"The Truth About PhD Creationists"

[Skwim]

.

"The truth about creationists with PhDs: Their diplomas exist for the sole purpose of inflating the credibility of the institutions that they represent."​

So, Humphreys seems to be a less than credible PhD physicist championing creationism. But are there any credible PhD physicists doing so? Or how about a notable PhD scientist of any stripe championing creationism?

.

 

[George-ananda]

PhD=Piled Higher and Deeper

 

[Twilight Hue]

Diploma mill heaven.

 

[Sapiens]

PhD creationists are, by and large, failed scientists who often never even practiced their discipline. Asking for an evolutionary opinion fom a PhD creationist is akin to asking someone who got their driver's licence 40 years ago but then never drove to go our and parallel park in a tight space.

 

[omega2xx]

.

"The truth about creationists with PhDs: Their diplomas exist for the sole purpose of inflating the credibility of the institutions that they represent."​

That is not the silliest statement I have heard in the discussion of evolution vs Creationism, but it is in the top 5. Make that the top 3.​

So, Humphreys seems to be a less than credible PhD physicist championing creationism. But are there any credible PhD physicists doing so? Or how about a notable PhD scientist of any stripe championing creationism?

.

Stephen A. Austin: 3 degrees in Geology--Univ of Washington, San Jose ?State and Penn State(PhD). He has made many outstanding discoveries at Grand Canyon and Mt St. Helens and has written 4 books and several technical papers on creationist geology.

Kenneth B. Cumming: PhD from Harvard. Did biological research with some 20 secular scientific publications. Taught at Va. Tech and Univ of Wisconsin.

Duane Gish: PhD from UCLA at Berkeley, in Bio Chemistry. Was a research chemist publishing at least 24 articles in peer-reviewed journals and has won over 3000 scientific debates with evolutionists.

I could name many more but it will be a waste of time.

The man who that video was disingenuous by ridiculing the number of articles Humphreys had in peer-review journals. He knows full well that no scientific journal will review anything that even hints at creationism.

Besides who wrote what is irrelevant. You need to post one, just one thing the TOE has ever proved. Until you can, you are just blowing smoke,

.

"The truth about creationists with PhDs: Their diplomas exist for the sole purpose of inflating the credibility of the institutions that they represent."​

So, Humphreys seems to be a less than credible PhD physicist championing creationism. But are there any credible PhD physicists doing so? Or how about a notable PhD scientist of any stripe championing creationism?

.

 

[omega2xx]

PhD creationists are, by and large, failed scientists who often never even practiced their discipline. Asking for an evolutionary opinion fom a PhD creationist is akin to asking someone who got their driver's licence 40 years ago but then never drove to go our and parallel park in a tight space.

That simply isn't true, Most, if not all creation scientist have worked in industry, done research and taught in major universities. Asking an evolutionist to provide the evidence for one, just one thing the TOE preaches is the best way to end the discussion.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Note that at time 9:50 the creationist PhD says Embroyology, Big Bang Theory and Evolution are "Lies from the pit of Hell and its lies to people like me and all the people that were taught that from understanding that they need a saviour."

This is a prime example of what some people said in my church on multiple occasions. They'd come visit on a Sunday night or something like that, then they'd show some slides, slander all Scientists everywhere and then sell some books. They would plead that Evolution was a direct assault upon Genesis and an attempt to undermine Christianity. All the while they were themselves fighting against Christians and Christianity by doing this. Consider what kind of damage this does to believing students, discouraging them from learning not just Math or just Evolution but from learning logical thinking and it turns all of the wonderful tools of education into competition with God. Suddenly there's just no point to Science anymore and Psychologists are just Satan's flunkies. The whole evil process that these people perform upon congregations and churches is horrible and discourages students from learning.

 

[Skwim]

But are there any credible PhD physicists doing so? Or how about a notable PhD scientist of any stripe championing creationism?

(postings that follow)

First of all, thank you for your list. Let's take a look at it. Well, none of the below are physicists, so the question then remains, are any of them notable in their field of study?

The list.

Stephen A. Austin: 3 degrees in Geology--Univ of Washington, San Jose ?State and Penn State(PhD). He has made many outstanding discoveries at Grand Canyon and Mt St. Helens and has written 4 books and several technical papers on creationist geology.

Aside from yourself, who says' Austin's discoveries are "outstanding"?

• Secular papers.

