The name game: scientific ideas named after creationists

by

Article from:
Creation
37(2):47-49
March 2015
game

Can creationists be real scientists? High priest of Darwinism Richard Dawkins doesn’t seem to think so:

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”1

And apparently we can trust Dawkins’ assessment, since recently a genus of fish has been named after him—Dawkinsia.2 In the words of lead researcher Rohan Pethiyagoda:

“Richard Dawkins has through his writings helped us understand that the universe is far more beautiful and awe-inspiring than any religion has imagined. We hope that Dawkinsia will serve as a reminder of the elegance and simplicity of evolution, the only rational explanation there is for the unimaginable diversity of life on Earth.”3

One evolutionist blogger commenting on this gleefully proclaimed: “Your move, Creationists.”4

We might call this the ‘name game challenge’. Things in science are named after people who have made significant contributions to science all the time. No doubt Pethiyagoda thought he was doing that in naming the new fish genus Dawkinsia. But do creationists have anything in science named after them?

Science and its laws

A good place to start is a commonly practised scientific method—often called the Baconian method. It was named after English scientist and philosopher Francis Bacon (1561–1626). He was the first to systematically explain how we do science. He believed in biblical creation, and was an English Protestant.5 He was even motivated by trying to regain the knowledge he believed that Adam had before the Fall.6

However, not only science itself, but many of its laws are named after Christians. For example, there are Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion, which describe the way planets move around the sun. They were named after devout Lutheran and biblical creationist Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) who discovered them. The German Kepler also gave us the famous phrase that science is “thinking God’s thoughts after him.”7

Englishman Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727) hardly needs introduction; he is generally regarded as the most influential scientist of all time. He explained the cause of Kepler’s laws in what are known as ‘Newton’s three laws of motion’ and his theory of universal gravitation—the law of gravity. In these he showed that the heavens obey the same laws of motion as the earth. Newton also has the fundamental unit of force named after him—the newton (N). And like Kepler, Newton was a biblical creationist, who wrote far more on the Bible and theology than he ever did on science.8

Robert Boyle (1627–1691) is known as the father of modern chemistry. In his famous book, The Skeptical Chymist, the Anglo-Irishman Boyle overturned the then popular notion that everything is made up of four elements: fire, water, earth, and air. He redefined the ‘element’ to give us our modern notion of an element—a substance that cannot be separated into simpler components by chemical methods. He is also known for Boyle’s Law, which states that a gas’s volume increases as its pressure decreases at a constant temperature. He was a generous patron of missionary work, and wrote a number of books defending the Christian faith. He too was a biblical creationist.9

Another famous law of chemistry is Dalton’s Law, which states that the total pressure exerted by the mixture of non-reactive gases is equal to the sum of the partial pressures of individual gases. It was named after John Dalton (1766–1844), a devout English Quaker who was well known for his simple and steadfast devotion to practical Christian piety.10

Perhaps the greatest achievement of 19th century physics was Maxwell’s equations, a set of four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. They were named after the brilliant Scotsman who brought together various streams of thought in such an elegant way, James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879). Clerk Maxwell was also a devout evangelical and biblical creationist.11,12

Units of measurement

Another area of naming common in science, already introduced with Isaac Newton, is that of units of measurement. SI units are the internationally recognized standards of scientific measurement. Of this system, those known as SI base units, seven in all, are its fundamental units (see table 1). Of the seven, only two are named after people: the kelvin and the ampere. The kelvin is the SI base unit of temperature. It was named after the British Lord Kelvin (William Thomson, 1824–1907), one of the founders of the field of thermodynamics. He believed that the earth could have been up to 40 million years old based on his calculations, but he was a Christian and a creationist.13 The ampere is the SI base unit of electric current. It was named after André-Marie Ampère (1775–1836), a French mathematician and physicist and devout Catholic creationist.14

However, many other SI units, known as derived units, are also named after creationists. The newton (N) is the SI derived unit for force. The pascal (Pa) is the SI unit for pressure, and was named after French scientist and Christian Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), who is also known for Pascal’s wager and a number of classic theological and philosophical writings (such as Pensées).15 The joule (J) is the SI unit for energy, and was named after the Englishman James Joule (1818–1889). Joule often collaborated with Lord Kelvin, and was a firm believer in the Bible.16 The farad (F) is the SI unit for capacitance, which is named after Michael Faraday (1791–1867). Faraday is often recognized as the greatest experimentalist of all time, and though English, he was a member of a conservative offshoot of the Church of Scotland called the Sandemanians, very strict on standing on biblical authority.

