Creationism scientists ranked by idiocy

Creationism (idiocy)
American investigative journalist Charles Pierce’s 2009 Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free, depicting George Washington riding a dinosaur, is scathing raucous rant on the prevalence of ubiquitous idiocy and lunacy in America, largely surrounding creationism beliefs, using the Ken Ham’s 2007-launched Creation Museum (Ѻ) as a starting point, a discussion on how America as gone “marching backwards into the twenty-first century”, as Pierce puts it. [6]
In rankings, creationism scientists ranked by idiocy is a ranking of scientists who believe in creationism, in any of its forms, who mix science and religious arguments together, to “create”, no pun intended, published or stated idiocy.

“An intellectually honest ‘Christian evolutionist’, a term which itself is an oxymoron, has to check their brains at the church door.”
William Provine (1988), “Scientists Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible” [5]

Behe is an IDiot. It’s the same thing as a creationist, only with a thin veneer of more lies coated over it in an attempt to come across as scientific.”
— Anon (2011), blogspot post on the works of Michael Behe (Ѻ)

“I lost 5 IQ points reading Strobel's book, which was nothing more than mindless propaganda.”
— Anon (2003), commentary on Lee Strobel’s The Case For Christ (Ѻ)

The term “idiocy”, while not aiming to be derogatory or ad hominem, is used herein to refer to a scientist who (a) believes in the existence of god—knowing specifically that fewer than 5% of leading scientists currently believe in the existence of god—who created humans, earth, and or universe and (b) openly states, produces, and or publishes work arguing for “something notably stupid or foolish”, in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary sense of the matter, in support of point (a).

Acronym | Links
The abbreviation: CIR:#, e.g. Michael Behe (CIR:1), short for "Creationist Idiocy Ranking", or IR:#, David Roemer IR:20, are existography hyperlink acronym shortcuts.

The following is the work in progress ranked listing of creationism scientists ranked by descending order of idiocy:


1. Michael Behe 75Michael Behe
American biochemist
“an IDiot” (Ѻ)
“Irreducibly stupid” (Ѻ)
“Proven moron” (Ѻ)
Behe mousetrap analogyIn (Ѻ); he takes the cake!; his biochemical arguments in Darwin's Black Box, make the head hurt more and more, with each turn of the page, they are so incorrect.

Behe, who keeps a mousetrap in his office, uses what he calls a “mousetrap analogy” to argue that if “mechanical” parts of the trap were “designed” than so to must have been the “mechanical” parts of the cell; the designer of the former a person, the designer of the latter god.
2.Kent Hovind 75Kent Hovind
American amateur scientist
“Krazy Kent” (Ѻ)Hovind dinosaurs (labeled)In (Ѻ);

“I was a high school science teacher for 15 years. I had become a Christian at age 16, and right away ran into the conflict between what I was taught in my science textbook and what I'm reading in the Bible, so I knew somebody was wrong.”
— Kent Hoven (2000), Coast-to-Coast AM interview, Aug 2 (Ѻ)

