Helen Fryman (now Setterfield)

June 26,1999, updated February 4, 2004

In the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize. Both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist." And yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy. As a creationist myself, I am hoping the following will help increase the understanding of the variety of positions on the creationist side of the fence.

In the United States, and perhaps in all the western culture(s), the term "creationism," or "creation," is automatically associated with Christianity and the Bible. In particular it is associated with the book of Genesis, the beginning book of the Bible, which recounts the story of creation. However this generalization ignores those of other faiths who believe just as firmly in creation as opposed to evolution from their respective points of view. The Islamic faith is a creationist faith (whether or not its proponents agree with this position). Some information regarding the Islamic creation beliefs may be found here:

In Japan, there is the Kojiki, the ancient chronicle of creation.

The book Red Earth, White Lies, by Vine Deloria, Jr., (Fulcrum Publishing, 350 Indiana Street, Suite 350, Golden, Colorado 80401) deals with the Native American beliefs regarding creation as opposed to evolution.

The list could ago on, but it is important to realize that the term "creation" should not be relegated to Christianity exclusively. This is doing a great disservice to the beliefs of many other people in the world.

Because Genesis is also the first book of the Hebrew, or Jewish, Scriptures, there is a strong creation movement within the Jewish faith as well.

Within the Christian community, there are also different views of creation:

1. Old universe, old earth, old life: This view is commonly held by theistic evolutionists, or those who claim Christian beliefs regarding Jesus Christ but do not accept Genesis as a straightforward account of the beginning of all things. This model accepts ancient ages based on man's knowledge of science and the laws science is aware of today. This is the compromise position, basically, between creation and evolution. When there is seeming opposition between the Bible and current science, science wins and the Bible is considered either incorrectly translated or incorrectly understood. Although God is acknowledged in this model, He is generally relegated to the position of "clockmaker" in an almost deistic fashion; He set up the universe and life and established the laws by which it has run ever since.

2. Old universe, old earth, recent life: This position is held by those who subscribe to what is often referred to as the "Gap Theory" of Genesis, wherein it is believed that the universe and the earth are quite old, but that, at one point or another, and for one reason or another, the early earth was either destroyed and re-created or simply held in abeyance until the creation of recent life. This is the official, or semi-official doctrine of some churches.

3. Old universe, young earth, recent life: This position, not as commonly held, considers the universe to be old, but earth itself, and, subsequently life, to be young. This is also the position of some parts of Christianity.

4. Young universe, young earth, recent life: This is the classic Christian model which is so widely disputed by those of the evolution camp. In this model the entire universe, including, of course, the earth and all life, is less than 10,000 years old. This is in keeping with the most straightforward reading of the Genesis account in combination with the lists of generations in Genesis 5, 10 and 11. Good evidence for this position being that which was held by the majority of early Christian writers may be found in a very well-researched on line book by Robert Bradshaw, here:

It is the fourth model, which is the commonly considered definition of "creation" as it is discussed today. This is the model, along with -- to a lesser degree -- models 2 and 3 which is ridiculed and fought against by many in professional education, science, and communications. Within the last three models there are several "sub-groups" as well. Here I will deal with only the fourth model, known as the YEC model (young earth creation model) as the others are included or excluded by implication.

1. The Flood of Noah was responsible for the vast majority of the geologic strata we see today. This is the historic position of young earth creationists. It is the official position of the most well-known creation organizations, including the Institute of Creation Research in southern California ( and Answers in Genesis (, based both in Kentucky and Brisbane, Australia.

2. The Flood of Noah was only one of several catastrophic events contributing to the geologic record. There are a number of individuals in this camp who have been putting together models based on what they understand of both the Bible and the geologic record as well as other areas of science. The two most noted at this point are Barry Setterfield and Bernard Northrup. However other models are also in the works according to several communications I have received personally.

