I am aware of about 10 biologists (including those listed below) that are creationists and credible scientists.
Out of thousands of biologists with PhD's worldwide, this is hardly a revolution :)
Here is a plug: I run the Evolutionary Theory Mailing Lists, check out the web site at http://www.evolutionary.org
Am I biased? Maybe. However, if a better theory is proposed, I'll be one of the first to jump ship.
Michael E. Smith wrote:
> Thom Quinn wrote:
> "Ahh, but how many are trained biologists? My research shows that the "watchmaker" types like engineers are more likely to be creationists than biologists."
> Ahh, good point. I've noticed that myself. Without having actually counted, I'd bet your right, non-biologists would be better represented among the "scientists" who are creationists than would biologists (or members of other more relevant fields such as paleontology.)
> However, there are counter-examples. One of the darlings of what I have been calling the new breed of creationists is one Michael Behe, Associate Professor in the Biochemistry Department of Lehigh University. There is also Paul Chien, chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco.
> Perhaps most wierd is the Australian Ph.D. biochemist Michael Denton, who seems determined to somehow straddle the fence between creationism and evolution. First (in 1986) he published a book called "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" which became a creationist classic and which Behe (mentioned above) said was a major influence on him, contributing to his (Behe's) decision to go public with his own doubts about evolution. However, it seems Denton always denied he was a creationist. Now, this year, Denton has another book out called "Nature's Destiny" in which he embraces evolution, but presents arguments for what he calls "directed evolution", arguing that the universe had to be fine-tuned for evolution to occur in the way it has. Is he a creationist? You be the judge.