Home

Imagemap alt Wernher von Braun Louis Pasteur Samuel F. B. Morse Lord Kelvin George Washington Carver Carolus Linnaeus Michael Faraday Sir Isaac Newton

The mission of the Creation Science Hall of Fame is to worship God, to grow in Christ while leading others to Christ and to build a family of Creationists on the foundation of the Bible by honoring those who honored God’s Word as literally written in Genesis.

Our motto

“Proving the existence of God.”

Subscribe to our newsletter:

Charity Status:

The Creation Science Hall of Fame is a 501(c)(3) public charity. The IRS notified us, in a letter that President Nick Lally received on May 16, 2013.

Brief Policy Statement

In “honoring those who honor God’s Word,” the Creation Science Hall of Fame does not honor men instead of God in the sense of the world’s vain idea of fame. Rather, in the spirit of Hebrews 11, and Romans 13:7, we seek to preserve the testimony and give honor where honor is due for all that the Christian community owes our inductees.

Disclaimer

The Board of Directors of the Creation Science Hall of Fame are the sole judges of the merits of any inductee, living or dead, or candidate for induction. Furthermore, the Creation Science Hall of Fame is an independent, self-standing ministry. No other ministry or organization owns, controls, or otherwise influences the Creation Science Hall of Fame or any part of it. Nor does the Creation Science Hall of Fame recognize any voice save the judgment of its own Board of Directors, whether in evaluating candidates for induction or in any other matter that shall come before it. The Board alone decides whom to induct, and bases said decision on the merits of the candidate, according to the Board’s own criteria.

Creation Science Hall of Fame Policy and Procedures

The Creation Science Hall of Fame (CSHF) is now open.

On November 11, 2009, we secured the following domain names: creationsciencehalloffame.org, -.com, -.net, and -.us.

Location proposal

Artist's concept of the Creation Science Hall of Fame building.

Artist’s concept of the Creation Science Hall of Fame building.

We will build the Hall of Fame as a brick-and-mortar structure in northern Kentucky, between Answers in Genesis’ Creation Museum and the new Ark Encounter park.

All creationists, collectively, throughout the world, will own the CSHF. We do not wish to own it, nor should anyone else. We now have a five-member Board of Directors and we operate as a non-profit corporation within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

We also expect all creationists to support this project collectively and with neither bias nor regard to politics or past disagreements.

God is no Respecter of persons. (Acts 10:34)

True enough, many creationists do not agree with one another’s theories. But this will not determine who enters the Hall of Fame. We want our Lord to be proud of us and this project.

The Creation Science Hall of Fame exists to honor those men and women who honored God’s Word as literally written in Genesis, be they alive and remaining, or gone home to the Lord.

Induction

We will never ask anyone whether they wish us to induct them. The Board of Directors votes on each candidate and appoints candidates for induction according to our own criteria.

The chief criterion is this: the Creation Science Hall of Fame seeks men and women who have honored God’s Word as literally written in Genesis and have worked toward that end during their lifetimes. (1 Thes.5:12-14)

The Hall of Fame building will eventually house the biographies, pictures, accomplishments, effects, and artifacts of all its inductees. Until that time, we shall illustrate those items on this site. (Check back periodically for updates.)

Current goals

  • To choose inductees
  • To choose and request nominations for Honorable Mention
  • To preserve documents and artifacts
  • To teach the public that creation science is valid science, and how many scientists uphold it (whether the secular media admits this or not)
  • To promote Christian values and above all, Jesus Christ

Sponsorship

This Web site will have a store to sell pertinent resources. Proceeds from sales will go toward the construction and maintenance of this web site and, eventually, the building.

March 12th update at the court house: verdict in trial of Kent Hovind

Breaking: Answers in Genesis to sue Kentucky for reneging on Ark Encounter

From Answers in Genesis:

As construction moves forward on the life-size Ark, Answers in Genesis (AiG) confirmed today it is filing a federal lawsuit against Kentucky state officials for denying the park participation in the state’s tax rebate incentive program. Although the program is available to all qualifying tourist attractions seeking to build in the state, AiG’s application was rejected solely because of the religious identity and message of AiG. The lawsuit explains how this action by Kentucky officials, including Gov. Steve Beshear, violates federal and state law and amounts to unlawful viewpoint discrimination.