See: Monkey Girl (pg. 33); known as "Dr. Dino" because he said that dinosaurs fit on Noah's ark, because Noah only took the eggs with him.
3.John Sanford 75John Sanford
American plant geneticist
“Creatard idiot” (Ѻ) Believes that people used to live to the age of 900 as stated in the Bible and argues that God gave us the genome and that the second law of thermodynamics can be found by plotting the descendents of Noah vs. life-span of each descendent.
4.Henry Morris 75Henry Morris
American civil engineer
“Morris the moron” (Ѻ) Noah's ark (new)Believes in the existence of Noah’s ark (Ѻ); his 1961 The Genesis Flood (1961), co-written with John Whitcomb, argues that geological theories do not truly depend on scientific data but are rather a "moral and emotional decision," in which evolutionists seek "intellectual justification for escape from personal responsibility to his Creator and escape from the ‘way of the Cross’ as the necessary and sufficient means of his personal redemption"; was eventually kicked out of Virginia Tech, in 1970, because his creationism writings were becoming "too controversial."
5.William Dembski 75William Dembski
American mathematician-theologian
“Dumbski Dembski” (Ѻ)In (Ѻ); stated, in his 2005 “A Reply to Henry Morris” that” (Ѻ), that “ID is part of God's general revelation," and "I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ" (Ѻ); see also: Monkey Girl (pgs. 288-89), 2007.
6.Stephen Meyer 75Stephen Meyer
Philosopher physicist
“moron Mr. Meyer” (Ѻ) Meyer DNA imbecilityDescribed as the leader of the “Idiots at the Discovery Institute”, conceived in 1994 over during a dinner conversation with George Gilder as “think tank opposed to materialism”; his 2013 Darwin’s Doubts turned him into a “fumbling bumbling fool” (Ѻ); has debated atheists: Peter Atkins, Eugenie Scott, and Michael Shermer; his Q&A dialogue, during his Lee Strobel (2004), is near on par with Michael Behe, in terms of “classic imbecility” of scientific distortion and reasoning—amid which he demurs that he is a basic a “William Paley” arguer in modern guise.
7.Deepak Chopra 75Deepak Chopra
Indian-born American physician and new age author
“Blithering moron” (Ѻ) Chopra quote generatorUses quantum mechanics to promote "woo woo physics" (Michael Shermer, 2010) quantum spirituality; spews out sentences like a typing monkey, as the random Chopra random quote generator (Ѻ) evidences.
8.Ken Ham 75Ken Ham
Australian-born American philosopher
“Cuckoo Ken” (Ѻ) In 1980, he spearheaded the formation of Answers in Genesis, in Australia, to promote creation science, centered around the premise of Biblical inerrancy in the Book of Genesis; in 2007, built the Creation Museum, Petersburg, Kentucky, showing humans playing with dinosaurs, all conceptualized as coming off Noah’s ark after the Biblical flood; in 2014, he debated Bill Nye the science guy, at the Creation Museum, the supreme loss by Nye being one of the goads to the initiation of Atheism Reviews.
9. David Menton 75David Menton
American anatomist
“American loon” (#270) Creation Museum (Homology)Guy behind the so-called “homology” exhibit at the Creation Museum (see: atheism timeline, 2007); contributed to the study of baraminology (Ѻ), a god-friendly alternative to Linnaean taxonomy classification. Exhibit Description: (Ѻ)

“Dr. David Menton, biologist, talks about the similarities (known as homology) in the skeletons of vertebrates. While the biology is similar in many ways, the differences between man and any of the animals are obvious. Most importantly, God created man in His image and with the ability to communicate with Him by reading the Bible and talking to God in prayer.”
10.Nickolas Dorfman 75Nickolas Dorfman
Russian-born American tumor immunologist

