Jump to content

Menu

Any YEC have children entering natural science fields?


Recommended Posts

With all the recent discussions over YE/OE beliefs, evolution, etc., I'm curious to know if any of you who are YE believers have had children enter the natural sciences (astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth science, physics, etc.). I am also interested in the experiences of those raised by parents with YE beliefs who entered a field in the natural sciences. For all answering in the affirmative, please answer a few questions:

 

* Whether the student was you or your child

* What field of science was studied or entered

* At what sort of institution the natural sciences were studied

* Whether the YE beliefs of the student/scientist were an obstacle, and if so, how

* Whether the student/scientist responded by exiting the field, changing to align with scientific beliefs and principles, hiding his or her YE beliefs, or doing something else

* The teaching approach you (or your parents) took towards subjects like evolution and the age of the universe

 

I'm curious as to the impact on children's academic options. Thanks for your input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DD18 is a second-year student studying bio-chemistry with 102 credit-hours under her belt. She currently has a 4.0 and received an award as a top first- or second-year student in the department last year. She currently believes in a young Earth.

 

DD18 presented two posters at a technical conference last month, one as primary author and another as secondary author. Both posters were related to the characterization of organic semiconductor materials. The poster presented with her as secondary author entitled "Synthesis of Organic Semiconductors Based on 3,4:3’,4’-Bibenzothiophene" won an award at the conference. She is currently making adjustments to the poster she primary authored on her own and will be sole author when this poster is presented in Boston early next year.

 

Because of the religious fervor around the subject of macroevolution and the discrimination that goes on against non-believers, she has chosen to study at a Liberty University, which is a Christian school, for her undergraduate degree. She is currently looking into various graduate programs but UVA for graduate work in Biochemistry is the current front runner. It is a public school and is on the far opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to evolution.

 

Currently she doesn't hide her beliefs, as the choice of schools has made it not an issue. One of her professors recently got his Ph.D. from Cornell University and he apparently regularly spars with his colleagues from there over the interpretation of the evidence.

 

We teach our children that evolution and an old Earth are the predominant beliefs in the world today. We also teach the following:

 

1) We teach that there are no existing credible theories for the existence of life on Earth that do not involve a creator. Current secular theories of DNA-first, protein-first and RNA world all fail because the probabilistic resources of the entire universe (even if 20 billion years old) are 36 orders-of-magnitude too small to produce even a very small protein of 150 amino acids. It has been estimated that the simplest self-replicating form would require at least 250 specific proteins each containing an average of 250 amino acids (IIRC). As such it is simply impossible for life to spontaneously appear on earth. Further, we teach that all of the experience of humans throughout history teaches us that complex, functionally-specified information like that found in DNA ONLY comes from an intelligent source. The obvious conclusion is that life on Earth was created by an intelligent Source. This information has been best compiled, presented and explained by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer in his magnum opus "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design".

2) We teach that solid scientific evidence supports the two main foundations of Charles Darwin's seminal work, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", namely that natural selection is a real effect that occurs in real populations and that small changes in the DNA of an organism can and do occur. Further, we teach that these changes can provide a functional advantage to the organism such that it is possible for natural selection to cause the new variant to survive and even thrive in an environment.

3) In contrast to the above, we teach that the conclusion Darwin drew in his book that all forms of life evolved from simple life is an unreasonable extrapolation from the science supporting small changes to the genome. (Of course Darwin really started from the conclusion and worked backard.) Why? a) Since the existence of a life makes it clear that there is a Creator, there is no reason to believe that this Creator was only capable of creating a "simple" life form. b) Life forms with short generation spans and massive populations show extremely little variation. In other words, with a relatively large amount of probabilistic resources available, we only see small variations. Large, complex life forms with long generations have orders-of-magnitudes less probabilistic resources available so they have virtually no chance to change much beyond the variations already coded in their genes. c) Most changes to the genome are fatal to the organism. d) Small changes to the genome are much more likely than larger ones. This is because some amino acids are easy substitutes for others, but most changes to DNA which codes for protein will result in something that can not fold into a protein. While it is true that a protein is a string of amino acids, it is NOT true that any string of amino acids is a protein. In fact, research has shown that of all the possible strings of 150 amino acids, only about 1 in 10^36 will fold into proteins. As a result, it appears that there will be some minor variations to any given protein that are also proteins, but that if you try to go beyond those small changes, you will end up with non-proteins. In other words, while Darwin's proposal of many small, sequential steps sounds reasonable, the science does not bear it out. e) Even if d) were not true, you would find that the proteins which are being changed have an important function in the organism. If you move them too far from their original function, then the organism will no longer be viable (which is c) above). You could argue that a copy could first be made and the variations could be made on non-functional DNA, but then natural selection has nothing to operate upon since the the genes are not being expressed. This is the argument against punctuated equilibrium. f) Science tells us that all women are descendants of a single woman not so far in the past. g) Science tells us that all men are descendants of a single man not so far in the past.

4) In physics, we teach that the scientists of the early 20th century did their best to deal with the seemingly-conflicting evidence that they were uncovering, but that the models they developed are not physical and therefore do not give a clear picture of the universe in which we live. They have served us well for the past century, but they have real limitations that are now holding back science. Many of the underlying assumptions of the standard model for the atom are unrealistic. In addition, these models fail to predict many of the things that we see in scientific measurements. For instance, general relativity theory does not accurately predict the orbits of the planets in our solar system. While it adds a term that was not covered by Newton's theory of gravitation, it misses another term that is needed to fully describe planetary motion. Also, the electron pairing that is seen in superconductivity is not predicted by the standard model for the atom. As such, the search for materials with high-temperature superconductivity characteristics must be done fully empirically rather than in a computer model. Also, many of the frequencies seen in the cosmic background radiation are not predicted by the standard model. There are many, many more such examples. We teach about these limitations of the standard models and in addition we teach about a new, physical model for the atom and a new unified force theory that resolves many of these limitations.

5) Big bang cosmology is full of unscientific beliefs and illogical assumptions. It is also full of unprovable assumptions. We teach about those and then we teach about other models for the universe which do not have these flaws. We teach that the fact that the universe has a beginning implies that the universe also had a Beginner.

 

Anyway, this is what we teach. We also teach that it is not easy swimming upstream and that our children will need to decide what they are willing to pursue based on what they believe and whether or not they are willing to try to buck the status quo. Many of the greatest scientists of the past had to do the same to make the impact that they made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DD18 is a second-year student studying bio-chemistry with 102 credit-hours under her belt. She currently has a 4.0 and received an award as a top first- or second-year student in the department last year. She currently believes in a young Earth.

 

DD18 presented two posters at a technical conference last month, one as primary author and another as secondary author. Both posters were related to the characterization of organic semiconductor materials. The poster presented with her as secondary author entitled "Synthesis of Organic Semiconductors Based on 3,4:3’,4’-Bibenzothiophene" won an award at the conference. She is currently making adjustments to the poster she primary authored on her own and will be sole author when this poster is presented in Boston early next year.

