User Tag List

Page 3 of 34 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 504

Thread: Scientists Question Darwinism

  1. #31
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    10,114
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked 3,348 Times in 2,268 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415238
    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?

    Yes, and you can't keep claiming that o.3% is enough to establish it as a general rule.
    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.
    This message is hidden because ...

  2. #32
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,121
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 1,776 Times in 1,300 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    525831
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Barbarian observes:
    As you learned,
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    0.3% of biologists with doctorates in biology or a related discipline don't accept evolutionary theory.
    still have jobs in academia, and publish in journals. No point in denying it.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    I'm just pointing out that the evidence supports my conclusion, and doesn't support yours.
    0.3% is not a large enough sample size to support your conclusion.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Keep in mind a very large number of PhDs fail to gain tenure and lose their jobs annually.
    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.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  3. #33
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1,652 Times in 1,233 Posts

    Blog Entries
    12
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    354189
    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...ce_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 by jgarden; February 15th, 2019 at 02:23 PM.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to jgarden For Your Post:

    genuineoriginal (February 15th, 2019)

  5. #34
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1,652 Times in 1,233 Posts

    Blog Entries
    12
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    354189
    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/sear...p=Michael+Behe

  6. #35
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    10,114
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked 3,348 Times in 2,268 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    415238
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.
    You're making up a claim I didn't make. I'm just pointing out that your claim:

    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    The biologists with doctorates in biology or a related discipline would be fired, would lose their funding, and would not be published in "peer reviewed" journals if they didn't preach the evolutionary theory religion.
    is demonstrably false. I gave you several instances that show your claim is false.
    This message is hidden because ...

  7. #36
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,121
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 1,776 Times in 1,300 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    525831
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    I'm just pointing out that your claim is demonstrably false. I gave you several instances that show your claim is false.
    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."

    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  8. #37
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1,652 Times in 1,233 Posts

    Blog Entries
    12
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    354189
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    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.
    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!

  9. #38
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,121
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 1,776 Times in 1,300 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    525831
    Quote Originally Posted by jgarden View Post
    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!
    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.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  10. #39
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1,652 Times in 1,233 Posts

    Blog Entries
    12
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    354189
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    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?

  11. #40
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    26,031
    Thanks
    4,449
    Thanked 10,057 Times in 7,492 Posts

    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147792
    Quote Originally Posted by jgarden View Post
    Are we to believe that God is incapable of employing evolution over a 4 billion year period as part of His plan?
    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

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    genuineoriginal (February 15th, 2019),JudgeRightly (February 21st, 2019),Right Divider (February 20th, 2019)

  13. #41
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,121
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 1,776 Times in 1,300 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    525831
    Quote Originally Posted by jgarden View Post
    Its no longer "creationist" after the decision by the Supreme Court, its now been changed to "intelligent design"
    Non-Christians can use "intelligent design" but Christians believe in a Creator.

    Quote Originally Posted by jgarden View Post
    Are we to believe that God is incapable of employing evolution over a 4 billion year period as part of His plan?
    I always find it amazing when people base their argument on whether God is capable of doing something instead of on whether God would choose to do something.

    Well, I suppose that God could have forced creation to suffer through 4 billion years and all the deaths that would have happened with such a horribly inefficient method of creating different species as evolution.

    But, it was much quicker to create the heaven and the earth in only six days and much more efficient to create each kind of animal during that time.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to genuineoriginal For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (February 21st, 2019),ok doser (February 15th, 2019)

  15. #42
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Under the Hill and Over the Hedge
    Posts
    909
    Thanks
    333
    Thanked 461 Times in 331 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    151681
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    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.
    I think it is more along the lines that auto mechanics that don't understand the principles of internal combustion have a hard time keeping jobs.
    "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

  16. #43
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,121
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 1,776 Times in 1,300 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    525831
    Quote Originally Posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
    I think it is more along the lines that auto mechanics that don't understand the principles of internal combustion have a hard time keeping jobs.
    Since the consensus falsely believes that evolution is the principle behind biology, that kind of thinking is pervasive.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  17. #44
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Under the Hill and Over the Hedge
    Posts
    909
    Thanks
    333
    Thanked 461 Times in 331 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    151681
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Since the consensus falsely believes that evolution is the principle behind biology, that kind of thinking is pervasive.
    Since as you point out that it is the consensus by 97%, falsely seems questionable or at least debatable.
    "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

  18. #45
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,121
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 1,776 Times in 1,300 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    525831
    Quote Originally Posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
    Since as you point out that it is the consensus by 97%, falsely seems questionable or at least debatable.
    You know that consensus is not science.

    Consensus Is Not Science

    ďI want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because youíre being had.

    ďLetís be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    ďThere is no such thing as consensus science. If itís consensus, it isnít science. If itís science, it isnít consensus. Period."

    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us