There are a few creationists with backgrounds in science, and they tend to be milked by the movement for what they’re (perceived to be) worth; never mind that the scientific disciplines in which they have their backgrounds are irrelevant to any discussion of evolution. Their existence also demonstrates that you can (at least some places) get a science degree without the faintest clue about how science or evidence works. Edward Boudreaux is a case in point. Boudreaux is a theoretical chemist, Professor emeritus of chemistry at the University of New Orleans, Louisiana, and an “adjunct professor of chemistry” at the ICR. As such he has written a number of creationist tracts with a particular focus on the supposed impossibility of abiogenesis. The claims made there have yet to be widely applauded or recognized for their contributions to or understanding of the science. I don’t think it is necessary to go into his claims in detail – you probably know them already without reading his tracts – but he clearly doesn’t even have a minimal understanding of evolution: “Such characteristics (clear evidence of complex design imparting tailor-made functions) defy the probability that any random evolutionary process could account for such unique specificity in design,” says Boudreaux; the cue, of course, is “random evolutionary process,” which – as anyone who understands evolution would know – doesn’t exactly suggest any profound understanding and is arguably a contradiction in terms.
Boudreaux is probably most famous for his contributions to Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987. Indeed, his testimony was cited several times in the ruling, strongly suggesting that it didn’t exactly help the anti-science side. He is also a signatory to the CMI list of scientists today who accept the Biblical account of creation.
Diagnosis: Yep, completely predictable. Might he be a plant trying to make creationists look silly?