Bill Nye - Science Guy - insults homeschoolers?

Discussion in 'Homeschooling in the News' started by pecangrove, Feb 12, 2014.

  1. Cornish Steve

    Cornish Steve Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,534
    Likes Received:
    7
    Jackie - not among the 'serious' scientific community. There are a handful of well-qualified scientists who are creationists, but they are far outnumbered by those who are not. Of course, the press makes it out differently, but that's the reality of it. They work on the fringes, not at the forefront. There is, however, a new generation of Christians who truly are leaders in their fields.

    Here's an excellent series of short videos that highlights just some of the Christians who are very well-respected in their respective fields. If only these guys were given more air time.
     
  2. Jackie

    Jackie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    24,128
    Likes Received:
    6
    No, the press doesn't make it out differently. According to the press, there are NO Christian scientists at all. I beg to differ that there are Creation scientists who are "serious" scientists. I'll do some homework and get some names for you.
     
  3. Cornish Steve

    Cornish Steve Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,534
    Likes Received:
    7
    Sorry. For some reason, the system stopped me from editing my earlier post. Here is the version I intended. Sorry for the duplication.

    Jackie - not among the 'serious' scientific community. There are a handful of well-qualified scientists who are literal creationists, but they are far outnumbered by those who are not. Of course, the popular Christian press makes it out differently, but that's the reality of it.

    I vividly remember one midweek meeting at church when a literal creationist from some organization, which had approached the church, came to speak. The principal speaker was a very nice man, but he was accompanied by what I would call "minders". During his talk, the speaker referred to examples that have been completely discredited in recent years. They come from books written in the 90s, and in some cases in the 70s. After the talk, I very politely asked four questions that I thought got to the heart of the matter. In the context of literal creationism, there were no good answers to these questions, and the speaker admitted that. At the end of the meeting, he and I began a very pleasant conversation - but then the "minders" took over. They pulled me aside - into a corner, actually - and started their propaganda pitch. I wasn't allowed to question, and I was made to feel a heretic.

    Whenever "propaganda police" are allowed to operate in this way, we ought to know that something is amiss. If our faith is genuine, we should never be afraid of following where the evidence leads. We should welcome critics and cynics because they are chipping away at the unwanted rock to reveal the wonderful statue beneath the image we've built. It's the same with atheists, of course. While I find many to be open and willing to discuss, they too have their "mind police". Sometimes, sadly, we see them at work in the hiring and firing practices in academia. I'd expect Christians to be given a tough time in a world dominated by atheists. What is really sad is that Christians in science are given an equally tough time in today's evangelical churches.

    There is a new generation of Christian academics who truly are leaders in their scientific fields. Here's an excellent series of short videos that highlights just some Christians who fall into this category. If only these guys were given more air time.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2014
  4. Cornish Steve

    Cornish Steve Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,534
    Likes Received:
    7
    For sure - but they must be respected leaders in their scientific disciplines - whether geology or cosmology or astronomy or genetics or whatever - with a track record of publishing peer-reviewed articles. This is true of the Christians to whom I refer.
     
  5. ochumgache

    ochumgache Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    3
    Steve, this is where you stop stepping on toes and start kicking shins. I'm hearing you say (I heard it before but tried to ignore it) that a serious scientist would not be a literal creationist, because one could only be a literal creationist if he/she were ignorant of the evidence or lacked the qualification to interpret it. Those of us who aren't serious nor scientists just have to trust the elite few to tell us what it all means. Thus ends the discussion in which two parties tried to understand one another and begins the lecture during which knowledge is generously imparted to the intellectually underprivileged. I'm going to go ice my skins now.
     
  6. Jackie

    Jackie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    24,128
    Likes Received:
    6
    So anyone I come up with has to meet YOUR definition of what a "serious" scientist is? And the first qualification of a "serious" scientist, obviously, is one who believes in evolution.