His Was Mona Lisa Created by Physicochemical Reactions Alone?, poses (pg. 33), that the trinity (father, son, and holy spirit) division of Christianity is representative of the science trinity or three “building blocks” of: protons, electrons, and radiation (or a soul); prior to this page 33, of his 91-page booklet, the margin notes: “stupid” (6), “what a mess” (1), “so stupid” (1), “retarted” (2), “very retarted” (5), “V.V.R” (1), abbreviation for “very very retarted”, and “jumped off the boat” (1), numbers indicated the number of times that epitaph is employed, are written in the Thims personal copy; the book cites Bernard Haisch (#13) and his The God Theory (2006) (Ѻ), but goes downhill from there.
11. Fred Wolf 75Fred Wolf
American loon (#421)
Quantum kook (Ѻ)
His Taking the Quantum Leap (1981) uses quantum mechanics to argue that “God’s order appears to us as a principle of uncertainty”, that we are “free to choose”, but that we “cannot predict the results of our choices”; his dozen or so books thereafter venture off into new age kingdom, e.g. his The Spiritual Universe: How Quantum Mechanics Proves the Existence of the Soul (1996), argues that individual souls don't exist, but rather there is one cosmic soul which is mysteriously linked with the vacuum of space; American theoretical physicist Jack Sarfatti (1939-) claims (Ѻ) that he and Wolf started the “new age physics” movement with the publication of their 1975 book Space-Time and Beyond, whose work was cited in Gary Zukav's 1979 The Dancing Wu Li Masters: an Overview of the New Physics. (Ѻ)
12. Hugh Ross 75Hugh Ross
Canadian astrophysicist
“useful idiot” (Ѻ) Runs; believes that while the earth is billions of years old, life did not appear by natural forces alone but that a supernatural agent formed different lifeforms in incremental (progressive) stages; asserts that the creation word "days" of Genesis, translated from the Hebrew word yom) are historic, distinct, and sequential, but not 24 hours in length nor equal in length, but rather interpretive to fit whatever scale one wants ; connected to Allan Sandage (#22) and Richard Smalley (#36).
13. Carl Wieland 75Carl Wieland
Austrian physician

Adam, god, rib (labeled)Runs (aka Creation Ministries International) the parallel of Ken Ham, who runs, the two once united; believes (Ѻ) that Eve was physically generated from Adam’s rib, because his surgeon told him: “we leave the periosteum intact, so the rib usually just grows right back again”, while taking bones from his ribs to re-construct his face, following a car accident; has given a talk on second law, miracles, and laws of nature. (Ѻ)
14.Michael Denton 75Michael Denton
British-Australian biochemist
“Knowledgeable IDiot” (Ѻ) His Evolution: a Theory in Crisis (1985) was inspiration to Michael Behe (#1). [2]
15. Grady McMurtry 75Grady McMurtry
American loon #1981 (Ѻ) Humans and dinosaursAmerican Christian apologist;

“People should not be surprised when mass shootings occur, such as the one on the Blacksburg university campus on Monday. And at Virginia Tech, what do we have? We have a person who, unfortunately, thought that humans had no more value than cats and dogs — and unfortunately, I think, probably felt the same way about themselves. And so what happens? If we are nothing but thinking animals, [and] if you have excess people, then you can just put them in a bag, throw them in the river the way you would too many kittens or too many puppies.”
— Grady McMurtry (2007) (Ѻ)

a former evolutionist (20-years) and theistic evolutionist (1.5-years) and now a biblical creationist (35+ years) (Ѻ); has a BS in agriculture (forestry), and MS in in environmental science, and a DD in theology (Ѻ); tweets (2018) (Ѻ)(Ѻ) that he is a “distinguished biblical scientist” with an IQ of 218; believes (Ѻ) that dinosaurs and people lived together in the recent past; discusses in video (Ѻ) his belief in Noah’s flood.
16.Jonathan Wells 75Jonathan Wells
“Loony IDiot” (Ѻ) His 1994 PhD molecular and cellular biology, completed at UC Berkeley, was funded by Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church, with the expressed aim to learn how to “destroy Darwinism”; some of which resulted in his Icons of Evolution (2000), wherein his main destruction technique is to attempt to discredit the Miller-Urey experiment by arguing that they used the wrong gases, therefore god is the correct solution; in 2004 was working at the Discovery Institute. [8]
17.Bjorn Sponberg 75 Bjorn Sponberg
Norwegian geneticist

Your basic lightweight Internet quack "god head" sideliner; thinks that Jesus Christ was a real person; that the Bible discussion about the lake of fire have something to do with thermodynamics, etc.; popped up in Hmolpedia threads promoting views (c.2014).
18.Bernard Haisch 75Bernard Haisch

