Theistic Scientists

17-19th Century Theistic Scientists Offer little Support to 21st Century Young-Earth Creationists

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

July 20, 2014, Updated October 31, 2020

In my 1999 essay, I stated the following:

“Contrary to YEC [young-Earth creationist] misconceptions, actualism does not demand modern analogs for dolomite formation, only that any explanations not violate the laws of chemistry and physics by invoking the supernatural.” [my 2014 emphasis]

In response to this statement, Oard (2009a, p. 120) makes the following non-sequitur reply:

“It would be interesting to hear him [Dr. Henke] explain how theism violates the laws of chemistry and physics to men like Boyle, Pasteur, Newton, Pascal, and Kelvin.” [my emphasis]

Besides confusing belief in the supernatural with theism (see “Mr. Oard Confuses the Supernatural with Theism”), Oard (2009a, p. 120) makes a series of bad assumptions when he invokes Robert Boyle (1627-1691), Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727), Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), and Lord Kelvin (William Thomson, 1824-1907) as his supposed allies.

Oard (2009a, p. 120) is one of many examples of YECs attempting to make an argument about 21st century Western science or culture by improperly invoking out of cultural context the beliefs and actions of their heroes or villains in the past. When YECs use these types of cross-cultural arguments, it’s obvious that many of them are trying to convince people to accept the following types of illogical conclusions:

“Darwin was a racist by 21st century American standards. Don't be a racist or an evolutionist like Darwin.”

“Sir Isaac Newton was a genius and a great scientist. He believed in the Bible and so should every modern scientist.”

“Pasteur was an anti-evolutionist. If he had lived today, this great scientist would have been a creationist.”

While several fallacies are obvious in these types of arguments, there are two serious mistakes that are especially overlooked by YECs that make these kinds of bogus cross-cultural and cross-chronological arguments:

1. They assume that the views of these past individuals were well-known and static over their entire adult lives. Even if some of their views are now known, most thinking individuals rarely have the same views on politics, science and religion when they're 20 as they do when they're 40 or 60. For example, Lord Kelvin indicated in his writings that he was an old-Earth creationist in 1897. However, can we say for certain that he had the same creationist views in 1844 or 1906? So, when Oard (2009a, p. 120) appeals to the views of Boyle, Pasteur, Newton, Pascal and Kelvin, is he referring to their worldviews when they were 20 years old or later on in their lives? Would the views of Newton or Kelvin at age 60 on any given subject be more relevant to 21st century societies than what they believed when they were 40? If so, why?

2. Purveyors of these arguments forget the cultural context. If Sir Isaac Newton had lived in 2014 America instead of 1700 England, would he still have been a Unitarian? Who knows? If a 60-year old Louis Pasteur were alive today and knew about modern genetics and recent discoveries in the fossil record, would he still have been skeptical of biological evolution? We can't say. If a 70-year old Charles Darwin were alive today and a US citizen, would he have driven a hybrid car and voted for President Obama? Who knows?

So, proponents of these careless transcultural arguments often make a huge mistake in suggesting that modern scientists should embrace the beliefs of 17th century Europeans rather than 21st century science and Western democratic culture. While Boyle, Pasteur, Newton, Pascal, and Kelvin are good examples of theists that made important contributions to chemistry and physics, Einstein, Hawking, Pauling, Darwin, and Salk were (are) also good examples of individuals that made important contributions to science while they were atheists or agnostics. So, success in science is not necessarily because of theistic beliefs.

Because all of the theistic scientists on the list in Oard (2009a, p. 120) lived more than 100 years ago in Europe, it's difficult to predict what their adult views of science and religion would have been if they would have had access to our current knowledge of the Universe, the Bible and Western culture. Considering their genius, it's doubtful that their views would have remained unchanged. So, if Boyle, Pasteur, Newton, Pascal and Kelvin were living as adults today (let's say at the ages that they were within a year or two before their deaths) and I had a chance to talk to them about actualism, the supernatural, methodological naturalism, the Gosse Hypothesis, the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, radiometric dating, atomic theory and other aspects of modern science, would they agree more with me than Mr. Oard? Who knows for sure? But, I don't think that Oard (2009a, p. 120) should be confident that they would automatically agree with him more than me.

