January 25, 2011 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, firstname.lastname@example.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article)
Charles Darwin did not offer any scientifically-proven evidence for his theory. The book On the Origin of Species did not prove that species arise from the process of natural selection. It only proved that species adapt through various processes. A century and a half has passed since Darwin published his thesis, and the scientific proof remains elusive. In fact, remove the evolutionary assumptions, and the evidence disappears.
Consider the following testimonies from Ph.D. scientists, most of whom once believed in evolution:
Despite all the millions of pages of evolutionist publications–from journal articles to textbooks to popular magazine stories–which assume and imply that material processes are entirely adequate to accomplish macroevolutionary miracles, there is in reality no rational basis for such belief (John Baumgardner, Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA, In Six Days, p. 230).
I reviewed many books on Darwinism and from them outlined the chief evidence for evolution, which included vestigial organs, homology, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, beneficial mutations, evidence of poor design, the fossil record, atavisms, nascent organs, the argument from imperfect, natural selection, microevolution versus macroevolution, shared genetic errors, the backward retina, junk DNA, and other topics. … Slowly, but surely, I was able to eliminate all of the main arguments used to support evolutionism by researching secular literature only. At some point I crossed the line, realizing the case against evolutionism was overwhelming and conversely, so was the case in favor of the alternative, creationism (Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. in human biology from columbia Pacific University and Ph.D. in measurement and evolution from Wayne State University, Persuaded by the Evidence, chapter 4).
there is not one single instance whereby all the tests essential to the establishment of the scientific validity of evolution have been satisfied. There are hypotheses, grandiose models, suppositions, and inferences, all of which are formulated and reinforced within the collective and self-serving collaborations of the evolutionist gurus. However, none of this amounts to true scientific evidence for evolution. It was in the 1970s that, to my great surprise, bewilderment, and disgust, I became enlightened to this (Edward Boudreaux, Ph.D. in chemistry from Tulane University, In Six Days, p. 205).
Over a period of a couple of years, it became apparent to me that the theory of evolution has no legitimate factual evidence (John Cimbala, Ph.D. in aeronautics from the California Institute of Technology, In Six Days, p. 201).
As I looked at the evidence–trying to be a dispassionate scientist–I could not find the evidence for the multitudes of intermediate forms which should exist if evolution was true (Raymond Jones, Ph.D. in biology, Standing Firm, The Genesis Files, edited by Carl Wieland, p. 28).
It is my conviction that if any professional biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully the assumptions upon which the macro-evolutionary doctrine rests, and the observational and laboratory evidence that bears on the problem of origins, he/she will conclude that there are substantial reasons for doubting the truth of this doctrine (Dean Kenyon, Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University, The Creationist View of Biological Origins, NEX4 Journal, Spring 1984, p. 33).
I have never seen any evidence for evolution. All that I see around me in nature points to a divine designer (Angela Meyer, Ph.D. in horticultural science from the University of Sydney, In Six Days, p. 143).
How secure is the idea that there is an uninterrupted creative sequence from the big bang through the formation of the solar system, the solidification of the earth, the spontaneous generation of life, and the evolution of plants, animals, and humans to end in the world around us today? Is this scheme impregnable? By no means. It has fatal gaps and inconsistencies (Colin Mitchell, Ph.D. in desert terrain geography from Cambridge University).
I no longer believed there was any validity to Darwinism, having become convinced of this as much by the evolutionist literature I had read as by the creationist books. The standards of evidence supporting evolution seemed trivial compared to the evidence on which engineers have to base their work (Henry Morris, Ph.D. in hydraulics and hydrology from the University of Minnesota, Persuaded by the Evidence, p. 222).
I have studied a lot of arguments from evolutionists; I have had seven formal debates with evolutionary professors at universities, and I have never read or heard any scientific fact that contradicts what the Bible says. There are evolutionist’s interpretations of the facts, but the facts themselves are not contrary to Scripture (Terry Mortenson, Ph.D. in the History of Geology from Coventry University, interview with David Cloud at the Creation Museum, June 23, 2009).
For three years, I used all the evolutionary arguments I knew so well [to debate chemistry professor Dr. Charles Signorino]. For three years, I lost every scientific argument. In dismay, I watched the myth of evolution evaporate under the light of scientific scrutiny, while the scientific case for Creation-Corruption-Catastrophe-Christ just got better and better. It’s no wonder that the ACLU (actually the anti-Christian lawyers union) fights by any means to censor any scientific challenge to evolution! (Gary Parker, Ph.D. in biology/geology from Ball State University, Persuaded by the Evidence, p. 254).