    I've no doubt of your salvation, or you love for the Lord. I do not question that at all. But your worship of evolution above all else, implying that anyone who doesn't agree isn't really intelligent or a "serious" scientist gets old. Never mind. I, too, am bowing out. But I will still try to find the time to get some names for anyone else who is really interested.
     
  7. Jackie

    Jackie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    24,128
    Likes Received:
    6
    Here is a partial list. Now whether or not they are SERIOUS according to Steve's definition I cannot say. And I'm not about to look up the credentials of each and every one. I will also say that I believe (admittedly my opinion) that there are many who won't admit they don't believe in evolution due to the discrimination against those who say so. Doesn't exist? Not according to Ben Stein's documentary. And Ben is NOT a Christian, btw.

    Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
    ◾ Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
    ◾ Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
    ◾Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
    ◾Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
    ◾Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
    ◾Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
    ◾Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
    ◾Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
    ◾Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
    ◾Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
    ◾Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
    ◾Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
    ◾Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
    ◾Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
    ◾Professor Stuart Burgess, Engineering Design
    ◾Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
    ◾Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
    ◾Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
    ◾Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
    ◾Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
    ◾Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
    ◾Dr. Marc Chetta, Associate Professor of Biology
    ◾Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
    ◾Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
    ◾Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
    ◾Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
    ◾Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist
    ◾Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
    ◾Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
    ◾Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
    ◾Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
    ◾Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
    ◾Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
    ◾Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
    ◾Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
    ◾Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
    ◾Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
    ◾Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
    ◾Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
    ◾Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
    ◾Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
    ◾Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
    ◾Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
    ◾Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
    ◾Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
    ◾Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
    ◾Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
    ◾Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
    ◾Dr. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
    ◾Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
    ◾Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
    ◾Dr. Kenneth W. Funk, Organic Chemistry
    ◾Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
    ◾Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
    ◾Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
    ◾Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
    ◾Dr. Duane Gish (1921–2013), Biochemist
    ◾Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
    ◾Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
    ◾Dr. D. B. Gower, Biochemistry
    ◾Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
    ◾Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
    ◾Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
    ◾Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
    ◾Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
    ◾Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
    ◾Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
    ◾Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
    ◾Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
    ◾Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
    ◾Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
    ◾Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
    ◾Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
    ◾Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
    ◾ Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
    ◾Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
    ◾Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
    ◾Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
    ◾Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
    ◾Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
    ◾Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
    ◾George T. Javor, Biochemistry
    ◾Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
    ◾Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
    ◾Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
    ◾Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
    ◾Dr. William F. Kane, (Civil) Geotechnical Engineering
    ◾Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
    ◾Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
    ◾Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
    ◾Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
    ◾Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
    ◾Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
    ◾Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
    ◾Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
    ◾Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
    ◾Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
    ◾Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
    ◾Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
    ◾Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
    ◾Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
    ◾Dr. John K. G. Kramer, Biochemistry
    ◾Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
    ◾Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
    ◾Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
    ◾Dr. John G. Leslie, Biochemist, Physician, Archaeologist
    ◾Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
    ◾ Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
    ◾Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist
    ◾Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
    ◾Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
    ◾Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
    ◾Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
    ◾Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
    ◾Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
    ◾Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
    ◾Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
    ◾Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
    ◾Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
    ◾Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
    ◾Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, Physician
    ◾Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
    ◾Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
    ◾Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
    ◾Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
    ◾Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
    ◾Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
    ◾Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
    ◾Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
    ◾Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
    ◾Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
    ◾Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
    ◾Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
    ◾Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
    ◾Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
    ◾Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
    ◾Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
    ◾Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
    ◾Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
    ◾Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
    ◾Prof. Richard Porter
    ◾Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
    ◾Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
    ◾Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
    ◾Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
    ◾Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
    ◾Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
    ◾Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
    ◾Dr. Kenneth Royal, Psychometrics
    ◾Dr. Ron Samec, Professional Astronomer
    ◾Dr. Joachim Scheven, Palaeontologist
    ◾Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
    ◾Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
    ◾Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
    ◾Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
    ◾Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
    ◾Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
    ◾Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
    ◾Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
    ◾George S. Smith, M.S., Chemistry
    ◾Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
    ◾Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
    ◾Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
    ◾Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
    ◾Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
    ◾Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
    ◾Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
    ◾Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
    ◾Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
    ◾Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
    ◾Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
    ◾Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
    ◾Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
    ◾Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
    ◾Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
    ◾Dr. Stephen J. Vinay III, Chemical Engineering
    ◾Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
    ◾Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
    ◾Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
    ◾Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
    ◾Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
    ◾Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
    ◾Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
    ◾Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
    ◾Dr. Gordon Wilson, Environmental Science and Public Policy
    ◾Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
    ◾Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
    ◾Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
    ◾Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
    ◾Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
    ◾Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
    ◾Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
    ◾Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
    ◾Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
     
