You seem enjoy Asimov quotes so here's an apt one for you from the
article I linked (which I doubt you even looked at).
Creationists have learned enough scientific terminology to use it in their attempts ...
1. I quote atheist sources to evolutionists because for the evol POV - that is the "high priest" -- it is not because I am atheist or because I also blindly follow whatever atheists say.
2. The fact that you quote an atheist to "me" - as if this obectivity and parity with my find your own atheist evolutionists exposing flaws in evolutionism - is a confirmation of what Patterson calls "anti-knowledge" that evolutionism conveys to its true believers.
The text you give about Christians not being "Able" to be scientists - is the sort of utter nonsense we can expect from students of blind faith evolutionism. It argues that because someone notices the flaws in evolutionism - they must not be "able" to be a scientist, to study science, to be chemists, biologists, physicists, egineers.
That is the sort of "religion" that Collin Patterson lamented among his fellow atheist evolutionists.
Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution) in a talk given at the American Museum of Natural History 1981
--------------------- Patterson said -
“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?
I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the
members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing –
it ought not to be taught in high school”
"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year
I had a sudden realization.
"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been
working on this stuff fortwenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...
It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow.
We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...
about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."
===============================
Hint: that text is not from a letter to Sunderland.
He's obviously not talking about the scientific community, given that this was offered more than a decade after we found what was actually responsible for mutations and varied descent, a full decade after Susumu Ohno's groundbreaking research on gene duplication, and more than a century after the observations that first led to the formulation of the theory! So even if you're completely correct in your interpretation and assertion of these quotes, do you know what that means? Only one thing: that Colin Patterson knew very little about evolution. Of course, given that the man made biological systematics his job, I find it hard to believe that the quote is accurate. And given that he has clarified his position, I find it dishonest to keep repeating the same bogus arguments.
You mean you find it "inconvenient"
“Can you tell me a
nything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?"
"I tried that question on the
geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the
members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing –
it ought not to be taught in high school”