genuineoriginal
New member
It looks like you are now trying to create a rule based only on the 0.3% of biologists that you mocked in an earlier post.
Scientists Question Darwinism
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The quote is speaking about the "origin of life" and "cells":
“I think more scientists are realizing the limitations to Darwinism, specifically in regard to the origin of life and the complexity of the cell. So much of how cells actually work reveal how impossible it is that life arose from mutation and natural selection. As we have learned more and more about molecular and cellular biology, more scientists doubt Darwinism although they may not admit it for fear of repercussions.”
How do you think that life began?
Kit the Coyote
New member
Life beginnings are to be found in biochemistry. Mutation and natural selection came after that.
No, I'm just pointing out that you are very wrong about it. Those 0.3% of biologists who are creationists, are mostly working and have tenure somewhere. And as you see, they also get published in reputable journals.
And you should understand that a somewhat larger percentage of people with doctorates unrelated to biology, don't accept evolution. For the obvious reasons.
In the same sense that scientists are realizing the limitations to geology, specifically in regard to the nature of semiconductors.
In general, theories are not very useful for explaining things they aren't about.
However, as we learn more about the complexity of the cell, scientists are beginning to realize how random mutations and natural selection (and occasionally, endosymbiosis) account for the way it is structured.
Would you like to learn about some of that?
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes, their livelihood does not depend on believing in evolution, so they are much more free to go against the consensus when the consensus is obviously wrong.
Barbarian observes:
you should understand that a somewhat larger percentage of people with doctorates unrelated to biology, don't accept evolution. For the obvious reasons.
Since you already learned that scientists who don't accept evolution keep their jobs and get published, that's probably an important clue of you.
Or their lack of understanding of the subject makes error easier for them.
One of those.
you should understand that a somewhat larger percentage of people with doctorates unrelated to biology, don't accept evolution. For the obvious reasons.
Since you already learned that scientists who don't accept evolution keep their jobs and get published, that's probably an important clue of you.
Or their lack of understanding of the subject makes error easier for them.
One of those.
genuineoriginal
New member
We already addressed that attempt at deception.
The truth, which you want to deny, is that the vast majority of biologists will not go against the evolutionary theory because their livelihood depends on supporting the consensus of the evolutionary theory.
Barbarian observes:
you already learned that scientists who don't accept evolution keep their jobs and get published
I didn't say you were being deceptive. You were just misinformed. I even showed you several examples that showed you were wrong. Would you like to see them again?
As you learned, biologists like Michael Behe, Kurt Wise, Michael Denton, and many others deny Darwin's theory and still have jobs in academia, and publish in journals. No point in denying it. Wise was taken on as a PhD candidate by Stephen Gould, who knew Wise's beliefs.
No, I pointed out that it was a bad idea try the "Look how many biologists don't accept evolution" tactic, when so very few of them don't.
Looks like a pretty foolish approach, doesn't it?
you already learned that scientists who don't accept evolution keep their jobs and get published
I didn't say you were being deceptive. You were just misinformed. I even showed you several examples that showed you were wrong. Would you like to see them again?
As you learned, biologists like Michael Behe, Kurt Wise, Michael Denton, and many others deny Darwin's theory and still have jobs in academia, and publish in journals. No point in denying it. Wise was taken on as a PhD candidate by Stephen Gould, who knew Wise's beliefs.
No, I pointed out that it was a bad idea try the "Look how many biologists don't accept evolution" tactic, when so very few of them don't.
Looks like a pretty foolish approach, doesn't it?
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes, and you can't keep claiming that 0.3% is a large enough percentage to establish it as a general rule.
Yes, trying to claim that 0.3% is a large enough percentage to establish a general rule is a pretty foolish approach.
You should stop doing that.
The truth, which you want to deny, is that the vast majority of biologists will not go against the evolutionary theory because their livelihood depends on supporting the consensus of the evolutionary theory.
Barbarian observes:
As you learned, biologists like Michael Behe, Kurt Wise, Michael Denton, and many others deny Darwin's theory and still have jobs in academia, and publish in journals. No point in denying it. Wise was taken on as a PhD candidate by Stephen Gould, who knew Wise's beliefs.
No, I pointed out that it was a bad idea try the "Look how many biologists don't accept evolution" tactic, when so very few of them don't.
Looks like a pretty foolish approach, doesn't it?
I'm just pointing out that the evidence supports my conclusion, and doesn't support yours.
Understandably, few people with doctorates in biology deny evolution. But as you learned, those who do, do indeed keep their jobs and even publish in journals.
Keep in mind a very large number of PhDs fail to gain tenure and lose their jobs annually. So it's even more remarkable that creationists can keep theirs.
As you learned, biologists like Michael Behe, Kurt Wise, Michael Denton, and many others deny Darwin's theory and still have jobs in academia, and publish in journals. No point in denying it. Wise was taken on as a PhD candidate by Stephen Gould, who knew Wise's beliefs.
No, I pointed out that it was a bad idea try the "Look how many biologists don't accept evolution" tactic, when so very few of them don't.
Looks like a pretty foolish approach, doesn't it?
I'm just pointing out that the evidence supports my conclusion, and doesn't support yours.
Understandably, few people with doctorates in biology deny evolution. But as you learned, those who do, do indeed keep their jobs and even publish in journals.
Keep in mind a very large number of PhDs fail to gain tenure and lose their jobs annually. So it's even more remarkable that creationists can keep theirs.
genuineoriginal
New member
I do not deny that there is such a tiny percent of biologists that don't accept evolutionary theory, but still keep their jobs and get published.
I object to your continual attempts to make a claim that it means that the remaining 99.7% of biologists do not depend on the evolutionary theory for their livelihood.