With this short introduction, then, it might be seen that to categorize "creationists" into one camp -- often the fourth camp of the Christian position -- is to be working out of ignorance of what is involved in creation. As a note, as well, it might also be necessary to clear up the term "creation science." Science is science. Lab work is lab work and field work is field work. Science, in its purest form, deals with what can be tested and worked with. It does not matter, when adding materials to a Petri dish, when excavating fossils, when operating the spacecraft, whether the person or people involved are atheistic, deistic, agnostic, New Age, or however else they might consider themselves. The technical aspects are not part of the belief systems of the men and women involved.

The adjectives "creation" and "evolution" get added to the term "science" when the matter of presuppositions and conclusions are dealt with. There is no scientist anywhere in the world who does not hold to some kind of presuppositional truth in his own life. That which he considers true will invariably color his understanding of the science he is involved with. Thus, those who believe evolution to be true will see their work in terms of evolution theory. Those who believe creation to be true will see their work in terms of creation theory. Each will form conclusions based on what they consider true in the first place. The data can be exactly the same and the conclusions can be radically different because of this. Thus, "creation science" is not a separate science itself, but a way of looking at science through the eyes of those who believe, in whatever form, that the universe and all life was the result of creation by some kind of deity. It is the extremely rare scientist who is willing to look at data pertaining to any philosophical position and not look at that data through the lens of that particular philosophical position. When any man and woman in science allows data to speak for itself apart from presuppositions, we need to sit up and take notice.

The last point that should be brought up here is the relatively new area referred to as "Intelligent Design." Those involved with this movement are part of various religions or are non-religious altogether. Intelligent Design is the position which says that the same scientific methods used in such fields as forensic science give strong indication that the universe and life itself were intelligently designed. The identity of any possible Designer is not a matter for discussion within the parameters of the Intelligent Design movement itself. There are both Christians and non-Christians in this movement, as well as those who are agnostic. It is a far wider-reaching category of thought and work than creation as discussed above, but includes it. Some of the articles by those involved in the Intelligent Design field can be found here:

Understanding the different areas of creation beliefs should help all those involved in the debates to argue more precisely and intelligently. When broad generalizations are made it can cause respect to be lost and produce defensiveness. There is too much to be said in the creation/evolution controversy for ignorance to be allowed to lead the way.

* * * * *

Excerpts from a Forum Discussion (1999)

For several years I was one of the moderators for CARM, on the web. The following is a portion of one discussion I had with an evolutionist who was quite courteous (unlike many, both of the creationist and evolutionist camps, who are on web forums), and presented a number of points he felt substantiated evolution and debunked the YEC (Young Earth Creationist) position. A portion of that discussion was as follows.

 The age of the universe: if the universe were as young as young earth creationists claim it to be, there would simply have not have been sufficient time for natural selection to have worked its wonders. But that is not the case; according to science the universe is somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 billion years old. This issue was, as you know, an important early test of Darwinian evolution --- Lord Kelvin and other physicists indicated that stars (the sun in particular, in this case) simply could not be more than a few million years old. As it happened, the physicists of the day were wrong, and the universe was much older than they had supposed. Evolution predicts an old universe (with at least one generation of star birth and star death to provide the heavy elements for solar system formation; young earth creationism predicts a universe only a few days (don't remember the exact sequence from Genesis --- sorry). Evolution passes; young earth creationism fails.

Helen's response: The age of the universe is presumed, not known. This basically invalidates your entire argument. There are a lot of "anomalies" out there which defy the long age models. So pretending it is all decided is simply not being honest. Whether it is a matter of 'missing mass', lumpiness, heavy metals, rapid cratering, still-distinct rings around Saturn, or whatever, there is a reasonable amount of evidence which defies the long age model(s).

Additional thoughts, Feb, 2004: The reference above to natural selection is crediting it, as Darwin did, with the variation of life found on earth today. But natural selection can only select from what is already there; it cannot create new forms. Far from performing any 'wonders,' natural selection can only delete from an existing population and its genetic pool, by allowing only those members with the particular variation helpful in a particular environment to survive.

