Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[Zosimus]

Anything can be claimed to be based on anything. Claims are empty without verification.

You have claimed that "Claims are empty without verification."

Please verify the above claim.

Oh wait... you can't? That's what we call Special Pleading.

>Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate
>justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

You have claimed that "Claims are empty without verification."
Please verify the above claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Next?

 

[NoorNoor]

Anything can be claimed to be based on anything. Claims are empty without verification. There is no supporting evidence for creationism. Thus, creationism is not based on evidence.

The first cause for the creation point at the big bang and the intelligent design shown in the extreme fine tuning of the entire universe (cosmological constant) support Creationism. If you are not aware or don't acknowledge the evidence, it doesn't mean the evidence don't exist.

It is every bit the point. If the evidence is not acceptable, then it is not evidence. If the evidence is not acceptable but one believes anyway, then one is not believing based on evidence. Creationists do this. Evolution scientists do not. Evolution scientists demand good evidence.

Evidence are data. The interpretations of data would favor the probability of one model or another but exact same data may be interpreted differently by different groups (evolutionists and creationists). No one believes in non acceptable evidence but what is acceptable to a group may not be acceptable to the other.

To a point, I will agree that some will say, "Oh, yeah, I believe in evolution"; but upon further discussion, realize they know nothing about it. These persons, whom I hope are the minority, do mirror the behavior of all creationists. Making a correlation from the minority of evolution "believers" to the entirety of the Creationists is sill

Your hope they are the minority among evolutionists is just a hope. Your claim about the entirety of creationists is just a claim. Meaningless hopes and claims don't prove anything.

You don't know much about these organizations, did you? Go to the "Answers in Genesis" website. Right on the front it stipulate

Whether they believe in Genesis or not, whatever their beliefs are, this is irrelevant. their position is the fact that they impose doubts and concerns about the theory of evolution.

Those are the few big names. Please, provide me with more names, and I'll show you that they, as well, are not qualified to rebuke Evolution.

Over 500 doctoral scientists have signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, medicine, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.

See the following link for the list of scientists

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

I gave you names as you requested, now as promised, it's your turn to show that they are not qualified.

So, you are one who believes that evolution is an attack on religion. Its not. It serves to confront certain myths in certain religions.

Its not a belief, Its a fact that most people who accept the evolution, deny religions/God.

Your logic is so very twisted, I don't know how to respond; "If you believe in God, you believe in Creationism, thus you are a Creationist if you believe in God". I'm sure many believers in deities should be rightfully offended that you brand them among these backwards science deniers based solely on their belief in a deity. By what right have you to speak for them?

You don't make any sense. Deity means God, God means Creationism. Creationists are not science deniers. Again, The greatest scientists with the greatest impact on modern science where Creationists.

Newton did not believe in a personal god and would be offended that you had branded

Newton did believe in a personal monotheistic God. Einstein believed in God of spinozism. I neither branded them nor spoke for them, you did.

Newton lived in the 1600's. Making that comparison to modern scientists is ridiculous.

I mentioned Newton as one example of a long history/list of creationist scientists but nonetheless It's ridiculous to underestimate a scientist like Newton. He is one of the most influential scientists of all time. Event if we specifically talk about modern scientists, again surveys had shown that 50% of scientists believed in God.

Creationists: Those who are proponents of Creationism (as the ones listed above): bring us no new information, no new discoveries. Newton and Einstein were physicists. They were not performing their research to prove that God created the heavens and the earth.

Check the example of the 514 scientists above. Unless you don't acknowledge physics as science, yes, Newton and Einstein are among the examples of great influential scientists who believed in God

To believe that Evolution and Creationism are, in any way, the "same" is laughable.

Evolutionists don't see the claim of being "ape and proud" laughable. You are entitled to your view but to Creationists (5.8 billion) , evolution is just a modern myth.

 

[Zosimus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Next?

I did not find the word "empty" on any of the three pages you linked me to. Accordingly, I conclude that you cannot verify the claim that you made.

 

[McBell]

I did not find the word "empty" on any of the three pages you linked me to. Accordingly, I conclude that you cannot verify the claim that you made.

To bad you do not hold the same standards for evidence in all areas....

 

[Zosimus]

To bad you do not hold the same standards for evidence in all areas....

It's not that I hold different standards. I simply require people to hold to their own standards!