 

Because of the religious fervor around the subject of macroevolution and the discrimination that goes on against non-believers, she has chosen to study at a Liberty University, which is a Christian school, for her undergraduate degree. She is currently looking into various graduate programs but UVA for graduate work in Biochemistry is the current front runner. It is a public school and is on the far opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to evolution.

 

Currently she doesn't hide her beliefs, as the choice of schools has made it not an issue. One of her professors recently got his Ph.D. from Cornell University and he apparently regularly spars with his colleagues from there over the interpretation of the evidence.

 

We teach our children that evolution and an old Earth are the predominant beliefs in the world today. We also teach the following:

 

1) We teach that there are no existing credible theories for the existence of life on Earth that do not involve a creator. Current secular theories of DNA-first, protein-first and RNA world all fail because the probabilistic resources of the entire universe (even if 20 billion years old) are 36 orders-of-magnitude too small to produce even a very small protein of 150 amino acids. It has been estimated that the simplest self-replicating form would require at least 250 specific proteins each containing an average of 250 amino acids (IIRC). As such it is simply impossible for life to spontaneously appear on earth. Further, we teach that all of the experience of humans throughout history teaches us that complex, functionally-specified information like that found in DNA ONLY comes from an intelligent source. The obvious conclusion is that life on Earth was created by an intelligent Source. This information has been best compiled, presented and explained by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer in his magnum opus "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design".

2) We teach that solid scientific evidence supports the two main foundations of Charles Darwin's seminal work, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", namely that natural selection is a real effect that occurs in real populations and that small changes in the DNA of an organism can and do occur. Further, we teach that these changes can provide a functional advantage to the organism such that it is possible for natural selection to cause the new variant to survive and even thrive in an environment.

3) In contrast to the above, we teach that the conclusion Darwin drew in his book that all forms of life evolved from simple life is an unreasonable extrapolation from the science supporting small changes to the genome. (Of course Darwin really started from the conclusion and worked backard.) Why? a) Since the existence of a life makes it clear that there is a Creator, there is no reason to believe that this Creator was only capable of creating a "simple" life form. b) Life forms with short generation spans and massive populations show extremely little variation. In other words, with a relatively large amount of probabilistic resources available, we only see small variations. Large, complex life forms with long generations have orders-of-magnitudes less probabilistic resources available so they have virtually no chance to change much beyond the variations already coded in their genes. c) Most changes to the genome are fatal to the organism. d) Small changes to the genome are much more likely than larger ones. This is because some amino acids are easy substitutes for others, but most changes to DNA which codes for protein will result in something that can not fold into a protein. While it is true that a protein is a string of amino acids, it is NOT true that any string of amino acids is a protein. In fact, research has shown that of all the possible strings of 150 amino acids, only about 1 in 10^36 will fold into proteins. As a result, it appears that there will be some minor variations to any given protein that are also proteins, but that if you try to go beyond those small changes, you will end up with non-proteins. In other words, while Darwin's proposal of many small, sequential steps sounds reasonable, the science does not bear it out. e) Even if d) were not true, you would find that the proteins which are being changed have an important function in the organism. If you move them too far from their original function, then the organism will no longer be viable (which is c) above). You could argue that a copy could first be made and the variations could be made on non-functional DNA, but then natural selection has nothing to operate upon since the the genes are not being expressed. This is the argument against punctuated equilibrium. f) Science tells us that all women are descendants of a single woman not so far in the past. g) Science tells us that all men are descendants of a single man not so far in the past.

4) In physics, we teach that the scientists of the early 20th century did their best to deal with the seemingly-conflicting evidence that they were uncovering, but that the models they developed are not physical and therefore do not give a clear picture of the universe in which we live. They have served us well for the past century, but they have real limitations that are now holding back science. Many of the underlying assumptions of the standard model for the atom are unrealistic. In addition, these models fail to predict many of the things that we see in scientific measurements. For instance, general relativity theory does not accurately predict the orbits of the planets in our solar system. While it adds a term that was not covered by Newton's theory of gravitation, it misses another term that is needed to fully describe planetary motion. Also, the electron pairing that is seen in superconductivity is not predicted by the standard model for the atom. As such, the search for materials with high-temperature superconductivity characteristics must be done fully empirically rather than in a computer model. Also, many of the frequencies seen in the cosmic background radiation are not predicted by the standard model. There are many, many more such examples. We teach about these limitations of the standard models and in addition we teach about a new, physical model for the atom and a new unified force theory that resolves many of these limitations.

5) Big bang cosmology is full of unscientific beliefs and illogical assumptions. It is also full of unprovable assumptions. We teach about those and then we teach about other models for the universe which do not have these flaws. We teach that the fact that the universe has a beginning implies that the universe also had a Beginner.

 

Anyway, this is what we teach. We also teach that it is not easy swimming upstream and that our children will need to decide what they are willing to pursue based on what they believe and whether or not they are willing to try to buck the status quo. Many of the greatest scientists of the past had to do the same to make the impact that they made.

 

Congrats to your dd! Would you mind listing the science materials you used when you homeschooled her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats to your dd!
Thanks! In case anyone hasn't noticed, we are very proud of her! :001_smile:
Would you mind listing the science materials you used when you homeschooled her?
Not at all. But I will point out that *I* did not homeschool her. MomsintheGarden did that! Rather I am somewhat of the science consultant. We use standard homeschool resources and then we augment with materials which cover some of the other topics.

 

I will ask MomsintheGarden to either list what we use for science or point to a thread where she has already done this. I will provide some links to resources which we find useful for research. But I don't think we can do that right now. We'll try to do this later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DD18 is a second-year student studying bio-chemistry with 102 credit-hours under her belt. She currently has a 4.0 and received an award as a top first- or second-year student in the department last year. She currently believes in a young Earth.

 

DD18 presented two posters at a technical conference last month, one as primary author and another as secondary author. Both posters were related to the characterization of organic semiconductor materials. The poster presented with her as secondary author entitled "Synthesis of Organic Semiconductors Based on 3,4:3’,4’-Bibenzothiophene" won an award at the conference. She is currently making adjustments to the poster she primary authored on her own and will be sole author when this poster is presented in Boston early next year.

 

Because of the religious fervor around the subject of macroevolution and the discrimination that goes on against non-believers, she has chosen to study at a Liberty University, which is a Christian school, for her undergraduate degree. She is currently looking into various graduate programs but UVA for graduate work in Biochemistry is the current front runner. It is a public school and is on the far opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to evolution.

 

Currently she doesn't hide her beliefs, as the choice of schools has made it not an issue. One of her professors recently got his Ph.D. from Cornell University and he apparently regularly spars with his colleagues from there over the interpretation of the evidence.