After all the research to date, we are still unable to explain the origin of galaxies as inhomogeneities in the universe from the perspective of evolution. We seem, in fact, to be further away from a satisfactory explanation of evolutionary galactic origins than we were when we started to study the subject, using modern physical theory. As in one field of science, so in all others, we are unable to explain the origin of the beautiful and complex realities of this world from an evolutionist approach (John Rankin, Ph.D. in mathematical physics from the University of Adelaide, In Six Days, p. 122).
Progressing in my studies, I slowly realized that evolution survives as a paradigm only as long as the evidence is picked and chosen and the great poll of data that is accumulating on life is ignored. As the depth and breadth of human knowledge increases, it washes over us a flood of evidence deep and wide, all pointing to the conclusion that life is the result of design (Timothy Standish, Ph.D. in biology and public policy from George Mason University, In Six Days, p. 117).
If the evolution or creationism discussion were decided by sensible appeals to reason, evolution would long ago have joined the great philosophical foolishnesses of the past, with issues such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or the flat-earth concept. … evolution is not adhered to on scientific grounds at all. Rather, it is clung to though flying in the face of reason, with an incredible, fanatical, and irrational religious fervor. It loudly claims scientific support when, in fact, it has none worthy of the name (Ker Thomson, D.Sc. in geophysics from the Colorado School of Mines, former director of the U.S. Air Force Terrestrial Sciences Laboratory, In Six Days, p. 217).
The principles and observations of true science do not contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, but in fact offer support for the creation of all things in six days! (Jeremy Walter, Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, Pennsylvania State University, In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, edited by John Ashton, pp. 21, 22).
I am firmly convinced that there is far more scientific evidence supporting a recent, six-day creation and global flood than there is an old earth and evolution (Keith Wanser, Ph.D. in condensed matter physics from the University of California, Irvine, In Six Days, pp. 103, 104).
I became convinced that people believe in evolution because they choose to do so. It has nothing at all to do with evidence. Evolution is not a fact, as so many bigots maintain. There is not a shred of evidence for the evolution of life on earth (A.J. Monty White, Ph.D. in gas kinetics from the University College of Wales, In Six Days, pp. 257, 259, 260, 263).
In 1969 Dr. John Grebe, speaking to the Texas State School Board, offered a $1,000 reward to anyone who could provide any first example of physically verifiable evidence (or even a basic mathematical model) sufficient to elevate the then hypothesis of macroevolution up to the status of scientific theory. The challenge was offered to the top evolutionary scientists of that day. Grebe was the director of nuclear and basic research at Dow Chemical, Midland, Michigan. One man who tried to collect was atheist David Bradbury. He had been a brash defender of evolution for 20 years since his university days. Not only was he not able to find the evidence to defend evolution. Bradbury eventually became a Bible-believing Christian and he re-offered Grebe’s challenge. On January 28, 2002, he wrote,
This $1,000 challenge remains open (and uncollected). Until someone (teacher, board member or professor) can cite even a single example of empirically confirmable evidence that random shifts in gene frequency acted upon by natural selection can (or does) cumulatively collect to produce macro-evolutionary change, it would appear only reasonable to responsibly refrain from introducing such conjecture as proper scientific theory to students and to the public (Report on Comments on Proposed Modifications to Draft of Ohio Science Academic Content Standards, http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/ohioreport020402.htm, viewed April 5, 2010).
Distributed by Way of Life Literature’s Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/wayoflife/subscribe.html. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 27th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://www.wayoflife.org/publications/index.html. Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, email@example.com. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but only from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/wayoflife/makeanoffering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org
WAY OF LIFE LITERATURE SHARING POLICY: Much of our material is available for free, such as the hundreds of articles at the Way of Life web site. Other items we sell to help fund our very expensive literature, video, and foreign church planting ministry. Way of Life’s content falls into two categories: sharable and non-sharable. Things that we encourage you to share include the audio sermons, video presentations, O Timothy magazine, and FBIS articles. You are free to make copies of these at your own expense and share them with friends and family. You are also welcome to use excerpts from the articles. All we ask is that you give proper credit. Things we do not want copied and distributed freely are items like the Fundamental Baptist Digital Library, print edition of our books, PDFs of the books, etc. These items have taken years to produce at enormous expense in time and money, and we need the income from the sale of these to help fund the ministry. We trust that your Christian honesty will preserve the integrity of this policy.