• Austin, S.A., A.A. Snelling and K.P. Wise, Canyon-length mass kill of orthocone nautiloids, Redwall Limestone (Mississippian) Grand Canyon, Arizona, Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, p. A-421, 1999.

• Austin SA, Wise KP. 1999. Gigantic megaclasts within the Kingston Peak Formation (Upper Precambrian, Pahrump Group), Southeastern California: evidence for basin margin collapse. Geological Society of America Abstracts With Programs 31(7):A455.

• JR Baumgardner, AA Snelling, DR Humphreys, and SA Austin. "The enigma of the ubiquity of 14 C in organic samples older than 100 ka". Eos Trans. AGU, 84(46), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract xxxxx-xx, 2003

Source: Creationwiki​

3 secular papers. That's it? Pretty pathetic for a PhD, and hardly notable.

Kenneth B. Cumming: PhD from Harvard. Did biological research with some 20 secular scientific publications. Taught at Va. Tech and Univ of Wisconsin.

"Dr. Kenneth B. Cumming is a creation scientist with an M.A. and Ph.D. in biology. He graduated from Harvard University and was awarded with honors involving chemistry and biology at the school of Tufts University, Massachusetts. After being a faculty member of the different universities of Wisconsin, he then became the dean of the Institute of Creation Research Graduate School."
source Creationwiki

20 secular publications? Again a apathetic output, and hardly notable.
.

Duane Gish: PhD from UCLA at Berkeley, in Bio Chemistry. Was a research chemist publishing at least 24 articles in peer-reviewed journals and has won over 3000 scientific debates with evolutionists.

"He had at least 14 peer reviewed academic papers, none related to evolutionary biology at all, and none published after 1971"
Source:wikipedia

14+ peer reviewed academic papers isn't impressive in the least, and hardly notable.


So, are any of these people notable scholars? Of course not. At best, Gish is notable for his involvement in creationism, but being notable in creationism is like being best speller in your 6th grade classroom; in science it means bupkis.

The man who that video was disingenuous by ridiculing the number of articles Humphreys had in peer-review journals. He knows full well that no scientific journal will review anything that even hints at creationism.

And rightly so. Creationism/creation science is not a scientific undertaking. It's a religious belief and undertaking. And none of the so-called research done in the name of creationism qualifies as doing actual science: taking the scientific method into account when doing this so-called "science."

Besides who wrote what is irrelevant. You need to post one, just one thing the TOE has ever proved. Until you can, you are just blowing smoke,

If you knew anything at all about science you'd know that proving, establishing a proof, is outside the purview of science. Proof is only relevant in mathematics, logic, and in assessing alcohol content.


.

 

[Sapiens]

That simply isn't true, Most, if not all creation scientist have worked in industry, done research and taught in major universities. Asking an evolutionist to provide the evidence for one, just one thing the TOE preaches is the best way to end the discussion.

Guess again, 'cause your response is clearly a guess. There are a handful of creationist PhDs who have actually published in their field. Working in industry, doing "research" and even teaching at "major" universities is not the coin of the trade, publications in refereed journals is the base metal and citations are the gold. Show me creationist "scientists" with such coinage in their pocket.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

PhD=Piled Higher and Deeper

PhD = Post hole digger ...

(lol... i have 3)

 

[omega2xx]

First of all, thank you for your list. Let's take a look at it. Well, none of the below are physicists, so the question then remains, are any of them notable in their field of study?

The list.


Aside from yourself, who says' Austin's discoveries are "outstanding"?

• Secular papers.

• Austin, S.A., A.A. Snelling and K.P. Wise, Canyon-length mass kill of orthocone nautiloids, Redwall Limestone (Mississippian) Grand Canyon, Arizona, Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, p. A-421, 1999.

• Austin SA, Wise KP. 1999. Gigantic megaclasts within the Kingston Peak Formation (Upper Precambrian, Pahrump Group), Southeastern California: evidence for basin margin collapse. Geological Society of America Abstracts With Programs 31(7):A455.

• JR Baumgardner, AA Snelling, DR Humphreys, and SA Austin. "The enigma of the ubiquity of 14 C in organic samples older than 100 ka". Eos Trans. AGU, 84(46), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract xxxxx-xx, 2003

Source: Creationwiki​

3 secular papers. That's it? Pretty pathetic for a PhD, and hardly notable.



