unintelligent design.

[Morat]

Let's parse them, shall we?

Randy Wysong D.V.M. Book: Creation-Evolution The Controversy

  This man is a vet. He is working way outside of his field (indeed, Glenn Morton has nasty things to say about his skills in geology).

Lane P. Lester Biology Professor and Raymond G. Bolin Research Projects Manager Book: The Natural Limits to Biological Change

  This man appears to have actually gotten a genetics degree from Purdue. He is currently the entire biology department at Emmanuel (a private Christian college).

  I cannot seem to locate a single genetics paper that he has ever published.

Ken Ham AIG his undergrad degree is in applied sciences

  An undergrad degree, to begin with, doesn't even begin to equip you with the tools to truly understand your field. Which, I might add, applied science isn't a field that encompasses evolution.

 

Willaim A. Dembski Not sure what his degree is in Book: Intelligent Design

  Dembski has a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago, and a doctorate in theology from Princeton Theological Seminary.

   Any matter of evolution is well outside his field. Secondly, as an ID'r, he likely (as does Behe) accepts common descent.

 

Jonathan Sarfat Creation Physical Chemist Book: Refuting Evolution

  Safarti. Ph.D in physical chemistry. Evolution is well outside his field.

 

Larry Butler Phd Professor of Biochemistry

  He has a biochemsitry degree from UCLA. Biochemistry can, but is not always, relevent to evolution. However, Butler's (died in 1997) experience and work was with sorghum. He did not work with biochemical evolution, but with biochemical pathways in certain plants (and was apparantly fairly good at it). So, once again, his education is not in the right field.

Dr Chris Darnbrough Biochemist studying molecular genetics

  I have been utterly unable to locate where he got his degree, or even if he has a Ph.D in biochemsitry. He is listed as "Chris Darnbrough, biochemist" everywhere.

  I'm going to have to leave him out until you can locate his credentials.

Mr Gerald Duffett Head of Biology at City of Ely College Cambridgeshire his degree is in Zoology

   Zoology, once again, is not the right field.

Pattle P. T. Pun Professor of Biology Phd in Biology at State University of NY he has contributed articles to American Scinetific Affiliation Journal Book: Evolution Nature & Scripture in Conflict?

    He is a theistic evolutionist. He teaches at Wheaton College. Based on some of his writing (and the fact that she teaches it), he's a bioethicist.

 

William J. Tinkle Book: Heredity A Study in Science and the Bible he is a member of the American Genetics Assoc and is a contributor to a high school Biology Textbook.

  I can find no information on this man's degree. Period.

Dr. John N. Moore professor of natural science at Michigan State (long time ago) old book

   Natural science, once again, is not a valid degree for this.

  You ended up with one person in a related degree (genetics) who obviously disagreed with evolution. However, I can't find any evidence that he ever worked in the field. Just that he sat through classes, got the degree, and went on about his business.

  Jonathan Wells, for instance, got his Ph.D in biology at the insistance of Reverend Moon, so as to garner his already held views more credibility.

  Mathematicians, physical and applied, don't learn anything about evolution except may the bit in their freshman biology class. Even many biochemists learn relatively little.

  I asked for people with degrees in biology, (and stated that population genetics would be even better), because those people are the ones who have to learn, study, and understand evolution in order to get their degrees.

   Not vets, mathemeticians, and undergrads.

 

 

[Lanakila]

Head of Biology doesn't count huh? Boy aren't we picky. They have to have a degree post grad in Biology and work in Biology, that might be a little more difficult. But, some of those I listed did have degrees in Biology and work in Biology. Your original challenge didn't say their degree had to be post grad either. You moved the goal posts, which you accuse others of all the time.

See what I mean about jumping on them. I left out all the books written by engineers, physisists, ect.. Which by the way is quite a few. Why can't you admit there are scientists that are creationists? Would it kill evolution? No way, it is entrenched. Not all are biologists, and some don't have advanced degrees in genetics but I only listed some that have written books. If you look around at the Christian colleges and universities in this nation you will find quite a bundle of creation scientists teaching Biology or even creationism, but they don't count thats right because they don't teach at secular schools, where they would earn a great deal more money by the way. Maybe they are teaching for the ministry application alone (therefore working for much less money, at a less prestigous Christian College or University).