Evolution does not 'predict' an old universe; it requires it. There is a difference. Heavy element formation may not have required the time evolutionists say it did. The requirement is not actually time, but rather speed of atomic processes along with the pressure and heat involved in stars. There is data and other strong evidence that a number of atomic processes have not been constant over time. The Norman-Setterfield paper documenting a good deal of this may be found on the web here:

 The age of the earth: as with the above argument, if the earth were created recently (less than a couple of billion years ago), then evolution would not have had time to occur. Many geologists of Darwin's time thought that the earth was far too young, and that was held up as evidence that Darwinian evolution by natural selection could not have happened. As it happens, these "young earth" geologists were wrong: the best estimate of science is that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, give or take a hundred million or so. Evolution predicts a multi-billion year old earth; young earth creationism predicts an earth only several thousand years old. Evolution passes; young earth creationism fails.

Helen's response: Well, evolution has not had time to occur. The earth is young. Again, there are evidences for this as well, including the famous magnetic field decay problem. We do not have evidence, on a uniformitarian basis, of mountains forming nearly as fast as earthquakes destroy and shake down. The geologic record contains evidences of massive catastrophes in the past which contradict the need for long ages. The only thing that needs long ages is evolution, and evolution is an idea without a workable mechanism.

The oldest recognizable life on earth: if there were no life forms fossilized in aged (multi-billion year old) rocks, there would not have been sufficient time for more complex forms to have evolved. For a long time this was one of the weaknesses of evolutionary theory: life seemed to explode in the Cambrian with little or nothing happening before then. Had there been no precursors, more elementary fossils found old earth creationists at least could have pointed to the Cambrian as the (half a billion year old) creation event. But science has discovered that there are earlier life forms; primitive prokaryotes have been recovered from rocks as old as 3.8 billion years, leaving ample time for the development of more complex cellular and multicellular mechanisms. Evolution predicts an early start to life; young earth creationism predicts that all life forms appeared via special creation less than ten thousand years ago. Evolution passes; young earth creationism fails.

Helen's response: Life still seems to explode in the Cambrian! There is no evidence of ancestral forms to what is found there. It has been stated several times here that about a billion years was needed for the first cell to become a more complex life form -- i.e. multicellular. If it took this long for this basic step, then even with another 2 1/2 billion years to work with, evolution just ran out of time. It needs a WHOLE lot more time than 3 1/2 billion years for what it is saying happened. In the meantime, there are evolutionary theories that eukaryotes did not arise from prokaryotes, but that the pro's were degenerate forms of the eu's. Which of course leaves us with a remarkable complexity (eukaryotes) with no known way of 'becoming' and no evidence of ancestors. Creation predicts some simple life forms in the early ocean muds and a great deal of life above them. That is what the fossil record shows.

Additional thoughts, February 2004: The reason my correspondent was stating that evolution 'passed' and creation 'failed' was because he wanted it that way. As with the rock from Mars, the small marks found upon it which were considered to be fossilized forms of bacterial life may have been just marks in the rock.

The fact that some of the possible evidences for that ancient prokaryotic life may not have been what scientists thought ( -- it's in English after the first page) does not invalidate the fact that we have true Precambrian fossils. But this simply points out that science is not as sure of many things as they present to the public. And to the students in texts! But the desire and, indeed, the absolute need to find these fossils and attempt to use what they can to validate the evolutionary presuppositions is an excellent example of not allowing the data to lead the way where science is concerned.

 A cellular mechanism for evolution: This [was] one of the most troubling aspects of Darwinian theory in its infancy --- there was no extant mechanism for characteristics of parents to be passed on to (and at times blended into) offspring and altered in the process. Science (in the persons of Watson and Crick, aided in no small measure by Rosalind (sp???) Franklin --- who never received the credit due her) discovered in 1953 just such a mechanism in the form of DNA. IMHO this was one of the most spectacularly successful predictions made by a young theory. Evolution predicts a mechanism at the cellular level for Mendelian inheritance; young earth creationism does not (or at least should not on the basis of what little I know of the Bible). Evolution passes; young earth creationism is mute on the issue (though it would seem that something as immensely important to the history of life as DNA certainly should have been incorporated into a book that purports to explain the genesis of life).

