an independent observer could check them, and that's all I'm asking for.

Without that detail, it's possible that you simply made it up. Please note - I am NOT accusing you of being a disingenuous liar, not at all. I'm merely trying to help you show that you are right, something you've almost done, but not quite.

"evolutionists are making way too much of this assertion."

Um... it's YOUR assertion. You posted it here. If you didn't want people to think about it, why post it? If you are unable or unwilling to say anything further about it, you must accept that people will simply assume you are just making up stories and numbers in your head and pretending they have something to do with the real world. I'm not accusing you of that, I'm just asking you for some details, that's all.

"It could be as high as 1 in 3 or as low in 1 in 7."

But your research showed a figure of one in five, didn't it? Your anecdotal evidence from people you know, and your google searches agreed. Do you now doubt the reliability of your own figures? Or are you simply, and rightly, setting the boundaries of possible error, a common and correct scientific technique?

"I am certainly not in the business of listing names here,"

I can provide an email address to which you can send the list if you would prefer. Is that more acceptable to you?

"although I have named many on the BBC Origins board in the past."

Why has your policy on naming names changed, please? I am not familiar with this "BBC Origins board" you speak of, so I haven't seen any list you may have produced in the past. Please indulge me, and give me some names.

"But 1 in 5 seems a reasonable estimate"

You restate this but still fail to provide evidence I can check, I'm sorry.

"given what I know about the current state of scientific research in the academic community and beyond."

With respect, you are a first year humanities undergraduate. What is your knowledge of the state of scientific research in the academic community, and where does that knowledge come from?



Also, you seem to have ignored, misunderstood or simply missed many of my questions to you in my original posting, so I shall repeat them here, quickly:

1. Can you provide a reference for your assertion that "evolutionists have suggested that virtually no reputable scientists are young earth creationists"?

2. Given your stated preferences for company (i.e. that you abhor and avoid the unsaved, homosexuals, Muslims, atheists, etc.) how is it that fully 80% of the scientists you *know* come into that category? What are you doing associating with such people?

3. Is it not self-contradictory that the reputable and highly intelligent scientist YECs you have identified wish their beliefs to remain secret for fear of compromising their careers, yet you, a mere first year humanities undergraduate, revealed the truth with a few minutes and a search engine?



Since you're apparently having trouble, I'll make it even easier for you. Since you assert that one in five reputable, professional scientists is a YEC, could you provide me with the name of ONE - yes, that's right, just ONE - head of a biology department in any of the hundred plus universities in this country who holds such beliefs?

I repeat - there are over one hundred faculties of biology in universities in this country. YOUR research, YOUR figures estimate that among the heads of those departments there could be anywhere between ten and thirty young-earth creationists, and that you could find out their names with, and I quote, a "quick 'google'".

So please - name ONE. Just one. Not a list. One name.

I look forward with interest to your answers.

Regards

SoRB

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

Which you cannot give these people the evidence you use to make these claims.

" Why has your policy on naming names changed, please? "

Because the last time he did it his list provoked such mirth that he was forced to write a crocodile tear laden apology to the group in order to try and deal with ir.

"I am not familiar with this "BBC Origins board" you speak of, so I haven't seen any list you may have produced in the past. Please indulge me, and give me some names."

Saldy, like all BBC boards, posts are deleted after 40 days. So Sam's magnificent faux pas has gone for good now.

Actually I provided a very genuine apology for providing false names.