Научници који заступају Стварање из прошлости

[Guest Alefshin]

...и критичари еволуционизма, такође из прошлости.

Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past

by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

One of the self-serving arguments of modern evolutionists is their rather arrogant claim that creationist scientists are not real scientists. No matter that a large number of creationists have earned authentic Ph.D. degrees in science, hold responsible scientific positions and have published numerous scientific articles and books—if they are creationists, they are not true scientists! In a Letter-to-the-Editor, Steven Schafersman, of Rice University's Department of Geology, says, for example: "I dispute Henry Morris's claim that thousands of scientists are creationists. No scientist today questions the past and present occurrence of evolution in the organic world. Those ‘thousands of creationists' with legitimate post-graduate degrees and other appropriate credentials are not scientists, precisely because they have abandoned the scientific method and the scientific attitude, criteria far more crucial to the definition of scientist than the location or duration of one's training or the identity of one's employer" (Geotimes, August 1981, P. 11).

Thus modern creationists are conveniently excluded as scientists merely by definition! Science does not mean "knowledge" or "truth," or "facts," as we used to think, but "naturalism" or "materialism," according to this new definition. The very possibility of a Creator is prohibited by majority vote of the scientific fraternity, and one who still wishes to believe in God must forfeit his membership.

Well, no matter. At least we creationist scientists can take comfort in the fact that many of the greatest scientists of the past were creationists and for that matter, were also Bible-believing Christians, men who believed in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, as well as in the deity and saving work of Jesus Christ. They believed that God had supernaturally created all things, each with its own complex structure for its own unique purpose. They believed that, as scientists, they were "thinking God's thoughts after Him," learning to understand and control the laws and processes of nature for God's glory and man's good. They believed and practiced science in exactly the same way that modern creationist scientists do.

And somehow this attitude did not hinder them in their commitment to the "scientific method." In fact one of them, Sir Francis Bacon, is credited with formulating and establishing the scientific method! They seem also to have been able to maintain a proper "scientific attitude," for it was these men (Newton, Pasteur, Linnaeus, Faraday, Pascal, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Kepler, etc.) whose researches and analyses led to the very laws and concepts of science which brought about our modern scientific age. The mechanistic scientists of the present are dwarfed in comparison to these intellectual giants of the past. Even the achievements of an Einstein (not to mention Darwin!) are trivial in comparison. The real breakthroughs, the new fields, the most beneficial discoveries of science were certainly not delayed (in fact probably were hastened) by the creationist motivations of these great founders of modern science.

TABLE I

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED

BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

DISCIPLINE SCIENTIST

ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)

BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)

CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)

CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)

COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)

DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)

DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)

ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)

ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)

ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)

ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)

ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)

FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)

FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)

GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)

GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)

GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)

GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)

GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)

HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)

HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)

HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)

ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)

ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)

MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)

NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)

NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)

OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)

OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)

PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)

PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)

PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)

REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)

STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)

STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)

SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)

THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)

THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)

VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

TABLE II

NOTABLE INVENTIONS, DISCOVERIES

OR DEVELOPMENTS BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

CONTRIBUTION SCIENTIST

ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE SCALE LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)

ACTUARIAL TABLES CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)

BAROMETER BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)

BIOGENESIS LAW LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

CALCULATING MACHINE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)

CHLOROFORM JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)

DOUBLE STARS WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)

ELECTRIC GENERATOR MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)

ELECTRIC MOTOR JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)

EPHEMERIS TABLES JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)

FERMENTATION CONTROL LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

GALVANOMETER JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)

GLOBAL STAR CATALOG JOHN HERSCHEL (1792-1871)

INERT GASES WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)

KALEIDOSCOPE DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)

LAW OF GRAVITY ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)

MINE SAFETY LAMP HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)

PASTEURIZATION LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

REFLECTING TELESCOPE ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)

SCIENTIFIC METHOD FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626)

SELF-INDUCTION JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)

TELEGRAPH SAMUEL F.B. MORSE (1791-1872)

THERMIONIC VALVE AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)

TRANS-ATLANTIC CABLE LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)

VACCINATION & IMMUNIZATION LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

Nor should anyone suppose that their commitment to theism and creationism was only because they were not yet acquainted with modern philosophies. Many were strong opponents of Darwinism (Agassiz, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Dawson, Virchow, Fabre, Fleming, etc.). Even those who lived before Darwin were strong opponents of earlier evolutionary systems, not to mention pantheism, atheism, and other such anti-supernaturalist philosophies, which were every bit as prevalent then as now.