Astrophysicist and former editor of Astrophysical Journal; his The God Theory: Universes, Zero-Point Fields, and What’s Behind it All (2006), is cited by Nikolas Dorfman (2008), employs double ontic opening arguments, e.g. “the Heisenberg principle mandates that all of space must be filled with zero-point energy” [hence] “living consciousness is the offspring of God, temporarily living in the realm of matter … we are immortal spiritual beings”.
19.Mirza Beg 75Mirza Beg
Indian-born Pakistani organometallic chemist
“Babbling baboon” (Ѻ) Muhammad's flying horse (labeled)Believes in the existence of Allah, Muhammad, and his superluminal "flying horse" (Ѻ); believes: (a) that physicochemical principles govern human interactions and reactions but also believes that (b) “it is only those who do not believe in the doomsday and the life after death that are the disciples of Satan and are bent on consuming for the so called development.” [1]
20.Chandra WickramasingheChandra Wickramasinghe
Sri Lankan-born British astrobiologist

A student and collaborator of Fred Hoyle whom with promoted panspermia; in 1974 they proposed the hypothesis that some dust in interstellar space was largely organic; in McLean vs Arkansas (1981), was the sole scientist who testified in defense of teaching creation science in public schools, alongside evolution, single scientist testifying for the defense of creationism, per the panspermia hypothesis of "the possibility of high intelligence in the universe and of many increasing levels of intelligence converging toward a god as an ideal limit." (Ѻ)
21.William Craig 75William Craig
American philosopher
“well-spoken idiot” (Ѻ) e.g. Boltzmann brains, thermodynamics arguments, relativity as ontic opening, etc. (Ѻ)
22.Francis Collins 75Francis Collins
American geneticist
“Lightweight dufus” (Ѻ) Described by Paul Myers (2009) as a “lovable dufus” when it comes to issues of religion and some scientific principles (Ѻ); as head of NIH, banned US stem cell research because he believed that stem cells have souls put into them by god; as described in his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, that after evolution had prepared a sufficiently advanced “brain”, that at some point God gifted humanity with the knowledge of good and evil, what he calls the “moral law”, with free will, and an immortal soul, and that some humans use their free will to break the moral law, leading to an estrangement from God, for which Jesus is the solution. [6] When pressed about the scientific details of his belief in soul and resurrection, according to Sam Harris (Ѻ), he deflects the question to consultation of English theoretical physicist and priest John Polkinghorne and English bishop N.T. Wright, whose work, according to Harris is “pure madness, a bizarre conflation, a word salad”.
23. Allan Sandage 75Allan Sandage
American astronomer

Big bang (god labeled)Of Jewish ethnicity; a virtual atheist as a child; came out in 1985, at age 50, during a conference on science and religion, as a Christian, telling the audience that the big bang was a supernatural event, that science had taking us to the “first event”, but it could not take us further to the “first cause”, i.e. the sudden emergence of matter, space, time, and energy, which pointed the need for some kind of transcendence; in 1998, he told a reporter: “It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence.” [9] Thinks science and religion are not in conflict. (Ѻ)
24.John Polkinghorne 75John Polkinghorne
English physicist and priest

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Intelligent DesignHis acceptance of the Templeton Prize is cited by Martinus Veltman (2003) as someone able to “bridge the gap between sense and nonsense”; cited (Ѻ) in the oxymoronically entitled 2006 book: The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Intelligent Design; his views are described by Sam Harris as: “pure madness, a bizarre conflation, a word salad”.
25.Gordon Van Wylen 75Gordon Wylen
(1920-) is an American mechanical engineer

The 1973 edition of his Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, co-authored with American mechanical engineer Richard Sonntag (1933-2010), wherein he states that the second law is “man’s description of the prior and continuing work of a creator”, has become a citation classic by creationists, and idol for other creationist thermodynamicist authors, e.g. see: Gilbert Wedekind (#20) and his 2003 Spiritual Entropy (pg. 148).
26.David Berlinski 75David Berlinski
American philosopher and mathematician