"Dr. Kenneth B. Cumming is a creation scientist with an M.A. and Ph.D. in biology. He graduated from Harvard University and was awarded with honors involving chemistry and biology at the school of Tufts University, Massachusetts. After being a faculty member of the different universities of Wisconsin, he then became the dean of the Institute of Creation Research Graduate School."
source Creationwiki

20 secular publications? Again a apathetic output, and hardly notable.
.


"He had at least 14 peer reviewed academic papers, none related to evolutionary biology at all, and none published after 1971"
Source:wikipedia

14+ peer reviewed academic papers isn't impressive in the least, and hardly notable.


So, are any of these people notable scholars? Of course not. At best, Gish is notable for his involvement in creationism, but being notable in creationism is like being best speller in your 6th grade classroom; in science it means bupkis.

And rightly so. Creationism/creation science is not a scientific undertaking. It's a religious belief and undertaking. And none of the so-called research done in the name of creationism qualifies as doing actual science: taking the scientific method into account when doing this so-called "science."


If you knew anything at all about science you'd know that proving, establishing a proof, is outside the purview of science. Proof is only relevant in mathematics, logic, and in assessing alcohol content.


.

You are missing the point. There are many creation scientist in all scientific disciplines, just as qualified by education and work experience as any evolutionists. They have the credentials to show where the TOE is not scientific. You do not have the ability to show that anything in the TOE has been proven.

If you want a physicist, the one that was on that pitiful excuse for evidence against creationism, Dr. D Russell Humphreys, is a physicist. He has a PHD for a major university, has worked in industry(they considered him qualified).

There are others but posting them you would only respond with the same kind of the usual evolutionist rhetoric---unless a scientist accepts evolution, they are not qualified. How silly and self-serving. Also being notable is not necessary to be qualified.

Anyone who thinks science doesn't prove things is hiding behind Darwin hoping their ignorance of real will not be exposed.

Science has proved that there is more than one blood type.
Science has proved that all living things have DNA.

For a more conclusive list, check what the Noble Prizes in science has been awarded for. Not one of them has been for an unproved opinion.

 

[omega2xx]

Guess again, 'cause your response is clearly a guess. There are a handful of creationist PhDs who have actually published in their field. Working in industry, doing "research" and even teaching at "major" universities is not the coin of the trade, publications in refereed journals is the base metal and citations are the gold. Show me creationist "scientists" with such coinage in their pocket.

You guess again, because you don't have a clue about how many have done the things you mentioned. What is your source?

All of the scientist associated with ICR(75) have done some of the things you just mentioned. Many of them have published in their field and some were peer-reviewed. I am sure all of other scientist associated with "Back to Genesis" are all also well qualified. Plus there are many working in various organizations that you have no information about.

Most articles in so-called scientific journals, are part of the "good ole boys" network. Anything trying to advance the TOE, will not need real scientific evidence. Opinions, no matter how wild will be accepted and advanced. The acceptance of a dog-like, land animal eventually becoming part of the line of whales, is a prime example.

Evolutionist know that if they can't make the case for whale evolution, the THEORY will be exposed as the fraud it is. Therefore they don't even require close; just anything to give the faithful hope their faith has not been in vain.

 

[omega2xx]

Note that at time 9:50 the creationist PhD says Embroyology, Big Bang Theory and Evolution are "Lies from the pit of Hell and its lies to people like me and all the people that were taught that from understanding that they need a saviour."

This is a prime example of what some people said in my church on multiple occasions. They'd come visit on a Sunday night or something like that, then they'd show some slides, slander all Scientists everywhere and then sell some books. They would plead that Evolution was a direct assault upon Genesis and an attempt to undermine Christianity. All the while they were themselves fighting against Christians and Christianity by doing this. Consider what kind of damage this does to believing students, discouraging them from learning not just Math or just Evolution but from learning logical thinking and it turns all of the wonderful tools of education into competition with God. Suddenly there's just no point to Science anymore and Psychologists are just Satan's flunkies. The whole evil process that these people perform upon congregations and churches is horrible and discourages students from learning.

Your brush is way to wide. Most Christians do not do what you just described. Children are not well educated when all they get is the indoctrination of one side---religion or science. Unless evolution can be proved, and it can't, think of the damage the public school systems are doing to the students. Maybe that is one reason
America has fallen from first place to a about 14th in education systems around the world. That is a shame.

 

[Shad]

You are missing the point. There are many creation scientist in all scientific disciplines, just as qualified by education and work experience as any evolutionists. They have the credentials to show where the TOE is not scientific. You do not have the ability to show that anything in the TOE has been proven.

Argument from authority. Having a degree does not equate what they claim is true.