To illustrate the caliber and significance of these great scientists of the past, Tables I and II have been prepared. These tabulations are not complete lists, of course, but at least are representative and they do point up the absurdity of modern assertions that no true scientist can be a creationist and Bible-believing Christian.

Table I lists the creationist "fathers" of many significant branches of modern science. Table II lists the creationist scientists responsible for various vital inventions, discoveries, and other contributions to mankind. These identifications are to some degree oversimplified, of course, for even in the early days of science every new development involved a number of other scientists, before and after. Nevertheless, in each instance, a strong case can be made for attributing the chief responsibility to the creationist scientist indicated. At the very least, his contribution was critically important and thus supports our contention that belief in creation and the Bible helps, rather than hinders, scientific discovery.

In each case, the scientists listed were strict creationists, unreservedly believing in the Bible and the God of the Bible. Some were "progressive creationists," but none were theistic evolutionists, so far as can be determined. They came from a variety of denominational backgrounds and doctrinal persuasions, but all were at least professing Christians, committed to the basic doctrines of Christianity. Additional biographical data concerning both their Christian convictions and their scientific contributions have been compiled recently by the writer for a chapter in a future book and it has been a great personal blessing to share in their lives and studies in this way. The mere listing of their names in these summary Tables may seem impersonal, but even this bare compilation is impressive.

The scientific achievements of modern creationist scientists do not yet measure up to those of these earlier creationists (neither do the attainments of modern evolutionists for that matter), but we at least have the same beliefs, the same motivations and the same spiritual resources. There is a much greater weight of establishment prejudice to overcome today, but the God of Robert Boyle and the God of Clerk Maxwell is still the same "Creator, who is blessed for ever" (Romans 1:25), "Lord, it is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power: help us, 0 Lord our God: for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this multitude. 0 Lord, thou art our God; let not man prevail against thee." (II Chronicles 14:11).

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=185

[Guest Alefshin]

John Ambrose Fleming

John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945)

John Ambrose Fleming is best known for his discoveries related to electricity and telecommunication. He graduated from a university in London. This is where he started researching the of the "Edison Effect." The "Edison Effect" is an electric current flow between a heated cathode in a seperate tube. The "Edison Effect" helped Fleming realize how to fix weak radio signals. After college, he started to work at the Marconi Company. This is where he invented and patented his electronic amplifier.

Fleming invented an important electronic device called the oscillation valve which some believed marked the beginning of electronics. Another inventor later took the oscillation valve crvenilo and ended up creating what we now call an amplifier. But this isn't a stereo amplifier that makes music sound loud, it is a type of amplifier that generates strength to radio waves. The oscillation valve was the first transmitter to reach across the Atlantic. It was John Ambrose's 0202_238 to help the world communicate across the ocean. The oscillation valve looked like a lightbulb with a black coil attached to it. The coil was then attached to a metal cylinder in the center of the bulb. What this contraption did was conduct electricity to a plate of metal which could receive radio wave lengths.

Fleming was the son of a Christian minister and was a Christian apologist. He wrote a book about creation and helped start the Evolution Protest Movement. Fleming believed that science must rely on the belief that the universe was created by God. He relied on these beliefs when he made all of his scientific inventions. For example, when he created the Fleming valve he was basing each of the steps of his scientific process on universal facts founded on the basic belief that God had created all the materials, theories, and brainpower needed.

Fleming's inventions contributed to photometry, electronics, and wireless telegraphy. He was knighted for his inventions in 1929.

http://creationwiki.org/John_Ambrose_Fleming

[Guest Alefshin]

Флеминг је био велики научник, проналазач је диоде, одликован многим медаљама и почастима од стране многих научних друштава-у бројним излагањима је износио аргументе против ТЕ.