 

We teach our children that evolution and an old Earth are the predominant beliefs in the world today. We also teach the following:

 

1) We teach that there are no existing credible theories for the existence of life on Earth that do not involve a creator. Current secular theories of DNA-first, protein-first and RNA world all fail because the probabilistic resources of the entire universe (even if 20 billion years old) are 36 orders-of-magnitude too small to produce even a very small protein of 150 amino acids. It has been estimated that the simplest self-replicating form would require at least 250 specific proteins each containing an average of 250 amino acids (IIRC). As such it is simply impossible for life to spontaneously appear on earth. Further, we teach that all of the experience of humans throughout history teaches us that complex, functionally-specified information like that found in DNA ONLY comes from an intelligent source. The obvious conclusion is that life on Earth was created by an intelligent Source. This information has been best compiled, presented and explained by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer in his magnum opus "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design".

2) We teach that solid scientific evidence supports the two main foundations of Charles Darwin's seminal work, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", namely that natural selection is a real effect that occurs in real populations and that small changes in the DNA of an organism can and do occur. Further, we teach that these changes can provide a functional advantage to the organism such that it is possible for natural selection to cause the new variant to survive and even thrive in an environment.

3) In contrast to the above, we teach that the conclusion Darwin drew in his book that all forms of life evolved from simple life is an unreasonable extrapolation from the science supporting small changes to the genome. (Of course Darwin really started from the conclusion and worked backard.) Why? a) Since the existence of a life makes it clear that there is a Creator, there is no reason to believe that this Creator was only capable of creating a "simple" life form. b) Life forms with short generation spans and massive populations show extremely little variation. In other words, with a relatively large amount of probabilistic resources available, we only see small variations. Large, complex life forms with long generations have orders-of-magnitudes less probabilistic resources available so they have virtually no chance to change much beyond the variations already coded in their genes. c) Most changes to the genome are fatal to the organism. d) Small changes to the genome are much more likely than larger ones. This is because some amino acids are easy substitutes for others, but most changes to DNA which codes for protein will result in something that can not fold into a protein. While it is true that a protein is a string of amino acids, it is NOT true that any string of amino acids is a protein. In fact, research has shown that of all the possible strings of 150 amino acids, only about 1 in 10^36 will fold into proteins. As a result, it appears that there will be some minor variations to any given protein that are also proteins, but that if you try to go beyond those small changes, you will end up with non-proteins. In other words, while Darwin's proposal of many small, sequential steps sounds reasonable, the science does not bear it out. e) Even if d) were not true, you would find that the proteins which are being changed have an important function in the organism. If you move them too far from their original function, then the organism will no longer be viable (which is c) above). You could argue that a copy could first be made and the variations could be made on non-functional DNA, but then natural selection has nothing to operate upon since the the genes are not being expressed. This is the argument against punctuated equilibrium. f) Science tells us that all women are descendants of a single woman not so far in the past. g) Science tells us that all men are descendants of a single man not so far in the past.

4) In physics, we teach that the scientists of the early 20th century did their best to deal with the seemingly-conflicting evidence that they were uncovering, but that the models they developed are not physical and therefore do not give a clear picture of the universe in which we live. They have served us well for the past century, but they have real limitations that are now holding back science. Many of the underlying assumptions of the standard model for the atom are unrealistic. In addition, these models fail to predict many of the things that we see in scientific measurements. For instance, general relativity theory does not accurately predict the orbits of the planets in our solar system. While it adds a term that was not covered by Newton's theory of gravitation, it misses another term that is needed to fully describe planetary motion. Also, the electron pairing that is seen in superconductivity is not predicted by the standard model for the atom. As such, the search for materials with high-temperature superconductivity characteristics must be done fully empirically rather than in a computer model. Also, many of the frequencies seen in the cosmic background radiation are not predicted by the standard model. There are many, many more such examples. We teach about these limitations of the standard models and in addition we teach about a new, physical model for the atom and a new unified force theory that resolves many of these limitations.

5) Big bang cosmology is full of unscientific beliefs and illogical assumptions. It is also full of unprovable assumptions. We teach about those and then we teach about other models for the universe which do not have these flaws. We teach that the fact that the universe has a beginning implies that the universe also had a Beginner.

 

Anyway, this is what we teach. We also teach that it is not easy swimming upstream and that our children will need to decide what they are willing to pursue based on what they believe and whether or not they are willing to try to buck the status quo. Many of the greatest scientists of the past had to do the same to make the impact that they made.

 

 

This is great!! Thanks for sharing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will provide some links to resources which we find useful for research.
Here are some interesting links:

 

Biology:

 

"Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design" - Dr. Stephen Meyer's magnum opus. In it, he makes a very strong case that the information found in life comes from the one source of complex coded information that we know of - intelligence. This book is an easy read and includes a detailed history of the search for the structure of DNA. He also answers the critics of his thesis in the book.

"Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" - Dr. Michael Behe challenges the idea that new structures can evolve from simpler ones via small steps by introducing the concept of "irreducible complexity" which means that the system has no benefit to the organism until complete. Behe is a good writer and this book gives a good introduction to the massive complexity involved in even "simple" biological systems.

"What Darwin Didn't Know: A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution" - This doctor describes the human body and its systems in minute detail. I don't recall it being a great refutation of Darwin's ideas, but I did find it to be extremely informative.

 

Physics:

 

While all of the physics links come directly from the Common Sense Science website, I don't find their materials easy to locate on the site. So I have organized them here in a form which I hope is more accessible.

 

A New Foundation for Modern Physics - This paper give an overview of some of the difficulties with quantum physics and describes the basics of a new approach based purely on electrodynamics.

A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei - Part 1 - Some early work on how physical ring electrons might pack around the nucleus of an atom. One result of this work is an explanation of why the electron shells hold the number of electrons that they do. It also explains why the period table of the elements only has seven periods.

A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei - Part 2 - Early work on how the nucleus of the atom. This new model for the nucleus of the atom provides a physical explanation for spin and correctly predicts the spin for all observed nuclei, whether stable or unstable.

A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei – Part 3 Spectral Lines - Evaluation of the new physical model to explain the nature of how light is absorbed and emitted from the atom.

A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei - Part 4 Blackbody Radiation and the Photoelectric Effect - Demonstration of how the new physical model of the atom fits many of the observed phenomena of matter.

Observations of the Properties of Physical Entities Part 1 - Nature of the Physical World - Gives a framework for building physical models for the particles found in our world.

Observations of the Properties of Physical Entities Part 2 - Shape and Size of Electron, Proton and Neutron - Gives a detailed description of the structure and characteristics of physical models for the electron, the proton and the neutron.

Fine-Structure Properties of the Electron, Proton and Neutron - More detailed information about the structure of the electron, the proton and the neutron.

A Classical Electromagnetic Theory of Elementary Particles - Part 1, Introduction, and Part 2, Intertwining Charge-Fibers - This paper describes the current quantum-mechanical model of the sub-atomic particles and then describes the physical model which is intended to replace them along with details of the many possible arrangements of these particles.