Helen's response: Despite the claim that the Bible should or should not explain what people would like it to explain... (what God does explain is rejected by them anyway), the fact is that traits are inherited and that change is guarded against by a number of proof reading mechanisms in the cell. The FACT that traits are inherited has been known for millennia. The REASON traits are inherited has been recently discovered. That discovery has nothing to do with the fact that you can get a lot of variation in a population but you cannot get it to change basic type. Empirical evidence strongly supports the concept of the biblical kind, or original populations of organisms, which breed true to kind forever, with a limited ability to vary via recombination and mutation. This is predicted by creation and may be decried by evolutionists, but without any empirical evidence to the contrary.

And, by the way, "true" evolution does not deal with the 'genesis of life.'

Additional thoughts, February 2004: There appears to be an increasing tendency by many to approach the Bible with the attitude seen above, which indicates, "I don't know the Bible too well, but what it SHOULD say is." Or "If I were God I sure wouldn't have done it that way, so it could not be true"

First of all, the Bible really should be read by those who want to critique it.
Second, the purpose of the Bible is to document and delineate the relationship between God and man. It is not a full history text, although it does contain some history. It is not a full science text, although it does contain some science. The point is therefore not whether or not the Bible says what people want it to say, but whether what it says is true or not.

 A cellular mechanism for alteration of the genotype: Again, this was a great mystery at the time of The Origin of Species: nobody knew what mechanism existed for mutations. It was Darwin's tacit prediction that a mechanism would be found that would be stable enough to preserve the continuity of species yet sufficiently malleable to permit the appearance of new phenotypes. If no such mechanism were found, one would have to presume some form of unknown intervention to explain mutation, much less speciation). Again, science provides DNA and the myriad ways in which its structure can be altered in mutation (radiation; chemical mutagens; etc.) as well as other forms of genetic alteration. Evolution passes; young earth creationism is mute on the issue (though I would again argue that something this basic should have been in the Bible if it is to be considered a source of scientific information).

Helen's response: Evolution passes what? The fact that there is a source for mutations is not a matter of evolution! Its discovery did not depend on the evolutionary paradigm. And, while you are altering the DNA, go find out what parent or breeder will be happy to hear the newborn has a mutation. The discovery of a mechanism has nothing to do with what that mechanism is capable of doing. This is an entirely false argument. Mutations cannot do what evolution needs them to do, regardless of how much we have discovered about their mechanism of operation. We do not see positive mutations building on one another to produce a new function or form. The idea that they have done so in the past is pure imagination based on the conviction that evolution MUST be true.

Additional thoughts, February 2004: What also needs to be noted is that mutations can happen only in life forms that are successful. They are successful in the environments in which they are found. Thus the expressed mutations are usually dealing with changes away from that success in that environment. We know that most mutations are 'silent' ­ you cannot see evidence in the organism's form or function that a mutation has occurred, and thus it cannot be chosen for or against (it is not subject to natural selection). Of those mutations which are not silent, but are expressed, the incredibly vast majority are harmful or lethal to the individual carrying them. Of the few which can be termed non-harmful, only a remnant of these can be considered beneficial, and even then they are beneficial only in particular circumstances and environments, and not in the wild population as a whole. This is what the data itself shows. It requires massive 'interpretation' and presumption on the part of the evolutionist, in spite of this data and not because of it, to claim that beneficial mutations have so built and changed organisms through time that a one-celled organism in some primordial beginning was the ancient grandparent of all life on earth today.

 Arrangement of fossils from primitive to more developed in increasingly recent geological strata: If fossils were scattered willy-nilly throughout rocks of various ages, so that relatively more developed forms appeared in the same strata as much more primitive (and morphologically antecedent) forms, Darwinian evolution could not explain how this is consistent with natural selection, speciation, and divergence of lineages. Science, however, finds that representatives of temporally disparate forms are not intermingled in widely different geological strata. Except where such strata have been hopelessly jumbled by catastrophic events, fossils are layered just as evolutionary theory would predict. Young earth creationism would predict undifferentiated fossil layering (or should --- I have seen some attempts to explain stratification by proponents of special creation). Evolution passes; young earth creationism fails.