 

[Morat]

  Ah-hem. His degree is in zoology. The head of a biology department is responsible for all fields of life science. He's not an expert in all of them. Head of a biology department is an adminsitrative job, often given on the basis of senority. His education and experience are in zoology.

 They have to have a degree post grad in Biology and work in Biology, that might be a little more difficult. But, some of those I listed did have degrees in Biology and work in Biology. Your original challenge didn't say their degree had to be post grad either. You moved the goal posts, which you accuse others of all the time.

  No I didn't. Check my post carefully. I stated that Jerry was looking for scientists "working in their field". Undergrads generally don't, but none of the people in your list hold biology degrees and work in the field.

  You listed a vet, a physical chemist, and a mathematician to name three! How are these biologists working in their field? Why did you list them? Did you not bother to check what Dembski's field was? Did you not know what a DVM meant? Did you not even check to make sure these people were Creationists, and not theistic evolutionists (who would have no problems with common descent, or any of evolutionary science)?

  Here', let's list the ones that actually have a biology degree, shall we? (Those whose degree can be verified)

1) Lane P. Lester

2) Larry Butler

3) Pattle Pun

  Three people. Pattle Pun is a theistic evolutionist. Not exactly a Creationist, is he?

  So two people. Butler is a biochemist, whose work was not with biochemical evolution or anything else related to it. He was, in fact, working to increase plant yields.

  So one. This man has a genetics degree, and has apparantly not published a single paper in the field of genetics.

  So none.

 You claimed that many scientists opposed evolution. So far, you haven't shown that any of them have actual education or experience with evolution.

   So why should their opinion mean more than my mechanics?

 

[Jerry Smith]

I think it is proper to define scientist as someone who works in the field of science research. An advanced degree is not required to do this, but it is the rare individual who becomes a scientist without having one. What is required is that he individual actually do research.

Now, I don't equivocate - a zoologist counts as a biologist & the fact that they are not working directly with evolution matters little to me. I include zoologists when I say that evolution is accepted nearly unanimously. One zoologist denies the evidence, but even amongst zoologists there is great agreement in accepting the findings of science. These guys do, after all, have to study comparative anatomy as part of their training.

I have no doubt that there are probably a few hundred creationists who are biological scientists of one sort or another. Dembski isn't a creationist, doesn't deny evolution, and isn't even a scientist - he doesn't count. But Gish used to do a little bit of publishing, and a few others at the ICR and AiG have as well. Over the same period of time there have been hundreds of thousands if not millions of scientists of all faiths and none, who have not felt that it was necessary to deny evolution. If the statistics were compiled, the few hundred creationist scientists would represent less than 5% of scientists at large, conservatively. I expect they would represent less than 1%. So we aren't talking about a 2/3 majority who accept evolution. We are talking about a near unanimous acceptance.

 

And, just think: if the Duane Gish's of the world didn't have a non-scientific motivation for denying evolution, it might be actual unanimity, and not just overwhelming majority acceptance. I don't think these creationists would feel the evidence warranted rejection of the theory if they didn't have the religious motivation.

 

[Morat]

  I dunno. By arguing "many prominent scientists support Creation/oppose evolution", it's become a de facto argument over credentials. You can't parse them one by one and determine who does, and who does not, have the education, experience, and work in the field to be the position to know.

   Anyone chunks mathematicians, engineers, chemists and such, because their education would have, at most, covered biology and evolution on the high school level. Doctors and vets too, because medicine (human or animal) is more engineering than theory. Narrow facts about anatomy and human (or animal) systems and techniques. Nothing that really touches evolution except in the hyper-specific.

  But I think I'm justified in chunking zoologists outright, because they also don't deal with the broad reach of evolution, learning (and seeing) only the narrow bits that might apply to them. Biologists, biochemists and geneticists should be (and must be) taken on a case by case basis. It's entirely possible to get a Ph.D in any of the three and learn very little about evolution, much less the broad sweep of evidence that forms its base. It depends entirely on what you, as a biologist, biochemist, or geneticist, focus your work on.

    But I would certainly insist that any such "scientist" have been published in the field and gotten his/her degree from an accredited school.