Constitutional law attorney Mike Johnson is the chief counsel of Freedom Guard and is serving as counsel in the case with Nate Kellum, chief counsel of the Center for Religious Expression. Both public interest law firms are providing their legal services to AiG free of charge.

From Ken Ham, President of AiG:

Our organization spent many months attempting to reason with state officials so that this lawsuit would not be necessary. However, the state was so insistent on treating our religious entity as a second-class citizen that we were simply left with no alternative but to proceed to court. This is the latest example of increasing government hostility towards religion in America, and it’s certainly among the most blatant.

See articles here, here, and here.

35 thoughts on “Home

  1. Conspicuous by his absence is Dr. Henry Morris, co-author of The Genesis Flood with Dr. John Whitcomb.

    • As you have already seen, he’s listed under Deceased Inductees. The Deceased Inductees page lists our deceased inductees in the chronological order of their flourishing. But if you hold your mouse over the phrase “Deceased Inductees” on the top menu bar, you’ll see another list of our deceased inductees in alphabetical order. That allows you to find a particular scientist quickly and efficiently.

      We would never leave off our list the man who revived and re-popularized creation science.

      • Well, I thought the same thing as the previous visitor. You immediately see the portraits and you get the impression that “these are it.” Its not that apparent that you have to consult the drop down menu. You need to redesign the website to make it more apparent.

        Great effort though!

        • The portraits are of eight honorees that we selected to “advertise” the site. Now when you visit the Deceased Inductees page, you can see a complete listing of our deceased honorees, in the chronological order of their “flourishing” (the fl. or flourit designation on most biographical or genealogical records). The drop-down list shows them in alphabetical order.

  2. As the website is explicit about induction criteria, I must ask – in which language is Genesis to be taken literally? Scholars have been arguing for centuries about shifts in meaning produced by translations, and I haven’t read of any significant agreement. Some of these differences relate directly to the mission.

    • Classical Hebrew will do quite nicely. And any version that faithfully translates that text. Understand: the original Scriptures are inspired. Translations of them cannot be.

    • Not everyone understands Hebrew… The original King James version is okay since any errors in it are well known and accounted for. The newer versions…well, that’s a little ify. Too many changes in newer versions sort of changes things…and that’s dangerous because you won’t know what they are.

  3. For the longest time I thought I was alone in my theories.
    Just a voice crying out in the wilderness.
    I now realize that we as a society have fallen pray to a giant manipulation.
    For some twisted reason our Governments which mandate our Universities have come to the conclusion that scientist cannot do productive research if they accept the facts of an intelligent designer as the origin of the universe and life.
    It is our responsibility to point out the obvious fact that the USSR which started this atheist challenge in science has collapsed.
    Nations that have followed the atheist philosophy are doing the same.