Helen's response: That is, to use [another's] terminology, the "cartoon version" of creationism. It is what evolutionists would LIKE creation science to say. The truth is that first, there are a number of anomalous fossils which cannot be explained except as "intrusive" or "buried;" that there is a true circularity in figuring which strata and which fossils represent what ages; and that a model which incorporates Noah's flood with subsequent catastrophes also mentioned in the Bible is quite adequate in explaining the fossil record.

Additional thoughts, February 2004: The mentioned was made by the correspondent of 'primitive' to 'more developed' fossils as one goes up the geologic column to 'increasingly recent' strata. The question must be asked here, "What does he mean by primitive?" Surely the trilobite's complex eyes are not primitive. Is it primitive, perhaps, for respiration in the cell itself to involve so many complex steps, or for the division of the cell to be so tightly controlled that we are still trying to figure it out? Is it primitive, instead, because it must be primitive due to size and position in the strata? If lower down MUST be primitive by definition, then the argument is entirely circular and moot. There must be a definition of primitive life outside the evolutionary framework if the evolutionists want support from it. If 'primitive' means simplicity of function, however, then evolution loses on the cellular level alone, for a single-celled organism, far from being the simple blob Darwin thought it to be, has shown up as an incredible complex unit, functioning in a controlled way via numerous mechanisms of regulation. Evidence for this complexity is actually presented very well by a number of evolutionists in the field. One book dealing with this subject which is quite layman-friendly is The Way of the Cell, by Franklin M. Harold. I highly recommend this book. Should my previous correspondent ever take the time to read it, I would then have to ask him to please explain 'primitive' to me in forms of life.

 Indirect evidence for phylogenetic differentiation in the form of transitional fossils: If no transitional forms had been found, Darwinian evolution would be a hollow shell with little other than genetic theory to give it plausibility. Though Gould finds evidence for transitional fossils rare at the species level, those at higher phylogenetic levels are manifold. Other scientists disagree, finding considerable evidence at the species level. Essentially all of relevant mainstream science concurs, however, in the existence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Evolution predicts that we should observe in the fossil record morphological changes as temporal progressions in the phylogenetic bush. They exist. Evolution passes; young earth creationism fails.

Helen's response: All of mainstream science does not concur. In the meantime, transitionals, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. They are subject to both the preconceptions of the evolutionary idea and the imagination of the scientist. Where evolutionists see transitionals, creationists see variation within a kind. Until biology can actually show a living form changing into another kind of living form, however, the argument over transition/variation is one of argument over whose imagination is better and whose presuppositions are more accurate with the known world. To my mind, creation science wins hands down here.

 Direct evidence of speciation: Darwin's main prediction was that mutation results in speciation --- that was the central tenet of his theory. The lack of observable speciation would not, admittedly, be fatal to the theory because of (1) the length of time required for speciation to occur (though Gould and Eldredge might dispute this) and (2) the difficulty of catching speciation in the act, as it were. However, science once again supports Darwin --- speciation has been observed, in the wild and in the laboratory. Evolution predicts that just such events will occur; young earth creationism explicitly denies them, reserving the development of new species to the Creator. Evolution passes; young earth creationism fails .

Helen's response: As long as speciation is defined by evolutionists as being the result of an isolated breeding population, no one can dispute speciation and this is a straw man. There is nothing in the creation paradigm which even slightly mitigates against the concept of variation. In the meantime, as it has been mentioned on this board, those animals whose breeding choices depend on a sense of smell are NOT going to speciate -- they are more than happy to breed with anything that smells right, regardless of looks. Those animals depending on sight will speciate rather quickly as they are picky about what they see and variation will promise differences, and thus choices. With speciation depending on the sense used by the animal where breeding is concerned, the entire category begins to break down.