Detailed inspections of the biographies of at least Newton and Kelvin show that their beliefs and actions during much of their adult lives were totally inconsistent with 21st century Protestant fundamentalism and/or young-Earth creationism. Kelvin was an old-Earth creationist during at least most of the latter half of the 19th century. Kelvin's 1897 final known conclusion on the age of the Earth was 20-40 million years old (Dalrymple 1991, p. 43), which greatly exceeds the commonly held upper YEC limit of 10,000 years. When Kelvin made his estimates, scientists did not know about nuclear fusion in the Sun or heat-generating radioactive decay within the Earth. If Kelvin had known about these processes, perhaps he would have accepted the 4.55 billion year old age for the Earth and a similar age for the Sun. Who knows? If Kelvin were alive today, would he still have been an old-Earth creationist? Perhaps. Would Kelvin have abandoned old-Earth creationism in favor of the young-Earth variety if he were alive in 2014? Considering the terrible quality of 21st century YEC arguments on physics and that the old standard theological arguments for a literal interpretation of the “days” in Genesis obviously did not convince Kelvin in 1897, I doubt it. But, who knows for sure?

As adults, both Boyle and Newton engaged in alchemy (a pseudoscience), which we now recognize as a wasteful dead end and a distraction from their legitimate scientific research. Of course, these intelligent men didn't know any better in the 17-18th centuries. Unlike modern YECs, Boyle is also quoted as denying that the Bible is a scientific textbook. Newton discretely denied the Trinity through most of his adult life, which would disqualify him as an employee at Answers in Genesis if this adult Newton was alive today and still retained his Unitarian beliefs. Duboisée de Ricquebourg (2020) even warns his fellow YECs that Newton may have treated Genesis 1-11 in less than a literal fashion as YECs demand. Newton also had several personal faults that most people (either in 18th century England or 21st century Western cultures) would find disgraceful and unchristian. Although brilliant, Newton was not always honest in his research. Oard (2009b, p. 127) cites Gould (1978) about how researchers can deliberately or unconsciously manipulate data, but he overlooks the following important passage about Newton that Gould (1978, p. 504) cites from Westfall (1973, p. 751):

“Newton fudged outrageously to support at least three central statements that he could not prove.”

Newton was also very spiteful and unforgiving against his opponents. As Master of Mint, Newton had counterfeiters executed in accordance with British law at that time. However, had Newton lived today, would he have endorsed the abolition of the death penalty in the United Kingdom? Who knows? Nevertheless, Newton's bad behavior does not invalidate his laws of motion and his other scientific discoveries. The same thing goes for any scientist. Mean scientists, as well as nice scientists, can make important and valuable discoveries.

So, if Boyle, Pasteur, Newton, Pascal and Kelvin at the end of the lives were living in 21st century America, how many of them would be welcomed into the Creation Research Society or accepted as employees at Answers in Genesis (AiG)? How many of them would have wanted to be young-Earth creationists? Who knows? Although most YEC doctrines have been around for centuries, Newton and Kelvin (at least during much of their adult lives) did not embrace all of them. Considering the history of these individuals and all of the bad assumptions involved in making transcultural and transhistorical comparisons, Oard (2009a, p. 120) has no rational justification for automatically invoking their names as his allies.

References

Dalrymple, G.B. 1991. The Age of the Earth, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, USA, 474pp.

Duboisée de Ricquebourg, M. 2020. "Isaac Newton - Friend or Foe to Biblical Creation?", Journal of Creation, v. 34, n. 3, pp. 122-128.

Gould, S.J. 1978. “Morton's Ranking of Races by Cranial Capacity,” Science, v. 200, pp. 503-509.

Oard, M.J. 2009a. “Landslides Win in a Landslide over Ancient 'Ice Ages'“, chapter 7 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 111-123.

Oard, M.J. 2009b. “Do Varves Contradict Biblical History?”, chapter 8 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 125-148.

Westfall, R.S. 1973. “Newton and the Fudge Factor,” Science, v. 173, p. 751-758.