Derivation of the Universal Force Law - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 - The derivation of a new universal force law based on Ampere's Law, Faraday's Law, Gauss's Law, Lenz's Law and Lorentz's Law. This universal force law is expected to predict the behavior of all entities in the universe at all scales, something that Einstein endeavored to do but did not achieve before his death.

The Electrodynamic Origin of the Force of Inertia, Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 - This paper is a refutation of Einstein's General Relativity Theory and a demonstration that the new Universal Force Law provides a more satisfactory model for the phenomenon of inertia.

, Part 2 and Part 3 - This paper describes gravity as a small fraction of the electromagnetic forces that hold the atom together in the new physical model. While the positive and negative charges in the atom exactly match each other, they are not physically co-located. Because of this, a *very* small portion of these electromagnetic forces provide the attractive force that we know as gravity.

 

Astronomy:

 

New Solar System Force, Part 1 - This paper shows how the new physical model for gravitation better fits the orbits of the solar system than Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation or Einstein's General Theory of Relativity by providing a third and fourth term in the equation that are necessary to fully account for the motion of the objects in our solar system.

New Solar System Force, Part 2 - This paper explains that if the new physical model for gravitation is correct, then gravity is NOT a fundamental property of matter and that it can change over time. This result has some interesting potential implications for some of the observations which have been made of our universe.

Orion Foundation - This website is a detailed scientific rebuttal to the Big Bang Theory as well as a new proposal for a model of the universe that includes Earth near the center.

Halos.com - Evidence that the Earth was created instantly. The existence of Polonium radiohalos in granite cannot be described by any known scientific theories.

Edited by RegGuheert
Fixed link.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a YEC myself but I knew several classmates at Stanford who were YEC's and either majored in science or who completed the science core required for entering a health profession. So long as the student has a good understanding of what Darwin's theory posits, it's not relevant for many scientific careers whether or not that individual accepts or rejects it. For example, I doubt my sorority sister the orthopedic surgeon gets too many questions from her patients about the age of the universe or human origins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some interesting links:

 

Biology:

 

"Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design" - Dr. Stephen Meyer's magnum opus. In it, he makes a very strong case that the information found in life comes from the one source of complex coded information that we know of - intelligence. This book is an easy read and includes a detailed history of the search for the structure of DNA. He also answers the critics of his thesis in the book.

"Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" - Dr. Michael Behe challenges the idea that new structures can evolve from simpler ones via small steps by introducing the concept of "irreducible complexity" which means that the system has no benefit to the organism until complete. Behe is a good writer and this book gives a good introduction to the massive complexity involved in even "simple" biological systems.

"What Darwin Didn't Know: A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution" - This doctor describes the human body and its systems in minute detail. I don't recall it being a great refutation of Darwin's ideas, but I did find it to be extremely informative.

 

Physics:

 

While all of the physics links come directly from the Common Sense Science website, I don't find their materials easy to locate on the site. So I have organized them here in a form which I hope is more accessible.

 

A New Foundation for Modern Physics - This paper give an overview of some of the difficulties with quantum physics and describes the basics of a new approach based purely on electrodynamics.

A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei - Part 1 - Some early work on how physical ring electrons might pack around the nucleus of an atom. One result of this work is an explanation of why the electron shells hold the number of electrons that they do. It also explains why the period table of the elements only has seven periods.

A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei - Part 2 - Early work on how the nucleus of the atom. This new model for the nucleus of the atom provides a physical explanation for spin and correctly predicts the spin for all observed nuclei, whether stable or unstable.

A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei – Part 3 Spectral Lines - Evaluation of the new physical model to explain the nature of how light is absorbed and emitted from the atom.

A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei - Part 4 Blackbody Radiation and the Photoelectric Effect - Demonstration of how the new physical model of the atom fits many of the observed phenomena of matter.

Observations of the Properties of Physical Entities Part 1 - Nature of the Physical World - Gives a framework for building physical models for the particles found in our world.

Observations of the Properties of Physical Entities Part 2 - Shape and Size of Electron, Proton and Neutron - Gives a detailed description of the structure and characteristics of physical models for the electron, the proton and the neutron.

Fine-Structure Properties of the Electron, Proton and Neutron - More detailed information about the structure of the electron, the proton and the neutron.

A Classical Electromagnetic Theory of Elementary Particles - Part 1, Introduction, and Part 2, Intertwining Charge-Fibers - This paper describes the current quantum-mechanical model of the sub-atomic particles and then describes the physical model which is intended to replace them along with details of the many possible arrangements of these particles.

Derivation of the Universal Force Law - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 - The derivation of a new universal force law based on Ampere's Law, Faraday's Law, Gauss's Law, Lenz's Law and Lorentz's Law. This universal force law is expected to predict the behavior of all entities in the universe at all scales, something that Einstein endeavored to do but did not achieve before his death.

The Electrodynamic Origin of the Force of Inertia, Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 - This paper is a refutation of Einstein's General Relativity Theory and a demonstration that the new Universal Force Law provides a more satisfactory model for the phenomenon of inertia.

 

 

,

Part 2 and Part 3 - This paper describes gravity as a small fraction of the electromagnetic forces that hold the atom together in the new physical model. While the positive and negative charges in the atom exactly match each other, they are not physically co-located. Because of this, a *very* small portion of these electromagnetic forces provide the attractive force that we know as gravity.

 

Astronomy:

 

New Solar System Force, Part 1 - This paper shows how the new physical model for gravitation better fits the orbits of the solar system than Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation or Einstein's General Theory of Relativity by providing a third and fourth term in the equation that are necessary to fully account for the motion of the objects in our solar system.

New Solar System Force, Part 2 - This paper explains that if the new physical model for gravitation is correct, then gravity is NOT a fundamental property of matter and that it can change over time. This result has some interesting potential implications for some of the observations which have been made of our universe.

Orion Foundation - This website is a detailed scientific rebuttal to the Big Bang Theory as well as a new proposal for a model of the universe that includes Earth near the center.

Halos.com - Evidence that the Earth was created instantly. The existence of Polonium radiohalos in granite cannot be described by any known scientific theories.

 

My degree is in Biological Sciences and all I can say is, "Wow. Thanks for posting this." :D Also, please return and give us a run-down of your science sequence that you used with your kids. Please. :lurk5:

 

Edited to say: Must make big cup of coffee before I delve into all the links.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edited to say: Must make big cup of coffee before I delve into all the links.
I should add that the three books regarding biology should be accessible to all. After that, many of the links in Physics and Astronomy are quite technical. Some of the mathematics and physics involved requires higher-level undergraduate mathematics to fully follow it. But I will also say that if you or your students do not have that level of education but are interested in seeing the development of a new physical model of everything, this is a fascinating read!