An agnostic leaning towards believer; author: The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions (2008); Berlinski, along with fellow Discovery Institute associates Michael Behe and William Dembski, tutored Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism (2006); Gives arguments against evolution (Ѻ) and atheism (Ѻ)
27.David Roemer 75David Roemer
American physicist
“Creationist crank” (Ѻ) Mailed his US senator Kirsten Gillibrand to American physicist Daniel Styer’s 2008 article “Entropy and Evolution” retracted from the American Journal of Physics, because of its “absurd” assertion that second law applies to biological evolution, hence contradicting the Bible ideology that the tendency to disorder views of the second law is proof of God's handwork in ordering human evolutionarily.
28. Gerald Schroeder 75Gerald Schroeder

A 2008 “Moron of the month” at Creationist Idiocy blogspot (Ѻ); Quote (2005): “several people have said The Science of God (1997) is completely unconvincing [because] reason #3: the author is an idiot” (Ѻ); Quote (2011): “Today's crackpot is Gerald Schroeder. “ (Ѻ)
29.Dean Kenyon 75Dean Kenyon
American biophysicist

Intelligent design (etymology)His Biochemical Predestination (1969), supposedly, parlayed Jacques Monod’s so-labeled “conceptual dichotomy between chance and necessity”, into a "necessity = predestination" ideology, according to which the “creator” is behind the predestination ; cited (Ѻ) in Idiot America (2009), is the idiot who, after losing the “creationism = science” argument, in the Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) case, went through Panda’s and People, with a software editor and simply replaced “creation” and “creationist” with “intelligent design” and “design proponent”; a key piece of testimony that was uncovered by philosopher and anti Discovery Institute activist Barbara Forrest during the Kitzmiller vs Dover (2005) trial; following which both “creationism” and intelligent design” were legally defined as non-scientific and religion-based.
30.Gilbert Wedekind 75Gilbert Wedekind
American thermodynamicist

A thermodynamics professor who believes that entropy is spiritual and wrote a book on this.
31.Adrian Hough 75Adrian Hough
English physical chemist and priest

His his 2010 The Flaw in the Universe attempts to explain both sin and natural disaster in terms of the second law
32. Christopher Langan 75Christopher Langan
American autodidact
“American loon” (#226) He’s a crank who objects (Ѻ) to being called a “crank” or “crackpot”; promotes what he calls a “theory model”, a terminology redundancy, which he further confabulates into the acronym CTMU, which he repeats ad nauseum, to argue that the Boolean algebra work of George Boole explains everything, including God. His “An Introduction to Mathematical Metaphysics” (2017) (Ѻ) uses Sokal affair stylized language to argue for teleological-based “self-theories” (a violation of the principle of inertia) of the universe.
33.Ian Hutchinson 75Ian Hutchinson
Plasma physicist and engineer

Advocates for Christianity in debate (15:45); in 2013 debate with Lawrence Krauss and Michael Shermer, argues for miracles in physics terms (Ѻ).
34.Emmett Williams

Published: Physical Science for Christian Schools (1974), Chemistry for Christian Schools (1978), and edited Thermodynamics and the Development of the Order (1981).
35.DMR Sekhar 75DMR Sekhar
Indian chemical engineer

Developed a concept (2007) called “genopsych” (or genpsy), a contraction of gene + psyche, which he believes is god or a part of god, inside of humans, that counters entropy, giving humans self-drive or self-motion, acting to evolve humans to their present form.
36.Granville SewellGranville Sewell
American mathematician

As stated in his “A Mathematician’s View of Evolution” (2000), began working with Michael Behe in 1997, suggesting that mathematics, physics, and computer science could facilitate his “irreducible complexity” theory, and cites people, such as George Simpson (“The History of Life”, 1960) and Francis Hitchens (The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, 1982) to argue that gaps exist in fossil records therefore god exists.
37.Arno Penzias 75Arno Penzias
German-born American physicist