A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe humans evolved through natural processes alone. Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement. The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of intelligent design over evolution. …
The prestigious science journal Science reported the following in 2006 concerning the United States: ˜The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from seven per cent in 1985 to 21 percent last year.
In January 2006, the BBC reported concerning Britain: Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll. Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons (Evolution, Conservapedia).
DR. JOHN GREBE’S CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTION
May 19, 2010 (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, firstname.lastname@example.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -
The following is excerpted from David Bradbury, A Reluctant Convert from Evolutionism, Persuaded by the Evidence (Master Books, 2008), edited by Doug Sharp and Jerry Bergman chapter 2:
In 1949, I graduated from the University of Michigan with a science degree and a firm belief that biological evolution was the proper scientific explanation for life as observed on earth today. … I was a firm believer in and outspoken defender of chance evolution for the next three decades. Even today I still well recall (now with some embarrassment) the warm glow of intellectual superiority I felt as I confidently assured less well-educated others about how ˜molecules to man’ evolution was well and scientifically established. …
Interestingly the circumstance prompting my first, admittedly belated, effort to examine this evidence came only upon a surprise encounter with what I perceived to be a totally reckless and unfounded challenge made before the Texas State Board of Education in November 1969. This was in the form of a $1,000 (more than $10,000 in today’s value) offer by a Mr. John Grebe to anyone (board member, scientist, college professor, or other) able to provide any first example of physically verifiable evidence (or even a basicÂ mathematical model) sufficient to elevate the then hypothesis of macrvolution up to the status of scientific theory as then being proposed for inclusion in new textbooks under consideration.
Once I discovered that this challenge was still open, I seriously set out to collect this easy money. Sure, the dollars involved provided immediate incentive, but my greater desire at the time was to publicly embarrass this Mr. Grebe and put an end, once and for all, to such irresponsible attacks by so-called ˜creationists’ on what I then accepted as well-established scientific determinations.
I started by leafing through multiple textbooks to select representative claims. Then it was off to the science archives in local and university libraries (these were pre-Internet days) to locate and copy the original source data from the supporting experiments that would compel Mr. Grebe to part with his money and eat humble pie. At the time, I expected to quickly select from any number of verifiable confirmations that the progressive steps involved in macrvolution had indeed been checked and double-checked by responsible scientific experiments. However, to my disappointment and near disbelief, I could find no such objective confirming evidence anywhere then–nor after following years of continuing search is there any to be found, even today.
Indeed, this continuing absence only further confirmed that none of the claims purporting to qualify macrvolution as scientific are supported by the physical verification criteria required in the universally taught empirical (or Baconian) scientific method. … All I could find in general-use texts then, and still in most texts today, were unsupported claims, statements, and assertions reflecting the consensus acceptance (˜beliefs’) of the prevailing evolutionary community.
Even with this troubling realization, my school-instilled trust in science as the best, if not only, method to compellingly establish physical truths was so deeply embedded, I continued to wrestle with this problem for a number of additional years before finally conceding that perhaps Dr. Grebe’s $1,000 challenge was not in as much danger as I had initially presumed. This change was also further influenced by my learning that the man issuing this challenge was actually Dr. John J. Grebe, the excellently credentialed director of basic research for the Dow Chemical Company, and not the irresponsible know-nothing I initially presumed. Also, that his offer was directed toward the leading evolutionists of the day (Simpson, Dobzhansky, Ayala, Grant, etc.) then championing the elevation of evolution from its long-accepted status of hypothesis to far higher status of theory in the next generation of undergraduate science textbooks. …
Gradually, throughout the course of this now 50-year, sometimes wavering, and often sputtering venture, many unexpected good things have come my way. I started out as a happy, trusting, but scientifically misinformed atheist thinking I knew a lot more about evolution than I really did, whereas today, thanks to a loving Christian wife, much fascinating research (all without the range of those seeking to separate wheat from chaff), thoughtful advice from patient evolutionists and non-evolutionist advisors, and a resultant deeper understanding of the intricate processes involved in macrvolution, I’ve come full circle. Once the artificial ˜intellectual’ (scientific) barrier against religion posed by evolution was exposed, and serious consideration again given to spiritual matters, my return to Christianity has been personally most rewarding. For a while I was led to accept Richard Dawkins’s view that ˜Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist,’ but having once been blind, it makes the truth and light available to all mankind in Scripture all the more appreciated.
