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.”
BREAKING NEWS!
May 16, 2013: Dr. Walter T. Brown, in collaboration with our own Secretary-Treasurer, Dr. Terry A. Hurlbut, announced that we can positively date the Global Flood.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes! That is one of the things that was said to occur.
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.
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.
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…?
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.
You serious? “how male and female came to be”? Do some reading!
link to talkorigins.org
link to talkorigins.org
Or, just read the comments to a person who made that same argument here:
link to fstdt.net
As for the “evolution charts”…just read this:
link to talkorigins.org
To all readers: be sure to check this link against any TalkOrigins “answer to a creationist claim.”
Hi nice website.
Why do you believe that God created the world?
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?
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.
At least no scientist would have the hubris to demand that any evidence that goes against what they’ve already decided to be true is automatically wrong.
link to creation.com
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
Now, that is arrogance. To automatically discount any evidence that goes against what you believe. NO true scientist does that. How could one ever learn anything new otherwise?
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.
Yeah, I want to talk about arrogance!
What you don’t mention in your little post above is this: No scientist ever takes an oath where they actually say that!
If the physical evidence did point to a young earth, “evolutionism” would have NEVER gotten off of the ground. Instead, Henry Morris found that yec’s who went to college kept ditching their young-earth beliefs. That’s why he came up with that “statement of faith” idea in the first place.
You seem to have confused “Methodological naturalism” with “Philisophlcal Naturalism” Methodological naturalism just says that supernatural events themselves can’t be predicted or tested for…even if the tester believes in such things. (ex. Micheal Ruse)
I say again: No real scientist would take an oath where they promise to disregard any evidence that goes against what they have chosen to believe. Creationists are required to do so! Your complaining about the “arrogance” of “methodological naturalists’ is like “straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel”.
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.
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.
Terry, your Lewontin quote in your post below is a quote from ONE PERSON. That’s a pretty pathetically small sample size when you’re trying to attribute some attitude to millions of other people (ie. scientists) don’t you think?
Besides, it’s apparently not even in context:
link to tinyurl.com That seems to be a favorite quote mine of creationists.
I at least brought proof (the obligatory statements of faith from the YEC groups) that they have to swear to disregard any evidence that goes against their beliefs.
No scientist or research group does that, despite your assertion (and usage of ONE person) that they “might as well” do that. “Might as well” does not cut it. They do not.
–As for Austin’s article about dacite, etc. at Mount Saint Helens? Old (and debunked) news:
link to noanswersingenesis.org.au
Think: If radiometric dating was truly a sham: Anything involving usage of radioisotopes would not be able to be used. That includes smoke detectors, nuclear power, medical isotopes, etc.
–You can talk all you want about their being no real difference between “methodological” and “philosophical” naturalism, but like it or not, the difference is still there. If you refuse to admit it, that’s just you refusing to give up an argument you like, even though it’s false. As I said: There ARE theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller who would school you properly on that topic.
I see. So you throw Richard Lewontin under the bus, after he admits the obvious.
I don’t see what’s stopping you, other than raising the ten thousand, from taking Dr. Mastropaolo on his offer. The Lewontin testimony is the evidence-in-chief that no verifiable observation irreparably disproves the Genesis narrative.
“Under the bus”? “Admits the obvious”? It was one misquote, from ONE man. I ask again: How is that a large enough sample size for you to brush every single scientist out there?
And as I said before: the “distant starlight” problem alone shoots down genesis. Never mind that there is a bunch of other physical evidence that shoots down a young creation.
link to rationalwiki.org
As for things like the flood:
link to web.archive.org
And I will take up Mastropaolo’s offer if and only if I can get him to test that verse out in Mark, in court, with signed affidavits that absolve me from responsibility for when he poisons himself to death in front of his judge.
Well, and after I win a sodding lottery so I can afford the 10 grand, american.
In the meantime, for the bible part of his challenge, he can still take the “Mark” test so long as he does it publically, with news cameras in front of a judge and qualified doctor.