If you want a physicist, the one that was on that pitiful excuse for evidence against creationism, Dr. D Russell Humphreys, is a physicist. He has a PHD for a major university, has worked in industry(they considered him qualified).

And has yet to publish anything that can pass scrutiny of his peer hence why he writes books as these are not reviewed.

There are others but posting them you would only respond with the same kind of the usual evolutionist rhetoric---unless a scientist accepts evolution, they are not qualified. How silly and self-serving. Also being notable is not necessary to be qualified.

People do not question their qualification but competence.

Anyone who thinks science doesn't prove things is hiding behind Darwin hoping their ignorance of real will not be exposed.

Proof is math and logic not science. Science supports many ideas that many treat as 100% true.

Science has proved that all living things have DNA.

No as this would be a deductive stance. Since science has not explored all of the universe this is an inductive view or simply mistake on your part. "All life we have discovered has DNA" There are viruses that use RNA rather than DNA so even your statement is in error.

For a more conclusive list, check what the Noble Prizes in science has been awarded for. Not one of them has been for an unproved opinion.

Johannes Fibiger and his spiroptera was shown to be wrong. Maybe you should do research before making grand claims...

 

[Brickjectivity]

Your brush is way to wide. Most Christians do not do what you just described. Children are not well educated when all they get is the indoctrination of one side---religion or science. Unless evolution can be proved, and it can't, think of the damage the public school systems are doing to the students. Maybe that is one reason
America has fallen from first place to a about 14th in education systems around the world. That is a shame.

The issue is not whether all Christians believe Science comes from Satan. Consider that Genesis is not a text on Science. For example it doesn't provide useful information about goats, horses, or sheep. To get that information you have to follow animals around and study them scientifically. The same goes with the stars, geology and the origins of things. In the Bible an animal speaks, but science never observes animals talking. Does this also mean that Science is opposed to the Bible since it does not recognize talking animals? No, but if I argue that it does I can fit in well with modern creation-scientix. I can produce theories that animals ought to be able to speak or that they must have lost some speech mechanism based upon what I've read in the Bible and that Science is trying to undermine the Bible by denying that animals can speak. This is pretty much what creation-scientix today are doing, but they are doing it with the creation story, with Noah's Ark etc. Just because Science doesn't observe the things in the Bible they propound fears that Science is opposed to Christianity. In particular they claim it produces atheists and undermines salvation, which claim is pee from a dog. Why drink it?

 

[Skwim]

You are missing the point. There are many creation scientist in all scientific disciplines, just as qualified by education and work experience as any evolutionists. They have the credentials to show where the TOE is not scientific.

Then cite some these well qualified biologists, paleontologists, molecular biologists, geneticists, anthropologists, etc. "Well qualified" being the operative qualifier here, because that's what evolution has as its proponents. People who are very familiar with the subject of evolution. Not some biologist in the field of aerobiology, whose focus is on airborne organic particles. Or some anthropologist involved in human communication processes.

You do not have the ability to show that anything in the TOE has been proven.

*sigh* As I already told you in my post.

"If you knew anything at all about science you'd know that proving, establishing a proof, is outside the purview of science. Proof is only relevant in mathematics, logic, and in assessing alcohol content."​

If you want a physicist, the one that was on that pitiful excuse for evidence against creationism, Dr. D Russell Humphreys, is a physicist. He has a PHD for a major university, has worked in industry(they considered him qualified).

Thank you.

[Humphreys] received a B.S. degree in physics at Duke University, 1959–1963. After this, he moved to Louisiana State University (LSU) to study postgraduate physics. In 1969, while doing his dissertation research for LSU in the mountains of Colorado, he committed his life to Christ. In 1972, he was awarded a Ph.D. in physics, on cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon–nucleon interactions, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist due to both the biblical and scientific evidence. For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company, designing and inventing equipment and researching high–voltage phenomena.
Source: Creation.com
​

However, nothing about any academic work pertaining to evolution.

There are others but posting them you would only respond with the same kind of the usual evolutionist rhetoric---unless a scientist accepts evolution, they are not qualified. How silly and self-serving.

Not at all. Bring on your PhD people in biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, or anthropology. Those who are well qualified to speak on issues of evolution.

Also being notable is not necessary to be qualified.

Quite true. And I'll accept those less notable, but qualified people.

Anyone who thinks science doesn't prove things is hiding behind Darwin hoping their ignorance of real will not be exposed.

