Prior to reading the answers below, it is perhaps important to note that there is no 'creation theory'. There are various religious creation myths, but no comprehensive and robust scientific model that has any explanatory or predictive power.
Answer: Quite a few scientists support creation theory. This places them out of step with the mainstream scientists who believe in autobiogenesis, or a spontaneous origin of life, coupled with evolution. As Richard Dawkins put it "It is a monumental disagreement. One side or the other has got to be wrong, and not just slightly wrong but catastrophically, ignominiously, disastrously wrong."
Prior to the 20th Century, most scientists believed in Creation.
Today, there are numerous organizations of scientists who support creation theory: Answers in Genesis ; Creation Research, Science Education Foundation; Institute for Creation Research; The Creation SuperLibrary and others. Some publish peer-reviewed journals, such as the Creation Research Society's CRS Journal and the Journal of Creation by Creation Ministries International (The Australian arm of Answers in Genesis).
Answer While it is true that many "scientists" disagree with evolution in favor of creationism, that number drops significantly when you consider only those who study nature or life, and is almost non-existent when you consider only those with expertise in fields like Biology, Paleontology, geology or Astronomy - the above list may seem impressive, but it is out of well over a hundred thousand PhD scientists alive today. Now it's also important to note that many scientists believe in some sort of god or creator, but are not creationists. Creationism generally refers to strict 6-day creation fundamentalism or the movement to teach that there is a god in science classes in public schools. About 60% of scientists believe in a personal god, many believe this god created life indirectly, which can be considered a different sort of creationism. Meanwhile about 99.85% of earth and life scientists (those same scientists who mostly believe in a personal god) accept evolution as well.
Answer Yes, quite a few actually. Many scientists and researchers have come to support the creation theory because as they study 'Creation -vs- Evolution' they have found that there are more 'holes' in the evolution theory than there are in 'Creation'.
Both Creationism and Evolution start with presuppositions. Evolution starts with the presupposition that God, if He exists, played no part in the development of species, but that they developed by macro-evolution or chance mutations that resulted in benefit to the organisms; Creationism presumes that He created all species, and that there are minor adaptions which occur naturally, called micro-evolution.
According to research by Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and author of The God Delusion, most eminent scientists do not even believe in a personal god, let alone the creation theory.
Some, if not most, of the scientists who believe in a god would believe in theistic evolution. So, the number of eminent scientists who believe in creationism appears to be very small.
Newsweek (June 29, 1987) reported, "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." So, yes, there is a very, very small number of scientists who believe in the creation theory.
For more information, please visit: http://Christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
There is no scientific theory of creation.
There are evidences to support it. Scientists have proven its theory.
Very few scientists support the Steady State Theory.
Because they are not scientists and have ideological commitments that occludes their view of the truth. When you have a conclusion and then go looking for facts to support you are not doing science. Creation stories are a dime a dozen. All cultures have them and none of these stories, with some of the contradicting each other, agree with reality.
modify the theory or discard it altogether.
Wegner's theory was not accept because he didn't have much evidence to support his theory with and scientists thought that there might have been a land bridge between the continents. Another reason to why his theory was rejected was that he was a foreigner, by that; the scientists didn't really take him seriously.
Each scientists have there own opinion. Some accept theories and some have to have facts.
Christian scientists tend to believe in the theory of creation. However, this is not always the case. Creation is the theory which suggests God created the world, however there are different opinions to whether he created the world in 7 days or 7 years or 7000 years. But to answer your question, generally they believe in creation. (see Geneseis - first book in The Bible - for more detail)
Scientists have not developed any theories about God's creation. They investigate the natural world and its origins, but have found no evidence that would require involvement of God (or gods) in the origin of the world.
Because all of the observations and evidence are used for support.
Discard it all.
Do you really want to ask me this
Most scientists originally reject the theory of continental drift since it did clearly explain continents would move. This is a theory that has been established by Wegener and did not get good support initially.
Lots of things get created, but it is only the creation of the universe which requires a theory of creation. Various theories exist.
A few of the different theories on the creation of the solar system are the genesis theory, the creation theory, and the big bang theory.
Science, or Scientists simply explain the creation of the solar system as the part of the "BIG BANG" Theory.
Real scientists do not "gather evidence in support of" any theory. The technical term for that kind of thing is "cherry-picking". Real scientists build a theory to explain the evidence that they have already gathered, and then test the theory to see whether it holds water. The easiest, fastest way to make sure that you are regarded as a wingnut by real scientists is to adopt or invent a theory, and then spend your time trying to prove it.
The Doppler effect and background cosmic radiation are the big ones.
Scientists believe that experiments can test hypotheses and answer the specific scientific question at hand and can either support or deny the justification of a theory. Either way, the theory will always have outliers and cases that reduce its legitimacy. While a theory can become very strong in its support, scientists say that nothing can ever be 100% "proven"
Drill cores from the ocean floor were dated and found to be very young compared to the age of the earth. This means the crust had to be formed recently, which can be explained by creation of crust at a spreading center.
Instead of just stating his own personal opinions John Dalton cited evidence to support his atomic theory. The giving of evidence - which could be proved or disproved by others - was what soon resulted in his theory being accepted by scientists.
If you browse around this category, you will find several similar questions with replies that answer your query. ==================================== Real scientists do not "gather evidence in support of" any theory. The technical term for that kind of thing is "cherry-picking". Real scientists build a theory to explain the evidence that they have already gathered, and then test the theory to see whether it holds water. The easiest, fastest way to make sure that you are regarded as a wingnut by real scientists is to adopt or invent a theory, and then spend your time trying to prove it.