Evolutionist Caught Lying for Their Religion- Fossils

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟336,823.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Why do they lie to support evolution. Mostly political. This will be another thread.

No need for another thread, just explain what you mean here.

Why would evolutionist get angry at creationist or those that dont believe their faith if it is just science? it is more than science. It is religion. Future thread.

Science is not a religion, no matter how much you try to claim that. All you're doing is trying to distract from dealing with the underlying science in question. But the underlying science isn't going away just because you decide to label things you don't like as a religion.

The reason people get upset at creationist attempts to undermine science is because science is useful. Scientific investigation allows us to get the best understanding of the world possible and in turn we can use that knowledge to enrich our lives, develop technologies and increase standard of living. There are also economic consequences to the above as well. A well trained force of knowledge workers is vital to developing new technology, creating jobs and improving the economy.

Creationist attempts to impede scientific knowledge and teaching run contrary to this.
 
Upvote 0

Tolkien R.R.J

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2018
924
265
40
Virginia
✟74,784.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
By all means name me some "good" creationist apologists, and I'll be happy to point out the deception.

Every item I listed referred to specific examples I remember encountering.

Oh, and feel free to give some examples of published "evolutionists" who have quote mined to support evolution. Or an evolutionary scientist in good standing who lies about his education.

You say that you have seen all these same things, but I'm sorry, I simply don't believe you.

If you are looking for creation sources i recommend the following organizations.

https://creationresearch.org/
http://www.icr.org/homepage/
https://creation.com/
https://answersingenesis.org/


as for evolutionist lying, see my op and former thread for some great examples. See talk origins for them taking creationist out of context and misleading on their beliefs or literally any evolutionist source [98% at least] that speaks on creation.
 
Upvote 0

Tolkien R.R.J

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2018
924
265
40
Virginia
✟74,784.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
No need for another thread, just explain what you mean here.



Science is not a religion, no matter how much you try to claim that. All you're doing is trying to distract from dealing with the underlying science in question. But the underlying science isn't going away just because you decide to label things you don't like as a religion.

The reason people get upset at creationist attempts to undermine science is because science is useful. Scientific investigation allows us to get the best understanding of the world possible and in turn we can use that knowledge to enrich our lives, develop technologies and increase standard of living. There are also economic consequences to the above as well. A well trained force of knowledge workers is vital to developing new technology, creating jobs and improving the economy.

Creationist attempts to impede scientific knowledge and teaching run contrary to this.


I prefer to keep threads on topic and also to lay out the case in full for new topics. You bring up a subject that deserves its own topic and thread.


I never said science was a religion. i said evolution is a anti science religion refuted by science and observation such as the fossil record.

I agree i also hate when evolutionist are anti science, rather they should allow observation and the fossil record to form their beliefs rather than their faith ignore science.

It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."
*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).


Further than we can do science shows evolution is false.


Science only Makes Sense in a Biblical Worldview


If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if*their*thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
-C.S. Lewis (1898–1963),*The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.


Either human intelligence owes its origin to mindless matter or there is a creator. Its strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second”
-John Lennox prof fellow of mathematics and philosophy of science oxford university 2009


Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science. Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations. So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident [our brain] to understand another accident the world? Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth. We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly. How do we know our eyes, ears, brain, and memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know. We could be in some matrix world or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]

Science would be impossible unless our memories were giving accurate info as well as our senses such as our eyes and ears . Laws of logic are needed as well. How does matter produce a organism with memory? Or a consciousness. If this comes from mere machines [us] they why would not machines gain consciousnesses? Science needs us to be able to know our senses are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality? Also regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions.

Yet the universe is understandable, we assume the universe is logical and orderly as it obeys mathematical laws. That is how we can make predictions. Freedom to chose and consider various options free will not deterministic “dance to the sound of our genes” as Richard Dawkins described it. In fact if evolution is true evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them. evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.