 

I should also add that the material in the physics and astronomy sections does not *necessarily* support a YE interpretation of the universe. It may eventually prove to do that, but it has not been taken to that level, yet. What it does is shine a spotlight on many of the issues and absurdities found in some of the existing models by providing a much more accurate, elegant and useful explanation of all that is physical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add that the three books regarding biology should be accessible to all. After that, many of the links in Physics and Astronomy are quite technical. Some of the mathematics and physics involved requires higher-level undergraduate mathematics to fully follow it. But I will also say that if you or your students do not have that level of education but are interested in seeing the development of a new physical model of everything, this is a fascinating read!

 

I should also add that the material in the physics and astronomy sections does not *necessarily* support a YE interpretation of the universe. It may eventually prove to do that, but it has not been taken to that level, yet. What it does is shine a spotlight on many of the issues and absurdities found in some of the existing models by providing a much more accurate, elegant and useful explanation of all that is physical.

 

Thanks for taking the time to list the resources. It sounds like our positions are the same on these issues and this will save me a lot of time when I start working on where to go after Apologia elementary books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for being so patient in waiting for me to type this out. I first want to say that I believe there is no real "magic bullet" in curriculum choice. I used pretty standard stuff. All of our children are interested in science, and I think that most will end up in some sort of science-related major and career. Reg and I are "sciencey" types. We first met in the stairwell of the Electrical Engineering building at college (we both have EE degrees). Reg works at home, and many of our mealtime conversations center around science topics. The children ask a lot of great questions, and we (mostly Reg) try our best to answer them. So before I give you this list, remember that a great way to get your child interested in science is to be interested in it yourself.

 

That said, here's what we provided for dd. This list is a combination of Christian and secular materials.

 

K-6: A mish-mash of science books from our shelves and the library. We used a lot of the "Let's Read and Find Out" type books, nature study, the "How ____ Works" books recommended in the 1st edition of the WTM. She was profoundly interested in nature, to the point of being teased by children at the playground. They called her "nature girl." I told them it was a compliment!

 

7th & 8th: Cornell University's Ornithology Home Study Course. It used to be published in two binders; I've heard it's changed since then. Dd was very, very interested in birds. This course contains a lot of teaching about evolution, so it provides much material for discussion.

 

9th: Apologia Biology. At this time she began working at a local wildlife rehabilitation center, and continued through high school.

 

10th: Apologia's Chemistry.

 

11th: Zumdahl's AP Chemistry. She studied for and took the AP Chemistry exam with this book and this prep book. She also participated in the Chemistry Olympiad at the local and national levels. The CO study was great for AP prep. I highly recommend doing that if you can. Past exams are available online.

 

12th: Resnik, Halliday, and Krane's Physics 1 & 2. She studied for and took the AP Physics C exams (Mechanics, and Electricity & Magnetism). She was going to do the Physics B exam (trig-based), but at the last minute she decided to go for it; she studied for the AP Calculus BC exam at the same time so she could learn the math for the physics. A long-time WTMer (Kathy in Richmond) helped me with scheduling the course and even lent us some practice exams.

 

Dd is very motivated academically, so that part went smoothly. She has thanked us many times for homeschooling her. We were able to tailor her coursework to her interests somewhat, and offer her things that simply are not available in our rural high school (AP Chemistry & Physics).

 

If you have questions about high school math or science, I highly recommend posting on the high school board. There are many posters with science backgrounds who are very helpful.

 

HTH,

GardenMom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all the recent discussions over YE/OE beliefs, evolution, etc., I'm curious to know if any of you who are YE believers have had children enter the natural sciences (astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth science, physics, etc.). I am also interested in the experiences of those raised by parents with YE beliefs who entered a field in the natural sciences. For all answering in the affirmative, please answer a few questions:

 

* Whether the student was you or your child

* What field of science was studied or entered

* At what sort of institution the natural sciences were studied

* Whether the YE beliefs of the student/scientist were an obstacle, and if so, how

* Whether the student/scientist responded by exiting the field, changing to align with scientific beliefs and principles, hiding his or her YE beliefs, or doing something else

* The teaching approach you (or your parents) took towards subjects like evolution and the age of the universe

 

I'm curious as to the impact on children's academic options. Thanks for your input.

 

DH has a Ph.D is scientist and engineer specializing in water. His first degree was in hydrology and subsequent degrees in civil/environmental engineering. He took piles of natural sciences throughout his college career. All three of his degrees are from state universities. His science course were things like biology, chemistry, physics, and limnology - many semesters of each one.

His YE beliefs were not an obstacle at all and changing his major was never considered.

He was homeschooled and private schooled through elementary and middle school. His parents/teachers took a hard and fast YE approach with no room for anything else. His beliefs have not changed from this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for the informative posts - very enjoyable and enlightening.

I actually lean toward OE Creationism, but survived many earth science classes in college. I don't remember any of my profs testing us on actual dates.

 

7th & 8th: Cornell University's Ornithology Home Study Course. It used to be published in two binders; I've heard it's changed since then. Dd was very, very interested in birds. This course contains a lot of teaching about evolution, so it provides much material for discussion.

I am very interested in this program, but the book it uses is OOP and insanely expensive now. I am hoping they can/will redo the program with another book or the OOP book will be reprinted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MomsintheGarden, thank you for your posts, and also to the others who either went through university with a YEC belief.

 

I hope once my children have finished their home education, that I will be able to persue a career in geology. I have a fascination with how the earth works, and why. I am amazed at how rocks are formed and the way in which this can occur. I have been asked how I could possibly do this with my strong belief in a created young earth, but I really can not see how it will disadvantage me at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope once my children have finished their home education, that I will be able to persue a career in geology. I have a fascination with how the earth works, and why. I am amazed at how rocks are formed and the way in which this can occur. I have been asked how I could possibly do this with my strong belief in a created young earth, but I really can not see how it will disadvantage me at all.
Unfortunately, geology may be one of the most difficult fields in which a believer in YE can succeed. While I agree with Crimson Mom that the topic of evolution can be treated as a diversion (to a point) in the biological fields since there is so much operational science to be done, geology is nearly all about origins. There is a huge gap between what YE Christians believe and what many others believe in the field of geology.

 

Dr. Robert Gentry is a research physicist who was once (perhaps still is) the leading expert on the phenomenon of radioactive halos. He published many papers on this subject in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, once the scientific community, who did not believe in a YE, realized the implication of his work was that the Earth was created instantly his research and his papers started being censored. He details his story in his book: "Creation's Tiny Mystery". Unfortunately, the book is overpriced at Amazon. I linked to his website in my previous list:

Halos.com - Evidence that the Earth was created instantly. The existence of Polonium radiohalos in granite cannot be described by any known scientific theories.

Another resource I like for geology information is Dr. Walter Brown's site:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood I should have included this site in my original list since Dr. Brown does an excellent job of building a case for a young Earth by exposing flaws in many of the arguments for an old Earth and providing many detailed excerpts from the massive list of references he provides. You can read the book online. If you do it, I implore you to take the time to also read the references he provides for each page. In many ways they are more compelling than the text.