  4. From Dr. Jerry Bergman. Submitted by Nick Lally, Chairman, Board of Directors, CSHF.
    Bob Woodberry’s background includes a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an undergraduate degree from Wheaton College. His publications include numerous articles in peer reviewed journals, including the American Sociological Review and chapters in books published by Oxford University Press. The publications that caused problems include one in the Encyclopedia of Missions and Missionaries. He brought a lot of money grants from both private foundations and the government to University of Texas. He grew up in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, and worked in China and Japan, and has traveled to over 50 countries.
    He was an excellent teacher. He had outstanding student appraisals and high student ratings. He earned several teaching awards, and was very popular with students. “His passion for doing thorough complex statistical work to both verify and falsify his work is unimpeachable.’
    But there was one big problem.
    His research clearly revealed politically incorrect results—his primary sin was his research supported Christianity. In every culture, by every measure, when Protestant missionaries move into a native culture, every standard of living indicator started improving dramatically, even when all other known factors were taken into account.”
    His article “The Measure of American Religion” won the Outstanding Published Article Award from the Sociology of Religion Section of the American Sociological Association. In fact he took longer to publish in order to make his case airtight, countering every objection before it was raised, so he had fewer papers than some of his colleagues. Also, the best journals have rejected his papers for trivial reasons, forcing him to publish in journals outside his field, which count less towards tenure.”
    The main problem was Woodberry’s research showed that Protestant missionaries built schools and had mass literacy campaigns because they wanted people to read the Bible in their own tongue—a fact Woodberry documented by multiple regression analyses. He found that evangelism was by far the most consistent predictor for starting modern elementary education programs.”
    His American Political Science Review article documented a “positive association between years of exposure to Protestant missions and the growth of democracy—and these results are consistent across continents and world regions, even when controlling for geography, climate, disease prevalence, and many other factors.”
    He also documented that the British forced the sultan of Zanzibar to end the slave trade and those enslaved East Africans until evangelical pressure pushed Britain to deploy its fleet to stop
    slavery in non-Western societies. In one paper Woodberry quoted an 1888 missionary conference’s declaration that said the opium trade is “a standing reproach to Christianity. We are responsible in the sight of God for this culminating wickedness.” Woodward’s research also showed from the 1820s to the 1850s missionaries in India campaigned to protect the people from landowner abuses. They brought cases to court on behalf of low caste believers. In 1865, when Jamaica’s royal governor killed a black leader, the missionaries mobilized a campaign that led to the governor being recalled to England and put on trial for murder. This is not what the anti-Christian professors wanted to hear, so they fired him.”
    A fellow professor, Dr. Rob Wilson, wrote the purpose of tenure was to protect the academic freedom of good faculty to explore controversial topics. What are unpopular research topics
    changes over time, and tenure is designed to protect freedom regardless of the political climate. He added he would rather have a system that allowed for a few ‘bad apples’ in order to protect the
    majority that are doing good work.”
    After he was denied tenure Dr. Woodward had to look for another position. He found that academic freedom is an illusion unless you agree with certain tenets of the ‘in vogue’ academic culture,
    or unless you have tenure. Even then, life can be rough if you are too outspoken about the wrong things. The tenure system is supposed to protect people with politically correct views before they
    were politically correct, and now what was once politically correct is now intolerable, and it is rare for someone like Bob to obtain tenure at a major university these days.”
    After the University of Texas denied Woodberry tenure he applied to 108 other schools. No U.S. University gave him a single offer. One Christian college made a tentative offer, but not a formal
    offer. No other school invited him for an in-person interview. To obtain a position Woodberry had to move nearly 10,000 miles to The National University of Singapore, a Moslem University in a
    Moslem nation. They gave him a 50 percent increase in salary, free housing for up to nine years, the first semester off with pay, and $85,000 to fund his research.

    • I got lost in all of the schools. What was your point in all this…?

  5. I’ve found the easiest way to defeat evolution is to simply ask them how male and female came to be! I say I just want to know what came after this primordial soup, and in what order. All the evolution charts show is one fish morphing into a lizard, one lizard into a bird, one bird into a dinosaur…etc. They don’t know. Well then that’s not science. God created them male and female…no wonder He reiterated so many times…the answer is there in Genesis.

    • >”I’ve found the easiest way to defeat evolution is to simply ask them how male and female came to be”
      >

      This post seems to imply that scientists have nothing to say on the topic of “how male and female came to be”. (They have lots to say on that subject.) So I’m not clear on why the commenter sees this as an “easy way to defeat evolution.”

      > “All the evolution charts show is one fish morphing into a lizard, one lizard into a bird…”
      >

      Textbooks, especially at the introductory level, always summarize and simplify. (Besides, no scientist would EVER say that “one lizard [morphs] into a bird.” In fact, the science would say that if that ever happened, The Theory of Evolution would be immediately debunked.)

      If someone thinks that such basic illustrations are the ONLY things scientists claim about evolution and evolutionary paths, they are going to be in for a huge surprise when talking to someone with more than a first-year biology student’s knowledge.