0.3% is not a large enough sample size to support your conclusion.
And that just gives them more incentive to support the consensus on evolutionary theory, not less, since it proves that the vast majority of biologists depend on the evolutionary theory for their livelihood.
Centre for Science and Culture
Founded 1996
Employees 8 staff
The Centre for Science and Culture (CSC), formerly known as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), is part of the Discovery Institute (DI), a conservative Christian think tank in the United States.
The CSC lobbies for the inclusion of creationism in the form of intelligent design (ID) in public school science curricula as an explanation for the origins of life and the universe while casting doubt on the theory of evolution.
These positions have been rejected by the scientific community, which identifies intelligent design as pseudoscientific neo-creationism, whereas the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted as a matter of scientific consensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Science_and_Culture
********************************************`
Michael Denton and Michael Behe are in fields that are not directly related to evolution/creationism research - they are employed by "The Centre for Science and Culture" that lobbies to have "Creationism" in science textbooks!
In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), the US Supreme Court ruled against the need for "creation science" being taught in United States public school science classes.
In response, conservative Christian decided to substitute the term "intelligent design" for "creationism" and continue the same campaign but under a different label.
Founded 1996
Employees 8 staff
The Centre for Science and Culture (CSC), formerly known as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), is part of the Discovery Institute (DI), a conservative Christian think tank in the United States.
The CSC lobbies for the inclusion of creationism in the form of intelligent design (ID) in public school science curricula as an explanation for the origins of life and the universe while casting doubt on the theory of evolution.
These positions have been rejected by the scientific community, which identifies intelligent design as pseudoscientific neo-creationism, whereas the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted as a matter of scientific consensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Science_and_Culture
********************************************`
Michael Denton and Michael Behe are in fields that are not directly related to evolution/creationism research - they are employed by "The Centre for Science and Culture" that lobbies to have "Creationism" in science textbooks!
In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), the US Supreme Court ruled against the need for "creation science" being taught in United States public school science classes.
In response, conservative Christian decided to substitute the term "intelligent design" for "creationism" and continue the same campaign but under a different label.
Last edited:
Michael Denton was a medical doctor and a biochemist - initially describing himself as an "evolutionist," rejected biblical "creationism." His book influenced both Phillip E. Johnson, the father of intelligent design, Michael Behe, a proponent of irreducible complexity, and George Gilder, co-founder of the "Discovery Institute."
Denton has since changed many of his views on "evolution."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton
Michael J. Behe is also a biochemist by training and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
Behe's support for "intelligent design" is based on the theory of "irreducible complexity (IC)", claiming that biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms.
https://ca.search.yahoo.com/yhs/sea...4syZ==¶m2=NGV5NaNbNqNaNt==&p=Michael+Behe
Denton has since changed many of his views on "evolution."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton
Michael J. Behe is also a biochemist by training and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
Behe's support for "intelligent design" is based on the theory of "irreducible complexity (IC)", claiming that biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms.
https://ca.search.yahoo.com/yhs/sea...4syZ==¶m2=NGV5NaNbNqNaNt==&p=Michael+Behe
Of course. And a much larger number of PhDs who accept evolution, fail to get tenure as these creationists have. So they lose their positions.
You're making up a claim I didn't make. I'm just pointing out that your claim:
is demonstrably false. I gave you several instances that show your claim is false.
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes, you keep attempting to create a rule out of 0.3% of biologists who are creationists and apply that rule to the remaining 99.7% of biologists.
My claim is that the remaining 99.7% of biologists depend on the evolutionary theory for their livelihood and not agreeing with it can cost them their livelihood.
My claim is demonstrably true.
| Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says The battle between science and creationism has reached the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, where a former researcher is claiming he was fired because he doesn't believe in evolution. Nathaniel Abraham filed a lawsuit earlier this week in US District Court in Boston saying that the Cape Cod research center dismissed him in 2004 because of his Christian belief that the Bible presents a true account of human creation. Abraham, who is seeking $500,000 in compensation for a violation of his civil rights, says in the suit that he lost his job as a postdoctoral researcher in a biology lab shortly after he told his superior that he did not accept evolution as scientific fact. "Woods Hole believes they have the right to insist on a belief in evolution," said David C. Gibbs III, one of Abraham's two attorneys and general counsel of the Christian Law Association in Seminole, Fla. "It is inconceivable that someone working in developmental biology at a major research institution would not be expected to deal intimately with evolution," she said. "A flight school hiring instructors wouldn't ask whether they accepted that the earth was spherical; they would assume it. Similarly, Woods Hole would have assumed that someone hired to work in developmental biology would accept that evolution occurred. It's part and parcel of the science these days." |
Those promoting the creationist/intelligent design agenda (Michael Denton, Michael Behe) are often employed by conservative Christian organizations like "The Centre for Science and Culture" - therefore they have a financial interest when claiming that their scepticism concerning "evolution" is based on science!
genuineoriginal
New member
Since the number of jobs available to creationist biologists is so limited when compared to the number of jobs available to evolutionary biologists, there really is no comparison.
Its no longer "creationist" after the decision by the Supreme Court, its now been changed to "intelligent design" - when the Courts rule against that conservative Christians will have to invent another synonym!
The Christian Church went down this same road 500 years ago with Galileo - when are conservatives going to learn that debates over the mechanics (creationism vs evolution) and timelines (6 days vs 4 billion years) do not disprove the existence of God!
Are we to believe that God is incapable of employing evolution over a 4 billion year period as part of His plan?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
evolution is a process that leads more often to death, disfigurement, disease, defects and disabilities than to beneficial changes
to suggest that God would use this process to create man suggests a god that is uncaring at best, deliberately cruel at worst