David Bradbury eventually became a Bible-believing Christian, and he re-offered Grebe’s challenge. On January 28, 2002, he wrote,
This $1,000 challenge remains open (and uncollected). Until someone (teacher, board member or professor) can cite even a single example of empirically confirmable evidence that random shifts in gene frequency acted upon by natural selection can (or ds) cumulatively collect to produce macro-evolutionary change, it would appear only reasonable to responsibly refrain from introducing such conjecture as proper scientific theory to students and to the public (Report on Comments on Proposed Modifications to Draft of Ohio Science Academic Content Standards, http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/ohioreport020402.htm, viewed April 5, 2010).
In April 2009, Terry Mortenson of the Creation Museum in America, said: There are literally thousands of scientists around the world that believe the Bible. There is an organization in the United States with 700 scientists who have a Masters or Ph.D. in the hard sciences.
[Enlarged September 5, 2009 (first published August 8, 2009) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, email@example.com; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -]
High Schools, colleges, and universities typically teach only one theory of origins, that being evolution, and the students are not presented with a creationist viewpoint. In fact, they are often given the idea that no true scientist today is a creationist. When the National Academy of Sciences in America published an educational tool in 1998 entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, they posed this question, Don’t many scientists reject evolution? The answer was, No; the scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming.
Richard Dawkins, a brash atheist and anti-creationist, says in his recent book The Greatest Show in Earth, Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. … Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.
According to Dawkins, if you reject evolution, you are unintelligent and your sanity should be questioned, and he proclaims that no reputable scientist disputes it.
In fact, modern science was invented by men who believed in divine creation. In his book Refuting Evolution, Jonathan Sarfati, who has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand, and is a national chess champion, says:
It is fallacious to claim, as many evolutionists do, that believing in miracles means that laboratory science would be impossible. In fact, most branches of modern science were founded by believers in the Bible’s account of creation.
Consider some samples:
Physics — Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Joule
Chemistry – Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
Biology – Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
Geology – Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
Astronomy – Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
Mathematics – Pascal, Leibniz, Euler
In 1979, Science Digest reported that scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities, and stated that, Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science (Larry Hatfield, Educators Against Darwin, Science Digest Special, Winter 1979, pp. 94-96).
Dr. Sarfati continues:
Even today, many scientists reject evolution. The Creation Ministries International staff scientists have published many scientific papers in their own fields. Dr. Russell Humphreys, a nuclear physicist working with Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has had over 20 articles published in physics journals, while Dr. John Baumgardner’s catastrophic plate tectonics theory was reported in Nature magazine. Dr. Edward Boudreaux of the University of New Orleans has published 26 articles and four books in physical chemistry. Dr. Maciej Giertych, head of the Department of Genetics at the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, has published 90 papers in scientific journals. Dr. Raymond Jones was described as one of Australia’s top scientists for his discoveries about the legume Leucaena and bacterial symbiosis with grazing animals, worth millions of dollars per year to Australia. Dr. Brian Stone has won a record number of awa rds for excellence in engineering teaching at Australian universities (Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, 2007, pp. 26-28).
I guess Dawkins forgot about those scientists.
The man behind the Apollo moon mission, rocket scientist Wernher von Braun, believed that God created the world.
Duane Gish has a Ph.D. in biochemistry and worked for many years in pharmaceutical research at Cornell University, the University of California, and the Upjohn Company. As a biochemist, he has synthesized peptides, compounds intermediate between amino acids and proteins. He has been co-author of a number of outstanding publications in peptide chemistry. Gish lists the following scientists who reject evolution and believe in creationism. Let’s see if any of them might be considered reputable.