      If the debate was truly that trivially simple, it would have been over a long time ago. Going into a debate with the mistaken impression that one’s opponent has nothing to say on such questions is an excellent way to get shocked into reality.

      • I see that there’s no way to edit my typos after posting. Therefore, I should point out the obvious: I wrote, “In fact, the science would say that if that ever happened, The Theory of Evolution would be immediately debunked.)”

        Of course, I MEANT to write “scientist” (as in evolutionary biologist”), not “science”. Therefore, it should have said: ” In fact, the evolutionary biologist would say that if that ever happened, The Theory of Evolution would be immediately debunked.)”

    • First, because He said so.

      And second, because we have seen the findings that many of our inductees and Honorably Mentioned workers have developed. And we find them more than sufficiently convincing.

      • The Church argues that the soul is immortal.
        Where then is our soul was 1000 years ago?
        Faith is built for power and money.
        For example, the Christian Crusades.
        You think God created the earth?
        And what do you think who created god?

        We are not alone in the universe.
        We have not even explored the center of the country, and even more that we explore the entire universe.
        Surely there is life in the universe.
        But we are not able to investigate.
        Because we have no technology.
        We still do not know with what technology they built the pyramids

        • Now that’s a very convenient proposition.

          “It’s out there, but we can’t see it, because we haven’t the tools to see it.”

          That’s what Jan Oort said about his Cloud of Comets. And not a scintilla of evidence exists for that even today, though we now can see stars wobbling from the orbits of the planets they carry.

          As for who created God: hasn’t it occurred to you that God is the First Cause?

  6. The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. “Did God create everything that exists?” A student answered bravely, “Yes, he did”.

    The professor then asked, “If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn’t respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had “proved” that “belief in God” was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.

    Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, “May I pose a question? ” “Of course” answered the professor.

    The young student stood up and asked : “Professor does Cold exists?”

    The professor answered, “What kind of question is that? …Of course the cold exists… haven’t you ever been cold?”

    The young student answered, “In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don’t have body heat or we are not hot.”

    “And, does Dark exist?”, he continued. The professor answered “Of course”. This time the student responded, “Again you’re wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there’s lack of light.”

    Finally, the student asked the professor, “Sir, does evil exist?” The professor replied, “Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil.”

    The student responded, “Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God’s presence in the hearts of man.”

    After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn’t answer back.

    The young man’s name was ALBERT EINSTEIN.

    • Albert Einstein was more intellectually honest than you have been. He would at least conclude, however reluctantly, that the universe had a beginning. And neither he nor any other honest scientist would have the hubris to insist that his should be the last word on anything.

      • You want to talk about arrogance? I give you the Methodological Naturalism of Darwin and his successors. According to Methodological Naturalism, by definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field whatsoever can be valid if it posits any, repeat any, supernatural agency. Of primary importance to the neo-Darwinists is that God must be regarded as impossible, and therefore any explanation, however violative of the Law of Averages, has an equal claim on the attention of seekers of Naturalistic Truth.

        • Richard Lewontin, of Harvard University, admitted, even avowed, that scientists, even if they do not swear that oath to a designated Master Bridge Builder of Science, might as well do just that.

          ‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

          It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

          The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.

          The physical evidence does indeed point to a young earth. And as Richard Lewontin admitted above, the “evolutionistic community” ruthlessly sought to deny that to the general public.

          Austin’s paper on the excess argon in the dacite at Mount St. Helens is proof positive that radiometric dating is a sham, and always has been.

          I find the distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism spurious, specious, and meaningless in practice. Or, as a lawyer would say, incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.

  7. Could it be possible that God created us through evolution? The Bible may be considered God’s word, but it is written by man, and man is flawed. Though some parts of the Bible are true, others can be seen as stories, opinions, or tales in an attempt to explain God. Neither Jesus nor God himself wrote the bible. I personally think that God did create us through evolution, not just in 7 days. If he created us in 7 days, it would be that there are too many unexplained things around that to be plausible. I fail to see how evolution could not be even partly true if God did create us. There’s just too much evidence, and if it is true, why is evolution happening even now?