 

Also, here is a link to the RATE Project in which Dr. Russell Humphreys and other scientists study the leakage of helium produced during radioactive decay and conclude that while a lot of decay has indeed occurred in the rocks in our Earth that it must not have happened as long ago as many believe given that the helium that was produced has not yet leaked out of the rocks. Pretty interesting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for taking the time to list the resources. It sounds like our positions are the same on these issues and this will save me a lot of time when I start working on where to go after Apologia elementary books.

 

:iagree: Yeah, thanks!!

 

I was wondering if we should not use Apologia at the late middle school/high school level. It just seems like my kids' transcripts would be safer with a secular program on it. Maybe I'm just being paranoid.

 

My oldest two kids have been through 4 of the Apologia textbooks now and they love them. I would hate to have to find something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering if we should not use Apologia at the late middle school/high school level. It just seems like my kids' transcripts would be safer with a secular program on it. Maybe I'm just being paranoid.

 

My oldest two kids have been through 4 of the Apologia textbooks now and they love them. I would hate to have to find something else.

I think Apologia is fine for a transcript since textbooks are not included on transcripts. They are decent textbooks for fulfilling the high-school science requirements. (OTOH, MomsintheGarden informs me that this may not be true for California schools. She also says that some colleges will request textbook lists to accompany transcripts.)

 

That said, we do not feel they go beyond that level. In other words, they do not seem satisfactory for AP preparation for students who want to get through some of their college-level science early. For instance, in high school DS21 used Apologia Chemistry for both Level 1 and Level 2 but he only achieved a 3 on his Chemistry AP, which was not high enough to place out of it. By contrast, DD18 used Apologia Chemistry 1 followed by Zumdahl and got a 5 on her Chemistry AP. (Please note that this is not at all a fair comparison, since DD18 has an unbelievable memory and is really quite advanced in chemistry. DS21 is a great student, but his strengths lie in problem solving rather than memorization.) IMO, Zumdahl is an absolutely fabulous chemistry textbook. I was absolutely floored by the massive amount of application information found in the beautiful sidebars with nice, color pictures. For instance, one of the sidebars discussed some detailed information about how semiconductor physics works. That was information I didn't learn until my third year in electrical engineering!

 

I will say that I am more than a little bit annoyed that Jay Wile will not include the new physical model for the atom in his chemistry curriculum. He believes that the "magnetic pinch effect" does not exist. I assume he may be limiting his thinking to Maxwell's equations, which include the same faulty point approximation for charges that hinders so many other models in physics. As a result, he is missing the opportunity to get a jump on educating a new generation to a model that has many benefits over the currently-popular model.

Edited by RegGuheert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MomsintheGarden, thank you for your posts, and also to the others who either went through university with a YEC belief.

 

I hope once my children have finished their home education, that I will be able to persue a career in geology. I have a fascination with how the earth works, and why. I am amazed at how rocks are formed and the way in which this can occur. I have been asked how I could possibly do this with my strong belief in a created young earth, but I really can not see how it will disadvantage me at all.

 

Molly, I am not YEC but I am a geologist. I do not want to be negative but I do want to be truthful. IMO while the age of the earth just doesn't come up in the day-to-day work of many geologists like myself, you will likely need a graduate degree to be employable, and (assuming you don't already have a degree, you didn't say) the coursework you will need to take is often incompatible with YEC. With that said, there are many people of a variety of religions that are successful geologists, but while I know of a very tiny few who started high-level geology studies as YEC, they did not keep that perpective long-- either that or they learned to keep it to themselves, I guess. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Apologia is fine for a transcript since textbooks are not included on transcripts. They are decent textbooks for fulfilling the high-school science requirements. (OTOH, MomsintheGarden informs me that this may not be true for California schools. She also says that some colleges will request textbook lists to accompany transcripts.)

 

That said, we do not feel they go beyond that level. In other words, they do not seem satisfactory for AP preparation for students who want to get through some of their college-level science early. For instance, in high school DS21 used Apologia Chemistry for both Level 1 and Level 2 but he only achieved a 3 on his Chemistry AP, which was not high enough to place out of it. By contrast, DD18 used Apologia Chemistry 1 followed by Zumdahl and got a 5 on her Chemistry AP. (Please note that this is not at all a fair comparison, since DD18 has an unbelievable memory and is really quite advanced in chemistry. DS21 is a great student, but his strengths lie in problem solving rather than memorization.) IMO, Zumdahl is an absolutely fabulous chemistry textbook. I was absolutely floored by the massive amount of application information found in the beautiful sidebars with nice, color pictures. For instance, one of the sidebars discussed some detailed information about how semiconductor physics works. That was information I didn't learn until my third year in electrical engineering!

 

I will say that I am more than a little bit annoyed that Jay Wile will not include the new physical model for the atom in his chemistry curriculum. He believes that the "magnetic pinch effect" does not exist. I assume he may be limiting his thinking to Maxwell's equations, which include the same faulty point approximation for charges that hinders so many other models in physics. As a result, he is missing the opportunity to get a jump on educating a new generation to a model that has many benefits over the currently-popular model.

 

Where can I learn more about this new physical model for the atom? Forgive me if you already addressed this question in a previous post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not YE, but wanted to add what I have been told by some of my scientist and professor friends.

I agree that in most scientific fields, YE barely will come up, and can probably be avoided - and in that case, employment shouldn't be too much of an issue. But a good friend at the EPA here said they look at where someone went to school, and are very skeptical of Christian universities that are known for teaching YE sciences - and it does affect hiring choices. All things being equal, they will hire someone without the YE possibility hanging over their heads. His words, not mine - they see it as being incompatible to scientific thinking and it makes them question the scientific ability as a whole.

Now - he did not give me an actual example, but it had happened. This is biologi sciences, not geology.

I do think that anyone really interested in scientific fields should at least keep this in mind - and know that there will probably be bias involved after college.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RegGuheert, if you get a moment could you please post a link to the exact edition of Zumdahl that your children used? It sounds perfect for my eldest son.
Sure! Here are the Amazon pages which we purchased from:

 

Chemistry: Sixth Edition - I checked the ISBN on that page and that is the edition we have. For reference, we purchased it used for $35.99 shipped. Book is in very good shape.

 

Chemistry: Sixth Edition Study Guide - I checked the ISBN on that page and that is the edition we have. For reference, we purchased it used for $28.49 shipped. This book is also in very good shape.

 

I also see the following on the shelf, but it is still sealed in shrink wrap, so I am not sure where it came from:

 

Chemistry: Sixth Edition Technology Guide - This is very cheap, but I'm guessing it may not be important since it is not opened. :tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where can I learn more about this new physical model for the atom? Forgive me if you already addressed this question in a previous post.
It is described in these links:
Here are some interesting links:

 

Physics:

 

While all of the physics links come directly from the Common Sense Science website, I don't find their materials easy to locate on the site. So I have organized them here in a form which I hope is more accessible.