If you look carefully at the Wikipedia page that we were linked to, it clearly says that beliefs need warrant, but warrant is not evidence. Warrant is not proof. What makes a belief warranted? Generally speaking, beliefs can be warranted in multiple ways. For example, some beliefs are warranted because they're obvious if you think about them for a moment. If I say that a completely red apple is never completely black, then a minute of thought should be enough to convince you that this is true. No evidence needs to be presented. The truth of the claim is obvious. For others, beliefs are warranted if an expert proposes them. I have not personally reviewed the evidence in favor of consumption of omega-3 fish oil, but I can still be warranted in the belief that it's probably healthy because experts agree that it is so.

However, what is happening here is that the poster is establishing one standard of warrant for himself and a different standard for his opponents. According to him, he's warranted to demand evidence because it only makes sense to do so. However, if we demand that he present evidence, he is glad to hide behind other types of warrant such as an appeal to Wikipedia or an appeal to rationality.

Well, where I come from we say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I do not permit people to insist on one standard for others and then routinely violate their own standard.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

It's not that I hold different standards.

Yes, it is that.

 

[Zosimus]

Yes, it is that.

I reviewed your post for logical arguments to respond to.

I found none.

 

[idav]

The first cause for the creation point at the big bang and the intelligent design shown in the extreme fine tuning of the entire universe (cosmological constant) support Creationism.

false

If you are not aware or don't acknowledge the evidence, it doesn't mean the evidence don't exist.

ok thats obvious

Evidence are data. The interpretations of data would favor the probability of one model or another but exact same data may be interpreted differently by different groups (evolutionists and creationists). No one believes in non acceptable evidence but what is acceptable to a group may not be acceptable to the other.

Yes and the evidence and data point to change over a very long period of time.

Whether they believe in Genesis or not, whatever their beliefs are, this is irrelevant. their position is the fact that they impose doubts and concerns about the theory of evolution.

There are no doubts or concerns about evolution. Relation to apes has been proven, missing links have been found and ancient alien theories have been debunked.

Over 500 doctoral scientists have signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.

So what and why is it that abrahamic relgions are the ones mostly denying evolutiion. The vast majority of relgions believe in evolution.
"The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[19][20][21][22][23] "

The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, medicine, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.

See the following link for the list of scientists

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

From my previous post I show the vast majority of scienctists and sciences take evolution very seriously.

Its not a belief, Its a fact that most people who accept the evolution, deny religions/God.

Thats not true as state before the vast majority of religions, which also happen to be theist believe in evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

You don't make any sense. Deity means God, God means Creationism. Creationists are not science deniers. Again, The greatest scientists with the greatest impact on modern science where Creationists.

False

Newton did believe in a personal monotheistic God. Einstein believed in God of spinozism. I neither branded them nor spoke for them, you did.

Maybe but who they are isn't an argument for what they believe.

I mentioned Newton as one example of a long history/list of creationist scientists but nonetheless It's ridiculous to underestimate a scientist like Newton. He is one of the most influential scientists of all time. Event if we specifically talk about modern scientists, again surveys had shown that 50% of scientists believed in God.

Look more careful at the stats I presented, only the orthodox fundamentalists, Islam and JW are evolution deniers. Jews, Catholics and buddhists for example mostly believe in evolution.

Check the example of the 514 scientists above. Unless you don't acknowledge physics as science, yes, Newton and Einstein are among the examples of great influential scientists who believed in God

More appeal to authority I see.

Evolutionists don't see the claim of being "ape and proud" laughable. You are entitled to your view but to Creationists (5.8 billion) ,

An ape joke and appeal to popularity, lovely.

evolution is just a modern myth.

Spiderman is a modern myth not scientific theories.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The first cause for the creation point at the big bang and the intelligent design shown in the extreme fine tuning of the entire universe (cosmological constant) support Creationism. If you are not aware or don't acknowledge the evidence, it doesn't mean the evidence don't exist.

The "evidence" of fine tuning does not support creationism.

Evidence are data. The interpretations of data would favor the probability of one model or another but exact same data may be interpreted differently by different groups (evolutionists and creationists).

That's because creationists fill in the gaps of what we do not know with God.

Your hope they are the minority among evolutionists is just a hope.

Never stated otherwise.

Your claim about the entirety of creationists is just a claim.

The entirety of creationists juxtapose God for that which is not yet clearly understood.