    • Do not confuse changes within a created kind with the change from one created kind to another. The latter has never been seen in nature.

      For that matter, neither has the spontaneous generation of life.

      Neither let the tales of the “geological column,” or of radiometric dating, confuse you. The evidence actually militates against evolution as you understand it, and against an old earth.

      If you doubt that, look through some of our biographies, and at some of the articles you see linked here. The Ark and Flood articles are a good place to start.

      • So do you believe evolution exists, but it does not pertain to how humans were created, or do you flat out disbelieve in the theory of evolution?

        • I do not accept the “theory of evolution” as currently presented.

          I believe life does not have one single tree, but an orchard. The trunk of each tree in that orchard is a particular “kind” of life form. That “kind” might conform to the conventional “family” or “genus.”

          More to the point, I reject the Grand Evolutionary Paradigm. Which consists of:

          1. Uniformitarianism: “the present is the key to the past,” and all processes observed today have always run at the same rate since the beginning of time.
          2. Abiogenesis: life began ex nihilo from a “primordial soup.”
          3. Common descent: all life descends from one ancestor.

          And my chief reason to reject that, is that I reject an old earth. I suggest this earth, and this solar system, can be no older than about 7500 years old, by Earth clocks. That last is important. The universe might be far older, by any clock running at the edge of the universe. But here in the Galaxy, which is at the center, time was stretched when the universe expanded.

          If you look for my article about an astronomical fix on the Global Flood, you’ll see further evidence, not only that the earth was young, but that a key event in earth’s history happened exactly as described, and consistent with patriarchal annals, king lists, and the like, from the Old Testament, and the conventional fixation of the year of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II (the Great), 586 BC. (Note carefully: BC, not BCE.)

    • If you support God created us through evolution, it implies humans did not come into existence immediately after God’s speech. Your support contradicts Psalms 33:9 since it mentions humans stood fast after His spoken words in Genesis 1:16.

      Genesis 1:26, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

      Psalms 33:9, “For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.”

  8. If this entire universe would be created by time and space to be guided by Intelligent Design, it would turn up that God was not the creator. The reason is simply time and space had turned up to be the main sources to act as creators of this universe and yet God had turned up to act as an assistant for the progress. This is not biblical since Isaiah 45:8 mentions God was the creator instead of merely the assistant for the creation.

    Similarly, there is no reason to assume all living creatures would be formed through natural selection to be guided by intelligent design. The reason is simply natural selection had turned up to be the creator instead of God. God had eventually turned up to stand beside to assist the creator, i.e. natural selection, in the evolution.

    Isaiah 45:8, “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.”

  9. That Story about Einstein was amazing, I have heard this story since I was small! However I was unaware it was Einstein, before using it in my creation works, where and how was the story originated, and or the source of the story?

    I was recently approached by an agnostic, who said: Agnostic simply is a fancy term for “I don’t Care!”

    Then he proceeded for 45 minutes asking me clarifying questions about God and Creation! By the time he had finished he walked away scratching his head asking himself if he really cared after all! CARE TO KNOW THE TRUTH OF YOUR WORLD!

    If I could say anything to the critics of God’s Divine Creative Origination to our Universe, might I challenge you to care enough to research the evidence for God as I have done! It was amazing! Before long, you will find God’s existence everywhere! And come to the knowledge that God himself can place his Holy Spirit into your heart! All you must do is Believe and Repent of your sin! The sin? Disbelief that Jesus Christ can wash away everything you have ever mistakenly done: Disbelief of his amazing power and Godhead!

    The journey will be started of lifelong peace joy and purpose! And this experience cannot be refuted by those who have walked into its path!

  10. I’ve often seen atheists and anti-theists post this famous urban legend on Christian websites. They think it’s funny to see Christians respond to the story as if it were true. Some Christian websites even have automated filters which block the prank and others like it before they appear.