  Offhand, I can't think of a single person who supports YEC Creationism and is not a fundamentalist Christian.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Morat:
Anyone chunks mathematicians, engineers, chemists and such, because their education would have, at most, covered biology and evolution on the high school level. Doctors and vets too, because medicine (human or animal) is more engineering than theory....But I think I'm justified in chunking zoologists outright, because they also don't deal with the broad reach of evolution, learning (and seeing) only the narrow bits that might apply to them. Biologists, biochemists and geneticists should be (and must be) taken on a case by case basis. It's entirely possible to get a Ph.D in any of the three and learn very little about evolution, much less the broad sweep of evidence that forms its base. It depends entirely on what you, as a biologist, biochemist, or geneticist, focus your work on.

    But I would certainly insist that any such "scientist" have been published in the field and gotten his/her degree from an accredited school.

One word of caution before engaging in wholesale "chunking" of scientists or others writing on this--or any other--topic. I suggest that what a person says should be compared to the area of that person's expertise. For example, while a mathematician might not be qualified as an expert in the area of determining whether a mutation had occurred, he might be much more qualified to follow up on a biologist's theory or hypothesis regarding the chances of random mutations occurring.

Offhand, I can't think of a single person who supports YEC Creationism and is not a fundamentalist Christian.

Although one might not agree with the conclusions (or methods) often employed by YECies or fundamentalists, the fact that a particular scientist (or other person) is a fundamentalist Christian should not in and of itself be grounds for chunking such a person's research or conclusions.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Lanakila
If you look around at the Christian colleges and universities in this nation you will find quite a bundle of creation scientists teaching Biology or even creationism, but they don't count thats right because they don't teach at secular schools, where they would earn a great deal more money by the way. Maybe they are teaching for the ministry application alone (therefore working for much less money, at a less prestigous Christian College or University). [/B]

Give me a break. Name one biology professor who is a YEC at any first tier school. BJU is not a first tier school. They're teaching at Christian colleges because no one else is willing to hire them, not because of some charitable heart.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Sinai - a mathematician might have knowledge and experience that might be handing in critiquing evolution - the reason I don't include them is that I am not talking about the few academic types who deny (or criticize) evolution. I am talking about the near-unanimous concensus among scientists - the near universal acceptance of evolution. Lanakila thinks that the few malcontents from various fields and with various credentials who still deny it makes me wrong to talk about that overwhelming concensus.

 

[Morat]

Sinai: Two points. First, I would only cull lists if I was given lists. If I've given 100 names, and told they're all "prominent Creation scientists", then I'm almost always looking at an argument from authority.

  It's perfectly valid to remove those who aren't authorities (as well as those who died before Darwin wrote Origin of Species, another common occurance), whose education and experience do not make them qualified to discuss biological evolution.

  On a case by case basis, it's different. I would address the arguments themselves, and not whether the person was an authority.

   But if you give me a list of supposed "authorities", then removing those who aren't true authorities is merely logical. It wasn't Dembski's arguments that Lankila was using, but Dembski's authority.

 

Although one might not agree with the conclusions (or methods) often employed by YECies or fundamentalists, the fact that a particular scientist (or other person) is a fundamentalist Christian should not in and of itself be grounds for chunking such a person's research or conclusions.

  I chunked no one from the list for being Christian. I merely remarked that Creationism, despite claims of "prominent scientists" embracing it, seems to remain acceptable only to fundamentalist Christians. Whereas evolution is used (and accepted) by scientists of every faith, and of none.

 

 

[LouisBooth]

"If observing the effects of a thing that you cannot see directly is considered "direct" evidence, then macro-evolution has plenty of it."

Did you read how the device worked at all? Macro has NO evidence of this kind.

"I'm making a statement of scientific knowledge, not a philosophical claim. "

Then show the proof.

"The brain is an intricate matrix of billions of nerves, not one single bundle"

EXACTLY. We have no knowledge of how they work in a system, which this is a part of.

"Its far fetched because the accepted and successful current theories of how nerves operate would have to be essentially discarded in favor of a radically different "

So can you please PM me with a brief summary of these theories, not web sites, but the actual explainations. Until then I'll go with what i posted before.