Science: littered with the names of creationists

Here are some more beneficial ideas that have come about through scientific research by creationists:

More examples could be added. So what scientific ideas have we seen are named after creationists? The foundational laws of motion, chemistry, and electromagnetism. The only two SI base units named after people, and numerous SI derived units. A number of widely used processes and inventions. And perhaps most significantly—the commonly practised scientific method itself. Unlike Dawkinsia, these things were not named after these people for some nebulous achievement unrelated to the actual discovery—these people made these discoveries. And they were all trying to do just as Kepler did—thinking God’s thoughts after Him.

SI-base-units
Table 1. SI base units. Those highlighted are named after scientists.

The history of science is one of the most compelling testimonies to the reality and practical power of the Bible. Not only can creationists be real scientists, real science only blossomed under creationist assumptions!20 Thinking God’s thoughts after Him is just one practical outworking of Genesis 1:27–28—we were created in God’s image to rule creation. To rule as God rules, we must understand. And to understand the creation and how it works, we must test it.

References and notes

  1. Cited in Dawkins, R., Ignorance is no crime, old.richarddawkins.net/articles/114, 15 May 2006. Return to text.
  2. Catchpoole, D., Fishy Dawkinsia tales, tragic Dawkinsian philosophy, creation.com/fishy-dawkinsia-tales, 28 August 2012. Return to text.
  3. Sri Lankans name new type of fish after Richard Dawkins, 16 July 2012, telegraph.co.uk, accessed 11 April 2013. Return to text.
  4. Mehta, H., New genus of South Asian fish named after Richard Dawkins, 16 July 2012, patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist, as at 12 April 2013. Return to text.
  5. Bacon’s impact was not entirely positive. While he believed in biblical creation, he also advocated a separation between the Bible and science. They were in his mind equally authoritative, but they spoke to different aspects of reality. This led to the subsuming of the Bible under science, and the ultimate rejection of the Bible in favour of science. Bacon, F., The Advancement of Learning, 1.6.16, 1605; gutenberg.org, acc. 9 April 2013. Return to text.
  6. Harrison, P., The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science, Cambridge University Press, 2007. See also a review of this book, Weinberger, L., The Fall and the inspiration for science, J. Creation 24(3):18–21, 2010; creation.com/fall-science. Return to text.
  7. Lamont, A., Johannes Kepler: Outstanding scientist and committed Christian, Creation 15(1):40–43, December 1992; creation.com/kepler. Return to text.
  8. Lamont, A., Sir Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727): a scientific genius, Creation 12(3):48–51, June 1990; creation.com/newton. Return to text.
  9. Doolan, R., The man who turned chemistry into a science: Robert Boyle (1627–1691), Creation 12(1):22–23, December 1989; creation.com/boyle. Return to text.
  10. Graves, D., Scientists of Faith, Kregel, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 87–90, 1996. Return to text.
  11. Lamont, A., James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879), Creation 15(3):45–47, June 1993; creation.com/maxwell. Return to text.
  12. Doyle, S., Einstein’s heroes: biblical creationists, Creation 36(1):54–55, 2014. Return to text.
  13. Woodmorappe, J., Lord Kelvin revisited on the young age of the earth, Journal of Creation 13(1):14, April 1999; creation.com/kelvin. Return to text.
  14. Fox, W., André Marie Ampère; in: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Robert Appleton Company, New York, 1907; newadvent.org, acc. 4 December 2012. Return to text.
  15. Lamont, A., Great creation scientist: Blaise Pascal (1623–1662): Outstanding scientist and committed Christian, Creation 20(1):38–39, 1997; creation.com/pascal. Return to text.
  16. Lamont, A., James Joule: The great experimenter who was guided by God, Creation 15(2):47–50, 1993; creation.com/joule. Return to text.
  17. Lamont, A., Louis Pasteur (1822–1895): Outstanding scientist and opponent of evolution, Creation 14(1):16–19, 1991; creation.com/pasteur. Return to text.
  18. Grigg, R., Mercator’s projection, Creation 38(1):54–55, 2016. Return to text.
  19. Lamont, A., Michael Faraday—God’s power and electric power, Creation 12(4):22–24, 1990; creation.com/faraday. Return to text.
  20. Sarfati, J., The biblical roots of modern science, Creation 32(4):32–36, 2010; creation.com/roots. Atheists doing science successfully today, whether or not making great discoveries, are doing so under what were originally biblical assumptions. Return to text.
Cited in Dawkins, R., Ignorance is no crime, old.richarddawkins.net/articles/114, 15 May 2006.
Catchpoole, D.,
Sri Lankans name new type of fish after Richard Dawkins, 16 July 2012, telegraph.co.uk, accessed 11 April 2013.
Mehta, H., New genus of South Asian fish named after Richard Dawkins, 16 July 2012, patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist, as at 12 April 2013.
Bacon’s impact was not entirely positive. While he believed in biblical creation, he also advocated a separation between the Bible and science. They were in his mind equally authoritative, but they spoke to different aspects of reality. This led to the subsuming of the Bible under science, and the ultimate rejection of the Bible in favour of science. Bacon, F., The Advancement of Learning, 1.6.16, 1605; gutenberg.org, acc. 9 April 2013.
Harrison, P., The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science, Cambridge University Press, 2007. See also a review of this book, Weinberger, L.,
Lamont, A.,
Lamont, A.,
Doolan, R.,
Graves, D., Scientists of Faith, Kregel, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 87–90, 1996.
Lamont, A.,
Doyle, S.,
Woodmorappe, J.,
Fox, W., André Marie Ampère; in: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Robert Appleton Company, New York, 1907; newadvent.org, acc. 4 December 2012.
Lamont, A.,
Lamont, A.,
Lamont, A.,
Grigg, R., Mercator’s projection, Creation 38(1):54–55, 2016.
Lamont, A.,
Sarfati, J.,

