Creationism Gurus

[vossler]

There's nothing inappropriate about my remark. Just like there's nothing inappropriate about Evolutionists ignoring the high degree of Evolutionist bigotry.

I apologize Poke, I thought you were making your point as a means of trying to incite instead of educate. I now see what you trying to say and agree with you.

 

[laptoppop]

The Institution for Creation Research lists their faculty here.

I'm a YECer, and I really like the work ICR does. The faculty list includes doctorates from many prestigious universities. One thing I'd like to see, however, is what the various doctorates were in. It makes a huge difference if the doctorate is in English or PoliSci or whatever, versus Biology or Biochemistry, etc. One thing TEs and others legitamately slam us for is doctorates in unrelated fields. Of course that doesn't invalidate the young earth position, but it would be much better if the people were shown to be solidly knowledgable in the field.

Of course, that's one of the biggest problem for YEC. The number of people studying and working on the young earth position is a tiny miniscule fraction of the overall scientific community. This makes it much harder to demonstrate the scientific validity of this position.
-lee-

 

[Mallon]

One thing I'd like to see, however, is what the various doctorates were in. It makes a huge difference if the doctorate is in English or PoliSci or whatever, versus Biology or Biochemistry, etc. One thing TEs and others legitamately slam us for is doctorates in unrelated fields. Of course that doesn't invalidate the young earth position, but it would be much better if the people were shown to be solidly knowledgable in the field.

Why do you think they don't post the doctorate fields? It's no accident.
In fact, recruiting people trained in the biological and earth sciences has long been a problem for YEC organizations like ICR, because the more educated one becomes on these issues, the more one realizes that the first few chapters of Genesis cannot be taken literally. Take Nicolaas Rupke, for example. Here was this intelligent, promising YEC that Henry Morris was going to take under his belt come grad school. But by the time Rupke finished his thesis, he was no longer convinced that YEC was scientifically valid. There are all kinds of instances like this documented in Ron Numbers' book The Creationists (a book endorsed by Morris himself, by the way).

 

[steen]

professor recommendations are. If not for bigotry, why did biology Professor Michael Dini Texas Tech University at one time say he would not give a letter of recommendation to anyone who did not believe Evolution?

Hmm, that's not what his website says. It states that if you want his recommendation, "I will ask you: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?" If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation."

It doesn't at all say that you have to "believe" in Evolution. It merely says that you must be able to give a scientific answer. Certainly, in a science field, that is a completely reasonable requirement.

Or did you think that students should get recommendations from science professors without having knowledge of science? That would be outright dumb, wouldn't it?

 

[XTE]

Why do you think they don't post the doctorate fields? It's no accident.
In fact, recruiting people trained in the biological and earth sciences has long been a problem for YEC organizations like ICR, because the more educated one becomes on these issues, the more one realizes that the first few chapters of Genesis cannot be taken literally. Take Nicolaas Rupke, for example. Here was this intelligent, promising YEC that Henry Morris was going to take under his belt come grad school. But by the time Rupke finished his thesis, he was no longer convinced that YEC was scientifically valid. There are all kinds of instances like this documented in Ron Numbers' book The Creationists (a book endorsed by Morris himself, by the way).

Mallon is exactly right, it's misleading and done purposefully and it should make one wonder and make one sick. Ask yourself how many know they are purposefully misleading the public by setting up information this way and limitting it other ways? It happens all of the time.

I'll give you an example that's close to home here. Before I go, I believe that Marriage is an institution laid out by God for a man and a woman, not for Gays. So I don't think Gays should marry. To get to the point however:

This wedsite has ads on it, at the bottom of each page is a banner ad, at least for me since I'm not a sponsor yet. One of the ads was for Pollingpoint DOT com. In the ad is ask, "Should gays marry?" DO YOU THINK YOU' D GET AN UNBIASED SAMPLE FOR THE POLL AT A CHRISTIAN WEBSITE? Doubtful, is it a poll Pollingpoint DOT com wants to see with rigged results.......it scares me to think.

It should scare all of us, the enemy is right here. Fair is FAIR!

 

[Poke]

Hmm, that's not what his website says. It states that if you want his recommendation, "I will ask you: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?" If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation."

It doesn't at all say that you have to "believe" in Evolution. It merely says that you must be able to give a scientific answer. Certainly, in a science field, that is a completely reasonable requirement.

Or did you think that students should get recommendations from science professors without having knowledge of science? That would be outright dumb, wouldn't it?