Whether they believe in Genesis or not, whatever their beliefs are, this is irrelevant. their position is the fact that they impose doubts and concerns about the theory of evolution.

You may not shift the goalpost. The claim was made that these persons and these organizations call into question the theory of evolution and do not necessarily believe Genesis 1 to be literal truth. This claim is false as is clearly visible by just a bit of research and going to their web pages.

Over 500 doctoral scientists have signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, medicine, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.

See the following link for the list of scientists

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

I gave you names as you requested, now as promised, it's your turn to show that they are not qualified.

I'll do better than that. I'll show that these names were placed on this list through deception.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Its not a belief, Its a fact that most people who accept the evolution, deny religions/God.

In a nationally representative survey of more than 3000 people, Hill divided respondents in the survey into "creationists," "atheistic evolutionists," "theistic evolutionists," and "unsure," but even creating four categories is tricky. Under his definition, all "creationists believe that God created humans as part of a single, miraculous act," but some think that happened within the last 10,000 years (often called "young-earth creationists,"). Others believe the earth has been around much longer ("old-earth creationists"). That group accounts for about 37 percent of the population; another 16 percent accept the scientific evidence for evolution while still believing God was involved in creation in some way (or "theistic evolutionists"); 9 percent embrace evolution and reject God (or "atheistic evolutionists").

This leaves 39 percent who are unsure, or whose views don't fit into the categories typically used to frame this issue.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...te-people-into-believing-in-evolution/382983/

Surveys do not support your assertion that all theistic believers deny evolution.

Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States, 2007)
Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth
Source: Pew Forum[12]

Buddhist   81%
Hindu 80%
Jewish 77%
Unaffiliated 72%
Catholic 58%
Orthodox 54%
Mainline Protestant 51%
Muslim 45%
Hist. Black Protest. 38%
Evang. Protestant 24%
Mormon 22%
Jehovah's Witness 0%

You don't make any sense. Deity means God, God means Creationism. Creationists are not science deniers. Again, The greatest scientists with the greatest impact on modern science where Creationists.

Juxtaposing the belief system

Newton did believe in a personal monotheistic God. Einstein believed in God of spinozism. I neither branded them nor spoke for them, you did.

No. YOU brought them into the discussion as a rebuttal to my claim "creationists add no new knowledge". Do not be dishonest. I further refined what I meant by "creationist" yet you are still hung up on these names as if it proved something. To further reiterate my clarification, my claim is not (and was not intended to be) "No one who believes in Creationism adds any new argument." My claim was, and was intended to be, "no Creation Scientist -- one who attempts to further and prove Creationism -- brings any new knowledge or discoveries". I apologize that I was not clear the first time that I spoke. If you choose to believe that you have won an argument because of unclear speech which may have clouded my intended claim, so be it.

I mentioned Newton as one example of a long history/list of creationist scientists but nonetheless It's ridiculous to underestimate a scientist like Newton. He is one of the most influential scientists of all time. Event if we specifically talk about modern scientists, again surveys had shown that 50% of scientists believed in God.

Your statistics are quite slanted. It is not as simple as "50%". Those who are involved in life sciences show less belief; and the older they get, the less they believe.

Check the example of the 514 scientists above. Unless you don't acknowledge physics as science, yes, Newton and Einstein are among the examples of great influential scientists who believed in God

Believing in God is not in question. Believing in Creationism is. In spite of your assertions, there remains a difference.

Evolutionists don't see the claim of being "ape and proud" laughable.

I've never heard that phrase. It probably came from a creationist.

You are entitled to your view but to Creationists (5.8 billion) , evolution is just a modern myth.

Not sure where you got that number. Don't care anyway. Argumentum ad populum fails.

If the number of people who believe a given thing is truly an account of what one should believe, then you are wrong:

I did not find the word "empty" on any of the three pages you linked me to. Accordingly, I conclude that you cannot verify the claim that you made.

A baseless claim is an empty claim. An unproven claim is an empty claim. It's not that hard to figure out: unless, of course, you don't want to figure it out and you just want to be right.

 

[McBell]

It's not that I hold different standards. I simply require people to hold to their own standards!

You do hold double and even triple standards.
Rather difficult to take you seriously when you imply you have the higher ground and you are just as guilty as those who rally against.