Related Articles

Further Reading

Readers’ comments
Laurie S., New Zealand, 16 October 2016
Seems entirely appropriate to me (to have a fish named after Dawkins). There is definitely something fishy about his religious belief in evolution. To have a closed mind on this matter is not the way of a true scientist, in my opinion. My Bumper sticker reads "Evolution is Science Fiction!"
Gina T., New Zealand, 16 October 2016
Another great article - thank you! However, a thought came to me that evolutionists might level against this article. Evolutionists may say that most of the creative people mentioned in your article were from 'back in the day when everyone believed in Creation'. I wonder if there are scientific terms, creatures etc named after more recent scientists? The thought that came to my mind in answer to this is that the very strong prejudice against Creation within mainstream scientific circles may stomp on crediting 'discoveries' to those who hold to the creation view?
Shaun Doyle responds
Some of the scientists mentioned in the article were alive in Darwin's day, and interacted with his ideas, such as Kelvin, Joule, Faraday, and Pasteur. It will not do to write off these men as ignorant of evolution. One I didn't mention that deserves mentioning is 'Mendelian inheritance', a term in genetics named after the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel (1822-1884). Since Mendel was a Roman Catholic monk in the 19th century, he was most likely a creationist, though we know he was aware of Darwin (though Darwin was not aware of Mendel). As for modern scientists, institutional bias against creation is one issue, but not the only one. Scientific discoveries, especially empirical discoveries (as opposed to theoretical ones), are largely done by large collaborative research groups, and not one or two individuals. Some theoretical discoveries are still named after individuals, since they are more likely to be the work of an individual (Hawking radiation, named after Stephen Hawking, comes to mind). As for naming a new species, they get their names for all sorts of reasons that often have nothing to do with the discovery. But you're unlikely to find e.g. a new SI base unit named after anyone any time soon.
Geoff C. W., Australia, 16 October 2016
Poor Dawkinsia. With a name like that, it will probably be extinct in no time!
S. H., United Kingdom, 17 October 2016
Ah, the great scientific and high thinking argument of those who profess great understanding... name-calling... The evolutionary mantra, like many other in our society is one of dominance, supercilious writing (God calls this pride) and of the need to silence any opposition - all in the name of tolerance. Like in other areas of society, it's no longer acceptable to even think or believe things contrary to the pronouncements of the high priests of evolution, atheism and liberalism. Setting themselves up as the arbiters of ever-shifting moral boundaries and laws, these are the new pharisees - arrogantly and boastfully setting themselves up as the greatest things. But like Nebuchadnezzar, God is well able to bring humility and a transformed life to those who set themselves up against him. And that is my prayer for those who seem to hate God so much. But they need to know that like Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, we will not bow down to anyone except the true God in heaven. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what people think. What matters is the truth. And the truth is Jesus and God's Word.
Hans G., Australia, 17 October 2016
This Dawkinsia fish is as colorful as its 'name father'. Why argue withe the evolutionists over crumbs by how many animals are named after their 'discoverer? Let's look at the creation side: Creation is named not only after who discovered it but who made it, the Creator. Jesus is the word and the creation was spoken into existence. The difference is, the creator made it, the evolutionist can only rename it after Adam did it first. Nothing new under the sun.
Chris C., United States, 17 October 2016