I have to wonder if you're honestly wrong, or if you're lying. How did you find that website without finding ample proof that my statement is correct? Actually, I don't wonder.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Note: Please stay on topic. The question is regarding the three people in the OP and asking what is known about them. Please don't post on anything else other than any knowledge you have regarding theses three people. Thanks.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Anyone know anything about a Dr. Jobe Martin?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Anyone know anything about a Dr. Jobe Martin?

From the publisher's blurb on his book:

Dr. Martin graduated from Bucknell University where he studied biology as well as a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh Dental School.​

From what I could see its pretty much the same old stuff.

 

[Mallon]

From the publisher's blurb on his book:

Dr. Martin graduated from Bucknell University where he studied biology as well as a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh Dental School.​

From what I could see its pretty much the same old stuff.

Hm. So if I have a question about evolution, I should ask Dr. Martin, the dentist. Does this mean that if I have a toothache, I should see an evolutionary scientist?

 

[Jase]

In other news, Kent Hovind was arrest on 58 federal counts of tax evasion and fraud. His wife was arrested on 44 counts. I wouldn't rely on Hovind for anything except advice on how to live in prison.

 

[steen]

In other news, Kent Hovind was arrest on 58 federal counts of tax evasion and fraud. His wife was arrested on 44 counts. I wouldn't rely on Hovind for anything except advice on how to live in prison.

Ah, the true reason for spreading his claims come to light. Money. Let the "faith-filled" buy his books on how to not he deluded by science, or have your kids be deluded by that trip to the science museum. So Hovind raked it in on the fear he created for others.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Henry Morris is credited for the Young Earth movement with his book The Genesis Flood. Ken Ham was, at one time, one of his employees.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Ah, the true reason for spreading his claims come to light. Money. Let the "faith-filled" buy his books on how to not he deluded by science, or have your kids be deluded by that trip to the science museum. So Hovind raked it in on the fear he created for others.

Based on his statements concerning the tax charges I think it is possible he beleives everything he writes.

 

[steen]

That would be REALLY scary.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Hm. So if I have a question about evolution, I should ask Dr. Martin, the dentist. Does this mean that if I have a toothache, I should see an evolutionary scientist?

Hmmm! Very interesting. You TEs always rant that unless a person haa some kind of biology degree that opinion is not worth two bits and now when someone does have some biology education and does not agree with evolution you through him out too. (sniff sniff)... hmmm smells like a double standard.

BTW, dentistry is a part of biology.

BTW, Dr. Martin was at one time an evolutionist.

 

[random_guy]

Hmmm! Very interesting. You TEs always rant that unless a person haa some kind of biology degree that opinion is not worth two bits and now when someone does have some biology education and does not agree with evolution you through him out too. (sniff sniff)... hmmm smells like a double standard.

BTW, dentistry is a part of biology.

BTW, Dr. Martin was at one time an evolutionist.

Well, it depends. For example, unless the dentist is doing research, I won't consider him a scientist, and I definitely wouldn't ask him questions about evolutionary biology. I would ask an evolutionary biologist that. One thing to realize is that biology is a huge field that encompasses many areas and having a Ph.D. in some area in biology doesn't mean that they know all of biology.

However, the most important thing to realize, and I'm sure other TEists feel the same way, not having a degree doesn't mean that the person's views are invalid. It just means we have to look extra carefully at their claim. Likewise, having a degree doesn't mean that a person's views is automatically correct, we still have to look at their claims.

Case and point, Behe has a Ph.D. in biochemistry. I'm sure he knows biochemistry very well. In fact, if you look, he has many papers published in biochemical journals. However, this doesn't make his views on intelligent design correct. He has no papers published in intelligent design. What it all boils down to is evidence, and that's what all the Creationists forget when they trot out all these Ph.D.'s.

EDIT: Also, we don't say that people with no degree in biology doesn't understand evolution, we take what people say in order to prove it. For example,

Martin says that the academic world knows the big and difficult questions the likes of the Bombardier Beetle ask of evolution, but conveniently ignores them. In the rarefied scientific circles most lay people don't follow or understand, he says, more and more people are admitting that, like an attractive jar with a hole in the bottom, Darwin's theory just doesn't hold water.

However, if you google scholar, you'll find hundreds of papers that discuss the evolution of the Bombardier Beetle, hardly ignoring it. On top of that, evolution doesn't produce entire systems at once, nor does it produce a bunch of useless systems until the last one is in place that makes all the other ones successful. These things that Martin doesn't know/discuss shows his lack of knowledge about evolution.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Well, it depends. For example, unless the dentist is doing research, I won't consider him a scientist, and I definitely wouldn't ask him questions about evolutionary biology. I would ask an evolutionary biologist that. One thing to realize is that biology is a huge field that encompasses many areas and having a Ph.D. in some area in biology doesn't mean that they know all of biology.