 

A New Foundation for Modern Physics - This paper give an overview of some of the difficulties with quantum physics and describes the basics of a new approach based purely on electrodynamics.

A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei - Part 1 - Some early work on how physical ring electrons might pack around the nucleus of an atom. One result of this work is an explanation of why the electron shells hold the number of electrons that they do. It also explains why the period table of the elements only has seven periods.

A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei - Part 2 - Early work on how the nucleus of the atom. This new model for the nucleus of the atom provides a physical explanation for spin and correctly predicts the spin for all observed nuclei, whether stable or unstable.

A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei – Part 3 Spectral Lines - Evaluation of the new physical model to explain the nature of how light is absorbed and emitted from the atom.

A Physical Model for Atoms and Nuclei - Part 4 Blackbody Radiation and the Photoelectric Effect - Demonstration of how the new physical model of the atom fits many of the observed phenomena of matter.

Observations of the Properties of Physical Entities Part 1 - Nature of the Physical World - Gives a framework for building physical models for the particles found in our world.

Observations of the Properties of Physical Entities Part 2 - Shape and Size of Electron, Proton and Neutron - Gives a detailed description of the structure and characteristics of physical models for the electron, the proton and the neutron.

Fine-Structure Properties of the Electron, Proton and Neutron - More detailed information about the structure of the electron, the proton and the neutron.

A Classical Electromagnetic Theory of Elementary Particles - Part 1, Introduction, and Part 2, Intertwining Charge-Fibers - This paper describes the current quantum-mechanical model of the sub-atomic particles and then describes the physical model which is intended to replace them along with details of the many possible arrangements of these particles.

Derivation of the Universal Force Law - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 - The derivation of a new universal force law based on Ampere's Law, Faraday's Law, Gauss's Law, Lenz's Law and Lorentz's Law. This universal force law is expected to predict the behavior of all entities in the universe at all scales, something that Einstein endeavored to do but did not achieve before his death.

The Electrodynamic Origin of the Force of Inertia, Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 - This paper is a refutation of Einstein's General Relativity Theory and a demonstration that the new Universal Force Law provides a more satisfactory model for the phenomenon of inertia.

, Part 2 and Part 3 - This paper describes gravity as a small fraction of the electromagnetic forces that hold the atom together in the new physical model. While the positive and negative charges in the atom exactly match each other, they are not physically co-located. Because of this, a *very* small portion of these electromagnetic forces provide the attractive force that we know as gravity.

 

Astronomy:

 

New Solar System Force, Part 1 - This paper shows how the new physical model for gravitation better fits the orbits of the solar system than Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation or Einstein's General Theory of Relativity by providing a third and fourth term in the equation that are necessary to fully account for the motion of the objects in our solar system.

New Solar System Force, Part 2 - This paper explains that if the new physical model for gravitation is correct, then gravity is NOT a fundamental property of matter and that it can change over time. This result has some interesting potential implications for some of the observations which have been made of our universe.

Edited by RegGuheert
Fixed link.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure! Here are the Amazon pages which we purchased from:

 

Chemistry: Sixth Edition - I checked the ISBN on that page and that is the edition we have. For reference, we purchased it used for $35.99 shipped. Book is in very good shape.

 

Chemistry: Sixth Edition Study Guide - I checked the ISBN on that page and that is the edition we have. For reference, we purchased it used for $28.49 shipped. This book is also in very good shape.

 

I also see the following on the shelf, but it is still sealed in shrink wrap, so I am not sure where it came from:

 

Chemistry: Sixth Edition Technology Guide - This is very cheap, but I'm guessing it may not be important since it is not opened. :tongue_smilie:

 

Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for the informative posts - very enjoyable and enlightening.

I actually lean toward OE Creationism, but survived many earth science classes in college. I don't remember any of my profs testing us on actual dates.

 

I am very interested in this program, but the book it uses is OOP and insanely expensive now. I am hoping they can/will redo the program with another book or the OOP book will be reprinted.

Wow! I looked at the prices for the 1st (2004) edition, and :svengo:. This happened years ago with the old course. They printed "new" materials when she took it, and sent them as they published them. If you are really interested in their Handbook of Bird Biology, you may want to email or call them to ask when they are going to reprint it. I saw that it was printed using a grant from the NSF; perhaps they are waiting on some new grant money.

 

I hope you can get the course!

GardenMom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derivation of the Universal Force Law - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 - The derivation of a new universal force law based on Ampere's Law, Faraday's Law, Gauss's Law, Lenz's Law and Lorentz's Law. This universal force law is expected to predict the behavior of all entities in the universe at all scales, something that Einstein endeavored to do but did not achieve before his death.

 

RegGuheert, I can't get Part 3 to download. I've tried messing with the URL but still no success.

 

Thanks for any help you can provide.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derivation of the Universal Force Law - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 - The derivation of a new universal force law based on Ampere's Law, Faraday's Law, Gauss's Law, Lenz's Law and Lorentz's Law. This universal force law is expected to predict the behavior of all entities in the universe at all scales, something that Einstein endeavored to do but did not achieve before his death.

 

RegGuheert, I can't get Part 3 to download. I've tried messing with the URL but still no success.

 

Thanks for any help you can provide.:)

Sorry about that! I figured I wouldn't get all of those links correct!

 

Here is the link for Part 3. I also fixed it in the quote in this post and I will go back and repair it in previous posts I made, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MomsintheGarden, thank you for your posts, and also to the others who either went through university with a YEC belief.

 

I hope once my children have finished their home education, that I will be able to persue a career in geology. I have a fascination with how the earth works, and why. I am amazed at how rocks are formed and the way in which this can occur. I have been asked how I could possibly do this with my strong belief in a created young earth, but I really can not see how it will disadvantage me at all.

 

Dr. Emil Silvestru is a geologist and a YE creationist, although he came to Christ after completing his degree. He spoke at our homeschool convention and he works for Creation Ministries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't intend for this thread to become a soapbox for fringe science; it was intended to be focused on science and anti-religious bias facing those with certain beliefs. I wanted it to serve as a useful reference to help people make decisions in educating their children, based on knowledge of how they might be making it harder for their children to excel in certain fields.

