• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scientists Who Believe in a Creator, and Why.

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
I thought this was informative. It just doesn’t give their names, but each one explains why they believe in a Creator.
None are YEC’s....I felt it necessary to point that out.

“Many experts in various scientific fields perceive intelligent design in nature. They find it illogical to think that the intricate complexity of life on earth came about by chance. Hence, a number of scientists and researchers believe in a Creator.

Some of these have become Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are convinced that the God of the Bible is the Designer and Builder of the material universe. Why have they arrived at that conclusion? Awake! asked some of them. You may find their comments interesting.*

“Unfathomable Complexities of Life”

▪ WOLF-EKKEHARD LÖNNIG

PROFILE: Over the past 28 years, I have done scientific work dealing with genetic mutation in plants. For 21 of those years, I have been employed by the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, in Cologne, Germany. For almost three decades, I have also served as an elder in a Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

My empirical research in genetics and my studies of biological subjects such as physiology and morphology bring me face-to-face with the enormous and often unfathomable complexities of life. My study of these topics has reinforced my conviction that life, even the most basic forms of life, must have an intelligent origin.

The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But these fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind, however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny. I have examined such arguments over decades. After much careful study of living things and consideration of the way the laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist, I am compelled to believe in a Creator.

“Everything I Observe Has a Cause”

▪ BYRON LEON MEADOWS

PROFILE: I live in the United States and work at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the field of laser physics. Presently I am involved in the development of technology to improve the ability to monitor global climate, weather, and other planetary phenomena. I am an elder in a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Kilmarnock, Virginia, area.

In my research I often work with the principles of physics. I seek to understand how and why certain things happen. In my field of study, I find clear evidence that everything I observe has a cause. I believe that it is scientifically reasonable to accept that God is the original cause of all things in nature. The laws of nature are too stable for me not to believe that they were put in place by an Organizer, a Creator.

If this conclusion is that obvious, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Might it be that evolutionists look at their evidence with presupposed conclusions? This is not unheard of among scientists. But observation, no matter how convincing, does not presuppose conclusion. For example, a person researching laser physics could insist that light is a wave, similar to a sound wave, because light often behaves like a wave. However, his conclusion would be incomplete because the evidence also indicates that light behaves as a group of particles, known as photons. Similarly, those who insist that evolution is a fact base their conclusions on only part of the evidence, and they allow their own presupposed conclusions to influence the way that they view the evidence.

I find it amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution as fact when evolutionary “experts” themselves argue over how it is supposed to have happened. For example, would you accept arithmetic as a proved fact if some experts said that 2 plus 2 equals 4, while other experts said it was believed to total 3 or possibly 6? If the role of science is to accept only what can be proved, tested, and reproduced, then the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor is not a scientific fact.

“Something Cannot Come From Nothing”

▪ KENNETH LLOYD TANAKA

PROFILE: I am a geologist presently employed by the U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona. For almost three decades, I have participated in scientific research in various fields of geology, including planetary geology. Dozens of my research articles and geologic maps of Mars have been published in accredited scientific journals. As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I spend about 70 hours every month promoting Bible reading.

I was taught to believe in evolution, but I could not accept that the immense energy required to form the universe could have originated without a powerful Creator. Something cannot come from nothing. I also find a strong argument in favor of a Creator in the Bible itself. This book gives numerous examples of scientific facts in my field of expertise, such as that the earth is spherical in shape and hangs “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22) These realities were written in the Bible long before they were proved by human investigation.

Think of the way we are made. We possess sensory perception, self-awareness, intelligent thought, communication abilities, and feelings. In particular, we can experience, appreciate, and express love. Evolution cannot explain how these wonderful human qualities came to be.

Ask yourself, ‘How reliable and credible are the sources of information used to support evolution?’ The geologic record is incomplete, complex, and confusing. Evolutionists have failed to demonstrate proposed evolutionary processes in the laboratory with the use of scientific methodologies. And while scientists generally employ good research techniques to acquire data, they are often influenced by selfish motives when interpreting their findings. Scientists have been known to promote their own thinking when the data are inconclusive or contradictory. Their careers and their own feelings of self-worth play important roles.

Both as a scientist and as a Bible student, I search for the whole truth, which reconciles all known facts and observations to reach the most accurate understanding. To me, belief in the Creator makes the most sense.