However, the most important thing to realize, and I'm sure other TEists feel the same way, not having a degree doesn't mean that the person's views are invalid. It just means we have to look extra carefully at their claim. Likewise, having a degree doesn't mean that a person's views is automatically correct, we still have to look at their claims.

Case and point, Behe has a Ph.D. in biochemistry. I'm sure he knows biochemistry very well. In fact, if you look, he has many papers published in biochemical journals. However, this doesn't make his views on intelligent design correct. He has no papers published in intelligent design. What it all boils down to is evidence, and that's what all the Creationists forget when they trot out all these Ph.D.'s.

EDIT: Also, we don't say that people with no degree in biology doesn't understand evolution, we take what people say in order to prove it. For example,

Martin says that the academic world knows the big and difficult questions the likes of the Bombardier Beetle ask of evolution, but conveniently ignores them. In the rarefied scientific circles most lay people don't follow or understand, he says, more and more people are admitting that, like an attractive jar with a hole in the bottom, Darwin's theory just doesn't hold water.

However, if you google scholar, you'll find hundreds of papers that discuss the evolution of the Bombardier Beetle, hardly ignoring it. On top of that, evolution doesn't produce entire systems at once, nor does it produce a bunch of useless systems until the last one is in place that makes all the other ones successful. These things that Martin doesn't know/discuss shows his lack of knowledge about evolution.

I appreciate your post, but it has been my experience that there are some TEs who treat anyone who has a differing opinion on creation as inferior and what is claimed is considered to be nonsense without considering evidence brought or what the Bible says on the subject. Sometimes some TEs come across as rude and arrogant.

 

[theFijian]

I would have thought that having peer-reviewed research papers was as important as anything. Creationists tend not to get their work peer-reviewed because they tend not to follow the scientific method.

 

[XTE]

I appreciate your post, but it has been my experience that there are some TEs who treat anyone who has a differing opinion on creation as inferior and what is claimed is considered to be nonsense without considering evidence brought or what the Bible says on the subject. Sometimes some TEs comse aross as rude and arrogant.

I have been called rude and arrogant before when I know for a fact that I was neither. Someone saying that to you puts you in a place you don't deserve to be.

The person asked a question and you answered it and did a VERY GOOD THING and provided examples so someone can spell it out for themselves and maybe build a system of thinking from it just to be called rude and arrogant.

Where does this come from and why does it happen all the time?

I'm not a big fan of Richard Dawkins at all, he hates religion and isn't afraid to admit it. I forget what I was looking up but I stumbled on a video from YouTube that had him and another man named Pastor Ted Haggard(I believe) and they were discussing Evolution. Granted this was Dawkins film so he could edit it how he wants but it came off to me that Ted Haggard was the rude and arrogant person WHILE HE WAS CALLING DAWKINS RUDE AND ARROGANT. You should see the look on his face. It really looked like a man that was scared to represent his position and more willing to intimidate his way out of the situation. I would encourage you all to see the short clip.

The thing is.....it was there too. I remember seeing this "rude and arrogant" bit AGAIN and just wondering to myself, "is the vain attempt at self-justification so strong in all of us that we'd rather subjugate than investigate?" I think now that it might be the case.

I think, Pastor Kevin, that you should give us the benefit of the doubt here. I didn't see anything rude with his post, he was just stating it as fact, which was contrary to your current belief system. Is it possible that when something starts to make sense to you but goes against what you've established as truth you fight without even realizing? You really need to think we are rude and arrogant? Those are ?'s I'm asking....

Now that I've taken some away from you, let me give some back.

As a TE there are times where I do rack my head wondering at literalists. I sit here, confident that if I had a face to face with any of them where I could sit down and show them examples of survival in play over enormous amounts of time, with 20 minutes I'd have them sold. Not because I'm a good salesman, because Evolution is SO EASY TO UNDERSTAND.

Last question: Prose: You find that arriving at 4 for, "what is 2+2" is pretty easy. What would you think of someone who thought it was 5 and showed no sign of wavering? You think that person would think you "rude and arrogant" when you showed no hostility, but just a look of unbelief when you talk to them.

Arrogance isn't hostility, it's a look like you are below me and someone that thinks 2+2=5 might think YOU THINK you are above them.

My prayers are with you.