If you look carefully at the Wikipedia page that we were linked to, it clearly says that beliefs need warrant, but warrant is not evidence. Warrant is not proof. What makes a belief warranted? Generally speaking, beliefs can be warranted in multiple ways. For example, some beliefs are warranted because they're obvious if you think about them for a moment. If I say that a completely red apple is never completely black, then a minute of thought should be enough to convince you that this is true. No evidence needs to be presented. The truth of the claim is obvious. For others, beliefs are warranted if an expert proposes them. I have not personally reviewed the evidence in favor of consumption of omega-3 fish oil, but I can still be warranted in the belief that it's probably healthy because experts agree that it is so.

However, what is happening here is that the poster is establishing one standard of warrant for himself and a different standard for his opponents. According to him, he's warranted to demand evidence because it only makes sense to do so. However, if we demand that he present evidence, he is glad to hide behind other types of warrant such as an appeal to Wikipedia or an appeal to rationality.

Well, where I come from we say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I do not permit people to insist on one standard for others and then routinely violate their own standard.

Semantics pigeon chess in a sad attempt at back peddling...
You would be much better off to stop posting on the topic all together.
Lest your credibility take an even bigger hit.

 

[Zosimus]

A baseless claim is an empty claim. An unproven claim is an empty claim. It's not that hard to figure out: unless, of course, you don't want to figure it out and you just want to be right.

Can you prove that an unproven claim is an empty claim? If you cannot do so, then I conclude that the bolded claim is an empty claim... whatever it is that you mean by that.

 

[Zosimus]

You do hold double and even triple standards.
Rather difficult to take you seriously when you imply you have the higher ground and you are just as guilty as those who rally against.


Semantics pigeon chess in a sad attempt at back peddling...
You would be much better off to stop posting on the topic all together.
Lest your credibility take an even bigger hit.

"Hi. I'm Mestemia, and I cannot refute your argument. So I'm going to prevent that I'm doubting your credibility."

All right. Since you supposedly doubt my credibility, why don't I just refer you to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy so that you can doubt its credibility for a change. That ought to be good for a laugh.

"...consider evidentialism. This is the initially plausible position that a belief is justified only if “it is proportioned to the evidence”. (Beliefs proportioned to the evidence include, as a special case, the evidence itself.) Here several sorts of evidence are allowed. One consists of beliefs in that which is “evident to the senses”, that is, beliefs directly due to sense-experience. Another sort of evidence is that which is “self-evident”, that is, obvious once you think about it. Evidence may also include the beliefs directly due to memory and introspection. Again moral convictions might count as evidence, even if not treated as “self-evident”. But in order to state the sort of evidentialism characteristic of Enlightenment thought, it is stipulated that no beliefs asserting the content of religious or mystical experiences count as evidence. For example, if Fatima had an experience that she would describe as of the presence of God she should not treat God's presence to her as a piece of evidence. That does not prevent the claim that someone has had a religious experience with a certain content from counting as evidence. For example, the fact that Fatima had an experience as if of God's presence would be a piece of evidence. Likewise the fact that various people report miracles counts as evidence."

So go ahead and tell us how the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy lacks credibility. I'll just sit over here giggling to myself.

 

[McBell]

"Hi. I'm Mestemia, and I cannot refute your argument. So I'm going to prevent that I'm doubting your credibility."

All right. Since you supposedly doubt my credibility, why don't I just refer you to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy so that you can doubt its credibility for a change. That ought to be good for a laugh.

"...consider evidentialism. This is the initially plausible position that a belief is justified only if “it is proportioned to the evidence”. (Beliefs proportioned to the evidence include, as a special case, the evidence itself.) Here several sorts of evidence are allowed. One consists of beliefs in that which is “evident to the senses”, that is, beliefs directly due to sense-experience. Another sort of evidence is that which is “self-evident”, that is, obvious once you think about it. Evidence may also include the beliefs directly due to memory and introspection. Again moral convictions might count as evidence, even if not treated as “self-evident”. But in order to state the sort of evidentialism characteristic of Enlightenment thought, it is stipulated that no beliefs asserting the content of religious or mystical experiences count as evidence. For example, if Fatima had an experience that she would describe as of the presence of God she should not treat God's presence to her as a piece of evidence. That does not prevent the claim that someone has had a religious experience with a certain content from counting as evidence. For example, the fact that Fatima had an experience as if of God's presence would be a piece of evidence. Likewise the fact that various people report miracles counts as evidence."