But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature. I would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible. so that we were able to do repeatable* lab experiments etc. That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ears are accurately giving us the correct information, information to be able to do science in the first place. If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
If you are looking for creation sources i recommend the following organizations.

https://creationresearch.org/
http://www.icr.org/homepage/
https://creation.com/
https://answersingenesis.org/


as for evolutionist lying, see my op and former thread for some great examples. See talk origins for them taking creationist out of context and misleading on their beliefs or literally any evolutionist source [98% at least] that speaks on creation.

No sir, I am not going to go on a wild goose chase. In part because I already know that your posts don't address what I asked for:

1. Give me specific examples of evolutionary scientists who quote mine to support evolution.

2. Or scientists in good standing who lie about their credentials.

3. And specific apologist AUTHORS who you think are good (1 or 2 to start off with, don't gish gallop me). Not entire websites.

Or recant your claim that you have seen the same thing I have with creationist apologists. Your choice.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟336,823.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I never said science was a religion. i said evolution is a anti science religion refuted by science and observation such as the fossil record.

Except that evolution is part of the science of biology. It also hasn't been refuted by science at all. Claiming otherwise is just ignorant.

I agree i also hate when evolutionist are anti science, rather they should allow observation and the fossil record to form their beliefs rather than their faith ignore science.

The latter is precisely why we have the various scientific findings such as a 4.5 billion year old Earth, 13.7 billion year old universe and evolutionary development of species on planet Earth. Claiming otherwise is again ignorant.

Science only Makes Sense in a Biblical Worldview

Yeah, i've seen the last time you posted all this stuff. It just a bunch of off-topic prattle that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote about the teaching and use of evolutionary biology among other sciences that creationists oppose.
 
Upvote 0

Tolkien R.R.J

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2018
924
265
40
Virginia
✟74,784.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
No sir, I am not going to go on a wild goose chase. In part because I already know that your posts don't address what I asked for:

1. Give me specific examples of evolutionary scientists who quote mine to support evolution.

2. Or scientists in good standing who lie about their credentials.

3. And specific apologist AUTHORS who you think are good (1 or 2 to start off with, don't gish gallop me). Not entire websites.

Or recant your claim that you have seen the same thing I have with creationist apologists. Your choice.


Honestly I dont have time at the moment as i have 2 threads running. If you go to my first thread you will find about a dozen examples off of talk origins doing so. When I have more time i can provide specific examples dawkins has many. Bio logoes Francis as well.

Lying about credentials I dont remember saying I have seen I dont pay to close attention as i will listen to anyone.


hmm, I like Lisle. Bergman. Morris [john]. To many to name. Not sure what it has to do with evolutionist lying to us about fossils.
 
Upvote 0

Tolkien R.R.J

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2018
924
265
40
Virginia
✟74,784.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Except that evolution is part of the science of biology. It also hasn't been refuted by science at all. Claiming otherwise is just ignorant.



The latter is precisely why we have the various scientific findings such as a 4.5 billion year old Earth, 13.7 billion year old universe and evolutionary development of species on planet Earth. Claiming otherwise is again ignorant.



Yeah, i've seen the last time you posted all this stuff. It just a bunch of off-topic prattle that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote about the teaching and use of evolutionary biology among other sciences that creationists oppose.


Threads have been done where you could support the claim evolution is part of science. of course as we saw before your definition all agree with as true and part of biology. But future threads this can be discussed once more. Same with the age of the earth. If you have anything on the fossil record i would be glad to talk about it. Nice way to dodge the fact science only makes sense if creation were true and evolution cannot account for science.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟336,823.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Threads have been done where you could support the claim evolution is part of science.

Since you love quotes so much, how about I just quote a creationist instead:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

But honestly you don't have to look very far to see how evolution is part of modern biology. A basic biology textbook or introductary biology course will affirm that.

But future threads this can be discussed once more. Same with the age of the earth. If you have anything on the fossil record i would be glad to talk about it.