    Readers here no doubt spotted the popular urban legend Indeed, I’ve been receiving email spam copies of it for years, ever since the Internet began. Folklore scholars have traced it back centuries (long before Albert Einstein) and a wide-variety of “evil professors” and “brilliant students” have played the iconic roles of this and related tales, which also has been set in various times of history.

    In the Internet versions of the legend, “Albert Einstein” has been (in my experience) the most common “punch-line” but I’ve had Christian friends and colleagues send me other variations as to the identification of the student and they are set in a variety of periods of history: Isaac Newton (creationist Christian), Carl Linnaeus (the creationist Christian who developed the taxonomy system biologists still use), George Washington Carver (a creationist who really knew how to use all sorts of wonderful things in God’s marvelous creation to bless the farmers who were struggling to make a living through a variety of crops best suited to their particular soil type!), and even Martin Luther King.

    I’ve even seen a Roman Catholic version of the legend, where various later-to-be Popes played the role of the student.

    Of course, I”m sure I speak for many when I say that I’ve always found the legend insulting to whoever the famous person appearing as the “punchline”. After all, the failed “logic” of the legend is the dependence upon lame word-games. Obviously, cold DOES exist just as darkness DOES exist. Indeed, the Bible talks about darkness a lot. And I wince when the “student” says: “Sir, Evil does not exist.” Of course EVIL EXISTS! The Bible could not be more clear about that. Any “student” making such ridiculously absurd arguments in a classroom would be laughed into silence by other students (especially if they know their Bibles) and a real-life university professor would never allow such time-wasting, failed pedantics to proceed past its first absurd claim about “cold.”

    Of course “After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn’t answer back.” is as absurd as it is imaginary. Why would any professor “bow his head” and remain silent–unless he was pondering how he ever made the career decision to teach at a university with such low-caliber students!

    • Fortunately, many God-fearing, brilliant theologians have been addressing the professor’s theodicy question FAR BETTER than the student’s embarrassingly poor attempt. Indeed, we can thank Our Lord Jesus Christ for the fact that Bible believers can find many excellent presentations of this “If God is good and God is all-powerful, why is there evil and suffering in the world?” question throughout the Internet. In fact, just yesterday I listened to a Youtube video where a Christian colleague eloquently answered Dr. Lawrence Krauss in a university campus debate where this theodicy was the main topic of the debate.

      Snopes is not always reliable but they’ve got this particular urban legend nailed down well and some readers may find it very interesting:
      link to snopes.com

      By the way, as Snopes points out, anyone familiar with Einstein’s statement about “I believe in Spinoza’s God” (i.e., not at all the YHWH ELOHIM we know as Our Lord God of the Bible) no doubt finds the story baffling—because it is totally out of character for Einstein! (Of course, no one will ever find this imaginary confrontation in an Einstein biography. The legend’s literary origins go back centuries before Einstein.)

      Of course, one wonders why anyone would choose Albert Einstein for the role of student in the light of his religious positions. Yes, some uninformed Christians wish to believe that Dr. Einstein at least “believed in God” but Einstein got very emphatic and ANGRY as theists kept misquoting him and counting him among them. (Of course, if they don’t understand what Spinoza meant by “God”, they could easily misunderstand some of Einstein’s statements.) At the same time, Einstein didn’t like being called an “atheist” either. Here is probably is clearest statement of what Einstein thought about God:

      “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.”

      To try and salvage their position, I’ve seen a few Christian authors try to claim that Einstein was a “true theist” as a young student. However, they never manage to make a well-documented case for that!

      Of course, for those who have known the Lord for years and are familiar with the Bible, they are already quite capable of answering the theodicy question. They don’t need a famous scientist or Christian thinker to help them out because they already know the Creator Himself!

  11. I’ve always been baffled by this unusual “expanded” definition of UNIFORMITARIANISM:

    >”Uniformitarianism: “the present is the key to the past,” and all processes observed today have always run at the same rate since the beginning of time.”
    >

    I’ve taught for science departments (and History & Philosophy of Science Departments) at both Christian and secular universities. I’ve used a LOT of science textbooks of every sort over a long career. Yet, I have NEVER EVER SEEN a textbook include the odd addendum at the end of the definition: “at the same rate since the beginning of time.”