  8. Lindina

    Lindina Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    6,102
    Likes Received:
    11
    Recently, I saw on tv a program by Dr. Steve Austin where he used Mt. St. Helens and that area to show how other scientists have perhaps misinterpreted the evidence of the Grand Canyon, Petrified Forest, and other locations, to be evidence of many millennia. He showed how the stratification of minerals, erosion of those strata into canyons (at about 1/40th scale of the Grand Canyon, but very comparable other than size), and trees floating upright in mud from slides could be interpreted as happening over millennia, rather than something that happened over a few months of time after the Mt. St. Helens eruption. The trees separated themselves by species from one forest, rather than being evidence of many forests buried over time.
     
  9. MagnoliaHoney

    MagnoliaHoney New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    2
    Not on the list, but I'm not sure he is a creationist either, but he is a devout christian and believes in Creation as written in the Bible. Is my uncle.... he's a bio engineer and scientist for NASA now for many decades...has worked on many of the space craft that has went into space, and does a lot of scientific research/studies/papers. Ronald Barnes.

    My other uncle also VERY devout christian.... and I'm pretty sure a creationist! And he is a computer scientist...programmed the SR77...and many other things for NASA and boeing as well. Doyla Gene Lytal.
     
  10. MagnoliaHoney

    MagnoliaHoney New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    2
    And BTW, I want to say I am a devout christian. I do NOT believe in evolution as in we emerged from the waters and flopped around on the ground as a fish, then grew lungs and became monkeys, etc...lol

    But, I do believe in natural or even forced evolution...because we can see it ourselves.

    IE Natural evolution... a wolf and a huskey mix out in the wild...and you get a new breed of animal... (not a different species) but at the same time not something that God directly created either.

    A horticulturist, mixes a plum with a apricot and we get plumcots, again not something God directly created, but something that a horticulturist forced into evolving into something else.

    That's the only kinds of evolution I believe in, so it's evolution in a diluted small scale way...not the big Darwin thinking way.

    I do however believe that God himself wants us to question every thing, including him.... to test our faith and for our faith to have foundation...built on a rock and not sand.... if we can get our questions answered, through God's word... we will have a solid faith that is not hollow.
     
  11. vantage

    vantage Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,888
    Likes Received:
    2
    There are a lot of creationist who are not "literal 6 day'ers".

    One does not have to believe in a literal 6 day creation to be a creationist.

    For this reason there are many creationists among the scientific community.

    There are so many questions one can toss into such a conversation but doing so often causes doubt for others and we are not suppose to be a stumbling block. I will give only one topic for an example in my younger years I would have asked the following questions:

    Earth. What does earth mean. What word was used in the Hebrew in Genesis and what did it mean in Hebrew thousands of years ago. Earth as we know the word is likely only dating back about 1000 years. Most cultures did not know of the planet as a spherical orb, and only had a concept of the area where they lived. Typically the word used to describe or reference the world was the same word used for the soil. Does the creation story refer to a planet, or to the Garden? Notice that the plants and vegetation are referenced in chapter 1 of Gen. but in Chapter 2 no shrub or seed had sprouted. Notice that mankind had been created in His image in chapter 1 and the introduction of Adam is in Chapter 2. Many challenge creation days because the plants come in the wrong order, yet they really had not sprouted until later.

    My point is that pointing out that God had created these things in 6 literal days, does not mean they were necessarily executed in those 6 literal days, and this is evidenced by Chapter 2.

    I so totally have no problem with it being both a literal 6 day creation and an old earth creation. Just like I have no problem with the dualism between Free-will and Predestination, or the fact that Jesus was Fully God and fully man at once.