Additional thoughts, February 2004: It needs to be emphasized that speciation is NOT the issue. No one disputes speciation, given the current definitions. It is important to remember that in the early nineteenth century, the term 'species' was considered synonymous with 'kind'. These definitions have parted company, with evidence for the biblical 'kind' being more closely associated ­ usually ­ with the family or sub-family taxonomic classifications today.

It also needs to be pointed out that speciation can be quite rapid. Populations subject to division by catastrophe or any other cause and then left to inbreed will only need a couple of generations to start showing up with what are often otherwise recessive traits, but which are then considered 'hallmarks' of that particular population, thus making it a 'new species.' Like the Galapagos finches, or the African cichlids, they all still remain the same basic type and there are no real changes of form or function involved.

 Genetic kinship of morphologically related organisms: If organisms were each the result of special creation there would be no reason to presume common descent. If the genetic structure of a grasshopper were as similar to a lion as that of a tiger, one would reasonably conclude that each organism was built from a separate blueprint. Science finds that this is not the case --- morphologically similar species share a much higher proportion of their genetic material than do morphologically dissimilar ones, just as evolution would predict. Evolution passes; young earth creationism is once again mute .

Helen's response: This is a totally circular argument, even on the surface. Relationships are presumed. Therefore any genetic markers which seem to verify this are accepted and those that don't are ignored. This has already been presented and referenced here. ITM (in the meantime), genetic similarities are certainly to be expected when two species or kinds have similar morphologies. There is nothing here that indicates relationship over common design.

Additional thought February 2004: it cannot be stated too strongly that similarity does not require or even indicate relationship. I believe it was Dr. Henry Morris who pointed out once that if you take water content as your indication of relationship, then a cloud is related to a watermelon. There are numerous studies showing that morphology, or physical appearance, does not correspond to genetic similarities. For instance:

Nature, Vol. 379, Jan. 25, 1996 ­ Phylogenetic position of the order Lagomorpha by Graur, et. al. Based on 88 protein sequences, lagomorphs clade with primates, not rodents as morphcharacters would show.

"...morphological 'synapomorphies'previously used to cluster rodents and lagomorphs into Glires, may actually represent symplesiomorphies or homoplasies that are of no phylogenetic value."

Additional interesting material may be found at the following locations:

 Genetic kinship of all extant organisms: Common descent strongly predicts that all life on earth should be based on an identical genetic coding scheme. This is indeed what science finds. Special creation requires no such commonality. There is no intrinsic reason why special creation should use a single code, and as far as I know a "literal" reading of Genesis does not address the issue at all. In this sense, evolution makes a specific prediction where the postulate of "kinds" makes none. Evolution passes; young earth creationism is once again mute .

Helen's response: A single intelligent designer also strongly predicts the same basic blueprint should be used for all living organisms -- especially since the food chain demands compatibility in order to survive. And this is what science finds. Long before science emerged, however, the Bible said simply that animal bodies and man's body were both created from the elements of the ground, or the dust of the ground. It was not until this century that this was known to be true.

What is interesting is that the predictions that are indicated by the Bible, which are then proved true centuries or millennia later are completely ignored by evolutionists. But, then, they have to if evolution is going to remain their faith.

I find that "evolutionism" per se is an untenable hypothesis. It depends entirely upon presupposition and imagination with a rather careless way of handling evidence. I have found that creation science does not, to any degree, depend on revealed wisdom. It depends, rather, on the logical inferences of extant and empirical evidence. CreationISM may be based on the Bible, or on the Koran, or on Indian legends. But creation science is not -- it is based on what is going on here and now. Creation scientists might seek to reconcile creation science with their particular worldview and religion, but creation science does not depend on that. It stands when individual belief systems might not.