    If someone can find a science textbook making that bizarre claim about the definition of UNIFORMITARIANISM, I would love to see it. After all, SCIENTISTS HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN that rates are not always fixed and constant. Seriously, a scientist would have to be totally BLIND and basically ignorant of science and the real world to not realize that MANY FACTORS cause all sorts of “rates” to change over time. (Obviously, there are SOME “rates” which remain constant. But there are many other “rates” which are not constant.)

    For example, consider population growth rates for humans or any other species. No scientist who stayed awake during math class would ever claim that the population growth rate measured in the United States for the year 2010 was the same as the rate for 2000…..nor the same as the population growth rate in the U.S. in 1900……and certainly not the same as the same geographic territory in 1600. (Indeed, EVERYBODY KNOWS that there have been major changes in family sizes, even in recent generations!) Of course, we can say the same for the population growth rate for humans worldwide and throughout human history. In fact, not only are those “rates” today not “the same rate” as a thousand years ago, they aren’t even always in the same direction! (For example, when the Great Plagues hit Europe and similar diseases came to the New World with the explorers, population growth rates turned and reversed most severely to produce NEGATIVE GROWTH RATES!

    • Of course, we can apply that simple truth to geology, chemistry, and physics. For example, geologists know that the rate of erosion of the White Cliffs of Dover today are NOT the same rate as those same cliffs two hundred years ago. Likewise, geophysicists know that the rate of sodium ions being added to the world’s oceans are not the same today as they were a century ago.

      So, the first part of the definition of Uniformitarianism, “the present is the key to the past,” is correct. The addendum, “and all processes observed today have always run at the same rate since the beginning of time.” IS INCORRECT. To my knowledge, no legitimate science textbook used in universities around the world have EVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM. Yet, somehow, this “variant definition” has become increasingly common, especially on-line in recent decades. I often see it pop up in discussion forums.

      In the 1960’s I was already hearing this erroneous definition from my students now and then, and I put many hours into searching for a commonly used science textbook containing the error. In the late 1970’s and again about 30 years later, I even offered a financial incentive in the form of a reward that reached $500 at its zenith. (That rate changed also! LOL.) I never had a single “taker” vy for the prize. The people who mentioned the definition couldn’t recall a science textbook where they saw the bizarre definition variant.

      As common sense would remind us, scientists do know that there are many rates which change over time. Our science textbooks are full of them. (Indeed, examples are often on exams where students have to calculate the rates and how much they’ve changed!)

      Therefore, even though my retirement ended my financial offer, I’d still be interested in learning if there are any of the widely used, standard science textbooks used in the USA or Canada which define UNIFORMITARIANISM in this bizarre way. If you can post such a citation(s)—and the names of any universities using the textbook, if you happen to know—I would be very grateful! It is a mystery I’ve wanted to solve for about a half century!

      Blessings to you all and thank you if you are able to help me out on this.

  12. >” Of primary importance to the neo-Darwinists is that God must be regarded as impossible, and therefore any explanation, however violative of the Law of Averages, has an equal claim on the attention of seekers of Naturalistic Truth.”
    >

    Could you please explain what is meant by the last part of your sentence, starting with “however”?

    Of course, The Law of Averages is a popular logic fallacy, also known as the “Gambler’s Fallacy”. (e.g., In flipping a coin, there have been 10 heads in a row. “Therefore, the chances of ANOTHER “head” coming up on the next coin-flip is very very low. ” That kind of erroneous thinking is an instance of the false “Law of Averages” that naive gamblers fall into.) So, I didn’t follow how or why a scientist in this sort of context would rely on that particular logic fallacy.

    I took a quick look on Google to see if there was another kind of “Law of Averages” but all I could find was that popular fallacy. (Perhaps some people think of “regression to the mean” as a kind of “law” concerning averages?)

    Also, even the word “Darwinism” is used very differently in the UK versus the USA. So, could you please clarify exactly what you mean by “Neo-Darwinist”?

    Thank you for your help!

Leave a Reply