    Once you submit that God is God and He could create all the complexity of what we know about our Earth, and the Universe, is it really hard to believe it is both as the Bible says and as good science reveals. If God can create the complexities that are known about the parts of an atom, and the related physics, is it hard to believe he can create in 6 days or 6 ages. Does it even matter.

    Someday when I have mastered something as simple and straight forward as keeping the 10 commandments, I will gaze at my navel and once again contemplate the "literalness" of Genesis 1.
     
  12. Cornish Steve

    Cornish Steve Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,534
    Likes Received:
    7
    Sorry! I didn't mean to kick in the shins!

    Let's take another field - engineering, say. We trust implicitly those who have studied and learned how to build very complex items and even put our lives in their hands when we fly on planes, for example. What about mathematics? We trust those who have studied and learned extremely involved and complex mathematical structures and make bold claims. We trust those who can speak fluently in some obscure language even though we don't have a clue what they are saying! So, it's the norm, in almost all aspects of life, that the vast majority trust an "elite" (to use your term) who truly understand their subject. For some reason, in science, we choose to distrust those experts even though we really don't understand the subject anywhere near as well as they do.

    Is it arrogant of someone who speaks Swahili, for example, to believe they understand its grammatical structures and turns of phrase and colloquialisms and that we don't? No, it's not. We understand and respect their expertise. Imagine that someone from China learned just a little English and you told them, ahead of an important presentation, that they must "get their ducks in a row," would they be justified in telling you that ducks swim on a lake, have nothing to do with presentations, and that you are insane? Would their interpretation of the phrase and their conclusion be as valid as yours? No - because you understand the intricacies of the English language, and they don't.

    So why is it different with science? Why is it the only subject for which we distrust, rather than trust, those who spend their lives understanding the subject and the evidence in depth? Isn't it just a little suspicious? I would refer back to the "minders" I encountered in a talk promoting literal creationism. If it's valid, why the need to "enforce" orthodoxy? Why the fear - and it is fear, I think? I'd suggest it's because Ken Ham on the creationist side, and Richard Dawkins on the atheist side, have created an artificial divide between science and faith. One states that you can't believe in mainstream science if you're a Christian; the other states that you can't have religious faith if you're a true scientist. To both of them, I say emphatically "oh yes you can!" :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2014
  13. Cornish Steve

    Cornish Steve Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,534
    Likes Received:
    7
    It's not my definition, Jackie. Experts in science are defined as those who have published peer-reviewed papers and are, as a result, respected among their peers. It really doesn't matter what those papers are about, so long as the content stands up against the criticism of peers.

    I remember reading in the Journal of Statistical Mathematics a peer-reviewed paper about the authorship of New Testament letters. The author used various statistical techniques, such as average word and sentence size, frequency of word use, ratio of nouns to verbs, and so on, to create a unique identifier of the author. It was fascinating, because his work revealed that the same author wrote almost all the letters we ascribe to Paul, and even revealed differences associated with his age at the time. The one very clear exception was Hebrews, and the obvious conclusion was that Paul did not write it.

    The point is that papers are not excluded from mainstream science publications because of the topic or the author's ideology. Papers must, however, be consistent with the evidence. If they are not, they fail the peer review process.

    And, for the record, I don't "worship" evolution any more than I worship Maxwell's Laws. I simply accept it as a theory that explains the evidence and can make accurate predictions - which makes it a very strong theory. No more and no less.
     
  14. Cornish Steve

    Cornish Steve Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,534
    Likes Received:
    7
    That, may I say, is a brilliant question. I just wish everyone were willing to continue this conversation!
     
  15. Cornish Steve

    Cornish Steve Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,534
    Likes Received:
    7
    A sentiment with which I agree wholeheartedly.
     