[Guest Alefshin]

Louis Trenchard More

Професор физике на универзитету у Синсинатију, исмејао је еволуцију у књизи Догма о еволуцији.

http://openlibrary.org/b/OL10513593M/The-Dogma-Of-Evolution

[Guest Alefshin]

Dr. Albert Fleischmann, of the University of Erlangen

“I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic poklon. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long-deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rotted in the hearts of man.”

Флајшман је био зоолог и компаративни анатомиста, научник европске репутације који је отворено нападао ТЕ. 1901.г. је написао књигу `Теорија о пореклу`( Die Descendenztheorie`) где је отворено изнео побијања ове теорије-наравно, књига је дочекана `на нож`. Једном приликом је рекао да опстанак ТЕ треба приписати `љубави људског рода према бајкама`.

Потпуно тачно!

[Guest Alefshin]

Louis Vialleton, who was Professor of Zoology, Anatomy and Comparative Physiology at Montpelier University, France.

Један од водећих научника свог времена, критички се осврнуо на ТЕ у књигама Општа морфологија и Порекло живих бића( L`Origine des Etres Vivants). Ова друга се појавила 1929. г. и до 1930.г. имала је 15 издања, али се никад није појавио енглески превод пошто се оштро супротстављала ТЕ. Тако се то ради...

[Guest Alefshin]

Douglas Dewar (1875–1957), познати британски орнитолог. Одбацио је ТЕ 1931.г., иако је претходно био еволуциониста. Касније је дебатовао са заступницима ове теорије написавши следећих неколико књига: Тешкоће теорије еволуције, Нове тешкоће теорије еволуције, Човек-посебна креација и Изазов еволуционистима.

http://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Douglas+Dewar&source=an&ei=mH2uSoL_I8ic_Abx0YnMBg&sa=X&oi=book_group&ct=title&cad=author-navigational&resnum=4

[Guest Alefshin]

http://aristophrenium.com/duane/separation-of-creation-and-science/

[Guest Alefshin]

http://creation.com/denied-the-prize

[maxwell]

Овај човек је неуморан, још када би креативно искористио своју енергију.

[Guest Alefshin]

Овај човек је неуморан, још када би креативно искористио своју енергију.

Управо то и радим момче, много сте залутали... Добро је, млади сте, има времена, сви ми у младости имамо разне заблуде, разумем ја то...

А и наравно да сам креативан-па зато и постављам креационистичке садржаје greengrin

[Aquilius Cratus]

Овај човек је неуморан, још када би креативно искористио своју енергију.

Управо то и радим момче, много сте залутали... Добро је, млади сте, има времена, сви ми у младости имамо разне заблуде, разумем ја то...

А и наравно да сам креативан-па зато и постављам креационистичке садржаје greengrin

A to vam nije palo na pamet da ste vi mozda u zabludi? Onako sasvim slucajno?

[Guest Alefshin]

Овај човек је неуморан, још када би креативно искористио своју енергију.

Управо то и радим момче, много сте залутали... Добро је, млади сте, има времена, сви ми у младости имамо разне заблуде, разумем ја то...

А и наравно да сам креативан-па зато и постављам креационистичке садржаје greengrin

A to vam nije palo na pamet da ste vi mozda u zabludi? Onako sasvim slucajno?

Наравно. Зато сам пуно и читао. Када сам рецимо завршио гимназију падало ми је на памет да сам у заблуди када је у питању вера( тадашње школство није пружало скоро никакво фактичко знање о религијама уопштено) и тако на крају дошао до тога да постанем свештеник.

А ти? Било случајно било намерно?

[Guest Alefshin]

http://creation.com/denied-the-prize

Препоручујем свима који знају енглески, а нису гадљиви на `протестантско-фундаменталистичко-фанатичко-ненаучне` сајтове да прочитају овај текст. Рецимо, занимљив је овај део:

Echoing the Damadian injustice, Nicolae Paulescu, the discoverer of insulin, was in many respects a creationist. A highly respected and admired academic, he even taught his anti-evolutionary views in university. He used to say: ‘The scientist cannot just say Credo in Deum (I believe in God). He must clearly affirm: Scio Deum esse (I know God exists)

или овај:

A staunch anti-Darwinian

The beginning of the 20th century in Europe was a time of massive change in academia. Darwin’s theory was widely embraced and extended beyond the boundaries of biology, reshaping social sciences and even the medical sciences. Very few academics had the courage and scientific open-mindedness to stand tall in front of the crushing bulldozer of Darwinism.