"But because, unlike a few other creationists, you have refrained mostly from condescending comments like "I thought better of you jerry.""

And I of you because you usually don't make generialize comments without evidence, but in that post you made several, thus the comment.

"That wasn't a claim - that was a thought experiment. "

IN other words, a guess, with no evidence to back it up, and cannot be considered as a real hypothesis unless it has any.

"I just "guessed" that wisdom teeth get impacted and cause injury where modern dental care isn't available"

And you assumed that if a biological "thing" malfucntions then it contributes to the fact it has no use? That's pretty illogical on the whole, thus I did not address it at all. Under this same logic we can rule out the blood, brain, and many many other organs because they "break down" or have problems independant of other systems.

"I've never met a working scientist who expressed any reservations about common descent and evolution by natural selection, "

Well come down here, I'll introduce you to the ones I know personally.
What's really kind of illogical is that you think that the majority agrees with it. We offer up names of people and you say, oh, that's not enough. How many is enough Jerry? do we have to start one of those stupid internet petitions in order for you to accept it?

 

[Lanakila]

Originally posted by blader


Give me a break. Name one biology professor who is a YEC at any first tier school. BJU is not a first tier school. They're teaching at Christian colleges because no one else is willing to hire them, not because of some charitable heart.

 

Unfair ad hominen attack there Blader. I have experience at just 2 Christian colleges in my college experience. One was a small Bible College whose Biology/Creationism Professor also taught Biology at a secular College in that same town. (Seems like a qualified Biologist to me, but who am I but a ignorant creationist) The other Christian University I am presently attending has secular accreditation and therefore the same standards as secular schools. My Biology Professor there was involved in a research project for the state of VA, so I guess he must be a qualified Biologist too. I have only had experience with 2 Christian Colleges and both had very qualified Biologists on their staff. I dare say that is common at most Christian Colleges and Universities across the country.

 

[Lanakila]

He is a theistic evolutionist. He teaches at Wheaton College. Based on some of his writing (and the fact that she teaches it), he's a bioethicist.

This is just not true Pattle P. T. Pun is not a theistic evolutionist. If you had read his book instead of just factoids about it you would know this. Here is a quote from the forward that explains where he stands in this debate:

"Dr Pun's book deals with both the factual data and the probable mechanisms involved in bringing living organisms onto the planet. The intricacies of cell biology and gross anatomy are presented in concise statements that show the significance of such knowledge. The evidence leads the author to conclude that there has been some descent with modification following the creation of the origninal species. However, Dr. Pun does not accept the total theory of evlolution even in its so-called theistic form. This volume is especially commendable for stating alternative viewpoints and evaluating each." (Pun 21 foreward by Russell L. Mixter Professor of Biology at Wheaton College)

Pun, Pattle P.T. Evolution: Nature & Scripture in Conflict? 1982 Zondervan Grand Rapids MI.

Morat for some reason I knew you just wanted to jump on anyone I listed, but until you get your facts straight you may want to be a little more careful.

 

[Cantuar]

Head of Biology doesn't count huh?

Apparently not. Ely College is a school, not a university; its website doesn't mention that it even teaches biology, and Gerald Duffett's name isn't mentioned anywhere on it. I can't find anything about his credentials or whereabouts by googling on his name, it just comes up with a list of creationist conferences he's been to and creationist books he's written.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Lanakila


 

Unfair ad hominen attack there Blader. I have experience at just 2 Christian colleges in my college experience. One was a small Bible College whose Biology/Creationism Professor also taught Biology at a secular College in that same town. (Seems like a qualified Biologist to me, but who am I but a ignorant creationist) The other Christian University I am presently attending has secular accreditation and therefore the same standards as secular schools. My Biology Professor there was involved in a research project for the state of VA, so I guess he must be a qualified Biologist too. I have only had experience with 2 Christian Colleges and both had very qualified Biologists on their staff. I dare say that is common at most Christian Colleges and Universities across the country.

I don't know of any other way to argue against an argument from authority other than ad hominem..

Fact is that 90% of all scientists are evolutionist of some form, and the percentage is significantly higher among biologists. Unless you're telling me that the 1-5% (IIRC) of creationist biologists are the cream of the crop and all just happen to be soft hearted enough to turn down offers from first tier colleges...