Science has proved that there is more than one blood type.
Science has proved that all living things have DNA.

This, of course, is a layman's perception. For something to be proven there first has to be an assertion that something is so. That X exists. Concerning multiple blood types, no such assertion was ever made. Instead, there was the discovery that there was more than one blood type. Blood was shown to come in more than one type, not proven to be. Same thing can be said of all living things having DNA, although, lacking evidence that absolutely all organisms have DNA (not all of them have been examined) this has not even been shown to be the case. The most that can be said is that it is extremely, extremely likely that all living things have DNA. Now this may seem highly pedantic, but that's how science works. It chooses to describe its findings very carefully because caution is part and parcel of doing credible science. Sloppy science, even poorly phrasing one's findings, is intolerable. Ever read a science paper? Look one up and see just how carefully, and probably boring, its findings are worded. That said, I have seen science papers use the word "proof," or a form of it, but recognizing its context one can readily see that it's being used as a figure of speech and not to be taken literally.

.
.

 

[Sapiens]

You guess again, because you don't have a clue about how many have done the things you mentioned. What is your source?

My source is a lifetime of experience as a scientist and scientific program manager.

All of the scientist associated with ICR(75) have done some of the things you just mentioned. Many of them have published in their field and some were peer-reviewed. I am sure all of other scientist associated with "Back to Genesis" are all also well qualified. Plus there are many working in various organizations that you have no information about.

No, most all of the people associated with the ICR are hacks that could not cut it in the real science world. Few to none have the publication and citation record of a successful scientist. I was small potatoes, but I had more than 70 publications going back to 1972, a good citation index and even a few papers that are considered "seminal" and are cited to this day. And most of my career was spent in administration, think what real scientists' records look like!

Let's look at the first on ICR's associates list, he is typical:

Dr. Jason Lisle - an expert in the heliosphere of the Sun. But ... at the ICR he holds forth on an entirely unrelated subject, one that he has no expertise in or publication record for: the Starlight Problem. It's like turning to a car mechanic for information on Chaucer's sentence structure (or vice versa).

Lisle's explanation for how distant starlight is compatible with six day creation only a few thousand years ago consists of immediately throwing out the conventional science just because it conflicts with scripture and then proposing that "creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically". On that basis alone we can see his PhD is useless to him. Most of Lisle's points begin with the claim that the Bible must be true, cannot change and so can explain everything. It shouldn't need to be stated that this is the opposite of what a competent scientist would do. So, while he may be a published and qualified scientist in another field altogether, the remarks he makes regarding creationism aren't scientific. Although he has done research with genuine merit into the sun's heliosphere, Lisle has yet to perform, let alone publish, credible work into starlight or creationism.

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis. He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals" - quite a backtrack from his earlier blog posts that seemed to indicate that he was actually doing original research himself. Lisle responded to the "pre-publishing" critics (hilariously overusing the word "embarrassing", and never really naming any critics specifically) by basically saying people should have an open mind until they read the paper. Despite pimping and hyping his publication on the AiG blog, he was noncommittal to the idea of a "non-technical writeup".
(with thanks to rationalwiki).

Most articles in so-called scientific journals, are part of the "good ole boys" network. Anything trying to advance the TOE, will not need real scientific evidence. Opinions, no matter how wild will be accepted and advanced.

In science the best thing you can do to make a reputation with the least energy output is to falsify someone else's work. So much for the "good ole boys" network. That is simply not how things work. Do you want to retire to a life of ease, the accoades of your colleagues and the love of beautiful women? Should be easy for you do to, simply falsify the ToE and go pick up you Nobel and your Macarthur. You (and your fellow travelers') inability to do so proves that you just don't have the right stuff to pull it off. If you wait to come back when you do, I expect we'll never hear from you again.

The acceptance of a dog-like, land animal eventually becoming part of the line of whales, is a prime example.

Not accepted, not suggested.

Evolutionist know that if they can't make the case for whale evolution, the THEORY will be exposed as the fraud it is. Therefore they don't even require close; just anything to give the faithful hope their faith has not been in vain.

The whale case is so complete and open and shut at this stage that it is hardly worth discussing, there'a no controversy there.

Whales derived from dogs? Where did you ever get that from? Pakicetus (the first whale), was not derived from the canidae, it was nothing like a dog.

 

[Sapiens]

Argument from authority. Having a degree does not equate what they claim is true.



And has yet to publish anything that can pass scrutiny of his peer hence why he writes books as these are not reviewed.