  16. Jackie

    Jackie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    24,128
    Likes Received:
    6
    But to be "respected among your 'peers'" you must be obedient to what those 'peers' say. In other words, no Creationists allowed, regardless of their abilities in their respective fields. Anyone who points out discrepancies are shunned. So, if a "respected" scientist would dare question Evolution, their papers would suddenly no longer be published, which means they were no longer "respected".

    I gave you a long list of names. Are any of them "respected"?
     
  17. Cornish Steve

    Cornish Steve Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,534
    Likes Received:
    7
    Not really. Papers can be controversial - that's not a problem; however, papers must stand up to criticism in light of the evidence. Having been through the process, let me tell you that you think about every little detail when you write papers to ensure you can defend against someone who challenges your assertions.

    I'd have to do a search of the science citation index to see what papers they have published. I do note, however, that there is a dentist and others on the list who may not have published too much that relate to the topic in hand. Having said that, I'm in sales today but, when in academia, published about 20 journal papers, so current profession does not rule someone out.
     
  18. Jackie

    Jackie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    24,128
    Likes Received:
    6
    No. The only lens papers are permitted to be viewed through is the lens of evolution. It doesn't matter if it's controversial, or if it's good science. If you dare question the sacred cow, you don't get published. Period.
     
  19. Cornish Steve

    Cornish Steve Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,534
    Likes Received:
    7
    Jackie, I have to challenge you on that. I've published about 20 scientific papers, so I've been through the process. When they review, peers do not take ideology into account. Indeed, a paper should state only the facts and not the worldview behind them. It's simply not accurate to suggest that papers are only permitted so long as they support evolution. Creationists in the limelight claim this, but there's simply no justification for the claim.

    Here's what does happen, though. Someone publishes a paper supporting the documented theory of Intelligent Design, using the fundamental claims of that theory. One, for example, is that there have never been intermediate species. Now, there are hundreds of thousands of examples of fossils of intermediate species. Raging arguments take place at conferences over whether something is a mammal-like reptile or a reptile-like mammal. The evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the claim made in the ID paper - so, yes, it is rejected. Someone else publishes a paper with an example of something that is supposedly 'irreducibly complex' - another fundamental claim of Intelligent Design. Then along comes someone else to show evidence that the item can be reduced. Indeed, there are examples of supposedly irreducibly complex elements for which a complete path has been found to explain how it came about. When such progress is made, science rejects what is in error and moves forward with the new evidence. That's the way it's always been.

    Years ago, Fred Hoyle - a scientist and atheist - didn't like the idea that there was a Big Bang, because it implies a creator. What did he do? He invented a theory called the Steady State theory in which matter is created spontaneously. That theory made predictions, and papers were published that showed categorically that the theory's fundamental assumptions were wrong. No matter how much Fred Hoyle objected, and no matter his ideology or his status as one of the world's leading scientists, his theory and his papers based on them were rejected. If your assertion that science is pro-atheist and anti-Christian, this would not have happened.

    In other words, science does not care about the ideology behind submitted papers. The peer review process is applied to all submissions regardless. The reason that ID papers or literal creationist papers (or Steady State papers) are not published is because the evidence totally contradicts them - not because only the "lens of evolution" is accepted. It sounds harsh, but the papers are rejected because they are simply "bad science", and there are plenty of examples of this from researchers of all backgrounds, cultures, and ideologies.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2014
  20. Jackie

    Jackie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    24,128
    Likes Received:
    6
    Steve, I could give you name after name after name, and you will find some way to discredit each and every one of them. And yes, your arrogance IS showing. You're the "expert"; therefore, since I am obviously not a scientist (which I readily admit!!!), my opinion is uneducated and irrelevant.

    I have been trained to be a teacher. I enjoyed the time I spent in the classroom, and am actually very good at it. I have spent a great deal of time in workshops to further my training. But when I come here, I don't just blow off what the others say because they don't have my training, or lecture them.

    http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm

    http://ed5015.tripod.com/ReligEvolutionWhyScientistsBelieve134.html
     

Share This Page

Members Online Now

Total: 67 (members: 0, guests: 61, robots: 6)