“The Obvious Design Evident in the Cell”

▪ PAULA KINCHELOE

PROFILE: I have several years of experience as a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology. I am presently employed by Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. I also work as a volunteer Bible teacher in the Russian-speaking community.

As part of my education in biology, I spent four years focusing on just the cell and its components. The more I learned about DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolic pathways, the more amazed I became with the complexity, organization, and precision involved. And while I was impressed with how much man has learned about the cell, I was even more amazed at how much there is yet to learn. The obvious design evident in the cell is one reason I believe in God.

My study of the Bible has revealed who the Creator is—namely, Jehovah God. I am convinced that he is not only an intelligent Designer but also a kind and loving Father who cares for me. The Bible explains the purpose of life and provides the hope of a happy future.

Young ones in school who are being taught evolution may be unsure of what to believe. This can be a confusing time for them. If they believe in God, this is a test of faith. But they can meet that test by examining the many amazing things in nature that surround us and by continuing to grow in knowledge of the Creator and his qualities. I have personally done this and have concluded that the Bible’s account of creation is accurate and does not conflict with true science.

“The Elegant Simplicity of the Laws”

▪ ENRIQUE HERNÁNDEZ-LEMUS

PROFILE: I am a full-time minister of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I am also a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. My current work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as the gravothermal catastrophe, which is a mechanism of star growth. I have also worked with complexity in DNA sequences.

Life is simply too complicated to have arisen by chance. For example, consider the vast amount of information contained in the DNA molecule. The mathematical probability of the random generation of a single chromosome is less than 1 in 9 trillion, an event so unlikely that it can be considered impossible. I think it is nonsense to believe that unintelligent forces could create not just a single chromosome but all the amazing complexity present in living beings.

In addition, when I study the highly complex behavior of matter, from the microscopic level to the movement of giant stellar clouds through space, I am impressed by the elegant simplicity of the laws governing their motion. To me, these laws imply more than the work of a Master Mathematician—they are like the signature of a Master Artist.

People are often surprised when I tell them that I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Sometimes they ask me how I can believe in God. Their reaction is understandable, since most religions do not encourage their believers to ask for proof of what they are taught or to research their beliefs. However, the Bible encourages us to use our “thinking ability.” (Proverbs 3:21) All the evidence of intelligent design in nature, together with evidence from the Bible, convinces me that God not only exists but is also interested in our prayers.

............................

The views presented by the experts in this article do not necessarily reflect those of their employers.

Source: Why We Believe in a Creator — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

(Article is from 2006; it changes the stats a little. For example, Dr. Lönnig now has over 40 years of plant mutagenic experience.)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I was taught to believe in evolution, but I could not accept that the immense energy required to form the universe could have originated without a powerful Creator. Something cannot come from nothing. I also find a strong argument in favor of a Creator in the Bible itself. This book gives numerous examples of scientific facts in my field of expertise, such as that the earth is spherical in shape and hangs “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22) These realities were written in the Bible long before they were proved by human investigation.


Oh my! What colossal ignorance. And he is supposed to be a geologist. The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with evolution. How could he have made such an idiotic mistake? This is a case of extreme Dunning-Kruger by one that should know better. He really has no excuse.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Life is simply too complicated to have arisen by chance. For example, consider the vast amount of information contained in the DNA molecule. The mathematical probability of the random generation of a single chromosome is less than 1 in 9 trillion, an event so unlikely that it can be considered impossible. I think it is nonsense to believe that unintelligent forces could create not just a single chromosome but all the amazing complexity present in living beings.


Oh look! Another one that shoots himself in the foot right from the start. Only ignorant creationists think that either evolution or even abiogenesis was "by chance". He loses all credibility when he uses that strawman.

Surely you can do better than this collection of liars, loons, and losers.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Evolution is simply the cumulative effect of genetic mutations...

“Simply”, huh?

Nah, sorry...genetic mutations rarely produce novel, functional information. And if mutations do create a different process, the organism always loses function in another. The LTEE started by Lenski is a good example of this.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
And it’s estimated there have been over 1 billion species.
Equating to one speciation event every 100 million years in each line assuming exponential spread. The exponential spread is unrealistic since we know of at least 5 mass extinction events but even if that number has to come down to only 1% we are still talking about a million years for a speciation.
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
And keep in mind, these mutations are from artificial means. Under lab-controlled conditions. The researchers are forcing pressures on the E. coli strains.
Lab controlled conditions eliminate many natural pressures which force evolution to occur. Do you think the body's immune system does not force viruses and bacteria to mutate?
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
I thought this was informative. It just doesn’t give their names, but each one explains why they believe in a Creator.
None are YEC’s....I felt it necessary to point that out.