People do not question their qualification but competence.



Proof is math and logic not science. Science supports many ideas that many treat as 100% true.



No as this would be a deductive stance. Since science has not explored all of the universe this is an inductive view or simply mistake on your part. "All life we have discovered has DNA" There are viruses that use RNA rather than DNA so even your statement is in error.



Johannes Fibiger and his spiroptera was shown to be wrong. Maybe you should do research before making grand claims...

Argument from authority. Having a degree does not equate what they claim is true.



And has yet to publish anything that can pass scrutiny of his peer hence why he writes books as these are not reviewed.



People do not question their qualification but competence.



Proof is math and logic not science. Science supports many ideas that many treat as 100% true.



No as this would be a deductive stance. Since science has not explored all of the universe this is an inductive view or simply mistake on your part. "All life we have discovered has DNA" There are viruses that use RNA rather than DNA so even your statement is in error.



Johannes Fibiger and his spiroptera was shown to be wrong. Maybe you should do research before making grand claims...

There was also the better known Enrico Fermi who won the 1938 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his demonstrations of the existence of new radioactive elements produced by neutron irradiation, and for his related discovery of nuclear reactions brought about by slow neutrons." But ... he did not demonstrate the existence of new elements. He bombarded uranium atoms with slow-moving neutrons, and observed a process called beta decay, anyway,he thought he did, and even labeled the new elements he supposedly saw Ausonium and Hesperium. What he actually observed was nuclear fission, uranium atoms being split into lighter elements.

 

[Shad]

The issue is not whether all Christians believe Science comes from Satan. Consider that Genesis is not a text on Science. For example it doesn't provide useful information about goats, horses, or sheep. To get that information you have to follow animals around and study them scientifically. The same goes with the stars, geology and the origins of things. In the Bible an animal speaks, but science never observes animals talking. Does this also mean that Science is opposed to the Bible since it does not recognize talking animals? No, but if I argue that it does I can fit in well with modern creation-scientix. I can produce theories that animals ought to be able to speak or that they must have lost some speech mechanism based upon what I've read in the Bible and that Science is trying to undermine the Bible by denying that animals can speak. This is pretty much what creation-scientix today are doing, but they are doing it with the creation story, with Noah's Ark etc. Just because Science doesn't observe the things in the Bible they propound fears that Science is opposed to Christianity. In particular they claim it produces atheists and undermines salvation, which claim is pee from a dog. Why drink it?

Another issue that many people think their current interpretation, such as literalism, is the very view endorsed by all those that wrote the texts that make up the Bible but do so without justification. Hence why these people reject Christian views regarding a poetic interpretation of Genesis. There is also the jump that their, human, interpretation is not merely human but a God given fact, empty assertion, so to question their indoctrination is not merely questioning the views of humans but questioning God itself. This is pure hubris with no justification outside their religious group. They inject the authority of God in order to safeguard their human interpretation from criticism from within and the failings typical to humans. Again it is projection based rather than anything of substance.

 

[Sapiens]

You are missing the point. There are many creation scientist in all scientific disciplines, just as qualified by education and work experience as any evolutionists. They have the credentials to show where the TOE is not scientific. You do not have the ability to show that anything in the TOE has been proven.

You just don't get it. Being qualified by education and work experience just doesn't cut it, especially when "teaching" at a major university as a lecturer is given the same weight as a full professorship. Publications and further more citations are the coin of the realm, without them you are meaningless.

If you want a physicist, the one that was on that pitiful excuse for evidence against creationism, Dr. D Russell Humphreys, is a physicist. He has a PHD for a major university, has worked in industry(they considered him qualified).

Qualified to do what? He is not qualified to discuss the ToE, he is not even qualified to hold forth on his hobby turned rice-bowl, the Starlight Problem.

There are others but posting them you would only respond with the same kind of the usual evolutionist rhetoric---unless a scientist accepts evolution, they are not qualified. How silly and self-serving. Also being notable is not necessary to be qualified.

How would you describe a mathematician who was unable to do basic arithmetic functions?

Anyone who thinks science doesn't prove things is hiding behind Darwin hoping their ignorance of real will not be exposed.

Hardly, you need to read up on the philosophy of science.

Science has proved that there is more than one blood type.
Science has proved that all living things have DNA.

Now you're just playing a semantic game.

For a more conclusive list, check what the Noble Prizes in science has been awarded for. Not one of them has been for an unproved opinion.

Seems to me that your statement has been falsified.