Big bang (god labeled)Thinks his CMB radiation data, which supports big bang theory, fits the “predictions” found in the first five books of Moses; thinks the Jews were the chosen people, etc.
38.Robert E. Clark
British organic chemist

39.Richard Smalley 75Richard Smalley
American chemist and physicist

He "pulled a Neumann", so to say, see: Neumann on god, in his last two years of existence, while dying (dereacting) from Leukemia, joined the cause
40. Henri Bergson 75Henri Bergson
French philosopher

Curator of thermodynamic-themed "creative evolution" theory (1907); not necessarily idiot, but embedded or rather riddled with coded error.
41. Alister McGrath 75Alister McGrath
English chemist and molecular biochemist

A chemistry, molecular biochemistry, turned theologian; has debated Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens; and given talks such as “The Bankruptcy of Scientific Atheism” (2015). (Ѻ)
42. Stuart Kauffman 75Stuart Kauffman
American physician and biochemist

Not necessarily idiot (actually the last of the sharp ontic opening theorists), but embedded or rather riddled with coded error.
43. Pierre Teilhard 75Pierre Teilhard
French priest and physical chemist

Very sharp guy, whose theories boarder on reality, albeit slightly slanted towards religious patching.
44.Edwin Slosson 75Edwin Slosson (1865-1929)
American religion reconciling chemist

Fairly sharp ideologies; his belief system consisted of the core belief that "God's willings are the immutable laws of nature".
45.Prigogine 75Ilya Prigogine
Russian-born Belgian chemist and thermodynamicist

Trojan godA self-defined Jewish scientist; his views are a bit camouflaged by nonequilibrium thermodynamics, are a modified Pierre Teilhard bifurcation-divided omega point theory, a god-guided automaton universe, as he says in his 1983 Omni magazine interview with Robert Tucker (Ѻ), wherein we approach increased spirituality up to each new bifurcation.

Prigogine’s theory, in short, is a thermodynamics-masquerading Trojan horse, with Henri Bergson’s creative evolution inside, thereby letting “spirituality” into the house of science.
46.John Neumann 75John Neumann
Hungarian-born American

Pascal's wager (labeled)Was a joking secular non-practicing Jewish-Christian agnostic throughout his existence, but during his last last 18-months dereacting (dying) from cancer, was begging for a priest so he could take Pascal's wager (see: Neumann on god), because he couldn't figure out if god existed or not, and was terrified of non-existence; not necessarily overtly idiotic, but in an era (1950s) when some 85 to 90 percent of the world's leading scientists (see: plot below) no longer believed in the existence of god, this would seem to be a glaring oversight for the supposed world's last contender for title of the "last of the last universal geniuses"?

Adds | Possible
The following are possible religious-minded scientists in need of idiocy ranking :

Charles Wynn (1939-) | American chemical engineer and organic chemist
Brad Harrub (c.1970-) (see: Rennie creationism fiasco)
Bert Thompson (c.1960-) | AL#1203 (Ѻ) (see: Rennie creationism fiasco)

(add discussion)

Idiot scale
A general range IQ scale, according to which "idiots" are classified as having an IQ of 20 in general intelligence; someone, scientists in particular, likewise, who makes belief system statements comprised of idiotic logic has a "religious IQ" in the 20-point range.
Religious IQ
The term “idiocy”, employed herein is used in the reference not necessarily to one’s “general” IQ, on the 100 = average (normal) scale, a modern 21st century person may very well be a Harvard-educated Christian, but specifically with reference to one’s “religious IQ”, the term religion employed herein—nor necessarily per the notion of “Religious IQ” as 2010 Pew researchers define the term, based on a 32-question quiz (Ѻ), e.g. “when does the Jewish Sabbath begin?” (Fri, Sat, or Sun) or “what is Ramadan? (Hindu festival, Jewish day, or Islamic month), etc.—but rather in the etymological sense of the Latin -ligare “to bind” meaning the belief system or belief state that binds a person to an ideology or group of people in possession of similar ideologies:

religion (etymology)

according to which one’s actions are guided or in “restrained, tied back”, in the sense of religare, i.e. beliefs one relies on, wherein IQR = 100 equates to average (or normal). Hence, someone such as Benedict Spinoza, in whose Ethics very few if any at all “idiotic” arguments can be found, cited with a general Cox-Buzan IQ of 175, also has a very high “religious IQ”. Conversely, however, when one is a science-educated Christian, Muslim, or Hindu there is occurs a collision in the mind of the recipient of two competing and incongruent belief systems, whereby, often times, amendment, reconciliation, or two belief system patching is attempted, ripe statements of idiocy quickly tend to arise, according to which one’s religious IQ falls into the “idiocy” (IQ=20) category range. A physical science trained scientist who, e.g. believes in both speed of light traveling flying horses and the theory of relativity, simultaneously, becomes an “idiot”, pure and simple, being that the former idea is impossible under implications of the latter.

scientists and belief in god (labeled)
A graph showing the trend lines for belief in the existence of god by scientists, both general or randomly polled US scientists (o) and ‘greater’ or National Academy of Science (NAS) member scientists (♦), based on the James Leuba (1912,1924) studies and the Edward Larson and Larry Witham (1996,1998) studies, of over 3,000+ American scientists combined. [3]
Rosetta stone | Turning point
With fewer than 5% of leading scientists believing in the existence of god, shown adjacent, scientists who go against the grain and argue for a theory considered defunct by 95 percent of modern scientific thinkers, idiocy is sure to sprout. There was, however, a time when this was not so. Isaac Newton, e.g., was a believe in the existence of god.

As to when the turning point or tipping point occurred, the adjacent graph indicates that the point at which the switch from leading scientists believing in god being a majority to a minority, i.e. the 50% belief view, occurred in the period 1812 to 1870.

The years 1814 to 1818, in which English polyintellect Thomas Young (IQ=200), a devout Quaker, by religion—who, for the most part, remained private about his faith—began to translate the Rosetta Stone, the key to Egyptian origin to seventy-two percent of all modern religions, might well be the demarcation point in which true scientist would seemingly need to begin to come to grips with the foundations his or her faith, as far as existing knowledge allows or be left with one of two options: (a) remain private about one’s own faith or (b) speak out about one’s faith in the face of both growing scientific knowledge and understanding about natural phenomena and the mythological basis of Egyptian origins to the world’s modern religions. [4] It is in option (b), particularly into the 20th century, wherein one begins to find idiocy in argued opinion among so-called “scientists”, albeit not “real scientists”, as Peter Atkins (1997) sees things, quote below on results of adjacent data set: [5]

“You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don’t think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge.”

Young, in short, was a genius par excellence, yet he never published not stated any “idiocy” regarding his faith; though, to note, he did publically cease to be a Quaker in his mid-twenties, marry a non-Quaker, and later began to regard himself as a member of the Church of England in adulthood. [3] In this scenario, owing to the taciturn philosophy of Young, in regards to his religious opinion, it is very difficult to find any citation referring to Thomas Young as an “idiot”.
Big Valley Creation Science MuseumThe Book of Moron
Left: the Big Valley Creation Science Museum (Ѻ) opened in 2007 in Big Valley, Alberta, Canada, to promote "creation science" (or creationism science), i.e. idiocy, e.g. trying to explain why dinosaurs weren’t mentioned in the Bible. Right: The Book of Moron (Ѻ) one of the good books in the library of the creationist scientist.

When, conversely, a modern scientist, or semi-modern, e.g. William Thomson (c.1905), follows the path of option (b), statements to the effect of near-idiocy may accrue:

Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atoms. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living creatures.”

While not completely "idiotic", Thomson does chalk off the issue to the hands of god and miracles. In any event, into the mid 20th century and going forward is where some of the more idiotic publications are found, the idiocy of which tends to increase in reciprocal proportion to disbelief in god by leading scientists.