While it is true that creationists among scientists definitely constitute a minority, there are many creation scientists, and their number is growing. Among these may be numbered such well-established scientists as the late Dr. W. R. Thompson, world-famous biologist and former Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control of Canada; Dr. Melvin A. Cook, winner of the 1968 E. G. Murphee Award in Industrial and Engineering Chemistry from the American Chemical Society and also winner of the Nobel Nitro Award, now president of the Ireco Chemical Company, Salt Lake City; Dr. Henry M. Morris, for thirteen years Professor of Hydraulic Engineering and Head of the Civil Engineering Department of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University, one of the largest in the U.S. Dr. Walter Lammerts, geneticist and famous plant breeder, the late Dr. Frank Marsh, Professor of Biology at Andrews University until his retirement; the late Dr. J.J. Duyvene De Wit, Professor of Zoology at the University of the Orange Free State, South Africa, at the time of his death; Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso; Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., winner of the Komosmol Lenin Prize in 1983 as one of the two most promising young scientists in the Soviet Union, and winner of the Council of Ministries Prize of the USSR in 1986 for his research in biochemistry (Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No, 1995, pp. 13, 14).
A.E. Wilder-Smith (1915-1995), who defended creationism against evolution in his many books, had three Ph.D.s, one in physical organic chemistry from Reading University, England, one in pharmacology from the University of Geneva, and one in pharmacological sciences from ETH, a senior university in Zurich, Switzerland. A Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry and a NATO three-star general, Dr. Wilder-Smith was an expert on chemotherapy, pharmacology, organic chemistry, and biochemistry.
Raymond Damadian, M.D., biophysicist, is the recipient of the Lemelson-MIT Achievement Award as the man who invented the MRI scanner. In 1988, he was awarded the National Medal of Technology, America’s highest award for applied science, and a year later, he was inducted into the Inventors Hall of Fame, an honor he shares with Thomas Edison, Samuel Morse, and the Wright Brothers. The first MRI scanner that Dr. Damadian and his colleagues built in 1977 resides at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Damadian is a Bible-believing Christian and attends a Baptist church in Long Island, New York. Dr. Damadian has stated that the highest purpose a man can find for his life is to serve the will of God.
Richard Lumsden (1938-97), Ph.D., converted from Darwinian atheist to Bible-believing Christian at the apex of his professional career when, challenged by one of his students, he decided to check out the evidence for himself. A professor of parisitology and cell biology, he was dean of the graduate school at Tulane University. He trained 30 Ph.D.s., published hundreds of scholarly papers, and was the winner of the highest award for parasitology.
Lee Spetner, author of Not By Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, has a Ph.D. in physics from MIT. He was a researcher with John Hopkins University from 1951-1970.
James Allan has a Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Edinburgh and was a senior lecturer in genetics at the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa. He is an international consultant in dairy cattle breeding. The testimony of his Christian faith was published in the book In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation.
Jerry Bergman, co-author of the book Persuaded by the Evidence, has five masters degrees and two Ph.D.s, one in human biology and another in measurement and evaluation. He had a 4.0 grade point average for both Ph.D.s and close to a 4.0 for all five of his masters degrees.
The Creation Research Society membership consists of more than 600 men and women who hold advanced degrees and are committed to biblical creationism.
Frank Marsh has a Ph.D. in biology and is emeritus Professor of Biology at Andrews University. He is the author of Variation and Fixity in Nature: The Meaning of Diversity and Discontinuity in the World of Living Things, and Their Bearing on Creation and Evolution.
Joseph Mastropaolo, who has a Ph.D. in kinesiology from the University of Iowa, has taught biomechanics and physiology at the University of Chicago and California State University. He holds the patent for crew conditioning for extended manned space missions. He is adjunct faculty at the Institute for Creation Research.
The speaking staff of Answers in Genesis includes 10 men and women who have earned doctorates. David DeWitt has a Ph.D. in neuroscience. Donald DeYoung has a Ph.D. in physics. Jason Lisle has a Ph.D. in astrophysics. David Menton has a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University. Tommy Mitchell has an M.D. from Vanderbilt University. Terry Mortenson has a Ph.D. in the history of geology. Gary Parker has a doctorate in education in biology/geology. Georgia Purdom has a Ph.D. in molecular genetics. Andrew Snelling has a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney.
In April 2009, Terry Mortenson of the Creation Museum in America, said: There are literally thousands of scientists around the world that believe the Bible. There is an organization in the United States with 700 scientists who have a Masters or Ph.D. in the hard sciences. The largest creation organization is not in the United States. It is in Korea, with over 2,500 Bible-believing scientists, over 250, the last I heard, with Ph.Ds.
Of course, even if NO scientist disputed evolution, does not mean it is correct. The Bible says, let God be true, but every man a liar (Romans 3:4), and Jesus said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes (Matthew 11:25).