* * * * *

The following list is of unknown origin, but has been on the web for some time in various places:


Abel, Niels Henrik (1802 - 1829)
Abney, Sir William (1843 - 1920)
Agassiz, (Jean) Louis Rodolphe (1807 - 1873)
Agnesi, Maria Gaetana (1718 - 1799)
Anderson, Thomas (1819 - 1874)
Armstrong, Harold L. (1921 - 1985)
Augustine, St. (354 - 430)
Babbage, Charles (1792 - 1871)
Bacon, Francis Sir (1561 - 1626)
Barrow, Isaac (1630 - 1677)
Barton, Benjamin (1766 - 1815)
Bell, Charles (1774 - 1842)
Bliss, Richard B. (1923 - 1994)
Boole, George (1815 - 1864)
Boyle, Robert (1627 - 1691)
Brache, Tycho (1545 - 1601)
Brander, Gustavus (1720 - 1787)
Braun, Wernher von (1912 - 1977)
Brewster, David (1781 - 1868)
Buckland, William (1784 - 1856)
Bugg, George (1769 - 1851)
Burnet, Thomas (1635 - 1715)
Carver, George Washington (1860 - 1943)
Cauchy, Augustin-Louis (1789 - 1857)
Chalmers, Thomas (1780 - 1847)
Charleton, Walter (1619 - 1707)
Chrysostom (345 - 407)
Clark, Harold W. (1891 - 1986)
Cole, Henry (1792 - 1858)
Copernicus, Nicholas (1473 - 1543)
Cuvier, Georges (1769 - 1832)
Dalton, John (1766 - 1844)
Dana, James (1813 - 1895)
Davies, Col. L. Merson (1890 - 1960)
Da Vinci, Leonardo (1452 - 1519)
Davy, Sir Humphrey (1778 - 1829)
Dawson, John William (1820 - 1899)
Deluc, Jean-Andre (1727 - 1817)
Derham, William (1657 - 1735)
Dewar, Douglas (1875 - 1957)
Duyvene' De Wit, Jacobus Johannes (1909 - 1965)
Dwight, Timothy (1752 - 1817)
Eddington, Arthur (1882 - 1944)
Edwards, Jonathan (1703 - 1758)
Euler, Leonhard (1707 - 1783)
Fabre, Henri (1823 - 1915)
Fabricius, David (1564 - 1617)
Faraday, Michael (1791 - 1867)
Ferguson, James (1710 - 1776)
Flamsteed, John (1646 - 1719)
Fleming, Sir John Ambrose (1849 - 1945)
Galileo (1564 - 1642)
Gassendi, Pierre (1592 - 1655)
Geering, Esme' (1920 - 1997)
Gilbert, Sir Joseph Henry (1817 - 1901)
Glaisher, James (1809 - 1903)
Gosse, Philip H. (1810 - 1888)
s' Gravesande, Willem Jacob (1688 - 1742)
Grebe, John J. (1900 - 1984)
Grew, Nehemiah (1641 - 1712)
Guyot, Arnold (1807 - 1884)
Harris, John (1666 - 1719)
Harvey, William (1578 - 1657)
Henry, Joseph (1797 - 1878)
Herschel, Caroline (1750 - 1848)
Herschel, John (1792 - 1871)
Herschel, William (1738 - 1822)
Hitchcock, Edward (1793 - 1864)
Hooke, Robert (1635 - 1703)
Horse, Jedidian (1761 - 1826)
Huggins, Sir William (1824 - 1910)
Hutchinson, John (1674 - 1737)
Huygens, Christian (1629 - 1695)
Joule, James Prescott (1818 - 1889)
Keckermann, Bartholomew (1571 - 1609)
Kelly, Howard A. (1858 - 1943)
Kelvin, Lord (William Thompson) (1824 - 1907)
Kepler, Johann (1571 - 1630)
Kidd, John (1775 - 1851)
Kirby, William (1759 - 1850)
Kircher, Athanasius (1601 - 1680)
Kirwan, Richard (1733 - 1812)
Klotz, John William (1918 - 1996)
Kronecker, Leopold (1823 - 1891)
Lammerts, Walter E. (1904 - 1996)