The following are related quotes:

Religion is so absurd that it comes close to imbecility.”
Henry Mencken (1930), “Treatise on the Gods”

“Who exactly are these ‘smart people’ you speak of still advocating god? I happen to be on page 220 of Stuart Kauffman's 2008 Reinventing the Sacred, and I have written the terms: idiot, moron, stupid, garbage, retarded, etc., in the margins over several dozen times so far. The worst of all of them is Michael Behe, and Kauffman is not far off.”
Libb Thims (2010), post #9 reply to “Whoever wrote the ‘God’ section” thread, Nov 27 (Ѻ)

“And you know, I get a lot of grief out there. People say, ‘How can you be a scientist and believe that god created the earth? Obviously, you know [they say] we developed from a puddle of promiscuous biochemicals. And if you believe in anything other than that, you’re a moron.’ I don’t criticize them. I say, ‘Can you tell me how something came from nothing?’ And of course they can’t. They say ‘well, we don’t understand everything.’ I say ‘ok, no problem’. ‘I’m just going to give you that there’s something’. And now you’re going to tell me there’s a big bang, and it comes into perfect order? So that we can predict seventy-years hence when a comet is coming, that kind of precision. And they say, ‘Well, yeah.’ And I say, ‘But don’t you also believe in entropy, that things move toward a state of disorganization?’ [they say] ‘Well yah’. [I say] ‘So how does that work? “And they say, ‘We don’t understand everything.’ And I said ‘I’m not sure you understand anything! ‘ But, I said, ‘I’m not going to be critical of you, not a problem. You’re entitled to believe what you believe, even though it requires a lot more faith than what I believe. But everybody believe what you want to believe.”
Ben Carson (2015), campaign speech (Ѻ) (V:0:08-1:42), Liberty University, Nov 11; in 6 Oct 2015 Carson commented (Ѻ), on The View, how some of the people he talked to about this evolution question included Nobel laureates; and in 2011, he was in a theist debate team (Ѻ) with Francis Collins against atheists Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett

Intelligent design humor
A cartoon showing the idiocy of belief in miracles and intelligent design.
1. Beg, Mirza. (c.2014). “Population Growth No Constraint to Development” (Ѻ),
2. Humes, Edward. (2007). Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America’s Soul (pg. 129). Harper Perennial.
3. (a) Leuba, James H. (1916). The Belief in God and Immortality: A Psycholgical, Anthropolgical and Statistical Study. Sherman, French & Co.
(b) Leuba, James H. (1933). “Religious Beliefs of American Scientists,” Harper’s Magazine, 169, 291-300.
(c) James H. Leuba – Wikipedia.
4. Graves, Dan. (1996). Scientists of Faith: Forty-Eight Scientists and Their Christian Faiths (§24: Thomas Young, pgs. 91-93). Kregel Resources.
5. (a) Atkins, Peter. (1997). “Comment”, in: “Article” (Highfield, R.), The Daily Telegraph (pg. 3), Apr 3.
(b) Larson, Edward J. and Witham, Larry. (1998). “Leading Scientists Still Reject God”, Nature, 394:313, Jul 23.
6. Harris, Sam. (2010). The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Moral Values (pgs. 160-173). Free Press.
7. (a) Provine, William. (1988). “Scientists Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible”, The Scientist, 2.
(b) Strobel, Lee. (2004). The Case for a Creator: a Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God (pg. 27). Zondervan, 2009.
8. Strobel, Lee. (2004). The Case for a Creator: a Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God (Wells, pg. 45). Zondervan, 2009.
9. (a) Begley, Sharon. (1998). “Science Finds God”, Newsweek, Jul 20.
(b) Strobel, Lee. (2004). The Case for a Creator: a Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God (pg. 84). Zondervan, 2009.

External links
List of creationist scientists –
Main (2009) –

TDics icon ns

More pages