Museum Curator Dr. Kirk Johnson: I Might Not Exist!

[aharvey]

We wait with bated breath. (mint anyone?)

I wonder how bad bate smells after seven days? Alas, I still haven't heard jack from Jack.

Incidentally, here is the email I sent him. Perhaps someone here could answer in Mr. Jack's stead?

Dear Mr. Jack,

I was interested in an article that appeared in the Rocky Mountain News recently concerning B.C. Tours and the Denver Museum. This particularly caught my attention:

“Carter and Jack said children should hear about both creationism and evolution.

‘What we need to do is teach good science and present both models and let students decide what model makes most sense,’ Jack said. ‘To do anything else is censorship.’ "

I am a professional biologist who has become quite interested in the evolution/creation issue. Unlike many of my colleagues, I want to learn as much as I can about the scientific basis for creationism (my upbringing, again perhaps unlike many of my colleagues, gives me a good understanding of the nonscientific basis for creationism). Indeed, it is my opinion that it is in everyone’s best interests that creationists present the strongest scientific case they can for a creationist model to explain the diversity of life on earth. To this end I have been a steady participant in TheologyOnline forums, but after two years my inquiries for a scientifically valid creationist model have been in vain, making me wonder if such a model even exists.

Your quote above gives me some hope, however. Can you please describe the scientific model to which you refer above? I am not asking for the evidence that supports the model; without having an explicit model on the table it makes little sense to talk about supporting or contradictory evidence! I’m not asking for the scenario (one presumes that a literal reading of Genesis gives the historical scenario). Evolutionary theory generates particular scenarios (which do not sit well with creationists, to be sure, such as all life descended from a common ancestor), but these are predicted outcomes of the processes that are being modeled, not the model itself. Most emphatically, I am not asking what you think is wrong about evolutionary theory, because the incorrectness of one idea does not automatically make a competing idea correct, and it certainly does not mean the competing idea doesn’t need to be formally modeled!

In other words, what would you have me teach my science classes about creationism?

Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.

Sincerely yours,

Alan

 

[Jukia]

Hmmm, imagine that, no response from a creation scientist to a professional biologist? Perhaps Pastor Enyart can prevail upon him to respond.

 

[aharvey]

Hmmm, imagine that, no response from a creation scientist to a professional biologist? Perhaps Pastor Enyart can prevail upon him to respond.

I'd be surprised if my being a professional biologist would put Mr. Jack off; he leads tours at places populated by professional scientists, after all. I'm guessing that he would provide the same 'reply' to anyone, pro biol or not, who asked for the scientifically valid model of creation that he was quoted on in the newspaper article.

On the other hand, I did manage to engage a certain well-known creationist geologist in discussion, but only until I asked about the problems one might expect in (metaphorically speaking, of course) evaluating the reliability of digital balances by calculating the density of a single kernel of popcorn by weighing it on a digital scale normally used to measure the gross weight of jumbo jets. I haven't heard from him since, although I must note that this creationist institute does not let you talk to their scientists directly, and it is possible that my latest reply was censored by his handlers before it ever reached him.

 

[bob b]

I'd be surprised if my being a professional biologist would put Mr. Jack off; he leads tours at places populated by professional scientists, after all. I'm guessing that he would provide the same 'reply' to anyone, pro biol or not, who asked for the scientifically valid model of creation that he was quoted on in the newspaper article.

On the other hand, I did manage to engage a certain well-known creationist geologist in discussion, but only until I asked about the problems one might expect in (metaphorically speaking, of course) evaluating the reliability of digital balances by calculating the density of a single kernel of popcorn by weighing it on a digital scale normally used to measure the gross weight of jumbo jets. I haven't heard from him since, although I must note that this creationist institute does not let you talk to their scientists directly, and it is possible that my latest reply was censored by his handlers before it ever reached him.

I would judge that both Mr. Jack and your creationist geologist obviously would not respond to "crank" inquiries.

I suspect that the creation model is not judged "scientific" by many, because it is fashionable today to equate "scientific" with "naturalistic".

But while I have your attention Alan, how bout filling us dummies in on the "functional protein rarity" situation?

 

[Jukia]

I would judge that both Mr. Jack and your creationist geologist obviously would not respond to "crank" inquiries.

I would judge that neither Mr. Jack nor the creationist geologist have the stones to discuss science with a real scientist without some of their fellow travelers and a chorus of Amens behind them.
aharvey's e-mail to Mr. Jack seemed pretty straight forward to me. Let him respond in kind.

 

[Johnny]

I would judge that both Mr. Jack and your creationist geologist obviously would not respond to "crank" inquiries.

That's a baffling response for a self-professed "lover of science". How can you honestly ridicule a call for a scientific model (and might I add one which Mr. Jack claims to possess) a crank inquiry?

 

[aharvey]

I would judge that both Mr. Jack and your creationist geologist obviously would not respond to "crank" inquiries.

Your statement is not relevant in either case, because a quick look at my credentials (readily available in any email correspondence) would obviously rule out a "crank" inquiry. As I posted here a copy of my inquiry to Mr. Jack, people can judge for themselves whether I wrote in a manner offensive or unprofessional in any way. Furthermore, the geologist did in fact respond to my initial inquiry, he just stopped responding once I showed I carefully read his paper (again, this may not be his doing, since the emails have to pass through the PR department first).

I suspect that the creation model is not judged "scientific" by many, because it is fashionable today to equate "scientific" with "naturalistic".

I would presume, however, that Mr. Jack would judge the creation model to be scientific, if for no other reason than because he referred to it as being scientific. Even if he thinks I wouldn't deem it to be scientific, one would think he'd be more than willing to present his case, since he supposedly wants it to be presented in places like museums and classrooms.

But while I have your attention Alan, how bout filling us dummies in on the "functional protein rarity" situation?

Sorry bob, you don't really have my attention. As I said in my last thread, I'm only visiting TOL these days to tie up a couple of loose ends.

 

[bob b]

Sorry bob, you don't really have my attention. As I said in my last thread, I'm only visiting TOL these days to tie up a couple of loose ends.

Apparently I did get your attention long enough for you to decline to pursue a subject that might doom the "loose end" of macroevolution.

 

[aharvey]

By the way, when I referred to "Mr. Jack" not responding to my email query, I was referring to the person cited in the newspaper article, not the person who goes by "Mr. Jack" in TOL. Although I suppose it's technically possible that they are one in the same, they seem to line up on opposite sides of the evolution-creation fence so I most sincerely doubt it!

 

[Mr Jack]

By the way, when I referred to "Mr. Jack" not responding to my email query, I was referring to the person cited in the newspaper article, not the person who goes by "Mr. Jack" in TOL. Although I suppose it's technically possible that they are one in the same, they seem to line up on opposite sides of the evolution-creation fence so I most sincerely doubt it!

Damn that Schizophrenia!

NB: Yes, I realise multi-personality disorders and schizophrenia are actually different conditions