Out of curiosity, I Googled Dawkinsia. They are very attractive little fish from South India and Sri Lanka -- a true testament of their Maker's creative prowess. Dawkins would, of course, say that their beauty is a product of blind chance and ultimately pointless. The fish themselves are probably not too bothered by Dawkins' beliefs. I did note that the genus Dawkinsia was recently split off from the genus Puntus, and, considering how frequently the sands of evolutionary taxonomy shift, only God Himself knows how long Dawkinsia may remain a valid taxon.
Stephen H., United States, 19 October 2016
I believe Bacon and the other Bible influenced scientists who helped develop the scientific method got it from the Torah Law of two or three witnesses that establishes a matter. It is in two corollaries: Corollary One generically presented - in the mouth of ONE WITNESS shall no man be put to death." Jesus says, "If I bear witness of myself my witness is not true." Peter says it this way in the corrected to the Greek of 2 Peter 1:20, "...that every (single) prophecy of scripture is NOT OF ITS OWN INTERPRETATION." Corollary Two generically given - "in the mouth of WITNESSES, two or three, SHALL A MATTER (truth, judgment, doctrine) be established." Jesus speaks of it in Matthew 18 concerning church discipline and the makeup of a seed church...fit only in this way to be a witness to the world. When it is understood that the ellipsis or missing substantive in 1 Cor. 13:10 is TESTIMONY (being the neuter single word required and found in 1 Cor. 1:6 and 2:1), then 1 Cor. 13:12 can be seen as Paul's understanding of the stereoscopic effect of the testimony of each eye being so interpreted in the brain as he gives analogy on how Prophecy (and the other testimony of the marvelous sign gifts to the Jews) were to be interpreted (like in Chapter 14). With one eye looking at a picture of himself in a mirror there is KNOWLEDGE but understood enigmatically, as I try to figure in a single air photo if I am looking at a valley or a top of the mountain. but when the testimony is completed by a second or third testimony, then like having two eyes looking in the mirror, I can see my head swimming stereoscopically from the background, and THIS knowledge Paul calls not the gnosis of the single eyes but EPIGNOSIS or knowledge upon knowledge, as two eyes focus one testimony on another.
Don L., United States, 20 October 2016
The real question is can evolutionists be real scientists. The dogma of materialism where all else is categorically excluded is not scientific. Humanistic materialism is a religion where man is the final authority and therefore has made himself as God, hence a religion. When one excludes God the only thing left is the material. Evolution is the origins doctrine of the humanistic materialist. Without any proof evolution ever took place and never having observed evolution taking place it must be accepted on the basis of faith. Humanist materialists have faith in their own imagination and intellect and reject God. They should reject their own imagination and intellect as being infallible and by faith accept God who is infallible. In doing so they would be saved from their own error and the disastrous and eternally damning results and would come out of the darkness and into the light. Refer to the Bible - Romans chapter 1
Shaun Doyle responds
I don't think it's helpful for either side to claim that the other can't be scientists, or even good scientists. Paul Dirac was an outspoken atheist, but was instrumental in the formulation of quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking is an atheist, but is a justifiably well known theoretical physicist. As long as someone is willing to work with the assumptions of science, even if they don't pay any attention to the only worldview that grounds those assumptions, they will generally be able to do good (operational) science. But if they try to give an account of why science works, then they will run into problems. Historical science, especially of the deep past, is a different matter, though.