I almost missed this comment and the opportunity to respond. Thankfully I read again:

Quote
Creation "scientists" have scientific claims? Point me to one and to the experiments that have been done to support such claims.


I'd hazard a guess that most people, with basic historial knowledge, would no doubt have heard of such two (examples) of famous creation scientists' - Isaac Newton and possibly the greatest scientist of the 19th Century - Louis Pasteur and their outstanding contributions to the field of science/medicine/understanding. This is not counting many other creation scientists - where I've provided further examples below.

The comment and the quotes around the word "scientists" in Linear's post surely reflects a lack of basic knowledge in the history of science and/or perhaps bias and a need to belittle -consider instead the highly qualified scientists who hold to the creation viewpoint, both today and throughout history and those of which (few examples listed) who have contributed much to science/knowledge - Linear's post in contrast appears ignorant and arrogant.

Though Linear requested me to give one example, I decided to provide a few more of some Creation scientists and their contribution and furthering of knowledge to many different fields of science. If one is interested in finding out more about these people, you can check out "more information" in the link below each. Perhaps Linear wishes us to believe that without evolution there was/is little hope for science/medicine to advance - but when one considers the evidence, we see a very different story. As you can see, there has been no such reliance upon such the evolution theory in regards to contribution/achievements/breakthroughs in science throughout history, to which creation scientists have been a big part of.

Taken from:

Do Real Scientists believe in Creation?
(Note: I have only picked a few from the list given - you can check out more if you wish).


Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
More Information

Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
More Information


Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
More Information


Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
More Information


David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
More Information


Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
More Information


Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
More Information


Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
More Information


Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
More Information


Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
More Information


Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
More Information


William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
More Information


Dr. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)
More Information


James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
More Information


Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
More Information


Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
More Information


Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
More Information


Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
More Information


Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
More Information


Here is also a link some may wish to look over for names/qualifications/field of study of Creation Scientists - past and present


Quote
Another charge often leveled by evolutionists is that creationists are ignorant, backwards "Bible thumpers" with no education, or that they oppose true science. While it is unfortunately true that most scientists of today have been so thoroughly indoctrinated into the dogma of evolution in their training that they believe it to be a fact, it is also true that there are many scientists with Ph.D's in various fields who do not adhere to the doctrine of evolution and who are staunch creationists with a strong faith in the Bible.


Perhaps Linear can now provide an explanation of how putting quotes around "scientists" in his earlier putdown generalisation, in the face of such examples here, is honest or even applicable?


Quote
A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.


Which further emphasises the comments here:

[b]Evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31:[/b]

Quote
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.


(And below, which has been posted a number of times):

Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled "The Biologist," that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G: (Caylor) and “J” (the scientist). We joint the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.

Quote
G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.

G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.

J: The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.

G: What elephant?

G: Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!