Ignorance about evolution no longer a valid excuse for creationists

[Astrid000]

Well, tumbleweed 41, I'll bet I can name 10 creationist scientists. Sarfarti, then there is bound to be a few credentialed scientists at the Creation Institute. There is Sanford. Then there are other creationist sites that I am sure have some credentialed researchers there somewhere. I reckon I can do it.

I'll have to make the 10 post limit before I can get going and quote research. However, I will get back to it when I can post links, if not today then another.

So..if I find 10 scientists and show some peer reviewed research, what will that mean? No doubt it will be refuted negatively by evolutionary researchers, as one would expect. Evolutionary researchers also discredit each others work so this would hardly be convincing support for discreditation. So I expect you are not also requesting positive peer reviews, just submitted for review! I'll go look, but I do know of some..let's see if I can make 10.

Again for now..let me ask, if I or others come through on 10 creationist researchers that have submitted research for review will you take back your insinuation that ALL creationists are ignorant?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Let's see.
Back in 2001, the Biblical Creationist organization, Discovery Institute, release a listing of scientists who supposedly "rejected evolution".
First of all, this list of about 800 scientists represents less than 0.1% of scientists and engineers (also on the signatory list) in the United States.

Secondly, the statement itself says, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.".
This statement does not require the signer to "deny evolution", but rather to acknowledge that random mutation and natural selection alone do not account for the diversity of life.
In fact, the statement encourages the scientific method by asking for further study into all the factors that account for the diversity of life. Something any rational scientist would acknowledge.

Third, exactly how many of these scientists are accredited and qualified to truly speak about evolutionary biology?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Well, tumbleweed 41, I'll bet I can name 10 creationist scientists. Sarfarti, then there is bound to be a few credentialed scientists at the Creation Institute. There is Sanford. Then there are other creationist sites that I am sure have some credentialed researchers there somewhere. I reckon I can do it.

I'll have to make the 10 post limit before I can get going and quote research. However, I will get back to it when I can post links, if not today then another.

So..if I find 10 scientists and show some peer reviewed research, what will that mean? No doubt it will be refuted negatively by evolutionary researchers, as one would expect. Evolutionary researchers also discredit each others work so this would hardly be convincing support for discreditation. So I expect you are not also requesting positive peer reviews, just submitted for review! I'll go look, but I do know of some..let's see if I can make 10.

Again for now..let me ask, if I or others come through on 10 creationist researchers that have submitted research for review will you take back your insinuation that ALL creationists are ignorant?

10 biologists accredited and qualified to speak on evolutionary biology.

 

[Skwim]

Seriously Squim, are you suggesting that there are absolutely no credentialed researchers at all that discredit evolution?

Not at all. As I pointed out, if they have actually examined the evidence and then opt for something like creationism, then at best they're foolish.

I am unable to post URL's. I will oblige when I have made sufficient posts. Perhaps Darkness or a creationist can help out. Sarfarti is one.

Good grief, is he still kicking around? Please spare me his blather.

Of the many scientists named in this list you may be able to discredit some. You may also be able to challenge their background. However surely you are not trying to suggest that there is not one scientist in an evolutionary related field, that discredits evolution.

Not saying there aren't any, only that those who dismiss evolution are either foolish or have some agenda they're committed to that forces them to dismiss it.

Sarfarti is one and there appears to be many.

If I remember correctly Safarti doesn't have a background in any evolutionary related field, but in chemistry; spectrometry or something like it if I recall.

 

[Astrid000]

Squim..how can you assert that any researcher that is appropriately credentialed hasn't 'actually examined the evidence?

Blather is a rude descriptor. Don't you know who is still around or isn't? Perhaps it is you that has not examined any creationists research!

It does not matter about agendas. That is not the point to your insinuation that all creationists are ignorant. I think making such a sweeping statement about every creationist is in itself a demonstration of ignorance. It appears by being so stereotypical in a broad allegation you have backed yourself into a corner somewhat! The out of Aficans against multiregionalists also have their own agenda in their interpretation of information and what they will or will not accept.

To cite researchers agendas as a refute to the fact that there are credentialed scientists that discredit evolution is a little silly, don't you think?

Anyway, I am getting closer to the 10 posts. I have found an Answers Research Journal that has a stack of peer reviewed creationist papers. I am going to do this you know?????

Regardless of whether or not creation is true, it is very ignorant to assume that all creationists are ignorant or have not examined the theory and its' support.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Squim..how can you assert that any researcher that is appropriately credentialed hasn't 'actually examined the evidence?

Because the evidence is all in favour of evolution, and no evidence of creationism exists.

Blather is a rude descriptor. Don't you know who is still around or isn't? Perhaps it is you that has not examined any creationists research!

What creationist research?

It does not matter about agendas. That is not the point to your insinuation that all creationists are ignorant. I think making such a sweeping statement about every creationist is in itself a demonstration of ignorance. It appears by being so stereotypical in a broad allegation you have backed yourself into a corner somewhat! The out of Aficans against multiregionalists also have their own agenda in their interpretation of information and what they will or will not accept.

It may sound like a sweeping generalization to you, but imagine if you will that there was a group of people who not only denied the validity of, say, the theory of gravity, but actively preached a non-scientific substitute for the theory of gravity based on their own personal beliefs and tried to get it pushed in schools. On top of this, there is the simple fact that every objection to evolution theory that has ever been brought to the table - on this forum and elsewhere - is quickly crushed by the slightest touch of genuine scientific research, and I do not think that it is disingenuous to call creationists ignorant. It's no different to calling people who think the word "plank" is spelled with a silent "x" ignorant. They are just plain wrong.

To cite researchers agendas as a refute to the fact that there are credentialed scientists that discredit evolution is a little silly, don't you think?

Not at all, if their argument only serves to suit that agenda rather than push science forward.

Anyway, I am getting closer to the 10 posts. I have found an Answers Research Journal that has a stack of peer reviewed creationist papers. I am going to do this you know?????

Regardless of whether or not creation is true, it is very ignorant to assume that all creationists are ignorant or have not examined the theory and its' support.

Like I said, it's not an assumption leapt to through ignorance. It's a conclusion based on the overwhelming number of experiences we have had with creationists on this board and elsewhere. Not once have I ever encountered a creationist whose arguments came from anywhere other than their own ignorance of evolution, biology or science in general.

 

[Skwim]

Squim..how can you assert that any researcher that is appropriately credentialed hasn't 'actually examined the evidence?

I didn't. Please reread my post.

Blather is a rude descriptor. Don't you know who is still around or isn't? Perhaps it is you that has not examined any creationists research!

Several years ago Sarfarti's name and his prose was so bandied about that it got outright tiresome. His deliberate misinterpretations and repetitious nonsense marked him as a doofus. I've had enough of him, thank you. As for creationists research, that's a hoot. This cartoon sums it up very well.

​

It does not matter about agendas. That is not the point to your insinuation that all creationists are ignorant. I think making such a sweeping statement about every creationist is in itself a demonstration of ignorance.

*SIGH* Not all are ignorant. Some are foolish. Here, let me walk you through it. I said:

"if they have actually examined the evidence and then opt for something like creationism, then at best they're foolish."
​

If someone has actually examined the evidence then they couldn't be described as being ignorant could they. So, if they aren't ignorant (they actually examined the evidence) yet still dismiss evolution then I consider them foolish. See how that works? I see two types of evolution-deniers.

1. The ignorant: those ignorant of it
2. The foolish: those who are not ignorant of it but still don't accept it.

We good now?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I look forward to the 10 accredited and qualified biologists with their peer reviewed papers on alternative proposals to evolutionary biology. Particularly Creationism.


( The aforementioned Sarfarti is a chemist with no scholarship in biology)

 

[McBell]

I just can not wait for the "Expelled" reference as to why they cannot find 10 accredited and qualified biologists with their peer reviewed papers on alternative proposals to evolutionary biology

 

[tumbleweed41]

I have found an Answers Research Journal that has a stack of peer reviewed creationist papers. I am going to do this you know?????

Allow me,

Answers Research Journal - Creation, Evolution, Scientific Research - Answers Research Journal


An Answers in Genesis (AiG) owned "Journal" whose stated agenda is "We start with the Bible as being true. And many other journals do not. They are going to start with human reasoning as the basis for truth" (Source)

And what are the criteria for publication in this "Journal"?

1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively [sic] positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
   
5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture?

(Source-PDF)


And one of the most interesting things about this "Journal"?
Authors are free to publish under pseudonyms!!
"Any author using a pen name or who has a reason for not wanting their biographical details publicized on the AiG website should specifically request this, and their wishes will be respected." from page three of the instructions to authors (large PDF file).
No credible scientific journal would allow such dishonest and cowardly practices.

 

[petewentz]

Tumbleweed wins the internets.

I'd like to point out quickly that scientists disagreeing with each other doesn't mean that in-theory quibbling disproves evolution. No, most scientists, except for that .1% you may list, agree that evolution by means of natural selection is a fact. They only quibble over HOW it happens.

That said, that also doesn't mean it's wrong, or that science is fundamentally wrong. That's the entire basis for scientific advancement. I'm sure you've heard the story about the old scientists who held a long standing theory. Then one day an upstart scientists disproves him. The old scientists simply turns to the young one and says "Thank you for showing me I was wrong all these years"...whereas it would appear the creationist would say "WELL NOT TODAY BUDDY"

 

[Astrid000]

Let's see.
Back in 2001, the Biblical Creationist organization, Discovery Institute, release a listing of scientists who supposedly "rejected evolution".
First of all, this list of about 800 scientists represents less than 0.1% of scientists and engineers (also on the signatory list) in the United States.

Secondly, the statement itself says, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.".
This statement does not require the signer to "deny evolution", but rather to acknowledge that random mutation and natural selection alone do not account for the diversity of life.
In fact, the statement encourages the scientific method by asking for further study into all the factors that account for the diversity of life. Something any rational scientist would acknowledge.

Third, exactly how many of these scientists are accredited and qualified to truly speak about evolutionary biology?

Now we are not going to single out one piece of literature as a stereotype of all creationist assertations. After all, any of this data you are refering to relies on an assumption.

I have found lots of papers on a site. I just need to ascertain if they have been peer reviewed.

Now if one is able to point to some fumble as a source of discreditation then lets not use any from the Max Plankt Institution as they contaminated some of their research, hence forever they are discredited.

 

[petewentz]

Now we are not going to single out one piece of literature as a stereotype of all creationist assertations. After all, any of this data you are refering to relies on an assumption.

I have found lots of papers on a site. I just need to ascertain if they have been peer reviewed.

Now if one is able to point to some fumble as a source of discreditation then lets not use any from the Max Plankt Institution as they contaminated some of their research, hence forever they are discredited.

Find a biologist who is peer reviewed that doesn't believe in evolution. There may be plenty Christian biologists but I assure you that they also know evolution exists.

 

[Astrid000]

Tumbleweed wins the internets.

I'd like to point out quickly that scientists disagreeing with each other doesn't mean that in-theory quibbling disproves evolution. No, most scientists, except for that .1% you may list, agree that evolution by means of natural selection is a fact. They only quibble over HOW it happens.
That is not what I said, is it? I am not trying to disprove evolution. I am demonstrating that not all creationists are ignorant.
That said, that also doesn't mean it's wrong, or that science is fundamentally wrong. That's the entire basis for scientific advancement. I'm sure you've heard the story about the old scientists who held a long standing theory. Then one day an upstart scientists disproves him. The old scientists simply turns to the young one and says "Thank you for showing me I was wrong all these years"...whereas it would appear the creationist would say "WELL NOT TODAY BUDDY"

The point to the thread insinuates that ALL creationists are ignorant. I say this is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. I am not trying to disprove evolution. However thinking people, particularly those that are well credentialed in the sciences, are able to speak to their reasonings for rejection. Whether they are right or wrong, does not speak to ignorance. If one disagrees with considered choices, it starts sounding like you are displaying a bullying attitude in "you will accept what I accept, for the reasons I accept it, or else you are stupid and ignorant". That kind of attitude in itself is agreat example of ignorance, this day in age.

I do not care about whom is right or wrong. What I do care about here is that it is a gross misrepresentation, exaggeration and stereotype to say that all creationists, creationist scientist or otherwise, are ignorant. Ignorant indicating not having taken into consideration the evidence presented

One example that comes to mind in John C Sandford. He used to be an evolutionists, is credentialed, and has written papers on genetic entrophy. I am sure he and Sarfarti have looked at the supports for evolution and do not accept it as convincing.

Whether or not you accept their reasons for refute is basically irrelevant to these being credentialed in an appropriate science and discredit evolution.

Skwim is simply wrong. The amount of books written on evolution does not mean that creationists are all ignorant if they do not accept the changing face of evolution. It is that simple.

I can understand that you guys get a buzz out of this talk. That is fantastic for you. However you are getting off on an illusion that you like to entertain. It is not true.

Tumbleweed...I am getting closer to providing you with 10 researchers with peer reviewed papers. I expect the goal post will then be moved to 10 creationist researchers with papers submitted for peer review..that you agree with or like, I suppose. Is that where this is going..on a merry merry-go-round of ever changing goal posts?

Is pride going to stop you from accepting the fact that not all creationists are ignorant?

 

[Skwim]

I have found lots of papers on a site. I just need to ascertain if they have been peer reviewed.

I assume that by peer reviewed you're not referring to their fellow creationists, but those in the same field they are: i.e. structural engineers reviewing pro-creationist papers written by a structural engineer, and stage actors reviewing pro-creationist papers written by a stage actor, etc.





Edited to add. Just saw this remark by Astrid000 after initial posting

"Skwim is simply wrong. The amount of books written on evolution does not mean that creationists are all ignorant if they do not accept the changing face of evolution. It is that simple."

​

He's all yours
​

 

[Astrid000]

Find a biologist who is peer reviewed that doesn't believe in evolution. There may be plenty Christian biologists but I assure you that they also know evolution exists.

Well of course petewentz...that is because there are Christians that believe in evolution. That has little if anything to do with the fact that there are credentialed scientists that do not, as well.

 

[Astrid000]

I assume that by peer reviewed you're not referring to their fellow creationists, but those in the same field they are: i.e. structural engineers reviewing pro-creationist papers written by a structural engineer, and stage actors reviewing pro-creationist papers written by a stage actor, etc.





Edited to add. Just saw this remark by Astrid000 after initial posting

"Skwim is simply wrong. The amount of books written on evolution does not mean that creationists are all ignorant if they do not accept the changing face of evolution. It is that simple."

He's all yours
​

Well let's see what turns up.

I think it has nothing to do with the submission of peer reviwed papers, anyway. But I will play along. There are some very smart creationists out there. There are also some pretty smart people about that are believers in God, are they also targets of ridicule on this forum, or is it just creationists you like to stir up?


I think it is truly incredible that any of you truly believe that every creationist is ignorant. It beggs belief. ..how cruel to have fun at anothers expense based on a truly ridiculous, ignorant, uneducated, stereotypical claim.

It appears I have to wait for 15 posts before I can put up links..but tomorrow, I will give it a go, and see how I do, as long as the message does not go up to 20 posts required....

Certainly Sarfarti and Sanford are credentialed and smart, so already the insinuation that all creationists are ignorant has proven to be a ridiculous and nasty claim with no foundation to it.

Let's see if any goal posts are moved with never ending requests for a higher and higher criteria, just to ascertain, not every single creationist is ignorant.

I really did not think you were seriously going to persue such a line, but you are. This is concerning to a newcomer.

But I do not care, in the end. It is fun to see how creationists defend themselves. I may even turn into one.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Certainly Sarfarti and Sanford are credentialed and smart...

As I have already stated, Safarti is a chemist and Sanford is a horticulturist however, their support of Behe's (biochemistry) and Demski's (mathematician) thoroughly discredited argument of Irreducible Complexity hardly speaks well of their overall common sense.

These four scientist, who are not credentialed biologists, are what I like to call "Intentionally Ignorant".
They have the information, but choose to ignore it it favor of religious dogma.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Let's see if any goal posts are moved with never ending requests for a higher and higher criteria....

Nope, just 10 qualified and accredited biologists and their peer reviewed publications that propose a valid scientific argument for an alternative to biological evolution.

 

[Jose Fly]

Squim..how can you assert that any researcher that is appropriately credentialed hasn't 'actually examined the evidence?

Blather is a rude descriptor. Don't you know who is still around or isn't? Perhaps it is you that has not examined any creationists research!

It does not matter about agendas. That is not the point to your insinuation that all creationists are ignorant. I think making such a sweeping statement about every creationist is in itself a demonstration of ignorance. It appears by being so stereotypical in a broad allegation you have backed yourself into a corner somewhat! The out of Aficans against multiregionalists also have their own agenda in their interpretation of information and what they will or will not accept.

To cite researchers agendas as a refute to the fact that there are credentialed scientists that discredit evolution is a little silly, don't you think?

Anyway, I am getting closer to the 10 posts. I have found an Answers Research Journal that has a stack of peer reviewed creationist papers. I am going to do this you know?????

Regardless of whether or not creation is true, it is very ignorant to assume that all creationists are ignorant or have not examined the theory and its' support.

Hmmm....methinks I've seen this before. How long before Astrid tells us "It's all woffle"?

EDIT: Even the misuse of the quote function is the exact same! Ok NewHope, why are you back under a different name?