Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A brilliant and considered refutation of my argument. Not,
Extract from an interview with a molecular biologist, name Sam.
Most education is controlled by 1 & 2. Hence evolution is taught and Creationism is not permitted
From my experience working in environmental biology, I can assure you that if salary was the main reason for working in the field there would be very few biologists indeed. The reason I left for pastures new was the desire for a decent wage. That was some years ago, and I understand that the situation in the UK is relatively worse now (average of ~£30,000 or $39,000).6. My "quote of the week": “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair wasn’t right about much. He was a socialist, after all. But he was right about that. Scientists salaries often depend on their "not understanding" Creation.
Evolutionist are as blind as bats
As it happens, bats have very good eyesight - up to three times as good as oursWhy are bats blind? Did God create them that way, or did they evolve from animals that had eyes? Also, bats are very successful animals, almost as successful as evolutionists; there are more than 1200 species, and they live in every continent except Antarctica, so they must be doing something right.
As it happens, bats have very good eyesight - up to three times as good as ours
There are biologists that depend on grants for vital research. They also depend on the approval of boards for tenure. Admitting to opposing evolution is a good way to be forced out of the industry. James Tour advises his students to keep quiet if they want a career in biological sciences. Like most walks of life, the top echelons get paid way more than they should while the lower levels get less. It is also true that the less use an occupation is, the more highly paid it is likely to be. Hence the money that the entertainment industry pays "stars". Of course, this is just a result of evolution so it is perfectly acceptable. I don't think.From my experience working in environmental biology, I can assure you that if salary was the main reason for working in the field there would be very few biologists indeed. The reason I left for pastures new was the desire for a decent wage. That was some years ago, and I understand that the situation in the UK is relatively worse now (average of ~£30,000 or $39,000).
There are biologists that depend on grants for vital research. They also depend on the approval of boards for tenure. Admitting to opposing evolution is a good way to be forced out of the industry.
I always find it odd when creationists talk about grants, since it's painfully obvious you guys have no clue how grants work. Governments don't just hand out grants for writing "I believe in evolution" on the application. Grant funding is typically designed for specific purposes and requires specific reporting on the use of the funds.
You also are still ignoring the fact that a lot of biology jobs are not strictly academic. Plenty of private and public bio-related companies employ biologists. And that is where demonstrating one's professional competence is of paramount.
If you walk into an interview declaring evolution a fabrication brought about by an evil, atheist conspiracy, as you guys often do here, one shouldn't expect favorable job prospects. But I suspect you'll ignore this fact in favor of whatever fantasy scenario you've dreamed up in your head.
I don't recognise that description, perhaps because the vast majority of people I knew or worked with in the business had only nominal religious affiliation, if any at all. I guess it's different in the USA, but I find your description unconvincing; as I said, there are far easier ways to make money than the biological sciences, and it seems rather strange for someone who doesn't believe in evolution to go into a field that has evolutionary theory as an integral part of its framework. YMMV.There are biologists that depend on grants for vital research. They also depend on the approval of boards for tenure. Admitting to opposing evolution is a good way to be forced out of the industry. James Tour advises his students to keep quiet if they want a career in biological sciences. Like most walks of life, the top echelons get paid way more than they should while the lower levels get less. It is also true that the less use an occupation is, the more highly paid it is likely to be. Hence the money that the entertainment industry pays "stars". Of course, this is just a result of evolution so it is perfectly acceptable. I don't think.
Evolution has not always been seen as fact. You can be a scientist and believe in God as many of the greatest scientists did in the past. There are still geniuses who believe in God and reject evolution. Some even work in the field of life sciences. People of enormous intelligence (that's not me) see the same things and come to entirely different conclusions. James Tour got into his field because he was fascinated by it, not because he wanted to make money or just have a career.I don't recognise that description, perhaps because the vast majority of people I knew or worked with in the business had only nominal religious affiliation, if any at all. I guess it's different in the USA, but I find your description unconvincing; as I said, there are far easier ways to make money than the biological sciences, and it seems rather strange for someone who doesn't believe in evolution to go into a field that has evolutionary theory as an integral part of its framework. YMMV.
posted an extract from an interview with a microbiologist doing cancer research. He believes Evolution is impossible. He bases his belief on observations that lead him to that conclusion. He also states that he knows no one in the field who believes evolution. But very few are prepared to say so.
It was not always like that. People used to be able to say what they think. Not so easy now.
It is absolutely obvious that you don't need to be an evolutionist in order to be professionally competent. Have you checked out what Professor Tour is doing? Or are you so biased that you cannot accept his work? I will not reject the work of evolutionists in medical research just because I do not agree with their evolutionist beliefs. Does that work both ways? Or does that not fit your narrative?We have no way of verifying whether what you posted is valid or real. For all we know, it could be a complete fabrication.
(Actually, I looked it up and the same "interview" appears on ICR. Except there they identify the mystery biologist by the letter "J" as opposed to the "S" you have used. Which makes me further doubt the source.
Why Can't Geneticists See the Obvious Evidence for Creation in the Genetic Code?)
Meanwhile, you have creationists like Todd Wood that state the following:
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.
The truth about evolution
But you ignore that. Why?
The point you continue to ignore is we're talking about a matter of demonstrating professional competence. Though I suspect you will continue to ignore this as it doesn't fit your narrative.
It is absolutely obvious that you don't need to be an evolutionist in order to be professionally competent.
Have you checked out what Professor Tour is doing?
You may be surprised to know that the human body is entirely made of organic chemicals. When you provide a refutation of Professor Tour' objections, please email him (not with somebody else's paper). CC me - I'd be fascinated to know.If one is in the field of biology and one rejects a foundational part of that field, then that calls into question one's professional competence in that field.
I really don't think you quite understand the implication here.
Sure. He's an organic chemist who apparently works with nanotechnology. How is this relevant exactly?
Btw, I notice you keep appealing to Tour over and over again, but continue to flat-out ignore anyone else with more relevant credentials. Why is that?
And a car is made of metal, but I wouldn't trust a blacksmith to fix one.You may be surprised to know that the human body is entirely made of organic chemicals. When you provide a refutation of Professor Tour' objections, please email him (not with somebody else's paper). CC me - I'd be fascinated to know.
All people with plenty of resources and air time... and still can't even present an actual scientific definition of intelligent design, a consistent definition of information with a metric, or even a definition of science that doesn't have to expand to involve astrology.I happen to be in regular contact with Professor Tour on a non-professional basis. Hence my interest in his work and other matters.
Would it make any difference if I quoted Stephen Meyer, Walt Brown or David Berlinski? Michael Behe? David Gelernter? I'm happy to do so. I've read some critiques of Stephen Meyer. They go along the line that he doesn't agree with evolution so he must be wrong.
Evolutionist arrogance is breathtaking. As if they are the only ones with enough intelligence to observe and form conclusions. Just dismiss anything that is contrary to your world view, even former evolutionists who have woken up to the fallacy.And a car is made of metal, but I wouldn't trust a blacksmith to fix one.
All people with plenty of resources and air time... and still can't even present an actual scientific definition of intelligent design, a consistent definition of information with a metric, or even a definition of science that doesn't have to expand to involve astrology.
Trite.Evolutionist arrogance is breathtaking. As if they are the only ones with enough intelligence to observe and form conclusions. Just dismiss anything that is contrary to your world view, even former evolutionists who have woken up to the fallacy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?