It seems to me that if they really had the choice to teach at a first tier university, that would only further the reputation of Creationism, and I'd imagine any creationist would jump at the opportunity.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by LouisBooth

What's really kind of illogical is that you think that the majority agrees with it. [/B]

I don't understand what's so illogical about that. It's a statistical fact. IIRC, 90-99% of biologists are evolutionist, according to Barna.

 

[Stormy]

I don't understand what's so illogical about that. It's a statistical fact. IIRC, 90-99% of biologists are evolutionist, according to Barna.

But do they not include everyone who believes in any form of evolution within their statistics?

The numbers do not speak the full truth. They do not tell of parts of evolution that are rejected. They also do not speak of those who believe in ID.

 

[Lanakila]

Many of these that believe in some form of evolution actually believe in micro not macro evolution which I don't deny either. Like Pattle P. T. Pun by the way. I have read almost half of the book I referenced, and that is what he means by some common descent. But, really it doesn't matter if the person is a scientist or not. Evolution of the macro type isn't rocket science and many people who understand it don't think it is possible even if you give it billions and billions of years. The more and more I understand about it the more convinced I am it is not only wrong but downright impossible. In other words if you evolutionists are here to try to convince me, all you are convincing me of is that evolution is entrenched in the minds of many.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"If observing the effects of a thing that you cannot see directly is considered "direct" evidence, then macro-evolution has plenty of it."

Did you read how the device worked at all? Macro has NO evidence of this kind.

Yes, I did read how the device worked. Macroevolution is not an electron, so no, it wouldn't register on that device. We do have numerous lines of evidence that macro-evolution in just about any sense you can possibly mean has occurred, and it does come from observation of the effects it left on nature. 

"I'm making a statement of scientific knowledge, not a philosophical claim. "

Then show the proof.

If I was making a philosophical claim I would show the proof. I was, however, not making a philosophical claim, but a statement of scientific knowledge. Since scientific knowledge doesn't derive from proof, I will not provide any proof that the recurrent laryngeal nerve need not be recurrent.  

"The brain is an intricate matrix of billions of nerves, not one single bundle"

EXACTLY. We have no knowledge of how they work in a system, which this is a part of.

Close, anyway. We have less knowledge of how extremely intricate systems of nerves work than we do about how nerves work. What knowledge we do have about how the central nervous system works derives in part from our knowledge about how nerves work. The laryngeal nerve is part of the peripheral nervous system, not the central nervous system. We understand how nerves work, and according to our detailed understanding of how nerves work, it would be silly to postulate a hidden function for the recurrent laryngeal nerve.  

"Its far fetched because the accepted and successful current theories of how nerves operate would have to be essentially discarded in favor of a radically different "

So can you please PM me with a brief summary of these theories, not web sites, but the actual explainations. Until then I'll go with what i posted before.

No, I don't want to PM. I will give you a brief summary here. Depending on how far in depth you would like to go, you may learn more in your basic biology text, your anatomy & physiology text, or in the text from an advanced class on neural anatomy.

The most important nerve cell is the neuron, the unit that carries a signal or impulse from one area of the body to another in the form of an electric action potential. There are three functional types of neurons: afferent, efferent, and interneurons. Afferent neurons carry a sensory signal to the central nervous system (cns), and efferent neurons carry a signal away from the CNS to muscles and glands in the periphery of the body. Since we are discussing the recurrent laryngeal nerve, I will discuss only the efferent neurons. 99% of interneurons are located within the CNS and serve to integrate nerve impulses and transfer them from one part of the nervous system to another.

The neuron can be divided into three functional and structural parts: the cell body, the axon & the dendrites. Simply put, the cell body houses the organelles and nucleus (and in most efferent neurons is located in the CNS). The dendrites receive signals from other neurons by way of hormones called neurotransmitters. The axon (the part of the cells that form the recurrent laryngeal nerve), generates and carries an action potential from the axon hillock (where it meets the cell body) to the terminus (or nerve ending). The terminus of the axon consists of thousands of terminal branches. Each of these has a small knob-like ending called the synaptic knob. In the synaptic knob, neurotransmitters are released when a sufficiently large impulse reaches them. These neurotransmitters cross an extremely tiny gap to bind to hormone receptors in a muscle, gland or in the dendrites of another nerve. In the case of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, these neurotransmitters bind to hormone receptors in the laryngeal nerve, and it contracts in response.