Nah, I've debated stuff before and have little desire to engage in a laundry list of PRATTs. There isn't really anything to debate. Findings in science aren't affected by anything you post here.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Honestly I dont have time at the moment as i have 2 threads running. If you go to my first thread you will find about a dozen examples off of talk origins doing so. When I have more time i can provide specific examples dawkins has many. Bio logoes Francis as well.

Lying about credentials I dont remember saying I have seen I dont pay to close attention as i will listen to anyone.


hmm, I like Lisle. Bergman. Morris [john]. To many to name. Not sure what it has to do with evolutionist lying to us about fossils.

The point is that you dismissed my statements about the deception I've seen with creationists by agreeing that you have seen all that, too, on the other side. I highly doubt it. So I'm asking you to support it.

I don't care about Talk Origins. They are not scientists. I asked for evolutionary scientists who quote mine in support of evolution.

But I'll make this easy for you...show me where Talk Origins has quote mined.

And I'll start with your apologists, as soon as you give me first names (in the cases of Lisle and Bergman), so that I can be sure to have the correct person. You should know, though, that there is a wealth of examples I can choose from for John Morris.

You were the one who offered to guide me to "good" apologists. I offered to show you that they are not as good as you think.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tolkien R.R.J

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2018
924
265
40
Virginia
✟74,784.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The point is that you dismissed my statements about the deception I've seen with creationists by agreeing that you have seen all that, too, on the other side. I highly doubt it. So I'm asking you to support it.

I don't care about Talk Origins. They are not scientists. I asked for evolutionary scientists who quote mine in support of evolution.

But I'll make this easy for you...show me where Talk Origins has quote mined.

And I'll start with your apologists, as soon as you give me first names (in the cases of Lisle and Bergman), so that I can be sure to have the correct person. You should know, though, that there is a wealth of examples I can choose from for John Morris.

You were the one who offered to guide me to "good" apologists. I offered to show you that they are not as good as you think.


As i said if you wish to provide examples i would love a pm or since it could be related to evolutionist lying this thread is ok as well. Jason lisle and jerry bergman and john morris [picked from the first books on my shelf]. There are scientist that contribute to talk origins. Besides i am not against scientist but evolutionist. Who often quote mine creationist or more often misrepresent what they believe.
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
As i said if you wish to provide examples i would love a pm or since it could be related to evolutionist lying this thread is ok as well. Jason lisle and jerry bergman and john morris [picked from the first books on my shelf]. There are scientist that contribute to talk origins. Besides i am not against scientist but evolutionist. Who often quote mine creationist or more often misrepresent what they believe.

No, you asked for which apologists I have been exposed to which made these deceptive claims. There are tons of them. The Hovinds, Stroebel, Wells, the Morris's, Baugh, Snelling, Hamm, Gentry. And a host of others. I didn't reply with examples, because I wanted to use ones who YOU support. It doesn't matter which one it is.

"I am not against scientist but evolutionist"

Which is why I specifically requested evolutionary scientists. and "to support evolution."

I have no intention of defending some random "evolutionist" off the street. My claims were against your creationist champions. People who are paid to spread their "knowledge." After all, we were talking about spreading lies to the public, right? Random dudes on the internet can be (and with creationists usually ARE) just repeating things their champions have written. Therefore, the spreading of lies is initiated by, and the responsibility of, the "authority."

That said, at least you've provided the easiest of my requests...I'll do a little research on your named apologists after the Mich-ND game is over.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟336,823.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
  • Optimistic
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Apparently another thread was closed because you're not allowed to accuse a group of people as being liars: https://www.christianforums.com/thr...yec-in-a-lie-2-0.8039338/page-8#post-73130746

Wonder if the same will happen to this thread. If it does, at least the moderation on this forum will be consistent.

I think it specifies calling people on the forum liars, correct? Cause I have called some apologists liars, and if I can't do that, I'll refrain from doing so.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟336,823.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I think it specifies calling people on the forum liars, correct? Cause I have called some apologists liars, and if I can't do that, I'll refrain from doing so.