So go ahead and tell us how the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy lacks credibility. I'll just sit over here giggling to myself.

interesting you are the one guilty of what you attempt to mock me for.
And in the very post you mock me...

So much for any credibility from you.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Can you prove that an unproven claim is an empty claim? If you cannot do so, then I conclude that the bolded claim is an empty claim... whatever it is that you mean by that.

I mean that it has no merit; and that there is no good reason to hold any such claim to be true. Yes, by the strictest definitions, "the fact that various people report miracles" DOES count as "evidence". But it doesn't count as "good evidence". The fact that I feel good when meditating can be counted as "evidence" of "Dharma". But it does not constitute "good evidence". The fact that strange footprints are found in the cascades counts as "evidence" towards "sasquatch". But without validated, peer-reviewed and cross-checked tests on the alleged "bigfoot prints", it doesn't count as "good evidence".

Can a claim be made without evidence turn out to be true? Yes. Certainly. Nonetheless, until suficent good evidence exists to validate that claim, it remains baseless, empty, unproven, and irrational to accept as fact.

Creationism does nothing to provide good evidence for its side. Instead, what it does is finds "loopholes" or "questions" or "problems" with ToE, or is intentionallu dishonest or outright wrong about their claims; then proudly asserts, "We won!" Or, find things that we don't yet know (like, "How could DNA form by naturalistic processes?" or, "Where is the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction?"); then when the obvious answer is, "We don't know yet and might never know", the claim is then made, "We won! 'Evolutionists' don't know what they're talking about. Its because we were created duh!"

Baseless, unfounded assertions grounded in dogmatic, teleological guesses from ancient cultures, empty and unproven and useless claims with nothing to stand upon, bringing no new information and no new discoveries to the table regarding the wonder and marvel of life.

 

[Zosimus]

I mean that it has no merit; and that there is no good reason to hold any such claim to be true. Yes, by the strictest definitions, "the fact that various people report miracles" DOES count as "evidence". But it doesn't count as "good evidence". The fact that I feel good when meditating can be counted as "evidence" of "Dharma". But it does not constitute "good evidence". The fact that strange footprints are found in the cascades counts as "evidence" towards "sasquatch". But without validated, peer-reviewed and cross-checked tests on the alleged "bigfoot prints", it doesn't count as "good evidence".

Can a claim be made without evidence turn out to be true? Yes. Certainly. Nonetheless, until suficent good evidence exists to validate that claim, it remains baseless, empty, unproven, and irrational to accept as fact.

Creationism does nothing to provide good evidence for its side. Instead, what it does is finds "loopholes" or "questions" or "problems" with ToE, or is intentionallu dishonest or outright wrong about their claims; then proudly asserts, "We won!" Or, find things that we don't yet know (like, "How could DNA form by naturalistic processes?" or, "Where is the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction?"); then when the obvious answer is, "We don't know yet and might never know", the claim is then made, "We won! 'Evolutionists' don't know what they're talking about. Its because we were created duh!"

Baseless, unfounded assertions grounded in dogmatic, teleological guesses from ancient cultures, empty and unproven and useless claims with nothing to stand upon, bringing no new information and no new discoveries to the table regarding the wonder and marvel of life.

Then the claim that an unproven claim is an empty claim is meritless (unless you can prove that it is true).

 

[McBell]

Then the claim that an unproven claim is an empty claim is meritless (unless you can prove that it is true).

I shant be holding my breath waiting for you to prove the above made claim

 

[Parsimony]

I shant be holding my breath waiting for you to prove the above made claim

And then that claim would have to be proven, and then that claim, and the next one, and the next one...

 

[Sapiens]

Over 500 doctoral scientists have signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, medicine, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.

See the following link for the list of scientists

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

I gave you names as you requested, now as promised, it's your turn to show that they are not qualified.

That has been done, repeatedly, by others ( http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism ).

There are two major lies in the lists, the first is the idea that anyone with a PhD, MD, DDS, EdD, etc., is qualified. The second is the affiliation. If someone went to Berkeley as an undergrad in botany, did grad work somewhere less prestigious, did a post doc even further down the food chain, never published and spent their life selling insurance, they'd be listed as affiliated with Berkeley.

Here's a list of 1389 real scientists who support the TOE and whom are all named "Steve": https://ncse.com/list-of-steves