Replies

" According to whose definition?"

To yours. You agreed that Gish should not be on the list because he was a creationist. There is no reason that ANY of the creationists should be on it. The list is supposed to be evolutionists who are grudgingly admitting that evolution is a theory in crisis and so on. Creationists have no place on the list.

"Since when does the evolutionist decide what quotes a creationist should put on the list?"

When the creationist who made the list pretended that the people on it were evolutionists who were admitting that evolution was bunk.

"Look up ad hominem. It doesn’t just mean calling their mother a sow. It is also “Person A says this-and-such; but this person is a member of the National Association of A’s, which advocate A, which is wrong. Therefore, we discount the opinion of Person A.”

But creationists are not supposed to be on the list; they are, giving the false impression that they are representative of evolutionist thinking. It's not ad hominem to say that.

"Of course, fields such as paleontology, geology, physics, etc. are irrelevant to the study of the evolutionary model, I suppose? Why must it be solely biology?"

Physics isn't.

" In other words, an IDer. His quotes were supportive of ID."

No, a theistic evolutionist.

"Sustained. But so far, you’ve only been able to find a handful of either creationists (with which the only objection is that they are, in fact, creationist under the heading of evolutionist; no other objections)"

Sustained but who cares? They are creationist under the heading of creationism. They don't belong on the list.

"Yet, why are we debating the merits of the individuals and attacking their stance and ability to critique and object? Proper debate would be surrounding the substance, not the author."

But their presence on the list is PART of the argument the listmaker made. The logical error was on the part of the person who assembled the list. A great many of the people just don't belong on the list.

" Just because! I get it. Thanks for clearing that up."

Because it NEVER has dealt with the origins of life. Neither has Germ Theory. Why don't you attack Germ Theory for not dealing with the origin of germs?

"The evolutionary model deals with origins. Not the Origin, the ultimate beginning, but it is a proposed explanation for the current orders of species we see today, reaching back into an alleged millions of years. When does it begin? Am I wrong when I say that the evolutionary model picks up RIGHT after spontaneous generation?"

Yes, you are wrong. It picks up right after abiogenesis. It's not spontaneous generation. The ToE only deals with imperfectly self replicating organisms. It's scope, like all theories, is limited to certain phenomena. Why this is so hard for a creationist to understand is incredibly frustrating.

"Biogenesis certainly is a very short-reaching subject. It takes up right there at the beginning of earth, runs the gamut up to the scientifically impossible spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter, and then “evolution” takes over!"

Actually, it had to wait until the earth cooled enough. And there is nothing impossible about abiogenesis. It is not spontaneous generation as attacked by Pasteur. It has nothing at all to do with that.

"It’s like a committee which doesn’t want to deal with all the hard stuff, so it forms a sub-committee and then divorces itself from that, and whenever questions are asked, merely respond “that’s not in our job description.” ‘Tis remarkably convenient."

Again, ALL theories have limits. Why doesn't the theory of gravity get attacked for not addressing where matter comes from? Your insistence on singling out evolution just shows your bias, nothing else.

" Each one has to rely upon some remarkable, if not supernatural, explanation."

Yes, creationism and ID make untestable claims (though creationism has made a number of testable ones, which have been falsified, like a young earth.)

" Don’t tell me; the Miller experiements?"

Hate to tell you, but there has been a lot more work done than just that. You need to keep up. :)

"That’s convenient. Leave the study of life (and its ultimate origin) not to the “BIOLOGISTS” (first thing anyone ever tells you in bio class, biology is the study of life) but to those who study chemicals."

Would it make any difference if I clarified that and said biochemists?

" I never said “this is what science claims.” "

That's the whole point of the list, to allegedly show what scientists who study evolution are really saying.

"I’m showing that not everyone agrees with you, and that some of the admissions of some of the evolutionary scientists conflict with current interpretations and beliefs."

But when 99% of evolutionists disagree with the person quoted, it means that the person quoted is not representative of evolutionary biologists.

"This whole dialogue has been bickering about whether or not we should include this scientist or that, all the while completely ignoring the substance of what they have said."

Because, again, the composition of the list is crucial to the argument it is trying to make. If the people on the list don't represent the vast majority of what evolutionists think, their inclusion on it deeply weakens the argument the list maker was attempting.

"How long will you continue to recast my words to make them appear as something they were not? I never said he was a representative evolutionist. I don’t think the fool was even scientifically-inclined. The point is, he was acting based on Darwinist principles."

His inclusion on this list is an abomination. There is no justification for it. And, as was pointed out, he believed that the Aryan race was the perfect special creation of God. He wasn't using Darwinian principles. He never believed that the Aryan race evolved.

" And you don’t? Since when did majority opinion dictate morality?"

I can disagree with him and still understand that his opinions were a product of his times. Do you agree with those who condemn Washington and Jefferson for owning slaves? Should they still be honored for their achievements? Darwin's views on women were mild in comparison to the general view of his time, as were his ideas on race. You attack him with 21st century standards and you ignore the fact that almost everybody held similar views then. Why single him out?

"Depends on what you mean. Speaking in terms of social aptitude and skills, they were, simply because they had been suppressed for so long, had little training, and little to no chance."

And women were not given nearly as many opportunities to educate themselves and compete freely with men. That's why it is more forgivable for someone in the 1860's to think that women were not as capable as men, but it is not as understandable now. Now we have far too many examples of women who have achieved great things to honestly conclude they are inferior. The same can be said with race.

"By the way, remind me again what the justification was for believing that blacks were inferior. I seem to recall something about being lower-evolved…"

Well, if you asked Henry Morris he would have said the curse of Ham.

"Ah, I get it. If I don’t directly address your specific point, then it constitutes excusing it. Fascinating bias you have there."

Amazing rationalization you have there.

"As one of the proofs for evolution, however, another book I have not sold yet talks about comparative embryology; “One sign that vertebrates evolved from a common ancestor is that all of them have an embryonic stage in which structures called pharyngeal slits appear on the sides of the throat. At this stage, the embryos of fishes, frogs, snakes, birds, apes – indeed, all vertebrates look more alike than different.”"

This is correct. It is also not Haeckel's biogenic law.

" Like structural homology, it predates DNA, which shows that there is no genetic relation."

Nonsense.

" If you were the one who decided who belonged and who didn’t, then your phrase “people who don’t belong” might be relevant."

So a list of alleged evolutionists who are saying evolution is bunk and admitting it's a theory in crisis can have people on it who never accepted evolution, or people on it who have never represented a tiny fraction of what evolutionary biologists believe? Fascinating.

" As for not representing evolutionary thought….that is the point! Um…duh?"

Duh is right. If it doesn't represent what the vast majority of evolutionists think, the list is a strawman created to attack positions that have no relevance to the ToE.