What is a "Real Scientist"? Was an ad hominem created?

I would only add two comments to what SecretSauce has already said. 1) "Former MN Science Teacher" seems unable to distinguish between belief in God (in the broadest possible sense), and wholesale swallowing of creationist codswallop. 2) There are times when it is fair to use an ad hominem argument, although when doing so it is a good idea to say that this is what you're doing. For example, if a philosopher or an astronomer argues in favour of ID as an explanation of biological complexity, it is fair to point out that the philosopher is not a scientist, and that the astronomer is not a biologist. This does not prove that they are wrong, but raises a fair question about how well-informed they are regarding the issues.

As usual Secretsauce has a great response. I'll just add something - there are "real" scientists who reject the theory of evolution and embrace creationism, however they are not using science to do that. If they really had a valid scientific disproof of evolution, believe me they would submit a research paper to Science or Nature and get a lead article and become the most famous scientist in the world. But, that is not what they do. They write books filled with non-scientific arguments and appeals to ignorance like Michael Behe does. Or they put their signatures on letters saying they reject evolution without giving a scientific argument, or they go on talk shows where they are interviewed by non-scientists. In other words, it doesn't matter who the person is who is rejecting evolution or what their credentials are. It is the arguement they make, the evidence they provide to support that argument and the opening up of that argument and evidence to scrutiny by the rest of the scientific community which makes it valid. That's the danger of any ad hominen attack - it misses the point that the real arguement to be made is against the argument, not the arguer.

It is hard to improve on secretsauce's response (above), but I'll throw in my two cents worth. The short answer is that you are correct. A real scientist (and I consider myself to be one) relies on evidence. As secretsauce has pointed out elsewhere, science is not a democracy: he who has the evidence, wins. And one's personal beliefs are always and forever absolutely irrelevant. You are free to believe in evolution, or not, but if you expect to be considered a real scientist, you will believe in it, because the evidence in favor of it is so utterly overwhelming. (It is also now a proven fact, so there is no viable excuse for anyone to not believe in it.) For a useful read, see:

A real scientist is someone who practices the scientific method. Pretty simple.

I would say a real scientist is someone who works as a scientist. No?

depending on perspective (one of which of course would have pissed off a creationist) it could be if you said real scientists use TI calculators, that could be (thought not a very good one) you should have said real biologists and even that could be misconstrued as you obviously wouldn't include most people like cryptologists, astro-biologists and statistical biologists in many conversations in evolution most (99.85) of scientists in relerelevantlds (zoology, paleontology, botany, evolutionary biology, field biology, ecology, ethology, geo-biology, etc) agree about evolution just like you wouldn't (shouldn't?) ask a preacher for an accurate understanding of evolution or a pagan, christian, atheist, etc for a veiw on islam, etc as said you wouldn't (shouldn't?) take a computer scientists view over that of a trained and educated person on the relevant field, would you?

Yes, you attacked the creationist rather than creationism, creating an ad hominem; not just in your initial response, but when you made “Creationist scientist” and “fake scientist” equal. I’ll give you that you did say “almost,” but from where do you get that statistic? The National Center for Science Education says regarding US scientists, “At least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows. Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process. The survey was a separate but parallel study to one reported in Nature (1997 Apr 3; 386:435-6) in which 40% of the same scientists reported a belief in a God who answers prayers and in immortality. What is your source for the assumptions you make regarding the Creationist scientist model? On what basis do you make your four statements regarding Creationist scientists? Former MN Science Teacher gave you a starting list of famous scientists who were creationists, and links to present-day lists of Creationists scientists. Have you read through those? Your assumptive statements cannot be said to be true regarding those scientists. As is common, many evolutionists try to create a false contrast between creation and evolution, saying that creationism is based on religious opinions, whereas evolution is based on scientific facts. But, the fact is, if you look at science without a pre-existing bias toward evolution, science supports creation; and evolutionists frequently use opinions and assumptions from outside of science to support their view. But, don’t take my word for it. Read what some of those evolutionists have to say: This quote is by a Professor Watson, who held the position of the Chair of Evolution at the University of London for more than twenty years. He gave good insight into the evolutionists’ worldview when he said that the theory of evolution was accepted “not because it can be proven logically to be true, but because the only alternative is special creation.” --- meaning intelligent design. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment that illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,… in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories...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.” Dr. Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, was interviewed by radio by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR radio transcript No. 0279–1004). He said, “I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.” Richard E. Leakey, in The Making of Mankind, quotes David Pilbeam (a well-known expert in human evolution), “If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meager evidence we’ve got he'd surely say, ‘forget it: there isn’t enough to go on’.” So, the real debate between creation and evolution is not a conflict of science versus religion, but the debate is between two world views, with mutually exclusive underlying assumptions. Some of my research is from a book that “most people do not accept as fact.” As Dr. Wilson said, the Bible is a very accurate history book. It is also a very accurate science book. Some scientists could have saved themselves a lot of time and trouble if they had first gone to the Bible for answers. For, the Bible speaks about: the Earth is round, the sun moves through space in a huge orbit, light travels in a path, the universe is expanded from its original size, laughter can promote healing, depression can be harmful to your physical health, the jet stream, air has weight, dinosaurs and humans existed together, entropy, time had a beginning, ocean currents, mountains and valleys exist on the ocean floor, and more. As a Christian, I feel compelled to leave you with one more fact from this science book, the Bible. This is found in the book of Romans (in the Bible), chapter 1, verse 20: “For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities (His eternal power and divine nature) have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” I interpret this to mean that God has made it so plain in His creation that He is God, that He is not going to accept any excuses from anyone that they did not know He existed.

Hi, Everyone has their biases and prejudices. You're saying that a "real" scientist doesn't believe that God created the world and the things in it. However, that is not true. Are you aware of the famous scientists who believed in a Creator? To name a few: Galileo Galilei Johann Kepler Blaise Pascal Robert Boyle Isaac Newton Carolus Linneaus John Dalton Humphrey Davy James Joule Gregor Mendel Louis Pasteur William Thompson, Lord Kelvin James Clerk Maxwell The first link below shows these and many others. Also please note the huge list of modern-day real scientists who believe in a Creator. The second and third links might also be of interest. You're also implying or saying that science and faith in God are incompatible. That's also not true. True science totally supports the truth that God is Creator. If you've ever studied the workings of a cell, for instance, in detail, it is quite evident that it is an amazing machine. Space and time do not permit a detailed discussion here, but suffice it to say that all the evidence humanity is aware of shows that amazing machines do not happen by random, purposeless, 99.9% mistake-prone, chance. Please feel free to email me if you'd wish to discuss further.