 

Here's a summary of the thread with the off-topic religious content stripped out:

 

* One YEC is a second-year bio-chemistry student at a Christian university

* Several YECs were known by one poster to have majored in science fields

* One YEC experienced no obstacles in becoming a PhD-holding hydrologist and civil/environmental engineer at state universities

* Nuclear physicist Robert V. Gentry, after converting to Seventh-day Adventism and strict creationism, left a doctoral program when he was refused permission to work on the age of the Earth for his dissertation, subsequently successfully published articles in scientific journals to support his conclusions on flood geology while not mentioning his religious beliefs and conclusions, but was eventually terminated from Oak Ridge National Laboratory as a result of participating in the McLean v. Arkansas case

* A non-YEC geologist has seen all high-level geology students, known to that geologist to hold YEC beliefs, either abandon those YEC beliefs or learn to keep them a secret, due to incompatibility with the coursework

* One EPA scientist has seen skepticism in hiring practices of Christian universities where YEC theistic science is taught, and all things being equal a corresponding preference for hiring candidates from other universities

* Dr. Emil Silvestru is a published geologist who came to his current beliefs after attaining his degree

 

Some conclusions on the impact of YEC beliefs on science scholarship and employment based on the posts in this thread, in rough order of appearance of the first posts supporting them:

 

1. They may be no obstacle at Christian universities

2. They may be no obstacle when choosing a major field of study

3. They are less likely to be an obstacle when entering a health profession

4. They may be no obstacle in studying hydrology and engineering at state universities

5. They may be an obstacle in obtaining a PhD, where the YEC beliefs form a basis of the dissertation

6. They may result in termination from a research contract when coupled with high publicity

7. In high-level study of certain fields such as geology, students may either hide or lose them due to incompatibility with courses of study

8. They (or even attendance at a university where YEC beliefs are taught) may result in anti-religious employment bias

Edited by Iucounu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

* Nuclear physicist Robert V. Gentry, after converting to Seventh-day Adventism and strict creationism, left a doctoral program when he was refused permission to work on the age of the Earth for his dissertation, subsequently successfully published articles in scientific journals to support his conclusions on flood geology while not mentioning his religious beliefs and conclusions, but was eventually terminated from Oak Ridge National Laboratory as a result of participating in the McLean v. Arkansas case
Your ad hominem attack notwitstanding, the science behind Dr. Gentry's research contradicts any existing theory of the formation of the granite bedrock of our planet *except* for specific, instantaneous creation. Perhaps you have not considered the very real possibility that his science influenced his beliefs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your ad hominem attack notwitstanding, the science behind Dr. Gentry's research contradicts any existing theory of the formation of the granite bedrock of our planet *except* for specific, instantaneous creation. Perhaps you have not considered the very real possibility that his science influenced his beliefs.

 

I was hoping you'd post again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your ad hominem attack notwitstanding, the science behind Dr. Gentry's research contradicts any existing theory of the formation of the granite bedrock of our planet *except* for specific, instantaneous creation. Perhaps you have not considered the very real possibility that his science influenced his beliefs.

It's not an ad hominem attack. It's simply not to your liking-- there's a big difference. Here's a quote from the Wikipedia page on Dr. Gentry:

Gentry received a masters degree in physics from the University of Florida, and thereafter worked in the defense industry, in nuclear weapons research. In 1959 he was influenced by a televangelist, and subsequently converted to Seventh-day Adventism and strict creationism. Thereafter he entered the doctoral programme at Georgia Institute of Technology, but left when he was refused permission to work on the age of the Earth for his dissertation. By this time he was convinced that radiohalos might be "the key" to determining the age of the Earth, and vindicating flood geology. He continued to work on the subject at home using a small microscope, publishing his results (minus his creationist conclusions) in prestigious scientific journals. In 1969 while Gentry was affiliated with an Adventist college in Maryland, Oak Ridge National Laboratory invited him to use their facilities, as a guest scientist, in the hope that his work on radiohalos might lead to discovering super-heavy elements. This relationship was terminated as a result of his participation in McLean v. Arkansas.

 

This thread isn't about whether his religious beliefs (or yours) are right; it's about bias affecting scholarship and employment opportunities. It seems that anything painting a less-than-rosy picture of employment opportunities for those with YE beliefs will not be to your liking. And that's fine; what's not so fine is turning this thread into a religious soapbox. Create a spinoff thread if you like.

 

Here's a summary of the thread with the off-topic religious content stripped out:

 

* One YEC is a second-year bio-chemistry student at a Christian university

* Several YECs were known by one poster to have majored in science fields

* One YEC experienced no obstacles in becoming a PhD-holding hydrologist and civil/environmental engineer at state universities

* Nuclear physicist Robert V. Gentry, after converting to Seventh-day Adventism and strict creationism, left a doctoral program when he was refused permission to work on the age of the Earth for his dissertation, subsequently successfully published articles in scientific journals to support his conclusions on flood geology while not mentioning his religious beliefs and conclusions, but was eventually terminated from Oak Ridge National Laboratory as a result of participating in the McLean v. Arkansas case

* A non-YEC geologist has seen all high-level geology students, known to that geologist to hold YEC beliefs, either abandon those YEC beliefs or learn to keep them a secret, due to incompatibility with the coursework

* One EPA scientist has seen skepticism in hiring practices of Christian universities where YEC theistic science is taught, and all things being equal a corresponding preference for hiring candidates from other universities

* Dr. Emil Silvestru is a published geologist who came to his current beliefs after attaining his degree

 

Some conclusions on the impact of YEC beliefs on science scholarship and employment based on the posts in this thread, in rough order of appearance of the first posts supporting them:

 

1. They may be no obstacle at Christian universities

2. They may be no obstacle when choosing a major field of study

3. They are less likely to be an obstacle when entering a health profession

4. They may be no obstacle in studying hydrology and engineering at state universities

5. They may be an obstacle in obtaining a PhD, where the YEC beliefs form a basis of the dissertation

6. They may result in termination from a research contract when coupled with high publicity

7. In high-level study of certain fields such as geology, students may either hide or lose them due to incompatibility with courses of study

8. They (or even attendance at a university where YEC beliefs are taught) may result in anti-religious employment bias

 

... and I'd like to add that one common thread running through all of this is that aside from bias resulting from choice of university based on religious beliefs, religious beliefs might have zero impact on any young scientist's employability or research opportunities if simply kept hidden. It would be hard to imagine a situation where it would come up in an interview, barring a red flag based on a particular university appearing on a resume. From that perspective, anyone intending to seriously study science would probably be best off attending a secular university (and the top science schools of course are secular anyway).

Edited by Iucounu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread isn't about whether his religious beliefs (or yours) are right; it's about bias affecting scholarship and employment opportunities. It seems that anything painting a less-than-rosy picture of employment opportunities for those with YE beliefs will not be to your liking.
I absolutely agree there is bias against YE beliefs in the scientific community.

 

But I do not believe that bias is scientific. Dr. Gentry was forced out because his science did not agree with others' faith. That does not mean his science was wrong, only that there is faith-based bias in the scientific community. That has always been true and it always will be true. It's just that throughout history different faiths have controlled science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your ad hominem attack notwitstanding, the science behind Dr. Gentry's research contradicts any existing theory of the formation of the granite bedrock of our planet *except* for specific, instantaneous creation. Perhaps you have not considered the very real possibility that his science influenced his beliefs.

 

One, Gentry does not hold a science related PhD. He holds an honorary doctorate.

 

Two, the bolded statement is not really true.

 

36 studies that have shown evidence that directly contradict his claims: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/

 

An article refuting it in more plain language:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

 

He has also been known to repeat false stories such as the one surrounding the discovery of Lucy, which makes his other claims questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...