The statement in that other thread said the following:

This thread has been permanently closed as it is flaming creationists by making a blanket statement that they deliberately lie to support their beliefs.
The OP of this thread is doing the exact same thing. That's why I wonder if the mods will lock this thread for the same reason.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The statement in that other thread said the following:

This thread has been permanently closed as it is flaming creationists by making a blanket statement that they deliberately lie to support their beliefs.
The OP of this thread is doing the exact same thing. That's why I wonder if the mods will lock this thread for the same reason.

Yeah, but that thread did include direct personal accusations, too. The "blanket statements" were thinly veiled personal attacks.
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
As i said if you wish to provide examples i would love a pm or since it could be related to evolutionist lying this thread is ok as well. Jason lisle and jerry bergman and john morris [picked from the first books on my shelf]. There are scientist that contribute to talk origins. Besides i am not against scientist but evolutionist. Who often quote mine creationist or more often misrepresent what they believe.

Ok, let's start with Jerry Bergman. First of all, he is guilty of misrepresenting his educational credentials. He was denied tenure, and subsequently lost his job at Bowling Green State University because, in part, he claimed he "was a psychologist, but had no psychology credentials."

https://openjurist.org/820/f2d/1224/gerald-r-bergman-phd-v-bowling-green-state-university-et-al

Additionally, one of his claimed Ph.D.s is from a diploma mill, Columbia Pacific University, which was court ordered to cease operations in 1997.

Further, Bergman is the author of some of the most heinous quote mines I've ever seen. Consider this:

Bergman claimed that C.S. Lewis was an anti-evolutionist creationist, and [mis]quotes him thusly:

"the doctrine of Evolution as held by practicing [sic] biologists is...a less satisfactory hypothesis than was hoped fifty years ago"

What Lewis ACTUALLY said was this (with Bergman's omitted words in bold):

I do not mean that the doctrine of Evolution as held by practising biologists is a Myth. It may be shown, by later biologists, to be a less satisfactory hypothesis than was hoped fifty years ago."

Bergman would have you believe that Lewis currently felt that evolution was less satisfactory than was hoped 50 years before that.

But that is not what he was saying. He was speculating that maybe, 50 years in the future, future biologists might feel that way.

You really should read the following piece (it was published in Journal of Creation's letters to the editor, and relayed on creation.com):

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j29_1/j29_1_58-60.pdf

It really tells you all you need to know about Bergman's honesty (or lack thereof).

To be fair to creation.com, it appear's Bergman's article has been pulled from their site.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟151,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Archaeoraptor. Not archaeopteryx, that is the other thread.
. Oh I remember that , National Geographic put it on the cover of one of their issues . They then realized that it was an amalgam of at least 2 other fossils . They printed the retraction , published it on their website and removed the picture of the cover from the website . They did all that BEFORE the issue was even mailed out . I had a subscription then and the retraction was in place a week before I got the magazine . Nat Geo owned up to their mistake and they also printed a retraction in the following issue. Now archaeoraptor wasn’t fake, it was various fossils glued together by an amateur. Two of those fossils were actually new to science. So what about it ? When was the last time a creationist organization admitted that they were wrong or had made a mistake? I seem to remember that Glenn Morton ( of Morton’s demon fame) asked his former YEC employer to take down his flood geology essays after he realized that they were valueless as geology information and he was ignored.
 
Upvote 0

Tolkien R.R.J

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2018
924
265
40
Virginia
✟74,784.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Ok, let's start with Jerry Bergman. First of all, he is guilty of misrepresenting his educational credentials. He was denied tenure, and subsequently lost his job at Bowling Green State University because, in part, he claimed he "was a psychologist, but had no psychology credentials."

https://openjurist.org/820/f2d/1224/gerald-r-bergman-phd-v-bowling-green-state-university-et-al

Additionally, one of his claimed Ph.D.s is from a diploma mill, Columbia Pacific University, which was court ordered to cease operations in 1997.

Further, Bergman is the author of some of the most heinous quote mines I've ever seen. Consider this:

Bergman claimed that C.S. Lewis was an anti-evolutionist creationist, and [mis]quotes him thusly:



What Lewis ACTUALLY said was this (with Bergman's omitted words in bold):



Bergman would have you believe that Lewis currently felt that evolution was less satisfactory than was hoped 50 years before that.

But that is not what he was saying. He was speculating that maybe, 50 years in the future, future biologists might feel that way.

You really should read the following piece (it was published in Journal of Creation's letters to the editor, and relayed on creation.com):

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j29_1/j29_1_58-60.pdf

It really tells you all you need to know about Bergman's honesty (or lack thereof).

To be fair to creation.com, it appear's Bergman's article has been pulled from their site.


And it is a great example of religious discrimination is it not? The university made many false claims about him. See here

https://www.rae.org/essay-links/bergmantenure/
https://www.rae.org/essay-links/Walinski1/

Now if you think he is lying about his credentials, witch ones.


Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology at Northwest State College in Archbold OH for over 25 years. He has 9 degrees, including 7 graduate (= ‘post-graduate’ in some non-US systems) degrees. Dr Bergman is a graduate of Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, The University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 800 publications in 12 languages and 20 books and monographs. He has also taught at the Medical College of Ohio where he was a research associate in the department of experimental pathology, and he also taught 6 years at the University of Toledo, and 7 years at Bowing Green State University.

Among his books is a monograph on peer evaluation published by the College Student Journal Press, a Fastback on the creation-evolution controversy published by Phi Delta Kappa, a book on vestigial organs with Dr George Howe (‘Vestigial Organs’ are Fully Functional), a book on psychology and religious cults, a book on religious discrimination published by Onesimus Press, and a book on mental health published by Claudius Verlag in München. He has also published a college textbook on evaluation (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co.), and has contributed to dozens of other textbooks. He was also a consultant for over 20 science text books, mostly biology and biochemistry.

Dr Bergman has presented over one hundred scientific papers at professional and community meetings in the United States, Canada, and Europe. To discuss his research, he has been a featured speaker on many college campuses throughout the United States and Europe, and is a frequent guest on radio and television programs. His research has made the front page in newspapers throughout the country, has been featured by the Paul Harvey Show several times, and has been discussed by David Brinkley, Chuck Colson, and other nationally known commentators on national television.

His other work experience includes over ten years experience at various Mental Health/Psychology clinics as a licensed professional clinical counselor and three years full time corrections research for a large county circuit court in Michigan and inside the walls of Jackson Prison (SPSM), the largest walled prison in the world. He has also served as a consultant for CBS News, ABC News, Reader’s Digest, Amnesty International, several government agencies and for two Nobel Prize winners, including the inventor of the transistor. In the past decade he has consulted or has testified as an expert witness or consultant in almost one-hundred court cases. A Fellow of the American Scientific Association, member of The National Association for the Advancement of Science, and many other professional associations, he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in the Midwest and in Who’s Who in Science and Religion.

Education
  • M.P.H., Northwest Ohio Consortium for Public Health (Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio; University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio; Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio), 2001.
  • M.S. in biomedical science, Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio, 1999.
  • Ph.D. in human biology, Columbia Pacific University, San Rafael, California, 1992.
  • M.A. in social psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, 1986.
  • Ph.D. in measurement and evaluation, minor in psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1976.
  • M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1971.
  • B.S., Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1970. Major area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology.
  • A.A. in Biology and Behavioral Science, Oakland Community College, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, 1967.
Honors/awards/certifications
  • Fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation, 1983
  • Who's Who in America
  • MENSA
  • Ohio certification to teach both elementary and high school levels
Professional memberships
Dr Bergman is or was active in the following organizations:

  • National Association for Gifted Children
  • American Educational Research Association
  • National Council on Measurement in Education
  • American Sociological Association
  • American Psychological Association
  • Ohio Psychological Association
  • Association for the Scientific Study of Religion
  • American Association of Suicidology
  • Institute of Religion and Health
  • American Society of Corrections
The Professional Organizations that Dr Bergman is now a member of and/or involved in, include:

  • Ohio Science Teachers Association.
  • American Biology Teachers Association.
  • The American Scientific Affiliation.
  • The American Association for the Advancement of Science.
  • The American Association for the History of Science
  • American Chemical Society
  • American Institute of Biological Sciences.
  • Ohio Academy of Science
  • American Institute of Chemists
  • New York Academy of Sciences
  • The New York Museum of Natural History
Other professional memberships
  • Society for the Scientific Study of Male Psychology and Physiology, President and Founder
Radio, video tapes, and television shows
Dr Bergman has appeared on approximately 200 radio shows and 14 television shows for various Public Television and other stations. His research has been featured several times on the Paul Harvey Show, and once by David Brinkley.





CS Lewis

Yes this was brought up in the journal of creation [creationist peer

reviewed] https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j29_1/j29_1_58-60.pdf

Here was Bergmans response in that journal

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j29_1/j29_1_61-63.pdf

I have read his book and he spends a good deal of time defining evolution in the various ways Lewis used it and his changing opinions over time.


a sort relevant section

Lewis adds that we must sharply distinguish between “Evolution as a biological theorem and popular Evolutionism or Developmentalism which is certainly a Myth”. From the context it is apparent that by Evolutionism or Development he means common ancestry, or what some would term macroevolution. By evolution, as I made clear, I mean Developmentalism (that which causes improvements), not evolution which causes small observable changes, as Lewis defined the term. As to “What inclines me now to think that you may be right in regarding it [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders”, I do not find the differences he notes “significantly more tentative”, but trivial. In my original paper I included the words Jay Wile italicized, but space constraints, as also apply to this response, required cutting the original paper wherever I could. Also, assuming Wile has a point in no way negates my conclusion...

The fact is Lewis wrote, “It may be shown, by later biologists, to be a less satisfactory hypothesis than was hoped fifty years ago”, which is not what Wile claimed: instead he claimed Lewis said, “He conjectured that perhaps some biologists in the future might conclude” that it may be a less satisfactory hypothesis than was hoped fifty years ago. This point is nit picking and goes against much of what Lewis wrote. I cut it back in an effort to meet CMI’s word limit. The fact is Lewis wrote much about the ‘myth’ of Darwinism in his later writings, showing that his thinking developed well beyond his early speculations about evolution....

Lewis was toward the end of his life a ‘creationist and anti-evolutionist’ as I have defined the terms in my forthcoming book.....

In his Funeral essay, Lewis makes it clear that he accepted microevolution, but not macroevolution. This is clear in his statement: “… it [evolution] tries to explain, say, how a species that once had wings came to lose them. It explains this by the negative effect of environment operating on small variations. It does not in itself explain the origin of organic life, nor of the variations, nor does it discuss the origin and validity of reason.”
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tolkien R.R.J

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2018
924
265
40
Virginia
✟74,784.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
. Oh I remember that , National Geographic put it on the cover of one of their issues . They then realized that it was an amalgam of at least 2 other fossils . They printed the retraction , published it on their website and removed the picture of the cover from the website . They did all that BEFORE the issue was even mailed out . I had a subscription then and the retraction was in place a week before I got the magazine . Nat Geo owned up to their mistake and they also printed a retraction in the following issue. Now archaeoraptor wasn’t fake, it was various fossils glued together by an amateur. Two of those fossils were actually new to science. So what about it ? When was the last time a creationist organization admitted that they were wrong or had made a mistake? I seem to remember that Glenn Morton ( of Morton’s demon fame) asked his former YEC employer to take down his flood geology essays after he realized that they were valueless as geology information and he was ignored.


Support your claims about NG and the retraction. They were harassed and finally put in a small retraction if i remember on the back or under the corrections like it was a small deal. And if they did that before mailing, why send the false hood out at all?



creationist are wrong as well and correct their stuff. Read their stuff and you will see that. Read the journals and magazines. Read the argument creationist should not use etc.
 
Upvote 0