In those times, at Europe’s south-eastern edge, Professor Paulescu actively opposed Darwinian ideas. In 1902, he opened his course on physiology with a devastating critique of spontaneous generation—the new evolutionary of the day, according to which chemical elements had combined spontaneously to generate the first primitive life-forms. Paulescu appropriately asked whether ‘the issue of the origin of living substance is part of experimental science or of philosophy?’7 He further pointed out that, because one could have no :mad: of conditions on any ‘primitive’ Earth, ‘No hypothesis on the origin of living substance can be experimentally tested’.7

Thus, as early as 1902, Paulescu was making a clear distinction between experimental science and historical science, a distinction creation ministries can never emphasize enough, while secular education seems to completely ignore it.8

Paulescu concluded that since physics and chemistry were unable to generate life from non-living substances, ‘we have to admit here the intervention of certain Powers …’ which he identified with notions of God and the soul, saying that the time had come for these to be acknowledged and introduced into science.9

Further into this opening lesson, Paulescu deals with Darwinism per se by pointing out that the hereditary changes within a type only lead to a variety within that type.10 In his day, the biological definition of a species as mating only within its own boundaries had not emerged, so Paulescu did not distinguish between a species and a created kind.11 He gave the example of a sheep born at a Massachusetts farm in 1761 with shorter legs than the rest of the flock. This was a useful variety since lower fences, which are cheaper, would be sufficient. So from it, a new breed—the Ancon—was derived. However, it was still a sheep, he pointed out. (And with today’s knowledge of genetics and information theory, Paulescu would have been able to also show that it was in fact the result of an information-losing mutation.12 The heritable defect turned out to be useful, but it was still a downhill change.13,14 )

Paulescu also pointed to experiments which showed that heritable changes to species characteristics tended to reduce fertility. Thus, natural selection (which he accepted as a self-evident fact, as most creationists always have) would work against any trend towards a radically different species, but rather was a conservative agent, acting against ‘the degeneration of species’.

This Romanian scholar powerfully attacked the evolutionary logic applied to homologies (shared characteristics) much as creationists would today, as well as the that extra nipples on humans are an ‘atavism’ (a throwback to animal ancestry). He pointed out that these were simply anomalies by replication of the same organ, and were often (unlike those of animals) located outside the ‘mammary line’, e.g. the shoulders, side or inner hip.

All these arguments may seem commonplace today, but back in 1902 such a use of sound scientific logic in countering the impetuous ascent of the new Darwinian paradigm was exceptional. It even caused voices to be heard in the Romanian Parliament demanding Paulescu’s removal from his chair at the faculty! Undeterred, he actively debated the elite of evolutionary biology academics of the day.

An Eastern Orthodox believer, Professor Paulescu once said that because ‘God is both the initial cause and the final scope of all that exists, [therefore] true science can only lead to deciphering in nature the signs of the divine will and reason, [directed toward] meeting the Living God, Jesus Christ, the embodied Logos.’15 From all reports, he was a humble man who, though greatly saddened at the Nobel injustice, took it with good grace.

Coming from a different time and culture, Nicolae Paulescu nevertheless deserves to be added to the list of great scientists for whom God was a certitude and Christianity the way of life. The fact that the Nobel Prize Committee ignored his priority in the discovery of insulin, and over 80 years later his contribution is still widely ignored, may very likely reflect his strong creationist stance.

Today more than ever, it is immensely difficult to be an outspoken creationist and still be accepted as a scientist by the ‘establishment’—whatever one’s degrees or achievements. This is strange indeed, given that no less than Sir Isaac Newton believed totally in the biblical account of creation—and he was also the greatest scientist of all time.

Ко би рек`о - проф Паулеску није био `протестантски или исламски фанатик` већ православни верник. Мада, можда за неке и фанатик... У ствари, наравно да је био фанатик чим није био дарвинистички верник, и ја сам забораван...

[Aquilius Cratus]

Jesam, vise puta. I uvek kad sam pokusai da oborim TE nisam uspeo. Ili sam se uhvatio

da pogresno dedukujem ili da sam pokusao da ubacim empirijske podatke o svetu koji ne postoje.