Leavitt, Henrietta Swan (1868 - 1921)
Leibnitz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1646 - 1716)
Le Moine, Paul (1878 - 1940)
Linnaeus, Carolus von (1707 - 1778)
Lister, Joseph (1827 - 1912)
Lumsden, Richard D. (1938 - 1997)
Luther (1483 - 1546)
MacAlister, Alexander (1844 - 1919)
Maclaurin, Colin (1698 - 1746)
Marsh, Frank Lewis (1899 - 1992)
Mather, Cotton (1662 - 1727)
Mather, Increase (1639 - 1723)
Maunder, Edward H. (1851 - 1928)
Maupertuis, Pierre Louis de (1698 - 1759)
Maury, Matthew Fontaine (1806 - 1873)
Maxwell, James Clerk (1831 - 1879)
Mendel, Gregor (1822 - 1884)
Mersenne, Marin (1588 - 1648)
Miller, Samuel (1770 - 1840)
Mitchell, Maria (1818 - 1889)
Morgan, Augustus De (1806 - 1871)
Morris, Andrew Hunter (1949 - 1989)
Morse, Jedidiah (1761 - 1826)
Morse, Samuel F. B. (1791 - 1872)
Mulfinger, George L. (1932 - 1987)
Murray, John (1808 - 1892)
Nelson, Byron Christopher (1893 - 1972)
Newton, Isaac (1642 - 1727)
Owen, Sir Richard (1804 - 1892)
Paley, William (1743 - 1805)
Parkinson, James (1755 - 1824)
Pascal, Blaise (1623 - 1662)
Pasteur, Louis (1822 - 1895)
Peters, Walter G. (1917 - 1995)
Pettigrew, John Bell (1834 - 1908)
Petty, Sir William (1623 - 1687)
Pierce, Charles Sanders (1839 - 1914)
Pratt, Joseph Henry (1809 - 1871)
Price, George McCready (1870 - 1963)
Prout, William (1785 - 1850)
Raleigh, Sir Walter (1842 - 1919)
Ramsay, William (1852 - 1916)
Ramsay, William Mitchell (1851 - 1939)
Rawlinson, Sir Henry (1810 - 1895)
Ray, John (1627 - 1705)
Rendle-Short, John Arthur (1885 - 1953)
Riemann, Bernhard (1826 - 1866)
Riley, William Bell (1861 - 1947)
Rimmer, Harry (1890 - 1952)
Rogers, Henry (1808 - 1866)
Roget, Peter Mark (1779 - 1869)
Romanes, George (1848 - 1894)
Rusch, Wilbert H. (1913 - 1994)
Rutherford, Lord Ernest (1871 - 1937)
Sayce, A. H. (1845 - 1933)
Scheuchzer, Johann Jacob (1672 - 1733)
Schneider, Frank L. (1907 - 1992)
Sedgwick, Adam (1785 - 1873)
Silliman, Benjamin (1779 - 1864)
Simpson, James Y. (1811 - 1870)
Smyth, Charles Piazzi (1819 - 1900)
Steno, Nicolaus (1631 - 1686)
Stewart, Balfour (1828 - 1887)
Stine, Charles (1882 - 1954)
Stokes, Sir George (1819 - 1903)
Tait, P. G. (1831 - 1901)
Tertullian (155 - 222)
Tinkle, William John (1892 - 1981)
Tocquet, Andreas (1612 - 1660)
Torrey, R. A. (1856 - 1928)
Ure, Andrew (1778 - 1857)
Virchow, Rudolph (1821 - 1902)
Wakeley, Sir Cecil (1892 - 1979)
Wallis, John (1616 - 1703)
Wendelin, Gotfried (1580 - 1667)
Whewell, William (1794 - 1866)
Whiston, William (1667 - 1752)
Whitney, Dudley Joseph (1894 - 1964)
Whitney, Josiah Dwight (1819 - 1896)
Whittaker, Edmund Taylor (1873 - 1956)
Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest (1915 - 1995)
Wilkins, John (1614 - 1672)
Woodward, John (1665 - 1728)
Wright, Thomas (1711 - 1786)

Back to Lambert Dolphin's Library