Surrounding the neural axons in these PNS (peripheral nervous system) nerves are bundles of protective nerve tissue, that protect the axons from damage. The axon is a conducting body. Its function is to relay a neural signal produced in the cell body to the synaptic knobs and on to the organ it is associated with. The laryngeal nerve is a group of axons and their protective material that terminate at the larnyx. Since the functions of the neurons are carried out in the synaptic knobs (and in the dendrites, safely tucked away inside our noggin), the nerve would do the same thing whether it came directly from the CNS to the larnyx or it was looped through our big toes, twice around our esophogas & back up into our tonsils before it reached the larnyx - though it would require quite a bit more energy to do so if that were the case.

I have now typed for thirty minutes summarizing the neural theory which would have to be discarded if the laryngeal nerve had a hidden function which required it to be wrapped around the aorta. I feel silly, because I sort of expect you to come back with something like "well isn't that remarkable - you think all of that evolved by chance?", or maybe some equivocation about the fact that I left out quite a lot of detail on how the neural impulse is conducted along the axon or what the dendrites and the cell body are for, or whatever else. This was a summary. Please don't do what so many others have done, and dismiss all the work I put into this with a shrug and "you still haven't proven anything." At least, please acknowledge that scientists and doctors do know something about nerves and that they would have to forget it in order to build a theory where nerves had anatomical function along the length of their axons apart from conducting impulses from the axon hillock to the synaptic knobs in order to impart function to the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

"But because, unlike a few other creationists, you have refrained mostly from condescending comments like "I thought better of you jerry.""

And I of you because you usually don't make generialize comments without evidence, but in that post you made several, thus the comment.

Just common sense stuff. Or so I thought.  

"That wasn't a claim - that was a thought experiment. "

IN other words, a guess, with no evidence to back it up, and cannot be considered as a real hypothesis unless it has any.

Likewise, without evidence to back it up, your hypothesis that life could not exist with different laws of nature is just pure guesswork. I just wanted to show what other guesses were available. 

"I just "guessed" that wisdom teeth get impacted and cause injury where modern dental care isn't available"

And you assumed that if a biological "thing" malfucntions then it contributes to the fact it has no use? That's pretty illogical on the whole, thus I did not address it at all. Under this same logic we can rule out the blood, brain, and many many other organs because they "break down" or have problems independant of other systems.

Sorry, I should have been more explicit: I just "guessed" in most individuals wisdom teeth never erupt, or have to be immediately removed by surgery when they do. I just "guessed" that they have a function in these cases, but something went terribly wrong. I just "guessed" that people whose wisdom teeth have been removed or have never erupted have some phantom disadvantage that the few who get them and get to keep them do not suffer from.

"I've never met a working scientist who expressed any reservations about common descent and evolution by natural selection, "

Well come down here, I'll introduce you to the ones I know personally.
What's really kind of illogical is that you think that the majority agrees with it. We offer up names of people and you say, oh, that's not enough. How many is enough Jerry? do we have to start one of those stupid internet petitions in order for you to accept it?

Louis, I don't know where "down here" is, but I don't doubt that there are a few working scientists who deny evolution. I just doubt that their numbers are significant compared to the number of working scientists who accept evolution. Someone here quoted a statistic of 90-99%. That sounds very reasonable to me. I expect their criteria for "scientist" was fairly generous, or they would have reported something closer to 98-99%. Furthermore, I don't think it is a coincidence that those few who do deny evolution "for scientific reasons" also have a theological motivation for doing so.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by blader

I don't understand what's so illogical about that. It's a statistical fact. IIRC, 90-99% of biologists are evolutionist, according to Barna.

99% of all statistics quotes on forums are likely to be made up.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley


99% of all statistics quotes on forums are likely to be made up.

Glad to be in that rare 1%.

In fact, I underestimated. Ninety FIVE percent of all scientists are evolutionist.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm