Evolutionists and credentialism

[huldah153]

Evolutionists often state that creationist claims are invalid because those who espouse them lack the credentials. This isn't true.

Granted, there are a few televangelists (Kent Hovind etc.) whose scientific knowledge is around high-school level, but they're only the minority of creationists. Many, such as Kurt Wise, have PhDs in relevant fields. If it takes a moron to believe in creationism, then why do scientists with PhDs adhere to it?

Ronald Fisher, the main architect of the modern evolutionary synthesis, is described by Dawkins as "the greatest of Darwin's successors." He had no degree in biology, or even mathematics, but instead specialised in "eugenics" and astronomy. His ideas were embraced simply because they conformed to the theory of evolution. Yet someone like Dembski, who has a PhD in mathematics, becomes ridiculed because his ideas challenge evolution. This alone proves that credentials are meaningless when it comes to the question of origins.

I won't go down the 'Expelled' route and a claim a persecution complex. But just because ninety-nine percent of scientists are evolutionists does not make evolution true. If so, then the ninety-nine percent of scientists who believed in a flat earth five-hundred years ago must've been right about that too.

 

[Vene]

Then explain ERVs to me in light of creationism.

 

[milkyway]

Evolutionists often state that creationist claims are invalid because those who espouse them lack the credentials. This isn't true.

It's not about credentials but evidence. If creationists publish scientific papers for peer review, and can build on their work and show the evidence and experimentation, they will be taken seriously.

Don't hold your breath though.

 

[Tomk80]

Evolutionists often state that creationist claims are invalid because those who espouse them lack the credentials. This isn't true.

Granted, there are a few televangelists (Kent Hovind etc.) whose scientific knowledge is around high-school level, but they're only the minority of creationists. Many, such as Kurt Wise, have PhDs in relevant fields. If it takes a moron to believe in creationism, then why do scientists with PhDs adhere to it?

Ronald Fisher, the main architect of the modern evolutionary synthesis, is described by Dawkins as "the greatest of Darwin's successors." He had no degree in biology, or even mathematics, but instead specialised in "eugenics" and astronomy. His ideas were embraced simply because they conformed to the theory of evolution. Yet someone like Dembski, who has a PhD in mathematics, becomes ridiculed because his ideas challenge evolution. This alone proves that credentials are meaningless when it comes to the question of origins.

I won't go down the 'Expelled' route and a claim a persecution complex. But just because ninety-nine percent of scientists are evolutionists does not make evolution true. If so, then the ninety-nine percent of scientists who believed in a flat earth five-hundred years ago must've been right about that too.

No. The fact that there is no evidence for creationism makes creationism most likely false. The fact that ID creationism is unfalsifiable makes ID creationism not science. And the fact that evolution is supported by evidence, while creationism and ID creationism are not, makes evolution most likely true.

 

[Isambard]

Evolutionists often state that creationist claims are invalid because those who espouse them lack the credentials. This isn't true.

Granted, there are a few televangelists (Kent Hovind etc.) whose scientific knowledge is around high-school level, but they're only the minority of creationists. Many, such as Kurt Wise, have PhDs in relevant fields. If it takes a moron to believe in creationism, then why do scientists with PhDs adhere to it?

Ronald Fisher, the main architect of the modern evolutionary synthesis, is described by Dawkins as "the greatest of Darwin's successors." He had no degree in biology, or even mathematics, but instead specialised in "eugenics" and astronomy. His ideas were embraced simply because they conformed to the theory of evolution. Yet someone like Dembski, who has a PhD in mathematics, becomes ridiculed because his ideas challenge evolution. This alone proves that credentials are meaningless when it comes to the question of origins.

I won't go down the 'Expelled' route and a claim a persecution complex. But just because ninety-nine percent of scientists are evolutionists does not make evolution true. If so, then the ninety-nine percent of scientists who believed in a flat earth five-hundred years ago must've been right about that too.

You're absolutely correct. Ad populum and Appeal to authority, are non-arguements as far as demonstration evolution to be true. I think your missing something though. These two points become arguements when they address creationist claims about evolution, not necessarily the validity of evolution itself.

A common arguement in the creationist and ID camp, is to claim that the scientific community is divided, that more and more scientists are abandoning evolution in favour of ID, or that even a minority of scientists believe in evolution (typically muslim creationists).

In this case, showing that the overwhemling majority of scientists actually subscribe to ToE becomes relevant as it counters the non-arguements from creationists demonstrating they have no idea what they are talking about, or worst yet, that they are lying thru their teeth.

 

[Bombila]

In what way does a PhD in mathematics make one competent to reject the findings of an entirely different scientific discipline? Is a biologist with a PhD competent to reject the findings of mainstream astrophysicists, for example?

Referencing what people interested in science thought five hundred years ago doesn't seem particularly relevant. Knowledge of all kinds has significantly advanced since then. If you were able to resurrect such people and show them some of the evidence available presently, I imagine, if they were indeed of a scientific bent, they would enthusiastically embrace modern understanding of the relationship of earth to sun, etc. And really - by 1508 more than a few educated people were aware of the likely spherical nature of the planet.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Evolutionists often state that creationist claims are invalid because those who espouse them lack the credentials. This isn't true.

Granted, there are a few televangelists (Kent Hovind etc.) whose scientific knowledge is around high-school level, but they're only the minority of creationists. Many, such as Kurt Wise, have PhDs in relevant fields. If it takes a moron to believe in creationism, then why do scientists with PhDs adhere to it?

Ronald Fisher, the main architect of the modern evolutionary synthesis, is described by Dawkins as "the greatest of Darwin's successors." He had no degree in biology, or even mathematics, but instead specialised in "eugenics" and astronomy. His ideas were embraced simply because they conformed to the theory of evolution. Yet someone like Dembski, who has a PhD in mathematics, becomes ridiculed because his ideas challenge evolution. This alone proves that credentials are meaningless when it comes to the question of origins.

I won't go down the 'Expelled' route and a claim a persecution complex. But just because ninety-nine percent of scientists are evolutionists does not make evolution true. If so, then the ninety-nine percent of scientists who believed in a flat earth five-hundred years ago must've been right about that too.

Granted, but keep in mind that people like Dembski and Behe aren't ridiculed because they lack credentials - in fact, I don't remember that Behe's non-ID publications were ever attacked - but because they have, despite having millions of dollars available through the Discovery Institute and affiliated organizations that could be used for original research - so far utterly failed to produce anything besides variations of "I cannot think of a way X evolved, therefore God".

 

[Vene]

And really - by 1508 more than a few educated people were aware of the likely spherical nature of the planet.

And those that weren't aware should have been, considering that the ancient Greeks knew about it well before the middle ages.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Evolutionists often state that creationist claims are invalid because those who espouse them lack the credentials. This isn't true.

Granted, there are a few televangelists (Kent Hovind etc.) whose scientific knowledge is around high-school level, but they're only the minority of creationists. Many, such as Kurt Wise, have PhDs in relevant fields. If it takes a moron to believe in creationism, then why do scientists with PhDs adhere to it?

Ronald Fisher, the main architect of the modern evolutionary synthesis, is described by Dawkins as "the greatest of Darwin's successors." He had no degree in biology, or even mathematics, but instead specialised in "eugenics" and astronomy. His ideas were embraced simply because they conformed to the theory of evolution. Yet someone like Dembski, who has a PhD in mathematics, becomes ridiculed because his ideas challenge evolution. This alone proves that credentials are meaningless when it comes to the question of origins.

I won't go down the 'Expelled' route and a claim a persecution complex. But just because ninety-nine percent of scientists are evolutionists does not make evolution true. If so, then the ninety-nine percent of scientists who believed in a flat earth five-hundred years ago must've been right about that too.

HULDAH153 Wrote:

Granted, there are a few televangelists (Kent Hovind etc.) whose scientific knowledge is around high-school level, but they're only the minority of creationists.

No most creationists have a very limited education where the natural sciences are concerned

Many, such as Kurt Wise, have PhDs in relevant fields. If it takes a moron to believe in creationism, then why do scientists with PhDs adhere to it?

1 The same reason as always “MONEY and POWER”
2 Research funding in area’s where they do real research
3 Inability to deal with the truth; they need a comfort blanket for their own mortality.



Ronald Fisher, the main architect of the modern evolutionary synthesis, is described by Dawkins as "the greatest of Darwin's successors." He had no degree in biology, or even mathematics, but instead specialised in "eugenics" and astronomy. His ideas were embraced simply because they conformed to the theory of evolution.

No one has ever claimed that religion is the domain of the ignorant and stupid.

Yet someone like Dembski, who has a PhD in mathematics, becomes ridiculed because his ideas challenge evolution. This alone proves that credentials are meaningless when it comes to the question of origins.

His challenges come in the form of magical mysticism not science.

I won't go down the 'Expelled' route and a claim a persecution complex.

There is no persecution; and let’s be honest, when creationists start building creationist museums with dinosaurs playing with children; who would take them seriously, except as a danger to children’s education.

But just because ninety-nine percent of scientists are evolutionists does not make evolution true.

No; it’s the evidence that does that.

If so, then the ninety-nine percent of scientists who believed in a flat earth five-hundred years ago must've been right about that too.

500 years ago there was no science; just the persecution of scientifically minded people by Christians.

Here’s persecution if that’s what you want.

Christians murdering scientists
LINK


Four centuries ago today, on February 16, 1600, the Roman Catholic Church executed Giordano Bruno, Italian philosopher and scientist, for the crime of heresy. He was taken from his cell in the early hours of the morning to the Piazza dei Fiori in Rome and burnt alive at the stake. To the last, the Church authorities were fearful of the ideas of a man who was known throughout Europe as a bold and brilliant thinker. In a peculiar twist to the gruesome affair, the executioners were ordered to tie his tongue so that he would be unable to address those gathered.
Throughout his life Bruno championed the Copernican system of astronomy which placed the sun, not the Earth, at the centre of the solar system. He opposed the stultifying authority of the Church and refused to recant his philosophical beliefs throughout his eight years of imprisonment by the Venetian and Roman Inquisitions. His life stands as a testimony to the drive for knowledge and truth that marked the astonishing period of history known as the Renaissance—from which so much in modern art, thought and science derives.
In 1992, after 12 years of deliberations, the Roman Catholic Church grudgingly admitted that Galileo Galilei had been right in supporting the theories of Copernicus. The Holy Inquisition had forced an aged Galileo to recant his ideas under threat of torture in 1633. But no such admission has been made in the case of Bruno. His writings are still on the Vatican's list of forbidden texts.

"He turned his face away from the proffered crucifix and died in silence."
Cheesy as a paperback cover, Giordano Bruno Burning by André Durand (2000).

 

[TeddyKGB]

Granted, there are a few televangelists (Kent Hovind etc.) whose scientific knowledge is around high-school level, but they're only the minority of creationists. Many, such as Kurt Wise, have PhDs in relevant fields. If it takes a moron to believe in creationism, then why do scientists with PhDs adhere to it?

Ironically, honestly-degreed Kurt Wise is virtually the only creationist who both openly admits that the evidence overwhelmingly supports long-age evolution and openly cops to being a YEC via faith in an Adventist interpretation of the Bible alone.

Ronald Fisher, the main architect of the modern evolutionary synthesis, is described by Dawkins as "the greatest of Darwin's successors." He had no degree in biology, or even mathematics, but instead specialised in "eugenics" and astronomy. His ideas were embraced simply because they conformed to the theory of evolution. Yet someone like Dembski, who has a PhD in mathematics, becomes ridiculed because his ideas challenge evolution. This alone proves that credentials are meaningless when it comes to the question of origins.

"This alone"? You wish.

 

[Michael1975]

Evolutionists often state that creationist claims are invalid because those who espouse them lack the credentials. This isn't true.

Granted, there are a few televangelists (Kent Hovind etc.) whose scientific knowledge is around high-school level, but they're only the minority of creationists. Many, such as Kurt Wise, have PhDs in relevant fields. If it takes a moron to believe in creationism, then why do scientists with PhDs adhere to it?

Ronald Fisher, the main architect of the modern evolutionary synthesis, is described by Dawkins as "the greatest of Darwin's successors." He had no degree in biology, or even mathematics, but instead specialised in "eugenics" and astronomy. His ideas were embraced simply because they conformed to the theory of evolution. Yet someone like Dembski, who has a PhD in mathematics, becomes ridiculed because his ideas challenge evolution. This alone proves that credentials are meaningless when it comes to the question of origins.

I won't go down the 'Expelled' route and a claim a persecution complex. But just because ninety-nine percent of scientists are evolutionists does not make evolution true. If so, then the ninety-nine percent of scientists who believed in a flat earth five-hundred years ago must've been right about that too.

I agree with you. The intelligence of people believing in a certain thing doesn't necessarily make it correct.

 

[sbvera13]

I agree with you. The intelligence of people believing in a certain thing doesn't necessarily make it correct.

Tell that to your auto mechanic when you ask him to fix your lower back problems.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I agree with you. The intelligence of people believing in a certain thing doesn't necessarily make it correct.

The OP's message is not nearly so innocent. It's trying to put scientists and creationists on academically equal footing by special pleading.

 

[Logicalthinker]

I find it funny that evolution always discredits creation with a could have or a what if. Even Darwin knew there was huge gaps in his theory. Those gaps are still there.
A lot of times they will say the God of Creation (Jehovah) is the God of gaps. But that statement, is to me, an observation of the gaps in evolution. Darwin is the god of gaps. Creationists do not have gaps in their theory. God created everything. No gaps.

Plus Creationist do have evidence. They have the bible. Now as time progresses prophecy comes true. The bible has never been proven wrong in it's historical value, and people have tried to discredit it. Even to this day the prophecies are still coming true.

All the prophecies of Jesus came true.
All the prophecies of his death. right down to the silver payed and to being killed as a cursed person.
Prophecies of the gentile times are coming true. 2 Timothy 3:* The whole chapter.
Prophecies of Jerusalem being abandoned by God. Just look at the wars and condition of the promised land.
Some of these prophecies can be said, "that this kind of stuff has always happened." Sure they have, but now their in your face. Can't escape the rumor of wars, one natural disaster after another, food shortages (apples fly over Africa every day from New Zealand. No one drops any for the starving people there) and the attitudes of mankind with one another. Road Rage, School shootings, abortion and kids killing parents.

Plus there is one prophecy that has not happened before. When it was written how could they fathom that creation itself would moan from distress. When this prophecy was written the Earth was functioning just fine. Look at it now. Global warming, pollution and animal extinction. Polar bears, Tasmanian devils, orangutans, ( only 1500 of them left in the wild. ), spotted owls and on and on.
Here is that prophecy.

Roman 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Plus evolution doesn't explain none living elements. Where did water come from, Gold, Iron, or plain old dirt. How did the big bang make stuff out of nothing. People say that the reaction of stars created that stuff. What made the gases that the stars burn on, to make that stuff?

I study the bible a lot. I am working hard at becoming a ministerial servant. The bible has a lot of facts that are very true.

God Bless
LT

 

[Michael1975]

Tell that to your auto mechanic when you ask him to fix your lower back problems.

I don't get it.

 

[Vene]

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain ERVs in light of creationism.

 

[Logicalthinker]

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain ERVs in light of creationism.

Why don't you at least tell us what ERV stands for? I can ask the same kind of garbage.

Please explain CESs in nature using evolution?

What is a CES? look for it.

God Bless
LT

 

[Gracchus]

I find it funny that evolution always discredits creation with a could have or a what if. Even Darwin knew there was huge gaps in his theory. Those gaps are still there.

What gaps?

A lot of times they will say the God of Creation (Jehovah) is the God of gaps. But that statement, is to me, an observation of the gaps in evolution. Darwin is the god of gaps. Creationists do not have gaps in their theory. God created everything. No gaps.

I don’t think you grasp the concept of “the God of the gaps”. It refers to the phenomenon of religious folks filling the gaps in scientific knowledge by saying “God did it.”

Lightning flashes from the sky. The ignorant witness covers the gap in his knowledge by saying, “God did it.” Now we know about electricity. We no longer need to suppose that some magical sky-man was shooting fiery arrows.

An arc of colors appears in the sky after a rain, and the witch doctor says, “God has placed his bow in the heavens.” Now we know about the refraction and reflection of light by water droplets. It has nothing to do with divine archery.

Plus Creationist do have evidence. They have the bible.

The Bible might be evidence of what primitive ignorant people believed a few thousand years ago, but it is not evidence of its own claims.

Now as time progresses prophecy comes true. The bible has never been proven wrong in it's historical value, and people have tried to discredit it. Even to this day the prophecies are still coming true.

In the year 1066 C.E., Harold Bluetooth prophesied that George Washington would cross the Delaware river and defeat the British at Trenton. Voila! Harold Bluetooth was a prophet! By your reasoning, that proves everything I write is true!

Roman 8:22

For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Back when this was written it was put in the present tense. It was not a foretelling, it was an observation.

Plus evolution doesn't explain none living elements.

Evolution explains the observed diversity of living things (and of dead things). It does not try to explain physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, or cosmology, although those disciplines can help explain evolution.

Where did water come from, Gold, Iron, or plain old dirt.

Water is formed when two atoms of hydrogen combing with one atom of oxygen, releasing energy. Iron is formed by the fusion of lighter elements in the core of a star. Gold is formed when stars go super-nova. Dirt is weathered rock with some organic waste.

How did the big bang make stuff out of nothing.

It didn’t.

People say that the reaction of stars created that stuff. What made the gases that the stars burn on, to make that stuff?

Hydrogen and helium were products of the big bang.

I study the bible a lot. I am working hard at becoming a ministerial servant. The bible has a lot of facts that are very true.

That is very nice and I wish you well. Perhaps you will learn some things about science when you get to high school.

 

[Logicalthinker]

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain ERVs in light of creationism.

Maybe your talking about
Energy Recovery Ventilator


Well God made people and people made
Energy Recovery Ventilators


God Bless
LT

 

[AV1611VET]

[nevermind]