“Many experts in various scientific fields perceive intelligent design in nature. They find it illogical to think that the intricate complexity of life on earth came about by chance. Hence, a number of scientists and researchers believe in a Creator.

Some of these have become Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are convinced that the God of the Bible is the Designer and Builder of the material universe. Why have they arrived at that conclusion? Awake! asked some of them. You may find their comments interesting.

It only goes to show that just because you're educated doesn't mean you're smart.


Professor Finklestein.png


.
.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
Oh look! Another one that shoots himself in the foot right from the start. Only ignorant creationists think that either evolution or even abiogenesis was "by chance". He loses all credibility when he uses that strawman.

Surely you can do better than this collection of liars, loons, and losers.
Indeed one can, a lot better: Kenneth R. Miller - Wikipedia
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Oh look! Another one that shoots himself in the foot right from the start. Only ignorant creationists think that either evolution or even abiogenesis was "by chance". He loses all credibility when he uses that strawman.

Surely you can do better than this collection of liars, loons, and losers.

I have to disagree here. "By chance" is a statement referring to something occurring without design; something occurs that was not planned.

It's not looney to see intelligent design in things, even for the educated. As humans, we have this tendency to see design even in randomness. Seeing intelligence behind the complexity arising from evolution is understandable.

Note that I am only defending the tendency for humans to see intelligent design, not creationism.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
It would take more than the views of a few individuals (no matter how bright or apparently knowledgeable) to affect my beliefs or non-beliefs, unless they can claim to have a full understanding of every relevant area upon which they apparently base their conclusions.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Not that im an expert on evolution, but there seem to be a lot of weird statements in what these people are saying about it.

They find it illogical to think that the intricate complexity of life on earth came about by chance. Hence, a number of scientists and researchers believe in a Creator.
I don't think anyone is claiming that life evolves due to chance. But rather that, if the conditions are there then it can happen, figuring out exactly what these conditions are, if we are talking the beginning of life is not known, which is why those working with these things have put up several guidelines for what we would expect to be there for life to exist. Which are things like water etc. But yet as we examine more and more extreme environments on Earth we keep finding lifeforms living in much harder conditions than we are.

"Candidatus Desulforudis audaxviator" is a monotypic bacteria, which lives in depths from 1.5–3 kilometres (0.93–1.86 mi) below the Earth's surface in the groundwater.

It is the only bacterium found in water samples obtained 2.8 kilometres (1.7 mi) underground in the Mponeng gold mine in South Africa. Approximately four micrometres in length, it has survived for millions of years on chemical food sources that derive from the radioactive decay of minerals in the surrounding rock. This makes it one of the few known organisms that does not depend on sunlight for nourishment, and the only species known to be alone in its ecosystem. Ca. D. audaxviator has genes for extracting carbon from dissolved carbon dioxide and for nitrogen fixation. It may also have acquired genes from a species of archaea by horizontal gene transfer.

Candidatus Desulforudis audaxviator - Wikipedia

And as long as we are not sure what exact conditions are needed, I think to use the word "chance" as if we are talking 1 in a billion chance of it being possible, makes no sense. Also one thing that I find strange is how these people think that it is so weird that a God must have been involved, yet none of them seems to ask the question or care to give an explanation of why on Earth God cared to create a bacteria like the one above, or why God seem to be more interested in making evolution work, rather than just saying "You exist because I say so and you live and behave like this, because that is what I command" No, we are going to make it extremely complicated and so it takes billions of years and requiring God to interfere with it constantly to make sure that each of these lifeforms evolve. To me that make absolutely no sense. If God can speak the Universe into existence, then it shouldn't be all that hard to speak all the lifeforms into it as well.
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
There seems to be a big logical disconnect between recognizing that the nature of existence implies intelligence and purpose at it's source, which they then choose to call "God" simply because that is the common term already in use, and leaping to the completely unfounded assumption that the nature of this "God" is being revealed to us by some particular religious sect, as opposed to any other. I don't see either of these choices as being unacceptable or unreasonable. But I do see them as being based on VERY DIFFERENT courses of reasoning. So different that I am stunned that the scientists themselves do not seem to be aware of this disconnect, as evidenced by the fact that none of them even mentioned the very different logic criteria being used to justify these choices.
 
Top